Israel – ein jüdischer Staat

The Debate over Keeping America Safe

Last week, President Barack Obama and former vice president Dick Cheney presented competing views of how America was kept secure after September 11, 2001 - and how to proceed in the future.

Mr. Cheney, who has rejoined the Board of Trustees of the neoconservative think tank American Enterprise Institute (AEI) since leaving government in January 2009, gave a widely covered speech at AEI on May 21, 2009, just minutes after President Barack Obama spoke. The president defended his ban on enhanced interrogation techniques and his plans to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.

Mr. Cheney first documented the threats America faced in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and how the Bush administration shaped the nation’s response. The post-9/11 “comprehensive strategy” has “required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan – and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden,” he said. “Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive–and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.”

Key to the successful post-9/11 strategy, Mr. Cheney said, was “accurate intelligence” – including that received through enhanced interrogation.

Danielle Pletka, foreign policy insider and former staff member for Near East and South Asia at the Committee on Foreign Relations of the U.S. Senate, commented on the Cheney speech in the pages of USA Today. 

Read full story.

Beyond the “War on Terror”: Towards a New Transatlantic Framework for Counterterrorism

European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) Senior Policy Fellow Anthony Dworkin wrote  a strategic paper entitled Beyond the “War on Terror”: Towards a New Transatlantic Framework for Counterterrorism.

This policy paper shows how divisions with the United States of America over counterterrorism policy have been a major problem for the European Union since September 11, 2001 and how the presidency of Barack Obama offers the possibility of a new approach, based on transatlantic agreement over the core principles for fighting terrorism. The author argues that EU leaders should work with the new US administration to agree a comprehensive declaration on counterterrorism that could be signed under the Spanish EU Presidency in 2010.

To seize the opportunity provided by the new US leadership, the European Union should launch an internal review to clarify its own views about core principles for fighting terrorism as part of the preparation for a joint declaration. EU officials should also restart a dialogue on international law and counterterrorism with the United States. This would give it input into a series of US reviews, and allow Europeans to push for clarification of the US position on key questions of international humanitarian law and human rights. Finally, the author calls on European countries to quickly agree on a joint position on resettling detainees from Guantanamo and consider offering a new home to these prisoners wherever possible.

Comments can be addressed to the author directly at anthony.dworkin@ecfr.eu.

Read full story.

Take Action to Stop the Threat of a Nuclear Iran

Participate in our Online Statewide Webinar:

Wednesday, May 27, 2009 – 12:30 – 2:00pm(EST)

STOP NUCLEAR IRAN NOW!

Special Guest: Ambassador R. James Woolsey, former CIA Director & United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) Co-Chair

Moderator: Ambassador Mark D. Wallace, United Against Nuclear Iran, President

Featuring:

William S. Bernstein
Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County, President & CEO

Florida State Senator Ted Deutch

Honorable Roger Robinson
Conflict Securities Advisory Group, Inc., President

REGISTRATION IS LIMITED.

Click here to register and to receive instructions for participation.

Jüdisch-arabischer Fußballverein zu Gast in Berlin

Pressemitteilung des Zentralrats der Juden in Deutschland

Berlin, 20. Mai 2009 – Nächste Woche kommt die Jugendmannschaft des israelischen Fußballvereins FC Hapo”el Abu Gosch – Mevasseret Zion nach Berlin.

Auf Einladung des Zentralrats der Juden in Deutschland hält sich die Jugendmannschaft des israelischen Fußballvereins FC Hapoel Abu Gosch – Mevasseret Zion vom 25.-28. Mai 2009 in Berlin auf. Mit der Einladung würdigt der Zentralrat das Engagement des Vereins für die Koexistenz jüdischer und arabischer Israelis und möchte das von den Spielern und Amtsträgern des Vereins vorgelebte Erfolgsmodell des gutnachbarlichen Zusammenlebens auch in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland vorstellen.

FC Hapoel Abu Gosch – Mevasseret Zion ist der einzige jüdisch-arabische Fußballverein Israels. Selbstverständlich spielen jüdische und arabische Fußballer in vielen anderen israelischen Teams zusammen, doch hat sich FC Hapoel Abu Gosch – Mevasseret Zion nicht nur sportliche Erfolge, sondern auch die Förderung der Koexistenz beider Volksgruppen ausdrücklich als Ziel gesetzt. Der Verein stellt eine volle und paritätische Partnerschaft zwischen den beiden westlich von Jerusalem gelegenen Ortschaften, dem jüdischen Mevasseret Zion und dem arabischen Abu Gosch dar. Der sechsköpfige Vorstand besteht aus drei Arabern und drei Juden.

Zum Turnier zwischen FC Hapoel Abu Gosch – Mevasseret Zion, Hertha BSC und der Axel-Springer-Journalistenschule sowie zum Freundschaftsspiel zwischen der israelischen Mannschaft und Makkabi Berlin sind Medienvertreter herzlich willkommen.

Das Turnier findet am 26.05.2009 im Amateurstadion Hertha BSC, Hanns-Braun-Straße, am Olympiastadion statt. Der Anpfiff ist für 17.30 Uhr geplant.

Das Spiel gegen Makkabi Berlin findet am 27.05.2009, Julius-Hirsch-Sportplatz, Harbigstraße 40, Berlin-Charlottenburg statt. Spielbeginn: 18.30 Uhr

Eine Akkreditierung ist nicht erforderlich.

Ansprechpartner vor Ort ist Herr Wladimir Struminski, Tel: 00972-522 576 865.

Joining Hands with the Pope in Nazareth

Rabbi David Rosen, American Jewish Committee (AJC) international director of interreligious affairs, joined with Pope Benedict XVI and a group of Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Druze religious leaders in Nazareth, Israel, for an oecumenical meeting and to sing a song of peace.

“It illustrated dramatically that religion does not have to be the problem but the solution and that it is up to politicians to engage religious leaders in the search for peace,” Rabbi David Rosen said.

The Geopolitics of Emotion: How Cultures of Fear, Humiliation, and Hope are Reshaping the World

Dominique Moïsi, a founder of the Institut Français des Relations Internationales (IFRI – French Institute of International Affairs), professor at the Institut d’études politiques (Sciences Po Paris) and Harvard University, and one of Europe’s leading geo-strategic thinkers, discusses in his new book how cultures of fear, humiliation, and hope are reshaping global politics.

“Fear, Humiliation, Hope, and the New World Order

Thirteen years ago, Samuel Huntington argued that a “clash of civilizations” was about to dominate world politics, with culture, along with national interests and political ideology, becoming a geopolitical fault line (”The Clash of Civilizations?” Summer 1993). Events since then have proved Huntington’s vision more right than wrong. Yet what has not been recognized sufficiently is that today the world faces what might be called a “clash of emotions” as well. The Western world displays a culture of fear, the Arab and Muslim worlds are trapped in a culture of humiliation, and much of Asia displays a culture of hope.

Instead of being united by their fears, the twin pillars of the West, the United States and Europe, are more often divided by them – or rather, divided by how best to confront or transcend them. The culture of humiliation, in contrast, helps unite the Muslim world around its most radical forces and has led to a culture of hatred. The chief beneficiaries of the deadly encounter between the forces of fear and the forces of humiliation are the bystanders in the culture of hope, who have been able to concentrate on creating a better future for themselves.

These moods, of course, are not universal within each region, and there are some areas, such as Russia and parts of Latin America, that seem to display all of them simultaneously. But their dynamics and interactions will help shape the world for years to come.

THE CULTURE OF FEAR

The United States and Europe are divided by a common culture of fear. On both sides, one encounters, in varying degrees, a fear of the other, a fear of the future, and a fundamental anxiety about the loss of identity in an increasingly complex world.

In the case of Europe, there are layers of fear. There is the fear of being invaded by the poor, primarily from the South – a fear driven by demography and geography. Images of Africans being killed recently as they tried to scale barbed wire to enter a Spanish enclave in Morocco evoked images of another time not so long ago, when East Germans were shot at as they tried to reach freedom in the West. Back then, Germans were killed because they wanted to escape oppression. Today, Africans are being killed because they want to escape absolute poverty.”

Buy your copy now from Amazon.

Israels Ministerpräsident Benjamin Netanyahu: “Wir wollen Frieden mit der arabischen Welt”

Israels Ministerpräsident Benjamin Netanyahu hat am 4. Mai 2009 in einer Videobotschaft von Jerusalem aus zur AIPAC-Jahreskonferenz in Washington gesprochen. Dabei unterstrich er den Willen seiner Regierung, zu einem Frieden mit der arabischen Welt und den Palästinensern zu gelangen.

„Heute passiert Bedeutsames im Nahen Osten, und ich kann sagen, dass zum ersten Mal in meinem Leben, ich glaube zum ersten Mal in einem Jahrhundert, Araber und Juden eine gemeinsame Gefahr erkennen. Das war nicht immer der Fall. In den 30er und 40er Jahren unterstützten viele in der arabischen Welt ein anderes Land, im Glauben, dass es ihre Hoffnung darstellte. In den 60er, 70er und 80er Jahren unterstützten sie ein anderes Land, das mit dem jüdischen Staat zerstritten war. Aber das ist nicht länger der Fall.

Es ist eine große Herausforderung im Anmarsch. Aber diese Herausforderung bietet auch große Gelegenheiten. Die gemeinsame Gefahr findet ihren Widerhall bei arabischen Führern im ganzen Nahen Osten; sie findet wiederholt Widerhall in Israel; sie findet Widerhall bei den Europäern, bei vielen verantwortungsbewussten Regierungen auf der Welt. Und wenn ich die Gelegenheit in einem Wort zusammenfassen müsste, wäre es ‚Zusammenarbeit’ – Zusammenarbeit zwischen Israel und der arabischen Welt und Zusammenarbeit zwischen Israel und den Palästinensern.

In der nächsten Woche werde ich Ägypten mit seinem Präsidenten Mubarak besuchen, und ich beabsichtige beide Angelegenheiten mit ihm zu besprechen. Wir suchen erweiterte Beziehungen mit der arabischen Welt. Wir wollen Normalisierung von wirtschaftlichen und diplomatischen Verbindungen. Wir wollen Frieden mit der arabischen Welt. Aber wir wollen auch Frieden mit den Palästinensern. Dieser Frieden ist uns seit mehr als 13 Jahren entschlüpft. Sechs Ministerpräsidenten Israels hintereinander und zwei amerikanischen Präsidenten ist es nicht gelungen, das endgültige Friedensabkommen zu erreichen. Ich glaube, dass es möglich ist, es zu erreichen, aber ich denke, es macht einen frischen Ansatz erforderlich, und der frische Ansatz, den ich vorschlage, verfolgt  einen Frieden zwischen Israel und den Palästinensern auf drei Gleisen – einem politischen Gleis, einem sicherheitspolitischen Gleis und einem wirtschaftlichen Gleis.

Das politische Gleis bedeutet, dass wir bereit sind zur Aufnahme von Friedensverhandlungen ohne Aufschub und ohne jegliche Vorbedingungen – je früher desto besser.

Das sicherheitspolitische Gleis bedeutet, dass wir die Kooperation mit dem von General Dayton geführten Programm fortsetzen wollen, in Zusammenarbeit mit den Jordaniern und mit der Palästinensischen Autonomiebehörde, um den Sicherheitsapparat der Palästinenser zu stärken. Das ist etwas, woran wir glauben, und etwas, worin wir – so denke ich – mit einer gemeinsamen Anstrengung vorankommen können.

Das wirtschaftliche Gleis bedeutet, dass wir bereit sind, daran mitzuarbeiten, der Förderung der palästinensischen Wirtschaft so viele Hindernisse wie möglich aus dem Weg zu räumen. Wir wollen mit der Palästinensischen Autonomiebehörde auf diesem Gleis zusammenarbeiten, nicht als Ersatz für politische Verhandlungen, sondern um sie anzukurbeln. Ich möchte palästinensische Jugendliche sehen, die wissen, dass sie eine Zukunft haben. Ich möchte nicht, dass sie einem Kult des Todes, der Verzweiflung und des Hasses verfallen. Ich möchte, dass sie Jobs haben. Ich möchte, dass sie Karrierewege vor sich haben. Ich möchte, dass sie wissen, dass sie für ihre Familien sorgen können. Das heißt, dass wir ihnen eine Zukunft der Hoffnung geben können, eine Zukunft, die Wohlstand für alle bedeutet. Und dies hat sich bei der Schaffung von politischem Frieden in vielen Teilen der Welt als erfolgreich erwiesen.

