Obama Administration to Join anti-Israel U.N. Human Rights Council

The Obama administration has revoked a decision by the Bush administration to boycott the Geneva-based United Nations’ premier rights body to protest the influence of repressive and racist states, according to The Washington Post.

The U.N. Human Rights Council is wholly owned and operated by Islamic states that legitimize Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism, supported by an automatic majority from China, Cuba, and other repressive regimes. Canada, now the true America,  is the only country in the world that has been willing to stand up and resist Orwellian resolutions that are destroying the true principles of human rights.

The resolutions of the U.N. Human Rights Council failed to address human rights violations of Muslim countries, notably Iran’s persecution of Baha’is, Saudi Arabia’s banning of all religious practice aside from Islam, and the persecution of Christian communities in Egypt, Pakistan and Iraq. Instead of this, the U.N. Human Rights Council recommended to criminalize the defamation of Islam.

Anti-Semitism: The Ugliest Backlash in Our Lifetime

This Pesach, Jews around the world have experienced the ugliest backlash of blatant anti-Semitism many of us have witnessed in our lifetime. We shouldn’t be surprised. When the world faces crisis, Jews are often the scapegoat.

How dangerous is the threat?

• Dozens of synagogues around the world have been attacked and targeted by extremists
• Hundreds of demonstrations around the world have heard crowds chant phrases like: Jews “go back to the ovens”
• Anti-Semites continue to exploit financial Web sites to spread their hate online

Our ability to respond depends on the commitment of people like you. We need your support.

HIRAM7 REVIEW is the only European online magazine specifically dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism, to identifying and exposing extremists and their hate groups.

Now more than ever, we need your support. In these difficult economic times, our ability to respond to these new dangers depends on the commitment from the entire community.

Can we count on you?

MERCI DE GAULLE – Hommage national

Grande souscription nationale pour que vive et se transmette l’héritage du général de Gaulle

Plus que jamais, la Fondation Charles de Gaulle a besoin de votre aide pour promouvoir et développer le nouveau Mémorial Charles de Gaulle de Colombey-les-Deux-Églises.

Dans ce but, la Fondation Charles de Gaulle a lancé une grande campagne de souscription nationale “Merci de Gaulle” à laquelle un site est dédié.

Pour accéder au site “Merci de Gaulle”, cliquer ici.

Interview with U.S. General David Petraeus

The chief foundations of all states… are good laws and good arms. And as there cannot be good laws where there are not good arms… where there are good arms there must be good laws. (Niccolo Machiavelli)

U.S. General David Petraeus, in an interview with Fox News, said the U.S. military is putting “additional focus” on rooting out ties between Pakistan’s intelligence service and the Taliban. He also said the U.S. military reserves the “right of last resort” to take out threats inside Pakistan.

Read full story.

Der Geist von ZAHAL

 

 

 

 

Ethische Dilemmata während der Operation Gegossenes Blei

Als Staat hat Israel seit seiner Gründung gegen die Herausforderung des Terrors zu kämpfen gehabt. Trotz der großen Erfahrung, die die Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte (ZAHAL) gesammelt haben, sind die täglichen Herausforderungen, denen sie begegnen, weiterhin kompliziert und schaffen komplexe ethische Dilemmata.

Das internationale Recht basiert auf dem ‚klassischen’ Modell des Krieges zwischen zwei Armeen. Infolgedessen ist es eine große Herausforderung, existierende internationale Rechtsgrundsätze auf Konflikte mit Terrororganisationen anzuwenden. Sie können keine befriedigende Antwort auf die zahlreichen ethischen Dilemmata geben, die bei solchen Konflikten erwachsen.

Im Bemühen, ihre militärische Unterlegenheit wettzumachen, haben die Terrororganisationen systematische Strategien entwickelt, die das Unvermögen des internationalen Rechts in Bezug auf diese Fragen ausschlachten.

Dem Terrorismus sind der Wert des menschlichen Lebens und der Humanismus gleichgültig, sowohl was die eigene Nation angeht als auch seine Feinde. Aufgrund der fehlenden Verpflichtung gegenüber dem internationalen Recht fühlen sich die Terroristen frei von jeglichen ethischen oder moralischen Beschränkungen und operieren ohne jegliche internationale Überwachung.

Terrororganisationen versuchen, das Vorgehen der Feindstaaten zu delegitimieren. Sie erreichen dies, indem sie sich selbst als Opfer stilisieren. Dieses Bestreben wird dadurch gefördert, dass das Schlachtfeld in dicht bevölkerte Gebiete verlegt wird, wobei mit dem Endziel der Medienaufmerksamkeit eine Wirklichkeit von Tod und Elend erzeugt wird.

