About Me

Name: Gabrielle Cusumano
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

In The EU When Is A Jihad Not A Jihad?

Posted by Gabrielle Cusumano on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 6:30:38 PM

"EU insiders say the initiative would stop references to terms like ‘Islamic terrorism’ and ‘fundamentalism’ which critics complain are often used by EU officials when talking about extremist groups operating in or from the Muslim world."

"The so-called ‘non-emotive lexicon for public communication’ would also urge officials to be careful when talking about ‘Jihad’. Although the term is currently used by some radical organisations in the Islamic world to mean a combat against non-believers, many Muslims say it refers to an internal, spiritual struggle."

 
EU looking for correct terminology on Islam

By Shadaba Islam


BRUSSELS: It could turn out to be little more than polite words. But European Union policymakers struggling to build stronger relations with Muslim countries have set themselves a new task: hammering out guidelines which would ban the use of terms considered derogatory to Islam.

The focus of the exercise is on stopping the bloc’s officials and documents from using words which are considered offensive to Muslims or give the impression that Europe’s drive against terrorism is specifically aimed at Muslims.

Launched in December last year, the initiative has gained added importance and urgency as the EU struggles to mend relations with Muslim countries following publication earlier this year of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) in several European newspapers.

The cartoons caused outrage in many Muslim countries, leading to violent demonstrations, the deaths of many protesters and attacks on European embassies. After some hesitation and many statements insisting that freedom of press and expression were sacrosanct, EU governments did finally voice some regret that the caricatures had offended so many people.

As EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner pointed out recently, freedom of speech was non-negotiable but so was freedom of religion and the need to respect one another. “We need to be constantly working to improve understanding between different cultures and religions both within the EU and around the world,” said Ferrero-Waldner.

The crisis with the Muslim world caused by the caricatures is the latest in a series of events which, beginning with the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US, have focused western attention on the Islamic world. However, despite the new awareness of Islam, both inside Europe and outside it, most Europeans remain ignorant of many of the basic tenets of the religion.

Western media continue to offer their audiences a simplistic one-sided view of Islam, often giving the impression that the Muslim world is over-flowing with fanatics and extremists and that all Muslim women are veiled, submissive and repressed.

European governments, meanwhile, have also become more aware of the rising frustration of their often marginalised Muslim minorities following last year’s riots in French suburbs by disaffected African and Arab youths.

EU officials say that the search for the correct terminology on Islam is part of an ongoing internal debate within the 25-nation bloc on how best to forge deeper ties with Muslim countries — and reach out to the 20 million Muslims living in Europe.

One way of doing so, they say, is to make clear that Europeans do not equate Islam with terrorism. The emphasis of the new guidelines is on making a clear distinction between the vast majority of peace-loving Muslims and a small minority on the fringes which is abusively invoking Islam for its own purposes.

“Our aim is to clarify the EU discourse on Islam and to ensure there is no link made between any specific religion and terrorism,” says an EU official, adding: “It’s about using vocabulary to avoid misunderstandings and misinterpretations.”

EU insiders say the initiative would stop references to terms like ‘Islamic terrorism’ and ‘fundamentalism’ which critics complain are often used by EU officials when talking about extremist groups operating in or from the Muslim world.

The so-called ‘non-emotive lexicon for public communication’ would also urge officials to be careful when talking about ‘Jihad’. Although the term is currently used by some radical organisations in the Islamic world to mean a combat against non-believers, many Muslims say it refers to an internal, spiritual struggle.

EU insiders say the new lexicon will be non-binding but will probably be endorsed by the bloc’s leaders when they meet in Brussels in June.

That will not be too soon for people like British member of the European Parliament Sajjad Karim who says EU officials must be more careful when they talk about terrorist groups which hide behind the cloak of Islam.

“What we get very often is people in the EU talking about Islamic terrorism when they are in fact talking of violence in the Middle East,” says Karim. But events in Palestine have little to do with Islam and a lot to do with the political frustration of Palestinian people, he says.

“Similarly, when young French Muslims protested last year, they were reflecting the realities of their lack of integration ... it was not about Islam,” Karim insists.

While waiting to see if politically correct language can help ease current strains between Europe and Muslim countries, EU officials including External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner and Javier Solana, the bloc’s foreign and security policy chief, are doing their own bit to bridge the gulf.

Both Ferrero-Waldner and Solana told EU foreign ministers in Salzburg last month that the EU must work with the United Nations, the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Conference to rebuild trust with Muslim countries.

Their strategy paper sent to EU capitals also said that foreign policy measures must be backed up with tougher domestic European legislation to tackle Islamophobia and build a better dialogue with Muslims in Europe.

These initiatives as well as the new EU lexicon may not be enough to get rid of years of misunderstandings. EU officials admit that the struggle to repair relations with Muslim countries will be long and difficult and that bringing European Muslims into the mainstream will require patience and perseverance.

But, thoughtful EU policymakers also warn that a start has to be made somewhere. And many are also hoping that a change in language will also mean a change in Europe’s out-dated and often prejudiced views on Islam and Muslims.

http://www.dawn.com/2006/04/23/int7.htm

EU looking to clean up its Islamic references


DPA, BRUSSELS
Thursday, Apr 27, 2006, Page 9

They may be just words. But EU policymakers struggling to build stronger relations with Muslim countries have set themselves a new task: to hammer out guidelines which would ban the use of terms derogatory to Islam.

The focus is on stopping the bloc's officials and documents from using words which are considered offensive to Muslims or give the impression that Europe's drive against terrorism is specifically aimed at Muslims.

Launched in December last year, the initiative has gained added importance and urgency as the EU struggles to mend relations with Muslim countries following publication earlier this year of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed in several European newspapers.

The cartoons, some of which depicted Mohammed as a terrorist, caused outrage in many Muslim countries, leading to violent demonstrations, the deaths of many protesters and attacks on European embassies.

European governments, meanwhile, have also become more aware of the rising frustration of their often marginalized Muslim minorities following last year's riots in French suburbs by disaffected African and Arab youths.

EU officials say that the search for the correct terminology on Islam is part of an ongoing internal debate within the 25-nation bloc on how best to forge deeper ties with Muslim countries -- and reach out to the 20 million Muslims living in Europe.

One way of doing so, they say, is to make clear that Europeans do not equate Islam with terrorism but that the Muslim religion being abusively invoked by extremist groups for their own purposes.

"Our aim is to clarify the EU discourse on Islam and to ensure there is no link made between any specific religion and terrorism," an EU official said.

The initiative would stop references to terms like "Islamic terrorism" and "fundamentalism" which critics say are often used by EU officials when talking about extremist groups operating in the Muslim world.

The so-called "non-emotive lexicon for public communication" would also urge officials to be careful when talking about jihad. Although the term is currently used by some radical organizations in the Islamic world to mean a combat against non-believers, many Muslims say it refers to an internal, spiritual struggle.

EU insiders say the new lexicon will be non-binding but will probably be endorsed by the bloc's leaders when they meet in Brussels in June.

That will not be too soon for people like British member of the European Parliament Sajjad Karim who says EU officials must be more careful when they talk about terrorist groups.

"What we get very often is people in the EU talking about Islamic terrorism when they are in fact talking of violence in the Middle East," says Karim.

But events in Palestine have little to do with Islam and a lot to do with the political frustration of Palestinian people, he says.

"Similarly, when young French Muslims protested last year, they were reflecting the realities of their lack of integration ... it was not about Islam," Karim insists.

While waiting to see if politically correct language can help ease current strains between Europe and Muslim countries, EU officials including External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner and Javier Solana, the bloc's foreign and security policy chief, are doing their own bit to bridge the gulf.

Both Ferrero-Waldner and Solana told EU foreign ministers in Salzburg last month that the EU must work with the UN, the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Conference to rebuild trust with Muslim countries.

The paper also said that foreign policy measures must be backed up with tougher domestic European legislation to tackle "Islamophobia" and build a better dialogue with Muslims in Europe.

These initiatives as well as the new EU lexicon may not be enough to get rid of years of misunderstandings, says Karim.

"But hopefully it will make people sit up and think a bit before they use terms and phrases about Islam," he says.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2006/04/27/2003304849

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Iran soon to celebrate as a nuclear state" Redux of Pakistan 1978-1979 (On Jimmy Carter's Watch Too)

Posted by Gabrielle Cusumano on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 5:45:15 PM
And it went on and on..."The United States plans to sell up to 50 Northrop F-5E Tiger fighter planes to Pakistan and provide assistance on its nuclear power, provided Pakistan agrees to restrict the production of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government also plans to provide diplomatic support "in principle" for Pakistan's initiative to create a nuclear-free zone in South Asia. Several U.S. officials, however, insist that the United States lost its leverage on Pakistan's nuclear program when it imposed a cutoff in military and economic aid on Pakistan. U.S. administration officials also indicate that efforts to persuade Pakistan to abandon its uranium enrichment plant have met with limited or no success. Pakistan insists that any application of safeguards on Pakistani nuclear facilities must be reciprocated by India and India's Prime Minister Morarji Desai refuses to consider any inspection mechanism for India's nuclear facilities. U.S. officials estimate that negotiations with India over the issue of safeguards might last at least until 1980."  Sound familiar?

 Nuclear Chronology

1978-1979

5 January 1978
The French newspaper Le Monde publishes a report stating that France is renegotiating a nuclear contract with Pakistan to decrease the danger of plutonium production.
--Associated Press, 6 January 1978; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 6 January 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

6 January 1978
The French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing refuses to comment on the report that appeared in the French newspaper Le Monde that France is renegotiating a nuclear contract with Pakistan.
--Associated Press, 6 January 1978; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 6 January 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

7 January 1978
Pakistan declares that it is unwilling to accept modifications to the existing contract to build a nuclear fuel reprocessing facility.
--Jonathan Kandell, Information Bank Abstracts, New York Times, 10 January 1978, Pg. 1, Column 3; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 10 January 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

9 January 1978
The French government announces that it is attempting to alter the contract to sell a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant to Pakistan. The original contract was signed in 1976. The French government is attempting to alter the contract by selling a fuel reprocessing facility that will not produce plutonium. Pakistan's military government is reportedly unwilling to accept the new terms of the contract. France's announcement does not provide any information on steps to be taken if Pakistan refuses to accept the proposal.
--Associated Press, 9 January 1978; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 9 January 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

11 January 1978
Pakistan's government demands that France deliver the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant according to the original contract "without any modifications." Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokesperson says that "All international safeguards to prevent the misuse of plutonium as prescribed by the International Atomic Energy Agency have been written into the existing agreement."
--"Pakistan: France must hold to Nuclear Deal," Washington Post, 12 January 1978, First Section, Around the World, A17; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 12 January 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

11 January 1978
The U.S. State Department announces that a group of 15 nations have agreed on a 16-provision code to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The agreement requires the participating nations to abide by the stipulated provisions in selling nuclear technology. The 16-provision code is being submitted to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). According to U.S. State Department officials, one of the provisions bans the sale of reprocessing equipment. The provisions, however, are not retroactive and hence do not apply to the French contract to supply Pakistan with a nuclear fuel reprocessing facility.
--"Nuclear Export Safeguards Detailed," Facts on File World News Digest, 13 January 1978, World Affairs, Atomic Energy; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 13 January 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

14 January 1978
At a banquet for the visiting British Prime Minister Callaghan, Pakistan's Chief Martial law Administrator, General Zia ul-Haq, proposes the creation of a nuclear weapons free zone in South Asia.
--"Head of Pakistan Government Underlines Safeguarding of State Sovereignty," Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 15 January 1978; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 6 January 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

Late March 1978
A British embassy official passes information to the U.S. State Department that Pakistan has placed orders with a British firm for inverters. Inverters are sophisticated voltage control mechanisms that could have applications in a conventional industry or in a nuclear fuel enrichment plant. The British official also discusses U.S. plans to increase attention on the uranium enrichment route to acquire weapons grade fissile material.
--Don Oberdorfer, Michael Gatier, and Maralee Schwartz, "Pakistan: The Quest for Atomic Bomb; Problem Discussed by West, Moscow, Peking," Washington Post, 27 August 1979, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 27 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

6 May 1978
Malaysian Foreign Minister Ahmad Rithauddean Bin Tengku Ismail concludes his visit to Pakistan and leaves for Malaysia. During the visit, both Malaysia and Pakistan express support for each other's initiatives to create nuclear weapons free zones in Southeast Asia and South Asia respectively.
--"Malaysian Foreign Minister Concludes Visit to Pakistan," Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 7 May 1978; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 7 May 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