Ich glaube, dass dieser dreigleisige Weg zum Frieden ein realistischer Weg zum Frieden ist, und ich glaube, dass wir in Zusammenarbeit mit Präsident Obama und Präsident Abbas den Skeptikern die Stirn bieten können. Wir können die Welt überraschen. Aber es gibt zwei Vorbehalte, die – so denke ich – an dieser Stelle genannt werden sollten. Erstens wird Frieden nicht ohne Sicherheit kommen. Wenn wir die Sicherheit preisgeben, werden wir weder Sicherheit noch Frieden haben. Damit dies also klar ist: Wir sollten nie Israels Sicherheit aufs Spiel setzen. Zweitens müssen die Palästinenser, damit ein endgültiges Friedensabkommen erreicht werden kann, Israel als den jüdischen Staat anerkennen. Sie müssen Israel als den Nationalstaat des jüdischen Volkes anerkennen.“

Die vollständige Videobotschaft gibt es unter folgendem Link.

The Myths of U.N. Durban Review Conference

The Algerian-chaired United Nations committee is seeking to rewrite international human rights law by definining any criticism of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, and is endorsed by Article 30 of the current Durban II draft; see UN Watch speech below.

Click also here for New York Times video documenting racist treatment of two million black African migrants by Libyan government of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, chair of Durban II conference planning committee.

***

Testimony by Hillel Neuer, UN Watch executive director, before the United Nations Human Rights Council

10th session of the Human Rights Council (Geneva, March 2009)

Thank you, Mr. President.

Racism is evil. How can we truly fight it?

For starters, by clearing up three myths about next month’s conference.

Myth Number One: that the new draft removes all pernicious provisions.

The truth is that many were removed – thanks only to the credible threat of an E.U. walk-out – but red lines continue to be breached:

• Articles 10, 30 and 132 encourage the Islamic states’ campaign to ban any criticism of religion.
• Articles 60 to 62 demonize the West, addressing only its sins of slavery, yet saying nothing of the massive Arab trade in African slaves, thereby politicizing that which should never be politicized.
• Article 1 breaches President Obama’s red line by reaffirming what his government called the quote, “flawed 2001 Durban Declaration”, a text that stigmatized Israel with false accusations.

Myth Number Two: that going to the conference means dialogue.

In truth, we’ve been negotiating non-stop since August 2007. Going to the conference means endorsing a particular text, and risks legitimizing the greatest perpetrators of racism.

Ironically, many who now claim to support dialogue, are Mideast states belonging to the Arab Boycott Office in Damascus, or radical left campaigners who call for equally bigoted boycotts in the West.

Myth Number Three: that Durban 2 will help millions of victims.

But can anyone name a single victim of racism who was helped by the 2001 conference and countless follow-up committees?

Did Durban help a single victim of Sudan’s racist campaign of mass killing, rape and displacement against millions in Darfur?

Did it help the women of Saudi Arabia subjected to systematic discrimination?

Did it help gays executed by Iran, even as President Ahmadinejad says there are no gays in Iran?

Did it help the 2 million black African migrants in Libya, who, as we read in last week’s International Herald Tribune, say they are treated like slaves and animals?

To truly fight racism, we need to hold perpetrators to account. Tragically, Durban 2 does the opposite.

Thank you, Mr. President.

AIPAC Policy Conference 2009

MAY 3-5, 2009 • WASHINGTON, D.C.

AIPAC Policy Conference 2009 kicks off with major addresses by top American and Israeli leaders shaping the U.S.-Israel relationship, including Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Plus, James Woolsey, former CIA director and Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, explore the myriad foreign policy challenges facing the United States of America, Israel and the world. 

Click here to register.

Prospects for U.S.-Russian Security Cooperation

U.S.-Russian relations seem to be at an impasse. However, given these nations’ power, standing, and nuclear capability, dialogue will be resumed at some point.

An analysis of the prospects for and conditions favoring cooperation is an urgent task – crucial precisely because current relations are so difficult.

A new report edited by Dr. Stephen J. Blank, professor of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Army War College, offers both a tribute to a vision of political order based upon prior cooperation and a call to revitalize the relationship.

“Russia, despite claims made for and against its importance, remains, by any objective standard, a key player in world affairs. It possesses this standing by virtue of its geographical location, Eurasia, its proximity to multiple centers of international tension and rivalry, its possession of a large conventional and nuclear force, its energy assets, and its seat on the UN Security Council. Beyond those attributes, it is an important barometer of trends in world politics, e.g., the course of democratization in the world. Furthermore, if Russia were so disposed, it could be the abettor and/or supporter of a host of negative trends in the world today. Indeed, some American elites might argue that it already is doing so.”

Read full story.

David Harris Remarks at Gorbachev-Shultz Reunion

AJC Executive Director David Harris was invited to give substantive opening remarks at this afternoon’s historic reunion between former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev and former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz, moderated by Charlie Rose. Below is the text of what Gorbachev publicly praised as an outstanding speech that, he said, helped him to gain a new understanding of the Jewish community’s view of Russian and Soviet Jewish history.

Opening Remarks by David Harris
Executive Director, American Jewish Committee (AJC)

A the reunion between former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev and former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz

American Jewish Historical Society
New York, March 26, 2009

I am grateful to the American Jewish Historical Society for organizing today’s historic lunch and for giving me the privilege to speak.

In 1974, I traveled to the USSR for the first time, part of a U.S.-Soviet teacher’s exchange program. I was sent to School No. 185 in Leningrad.

Shortly after arriving, I was walking in the hallway when a young girl passed by and quietly put a piece of paper in my hand. When I was alone, I read the note. It said: “David Harris, I feel you are a Jew. If I’m right, please know that my family are refuseniks. Won’t you come visit us?”

I did. It was one of several such families I eventually met. Why did they want to leave? Her father, an engineer, explained that his children had no future in the Soviet Union. The barriers were too high, anti-Semitism too endemic.

So why were they denied the right to emigrate?

The father told me a joke which was then making the rounds:

Shapiro was called into KGB headquarters and told he would never be allowed to leave. “But why, comrade major? he pleaded. Because you know state secrets. What state secrets, comrade major? In my field, the Americans are at least ten years ahead of us. Well, said the KGB major, that’s the state secret.”

I asked the girl, who was about 14 at the time, why she thought I was Jewish and risked approaching me.

She told me that in the USSR no one in their right mind would give a boy the first name David unless he was Jewish, or else they had cripple him for life. She assumed it was probably the same in other countries.

It’s why she and other students insisted that Abraham Lincoln was the first Jewish president. Nothing I said could convince them otherwise.

The plight of the engineer’s family was but one episode in a difficult history, involving millions and spanning centuries.

It’s hard to know where the story begins.

Perhaps in 1648, when the Ukrainian Cossacks, led by Bogdan Khmelnitsky, went on a murderous rampage and killed as many as 100,000 Jews.

Or in 1791, when Catherine the Great created the Pale of Settlement, forcing Jews to live in this confined space for well over a century.

Or in 1827, when Czar Nicholas I began conscripting Jewish boys into the army for a 25-year tour, during which every effort was made to convert them to Christianity.

Or in 1881, when the assassination of Czar Alexander II triggered a deadly wave of pogroms, which would recur in the ensuing decades, often led by the Black Hundreds, whose slogan was, “Kill the Yids and save Mother Russia!”

Or that same year, when Konstantin Pobedonostsev, the Procurator of the Holy Synod, argued that the Jewish problem could be solved only if one third of Russia’s Jews emigrated, one third converted, and one third perished.

Or in 1903, when the czarist secret police fabricated the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which claimed that Jews plotted to control the world.

Or in 1911, when Mendel Beilis was arrested in Kiev and put on trial for the supposed ritual murder of a Christian child’s blood libel.

Or in 1917, when Jews were accorded equal rights, creating the short-lived hope that better times were ahead.

Or in 1918, when that hope was proven illusory, as the Civil War resulted in an estimated 2,000 pogroms and tens of thousands of Jewish deaths.

Or in the 1920s, when emigration was no longer possible, and it became clear that Jewish religious life in the Soviet Union would be proscribed.

Or in the 1930s, the decade of the Great Terror, when many Jews were among the millions purged by Stalin.

Or in the 1940s, when Soviet Jews fought valiantly in the Red Army, losing hundreds of thousands of lives and winning a disproportionate share of medals of valor, only to return home to taunts that they had sat out the war in Tashkent.

Or in 1948, when Solomon Mikhoels, the legendary actor and chair of the wartime Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee, was killed on Stalin’s orders in a feigned traffic accident.

Or the same year, when Golda Meir, as Israel’s first ambassador to the Soviet Union, came to Moscow’s only remaining synagogue, alarming the Kremlin when 50,000 Jews took to the streets to welcome her.

Or in 1952, when Mikhoel’s colleagues, having been charged with “treason, bourgeois nationalism, or other crimes against the state,” were executed in the night of the murdered poets.

Or in those years when the first copies of Leon Uris’s Exodus, the story of Israel’s birth, began circulating in Russian in samizdat, or self-publication, awakening kinship with the Jewish state.

Or in 1967, when Israel, faced with extinction by enemies armed with Soviet weaponry, vanquished the threat in just six days, electrifying Soviet Jews.

Or in 1970, when, to dramatize their plight, nine Jews and two non-Jews sought to hijack a plane in Leningrad and leave the country.

Or perhaps, perhaps, there wasn’t a precise date at all, just a sense for many that, despite Jews’ deep roots and love of Russian culture, something wasn’t right here, and time alone wouldn’t make it any better.

Maybe it was the knowledge that the Soviet internal passport, with its pyataya grafa, fifth line nationality” was a lifelong handicap for any Jew.

Maybe it was the recognition that prestigious universities and institutes were too frequently off-limits to Jews.

Maybe it was the awareness that certain jobs were denied to Jews, and that Jews who had jobs had to work harder to prove that they deserved them.

Maybe it was the fear that Jewish children would be subjected to taunts and jeers in school, and that school officials wouldn’t necessarily defend them.

Maybe it was the anguish that, as Yevgeny Yevtushenko, the legendary poet, reminded us when he spoke of Babi Yar, there were no memorials to the countless Jews slain by the Nazis on Soviet territory during the Holocaust.

Maybe it was the reality that Jews could not satisfy their most basic curiosity about being Jewish history, religion, tradition, language without endangering their families.

Maybe it was the relentless demonization of Israel and vilification of Zionism in Soviet officialdom.

Or maybe it was the recognition that Maxim Gorky’s words in Russian Fairy Tales were applicable for all time: “Once upon a time, in some czardom, in some state, there were Jews, simple Jews” for pogroms, for slander, and for other state needs.

Whatever the cause, by 1971, there was a full-fledged Soviet Jewry movement in the USSR and a growing support network around the world.

For the next two decades, history was written.

Soviet Jews cried out in Russian: “Otpusti narod moy.”

They cried out in the Hebrew they were beginning to learn clandestinely, “Shelach et ami.”

And they cried out in English for the world to hear the famous Biblical words, “Let my people go.”

These Soviet Jews, few in number at first, were extraordinarily brave.

They challenged the power of the state not just of any state, but the might of the Soviet Union.

Couldn’t the Kremlin simply crush them, make examples of them? And hadn’t the word emigration been missing from the Soviet lexicon for decades?

Repatriation to Israel, as the first activists demanded, seemed absurd. After 1967, there weren’t even diplomatic ties.

And yet, and yet, they weren’t crushed. Their numbers grew. The word emigration surfaced. And Israel became the overwhelmingly preferred destination for those who began leaving in 1971.

Many paid a heavy price.

Thousands were not fortunate enough to get permission to leave. Either they ended up in limbo, often for many years, as refuseniks. Or they became Prisoners of Zion, jailed for their activism and beliefs.

But nothing deterred them. And they knew they were not alone.

Jews from around the world, unwilling to sit silently while millions were once again targeted, organized, rallied, petitioned, fasted, lobbied, advocated, and traveled.

Governments responded, most notably the United States and Israel, but others as well.

For our country, the plight of Soviet Jews became a central item on our bilateral agenda and for the Congress.

Israel, despite the absence of direct links with the USSR, found many ways to give hope and support to Jews in the Soviet Union.

The Helsinki Final Act, signed in 1975 by 35 nations, including the USSR and all of Europe, gave the Soviet Jewry movement an additional lever by calling for the protection of human rights.