Die Operation Gegossenes Blei ist ein klassisches Beispiel für asymmetrische Kriegsführung. Die Hamas hat hierbei terroristische Verhaltensmuster mit zynischen Resultaten an den Tag gelegt.

Im Laufe der vergangenen zwei Jahre hat die Hamas ihre terroristische Infrastruktur mutwillig als inhärenten Teil der zivilen Infrastruktur aufgebaut (bspw. waren mehr als ein Drittel der 122 Häuser im Viertel Al-Attra mit Bomben bestückt). Während der Kämpfe wurden die Bewohner Gazas auf die Straßen gebracht, und die Hamas versteckte sich zwischen ihnen, in ziviler Kleidung, und machte sie dadurch zu menschlichen Schutzschilden. Alan Dershowitz hat dies als die „Tote-Baby-Strategie” der Hamas bezeichnet.

Der Terrorismus der Hamas wurde die gesamte Operation hindurch aufrechterhalten. Als die Übergänge für den Transfer humanitärer Hilfe geöffnet wurden, hat die Hamas sie absichtlich bombardiert. Als Hilfsgüter transferiert wurden, hat die Hamas sie erbeutet und nicht an die lokale Bevölkerung weitergegeben. Als die Kamphandlungen eingestellt wurden, um humanitäre Zeitfenster zu schaffen, hat die Hamas weiter geschossen und Zivilisten gefährdet, die sich nach draußen gewagt hatten. Und als Israel anbot, sich um die Verwundeten zu kümmern, hat die Hamas sich geweigert, sie zu überführen.

Als Staat hat Israel seit seiner Gründung gegen die Herausforderung des Terrors zu kämpfen gehabt. Trotz der großen Erfahrung, die die Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte (ZAHAL) gesammelt haben, sind die täglichen Herausforderungen, denen sie begegnen, weiterhin kompliziert und schaffen komplexe ethische Dilemmata.

Im Feld steht der Kommandant komplexen ethischen Dilemmata gegenüber, die sein persönliches Urteil dazu erfordern, ob er den Anti-Terror-Einsatz, der die lokale Bevölkerung gefährden könnte, fortsetzen oder ob er seine eigenen Soldaten und die Zivilisten, die zu beschützen er ausgesandt wurde, gefährden soll.

Um den ethischen Dilemmata des Krieges, vor allem solchen, die während der Terrorismusbekämpfung auftreten,  begegnen zu können, haben die Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte (ZAHAL) einen moralischen Code entwickelt („Der Geist von ZAHAL”). Dieser Code setzt sich aus den Werten zusammen, die der Gründung des Staates Israel innewohnten, den Werten der westlichen Demokratie und der Verpflichtung gegenüber dem internationalen Recht.

Der „Geist von ZAHAL” ist tief in die Grundausbildung jedes einzelnen Soldaten und Kommandanten der Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte  eingebaut. Die ethische Verantwortung unserer Soldaten widerspricht nicht der Notwendigkeit persönlicher Sicherheit – sie setzt einen hohen Standard für das persönliche Urteil beim Zielen auf Terroristen, die unter Zivilisten Schutz suchen.

Die Rechtsexperten der Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte haben jeden Aspekt der Operation begleitet, von der Planung bis zur Durchführung. Dies reflektiert die Anerkennung der Bedeutung der Einhaltung des internationalen Rechts als dem Entscheidungsprozess inhärenter Aspekt.

Vorbereitungen für potentielle ethische Dilemmata begannen bereits in der Planungsphase der Operation. Während der Operation wurden unzählige Maßnahmen ergriffen, um den Kollateralschaden an den Bewohnern des Gaza-Streifens zu minimieren: Mehr als 1 250 000 Flugblätter wurden verteilt, mehr als 165 000 Bewohner des Gaza-Streifens wurden vorab telefonisch gewarnt, und die „Anklopftechnik” wurde breitflächig angewandt.

Trotz des häufigen Kampfes in dicht bevölkerten Gebieten und des Missbrauchs von lokalen Bewohnern als menschliche Schutzschilde durch die Hamas verdeutlichen die Einschätzungen der Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte, dass der Großteil der Opfer bewaffnete Kämpfer waren (709 bewaffnete Kämpfer, 295 Zivilisten und 162 Personen, deren Grad der Involvierung noch geprüft wird).

Das Schlachtfeld ist ein Schauplatz, der für Fehler anfällig ist. Für die Israelischen Verteidigungsstreitkräfte  ist jeder Kollateralschaden an Zivilisten problematisch und wird untersucht, um aus den eigenen Fehlern zu lernen und die Kampfdoktrin für die Zukunft zu verbessern. Für die Hamas ist der Kollateralschaden sowohl an israelischen als auch palästinensischen Zivilisten ein Mittel zum Erreichen ihres Ziels.