20 May 1978
The U.S. State Department withholds nuclear licenses for 12 countries including Pakistan. According to the State Department, the license is being withheld because of Pakistan's attempts to acquire nuclear fuel reprocessing capacity. The amount of plutonium withheld is less than one pound. The plutonium is intended for a research reactor in which the plutonium is irradiated with alpha particles.
--Thomas O'Toole, "Licenses to Ship A-Fuel Delayed For More Review," Washington Post, 20 May 1978, First Section, A7; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 20 May 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

22 May 1978
Pakistan and Turkey sign a Trade Protocol at the second meeting of the Turkish-Pakistani Joint Committee for Economic and Technical Cooperation. Among other issues, the Joint Committee decides to cooperate in the field of nuclear energy and medicine.
--"Turkey Ratifies Trade Protocol with Pakistan," Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 12 October 1978; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 12 October 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

16 June 1978
Speaking at a banquet in honor of the visiting Chinese Vice-Premier Keng Piao, Pakistan's Chief Martial Law Administrator General Zia ul-Haq lists Pakistan's efforts at the UN to create a nuclear weapons free zone in South Asia and thanks China for its support towards the issue. The Chinese Vice-Premier Keng Piao indicates that the Chinese government will support Pakistan's efforts to create a nuclear-free zone in South Asia.
--"Pakistani Head of Government Describes Friendly Pakistan-China Relations as Model for Third World Countries," Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 17 June 1978; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 17 June 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; "China Resolutely Supports Just Struggles of South Asian Countries, Says Chinese Vice-Premier Keng Piao," Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 17 June 1978; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 17 June 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/

July 1978
Frank Allaun, a British Labor Party MP, raises a question in the House of Commons indicating that certain components being exported by a British company would enable Pakistan to build nuclear weapons. Allaun claims that the high-frequency electric equipment exactly matches the components used by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. The British company named is Emerson Electric Industrial Controls, a British subsidiary of the U.S. firm Emerson Electric. Allaun says he received information about the order from "a friend who had a friend." The British government reports back that the items specified in the Allaun's question are not included in the British export control list. The order is placed by a firm called Weargate based in Swansea, Wales. The firm is operated by two Pakistanis.
--Don Oberdorfer, Michael Gatier, and Maralee Schwartz, "Pakistan: The Quest for Atomic Bomb; Problem Discussed by West, Moscow, Peking," Washington Post, 27 August 1979, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 27 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; "Ban this Bomb-To-Be," Economist, 14 April 1979, World Politics and Current Affairs, International, Pg. 56; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 14 April 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; David K. Willis, "On the Trail of the A-Bomb Makers; Antinuclear battle Nears Climax," Christian Science Monitor (Boston), 1 December 1981, Pg. 1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 1 December 1981, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

July - September 1978
The British firm, Emerson Electric Industrial Controls, exports 31 complete inverter systems to Pakistan. The inverter systems can be used to regulate a large number of centrifuge machines in a uranium enrichment plant. The inverters are routed through Weargate Ltd. operated by Abdus Salam and Peter Griffin.
--Don Oberdorfer, Michael Gatier, and Maralee Schwartz, "Pakistan: The Quest for Atomic Bomb; Problem Discussed by West, Moscow, Peking," Washington Post, 27 August 1979, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 27 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; Steve Weissman & Herbert Krosney, "The Kindly Dr. Khan," The Islamic Bomb: The Nuclear Threat to Israel and the Middle East, (New York: 1981, Times Books), p. 186.

Summer 1978
The Swiss firm CORA Engineering completes fabrication of a uranium gasification and solidification unit for the Kahuta gas centrifuge uranium enrichment facility. The entire plant is airlifted to Pakistan using chartered C-130 Hercules transport aircraft. CORA Engineering also provides engineers and other technical personnel to help with the post-sales servicing. This is the first of the two gasification and solidification units at Kahuta.
--Steve Weissman & Herbert Krosney, "The Kindly Dr. Khan," The Islamic Bomb: The Nuclear Threat to Israel and the Middle East, (New York: 1981, Times Books), p. 190.

9 August 1978
Pakistan's ruler General Zia ul-Haq receives a letter from the French president requesting modification in the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. The modification would produce a mix of uranium and plutonium that cannot be used to make nuclear weapons. Pakistan objects to the proposed modification indicating that any such attempt will involve radical changes to the facility's design. The Pakistanis also indicate that a significant portion of the partially constructed plant would have to be brought down to incorporate the proposed modification. The Pakistanis further point out that the technique is relatively new and indicate that experiments in the United States reveal that the technique cannot be used on a commercial basis.
--"French Ask a Contract Revision," Facts on File World News Digest, 1 September 1978, Other Nations, Pakistan; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 1 September 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; "France, Pakistan to Resume Talks on Changes in Nuclear Plant Deal," Washington Post, 4 November 1978, First Section, A13; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 4 November 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

23 August 1978
The French President Valery d'Estaing informs Pakistan's ruler General Zia ul-Haq of France's decision to cancel the contract for the supply of a nuclear fuel reprocessing facility. In a letter written to the Pakistani ruler, the French president indicates that the cancellation is based on fears that Pakistan might use the plutonium from the reprocessing facility to build nuclear weapons. In the letter, the French president offers to provide a nuclear co-processing plant that produces a mix of uranium and plutonium that cannot be used to make nuclear weapons. President d'Estaing's decision represents a significant shift from the policy of former Prime Minister Jacques Chirac who was a strong advocate for proceeding with the nuclear deal. Following Chirac's departure, French officials indicate that France has become more concerned with stopping the spread of nuclear technology and President d'Estaing has been attempting to terminate the Pakistani contract for quite sometime. The United States and Canada also pressurized Pakistan to force it to cancel the reprocessing plant deal. As a result of Canada's decision to withhold the supply of uranium, Pakistan's KANUPP reactor has been operating at less than 70% of its capacity.
--Information Bank Abstracts, New York Times, 24 August 1978, Pg. 43; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 24 August 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; Milton R. Benjamin, "Pakistan Says France Killing Controversial Nuclear Deal; Pakistan Says France Killing Nuclear Deal," Washington Post, 24 August 1978, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 24 August 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

23 August 1978
Pakistan's ruler General Zia ul-Haq announces France's decision to back out of the contract to supply a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. Releasing the details of the letter at a press conference in Rawalpindi, General Zia ul-Haq says "although it [letter] was full of sentiment, it was a lemon." Pakistan's ruler General Zia ul-Haq states that Pakistan is not interested in nuclear proliferation but says that Pakistan cannot lag behind other nations in technology. General Zia ul-Haq suggests that Pakistan would acquire such technology from other means if conventional methods are not available. General ul-Haq also denies that China has agreed to provide Pakistan with the reprocessing facility.
--Milton R. Benjamin, "Pakistan Says France Killing Controversial Nuclear Deal; Pakistan Says France Killing Nuclear Deal," Washington Post, 24 August 1978, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 24 August 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; "French Ask a Contract Revision," Facts on File World News Digest, 1 September 1978, Other Nations, Pakistan; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 1 September 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

24 August 1978
The U.S. State Department announces that the United States might sign a new aid agreement with Pakistan following France's decision to cancel the contract to supply a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant to Islamabad. The United States had earlier cut-off food aid in the fall of 1977 as a measure to pressurize Pakistan to cancel the deal. The U.S. State Department spokesperson Ken Brown states 'We do indeed hope that we can sign a new aid program with Pakistan in the near future." The Carter administration has already asked the U.S. Congress to approve $69 million in development aid for the 1979 fiscal year. The development aid request is distinguished from the $53.4 million request for food aid.
--"U.S. to Renew Aid to Pakistan," Washington Post, 25 August 1978, First Section, Around the World, A23; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 25 August 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

24 August 1978
French spokespersons confirm President Giscard d'Estaing's offer to reopen talks with Pakistan on supplying a modified nuclear reprocessing plant.
--"French Ask a Contract Revision," Facts on File World News Digest, 1 September 1978, Other Nations, Pakistan; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 1 September 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

19 September 1978
Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission sources indicate that Pakistan has attained the ability to produce radioisotopes that meet more than one-third of Pakistan's requirements. Radioisotopes are used in medicine, agriculture, and industry and scientific research.
--"Pakistan Produces Radio-Isotopes," Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 20 September 1978; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 20 September 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

October 1978
Pakistan's imprisoned former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto claims that Pakistan was near to attaining "full nuclear capability" prior to his overthrow in 1977. Bhutto claims that "All we [Pakistanis] needed was the nuclear reprocessing plant." In a 319-page document smuggled out of his prison cell, Mr. Bhutto takes credit for developing Pakistan's nuclear energy program and indicates that Pakistan only needs a reprocessing facility to attain nuclear capability.
--"Bhutto- A-Capability was Near," Facts on File World News Digest, 20 October 1978, Other Nations, Pakistan; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 20 October 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; Milton R. Benjamin, "US Officials View Pakistan as the Leading Threat to Join the Nuclear Club," Washington Post, 8 December 1978, First Section, A16; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 8 December 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

October 1978
The British government imposes tighter export control laws after a Labor Party member of parliament Frank Allaun reveals that Pakistan had placed orders with a British company for inverters that could be used in a uranium fuel enrichment plant. The British company, Emerson Electric Industrial Controls, is working on 100 more inverters to be supplied to Pakistan when the government imposes further restrictions to stop the export of such components.
--Don Oberdorfer, Michael Gatier, and Maralee Schwartz, "Pakistan: The Quest for Atomic Bomb; Problem Discussed by West, Moscow, Peking," Washington Post, 27 August 1979, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 27 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

24 October 1978
The United States announces the resumption of economic assistance to Pakistan. In 1977, the United States imposed an aid embargo against Pakistan over its efforts to acquire a nuclear fuel reprocessing facility from France. The resumption of aid will provide Pakistan with $122.4 million during the fiscal year 1979. The amount allotted for food aid is $53 million.
--"US to renew Aid," Facts on File World News Digest," 3 November 1978, Other Nations, Pakistan; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 3 November 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

Fall 1978
A California based firm exports about half-dozen inverters to Pakistan.
--Don Oberdorfer, Michael Gatier, and Maralee Schwartz, "Pakistan: The Quest for Atomic Bomb; Problem Discussed by West, Moscow, Peking," Washington Post, 27 August 1979, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 27 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

November 1978
The United States offers to supply Pakistan with F5 fighter planes. The offer is formally made by the U.S. Undersecretary of State Lucy W. Benson.
--Don Oberdorfer, "Arms Sales to Pakistan Urged to Stave Off A-Bomb There," Washington Post, 6 August 1979, First Section, A7; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 6 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

3 November 1978
Pakistan and France agree to resume negotiations over the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant under construction in Pakistan. An envoy of General Zia ul-Haq meets the French President Valery d'Estaing and hands over a letter from General Haq regarding the resumption of talks.
--"France, Pakistan to Resume Talks on Changes in Nuclear Plant Deal," Washington Post, 4 November 1978, First Section, A13; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 4 November 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

8 December 1978
Top U.S. officials in the Carter administration consider Pakistan to be the biggest proliferation threat. U.S. officials point to the document written by deposed Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as evidence of Pakistan's intentions to develop a nuclear weapons program. U.S. officials believe that despite France's withdrawal from the nuclear fuel-reprocessing contract, Pakistan possesses the complete blueprints for the reprocessing facility since France provided Pakistan with those blueprints in 1976. A top US official says "The French have nipped in the bud the short route to proliferation, but the Pakistanis will probably explore a variety of other avenues."
--Milton R. Benjamin, "US Officials View Pakistan as the Leading Threat to Join the Nuclear Club," Washington Post, 8 December 1978, First Section, A16; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 8 December 1978, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

Late December 1978
Despite the decision by France to terminate the contract for the supply of the reprocessing plant, French technicians continue to work at the plant's construction site in Chashma.
--"Ban This Bomb-To-Be," Economist, 14 April 1974, World Politics and Current Affairs, International, Pg. 56; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 14 April 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

1978
Middle Eastern publications report remarks by Libya's Prime Minister offering financial support for Pakistan's nuclear energy projects.
--"Ban this Bomb-To-Be," Economist, 14 April 1979, World Politics and Current Affairs, International, Pg. 56; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 14 April 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/

1978
Pakistan's jailed former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto writes, "My single most important achievement, which, I believe, will dominate the portrait of my public life, is an agreement which I arrived at after assiduous and tenacious endeavors, spanning 11 years of negotiations... The agreement of mine concluded in June, 1976, will perhaps be my greatest achievement and contribution to the survival of our people and our nation." --"Pakistan: A Clue to the Bomb Mystery," Economist, 14 July 1979, World Politics and Current Affairs, International, Pg. 60; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 14 July 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