And countless non-Jews responded.

From Martin Luther King, Jr. to Bayard Rustin, from Sister Ann Gillen to Father Robert Drinan, they represented many races, religions and creeds.

They stood up, their voices were heard, and their message was clear, “Let them live freely as Jews in the Soviet Union, or let them go.”

Try as the Soviet Union might, it could not quell the growing storm of protest.

If the Kremlin relaxed its stance on emigration, as it did in 1973 and 1979, more Jews rushed to seek permission to leave.

If it tightened its stance, as it did after the Moscow Olympics in 1980, then the global outcry intensified.

And so we come at last to the Reagan-Gorbachev era. Few could have predicted its auspicious outcome.

Certainly, when we were asked to organize a mass rally in Washington, on the eve of President Gorbachev’s first visit in 1987, little could we have foreseen the extraordinary events of the next four years.

And little could I have imagined, as the chief organizer for that rally, as the son of one of the last emigrants from the Soviet Union in the Stalin era, and as a person who was expelled from the USSR in 1974 because of my contact with Jews, that I would be here today in the presence of Mikhail Gorbachev.

We had about five weeks to organize the rally from scratch. The largest Jewish rally in Washington till then had only drawn 12-14,000 people, which didn’t give us much hope. Plus, it was slated for December, with its notoriously tricky weather. And, not for the first time, it wasn’t easy to get Jewish groups to put aside differences and unite around a shared goal.

But Natan Sharansky, released from the Gulag the previous year, kept pushing our sights higher. We set a goal of 250,000 people, never really believing we’d reach it. In fact, we exceeded it.

People from all walks of life came. They felt they had to be there. They understood that silence or indifference to human suffering is never an answer.

And they were joined by Vice President Bush and a parade of Washington dignitaries.

Not too long afterwards, President Gorbachev opened the gates, and the Jews came streaming out.

Of course, only President Gorbachev knows the degree to which this and other rallies and protests affected the decision-making of the Kremlin.

I do know that, for the mood and morale of Soviet Jews, they were vitally important.

The knowledge that the United States stood with them in their struggle was extraordinarily powerful. And there are few American officials who embody that support more than George Shultz.

No words are sufficient to describe the central role he played, or the message he sent, when, as secretary of state, he hosted a Passover Seder for Soviet Jewish activists at the American Embassy in Moscow in 1987.

At a moment when the world needs symbols of hope and possibility, today’s lunch couldn’t be better timed.

It’s a perfect reminder of the power of individuals to dream dreams and fulfill them, as Soviet Jews did.

And of the capacity of true statesmen to chart a brighter future and achieve it, as our two distinguished guests did so magnificently

France’s NATO Strategy

France’s move to rejoin NATO’s integrated military command structure reflects a shift in Paris’ strategic thinking about its allies and its ability to project unilateral power abroad.

In a strategic paper from the German think tank Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (German Institute for International and Security Affairs), Dr. Ronja Kempin reviews the challenges facing France’s military revolution.

Read full story.

The Charles Freeman Affair

It turns out that Charles Freeman is just another version of Mearsheimer and Walt, conjuring up demonic images of Israel policymaking and creating fantasy views of an America where no criticism of Israel is allowed, according to Abraham H. Foxman, Anti-Defamation League (ADL) National Director.

by Abraham H. Foxman

So there it was, “perfect proof” of what John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt were saying about the Israeli lobby:  the pressure mounted and Charles Freeman, the designated Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, decided to withdraw his name from consideration.

Of course, the incident really has nothing to do with the kind of allegations against the Jewish community that Mearsheimer and Walt and others have been propagating.  Their contention is that the Jews control the discussion and making of Middle East foreign policy in this country and won’t allow for alternative viewpoints to be explored and flourish.

That charge is absurd on its face, particularly when they cite as examples institutions such as the media and campuses.  In both places, there are multitudes of examples of expressions of views critical of Israel.  The notion that there is no diversity of viewpoints is simply false.

How then to view the Freeman saga?  It is undoubtedly true that many in the organized Jewish community were distressed about the pending appointment.  The more his record was revealed — his blaming U.S. support for Israel for the 9/11 attacks; his demonizing of Israel as the responsible party for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — the more concern there was about the central role he might play in intelligence affairs.  Some on the right who were predicting the Obama Administration would be no friend of Israel saw this as evidence of their fears.  For most, however, the Freeman appointment was disturbing on its own terms without generalizing about where U.S.-Israel relations were heading.

It must be said that to suggest there was anything illegitimate about American Jewish concern about Freeman or that it indicated in any way Jewish control of policy is pure fantasy.  Freeman’s views do not fall into the category of alternative perspectives on the conflict; those kinds of things surface all the time whether in criticism of Israeli settlements or judgments on how to deal with Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and Iran.

Rather, his views fall far away from mainstream opinion in America vis-à-vis Israel and the region and enter into that area of demonizing Israel and its supporters in the U.S.  Nothing better illustrates where Freeman is coming from than in his statement explaining his withdrawal.  He articulates, in the guise of a victim, the essential conspiracy view of the Israel supporting community which made his appointment so troubling in the first place.  He sees the exposure of his troubling attitudes toward Israel as proof “that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired.”

“The aim of this lobby,” he says, “is control of the policy process… and the exclusion of any and all options for decisions.”  And Freeman blames it all on “the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider any option for U.S. policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling factor in Israel politics.”

These statements are part of a pattern, most notable being a 2006 comment by Freeman blaming the 9/11 terrorist attacks on America’s close relationship with Israel: “We have paid heavily and often in treasure in the past for our unflinching support unstinting subsidies of Israel’s approach to managing relations with the Arabs,” adding that as of September 11, 2001, “we began to pay with the blood of our citizens here at home.”

So it turns out that Freeman is just another version of Mearsheimer and Walt, conjuring up demonic images of Israel policymaking and creating fantasy views of an America where no criticism of Israel is allowed, where American policy is controlled by Israel and its Jewish allies, where U.S. administration policy never differs from Israeli policy.

The real story here is not one of evidence of Jewish control, but rather that when extremist views surface in mainstream government circles, there still are ways to make sure they don’t become government policy.

As the U.S. enters a critical period with regard to Middle East issues, and as intelligence community findings on a range of issues from Iran to Hamas to Pakistan will become more critical than ever, we should be thankful that good sense has prevailed in the withdrawal of the Freeman appointment at the National Intelligence Center.

Abraham H. Foxman is National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and author of “The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control.”

American Jewish Committee testifies before U.S. Congress for Iran Sanctions Act

TESTIMONY OF JASON F. ISAACSON
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL MONETARY POLICY AND TRADE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON H.R. 1327, THE IRAN SANCTIONS ENABLING ACT OF 2009

WASHINGTON D.C., MARCH 12, 2009

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee,

I am honored to testify on behalf of the American Jewish Committee in support of the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act. AJC is grateful to Chairman Frank and to you, Chairman Meeks, and to the other sponsors of this important legislation for developing early in the new Congress this well-crafted tool to address the grave threats posed by Iran’s regime.

My testimony will highlight two key points:

First, stopping Iran’s nuclear program is a matter of the greatest urgency – because Iran is so close to achieving nuclear capability, and because a nuclear Iran would alter the world as we know it in terrible ways.

Second, this legislation – clarifying the authority of state and local governments, and investment companies, to divest from entities that invest heavily in Iran’s energy sector – can significantly assist the overall effort to halt Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran is on the doorstep of nuclear arms capability. It has already crossed a significant threshold – amassing enough enriched uranium to make, with further enrichment, its first nuclear bomb. Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, discussed this conclusion last week, and the International Atomic Energy Agency documented it in its February 19 report.

Iran’s installation of thousands of new centrifuges, including next-generation units, increases its ability rapidly to enrich to bomb grade – and thus “break out” of its Non-Proliferation Treaty constraints. Iran could probably conceal its breakout even if IAEA inspectors remain in the country, because Iran routinely refuses to provide critical information and access to inspectors. Once Iran decides to break out, it may be too late for the international community to stop it from producing a bomb. That gives us breathtakingly little time to act. And Iran could marry a nuclear warhead with advanced missiles it already possesses that could strike the Middle East and beyond, including much of Europe.

President Obama and Congress recognize America’s strong interest in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Some observers may see a nuclear Iran primarily as an existential peril to Israel, a country it has repeatedly threatened and has used proxy forces to attack. I do not want to minimize that very real danger – nor the need for bold international action to prevent it. But I want to highlight that a nuclear Iran would pose an even broader threat – throughout the Arab Gulf, to the entire region and, indeed, to global peace and security.

Already, Iran projects its power throughout the Middle East. Nuclear arms would embolden Tehran to pursue its expansionist agenda even more aggressively. And the international community’s options for vigorous response would be constrained, for fear of provoking nuclear retaliation. I will give you a few examples of what may lie ahead:

A nuclear Iran could dominate the world’s most abundant sources of energy – the Gulf and the Caspian Basin. Challenged, Iran could attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz – through which roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil production passes. Or it might seek to realize its expansionist vision by taking territory from one or more of the smaller Gulf States.

Over the last 15 years, AJC has paid periodic visits to the Gulf, conferring with governments allied with the United States in the struggle against terrorism and extremism, and supportive of efforts to advance regional peace. We regularly hear on these visits the concerns of Gulf leaders about Iran’s assertion of regional power, and its attempts to radicalize their societies. It isn’t only Israel that perceives the perils of a nuclear Iran. From North Africa to the Levant to the Gulf, pragmatic Arab governments and civil society leaders recognize the danger of a further empowered Iran; many look to the United States for assurance that this nightmare can be averted, and that America will safeguard their security. Unless the United States and other powers act boldly and promptly, these governments may feel compelled to accommodate Iran, procure their own nuclear weapons, or both. These developments would assuredly destabilize the region, challenge U.S. power, and imperil the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime.

Iran already has a potent presence in the Palestinian territories and Lebanon – through its active support of Hezbollah and Hamas. The Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Jordan, and others – not to mention Israel – are deeply concerned about Iran’s activity. The threat would be magnified, and prospects for regional peace and the protection of human rights severely complicated, were Iran to possess nuclear capability.

The shadow cast by a nuclear-capable Iran, which Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi, director of the Brussels-based Transatlantic Institute, affiliated with AJC, outlines in his just-published book “Under a Mushroom Cloud,” clearly pales in comparison with the dangers of Iran actually launching a nuclear weapon, or transferring a nuclear device to a terrorist proxy. These prospects cannot be discounted – because the consequences are too dire to discount. A dirty bomb in the center of Chicago, London, or Tel Aviv is, horrifyingly, in the realm of possibility. If Iran’s leaders wished to make good on their oft-repeated promise to wipe Israel off the map, we could not necessarily rely on deterrence to dissuade them – not in a country whose rulers have demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice millions of their citizens to achieve their vision.

What can be done to stop Iran’s nuclear drive? The best answer is to offer the regime incentives for ending its defiance of international law – and powerful disincentives to pursue its current course. The United States has played a crucial leadership role in trying to mobilize the world’s economic powers to impose tough sanctions. The urgency of the threat and the severe consequences of failing to end it compel the United States to intensify these efforts.

First, our government should make abundantly clear that we will not allow a nuclear Iran – and that the UN Security Council demand that Iran verifiably suspend enrichment is not negotiable.

Second, we should offer Iran incentives – as EU and U.S. negotiators have previously tabled – for ending its nuclear enrichment and meeting its non-proliferation obligations.

Third, we should make it unbearably costly for Iran’s regime to continue its defiance – even as we make it clear to Iran’s people, against whom we hold no brief, that the choice lies with their regime.

The United States has been a leader in mobilizing international support for addressing the Iranian threat. As Iran closes in on nuclear capability, we must continually ratchet up the price of its defiance.

If our Administration pursues engagement with Iran, simultaneously intensifying sanctions is critical. Only tough sanctions would prevent Iran’s rulers from seeing our overtures as a sign of weakness and motivate them to be forthcoming in negotiations. Firm goalposts and deadlines also are crucial to prevent Iran’s regime from hiding behind negotiations as it completes its quest for nuclear arms.

Congress, as in the past, has a critical role to play in maintaining the necessary focus on this urgent issue, and in providing the Administration – and now, with the legislation before you, providing state and local authorities across the country – the proper tools to address it.

In addition to existing U.S. efforts and repeated UN Security Council sanctions measures, it is imperative that further, targeted U.S. sanctions be implemented – including ones that Congress has passed but that still have not been implemented. Such further sanctions will discourage large new investments and contracts that help maintain Iran’s regime. This is where the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act will make a significant contribution.