Bis ein effektiver moralischer Code zur Regulierung des Kriegs gegen den Terror geschaffen sein wird, gibt es keine einzige und eindeutige Lösung für ethische Dilemmata. Die Dilemmata stellten eine Herausforderung dar, die von allen westlichen Armeen geteilt wird, eine Herausforderung, der man begegnen muss, um die demokratischen Kernwerte zu bewahren, die unsere Staaten prägen.

Es scheint so, als ob der Einsatz von menschlichen Schutzschilden durch Terror- und Guerillaorganisationen infolge der steigenden Verstädterung, der operationellen Vorteile einer solchen Umgebung und der internationalen Verurteilung von Anti-Terror-Aktivitäten in bewohnten Gebieten noch wachsen wird. Das schiere Ausmaß dieser Dilemmata wird noch zunehmen und nicht nur Israel und den Nahen Osten, sondern die internationale Gemeinschaft als Ganze betreffen. Insofern ist die globale Acht- und Aufmerksamkeit gegenüber dieser Angelegenheit unerlässlich.

Israelische Verteidigungsstreitkräfte

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

China reacts sharply to new U.S. military report

The BBC reports Beijing reacted sharply toward a U.S. Defense Department report that says China’s rapid development of its armed forces is dramatically shifting the power balance in Asia.

A foreign ministry spokesperson for China said the report represented a “gross distortion of the facts” and “Cold War thinking.”

Here is the text of the report itself. The Pentagon’s annual report to Congress on China’s military power draws Beijing’s ire every year.

30. Jahrestags des Friedensvertrags zwischen Israel und Ägypten

Heute vor 30 Jahren, am 26. März 1979, wurde im Weißen Haus in Washington der historische Friedensvertrag zwischen Israel und Ägypten unterzeichnet. Der ägyptische Präsident Anwar el-Sadat schüttelte die Hand des israelischen Ministerpräsidenten Menachem Begin.

Damit begann mit der Unterstützung von US-Präsident Jimmy Carter eine neue Ära im Nahen Osten. Noch heute gilt der Friedensvertrag als Wendepunkt der geopolitischen Situation in der Region. Er hat das Tor zum Frieden zwischen Israel und der arabischen Welt geöffnet und eine neue Tagesordnung der diplomatischen Beziehungen in der Region eingeleitet.

Die Unterzeichnung des Friedensvertrags zwischen Israel und Ägypten war Resultat des Mutes von zwei Staatsmännern. Israels Ministerpräsident Menachem Begin streckte seine Hand zum Frieden aus, und Ägyptens Präsident Sadat ergriff sie in einer Geste, die die Jahre des Krieges hinter sich ließ. Am 19. November 1977 besuchte er Israel und sprach in der Knesset. Der Empfang mit offenen Armen und der herzliche Applaus, die ihm sowohl von der israelischen Regierung als auch von der Öffentlichkeit zuteil wurden, waren Vorboten eines Verhältnisses, das mehr Jahre des Friedens als des Konflikts erlebt hat. Beide Länder haben von ihrer Fähigkeit zur Zusammenarbeit und zum offenen Dialog profitiert.

Heute kooperieren beide Länder dank der Vision der israelischen und ägyptischen Staatschefs in einer Reihe von Angelegenheiten und halten gemeinsame Ausschüsse ab. Der gemeinsame Militärausschuss trifft sich regelmäßig, um militärisch-sicherheitspolitische Fragen zu koordinieren, wodurch die kontinuierliche Kommunikation zwischen den Armeen gewährleistet wird. Der gemeinsame Wirtschaftsausschuss tritt zusammen, um die wirtschaftliche Kooperation zwischen beiden Ländern zu fördern. Besonders produktiv ist der gemeinsame landwirtschaftliche Ausschuss, der sich zweimal im Jahr trifft. Seit Beginn seiner Tätigkeit im Jahr 1981 hat er Hunderte von landwirtschaftlichen Projekten initiiert, um das Know-how und die Kompetenzen beider Länder kontinuierlich zu verbessern. Bis dato hat diese Kooperation Dutzende von gemeinsamen Feldschulen und Ausbildungsprogrammen hervorgebracht, im Rahmen derer Tausende von ägyptischen Landwirten nach Israel gekommen sind. 2007 absolvierten etwa 200 ägyptische Bauern eine Fortbildung in Israel.