1978
Libya's Colonel Qadhafi allegedly sends planes carrying millions of dollars in untraceable Libyan cash to finance Pakistan's nuclear weapons program.
--John K. Cooley, "Qaddafi's Great Aim for Libya is a Nuclear Capability of its Own," Christian Science Monitor (Boston), 12 November 1980, Pg. 14; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 12 November 1980, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

Early 1979
U.S. officials consider the option of sabotaging the uranium enrichment facility being constructed in Pakistan. The option is rejected owing to its dangerous nature and political infeasibility.
-- Richard Burt, Information Bank Abstracts, New York Times, 17 August 1979, Pg. 6, Column 3; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 17 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/

21 January 1979
At a banquet in honor of visiting Chinese Vice-Premier Li Xiannian, Pakistan's ruler General Zia ul-Haq expresses hope for the creation of a nuclear-free zone in South Asia. In his speech, the Chinese vice-premier expresses support for such a zone.
--"Pakistan President Fetes Chinese Vice-Premier," Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 23 January 1978; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 23 January1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

January 1979
The United States initiates a diplomatic dialog with the Pakistani government after the U.S. government acquires concrete evidence of Pakistan's uranium enrichment program.
--Don Oberdorfer, Michael Gatier, and Maralee Schwartz, "Pakistan: The Quest for Atomic Bomb; Problem Discussed by West, Moscow, Peking," Washington Post, 27 August 1979, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 27 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

Mid-February 1979
India's Prime Minister Morarji Desai writes a letter to Pakistani President General Zia ul-Haq expressing concern over Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. Indian scientists are reported to have learned from European commercial sources about Pakistan's recent acquisition of large quantities of 'maraging steel,' an extremely hard variety of steel used to make critical components of a gas centrifuge uranium enrichment system. President Zia ul-Haq, in his reply, denies any nuclear weapons program and proposes a joint Indo-Pakistani declaration renouncing nuclear weapons and placing all nuclear facilities in both countries under international inspections.
--Don Oberdorfer, Washington Post, 7 April 1979, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 7 April 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

February 1979
The French government retains an ambiguous attitude toward French companies that have contracts for the delivery of mechanical and nuclear-sensitive parts for the plutonium reprocessing plant that was to be built with French assistance in Pakistan. At the urging of Foreign Minister Jean Francois-Poncet, Industry Minister Andre Giraud issues a formal notice to French companies not to supply any further equipment for the Chashma nuclear reprocessing plant.
--Steve Weissman & Herbert Krosney, "More Bang for a Buck," The Islamic Bomb: The Nuclear Threat to Israel and the Middle East, (New York: 1981, Times Books), p. 200.

1-2 March 1979
U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher visits Pakistan. Among the list of high priority items for discussion is Pakistan's construction of a uranium enrichment facility. During the talks, Christopher fails to persuade the Pakistani leader General Zia ul-Haq to abandon the construction of the uranium enrichment plant.  (Is this is the same guy Clinton used for North Korea?)
--Don Oberdorfer, Washington Post, 7 April 1979, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 7 April 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; Don Oberdorfer, Michael Gatier, and Maralee Schwartz, "Pakistan: The Quest for Atomic Bomb; Problem Discussed by West, Moscow, Peking," Washington Post, 27 August 1979, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 27 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

23 March 1979
The U.S. government tightens its export control laws to include inverters and other components that could be used to build a uranium enrichment plant.
--Don Oberdorfer, Michael Gatier, and Maralee Schwartz, "Pakistan: The Quest for Atomic Bomb; Problem Discussed by West, Moscow, Peking," Washington Post, 27 August 1979, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 27 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

March 1979
The United States approaches Pakistan to allow international inspections of its nuclear research facilities. Pakistan rejects the request calling it discriminatory since other nations possessing nuclear research programs have not been asked to open their facilities for inspections.
--"Pakistan Reaction to Cut in Aid by US Over Nuclear Programme," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 12 April 1979, Part 3. The Far East, A. International Affairs, 1. General and Western Affairs, FE/6089/A1/2; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 12 April 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

March - Early April 1979
According to U.S. officials, Pakistan is informed in an informal way regarding an impending cutoff in economic and military aid.
--Don Oberdorfer, Washington Post, 7 April 1979, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 7 April 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

6 April 1979
The United States informs Pakistan of its decision to cut off economic and military aid as a result of Pakistan's efforts to secretly build a uranium enrichment facility that can produce weapons grade uranium. A U.S. State Department spokesperson also says that the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan has been recalled for "consultations." Pakistani embassy minister Hayat Mehdi is informed that the United States is "winding down in an orderly manner our aid" as required by an amendment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. Pakistan's Washington embassy spokesperson Khalid Ali calls the aid cutoff as "unfair and discriminatory" and insists that Pakistan is not pursing atomic weapons. Ali points out that no aid cutoff was imposed on India despite its nuclear test and the absence of international inspections in its facilities. The aid cutoff is imposed after the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) confirms reports from European intelligence services that Pakistan is acquiring the ability to make nuclear weapons. Diplomatic efforts failed to persuade Pakistan to place the enrichment facility under international inspection and safeguards. According to U.S. officials, the execution of former Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto did not have any bearing on the decision to cancel the aid. The cancelled amount involves $40 million that was approved for fiscal '79 and the entire $45 million that was approved for fiscal '80. An amount of $40 million for food aid is not cancelled. A small military training program grant of $600,000 is also cancelled under the cutoff. However, Pakistan is permitted to purchase equipment from the United States. According to U.S. officials, Pakistan is in the beginning stages of the construction of a uranium enrichment facility based on the URENCO enrichment process. According to U.S. officials, Pakistan will require many years to produce a nuclear bomb. Pakistan, however, is believed to have acquired most of the equipment needed to operate the plant. The United States also believes that Pakistan's ability to procure the equipment from European companies reinforces the inadequacy of existing export control mechanisms regarding sensitive technology. U.S. State department officials insist that the construction of the facility has been continuing for quite some time and reveal that high-level talks have been held between the United States and Pakistan on the issue.
--Don Oberdorfer, Washington Post, 7 April 1979, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 7 April 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; Richard Burt, Information Bank Abstracts, New York Times, 7 April 1979, Pg. 1, Column 1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 7 April 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; "Pakistan Foreign Ministry Spokesman on US Economic Aid Stoppage," Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 9 April 1979; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 9 April 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; "US Cuts Aid to Pakistan; A-Arms Threat Cited," Facts on File World News Digest, 20 April 1979, World Affairs; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 20 April 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/

8 April 1979
A spokesperson of Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs issues a statement denying that Pakistan intends to develop nuclear weapons under the guise of a peaceful nuclear program. The spokesperson terms the aid cutoff as an "act of discrimination against Pakistan." The spokesperson says, "Pakistan which has subjected its nuclear facilities to international inspection has been deprived of its economic aid. Such a policy cannot be termed fair." The spokesperson adds that Pakistan is willing to accept all safeguards arrangements for its peaceful nuclear research if such safeguards are applied in a non-discriminatory manner. The spokesperson explains that Pakistan is willing to have safeguards imposed on its facilities if the United States insists on similar safeguards on the nuclear programs of other countries that have acquired nuclear weapons capability or on the threshold of acquiring nuclear weapons capability. The spokesperson states that Pakistan could not unilaterally allow inspections on its nuclear facilities unless countries with more advanced nuclear programs allow such inspections. The spokesperson also denies that Pakistan is receiving assistance from Libya and other countries for its nuclear program. The spokesperson also indicates that Pakistan had proposed a reciprocal inspection process between India and Pakistan of their nuclear facilities. The proposal, according to the spokesperson, was rejected by India.
--"Pakistan Reaction to Cut in Aid by US Over Nuclear Programme," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 12 April 1979, Part 3. The Far East, A. International Affairs, 1. General and Western Affairs, FE/6089/A1/2; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 12 April 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; "Pakistan Foreign Ministry Spokesman on US Economic Aid Stoppage," Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 9 April 1979; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 9 April 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

9 April 1979
Pakistan denies attempts to produce nuclear weapons and links the imposition of aid cutoff to the influence of "Zionist circles" that fear that Pakistan's bomb will be used by the Muslim world to intimidate Israel. Certain reports suggest the involvement of Libya and Saudi Arabia in Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. According to these reports, Libya and Saudi Arabia are financing Pakistan's program in return for access to the nuclear devices.
--Robert Trumbull, Information Bank Abstracts, New York Times, 9 April 1979, Pg. 1, Column 2; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 9 April 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/

17 April 1979
The United States plans to sell up to 50 Northrop F-5E Tiger fighter planes to Pakistan and provide assistance on its nuclear power, provided Pakistan agrees to restrict the production of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government also plans to provide diplomatic support "in principle" for Pakistan's initiative to create a nuclear-free zone in South Asia. Several U.S. officials, however, insist that the United States lost its leverage on Pakistan's nuclear program when it imposed a cutoff in military and economic aid on Pakistan. U.S. administration officials also indicate that efforts to persuade Pakistan to abandon its uranium enrichment plant have met with limited or no success. Pakistan insists that any application of safeguards on Pakistani nuclear facilities must be reciprocated by India and India's Prime Minister Morarji Desai refuses to consider any inspection mechanism for India's nuclear facilities. U.S. officials estimate that negotiations with India over the issue of safeguards might last at least until 1980. However, U.S. officials believe that the Pakistani issue needs to be handled in an urgent manner and cannot wait until Indo-U.S. negotiations are completed.
--Richard Burt, Information Bank Abstracts, New York Times, 17 April 1979, Pg. 3, Column 4; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 17 April 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

1 May 1979
In a testimony to the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Nuclear Proliferation, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Thomas R. Pickering testifies that the United States has acted too late to keep Pakistan from acquiring the capacity to make nuclear weapons. Pickering states that Pakistan succeeded in obtaining sufficient special equipment for producing weapons grade uranium before its efforts were discovered. He further elaborates that Pakistan achieved its equipment requirements by conducting "end runs" around international export controls. Pickering adds, "We believe we have the capacity to slow down that kind of activity. But no one is willing to say ... we have the ability to stop it." Pakistan will be able to produce sufficient weapons grade uranium to make nuclear weapons in two to five years. Pickering also informs the Senate Subcommittee that diplomatic efforts to persuade Pakistan to abandon its military nuclear program have not produced positive results. India's nuclear explosion in 1974 as well as the general instability in the region contributed to Pakistan's decision to acquire nuclear weapons. Pickering denies that the United States is offering fighter planes and assistance to Pakistan's nuclear power program. He explains that the United States is "... concerned that Pakistan's program is not peaceful but related to an effort to develop a nuclear explosive capacity." However, Pickering refuses to discuss Libya's role in financing the program during the open session. Both he and U.S. Senator John Glenn (D-Ohio) agree that Pakistan worked around the export controls by procuring bits and pieces of equipment around the world by misstating that the components will be used for peaceful purposes like textile industry.
--Stuart Auerbach, "Panel Told Pakistan Gained A-Weapons Ability by 'End Runs'," Washington Post, 2 May 1979, First Section, A15; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 2 May 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

Spring 1979
Pakistan shuts down the reactor at the Karachi Nuclear Power Plant (KANUPP).
--Stuart Auerbach, "Pakistan Holds A-Option Open; Zia's Remarks Seen Likely to Fuel International Controversy Over his Country's Goals in its Nuclear Power Program," Washington Post, 28 October 1979, First Section, A17; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 28 October 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

Spring 1979
The U.S. government queries its Swiss counterpart on the sales of high-vacuum valves and the gasification and solidification unit that the Swiss companies VAT and CORA Engineering have sold to Pakistan. The United States also complains that another Swiss company Sulzer Brothers is likely helping Pakistan with plutonium reprocessing technology. On investigating the sales, the Swiss government concludes that the companies have acted legally as the aforementioned items are not on Switzerland's export control list.
--Steve Weissman & Herbert Krosney, "The Kindly Dr. Khan," The Islamic Bomb: The Nuclear Threat to Israel and the Middle East, (New York: 1981, Times Books), pp. 190-191.