Iran’s strained economy is the regime’s Achilles’ heel, and provides our most effective leverage – especially now, with oil prices sharply depressed. Oil and gas exports account for some 80 percent of Iran’s export revenue and about half the government’s budget. The regime relies on foreign companies to develop its energy industry, and even to provide it with gasoline for domestic use – because it doesn’t have refining capacity to meet its own needs. Foreign energy companies essentially sustain Iran’s economy and its regime.

Billions of dollars of U.S. public employee pension funds and other public funds are invested in the foreign corporations that most heavily engage in Iran’s oil sector – accounting for a significant portion of investment in these companies. A movement of concerned citizens is sweeping America to curb investment of public funds in these companies. Ten states have enacted laws – including California, with the largest plans in the country, by far – and others have instituted policies divesting from Iran. Members of the armed forces and first responders – who know first-hand the damage that Iran’s activity inflicts – are among those who have advocated for divestment most strongly.

Taken together, the divestment mandates already on the books at the state and local level affect more than half a trillion dollars in assets – a sum that is growing as grassroots concern spreads. As Senator Deutch knows – in fact, in large part because of Senator Deutch’s efforts – the State of Florida alone already has directed its pension funds to divest nearly $1.3 billion from these companies, unless the companies change their ways.

Divestment, and the attendant negative publicity, impels companies to reassess their investment in Iran – especially because most of the laws give companies an opportunity to avoid divestment by halting such investments. Many companies already have chosen to do just that. Divestment also discourages companies from beginning new business in Iran.

Thus, divestment discourages the heavy international investment in Iran’s oil and gas infrastructure that Iran’s regime desperately needs, and thereby significantly adds to the economic pressure on the regime.

Iran is a highly risky investment environment, for numerous reasons. The volatile government and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard own and control much of the economy, especially the energy sector. Corruption is rife, and the business environment opaque. Credit and credit guarantees have become less available, especially with the designation of large Iranian banks for their involvement in proliferation and/or terrorism. Available credit often costs more or comes from less reputable institutions – or both. Iran’s deep economic crisis heightens the risk of doing business there. Companies investing heavily in Iran’s energy sector also risk U.S., EU, and international sanctions.

For all these reasons, and more, companies that engage heavily in Iran’s energy sector are subject to extraordinary risk. Investing in these companies could subject a pension or other fund to undue risk. State and local governments – or investment fund managers – that choose to divest from these companies are acting with prudence and exercising their legitimate authority to protect the assets under their stewardship.

The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act would protect only divestment from companies that invest more than $20 million in Iran’s energy sector. These are the very companies that are subject to U.S. sanctions for their activity in Iran – activity that U.S. companies are forbidden from doing.

The American Jewish Committee strongly supports this legislation, and wishes to express our appreciation for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee on this critical matter. I would also be remiss if I did not thank my colleague Debra Feuer for her exceptional work on this issue.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Israel’s New Government and the Future of the State

B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL cordially invites you to attend the first

B’nai B’rith World Center – Jerusalem

Post-Pesach Symposium for visiting B’nai B’rith Members

Israel’s New Government and the Future of the State

Programme

10:30 – 11:00 Reception

11:00 – 11:15 Greetings

Graham Weinberg, President, B’nai B’rith Europe

Ralph Hofmann, Senior Vice President, B’nai B’rith Europe

11:15 – 11:30 Introduction to  B’nai B’rith World Center – Jerusalem

Dr. Haim V. Katz, Chairman

Alan Schneider, Director

11:30 – 12:30  Session 1: A View from the Knesset

MK Benny Begin (Likud)

MK Nachman Shai (Kadima)

12:30 – 13:30 Lunch

13:30 – 14:30 Session 2: A View from the Fourth Estate

Ben-Dror Yemini, Op-Ed Editor, Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv

Amnon Lord, Editor-in-Chief, Israeli newspaper Makor Rishon

15:00 – 16:00

Tour Menachem Begin Heritage Museum

Friday, April 17, 2009

Menachem Begin Heritage Center, 6 Nachon St. Jerusalem

Fee per person: $30 US

Please register your participation by return e-mail message to worldcenter@012.net.il by March 26, 2009.

Transportation from Tel Aviv will be arranged per request at cost.

There is no better alternative than capitalism

Dr. Allan H. Meltzer, economist and professor of Political Economy at Carnegie Mellon University’s Tepper School of Business in Pittsburgh, delivered the eighth lecture in the 2008-2009 Bradley Lecture series on March 9, 2009, at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington D.C.

Why Capitalism?
by Dr. Allan H. Meltzer

Newspaper headlines during the peak of the housing-credit crisis called it “the end of capitalism” or the end of American capitalism. As often, they greatly overstated and misstated by projecting a serious, temporary decline as a permanent loss of wealth. Capitalist systems have weathered many more serious problems.

Capitalism as a guiding system for economic activity has spread over the centuries to now encompass most of the world’s economies. This spread occurred despite almost continuous hostility from many intellectuals and, in recent decades, military threat from avowedly Communist countries.

Capitalist systems are neither rigid nor identical. They differ, change, and adapt. Their common feature is that the means of production are mainly owned by individuals; economic activity takes place in markets, and individuals are free to choose to greater or lesser degree what they do, where they work, and how they allocate their income and wealth. Capitalism is an institutional arrangement for producing goods and services. The success of this arrangement requires a legal foundation based on the rule of law that protects rights to property and in the first instance aligns rewards to values produced. It provides incentives to participants to act in ways that produce desired outcomes. Like any system, it has successes and failures. It is the only system that increases both growth and freedom.

Critics of capitalism emphasize the unequal distribution of income generated by the market system; frequent periods of unemployment and instability; and rewards for selfishness instead of beneficial, cooperative activity. Some favor heavy regulation to achieve social goals. Others favor putting control of resource allocation and ownership of resources under public, or government, control. They talk about equity and fairness, but it is mainly wealth redistribution that they seek. And none has found a path to sustained growth and personal freedom.

Many defenders of capitalism present the system as a moral system. It is morally right for people to use their resources as they choose. The problem with the moral defense of capitalism is that it must neglect or dismiss the venal, often illegal, activity that occurs from time to time as well as expedient, self-serving decisions. All people are not honest all of the time. Greed leads people astray. Further, generally accepted moral principles have not brought agreement about specific decisions. People who share common moral principles often disagree about their application. The death penalty and abortion are among many ever-present examples.

The rule of law is the principal partial substitute for a moral code. To function efficiently or even to function at all, a capitalist system requires rules. The law must protect individuals and property, enforce contracts, sustain belief in systemic stability over time, and respond to political and social pressures.

The great German philosopher Immanuel Kant recognized why we cannot rely on a moral defense of capitalism. Kant (1784) wrote that “out of timber so crooked as that from which man is made, nothing entirely straight can be carved.” Everyone is not honest. Periodic scandals reinforce this point.

Private and public officials often break the law. Kant’s dictum applies as much to public as to private officials. We cannot escape criminality by choosing Socialism. More likely, we increase it. Siemens was convicted of bribing officials in several countries. Enron, Worldcom, and Madoff are recent examples of unethical and illegal corporate behavior. Watergate and Russian takeover of oil companies are examples of public malfeasance. There are too many examples to enumerate.

Capitalism survives and spreads because it recognizes Kant’s principle. People differ. Some give bibles, but some sell pornography. Unlike its alternatives, capitalism does not take a utopian view of economic organization. It does not replace man’s choices with someone’s idea of perfection. It permits choices that bring change and that allow for rejection of changes after experiencing outcomes. It recognizes that all changes are not improvements and are not welcomed by everyone. Differences are accommodated often easily.

Socialism and other utopian systems are more rigid. They represent someone’s belief in the aims that “good people” should embrace. Movies are too violent. They must change. Television is too banal. It must improve. But the change is always from individual choice to an imposed choice. Freedom allows people choices that violate someone’s idea of social norms or right conduct; Socialism restricts choice to those that officials permit. Capitalism accepts that some dislike the outcomes resulting from choice in a market economy. It does not seek utopia because it recognizes that individual tastes and desires differ, as Kant recognized. A good society permits markets to accommodate differences.

Freedom to choose brings more satisfaction to people in many areas, including nonmarket choices. Nothing assures that these choices meet everyone’s idea of good, wholesome, or moral. They do not. Choice in a capitalist system satisfies many; it meets the profits test. The market responds to demand.

Europeans have state-supported churches. Organized religion is weak. Most of the public rejects the religious monopoly by not participating. The United States has many different churches. James Madison believed that competing churches would be stronger than a state church. Each would appeal to its members and attract others. Time proved Madison right. Competition brings choice in religion as in commercial markets. Churches offer services to attract and keep members.

Capitalism does not solve all problems efficiently. Long ago, John Locke recognized that some services call for collective action. His example was police power, and he showed that society was better served if everyone paid taxes to support a public service–the police or night watchman. Thus he created a reason for collective action in place of individual choice for certain types of activity called public goods. This ruled out a complete system of market allocation without intervention.

Once we accept that collective action is the preferred means of allocating part of our resources, we introduce a government with the power to tax. The system becomes a mixed capitalist system.

It is revealing, but odd, that recent criticisms of financial market outcomes blamed unregulated markets and deregulation as a cause of the financial crisis. All financial markets have been regulated for decades. Very little deregulation occurred after 1999, when investment banks and commercial banks were permitted to merge. Separation was mandated in the United States in 1933. No other country followed, and no one explained why ending separation contributed to a crisis. Further, critics overlooked that regulation–the so-called Basel Agreement–required banks to hold more reserves if they increased risk. The banks responded to the regulation by putting risky assets in off-balance sheet entities, thereby avoiding regulation. In practice, the Basel regulation increased financial risk.

A mixed system requires a rule for distributing responsibility and authority between the public and private sectors. Most capitalist countries answer by choosing to have a democratic capitalist system. Voters choose the tax rate and the size of government. Voters choose the activities left to the market system, but they often decide to let governments set rules to regulate market behavior. The capitalist system that we have is democratic capitalism.

Democratic Capitalism

Voters need not, and do not, limit collective action to providing public goods such as defense or protection. In practice, democratic capitalism does not make a clear separation between private and public responsibility and authority. Voters can increase or reduce government’s role. Voters can vote to redistribute income and elect governments that increase regulation of private-sector activities. Elections often require a choice between one party that favors economic growth achieved by lower tax rates and less government regulation and another that emphasizes programs for redistributing income and expanding government’s role and size. Many of these programs create or extend publicly supplied private goods. Some examples are education, health care, or nursery schools. These programs often provide services that the market can supply by offering prices below what the market charges. The cost is shifted to other taxpayers, current and future. The desire to expand access to these services does not require supply by public agencies.

Democratic capitalism allows voters to favor higher growth at some times and more redistribution at others. This responds to the critics of capitalism who emphasize “fairness,” a word that is hard to define precisely. Its meaning varies. Most often it is used to avoid mention of redistribution. Proponents of fairness usually favor increased public supply of private goods paid for by taxes or debt issues and increased spending for welfare.

Democratic capitalism introduces a means of treating the Kantian problem. Excesses by owners or managers of capital assets may be followed by regulations that seek to restrict actions judged to be socially undesirable. Or voters can tax actions or outcomes that they dislike. Recent attacks on smokers and smoking shows how changes in public attitudes affect legislation. Despite past and current failure to outlaw alcohol and narcotics, the public chose to restrict cigarettes.

Regulation to achieve social objectives faces two large problems. The first law of regulation says that lawyers and bureaucrats develop regulations but markets learn to circumvent costly regulations. Outcomes often differ from plans. AEI senior fellow Robert Hahn taught me recently that this is known as the “Peltzman Effect.”

Circumvention occurs in many regulated markets. The Basel Agreement increased risk, as noted above. The object of campaign finance reform was to remove the allegedly noxious influence of money in politics and limit presidential candidates to an amount of spending decided by regulators. As the recent presidential election demonstrated, it failed. The election was more costly, and only one of the major party candidates accepted taxpayer money and a limit on spending. The legislation limited spending by candidates and parties but not by interest groups. One result was to further weaken political parties and increase the influence of single-issue groups. Parties work to harmonize divergent interests. Specialized groups often work to magnify differences, making policy compromise more difficult. This was not the outcome that proponents of McCain-Feingold or similar legislation promised.