Das Qualified Industrial Zones-Abkommen (QIZ) spielt eine wichtige Rolle im bilateralen Verhältnis beider Länder. Das 2004 unterzeichnete Abkommen erlaubt ägyptischen Unternehmen, die landwirtschaftliche Erzeugnisse aus Israel verwenden, steuerfreie Exporte in die Vereinigten Staaten. Diese fortgeschrittene Form der Zusammenarbeit stellt ein erfolgreiches Beispiel zur Nachahmung im Rahmen der bilateralen Beziehungen dar. Der Handel zwischen den beiden Ländern belief sich 2008 auf 200 Millionen Euro; 2004, vor der Unterzeichnung des Abkommens, waren es lediglich 43 Millionen – ein Anstieg von mehr als 450%.

Ein anderes wichtiges und zentrales Element der bilateralen Wirtschaftsbeziehungen ist das Gasabkommen. Dieser gigantische Vertrag (geschätzt auf 1.8 Milliarden Euro über einen Zeitraum von 15 Jahren) wurde 2005 zwischen der Israel Electric Company und der ägyptischen East Mediterranean Gas Co. (EMG) unterzeichnet.

Auch in den Bereichen Tourismus, Verkehr, Kommunikations- und Gesundheitswesen herrscht eine rege bilaterale Zusammenarbeit.

Der israelisch-ägyptische Friedensvertrag hat seinen Wert auch in politischen Fragen bewiesen, sowohl auf binationaler als auch auf regionaler Ebene. Trotz einiger Schwierigkeiten hat sich der Frieden zwischen Israel und Ägypten als solide und stabil erwiesen. Er demonstriert den Vorrang der Sehnsucht nach Frieden, die in beiden Völkern existiert, und hat gleichzeitig strategischen Wert für beide Seiten. Die gegenwärtigen friedlichen Beziehungen stellen die Grundgegebenheit für alle regionalen politischen Entwicklungen dar und einen unterstützenden Faktor bei der Fortsetzung des Nahost-Friedensprozesses im Allgemeinen und mit den Palästinensern im Besonderen. Im Rahmen der bilateralen Beziehungen wird ein andauernder Dialog zwischen Ägypten und Israel über unterschiedliche Fragen geführt, auch über problematische und sensible Angelegenheiten. Die Regelmäßigkeit der Treffen zwischen Politikern beider Nationen ist groß, und die Diskussionen konzentrieren sich sowohl auf bilaterale Beziehungen und die Förderung des Nahost-Friedensprozesses.

Trotz der soliden Grundlagen der israelisch-ägyptischen Beziehungen gibt es noch viele Ziele, die noch nicht erreicht sind. Das primäre Ziel ist der Aufbau engerer Bande des gegenseitigen Verständnisses und der Toleranz zwischen den beiden Völkern, die Förderung eines tieferen kulturellen Dialogs und die Entwicklung einer Kultur des Friedens.

Israel sehnt sich danach, dass der Frieden mit Ägypten in allen Bereichen ein lebendiger und fruchtbarer Frieden werden wird. Es hofft, dass die beiden Nationen die kommenden Jahre dazu nutzen werden, um dieses Ziel zu erreichen.

Außenministerium des Staates Israel

Czech Government Collapse

The Czech government lost a vote of confidence by Czech parliamentarians, prompting the country’s prime minister, Mirek Topolanek, to announce that he will resign, the BBC reports.

The fall of the Czech government raises several questions. The Czech Republic currently serves as president of the European Union. A blog entry from the BBC examines who will run the EU while Prague sorts out its political situation.

Topolanek today said the fall of his government will not affect his country’s ability to preside as EU president.

RFE/RL reports Topolanek’s resignation will also raise questions about U.S. missile defense strategy in Eastern Europe.

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.

Will the U.S. Federal Reserve Become a Systemic Risk Regulator?

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has said that the Obama administration will move forward with an overhaul of financial regulation, less than a year after an abortive blueprint for financial regulation from the previous administration.

A massive financial crisis and hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts for financial firms were interposed between these two attempts, fundamentally altering the terms of discussion.

Some observers claim that companies like AIG and Citigroup became too big to fail – that is, “systemically significant” – and thus require special regulation. The Obama administration’s plan will include a keystone role for the U.S. Federal Reserve in monitoring and addressing broad or systemic economic risks.

In a op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, former chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan argues that state capitalism is not the right prescription to the current financial crisis: “However, the appropriate policy response is not to bridle financial intermediation with heavy regulation. That would stifle important advances in finance that enhance standards of living. Remember, prior to the crisis, the U.S. economy exhibited an impressive degree of productivity advance. To achieve that with a modest level of combined domestic and borrowed foreign savings (our current account deficit) was a measure of our financial system’s precrisis success. The solutions for the financial-market failures revealed by the crisis are higher capital requirements and a wider prosecution of fraud – not increased micromanagement by government entities.”