1 May 1979
The U.S. State Department states that several European countries have pledged support in preventing Pakistan from further buying any equipment for its uranium enrichment program. The Swiss government also announces an investigation to probe the sales made by several Swiss companies to Pakistan. U.S. officials indicate that they are soliciting cooperation from Britain, France, West Germany, and Japan.
--Stuart Auerbach, "Panel Told Pakistan Gained A-Weapons Ability by 'End Runs'," Washington Post, 2 May 1979, First Section, A15; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 2 May 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

2 May 1979
U.S. officials confirm that Pakistan has started to build a plutonium plant that will provide an alternative to using weapons grade uranium for its nuclear weapons.
-- Richard Burt, Information Bank Abstracts, New York Times, 2 May 1979, Pg. 10, Column 3; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 2 May 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/

2 May 1979
Pakistan's Ambassador to the United Nations Niaz A. Naik rejects an American press report stating that Pakistan is planning to build a nuclear bomb. Naik states that non-peaceful uses of nuclear energy are not helpful for Pakistan's objectives. He also denies any funding of Pakistan's nuclear program by either Libya or other Arab countries. Naik blames the United States for not acting when 200 kg of material that can be used to make about 10 nuclear weapons had disappeared from the United States and was found in other countries. On the other hand, he points out that the United States is accusing Pakistan of making a nuclear bomb even if Pakistan is buying a simple steel pipe for its textile industry.
--"Other Reports: Pakistan Denies US Report on Nuclear Bomb Manufacture," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 12 May 1978, Part 3 The Far East, A. International Affairs, 1. General and Western Affairs, FE/6114/A1/3; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 12 May 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

3 May 1979
The Swiss government announces that it is investigating the sale of equipment to Pakistan that could be used to make enriched uranium for nuclear weapons. A Swiss government spokesperson indicates that the investigating authorities intend to find out the nature of deliveries made to Pakistan by the Swiss companies. The investigation will also verify if the exported equipment needed authorization for delivery. The spokesperson indicates that the United States prompted the Swiss government to investigate the matter.
--"Swiss Probe Sale to Pakistan," Washington Post, 3 May 1979, First Section, Around the World, A32; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 3 May 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/

21 May 1979
Pakistan and Maldives issue a Joint Statement reaffirming their support for the creation of a nuclear weapons-free zone in South Asia.
--"Pakistan, Maldives Call for Creation of Nuclear Free Zone in South Asia," Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 22 May 1979; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 22 May 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/

27 May 1979
The Carter administration proposes the creation of a nuclear weapons-free zone in South Asia in order to prevent an arms race between India and Pakistan. The proposal requires India and Pakistan to abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons and allow international inspection of nuclear facilities. According to U.S. officials, the proposal will be backed with security guarantees by the United States, USSR, and China. The guarantor countries are also expected not to threaten either India or Pakistan with nuclear weapons.
--Information Bank Abstracts, New York Times, 27 May 1979, Pg. 8, Column 1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 27 May 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

28 May 1979
The French Atomic Energy Chief Michel Pecqueur writes to President of CEA-owned industrial affiliate Cogema Georges Besse inquiring whether the company SGN is continuing technical assistance for the plutonium reprocessing facility in Pakistan, despite the cancellation of the contract by the French government. Pecqueur writes, "it is hardly necessary for me to stress the seriousness of the facts, should they be in any way confirmed, as transactions of this kind would call into question the national policy on nonproliferation at the very highest level."
--Steve Weissman & Herbert Krosney, "More Bang for a Buck," The Islamic Bomb: The Nuclear Threat to Israel and the Middle East, (New York: 1981, Times Books), p. 196.

31 May 1979
Georges Besse writes to SGN President F. X. Poincet inquiring whether SGN is continuing nuclear-related transfers to Pakistan. In his reply, Poincet denies that SGN is selling any contraband materials to Pakistan. He admits however that SGN is continuing with limited involvement in relation to "preparation of orders" for some Pakistanis who are still "resident" at SGN. However Poincet hints that Pakistan may have gone behind their backs to procure equipment specified in documents supplied by SGN earlier. The nuclear industry's trade journal Nucleonics Week alleges that Pakitsan has access to 95 percent of the design plans for the plutonium reprocessing facility and these will likely enable Pakistan to finish the plant despite the termination of French assistance.
--Steve Weissman & Herbert Krosney, "More Bang for a Buck," The Islamic Bomb: The Nuclear Threat to Israel and the Middle East, (New York: 1981, Times Books), p. 196.

16 June 1979
A spokesperson for Pakistan's embassy in Washington DC states that Pakistan did not request or receive any financial assistance from Libya for its peaceful nuclear program. The spokesperson indicates that Pakistan understands the concern over the spread of nuclear weapons, but cautions that discriminatory or selective policies will not decrease the threat. The spokesperson adds that Pakistan is willing to support any regional or collective efforts to tackle the threat of nuclear proliferation.
--"Pakistan Denial on Libyan Aid in Nuclear Programme," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 23 June 1979, Part 3 The Far East, 4. The Middle East, FE/6149/A4/2; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 23 June 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/

Third Week of June 1979
The U.S. government forms an interagency taskforce comprising of officials from the State Department, Energy Department, Intelligence agencies, and military officials to frame policy options to deal with Pakistan's attempts to develop nuclear weapons. The interagency group, called the "Gerry Smith South Asian Study Group," is headed by Gerald C. Smith, the U.S. Ambassador-at-large for nonproliferation. The study group is expected to produce a report in September.
-- Don Oberdorfer, Michael Gatier, and Maralee Schwartz, "Pakistan: The Quest for Atomic Bomb; Problem Discussed by West, Moscow, Peking," Washington Post, 27 August 1979, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 27 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

Late June 1979
The French Ambassador to Pakistan and his senior colleague are beaten outside the Kahuta nuclear research facility, 25 miles south of Islamabad. The French Ambassador and his colleague were apparently on a sightseeing tour.
--"Journalist Attacked," Washington Post, 30 June 1979, First Section, Around the World, A13; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 30 June 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; "Pakistan: A Clue to the Bomb Mystery," Economist, 14 July 1979, World Politics and Current Affairs, International, Pg. 60; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 14 July 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/

28 June 1979
Pakistan allocates $48,000,000 for its nuclear program for the year 1979-80 in its annual budget. The funds will be utilized for various activities like buying equipment for laboratories and a nuclear research centre, uranium exploration, building a fuel reprocessing plant, and other administrative activities.
--"Pakistan Protest to UAA Over Nuclear Bomb Allegation," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 10 July 1979, Part 3. The Far East, A. International Affairs, 4. The Middle East, FE/6163/A4/1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 10 July 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

28 June 1979
Pakistan denies report that it is planning to conduct a nuclear test in October. Pakistan indicates that it will lodge a formal protest with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) government over a report in the magazine Eight Days that reported that Pakistan is planning to conduct a nuclear test in October. The magazine is owned by Sayid Muhammad Mahdi at-Tajir, the UAE's Ambassador to Britain. A Pakistani Foreign Ministry official terms the report as "highly damaging and irresponsible" and claims that Pakistan did not procure any restricted equipment. The Pakistani official offers to open the Kahuta facility to international inspections and says that Pakistan will honor international safeguards. Kahuta is the location for the uranium enrichment facility being built by Pakistan.
--"Pakistan Protest to UAA Over Nuclear Bomb Allegation," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 10 July 1979, Part 3. The Far East, A. International Affairs, 4. The Middle East, FE/6163/A4/1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 10 July 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

29 June 1979
According to the Reuters news agency, Dutch authorities are investigating reports that Pakistan obtained information on uranium enrichment from that country. Also sources in UN circles believe that Pakistan is making attempts to explode a nuclear device in the near future.
--"'Pravda' on Reported Pakistani Development of Atomic Bomb," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 30 June 1979, Part 1. The USSR, 3. The Far East, SU/6155/A3/1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 30 June 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/

30 June 1979
Chris Sherwell, a British journalist and a correspondent for the Financial Times and the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is beaten up outside the house of Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan in Islamabad. The journalist is investigating allegations regarding Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. The Pakistani government denies any responsibility over the event.
--"Journalist Attacked," Washington Post, 30 June 1979, First Section, Around the World, A13; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 30 June 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; "Pakistan: A Clue to the Bomb Mystery," Economist, 14 July 1979, World Politics and Current Affairs, International, Pg. 60; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 14 July 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/

30 June 1979
Pakistan's advisor on Foreign Affairs Agha Shahi rejects reports in the Western press that Pakistan's nuclear research program is intended for building a nuclear bomb. Mr. Shahi denies that Pakistan is receiving financial assistance from Libya or any other Arab country for building an Islamic bomb. Mr. Shahi also denies allegations that Pakistan is manufacturing a hydrogen bomb and says that the hydrogen bomb is beyond the reach of a developing country like Pakistan. Mr. Shahi condemns the demands to open Pakistan's nuclear facilities for inspections and questions why such demands are not placed on Israel and South Africa.
--"Other Reports; Pakistan Denies Western Reports About Nuclear Programme," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 3 July 1979, Part 3 The Far East, A. International Affairs, 1. General and Western Affairs, FE/6157/A1/4; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 3 July 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/

June 1979
U.S. President Jimmy Carter and the Soviet President Leonid Brezhnev inconclusively discuss Pakistan's nuclear weapons program during their summit meeting. U.S. President Carter also corresponds secretly with leaders in France, West Germany, Japan, Britain, and other nations. The United States is also engaging China in its efforts to deal with Pakistan.
--Don Oberdorfer, Michael Gatier, and Maralee Schwartz, "Pakistan: The Quest for Atomic Bomb; Problem Discussed by West, Moscow, Peking," Washington Post, 27 August 1979, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 27 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

June - July 1979
Sources indicate that Pakistan is attempting to explode a nuclear bomb in October. Pakistan's security forces are reported to be working around Hoshab, a small desert town located 60 miles inland from the Makran coast in southwestern Pakistan. The region is inhospitable and a few nomads living there are reported to have been re-located to different areas. Reliable reports suggest the presence of military construction activity in the area. Experts indicate that Pakistan might test a nuclear bomb in 1979 only if it receives sufficient weapons-grade material from another source, since its reprocessing plant and its uranium enrichment plant are still far from operating at full capacity. Experts suspect that source to be China.
--"Pakistan: A Clue to the Bomb Mystery," Economist, 14 July 1979, World Politics and Current Affairs, International, Pg. 60; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 14 July 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

Late June - August 1979
The interagency group tasked with framing policy options for dealing with Pakistan's attempts to build nuclear weapons believes that it is difficult to stop Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. The group cites the following reasons for its observations. First, according to U.S. technical experts, Pakistan has acquired most of the technology needed for the uranium enrichment plant. According to these officials, technology denial by Western industrial countries will not stop Pakistan's construction of the enrichment facility. Second, Pakistan's military government strongly supports the development of nuclear weapons. Third, Pakistan's development of nuclear weapons is inter-linked with other complex global issues.
--Don Oberdorfer, Michael Gatier, and Maralee Schwartz, "Pakistan: The Quest for Atomic Bomb; Problem Discussed by West, Moscow, Peking," Washington Post, 27 August 1979, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 27 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/

4 July 1979
Sources indicate that Pakistan can possess the ability to explode a nuclear device before the beginning of autumn. The location of the testing site is highly classified and believed to be located near Multan in Punjab province. Another possible location for the site is the Chitral region in the northwestern border region. According to sources, two Pakistani scientists employed in Holland have returned to Pakistan and are believed to be working on the nuclear weapons program. The Pakistani government has allocated generous funds for the completion of the project. Sources believe that Pakistan possesses sufficient plutonium to conduct one nuclear explosion.
--"In Brief; 'Enough Plutonium' for Pakistani Nuclear Device," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 6 July 1979, Part 1 The USSR, A. International Affairs, 3. The Far East, SU/6160/A3/3; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 6 July 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/

5 July 1979
A Pakistani official spokesperson, referring to the recent incident involving the British journalist Chris Sherwell, claims that Sherwell took advantage of the government's cooperation and liberal attitude and acted in a manner that was harmful to Pakistan's security interests. The spokesperson alleges that Sherwell illegally attempted to obtain information on Pakistan's nuclear research program even though sufficient information was provided by the Foreign Office, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Information Ministry. According to the spokesperson, Sherwell entered a restricted area and tried to contact officials who were not qualified to provide interviews. Referring to the incident that resulted in the beating up of the journalist, the spokesperson says that Pakistan's law prohibited the scientist from granting interviews and Sherwell should not have attempted to visit the official. The spokesperson says that the government is preparing a report about the incident and based on the final results, the government will decide if the journalist will be allowed to stay in the country.
--"Other Reports; Pakistan Official on BBC Correspondent's Activities," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 10 July 1979, Part 3 The Far East, A. International Affairs, 1. General and Western Affairs, FE/6163/A1/4; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 10 July 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/

6 July 1979
The Pakistani government charges the British journalist Chris Sherwell with committing acts that are prejudicial to Pakistan's security. Sherwell is accused of "snooping and trespassing" security areas with the objective of obtaining information on Pakistan's nuclear research program. The government denies any responsibility over the assault on Mr. Sherwell.
--"Pakistan Accuses Journalist," Washington Post, 6 July 1979, First Section, Around the World, A20; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 6 July 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/