Regulation is socially useful if it aligns private and social costs. This is the message of the “night watchman”; collective action can reduce or remove external diseconomies by equating private and social costs. Regulations that do that increase efficiency. But not all regulations are of that kind. If there were a second law of regulation, I believe it would state that the aim of regulation in a market economy should be to equate private and social costs. Failure to do so is an invitation to find ways of circumventing regulation. It is sufficient but not necessary. Many inefficient regulations survive for indefinitely long periods. Often they reward a group powerful enough to sustain them. Think of agricultural subsidies for high-income farmers as one of a multitude of programs that persist and grow. Peltzman (2004) offers another reason. A large literature discusses and documents “capture” of regulatory agencies by the regulated. Under democratic capitalism, costly distortions of this kind seem unavoidable. Regulation may persist by imposing strong penalties against circumvention. More research on the political economy of regulation and persistence is needed.

Democratic capitalism causes countries to alternate between more and less intrusive government. Voters’ central tendency changes as more voters prefer more redistribution or less, higher or slower growth. Often these changes reflect past results. Periods of low growth encourage voters to favor policies that reduce tax rates and regulation. Periods of sustained growth, however, often spread the distribution of income. Voters may elect larger transfers and increased current or future tax rates, as in Meltzer and Richard (1981).

Raising tax rates or regulation shifts control of resource allocation from private to public managers. This does not avoid the Kantian problem. The same general problems arise, though the form differs. Neither the public nor the private sector holds only virtuous people. The many examples of corruption, bribery, and misfeasance cited above are a small sample. Offenses like bribery involve both public and private agents. Bribery is common in many countries.

Public-sector regulators are inclined to be more cautious and more anxious to avoid failure than entrepreneurial capitalists. Decades ago Professor Sam Peltzman showed that the Food and Drug Administration placed excess weight on avoiding drugs and medications that might have harmful effects and gave less than optimal weight to avoiding the loss from restricting drugs that would benefit patients. That bias continues. The political outcome differs from the outcome that people would choose in the marketplace. And like all regulation, rulemaking and rule enforcement is open to pressure from interested groups.

Regulation is the source of several problems. “Capture” by regulated entities occurs frequently. The Federal Reserve often acts as guardian of the New York banks’ interests. The Federal Aviation Administration discourages and even punishes employees who call for strict enforcement of safety rules. There are many other examples.

Well-run companies plan for the long term. Governments typically follow the political cycle, a much shorter term. Private-sector companies make investments that increase employment, productivity and output. Public spending responds to public pressures for redistribution. AIDS receives substantial funding in response to active advocates. Other diseases that lack advocates receive less. Although much spending is defended or promoted as a way to help the poorest citizens, large spending programs transfer especially to the middle class. That’s where most voters are.

Democratic government introduces a separate way to allocate resources. Generally, those who succeed in the marketplace favor market allocation. Those who do not succeed favor allocation at the polling place. They are joined by those who dislike capitalism or prefer more emphasis on “social justice” and less on market efficiency. Actual social outcomes are a compromise between the two aims.

Alternatives to Capitalism

Critics of capitalism emphasize their dislike of greed and self-interest. They talk a great deal about social justice and fairness, but they do not propose an acceptable alternative to achieve their ends. The alternatives that have been tried are types of Socialism or Communism or other types of authoritarian rule.

Anti-capitalist proposals suffer from two crippling drawbacks. First, they ignore the Kantian principle about human imperfection. Second, they ignore individual differences. In place of individual choice under capitalism, they substitute rigid direction done to achieve some proclaimed end such as equality, fairness, or justice. These ends are not precise and, most important, individuals differ about what is fair and just. In practice, the rulers’ choices are enforced, often using fear, terror, prison, or other punishment. The history of the twentieth century illustrates how enforcement of promised ends became the justification for deplorable means. And the ends were not realized.

Transferring resource allocation decisions to government bureaus does not eliminate crime, greed, self-dealing, conflict of interest, and corruption. Experience tells us these problems remain. The form may change, but as Kant recognized, the problems continue. Ludwig von Mises recognized in the 1920s that fixing prices and planning resource use omitted an essential part of the allocation problem. Capitalism allocates by letting relative prices adjust to equal the tradeoffs expressed by buyers’ demands. Fixing prices eliminates the possibility of efficient allocation and replaces consumer choice with official decisions. Some gain, but others lose; the losers want to make choices other than those that are dictated to them.

Not all Socialist societies have been brutal. In the nineteenth century, followers of Robert Owen, the Amana people, and many others chose a Socialist system. Israeli pioneers chose a collectivist system, the kibbutz. None of these arrangements produced sustainable growth. None survived. All faced the problem of imposing allocative decisions that satisfied the decision-making group, sometimes a majority, often not. Capitalism recognizes that where individual wants differ, the market responds to the mass; minorities are free to develop their favored outcome. Walk down the aisles of a modern supermarket. There are products that satisfy many different tastes or beliefs.

Theodor Adorno was a leading critic of postwar capitalism as it developed in his native Germany, in Europe, and in the United States. He found the popular culture vulgar, and he distrusted the workers’ choices. He wanted a Socialism that he hoped would uphold the values he shared with other intellectuals. Capitalism, he said, valued work too highly and true leisure too little. He disliked jazz, so he was not opposed to Hitler’s ban in the 1930s. But Adorno offered no way of achieving the culture he desired other than to impose his tastes on others and ban all choices he disliked. This appealed to people who shared his view. Many preferred American pop culture whenever they had the right to choose.

Capitalism permits choices and the freedom to make them. Some radio stations play jazz, some offer opera and symphonies, and many play pop music. Under capitalism, advertisers choose what they sponsor, and they sponsor programs that people choose to hear or watch. Under Socialism, the public watches and hears what someone chooses for them. The public had little choice. In Western Europe change did not come until boats outside territorial limits offered choice.

The Templeton Foundation recently ran an advertisement reporting the answers several prominent intellectuals gave to the question: “Does the free market corrode moral character?” Several respondents recognized that free markets operate within a political system, a legal framework, and the rule of law. The slave trade and slavery became illegal in the nineteenth century. Before this a majority enslaved a minority. This is a major blot on the morality of democratic choice that public opinion and the law eventually removed. In the United States those who benefitted did not abandon slave owning until forced by a war.

Most respondents to the Templeton question took a mixed stand. The philosopher John Gray recognized that greed and envy are driving forces under capitalism, but they often produce growth and raise living standards so that many benefit. But greed leads to outcomes like Enron and WorldCom that critics take as a characteristic of the system rather than as a characteristic of some individuals that remains under Socialism. Michael Walzer recognized that political activity also corrodes moral character, but he claimed it was regulated more effectively. One of the respondents discussed whether capitalism was more or less likely to foster or sustain moral abuses than other social arrangements. Bernard-Henri Levy maintained that alternatives to the market such as fascism and Communism were far worse.

None of the respondents mentioned Kant’s view that mankind includes a range of individuals who differ in their moral character. Institutional and social arrangements like democracy and capitalism influence the moral choices individuals make or reject. No democratic capitalist country produced any crimes comparable to the murders committed by Hitler’s Germany, Mao’s China, or Lenin and Stalin’s Soviet Union.

As Lord Acton warned, concentrated power corrupts officials. Some use concentrated power to impose their will. Some allow their comrades to act as tyrants. Others proclaim that ends such as equality justify force to control opposition. Communism proclaimed a vision of equality that it never approached. It was unattainable because individuals differ about what is good. And what is good to them and for them is not the same as what is socially desirable to critics of capitalism.

Kant’s principle warns that utopian visions are unattainable. Capitalism does not offer a vision of perfection and harmony. Democratic capitalism combines freedom, opportunity, growth, and progress with restrictions on less desirable behavior. It creates societies that treat men and women as they are, not as in some utopian vision. In The Open Society and Its Enemies, Karl Popper showed why utopian visions become totalitarian. All deviations from the utopian ideal must be prevented.

The Enrons, WorldComs, and others of that kind show that dishonest individuals rise along with honest individuals. Those who use these examples to criticize capitalism do not use the same standard to criticize all governments as failed arrangements when a Watergate or bribery is uncovered. Nor do they criticize government when politicians promise but do not produce or achieve. We live after twenty-five to forty years of talk about energy, education, healthcare, and drugs. Governments promise and propose, but little if any progress is visible on these issues.

In the last year we experienced some major errors by government or its agents. Here are some examples. The Federal Reserve “rescued” American International Group (AIG) by using billions of taxpayer dollars. AIG had three profitable divisions, including a highly successful insurance company. Bankruptcy court would have been a better outcome. Last August, the government lost six nuclear warheads that were later found on B-52 bombers flying over the United States. Congress approved purchases of ethanol made from corn that raised the world price of food but did not reduce pollution. And government loaned money to General Motors and Chrysler followed by loans to an auto finance company that immediately offered zero interest rate loans to borrowers with poor credit ratings. Government promises to spend for old age pensions and health care far exceed any feasible revenues to pay for the promises. Does Congress develop a feasible plan? The estimated present value of the unfunded health care promises is $70 trillion to $80 trillion dollars. No private plan would be allowed to operate this way.

Growth and Progress

After World War II, and especially after 1960, the developed countries led by the United States worked to raise growth rates in poor countries of the world. There were two experiments. The former Soviet Union and its fellow Communist countries controlled property and directed resource use according to plans developed by a central bureaucracy. Capitalist countries relied on opening to the international market and to resource allocation based on market demand and individual choice.

The results are clear. Capitalism and the market system proved much more effective at development and poverty reduction than planning systems, whether by a democratically chosen government, as in India, or by an authoritarian regime, as in the Soviet Union or China. There is not a single example of sustained successful growth under traditional Communism. The contrast was clear at the end of the 1980s in comparison between North and South Korea, East and West Germany, and China compared to the Chinese diasporas in Asia. The Indian government tried to apply the Socialist principles taught to many of its leaders at the London School of Economics.

Recent research compared growth in countries ordered according to an index of freedom. The index had thirty-eight observable components compiled in five categories measuring size of government, legal structure, access to sound money, openness to trade and exchange, and regulation (Gwartney and Larson, 1996). They found that per-capita income rose at a compound rate of 3.44 percent in the freest countries, compared to average growth of 0.37 percent in “not free” countries. Intermediate countries had intermediate growth, 1.67 percent. The authors suggested why these differences persisted. Freer countries had higher rates of investment, higher productivity growth, more foreign direct investment, and stricter adherence to the rule of law.

There can be no better recognition of the failure of these alternatives to capitalism and the market system than their abandonment by their practitioners. India, China, and most of the former Communist countries opened their economies. China and others joined the world trading system. China and India permitted and even encouraged private ownership of resources, including capital.

The result was a dramatic reduction in poverty. Many more people improved their living standards than in fifty years of development under government planning, regulation, foreign aid, and resource allocation. Capitalism and the market proved far better than the state at reducing poverty and raising living standards. Critics of capitalism turned to other reasons for opposition. Margaret Thatcher (1993, 625) described their reaction to her success at reforming the British economy, increasing productivity, and reducing inflation.

Deprived for the moment at least of the opportunity to chastise the Government and blame free enterprise capitalism for failing to create jobs and raise living standards, the left turned their attention to non-economic issues. The idea that the state was the engine of economic progress was discredited–and even more so as the failures of Communism became more widely known. But was the price of capitalist prosperity too high? Was it not resulting in gross and offensive materialism, traffic congestion and pollution? . . . [W]as not the ‘quality of life’ being threatened? . . . I found all this misguided and hypocritical. If Socialism had produced economic success the same critics would have been celebrating in the streets.

Socialism as a development model faces several obstacles. One is the reduced ability to recognize mistakes and act on that knowledge. A venture capitalist knows that all of his investments will not succeed. He must decide whether to advance more capital or close the firm. The capitalist facing the loss of his own investment makes a decision based on his estimate of expected future return. The Socialist uses different criteria. Admitting error is personally costly and requires layoffs. Faced with uncertainty about future outcomes, the Socialist and the capitalist choose different outcomes. There is a risk of shutting down an enterprise that becomes profitable and the risk of supporting a failing enterprise. Workers, voters, lose employment. On average the capitalist is more willing to close. The concentration of successful innovation in capitalist countries suggests that the capitalist strategy produces better results for society as well as for investors.

Capitalism rewards innovators, so it encourages innovation from many people willing to invest in their ideas. Socialism concentrates decision-making in a small group. Fewer new ideas develop. Freedom to fail or to gain drives innovation, change, and progress.