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.”

Durban UN-Conference 2009: Show event of bigots and anti-Semites

Ronald S. Lauder: Show event of bigots and anti-Semites

German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, March 14, 2009

The United Nations are inviting to a conference which only serves as a platform for those who hate Israel – and all that on Hitler’s birthday.

April 20th this year will be the 120th anniversary of the birth of Hitler, the most notorious mass murderer and racist in the history of mankind. Coincidentally, this year April 20th will also be the opening day of a United Nations conference on racism in Geneva, Switzerland. Its task will be to review the conclusions of the World Conference on Anti-Racism held in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001, and their implementation. It would normally be a positive sign to hold an event like this on such a symbolic day. Alas, the history of the Durban process weighs against this.

Many diplomats and human rights activists will remember with horror the events that occurred in Durban in September 2001. It was turned into a grand show of unity of bigots, despots, anti-Semites and declared enemies of Israel. The Jewish state was denounced as racist and its right to exist – once guaranteed by the United Nations – questioned.

The Durban Review Process has shown that may participating states are not there to discuss ways of combating racism and intolerance but to cover up own failings by launching unfair attacks against Israel and the Jews. Repeatedly, resolutions have been tabled which do not address issues of racism but demonize Israel as racist. Israel is the only country to be singled out for criticism – a unique form of cynicism! If Israel really were the main sponsor of racism and intolerance, wouldn’t we all live in a near-perfect world?

The Durban Review Conference in Geneva will be under the motto ‘Dignity and Justice for All’. One could ask ironically if countries such as Iran, Cuba, Libya, or Pakistan have signed up to this motto. However, irony is lost once you come to realize that it is these very countries that play crucial roles in the run-up to the event. Libya chairs the Preparatory Committee, and the rapporteur is from Cuba.

Given the human rights situation in these countries that makes a mockery of the event. In Pakistan, the Taliban were recently granted the right to introduce Islamic Sharia law in the Swat Valley, which they brought under their control. Once again, women there risk their lives when striving for better education or personal freedom.

Iran’s role is a particularly bad one: the event will provide the preachers of hate in Tehran with another international platform. In Iran, ethnic and religious minorities such as the Bahai suffer from discrimination, and human rights abuses are rife. Iran even executes minors because of their homosexuality, and women are regularly stoned to death for allegedly having committed adultery.

The genocide in Rwanda took place only 15 years ago, and yet there are ominous signs that it could again happen elsewhere in Africa. In Darfur, hundreds of thousands of people were killed in ethnic violence because Sudan’s dictatorial president and the neighboring countries simply didn’t give a damn. The Libyan ruler Kaddafi recently blamed the mass killing in Darfur on Israel. Yet the African Union, whose current president Kaddafi is, doing precious little to solve the conflict.

The country reports on human rights recently published by the US State Department make it crystal clear: the very countries which at the United Nations are supposed act as fighters for human rights and against racism have the worst record when it comes to state-sponsored violations of human rights at home.

The bodies of the United Nations – especially the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council – have been become popular forums for those bigots who like to denounce others in order to deflect from their own failings. In the less than three years of its existence the Human Rights Council has already condemned Israel 15 times. Worse conflicts were not dealt with at all, or diplomatically and discretely dealt with.

There is a danger that the UN anti-racism conference will once again be exploited to pursue aims that have nothing to do with the fight against racism and intolerance. Some Muslim countries event want draconian restrictions of freedom of speech pretending a “defamation of religion.”

Lately, even UN Human Rights Commissioner Navanethem Pillay, who acts as the review conference’s organizer, felt obliged to call on the participating states to be objective and focus on the real aims of the conference. This is honorable, but it also speaks volumes about what to expect from the forum.

As things currently stand, the objectives of the Durban Review Conference cannot be achieved. Before more damage is done, Mrs. Pillay should therefore cancel the event. Otherwise, Western governments must stay away. More than a year ago, the Canadian government announced its boycott. Lately, the US administration and Italy joined them. Unfortunately, others – including the German government – are still hesitant.

Last year, the EU presidency defined clear “red lines”, which, once crossed, would trigger the withdrawal of European governments from the Geneva conference. Although the red lines have been crossed the European governments, except the Italian, are still reluctant to take a decision.

Diplomats always seek to make small progress and find a compromise. However, there are moments when we need political leadership in order to avoid one’s agenda being hijacked by disingenuous actors. Diplomacy is not an end in itself, and the ambition to get some form of consensus on a final declaration must not compromise the respect for liberty and human rights.