28 July 1979
Pakistan's President Zia ul-Haq declares that he would not compromise on Pakistan's sovereignty regarding its peaceful nuclear program. Addressing the nation, the President says that Pakistan requires nuclear energy to meet its growing energy requirements. The President states that economic aid to Pakistan has been cut off despite the peaceful nature of the nuclear program. General Haq claims that Pakistanis have supported the government in absorbing the impact of the aid cut-off and declares that "we shall eat crumbs but will not allow our national interest to be compromised in any manner whatsoever."
--"Pakistan President Reaffirms Peaceful Nuclear Programme," Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 29 July 1979; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 29 July 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

1 - 4 August 1979
Senior Democratic and Republican members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee write a letter to the Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance outlining a proposal to provide new "security support" to Pakistan in order to halt Pakistan's efforts to build a nuclear bomb. The proposal included providing Pakistan with conventional arms to meet its security needs. The letter urges the Carter administration to "understand and more effectively treat Pakistan's underlying security concerns." Rep. Clement J. Zablocki (D-Wis), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and a signer of the letter, suggests that arms sales on credit might be undertaken by presidential waiver of the sanctions or some other legal procedure. Rep. Paul Findley (R-Ill), another signer of the letter, indicates that Congress might have to amend the anti-proliferation act that led to the aid cutoff. The United States terminated military and economic aid to Pakistan in April as stipulated in an amendment to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Act. The other signers of the letter are Rep. William S. Broomfield (R-Mich), Rep. Jonathan B. Bingham (D-NY), and Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind).
--Don Oberdorfer, "Arms Sales to Pakistan Urged to Stave Off A-Bomb There," Washington Post, 6 August 1979, First Section, A7; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 6 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

10 August 1979
A U.S. Senator, Charles Percy (R-Ill), states in Calcutta that Pakistan intends to produce nuclear weapons that can hit New Delhi, Bombay, and Calcutta.
--Don Oberdorfer, "US Denies Covert Plans in Pakistan; Possible Sabotage to reactor Discounted," Washington Post, 15 August 1979, First Section, A17; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 15 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

12 August 1979
The Carter administration is considering several initiatives to prevent Pakistan from acquiring nuclear weapons. The efforts range from imposing stringent economic sanctions to supplying advanced conventional arms. One of the options being considered includes undertaking covert operations using paramilitary forces to sabotage Pakistan's uranium enrichment plant. The other two options are imposing harsh economic sanctions or providing Pakistan with advanced conventional weapons like the F-16 fighter planes.
--Richard Burt, Information Bank Abstracts, New York Times, 12 August 1979, Pg. 1, Column 2; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 12 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; Don Oberdorfer, "US Denies Covert Plans in Pakistan; Possible Sabotage to reactor Discounted," Washington Post, 15 August 1979, First Section, A17; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 15 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; "US 'Campaign' Against Pakistan's Nuclear Programme," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 16 August 1979, Part 3. The Far East, A. International Affairs, 1. General and Western Affairs, FE/6195/A1/1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 16 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; "US Seeks A-Project Halt," Facts in File World News Digest, 17 August 1979, World Affairs. Pakistan; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 17 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

13 August 1979
U.S. State Department spokesperson, Thomas Reston, says that covert action is not under consideration as an option to prevent Pakistan from acquiring nuclear weapons capability.
--Don Oberdorfer, "US Denies Covert Plans in Pakistan; Possible Sabotage to reactor Discounted," Washington Post, 15 August 1979, First Section, A17; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 15 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

14 August 1979
The U.S. State Department refutes reports that the United States is planning a sabotage action to disrupt Pakistan's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. The report citing such a plan appeared in the New York Times.
--"Other Reports; Pakistan Reaction to Alleged US Threat to Nuclear Plants," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 15 August 1979, Part 3 The Far East, A. International Affairs, 1. General and Western Affairs, FE/6194/A1/2; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 15 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

14 August 1979
Pakistan's politicians and government officials react strongly against a news report suggesting that the United States is considering a commando raid against Pakistan's nuclear facilities. Pakistan's Defense Minister Ali Ahmed Talpur says that Pakistan will not compromise on its nuclear program. A news report in the Karachi newspaper, The Star, says that anti-aircraft guns are being positioned around nuclear installations to deter any attack against them. According to the report, a task force has been formed to prevent any hostile acts against Pakistan's nuclear facilities.
--"Other Reports; Pakistan Reaction to Alleged US Threat to Nuclear Plants," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts," 15 August 1979, Part 3. The Far East, A. International Affairs, 1. General and Western Affairs, FE/6194/A1/2; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 15 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

14 August 1979
Pakistan's Foreign Ministry summons the U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan Arthur Hummel and expresses serious concern over the efforts by the U.S. government to threaten and intimidate Pakistan's government over its peaceful nuclear program. The Foreign Ministry informs the Ambassador that such actions by the United States will harm peace and stability in the region. The Foreign Ministry also informs the ambassador that Pakistan might lodge a protest in an "international forum" if the United States persists in its efforts to threaten Pakistan's nuclear program. The Foreign Office also terms the recent statement by U.S. Senator Charles Percy regarding Pakistan's nuclear program as an "incitement" for India.
--Don Oberdorfer, "US Denies Covert Plans in Pakistan; Possible Sabotage to reactor Discounted," Washington Post, 15 August 1979, First Section, A17; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 15 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; "US 'Campaign' Against Pakistan's Nuclear Programme," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 16 August 1979, Part 3. The Far East, A. International Affairs, 1. General and Western Affairs, FE/6195/A1/1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 16 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

14 August 1979
A senior State Department official states that a covert operation to sabotage Pakistan's uranium enrichment plant is "not an option that we seriously or systematically considered." The official states that the United States wants to pursue good relations with Pakistan despite its objections to Pakistan's plans to develop nuclear weapons. According to a U.S. sources, the United States is also discouraging India from pursuing any paramilitary action to disable Pakistan's uranium enrichment facility being constructed. Pakistani officials are not content with the assurances provided by the State department and insist that the reassurances "did not rule out the option of action by paramilitary forces ... which will amount to outright aggression."
-- Don Oberdorfer, "US Denies Covert Plans in Pakistan; Possible Sabotage to Reactor Discounted," Washington Post, 15 August 1979, First Section, A17; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 15 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

15 August 1979
U.S. State Department spokesperson Thomas Reston states that the United States policy towards Pakistan is "under constant review" and denies reports of covert operations to sabotage nuclear facilities in Pakistan.
--Information Bank Abstracts, New York Times, 15 August 1979, Pg. 11, Column 4; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 15 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

17 August 1979
According to U.S. officials, unconfirmed reports suggest that Pakistan is preparing an underground site for testing a nuclear device.
--Richard Burt, Information Bank Abstracts, New York Times, 17 August 1979, Pg. 6, Column 3; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 17 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

Late August 1979
Pakistani President Zia ul-Haq writes a letter to India's Prime Minister reaffirming that Pakistan's nuclear program is only intended for peaceful purposes.
--"South Asia; Pakistan-India Talks in Havana: Nuclear Issues," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 10 September 1979, part 3. The Far East, A. International Affairs, 3. Far Eastern Relations, FE/6215/A3/10; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 10 September 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

27 August 1979
South Asian sources suggest that Pakistan might detonate a nuclear bomb at an underground testing site before the country's general elections are held in November. Pakistani President General Zia ul-Haq hopes to win popular support by exploding a nuclear bomb. However, certain U.S. State Department officials express doubts over Pakistan's ability to conduct a nuclear test for at least several years.
--Melinda Beck, "Pakistan's Political Bomb," Newsweek, 27 August 1979, Periscope, Pg. 13; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 27 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

29 August 1979
Pakistan's President General Zia ul-Haq states that Pakistan will acquire nuclear energy for peaceful purposes despite the challenges in acquiring such a capacity.
--From News Services and Staff Reports, Washington Post, 29 August 1979, First Section, Around the World, For the Record, A14; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 29 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

30 August 1979
In his radio address to the nation, Pakistan's President General Zia ul-Haq declares that Pakistan must acquire nuclear energy to meet its power requirements. Haq declares that Pakistan's nuclear program is only intended for peaceful purposes. The Pakistani president asks France to honor its commitment to supply a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and states that Pakistan will acquire a reprocessing plant under any circumstances. Haq deplores the propaganda spread in Western media against Pakistan's nuclear program and states that Pakistan will not give up its claim to acquire nuclear technology. The Pakistani president further reaffirms Pakistan's commitment to create nuclear weapons-free zones in the Indian Ocean and the South Asian regions.
--"Broadcast by President Zia ul-Haq," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 3 September 1979, Part 3. The Far East, C. Pakistan: Relations with Kabul, Nuclear Energy, Elections, FE/6209/C/1 (A1, A3, B, W); in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 3 September 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

August 1979
A truck carrying uranium from a mining plant in Niger is found overturned and empty. The uranium is believed to have been diverted to Libya, which is believed to support Pakistan's nuclear program.
--Associated Press, 26 November 1979, International News; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 26 November 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

August 1979
U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that Pakistan can explode a nuclear bomb by the end of this year. Previous intelligence estimates predicted that Pakistan would need four years to develop nuclear weapons.
--"US Seeks A-Project Halt," Facts in File World News Digest, 17 August 1979, World Affairs. Pakistan; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 17 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

August 1979
Pakistani officials reveal that Libya's Colonel Muammar Qaddafi offered to finance Pakistan's acquisition of the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in return for the plutonium produced by the plant. According to Pakistani officials, the offer was rejected by Pakistan and Qaddafi cancelled a plan to finance a French-Pakistani contract to build a submarine. U.S. officials indicate that they cannot ascertain the existence of a deal between Tripoli and Islamabad over Pakistan's nuclear plans but they also do not rule out the presence of such an arrangement.
--Don Oberdorfer, Michael Gatier, and Maralee Schwartz, "Pakistan: The Quest for Atomic Bomb; Problem Discussed by West, Moscow, Peking," Washington Post, 27 August 1979, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 27 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/

August 1979
According to U.S. officials, photographs of the heavily guarded and elaborate Kahuta plant being constructed indicate that the objective of the facility is to produce enriched uranium. According to U.S. officials, Pakistan's civilian nuclear program does not need such large quantities of enriched uranium. U.S. officials estimate that Pakistan will be able to produce weapons grade uranium after three to five years of construction and operation of the enrichment plant. Pakistan, however, needs natural uranium to fuel the plant and officials believe that Pakistan will be able to procure sufficient quantities of natural uranium. Differing estimates are given regarding the time period needed for Pakistan to produce a bomb. Some U.S. officials estimate that Pakistan can produce a bomb in as quickly as two years whereas others predict that problems in construction and operation might delay the production of enriched uranium or even stop the enrichment effort. Pakistan also continues to work on the plutonium route. Pakistan is continuing work on the partially built French reprocessing plant even after France withdrew assistance for construction of the plant. According to informed estimates, Pakistan is expected to produce weapons grade plutonium in six to 10 years. Pakistan also possesses a pilot "hot cell" reprocessing capability at the Pakistan Institute of Nuclear Science and Technology (PINSTECH). The pilot reprocessing facility can quickly produce small amount of bomb material if the right elements are present.
--Don Oberdorfer, Michael Gatier, and Maralee Schwartz, "Pakistan: The Quest for Atomic Bomb; Problem Discussed by West, Moscow, Peking," Washington Post, 27 August 1979, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 27 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

August 1975 - August 1979
According to a U.S. estimate, Pakistan spends $100 million for its uranium enrichment program annually. However, the total cost is likely to be several hundred million dollars. A major concern is that Pakistan might export highly enriched uranium to reclaim some of the costs.
--Don Oberdorfer, Michael Gatier, and Maralee Schwartz, "Pakistan: The Quest for Atomic Bomb; Problem Discussed by West, Moscow, Peking," Washington Post, 27 August 1979, First Section, A1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 27 August 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

1 September 1979
Pakistan's Foreign Affairs Adviser Agha Shahi meets India's External Affairs Minister S.N. Mishra. During the meeting, Shahi says that Pakistan does not wish to produce a nuclear bomb and informs Mishra that Pakistan is proceeding with a uranium enrichment plant based on a light-water reactor purely for economic reasons and for conducting research and development activities.
--"South Asia; Pakistan-India Talks in Havana: Nuclear Issues," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 10 September 1979, part 3. The Far East, A. International Affairs, 3. Far Eastern Relations, FE/6215/A3/10; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 10 September 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

3 - 7 September 1979
Agha Shahi, Pakistan's Foreign Affairs adviser provides the first official pronouncement that Pakistan is developing a uranium enrichment capability.
--"Pakistan; Baiting the Trap," Economist, 8 September 1979, World Politics and Current Affairs, International, Pg. 69; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 8 September 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