Some of the innovations are inconsistent with religious or moral standards. Critics of capitalism seize upon these changes to condemn the basic choices that capitalism and freedom permit. The critics prefer to impose their preferences in place of market-driven choices. Democratic systems do not sustain for long the rules imposed to control the public’s choices.

When I first moved to Pennsylvania fifty years ago, many rules and prohibitions remained. Most retail stores had to close on Sunday. Bars could not sell drinks on Sunday. Gradually public pressure induced changes to satisfy consumer choice.

These simple examples show a fundamental problem. Many private trade-offs differ from the socially imposed trade-off. Those who wish to impose standards or rules that do not have public support either give way or resort to coercion. The proponents of rules or resource allocation that they favor, whether from religious or Socialist orthodoxy or from some other source, have three choices. Convince a majority to support their direction, resort to coercion, or accept democratic choices and change or remove regulations. Regulation is most likely to last if it equates private and social cost.

Kant does not assure us that any of the three outcomes will always be wise or good. On the contrary, he tells us that we cannot always depend on our leaders to pursue our interests instead of their own.

Socialism, or any system based on an orthodoxy or plan for promoting “good,” inevitably begins with persuasion and ends with coercion. Any deviation from orthodoxy is a step away from “the good.” F. A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom showed why government planning is inconsistent with democratic choice.

Democratic capitalism is not a rigid orthodoxy. People can choose more redistribution or less. They can change their votes. Some countries choose a larger welfare state with greater redistribution. Others choose a smaller public sector and a higher rate of growth. A remarkable feature of democratic capitalism is that its outcomes are relatively stable. There are always critics who favor more redistribution and express concern for unmet “social needs.” At the same time, some critics want lower tax rates, less current redistribution, and more growth. Major changes are infrequent.

Democratic capitalism persists and spreads because it is not a system of imposed morality. It is the only system we have discovered that offers mankind outcomes not as perfected according to some utopian standard but as adoptable to the mankind Kant described.

Income Distribution

In a democratic capitalist system, the distribution of income is a major policy issue. There are fewer rich than poor or middle class. Fifty percent of the votes decide an election. The income of the median voter lies below the mean income, so a majority of the voters can redistribute income. Early in the history of the American republic, Alexis de Tocqueville warned about the temptation for the voting majority to tax the incomes of those above the mean.

Experience suggests that there are many examples of redistributive policy allegedly carried out to benefit the poor. One problem is that the poor are not the same as the lowest 10 or 20 percent of the statistical income distribution. People can be in the lowest tail temporarily. Also, many of the poor do not vote, but older people and middle-income people do. They get more attention from politicians.

Angus Maddison, the leading researcher on the history of economic growth, found that by the year 1000, Asian countries led all others in per-capita income. By 1820, the capitalist economies of Western Europe and the United States reached twice the Asian average. By 1950, the difference was wider. Several Asian countries adopted capitalist methods. The gap narrowed. After Japan and South Korea showed that growth was a capitalist, not a western, force others followed. Eventually China and India accepted capitalist methods.

Critics complain repeatedly about differences in income between highest and lowest income groups. U.S. data show that since 1975 household income at the ninetieth percentile (in 2003 dollars) rose faster than household income at the tenth highest percentile in every five-year period except 1990-95. Relative (real) income of the ninetieth percentile rose from 10.8 times the tenth percentile to 13.7 times. Comparisons that use median household income are misleading. Many more households have only a single person (earner) or a retired single person.

Sweden is often used as a model of humane capitalism. There is no doubt that Sweden tried hard to redistribute income. In 1975, the top 1 percent of consumer units received 2.8 percent of real disposable income. By 2000, the top 1 percent increased its share to 8.8 percent.
 
A recent comprehensive study of Swedish income distribution during the twentieth century concluded: “Our findings suggest that top income shares in Sweden, like many other Western countries, decreased significantly over the first eighty years of the century. . . . Most of this decrease happened before 1950, that is, before expansion of the Swedish welfare state. As in many other countries, most of the fall was due to decreasing shares in the very top (the top one percent), while the income share of the lower half of the top decile … has been extraordinarily stable. Most of the fall is explained by decreased income from capital.”

Income redistribution is easier to promise than to achieve in practice by activist policies. Many countries have tried, but Roine and Waldenstrom show that the broad contour of the share of the top percentile is very similar in the seven countries they examined. All countries experienced a large decline in the share of the top decile from about 1910 to 1980. The range drops from 20-25 percent to 5-10 percent in 1980. This is followed by a rise. By 2004, major differences appear, perhaps reflecting the importance of new technology and the quality of educational attainment in different countries. The top decile received about 15 percent in the United States and 13 percent in Canada and the United Kingdom but about 8 percent in Sweden and 5 percent in the Netherlands.

Data on income distribution have many flaws. People underreport, and accurate sampling is difficult. The share of income from capital varies across countries. People move within the distribution, so the lowest 10 percent and the highest 10 percent are not the same people over time. The proportion of divorced, separated, or single mothers has increased. The lowest 10 percent includes a disproportionate number of families of this kind. Their relative poverty cannot be blamed on capitalism. On the contrary, capitalist growth facilitated such choices.

Educational attainment increased in importance as a source of income in the latter part of the twentieth century. Low educational attainment and broken family structure are related. Differences in educational attainment work to spread the income distribution. Education as a cause of growth in capitalist countries also contributes to spreading the income distribution.

Conclusion

There is no better alternative than capitalism as a social system for providing growth and personal freedom. The alternatives offer less freedom and lower growth. The “better alternatives” that people imagine are almost always someone’s idea of utopia. Libraries are full of books on utopia. Those that have been tried have not survived or flourished. The most common reason for failure is that one person or group’s utopian ideal is unsatisfactory for others who live subject to its rules. Either the rules change or they are enforced by authorities. Capitalism, particularly democratic capitalism, includes the means for orderly change.

Critics of capitalism look for viable alternatives to support. They do not recognize that, unlike Socialism, capitalism is adaptive, not rigid. Private ownership of the means of production flourishes in many different cultures. Recently critics of capitalism discovered the success of Chinese capitalism as an alternative to American capitalism. Its main feature is mercantilist policies supported by rigid controls on capital. China’s progress takes advantage of an American or western model–the open trading system–and the willingness of the United States to run a current account balance. China is surely more authoritarian than Japan or western countries, a political difference that previously occurred in Meiji Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Growth in these countries produced a middle class followed by demands for political freedom. China is in the early stages of development following the successful path pioneered by Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and others who chose export-led growth under trade rules. Sustained economic growth led to social and political freedom in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Perhaps China will follow.

Capitalism continues to spread. It is the only system humans have found in which personal freedom, progress, and opportunities coexist. Most of the faults and flaws on which critics dwell are human faults, as Kant recognized. Capitalism is the only system that adapts to all manner of cultural and institutional differences. It continues to spread and adapt and will for the foreseeable future.

Telling Lies About Israel

Watch Vilified: Telling Lies About Israel

AJC’s hard-hitting, 5-minute video about the lies and libels targeting Israel.

Security Challenges Arising from the Global Financial Crisis

Statement of Richard Nathan Haass, former Director of Policy Planning in the U.S. State Department, current President of the Council on Foreign Relations, before the Committee on Armed Services of the U.S. House of Representatives

Washington DC, March 11, 2009

Mr. Chairman,

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before the House Committee on Armed Services on security challenges arising from the global financial crisis. Let me first commend you and your colleagues for holding this hearing. Most of the analysis and commentary on the global economic crisis has focused on the economic consequences.

This is understandable, but it is not sufficient. The world does not consist of stovepipes, and what happens in the economic realm affects political and strategic policies and realities alike. It is also important to say at the outset that this crisis, which began in the housing sector in the United States, is now more than a financial crisis. It is a full-fledged economic crisis. It is also more than an American crisis. It is truly global.

I would add, too, that the crisis is unlike any challenge we have seen in the past. It is qualitatively different than the sort of cyclical downturn that capitalism produces periodically. This crisis promises to be one of great depth, duration, and consequence. This crisis was not inevitable. It was the result of flawed policies, poor decisions, and questionable behavior.

It is important that this point be fully understood lest the conclusion be widely drawn that market economies are to be avoided. The problem lies with the practice of capitalism, not the model. Nevertheless, the perception is otherwise, and one consequence of the economic crisis is that market economies have lost much of their luster and the United States has lost much of its credibility in this realm.

It is inconceivable in these circumstances to imagine an American official preaching the virtues of the Washington Consensus. This is unfortunate, as open economies continue to have more to offer the developing world than the alternatives. It also adds to the importance that the U.S. economy get back on track lest a lasting casualty of the crisis be modern capitalism itself.

The impact of the economic crisis will be varied and go far beyond the image of capitalism and the reputation of the United States. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair was all too correct when he testified recently that the primary near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical implications. The crisis will have impact on conditions within states, on the policies of states, on relations between states, and on the thinking of those who run states. I have already alluded to this last consideration.

Here I would only add that initial reactions around the world to the crisis appear to have evolved, from some initial gloating at America’s expense to resentment of the United States for having spawned this crisis to, increasingly, hopes that the American recovery arrives sooner and proves to be more robust than is predicted. This change of heart is not due to any change of thinking about the United States but rather to increased understanding that the recovery of others will to a significant extent depend on recovery in the United States. In a global world, what happens here affects developments elsewhere and vice versa. Decoupling in either direction is rarely a serious possibility. The crisis is clearly affecting the developed world, mostly as a result of the centrality of banking-related problems and the high degree of integration that exists among the economies of the developed world. Iceland’s government has fallen; others may over time. Many governments (including several in Central and Eastern Europe but outside the Eurozone) will require substantial loans.

The economies of Japan, much of Europe, and the United States are all contracting. World economic growth, which averaged 4 to 5 percent over the past decade, will be anemic this year even if it manages to be positive, which is increasingly unlikely. It is worth noting that the most recent World Bank projection predicts negative growth for 2009. Change of this sort will have consequences. There will likely be fewer resources available for defense and foreign assistance. Reduced availability of resources for defense makes it even more critical that U.S. planners determine priorities. Preparing to fight a large-scale conventional war is arguably not the highest priority given the enormous gap between the relevant military capabilities of the United States and others and the greater likelihood that security-related challenges will come from terrorism and asymmetric warfare. State-capacity building, the sort of activity the United States is doing in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, will continue to place a heavy burden on U.S. military and civilian assets.

Also remaining highly relevant (and deserving to be a funding priority) will be standoff capabilities designed to destroy targets associated with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. Developing states may appear to be better off than wealthier countries at first glance. Their growth on average is down by half from previous years, but still positive. Appearances, however, can be deceptive. This growth is measured from a low base in absolute and relative terms. The reduction in growth in some instances has been dramatic. Developing country exports are down as demand is down in the developed world.

Also reduced are aid flows and most importantly investment flows to the developing world. Commodity prices are much lower, a boon to those who rely on imports but a major problem for the many who are dependent on the income from one or two exports. A few countries merit specific mention. One is China. China’s economic success over the past few decades constitutes one of history’s great examples of poverty eradication. This process, one that has involved the migration of millions of people every year from poor rural areas to cities, will slow considerably. The already large number of domestic political protests in China over such issues as land confiscation, corruption, environmental degradation, and public health, is likely to grow. Absent renewed robust economic growth, the chances are high that the government will react by clamping down even more on the population lest economic frustration lead to meaningful political unrest.

Russia is in a different position, one characteristic of countries dependent on raw material exports for much of their wealth. The Russian economy is contracting after a period of boom. As is the case with China, this suggests the likely assertion of greater political control. But Russia is not as fully integrated as China is with the world economy. There is thus a greater (although impossible to quantify) chance that Russia’s leaders will turn to the time-honored resort of manufacturing an overseas crisis to divert attention than will China’s.

The same holds true for Iran and Venezuela, two countries that are heavily reliant on energy exports and whose foreign policies have been counterproductive (to say the least) from the U.S. perspective. But at the same time, it is possible that one or both will pull in their horns. Venezuela is already showing some signs of this, with its more welcoming stance toward international oil companies. This may well be simply a tactical adjustment to immediate needs.