This is a test for Europe. It is not too late yet to avoid a repeat of the Durban disaster of 2001. One can only hope that Europe’s leaders do not naively walk into the same trap that was already laid out for them by the self-appointed fighters for human rights. German in particular should make a stand and not attend the Geneva conference on April 20th. Such a decision would be a strong signal.

Ronald S. Lauder, 65, is president of the World Jewish Congress.

Durban UN-Konferenz 2009: Schaulaufen der Heuchler und Antisemiten

 

Außenansicht – Ronald S. Lauder: Schaulaufen der Heuchler und Antisemiten

Süddeutsche Zeitung, 14.03.2009

Die Vereinten Nationen laden zu einer Konferenz, die nur als Bühne der Israel-Hasser dient – und das am Geburtstag Hitlers.

Am 20. April jährt sich zum 120. Mal die Geburt Hitlers, des schlimmsten Massenmörders und Rassisten der Menschheitsgeschichte. Und ausgerechnet am 20. April beginnt nun in Genf eine Konferenz der Vereinten Nationen, bei der die Ergebnisse der Antirassismuskonferenz aus dem Jahr 2001 im südafrikanischen Durban und ihre Umsetzung überprüft werden sollen. Die Veranstaltung an einem symbolträchtigen Datum wie diesem abzuhalten, wäre eigentlich zu begrüßen, wenn nicht die Vorgeschichte dagegen spräche.

An die erste UN-Konferenz gegen Rassismus in Durban, Südafrika, im September 2001 erinnern sich Diplomaten und Menschenrechtsorganisationen mit Grauen. Denn sie entwickelte sich zu einem Schaulaufen der Heuchler, Despoten, der Antisemiten und der Israel-Feinde. Der jüdische Staat wurde als rassistisch gebrandmarkt und sein – von den Vereinten Nationen verbrieftes – Existenzrecht in Frage gestellt.

Es zeigt sich in der Vorbereitung der Konferenz fast täglich aufs Neue, dass es vielen teilnehmenden Staaten nicht um die Bekämpfung von Rassismus und Intoleranz geht, sondern darum, eigene Verfehlungen durch unfaire Attacken auf Israel und die Juden zu kaschieren. Israel wird als Apartheid-Staat diffamiert, in dem Juden angeblich Andersgläubige unterdrücken. Mehrfach sind Resolutionen und Anträge eingebracht worden, die nicht Rassismus bekämpfen, sondern Israel als rassistisch verleumden. Israel ist das einzige Land, das namentlich kritisiert wird – ein Zynismus sondergleichen, denn wäre Israel in puncto Rassismus und Intoleranz wirklich das Hauptproblem, dann würden wir in einer fast perfekten Welt leben.

Die Konferenz in Genf steht unter dem Motto “Würde und Gerechtigkeit für alle”. Man kann ironisch fragen, ob sich auch Länder wie Iran, Libyen, Kuba oder Pakistan dem verpflichtet fühlen. Die Ironie bleibt einem jedoch im Halse stecken, weil man erkennen muss, dass diese Länder bei der Veranstaltung das Wort führen. Libyen sitzt dem Vorbereitungsausschuss vor, der Berichterstatter des Organisationskomitees kommt aus Kuba, und auch Iran spielt eine tragende Rolle. Angesichts der Zustände in diesen Ländern ist dies eine Verhöhnung der Konferenz. In Pakistan wurde unlängst den Taliban in dem von ihnen beanspruchten Swat-Tal zugestanden, die Scharia einzuführen. Frauen riskieren nun wieder viel, wenn sie nach Bildung oder persönlicher Freiheit streben. Irans Rolle ist besonders schlimm: Mit der Veranstaltung erhalten die Hassprediger in Teheran erneut eine internationale Bühne. In Iran werden Minderheiten wie die Bahai diskriminiert und Menschenrechte aufs schlimmste verletzt. Iran lässt sogar homosexuelle Minderjährige öffentlich hinrichten, und Frauen droht bei Ehebruch die Steinigung.

Der Völkermord in Ruanda ist erst 15 Jahre her, und doch gibt es wieder bedrohliche Anzeichen, dass er sich anderswo in Afrika wiederholen könnte. In der Region Darfur mussten Hunderttausende sterben, weil das dem diktatorischen Präsidenten des Sudan und den Nachbarstaaten schlicht gleichgültig war. Der libysche Staatschef Gaddafi macht Israel für Darfur verantwortlich, und die Afrikanische Union, welcher Gaddafi vorsteht, unternimmt recht wenig gegen den Konflikt.