3 September 1979
Pakistan's President Zia ul-Haq meets with India's External Affairs Minister S.N. Mishra and informs him that he had made a unilateral statement renouncing nuclear weapons during his radio address to the nation. The Pakistani President made a radio broadcast on 30 August before leaving to attend the NAM summit in Havana. The Pakistani president informs India's External Affairs minister that his unilateral statement was based on a suggestion by India's Prime Minister Morarji Desai who himself had made such a statement renouncing nuclear weapons. The Pakistani President also informs that Pakistan does not possess the capacity to produce a nuclear bomb and also expresses that Pakistan is not interested in making nuclear weapons.
--"South Asia; Pakistan-India Talks in Havana: Nuclear Issues," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 10 September 1979, part 3. The Far East, A. International Affairs, 3. Far Eastern Relations, FE/6215/A3/10; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 10 September 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

4 September 1979
An official Indian spokesperson states that the Indian government is examining the letter sent by the Pakistani President.
--"South Asia; Pakistan-India Talks in Havana: Nuclear Issues," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 10 September 1979, part 3. The Far East, A. International Affairs, 3. Far Eastern Relations, FE/6215/A3/10; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 10 September 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

5 September 1979
The Chairman of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), Munir Ahmed Khan, states that foreign powers cannot dissuade Pakistan to abandon its nuclear development program since Pakistan's economic progress is dependent on Pakistan's acquisition of nuclear technology. The PAEC Chairman states that Pakistan's energy requirement at the end of the century would be 27,000 MW of electricity out of which 16,000 MW can be generated through atomic energy. According to Munir Ahmed Khan, Pakistan needs to set up its own fuel reprocessing to maximize its energy utilization. According to the PAEC chairman, the reprocessing plant would enable Pakistan to re-use 79% of the spent fuel and produce plutonium that could be used in the future breeder reactors.
--"South Asia; Pakistan-India Talks in Havana: Nuclear Issues," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 10 September 1979, part 3. The Far East, A. International Affairs, 3. Far Eastern Relations, FE/6215/A3/10; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 10 September 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; "Nuclear Energy," BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 3 October 1979, Part 3. The Far East, Weekly Economic Report, A. Economic and Scientific, Pakistan. Production and Transport, FE/W1051/A/27; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 3 October 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; "Pakistan Makes Achievements in Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy," Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 27 October 1979; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 27 October 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

15 September 1979
According to official figures, Pakistan is spending $40 million for its nuclear energy program.
--"Pakistan: The Bomb Behind the Wall," Economist, 15 September 1979, World Politics and Current Affairs; International, Pg. 62; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 15 September 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

20 September 1979
Addressing a group of prominent citizens at the Governor House in Karachi, Pakistan's President Zia ul-Haq states that Pakistan must acquire nuclear energy to meet its increasing energy requirements. President Zia ul-Haq underscores the importance of nuclear energy in Pakistan's development. The president also criticizes reports about the 'Islamic Bomb' and says that such stories are falsely spread by 'Zionist' circles.
--"Pakistan to Acquire Nuclear Technology for its Own Needs," Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 21 September 1979; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 20 September 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

23 September 1979
In an interview, Pakistan's president Zia ul-Haq rejects the claim that Pakistan is making a nuclear bomb and requests U.S. President Jimmy Carter to reconsider the decision to cut off military and economic aid to Pakistan. President Zia ul-Haq acknowledges that Pakistan is building a facility for enriching uranium but indicates that it will only be used to produce energy. The Pakistani president reiterates that no Pakistani government can compromise on the nuclear issue under U.S. pressure and denies reports that Pakistan is collaborating with Libya to develop nuclear weapons for the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The Pakistani President expresses confidence that France will provide the nuclear fuel-reprocessing plant and indicates his willingness to implement all safeguards including allowing the posting of French officials at the facilities.
--Seymour Topping, Information Bank Abstracts, New York Times, 23 September 1979, Pg. 14, Column. 1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 23 September 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

12 October 1979
Pakistan is reported to have halted the construction of the uranium enrichment plant at Kahuta. The shortage in the supply of parts from Europe is believed to have resulted in the halt.
--Information Bank Abstracts, New York Times, 12 October 1979, Pg. 4, Column. 2; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 12 October 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

16 October 1979
The United States and Pakistan begin two days of talks over Pakistan's efforts to produce weapons-grade highly enriched uranium. The talks are held between U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus R. Vance and Pakistan's Foreign Affairs Adviser Agha Shahi and several other high-level officials.
--Don Oberdorfer"Uranium Parley with Pakistanis is Inconclusive," Washington Post, 18 October 1979, First Section, A20; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 18 October 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

17 October 1979
The United States and Pakistan hold a final round of talks in the afternoon and the United States indicates that no decision has been taken. Agha Shahi, Pakistan's Foreign Affairs Adviser states that differences continue to exist between Pakistan and the United States over the nuclear issue. Both sides agree to continue high-level discussions in the future. The economic and military cut-off, imposed by President Carter in April under U.S. law, can be lifted only after President Carter certifies that Pakistan will not develop or acquire nuclear weapons or assist other nations in acquiring such weapons. Despite the assurances provided by Mr. Shahi, the United States is not willing to accept such promises. Mr. Shahi also refuses to confirm or deny the recent news report that Pakistan had halted work on the construction of its uranium enrichment plant owing to a shortage of parts from Europe. U.S. officials also refuse to confirm the report indicting a lack of sufficient information. The talks also discussed improving the security situation in Pakistan by upgrading the armed forces. Some members of U.S. Congress and Carter administration officials have recently proposed that the United States supply Pakistan with advanced conventional arms in return for Pakistan's commitment to abandon its nuclear program. It is not sure if the United States made such a proposal during the talks.
--Don Oberdorfer, "Uranium Parley with Pakistanis is Inconclusive," Washington Post, 18 October 1979, First Section, A20; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 18 October 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

16 - 17 October 1979
During the talks between the United States and Pakistan, little information is provided by Pakistan regarding the planning of the uranium enrichment facility.
--Don Oberdorfer, "Effort to Block Pakistan from A-Bomb Faltering," Washington Post, 20 October 1979, First Section, A3; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 20 October 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

18 - 20 October 1979
Following the conclusion of two day of talks between Pakistan and the United States, U.S. officials are less confident about persuading Pakistan to abandon its nuclear weapons program. The talks also reduce the certainty of U.S. estimates that Pakistan is at least two years from conducting a nuclear test. Pakistan's Foreign Affairs Adviser Agha Shahi informs members of the U.S. Congress that Pakistan is willing to provide a "no explosion" pledge for the duration of the current Pakistani government. Shahi indicates that Pakistani President Zia ul-Haq cannot make promises that could extend beyond the current administration and bind subsequent Pakistani administrations. He also suggests that Pakistan is willing to bring all nuclear facilities under international safeguards and inspections provided India also implements such measures. A recent U.S. intelligence estimate quotes a Pakistani official mentioning that Pakistan possesses the necessary material to build a bomb.
-- Don Oberdorfer, "Effort to Block Pakistan from A-Bomb Faltering," Washington Post, 20 October 1979, First Section, A3; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 20 October 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

27 October 1979
Pakistan plans to build a new nuclear power plant in the Punjab province. The plant's capacity will be 600,000 kilowatts and the plant will use an enriched uranium fueled light-water reactor.
--"Pakistan Makes Achievements in Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy," Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 27 October 1979; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 27 October 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

28 October 1979
Pakistan's President Zia ul-Haq states that Pakistan is committed to pursuing nuclear research for peaceful purposes and does not preclude the possibility of conducting a nuclear test. Responding to a question whether Pakistan would set off a nuclear explosion, President Zia ul-Haq states that "... we said our program is entirely directed toward nuclear sources of energy and not toward the making of any nuclear bombs. If in the process steps have to be taken, we will take them."
--Information Bank Abstracts, New York Times, 28 October 1979, Pg. 9, Column 1; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 28 October 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/; Stuart Auerbach, "Pakistan Holds A-Option Open; Zia's Remarks Seen Likely to Fuel International Controversy Over his Country's Goals in its Nuclear Power Program," Washington Post, 28 October 1979, First Section, A17; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 28 October 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

Fall 1979
Efforts are made to mine low-grade uranium ore in the Baghalchur mining area near Dera Ghazi Khan Province, west of Multan. Tenders are being accepted for the construction of roads in the region. The ore is refined at the Atomic Energy Mineral Centre in Lahore built with French assistance. New equipment is also being installed at the Chashma barrage site on the Indus River. The installed equipment can be used to produce nuclear fuel rods.
--"Pakistan: The Bomb Behind the Wall," Economist, 15 September 1979, World Politics and Current Affairs; International, Pg. 62; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 15 September 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

21 November 1979
The UN First Committee adopts a resolution on creating a nuclear weapons-free zone in South Asia. The resolution is sponsored by Pakistan. The resolution calls upon all states in South Asia and other non-nuclear weapon neighboring states in the region to make efforts to create a nuclear-weapons free zone in South Asia. The resolution also urges the nations to eschew activities that go against the resolution.
--"UN General Assembly Committee Adopts Denuclearization Resolutions," Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 22 November 1979; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 22 November 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

26 November 1979
The British newspaper Sunday Times reports that Pakistan has acquired the technical knowledge to produce a hydrogen bomb and mentions that Pakistan might test its first thermonuclear device in April. The report mentions that the desert hijacking of uranium ore in Africa and Pakistan's acquisition of nuclear components in Europe have enabled it to advance its nuclear weapons program faster than the estimates made by the United States and other countries. The new report identifies two sites that could be used for testing. One of the sites is in the Sind desert and the other testing site is in South Balochistan. According to the report, Pakistan's three nuclear facilities are working continuously under heavy guard. The report quotes a military official saying that "Only God, an accident or another coup can stop it."
--Associated Press, 26 November 1979, International News; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 26 November 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

8 December 1979
Pakistan's president, while inaugurating an International Symposium in Biology and Genetics and an International Congress on the History and Philosophy of Science, states that "our [Pakistan's] stand is that we want to acquire nuclear energy for peaceful purpose and this is a right of which no power can deprive us."
--"Pakistan to Continue Acquiring Nuclear Energy," Xinhua General Overseas News Service, 10 December 1979; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 10 December 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

11 December 1979
The UN General Assembly passes by a vote of 96 - 2 Pakistan's proposal to create a nuclear weapons-free zone in South Asia. India and Bhutan vote against the resolution. During the UN General Assembly meeting, Pakistan's Ambassador Niaz A. Naik rejects a claim by the Israeli Ambassador Yehuda Z. Blum that Pakistan, Iraq, and Libya are seeking to create a nuclear axis.
--Associated Press, 11 December 1979, 11 December 1979; in Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe, 11 December 1979, http://web.lexis-nexis.com/.

Late 1979
Documentary evidence surfaces that the French company BSL has entered into a secret and illegal contract to supply Pakistan with nuclear-sensitive equipment required for the Chashma reprocessing plant. The equipment includes specially designed dissolvers, evaporators, annular vessels, and mixer-settlers. The contract specifies that BSL will train four to six Pakistani engineers at its own workshops and also help organize a special school for welders in Pakistan. The secret agreement was signed two months after the French industry ministry issued formal instructions (in February 1979) to French companies not to supply anything further for the Chashma facility. The contract also creates the fiction that equipment sold to Pakistan will be used for purposes of building a nitrating plant; it also disguises BSL's role in the transfers. All transfers are to be made to 'Asiatic Chemicals Industries' Limited in the Pakistani city of Faisalabad. Pakistan insists that all equipment must be either shipped on Pakistani freighters or on ships that skirt South Africa, Israel, and India.
--Steve Weissman & Herbert Krosney, "More Bang for a Buck," The Islamic Bomb: The Nuclear Threat to Israel and the Middle East, (New York: 1981, Times Books), pp. 205-206.

1979
Pakistan's chief nuclear procurement official in France, S. A. Butt, continues to approach French nuclear suppliers for potential sales of nuclear reprocessing and related equipment to Pakistan, even after France formally suspends the reprocessing plant contract with the Pakistani government. Despite the suspension, French engineers remain in Pakistan through the year to help finish with the construction of the reprocessing plant.
--Steve Weissman & Herbert Krosney, "More Bang for a Buck," The Islamic Bomb: The Nuclear Threat to Israel and the Middle East, (New York: 1981, Times Books), p. 200.

1979
Pakistani reportedly purchases 110 tons of uranium ore (yellowcake) from Niger. Libya is also believed to be diverting uranium ore purchased from Niger to Pakistan.
--Steve Weissman & Herbert Krosney, "More Bang for a Buck," The Islamic Bomb: The Nuclear Threat to Israel and the Middle East, (New York: 1981, Times Books), p. 210.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Pakistan/Nuclear/5593_5678.html
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"It was so hypocritical. The holier-than-thou Jimmy Carter..." (History Part II)

Posted by Gabrielle Cusumano on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 5:29:49 PM
 "Indeed, it was July 3rd, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention."