And at least in principle, Iran’s government might find it more difficult to make the case to its own people for its continued pursuit of a nuclear weapons option if the Iranian people understood that it was costing them dearly with respect to their standard of living. Iraq is another oil producing country whose wealth is closely associated with the price of oil. Here the effects are sure to be unwanted. There is the danger that disorder will increase as unemployment rises, prospects for sharing revenue shrink, and the ability of the central government to dispense cash to build broad national support diminishes. In light of the multiple challenges already facing the United States, the last thing the Obama administration needs is the specter of an unravelling Iraq.

Two other countries are worth highlighting. One is Pakistan. Pakistan’s economic performance is down sharply for many reasons, including a decrease in both foreign investment in the country and exports from Pakistan to other countries. Pakistan has little margin for error; the possibility that it could fail is all too real. The worsened economic situation makes governing all that much more difficult. The consequences of a failed Pakistan for the global struggle against terrorism, for attempts to prevent further nuclear proliferation, for the effort to promote stability in Afghanistan, and for India’s future are difficult to exaggerate. North Korea is a second nuclear-armed state whose stability is worsened by the economic crisis.

At issue is the extent to which South Korea (along with China and Japan) can provide resources to the North to help stave off collapse. Another serious consequence of the global economic crisis, one that affects both developed and developing countries, is the reality that protectionism is on the rise. One realm is trade; some seventeen of the twenty governments set to meet in London early next month have increased barriers to trade since they met late last year. Negotiated free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea continue to languish in the U.S. Congress. The president lacks the Trade Promotion Authority essential for the negotiation of complex, multilateral trade accords. Prospects for a Doha round global trade pact appear remote. The volume of world trade is down for the first time in decades. The economic but also strategic costs of this trend are high. Trade is a major source of political as well as economic integration; one reason China acts as responsibly as it does in the political sphere is because of its need to export its products lest potentially destabilizing unemployment jump sharply. Trade has other virtues as well. More than anything else, trade is a principal engine of global economic growth. The completion of the Doha round might be worth as much as $500 billion to the world in expanded economic activity. One-fourth of this expanded output would occur in the United States. This is the purest form of stimulus.

For the United States, exports are a source of millions of relatively high-paying jobs; imports are anti-inflationary and spur innovation. Alas, the economic crisis will make it difficult if not impossible to conclude new trade pacts and to gain the requisite domestic support for them. Economic nationalism is on the rise, and when this happens, the will and the ability of political leaders to support policies that are perceived to hurt large numbers of their citizens (but which in reality help many more) invariably goes down. What is more, the economic crisis may also make it more difficult to reach agreement on a global climate change pact when representatives of most of the world’s countries gather in Copenhagen late this year. Developed and developing countries alike will resist commitments that appear to or in fact do sacrifice near-term economic growth for long-term environmental benefit. What, then, should be done to limit the adverse strategic effects of an economic crisis that is certain to get worse and persist for some time?

The United States – the Obama administration and the Congress – should resist protectionism. “Buy America” provisions in the stimulus legislation will increase costs to American consumers and all but make certain that other countries will follow suit, thereby reducing the prospects for American firms to sell abroad. More American jobs are likely to be sacrificed than preserved. Increased protectionism will also dilute the strategic benefits that stem from trade and its ability to contribute to international stability by giving governments a stake in stability. Similar arguments hold as to why “lend national” provisions are counterproductive. Bringing countries into the world trading system (best done through WTO accession) makes strategic sense, too, as it gives them a stake in maintaining order at the same time it opens government decision-making to greater degrees of transparency. Recession cannot become this country’s energy policy or a reason not to decrease U.S. consumption of oil, imported or otherwise. Lower prices will dilute any economic incentive to consume less oil. Regulatory policy will be the principal means of discouraging demand and encouraging the development of alternative energy sources and technologies. Reduced demand is essential for strategic reasons (so as not to leave the United States highly dependent on imports and so that countries such as Russia, Venezuela, and Iran do not benefit from dollar inflows), for environmental reasons, and for economic reasons, i.e., not to increase the U.S. balance of payments deficit. The goal should be to use this moment of temporarily-reduced prices to decrease the chances we as a country again find ourselves in a world of high energy prices once the recession recedes.

The United States should work with other developed and reserve-rich countries to increase the capacity of the IMF to assist governments in need of temporary loans. Current capacity falls short of what is and will be needed. It would be helpful if aid budgets were not victims of the economic crisis. Aid is needed on a large scale not just for humanitarian reasons (to fight disease, etc.) but also to build the human capital that is the foundation of economic development. Aid will also be a necessary substitute in the short and medium run for investment. Absent such flows we are likely to see greater misery and an increased number of failing or failed states. The upcoming G-20 summit in London provides an opportunity to adopt or encourage some useful measures in many of these realms. It is essential that others, including Europe and Japan, take steps to stimulate their economies. It is equally important, though, that guidelines be promulgated so that stimulus programs do not become a convenient mechanism for unwarranted subsidies and “buy national” provisions that are simply protectionist measures by another name.

The London meeting is also an opportunity to increase IMF capacity, to generate commitments to provide aid to developing countries, and to agree on at least some regulatory principles for national banking and financial systems. There is not time, however, to try to rebuild the architecture of the international economic system, solve the problems caused by countries that run chronic surpluses, or revamp the system of exchange rates. Let me close with two final thoughts. Much of this hearing and statement is focused on the question of the consequences of the economic crisis for global security. But it is important to keep in mind that the relationship is not only one way. Developments in the political world can and will have an effect on the global economy.

Imagine for a second the economic consequences of, say, a Taiwan crisis or fighting between India and Pakistan or an armed confrontation with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. This last possibility is the most worrying in the near term and underscores the importance of trying to negotiate limits on Iran’s enrichment program lest the United States be confronted with the unsavory option of either living with an Iranian near or actual nuclear weapons capability or mounting a preventive military strike that, whatever it accomplished, would be sure to trigger a wider crisis that could well lead to energy prices several times their current level.

Finally, getting through this economic crisis should not be confused with restoring prolonged calm in the markets or sustainable growth. Enormous stimulus measures here at home coupled with equally unprecedented increases in the current account deficit and national debt make it all but certain that down the road the United States will confront not just renewed inflation but quite possibly a dollar crisis as well. At some point central banks and other holders of dollars will have secnd thoughts about continuing to add to their dollar holdings, currently larger than ever given the desire for a safe harbor. Ongoing U.S. requirements for debt financing, however, will likely mean that interest rates would need to be raised, something that could choke off a recovery. This underscores the importance of limiting stimulus packages to what is truly essential to reviving economic activity and to taking other measures (such as entitlement reform and the already discussed steps to reduce oil use) lest the current crisis give way to another one.

Former US ambassador with financial links to Iran and Saudi Arabia declines intelligence post

Former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia Charles W. (”Chas”) Freeman, Jr. has withdrawn his candidature for a top intelligence post in the Obama administration, US intelligence director Dennis Blair has announced, accepting Freeman’s decision “with regret.”

Freeman’s decision came after US lawmakers raised concerns about his alleged financial links to China and Saudi Arabia, and critics attacked comments he had made in the past which they saw as overly critical of Israel. A Republican politician highlighted Freeman’s ties to a think tank heavily funded by Saudi Arabia as well as his time on the board of a state-run Chinese oil giant, during which the firm made major investments in Iran.

Dennis Blair had chosen Freeman, a former ambassador to Riyadh and senior diplomat in Beijing, to be chairman of the National Intelligence Council. The post would have made him, in effect, the chief author of the National Intelligence Estimates – assessments for US presidents and other decision-makers on highly sensitive matters. The documents are designed to reflect the consensus view of all 16 US spy agencies on potential threats like Iran.

Freeman himself explained his withdrawal in an email saying that pro-Israeli lobbyists in Washington led a campaign to block him from taking office. Foreign Policy has printed the text of the email here.

Deutschland soll sich dem Boykott der antisemitischen UN-Propaganda-Konferenz „Durban II“ durch Kanada, die USA und Italien anschließen

Gemeinsame Pressemitteilung des Koordinierungsrats deutscher Nicht-Regierungsorganisationen gegen Antisemitismus, der Jüdischen Gemeinde zu Berlin und des Jüdischen Forums für Demokratie und gegen Antisemitismus

Pressemitteilung lesen.

Stop Swiss Bid to Elect Anti-American and Anti-Israel Extremist Jean Ziegler to U.N.

Hillary Rodham Clinton in Geneva tomorrow: Will she stop Swiss nomination of U.N.’s leading anti-American and anti-Israel official?

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton meets in Geneva tomorrow with Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, whose government has just nominated Jean Ziegler – a former Swiss politician notorious for his anti-American books, giving a prize to a French Holocaust denier, and apologetics for Libyan’s Qaddafi regime – to a U.N. human rights post. Jean Ziegler is a longtime Socialist party confidante of Ms. Calmy-Rey.

Calmy-Rey’s government nominated Ziegler for re-election to the advisory committee of the UN Human Rights Council, as the only candidate of the council’s Western group. When Western states elect a notorious apologist of dictators and one of the world’s most virulent promoters of hatred against their own embattled civilization, they signal defeatism in the wrong place and at the worst time. Ziegler’s latest French-language best-seller is entitled Hatred of the West. The U.N. vote is scheduled for March 25, 2009.

Who is Jean Ziegler?

As documented in a essay by UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer, Jean Ziegler is:

• Apologist for some of the worst human rights criminals of our time. 
• After Fidel Castro imprisoned 70 journalists, Ziegler proclaimed “total support for the Cuban revolution.”  During an official visit to the Communist island in October 2008, Ziegler hailed the virtues of Castro regime even while he refused to meet Cuban dissidents.

Only pressure from U.S. Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, supported by other voices of reason, can stop Swiss Foreign Minister Calmy-Rey from pursing this outrageous nomination.

Click Here to Take Action!

Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy

A MUST-READ BOOK  ABOUT AMERICAN POWER IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY WRITTEN BY FOREIGN POLICY INSIDER LESLIE HOWARD GELB

Published by HarperCollins in March 2009

The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him. (Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, 1513)

Inspired by Machiavelli’s classic The Prince, former top Pentagon official and Pulitzer Prize–winning columnist for the New York Times Leslie H. Gelb offers illuminating guidelines on how American power actually works and should be wielded in today’s tumultuous world.

Reviews & Endorsements:

“Power Rules belongs in the top tier.”
National Interest

“If you care about America’s standing in the world – why it has declined, and how to restore it – this book is essential reading. Leslie Gelb, one of America’s most distinguished practitioner – observers of foreign policy, brilliantly explains how a series of administrations weakened our nation’s security, and shows how we can reverse this trend. Sparing no one in his analysis, Gelb shows how the U.S. failed to use its own strengths to achieve its stated goals, and offers, in succinct and user-friendly prose, the basic power rules with which the U.S. can – and must – restore its proper leadership role in the world. Power Rules is an indispensable book for the new era.”
Ambassador Richard Holbrooke

“Leslie Gelb has as much experience in foreign policy as anyone alive. Unlike most writers in this field, he isn’t afraid to use plain language and say what he means. He relishes hard truths. And he doesn’t mind making powerful enemies. All of these are prerequisites to writing a modern Prince - which is what Gelb has done. I don’t agree with all of it, but I greatly admire this handbook on the uses of American power in a complex age.”
George Packer, The New Yorker

“Leslie Gelb tells it like it is: making U.S. foreign policy and using American power are common sense, not rocket science. Our leaders forget this truth at our peril. Incisive and thoroughly compelling, Power Rules is rich in colorful stories as well as in sound advice for our president and our people.”
Brent Scowcroft, former national security adviser

“Power Rules provides a much-needed antidote to the ideological fevers that have ravaged American statecraft in recent years. Leslie Gelb’s reflections on power, its effective use, and its limitations are shrewd, trenchant, and refreshingly devoid of either cant or partisanship.
Andrew J. Bacevich, professor of international relations at Boston University

“For years, Leslie Gelb’s friends have been learning about foreign policy by way of his wisecracks and anecdotes. In Power Rules, he shares a lifetime’s worth of wit and wisdom with the rest of the class. The amazing thing about this shrewd updating of The Prince is not just the insight Gelb brings to topic of America’s exercise of power in the post-Cold War, post-Bush world, but how entertaining he makes the whole subject. This book is a must-read not just for President Obama, but for anyone who wants to understand how the new administration can improve its odds of strategic success.”
Jacob Weisberg, Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government

Click here to order this book.

Affairs of State: The Interagency and National Security

On February 25, 2009, at the Center for Latin American Issues conference room at GWU, in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Army War College and George Washington University conducted a book introduction forum for the Affairs of State: The Interagency and National Security, edited by Dr. Gabriel Marcella with chapters by a distinguished group of national security professionals and scholars.