Der jüngste Menschenrechtsbericht des amerikanischen Außenministeriums spricht eine deutliche Sprache: Gerade jene Länder, die sich bei den Vereinten Nationen als Kämpfer gegen Rassismus aufschwingen, sind die größten Sünder, wenn es um die Missachtung der Menschenrechte im eigenen Land geht. Die Gremien der UN – insbesondere die Vollversammlung und der Menschenrechtsrat – sind zu beliebten Foren jener Heuchler geworden, die Verfehlungen anderer anprangern, um von eigenen abzulenken. In den zweieinhalb Jahren seines Bestehens wurde Israel durch den UN-Menschenrechtsrat bereits 15 Mal verurteilt. Andere, wesentlich schlimmere Konflikte wurden dagegen gar nicht behandelt oder mittels diplomatischer Formeln diskret ad acta gelegt.

Es besteht die Gefahr, dass auch die UN-Antirassismuskonferenz erneut instrumentalisiert wird, um ganz andere Ziele zu verfolgen als die Bekämpfung von Rassismus und Intoleranz. Manche islamische Länder wollen eine drakonische Beschränkung der Meinungsfreiheit unter dem Vorwand der “Beleidigung der Religion”.

Zuletzt sah sich sogar UN-Menschenrechtskommissarin Navanethem Pillay, die Ausrichterin der Rassismuskonferenz, genötigt, die teilnehmenden Staaten zur Objektivität aufzufordern und sich auf die eigentlichen Ziele der Konferenz zu konzentrieren. Das ist ehrenwert, lässt aber nichts Gutes erahnen.

Klar ist: Die Ziele der Veranstaltung können nach derzeitigem Stand nicht erreicht werden. Bevor nun noch mehr Schaden angerichtet wird, sollte Frau Pillay die Konferenz absagen. Andernfalls müssen die westlichen Regierungen ihr fernbleiben. Bereits vor gut einem Jahr erklärte die kanadische Regierung ihren Boykott, dieser Tage schlossen sich die US-Regierung und Italien an. Andere, darunter auch die Bundesregierung, zögern leider noch.

Die EU-Ratspräsidentschaft hat im vergangenen Jahr vier “rote Linien” definiert, deren Überschreitung nach sich ziehen würde, dass die europäischen Regierungen bei der Genfer Konferenz nicht teilnehmen. Obwohl diese Linien eindeutig überschritten wurden, zögern die europäischen Regierungen, ausgenommen eben Italien, leider noch.

Diplomaten streben nach kleinen Fortschritten und Kompromissen. Es gibt aber auch Momente, die nach politischer Führung verlangen. Diplomatie ist kein Selbstzweck, und das Streben nach einem Abschlussdokument, auf das sich die Staaten einigen können, darf nicht dazu führen, dass Freiheit und Menschenrechte relativiert werden.

Europa ist gefordert. Noch ist es nicht zu spät, eine Wiederholung des Desasters von 2001 zu verhindern. Die Europäer sollten nicht noch einmal gutmütig in die Falle tappen, die ihnen selbst ernannte Streiter für Menschenrechte gestellt haben. Gerade Deutschland müsste am 20. April der Konferenz in Genf demonstrativ fernbleiben. Noch ist es für die Bundesregierung nicht zu spät, ein starkes Zeichen zu setzen.

Ronald S. Lauder, 65, ist Präsident des Jüdischen Weltkongresses.

Neue Kontroverse um die Schriftrollen vom Toten Meer

Die Tageszeitung Die Welt berichtet, dass die israelische Historikerin Rachel Elior an der Existenz der antiken Sekte der Essener zweifelt: Rachel Elior hält sie für eine Erfindung des Geschichtsschreibers Josephus Flavius, hebräische oder aramäische Quellen gebe es nicht.

“Daraus zieht Rachel Elior den Schluss, dass es sich bei den Schreibern der Rollen nicht um fromme Essener am Toten Meer, sondern um Sadduzäer handelte, also Angehörige der Gruppe im antiken Judentum, die zahlreiche Hohepriester stellte und bis zu ihrer Vernichtung im Jüdischen Krieg die gemäßigte Elite des Volkes repräsentierte. Die Texte von Qumran wurden demnach im Jerusalemer Tempel geschrieben und in Jerusalemer Bibliotheken verwahrt. Erst bei Kriegsausbruch wurden sie ans Tote Meer gebracht, um sie vor den Römern zu schützen.”

Zum Artikel.

Russia-Iran Arms Deal

A Russian official said Moscow two years ago finalized a contract that would allow it to send S-300 air defense missiles to Iran, though they noted that no missiles had been sent to the country as yet.

The Associated Press (AP) reports Russia delivering S-300s to Iran would “markedly change the military balance in the Middle East.”