This is stunning, since the U.S. vilified the Soviet Union for being the aggressor in Afghanistan. Jimmy Carter scoffed at their "lies" when the Soviets claimed they were trying to fight against "the secret involvement of foreign influences [read: the United States] in Afghanistan." It was so hypocritical. The holier-than-thou Jimmy Carter boycotted the 1980 Olympics in protest of the Soviet Union's incursion, and set into motion an international anti-Soviet propaganda machine condemning them as aggressors and a threat to world peace, when he himself was the instigator - the man who started a war that killed nearly 15,000 Russians, 7,000 Americans, 1.3 million Afghanis, and as many as 6 million additional people worldwide since that time.

1979

Islamic Terrorism Timeline


- January 16, 1979: One million militant Muslim Iranians marched in Teheran in a show of support for the exiled Ayatollah Komeini, a fundamental Islamic cleric. Seeing the situation as hopeless without American support, the Shah departed Iran.

- February 1, 1979: Fundamentalist Islamic cleric Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile in France and called for Muslims to riot in support of an Islamic state.

- February 4, 1979: Islamic Revolution in Iran officially began, ending in the indoctrination and submission of its people.

- February 14, 1979: Four Afghan Muslims kidnapped U.S. Ambassador Adolph Dubs in Kabul and demanded the release of various "Islamic religious figures." Dubs was killed, along with four terrorists, when Afghan police stormed the hotel room where he was being held.

- April 4, 1979: Former president of Pakistan Zulfikar 'ali Bhutto was executed by the Pakistani government under President Zia. The Islamic terrorist group Al-Zulfikar, named after him, was founded by his two sons.

- May 15, 1979: The Islamic 15 May Organization under Muhammad Al-Umari was founded from the remnants of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - Special Operations Group (PFLP-SOG). The terrorist organization was headquartered in Baghdad until it disbanded in 1984.

- July 1979: Islamic Jihad is founded by Islamic fundamentalist Fathi Shaqaqi and other Palestinian students.

- November 4, 1979: The U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran was seized by fundamentalist Islamic students under orders from the newly empowered Islamic clerics. 66 American diplomats were taken hostage and 52 of them were held for 444 days. The Muslims wanted the Shah of Iran returned so that they could kill him. Carter's rescue attempt failed when on April 4th, 1980, a Marine Corps CH-53 helicopter crashed into an Air Force C-130, killing 8 Delta Force troops, and burning another 5 severely in the dead of night in Central Iran. Iranian Muslims publicly proclaimed that they were righteous, yet defenseless so Allah had personally come to their aid, destroying the American aircraft.

- December 2, 1979: In Libya, 2,000 Muslims ransacked the U.S. Embassy in support of the Iranian takeover of the American Embassy.

 ...

- November 25, 1979: The U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan was attacked and burned by Islamic militants following inane rumors that the U.S. was involved in the violent takeover of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

- November 25, 1979: In a move that would ultimately pave the way for Osama bin Laden to rise to fame in the Islamic world, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Over the course of ten years, militant Islam would rise and Soviet communism would falter.

- December 2, 1979: In Libya, 2,000 Muslims ransacked the U.S. Embassy in support of the Iranian takeover of the American Embassy.

- December 26, 1979: Osama bin Laden and his Egyptian, Palestinian, and Saudi associates, became involved in the Mujahideen rebellion against the Soviet Union. Since this man has become the face of Islamic terrorism, let's examine his past.

...

As we discovered earlier, the Maktab al-Khadamat, or MAK, was a joint venture with the Pakistani government by way of their Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and Saudi Arabia with their OPEC funding and Wahhabi inspiration. Of this alliance from hell, the leader of the British House of Commons correctly wrote: "Bin Laden was a product of monumental miscalculation by western security agencies." He was right. And since this "monumental miscalculation" has obliterated 7,000 American lives in the last ten years, you deserve to know who was responsible.

The policy to equip Islamic fundamentalists was crafted by Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) leader, Zbigniew Brzezinski. At the time he was President Jimmy Carter's mentor and National Security Advisor. Years before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Zbigniew Brzezinski conceived, sold, and implemented the plan to lure them in, creating a Russian Vietnam by way of Islamic jihadists.

During this time the American CIA covertly funneled $250 million a year in cash and weaponry to Maktab al-Khadamat, al-Qaeda al-Sudah, and Taliban jihadists. The total to Osama bin Laden's associates ultimately climbed to over a billion dollars. And overall U.S. military aid to Muslim militants in Afghanistan, including the Taliban, exceeded $5 billion. Not only was the Pakistani Taliban the most substantial recipient of CIA weaponry, their Foreign Affairs Minister, the man who was responsible for the Taliban's dealings with the ISI and CIA was Hamid Karzai - George Bush's appointed leader of Afghanistan.

A little background here is in order because the facts are, America was instrumental in creating both the Taliban and al-Qaeda. At the time Zia was dictator over Pakistan. He worked with the U.S as early as July of 1979 to start arming Pakistani and Afghani Mujahideen to fight against the Soviet-backed government in Afghanistan. The Soviets, who liked the Marxist-Muslim government in Kabul, did not invade until late December - six months later.

This fact was not known at the time and has only come to light recently as CFR, CIA, and NSA officials have jumped up to claim their credit for helping to tear down the Soviet Union. Robert Gates, a former director of the CIA, confessed as much in his memoirs entitled From the Shadows.

But even more revealing is an interview in the French Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998. It was conducted with former American National Security Adviser to Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski. He said: "According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahideen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet Army invaded Afghanistan, on December 24th, 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3rd, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the President in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention."

This is stunning, since the U.S. vilified the Soviet Union for being the aggressor in Afghanistan. Jimmy Carter scoffed at their "lies" when the Soviets claimed they were trying to fight against "the secret involvement of foreign influences [read: the United States] in Afghanistan." It was so hypocritical. The holier-than-thou Jimmy Carter boycotted the 1980 Olympics in protest of the Soviet Union's incursion, and set into motion an international anti-Soviet propaganda machine condemning them as aggressors and a threat to world peace, when he himself was the instigator - the man who started a war that killed nearly 15,000 Russians, 7,000 Americans, 1.3 million Afghanis, and as many as 6 million additional people worldwide since that time.

When Council on Foreign Relation's head and National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, was asked if he regretted pulling off such a massive and deadly deception against the world, he replied, "Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, in substance: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam War. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire."

While this was a contributing factor to the demise of the USSR, America's support of the Soviet Union in World War II under somewhat similar pretenses, established the beast in the first place. In other words, when a nation deploys the strategy of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, they manufacture their next foe - and all too often they create a much bigger mess.

Brzezinski capped off his amazing confession with a callous disregard for the consequences of aiding and abetting Islamic fundamentalists. He asked: "What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Muslims, or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?"

The interviewer, even in the pre-9/11 context of 1998, and being a member of the politically correct, Islam-tolerant French media, threw back, "Some stirred-up Moslems? It has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today." Brzezinski, angered at his interviewer's attempt to hold him accountable for his actions, responded, "Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western, or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries."

I'd like to see him tell that same story to the 1,000 American families who have lost loved ones to Islam in Israel, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Kuwait, the Philippines, Indonesia, India, Kenya, Tanzania, Libya, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt. Or to the 3,000 American families who lost loved ones to Islam in New York City, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania on September 11th, 2001. Or to the 3,000 American families who have lost loved ones to Islam in the War of Terrorism since that time in Afghanistan and Iraq. The investment of $5 billion used to fund fundamentalist Muslims to fight the Soviets pales in comparison to the $550 billion the nation has had to spend undoing that damage in the past four years.

For more timeline of events:
http://www.prophetofdoom.net/article.aspx?g=41111&i=4111112

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Remember America: What The Liberal Democrats and Jimmy Carter Wrought On America 27 Years Ago

Posted by Gabrielle Cusumano on Tuesday, November 14, 2006 4:58:01 PM
 "With the Shah gone, the whole region was destabilized. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan; no doubt a direct link to the rise of the Taliban can be traced to this invasion. Iraq also took advantage of the Shah's departure to invade Iran. A long war followed that helped make Saddam's Iraq a great Middle Eastern power."


Jimmy Carter’s Trail of Disaster  (Historical Timeline Series of Articles Part I
 2 Articles on his hypocrisy)

Jimmy Carter is off this week to save Cuba.

With Carter on the loose, the American public needs to watch out.

It seems that almost wherever he goes and whatever positions he pushes, Jimmy Carter leaves a wake of devastation and disaster.

Carter, we should note, has been cozying up to North Korea for years. He helped the U.S. and the communist country come to agreement during the Clinton years to defuse a tense situation over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

Under the wacko deal Carter arranged, the U.S. would stop complaining about Korea's nuclear weapons program as long as the U.S. gave aid to North Korea and helped the communists build more modern nuclear reactors.

The U.S. was well on the path to doing this when the new Bush administration sounded the alarm and immediately stopped the cockamamy plan dead in its tracks.

North Korea was not cooperating with the U.S. to stop its weapons program, but we should continue helping them to build nuclear reactors. Make sense?

Of course not.

But that's Jimmy Carter for you.

It's also Jimmy Carter the hypocrite. Carter has always claimed to be the champion of human rights worldwide.

Yet North Korea is one of the most, if not the most, repressive regimes on the planet.

The Stalinist nation is headed by a young madman named Kim Jong-il. Kim likes to watch American movies like "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and then act out his fantasies on his own citizenry. Millions of North Koreans are starving at any given time.

Does Carter have much to say about this?

Of course not. North Korea is an enemy of the U.S., so Carter goes easy on them. When he met Kim, Carter didn't criticize him – he kissed him!

But there is nothing new here.

The media would have us forget Jimmy Carter's presidential record.

But I won't.

Remember Carter's human rights program, where he demanded the Shah of Iran step down and turn over power to the Ayatollah Khomeini?

No matter that Khomeini was a madman. Carter had the U.S. Pentagon tell the Shah's top military commanders – about 150 of them – to acquiesce to the Ayatollah and not fight him.

The Shah's military listened to Carter. All of them were murdered in one of the Ayatollah's first acts.

By allowing the Shah to fall, Carter created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships ever.

Soon the new Iranian government was ransacking our embassy and held hostage its staff for over a year. Only President Reagan's election gave Iran the impetus to release the hostages.

I believe Carter's decision to have the Shah fall is arguably the most egregious U.S. foreign policy mistake of the last 50 years. [Former President Bush's decision to allow Saddam Hussein to stay in power is a close second.]

With the Shah gone, the whole region was destabilized. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan; no doubt a direct link to the rise of the Taliban can be traced to this invasion. Iraq also took advantage of the Shah's departure to invade Iran. A long war followed that helped make Saddam's Iraq a great Middle Eastern power.

And decades after Carter's ignominious act, Iran is still bent on destroying America. President Bush named it one of the three nations in the "axis of evil." Iran is developing both nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver these weapons to its enemies.

We can thank Jimmy Carter for all of this.

Since Carter left the presidency, he has had little to say about the human rights abuses in Iran. Why should he? Iran opposes the U.S.

Instead, he has focused his attention on Israel, America's lone democratic ally in the Mideast. Recently, Carter suggested that the U.S. should cut off aid to Israel, so angry was he after Israel sought to defend itself in the wake of suicide bombings.

Fair enough. But what has Carter said about Arab or Muslim countries that have had long records of human rights abuse – Syria or Libya or Iran or Iraq?

Not much. One reason may be money. As NewsMax's Dave Eberhart reported recently, Carter and his Carter Center foundation are recipients of millions of dollars of Arab money. (See: Carter's Arab Funding May Color Israel Stance.)

So I give Carter his due. At least he is not a hypocrite in one sense. He is good to the dictators and butchers who give him money.

Christopher Ruddy
Monday, May 13, 2002
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/12/164726.shtml

Carter’s Arab Funding May Color Israel Stance

Dave Eberhart, NewsMax
Monday, April 29, 2002

Former president Jimmy Carter, who has recently emerged as one of the Jewish state's most vocal critics for its current West Bank anti-terror policy, has been the recipient of tens of millions of dollars from Arab sources.

Recently, for example, Carter suggested that the U.S. government should threaten Israel with the possible loss of U.S. aid if it continues its military offensive in the West Bank.

He also said the U.S. should demand that U.S.-supplied weapons be used only for defensive purposes.