Read full story.

U.S.-Syria Talks

The United States announced yesterday it will send two officials, one from the State Department and one from the National Security Council, for exploratory talks with Syria.

The Chicago Tribune says the White House is reaching out “warily” but that the move still represents a “signal of the White House’s determination to reach out to longtime adversaries.”

Many analysts say Syria could serve as a pivot point to solving a slew of interrelated problems, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, tensions among Syria, Lebanon, and Israel, and questions about Iranian influence in the region.

In a report Engaging Syria? U.S. Constraints and Opportunities, the International Crisis Group examines in depth the last eight years’ U.S. policy legacy toward Syria, drawing lessons for the new administration’s Syria policy.

Read full story.

Europe, Iran and the Bomb

The Transatlantic Institute proudly announces the publication of a new book:

“Under a Mushroom Cloud: Europe, Iran and the Bomb”
by Emanuele Ottolenghi

Published by Profile Books, London (2009)

Since Iran’s illicit nuclear programme was exposed to a stunned world in 2002, Tehran has defied the international community and continued to pursue its nuclear goals. What drives this seemingly apocalyptic quest? Are Iran’s aims rational or not? Under a Mushroom Cloud analyses this catastrophic and murky situation, and examines Iran’s dual-track approach of accelerating its nuclear activities while weaving itself ever more tightly into the fabric of the European economy. Thriving trade between Europe and Iran, and heavy European involvement in Iran’s energy industry, have weakened Europe’s will to impose robust sanctions – but imposing them is the only practical way of protecting Europe’s strategic interests and ensuring the stability of the region.

Under a Mushroom Cloud offers a clear and compelling answer to this dilemma. Drawing on extensive research, including interviews with senior officials and security and intelligence personnel from many countries involved in the effort to stop Iran developing a nuclear bomb, it provides a comprehensive account of a serious strategic threat to Europe, and offers an original list of practical recommendations for European policymakers who must confront it.

Click here to buy the book.

Advance Praise:

‘Under a Mushroom Cloud considers Europe as the prime mover vis-à-vis Iran’s nuclear ambitions. How Europe will use this unaccustomed power is the big question at the heart of this timely book.’ François Heisbourg, Special Adviser, Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique, Paris

‘This is an important contribution to the debate about Europe’s approach to Iran. As one would expect, Dr Ottolenghi has written a well-informed, perceptive and sobering book. I hope our European leaders, and those who study this potential flashpoint, will read what he has to say.’ General The Lord Charles Guthrie, Chief of the British Defence Staff (1997-2001), Colonel Commandant of the Life Guards and the Special Air Service

‘How to deal with Iran is one of the most pressing foreign policy issues of the day. Dr Ottolenghi provides a useful guide to the challenge and thoughtful suggestions on how to meet it.’ Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman, Professor of War Studies and Vice-Principal, King’s College London

‘For almost three decades, conventional wisdom has presented Iran as a problem for the United States. In this seminal study, Dr Ottolenghi shows that a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic could be more of a threat to Europe, which, in one of those bitter ironies of history, has helped the Khomeinist regime not only to survive but also to build its arsenal of deadly weapons. A work of impeccable scholarship, this book is also a political wake-up call to European democracies.’ Amir Taheri, syndicated columnist, former Executive Editor of Kayhan, Iran’s largest daily paper 

Folgt auf die Finanzkrise ein Bürgerkrieg?

Das Volk rebelliert nämlich nie allein deshalb, weil es einen schweren Sack schleppen muss, es lehnt sich nie gegen die Ausbeutung auf, denn es kennt kein Leben ohne Ausbeutung. Das Volk empört sich erst dann, wenn ihm jemand plötzlich und unvermutet einen zweiten Sack aufzubürden versucht. Er rebelliert, weil er spürt, dass du ihm mit diesem zweiten Sack betrügen wolltest, du hast ihn wie ein stumpfes Tier behandelt, den Rest seiner geschändeten Würde in den Schmutz getreten, ihn zum Idioten gemacht. Der Mensch langt nicht nach dem Beil, um seinen Geldbeutel zu verteidigen, sondern seine Würde. (Aus dem Roman König der Könige von Ryszard Kapuściński)

Steht der Zusammenbruch der öffentlichen Ordnung kurz bevor, nachdem die globale Finanzkrise die Ohnmacht der Politik (die mit einer unanständigen Umverteilung von Steuergeldern für die oberen Zehntausend reagiert, anstatt das System grundlegend zu verändern) entlarvt hat? Den genauen Zeitpunkt und die Form des kommenden Bürgerkriegs kann man noch nicht voraussehen. Dass er kommen wird, steht jedenfalls fest. Wann und wie er kommen wird, liegt noch verborgen im Schoße der Zukunft.

Es ist zumindest die ziemlich apokalyptische Prophezeiung der europäischen Denkfabrik European Laboratory of Political Anticipation LEAP/Europe 2020, die in einer Pressemitteilung vom 18. Februar 2009 verkündet wurde.

Ein ähnliches düsteres Szenario prognostiziert ebenfalls Igor Panarin, Dekan der Fakultät Internationale Beziehungen der Diplomatischen Akademie des russischen Außenministeriums: ” Der US-Dollar ist durch nichts mehr gedeckt. Die Außenverschuldung ist lawinenartig gewachsen: 1980 hatte es noch keine gegeben, 1998, als ich meine Prognose aufstellte, lag sie bei zwei Billionen Dollar, heute beträgt sie mehr als elf Billionen Dollar. Das ist eine Pyramide, die unbedingt einstürzen wird. Millionen von Bürgern haben ihre Ersparnisse eingebüßt. Die Preise und die Arbeitslosigkeit werden steigen. General Motors und Ford stehen am Rande des Zusammenbruchs. Das bedeutet, dass ganze Städte arbeitslos werden.”

***

Pressemitteilung European Laboratory of Political Anticipation LEAP/Europe 2020

Seit Februar 2006 vertrat LEAP/E2020 die Auffassung, dass die umfassende weltweite Krise in vier Grundphasen ablaufen würde, nämlich die Anfangsphase, die Beschleunigungsphase, die Aufprallphase und die Dekantierungsphase. Die Ereignisse der letzten zwei Jahre fügten sich hervorragend in dieses Schema. Jedoch müssen wir uns endlich in die Einsicht finden, dass die Regierenden unfähig sind, die wahre Natur der Krise zu verstehen. Denn seit nunmehr mehr als einem Jahr bekämpft die Politik mit ihren Maßnahmen nur die Symptome der Krise, nicht aber die Ursachen.

Deshalb gehen wir heute davon aus, dass mit dem vierten Quartal 2009 eine fünfte Phase der Krise einsetzen wird, in der die öffentliche Ordnung zerfallen wird.

Nach der Auffassung von LEAP/E2020 werden zwei bedeutende Phänomene diese neue Phase der Krise prägen; die kommenden Ereignisse werden damit in zwei parallelen Entwicklungen ablaufen:

A. Die zwei bedeutenden Phänomene:

1. Das Wegbrechen der globalen Finanzbasis (Dollar + Schulden)
2. Die sich beschleunigende Divergenz der Interessen der großen Staaten und der internationalen Organisationen

B. Die zwei parallelen Entwicklungen:

1. Die rasche Auflösung des gesamten gegenwärtigen internationalen Systems
2. Die Auflösung der Handlungsfähigkeit der mächtigen Staaten und großen internationalen Organisationen

Wir hatten gehofft, dass die Dekantierungsphase den Regierenden dieser Welt ermöglichen würde, die Schlussfolgerungen aus dem Zusammenbruch der Nachkriegsweltordnung zu ziehen. Man kann heute mit größtem Bedauern nur feststellen, dass solcher Optimismus nicht mehr zu rechtfertigen ist.

In den USA wie auch in Europa, in China oder in Japan handeln die Regierenden, als ob die Weltordnung nur von einer vorüber gehenden Krise erfasst wäre und es genügen würde, noch etwas Treibstoff (Liquidität, also weitere Schulden) und weitere Tinkturen (Leitzinssenkungen, staatlicher Aufkauf von wertlosen Forderungen, Konjunkturförderprogramme zu Gunsten insolventer Industriezweige) in das System zu gießen, um den Motor wieder zum Anspringen zu bringen. Sie wollen einfach nicht verstehen, dass, wie der Begriff der umfassenden weltweiten Krise, den LEAP/E2020 im Februar 2006 prägte, zu vermittelt versucht, die Weltordnung nicht mehr funktionsfähig ist. Statt verzweifelt zu versuchen, diese am Boden liegende, unrettbare Weltordnung zu retten, muss endlich die Schaffung einer neuen Weltordnung angegangen werden.

Geschichte wartet nicht, bis die Menschen für sie bereit sind. Da die Schaffung der neuen Weltordnung nicht vorausschauend und planend möglich war, wird der Zerfall der öffentlichen Ordnung während dieser fünften Phase der Krise die Welt in ein solches Chaos stürzen, dass die neue Weltordnung als Zufallsprodukt und Improvisation entstehen wird. Die beiden parallelen Entwicklungen, die wir in dieser 32. Ausgabe des GEAB beschreiben, werden für einige der großen Staaten und internationalen Organisationen tragisch sein.

Nach unserer Auffassung verbleibt nur ein sehr kleines Zeitfenster, während dem das Schlimmste noch vermieden werden kann, nämlich bis zum Sommer 2009. Dann wird die Zahlungsunfähigkeit erst Großbritanniens und dann der Vereinigten Staaten die Grundlagen des bestehenden Systems zusammen stürzen lassen und Chaos ausbrechen.

Wir gehen sehr konkret davon aus, dass der geplante G20-Gipfel April 2009 die letzte Chance für die bestehende Weltordnung ist, die aktuell wirkenden Kräfte so auszurichten, dass der Übergang in die neue Weltordnung sich mit dem geringst möglichen Schaden vollzieht.

Wenn ihnen das nicht gelingt, wird den Mächtigen der aktuellen Weltordnung die Kontrolle über die Ereignisse vollständig entgleiten, und zwar nicht nur auf globaler Ebene, sondern für einige von ihnen auch in ihren eigenen Ländern; die Welt wird in die Phase, in der die öffentliche Ordnung zusammen bricht, gleiten wie ein Schiff, dessen Ruder gebrochen ist. Am Ausgang dieser Phase des Zusammenbruchs der öffentlichen Ordnung wird die Welt mehr dem Europa von 1913 ähneln als der Welt, an deren reale Existenz die meisten noch bis 2007 glaubten.

Die meisten der von der Krise betroffenen Staaten, unter ihnen die mächtigsten dieser Erde, versuchten verzweifelt, das immer weiter anwachsende Gewicht der Krise zu schultern; sie verstanden nicht, dass sie damit die Gefahr herauf beschworen, unter dieser Last zusammen zu brechen. Sie vergaßen, dass Staaten, von Menschen geschaffen, nur solange Bestand haben, wie sich eine Mehrheit dieser Menschen mit ihnen identifiziert. In dieser 32. Ausgabe des GEAB wird LEAP/E2020 seine Analysen über die Auswirkungen dieser Phase des Zusammenbruchs der öffentlichen Ordnung auf die USA und die EU vorlegen.

Es wird für alle, Privatpersonen wie Wirtschaftsführer, dringlich, sich auf eine sehr schwierige Zeit vorzubereiten, in der ganze Bereiche unserer Gesellschaft wegbrechen werden und zumindest zeitweise oder sogar dauerhaft aufhören werden, Bestandteile der Gesellschaft zu bilden.

So wird z.B. der Zerfall des Weltwährungssystems im Sommer 2009 nicht nur den Dollar (und aller Geldanlagen in Dollar) zusammen brechen lassen, sondern das Vertrauen in alle Papierwährungen (also ohne Gold- oder Silberdeckung) massiv unterminieren. Alle Empfehlungen in dieser Ausgabe des GEAB sollen auf diese Situation vorbereiten.

Weiterhin gehen wir davon aus, dass die Staaten, die besonders monolithisch, besonders mächtig, besonders zentralistisch sind, diejenigen sein werden, die von der fünften Phase der umfassenden weltweiten Krise besonders massiv betroffen sein werden. Weitere Staaten, die unter dem Schutz dieser Staaten stehen, werden ihre Schutzmächte verlieren und damit dem Chaos in ihren Regionen ausgeliefert sein.