G-20-Finance Ministers Meeting

News reports indicate a meeting of finance ministers from the G-20 countries, laying the groundwork for a major April 2nd, 2009 heads-of-state summit addressing the financial crisis, produced agreement in several areas.

Australia’s representative at the meetings said: “Everybody agreed: It’s fiscal stimulus plus. We’ve got to do something about the flow of credit in the financial system; we’ve got to reform our international financial institutions.”

Reportedly the delegates reached general agreement on the need both to boost International Monetary Fund (IMF) resources in the short-term and to reshape the fund in the longer term, including a timetable to increase the voting rights of emerging economies.

Reuters reports the group also agreed to boost funding to the Asian Development Bank (ADB) by $100 billion, bringing the bank’s war chest to $150 billion total.

Fremd-Sprache

In einem Essay erschienen in der heutigen Ausgabe der Neuen Zürcher Zeitung  betrachtet der polyglotte Schriftsteller Literaturwissenschaftler Adolf Muschg das Sprachenerlernen als Schlüssel zur interkulturellen Kompetenz:

“Man lernt ihre Eigenheit würdigen, eingeschlossen die Willkür, die Freiheit, den Zufall, die in ihr am Werk sind. Daraus ergibt sich eine kulturelle Kompetenz über den Spracherwerb hinaus: eine Disposition, immer auch die andere Seite einer Sache zu hören.”

Zum Artikel.

Stock Markets Show Signs of Stability

The Wall Street Journal leads its Economy rubric with some rare economic good news: this week was the stock market’s best since November 2008, prompting speculation that the economy could finally be close to bottoming out.

“There is a real economy out there, and it has a chance of doing better,” said one eased trader.

Read full story.

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.

Pakistan crackdown

The BBC reports Pakistani authorities have broadened their crackdown on anti-government protests in several parts of the country. Authorities in the country’s northwest have banned political gatherings, the article says, and officials in Sindh province blocked a protest convoy.

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani ordered security for opposition leader Nawaz Sharif to be stepped up, following intelligence reports that Sharif and his brother are under threat.

Meanwhile, Britain’s Foreign Minister David Miliband and U.S. regional envoy Richard Holbrooke held talks with Pakistan’s President Asif Ali Zardari. The Times of India reports Zardari also held meetings with Pakistan’s military chief Ashfaq Kiyani.

Dawn continues its coverage with a blog dedicated to the protests.

Read full story.

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.

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.

The Exasperating Gift of Singularity: Edmund Husserl, Emmanuel Levinas, Michel Henry

 

The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends. (Friedrich Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, Foreword)

This book is concerned with the idea that, in light of the works of Edmund Husserl, Emmanuel Levinas and Michel Henry, phenomenology has an important contribution to make to the question of singularity.

It also demonstrates that the issue of a singular givenness, and/or of the givenness of singularity is highly consequential for justifying alternative views to a purist form of phenomenology.

REVIEW: “The book is extremely timely since it touches on themes that are of paramount importance within the phenomenological tradition in France today. Particularly impressive is Bogza’s use of Michel Henry, who is hardly known in the English speaking world and whose work is still in need of translation. Hopefully this book will bring about an interest in his work which is long overdue” (Dr. Lilian Alweiss, Trinity College Dublin, Department of Philosophy)

Table of Contents  
Introduction

PART ONE: Phenomenology on Singularity  (Husserl)

I.The Problem and its Background

II. The Primitive Sense-Data, or Noncompounded Singulars

III. The Manifold-Unitary Singulars or Singularity as Particularity

IV. The Pre-phenomenal: Singularity as Uniqueness

PART TWO: Phenomenology of Singularity (E. Levinas and M. Henry)

V. Levinas on the Singularising Singularity of the Other

VI. Michel Henry on the Singular Ipseity of Life

Conclusion

About the author: Adina Bozga studied philosophy and political science in Bucharest, Romania. She obtained her PHD in Philosophy in  2003 from the University of Warwick, UK. She is the author of a series of articles in phenomenology and a member of the editorial board of «Studia Phaenomenologica». Her current research interests include social and political philosophy, and phenomenology.

To order this book, please click here.

Zeta Books

Address	52 Carol I Bldv, ap. 5 020923 Bucharest, Romania
Telephone Fax	0040 733 046 689 0040 318 166 779
Website	www.zetabooks.com
Orders	orders@zetabooks.com

China-U.S. Naval Dispute

A naval dispute between China and the United States escalated today as Beijing rebuffed Washington’s claims that Chinese ships “harassed” an unarmed U.S. ocean surveillance ship in the South China Sea on Sunday.

China’s foreign ministry spokesperson Ma Zhaoxu said today that “the U.S. claim is totally inaccurate and wrong” and that the American ship was breaking international law.

Read full story.