Mr. Carter's views are often aired by the American media as those of a neutral mediator -- the man who engineered the 1979 Camp David Accords that has given Israel and Egypt a cold peace in the decades since.

But far from being neutral, Carter has a track record as a long-time critic of Israel who has often displayed pro-Arab sympathies.

It was his Carter Center that joined with the National Democratic Institute to put the seal of legitimacy on the first elections ever held by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank in January 1996. Voters, who turned out in droves, elected Yasser Arafat president, and he has been in power ever since.

In 1990 Carter ghostwrote a speech for Arafat, hoping to polish the Palestinian leader’s tarnished image as, at best, being soft on terrorism. Arafat won the Nobel Peace prize for the Oslo Accords.

In 1989 President Carter interceded with Israeli Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin on behalf of activist Terry Boullata, a field worker for the Palestinian Human Rights Information Center. Boullata had been imprisoned in November 1987 for allegedly belonging to a terrorist organization called the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Boullata was allowed out in 1989 to come to the United States for treatment of hepatitis.

The Carter Center: Follow the Money

But it’s the financing behind Georgia’s Carter Center and the Jimmy Carter Library that raises serious doubts that the former president is, in actuality, a wholly neutral intermediary in the troubled region.

NewsMax has reviewed annual reports that indicate millions of charitable dollars have flowed into the center from His Majesty Sultan Qaboss bin Said Al Said of Oman, Jordan, from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and from the Government of the United Arab Emirates.

Furthermore, hundreds of thousands of dollars have been donated to the center by the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development. H.R.H. Prince Moulay Hicham Ben Abdallah of Morocco has also contributed tens of thousands of dollars.

There are no corresponding contributions apparent from Israeli sources, however.

As the center’s literature describes, "The Carter Center and the Jimmy Carter Library were built in large measure thanks to the early leadership and financial support of the Carter Center founders.” Three of those generous founders:

Agha Hasan Abedi

On July 5 1991, banking regulators targeted Abedi’s Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), triggering a worldwide financial tidal wave. To date, accountants and lawyers have managed to recoup (discounting fees) $7 billion out of the $12 billion money pit that fueled the BCCI fraud.

Agha Hasan Abedi, a banker and self-styled mystic on first-name terms with Carter, created BCCI in 1972. Abedi had charmed seed money out of Arab sheikhs, organizing camel races and hunting trips. The Bank of America bought into BCCI as a way of buying access to the Middle East, holding a 30 percent stake at one point before dumping its holdings in the late-1970s.

His Majesty King Fahd of Saudi Arabia

Last month Saudi Arabia transferred $15.4 million in advance aid to the Palestinian Authority. The transfer was made to a controversial Arab League fund, a product of the recent Arab summit in Beirut. According to Arab spokesmen, the money was hurriedly contributed due to the dire plight of the Palestinian people as a result of "vicious Israeli aggression.”

King Fahd, Crown Prince Abdullah and Defense Minister Prince Sultan jointly donated $4.8 million to launch the fund pot, while Interior Minister Prince Nayef bin Abdul Aziz sent an estimated $800,000 to the families of "155 Palestinian martyrs” killed in the current Israeli offensive.

Hasib J. Sabbagh

Sabbagh is the chairman of Consolidated Contractors Co. of Oman, Jordan. He is also the Senior Fellow for the Middle East of the Council on Foreign Relations. Founded in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations is a membership organization contributing ideas to U.S. foreign policy. The Council publishes Foreign Affairs, a leading journal on global issues.

Individual, foundation, and corporate donors, together with multilateral development assistance programs, support the Carter Center’s current annual operating budget of around $30 million. Among the center’s announced priorities: promoting democracy, global development, human rights and conflict resolution.

Carter said he has spent much time raising money, but he hopes that a campaign to raise a $150 million endowment will lighten the load. Phil Wise, the center’s executive director for operations, said an estimated $110 million has already been raised for the endowment.

Carter on the Record

Although Carter strongly condemned suicide bombings and criticized Arafat for not being more aggressive in ending the spate of violence against Israel, he roundly lambasted Ariel Sharon for actions and attitudes, past and present:

"His rejection of all peace agreements that included Israeli withdrawal from Arab lands, his invasion of Lebanon, his provocative visit to the Temple Mount, the destruction of villages and homes, the arrests of thousands of Palestinians and his open defiance of President George W. Bush’s demand that he comply with international law have all been orchestrated to accomplish his ultimate goals: to establish Israeli settlements as widely as possible throughout occupied territories and to deny Palestinians a cohesive political existence,” Carter said in a recent New York Times piece.

"It is time for the United States, as the sole recognized intermediary to consider more forceful actions for peace,” Carter added. "The rest of the world will welcome this leadership.”

U.S. Leverage Over Israel

Carter also said that U.S. aid of $10 million a day should give the U.S. some leverage over Israeli policy, noting that former president George H. Bush had threatened to cut off this assistance in 1992 to discourage the building of Israeli settlements between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

Carter cited another factor that could accelerate Israel’s acceptance of Arab normalization with Israel in return for its withdrawal from territory captured in the 1967 Middle East war:

"One is the legal requirement that American weapons are to be used by Israel only for defensive purposes, a premise certainly being violated in the recent destruction in Jenin and other towns of the West Bank,” he said, noting this requirement was imposed by Richard Nixon to impede Israel’s military advance into Egypt during the 1973 Middle East war and ws used to deter Israeli attacks on Lebanon in 1979.

"I understand the extreme political sensitivity in America of using persuasion on the Israelis, but it is important to remember that none of the actions toward peace would involve an encroachment on the sovereign territory of Israel,” Carter acknowledged.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/4/28/112225.shtml

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Belgium To Set Up and Finance Imam School

Posted by Gabrielle Cusumano on Monday, November 13, 2006 8:25:37 PM

"The Muslim executive also requests the presence of a mufti - a Muslim scholar who is also an interpreter and advocate of the Sharia, Islamic law, and who is, according to traditions, capable of issuing a fatwa, a judgment based on Islamic laws. "

Belgium to set up Imam school

8 November 2006

BRUSSELS - Belgium plans on setting up an Imam school before the end of the 2006 -2007 academic year.

This school was requested by the Exécutif des musulmans de Belgique (the Belgian Muslim executive).

The Muslim executive also requests the presence of a mufti - a Muslim scholar who is also an interpreter and advocate of the Sharia, Islamic law, and who is, according to traditions, capable of issuing a fatwa, a judgment based on Islamic laws.

However, a Belgian mufti would not be given this right since it would conflict with Belgian's justice system.

A similar structure already exists in France and holds educational and informative functions. 
 
Belgium professor will give civic training in both French and Dutch and 15 trainers from Morocco, Turkey and Egypt will give training in Arabic, Urdu and Turk. The requested mufti would be in charge of the school, as is the case in France.
 
The Exécutif des musulmans de Belgique counts on subsidies to finance the school and pay the professors and the mufti, therefore their request is well timed as the government is about to enter negotiations to rethink and reorganise subsidies for religious groups.

Experts recently pointed out a lack of transparency and fairness between different religions and organised secular groups.

There are also talks on an eventual legislation to control the foreign finance of mosques in Belgium in order to reduce outside ideological influence on Belgian Imams.

[Copyright Expatica news 2006]
http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=48&story_id=34212


Sidebar Article

'Allah' Takes Over Catholic Church In Belgium

Topics: Dhimmitude

curch-allah-2.jpeg

[Most of the immigrant squatters in the churches are Muslims. They display banners in the church showing the name of Allah (picture taken in the church of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, Brussels - Brussels Journal)].

As a Catholic, I'm very much in favor of ecumenism, including greater cooperation and improved uderstanding between Christians, Jews, and Muslims. However, when it comes to Bishops opening their churches to illegal immigrants in order to pressure the Belgian authorities to allow the immigrants to stay in the country, altering the inside of a Catholic church, and especially moving the altar and covering the statue of Our Lady to hide her from the eyes of the Muslim believers, we have left the realm of Christian charity and reached into the bottomless and dangerous well of voluntary dhimmitude.

While Western Europe is turning Muslim, its Christian Churches are committing suicide. A Muslim would never allow his mosque to be turned into a dormitory for non-believers. This, however, is exactly what the Belgian Catholic Church is doing. The Belgian Bishops have already opened up 20 churches and chapels to illegal immigrants - so-called "sans-papiers" or "people without papers [=staying permits]" - who by Belgian law have to be expelled.

The illegal immigrants have been told that they are safe in the churches because the authorities will refrain from entering the buildings out of respect for the Catholic Church. It is strange that the Church should insinuate that there is some type of persecution considering that the Belgian authorities never organised searches for illegal immigrants, and hardly ever expel even criminals. The number of people camping in churches so far varies from 100 to 700. More than 160 immigrants in the churches have also gone on hunger strike. The church authorities say they are offering "church asylum" to the "sans-papiers."

The Belgian Bishops are so ignorant that they do not see what is going on: their churches are being turned into mosques before their very eyes.

The Muslim squatters hold Islamic prayer services in the church. The altar has been moved and the statue of Our Lady covered by a cloth to hide her from the eyes of the Muslim believers.

I happen to volunteer almost all of my spare time to Catholic Charities and particularly, The Society of St. Vincent de Paul - where I am very much accustomed to working with and helping people of all faiths. As a matter of fact, 95% of the people we help are NOT Catholic, and fall in a range of folks from the Protestant, Jewish, or Muslim faith, with many others who will proclaim to be whatever you want them to say, just to get help. In other words, I'm a very big believer in Mother Teresa's doctrine, described in her statement that:

"There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I've always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic. We believe our work should be our example to people. We have among us 475 souls - 30 families are Catholics and the rest are all Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs--all different religions. But they all come to our prayers."

Note here that the percentage of non-Catholics helped by SSVDP in our area is the same percentage helped by Mother Teresa of Calcutta, a condition that one will find holds true throughout much of the world, and which substantiates my claim here that helping people in need is paramount in the mindset of the Catholic church.

With this point in mind, one can accurately say that the Church encourages ecumenism, but on the other hand, what the Belgium Bishops are doing is in fact turning their back on the symbols and traditions of the Christian church while at the same time handing Islamists an easily-won victory, giving Islamism preference and position over Christianity and a socio-political tool that works against the wishes of the Belgium society and the Belgium government, and taking yet another step toward Islamicizing Europe. Some Christians have decried as faithless pessimism those who predict the Islamization of Europe before the end of the century. However, it must be remembered that the region which is now Pakistan and Afghanistan was once Christian, as was North Africa. The Church was completely eradicated from these areas by the advance of Islam. It would surely be arrogant to think that this could never happen to the Church in Europe. As individual Christians we must love our Muslim neighbors and forgive any wrongs done to us. But as a community the Church must defend herself, as well as the Judaeo-Christian heritage with which Europe is blessed. For this her leaders need great wisdom and courage, something not being expressed by certain Belgium Bishops.

After all, sacrificing the traditions and sanctity of the Church is unnecesary - there are 380 mosques in Belgium and Islam is among the six religions officially recognized by the government, entitling it to, among other things, subsidies. And were the situation reversed, I wouldn't expect Muslims to change the interior of their mosque in order that Christians "not be offended" if allowed (which they wouldn't be) to have a Christian service inside a mosque! However, we can be quite certain that "A Muslim would never allow his mosque to be turned into a dormitory for non-believers."

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/05/allah_takes_ove_1.php
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

OOH, LA, LA, Europeans Love American TV Series

Posted by Gabrielle Cusumano on Monday, November 13, 2006 8:17:23 PM
 

TV series surge in popularity

10 November 2006

BRUSSELS - TV series are the most popular programmes on Belgium television; and they are exclusively American.

As is often the case in the entertainment industry the best way to know what will be popular in Europe tomorrow is to look at what is popular in the US today.

So, when a few years ago, media experts spoke of a TV revival reflected by an impressive increase of the production of TV series we knew it was just a matter of time before the trend crossed the Atlantic and redefined the way Europeans watch TV.
 
Belgium is no exception, the most watched programme since the beginning of the year was a CSI episode (les Experts in French) with 648,000 in audience. The adventures of Captain Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean came second, followed by two more series; Esprits Criminels or Criminal Minds and Dr House.
 
Here are the 10 most watched TV series in Belgium: (1) Les Experts (CSI), (2) Les Experts : Miami (CSI: Miami), (3) Desperate Housewives, (4) Les Experts : Manhattan (CSI: Manhattan), (5) Lost, (6) Les 4.400, (7) NCIS, (8) Esprits criminels (Criminal Minds), (9) Urgences (ER), (10) Dr House (House MD).

TV series are the most popular programmes on Belgium television and these TV series are exclusively American. This isn't a new phenomenon but it's a steady one that has greatly benefited from an increasing number of cable and satellite users.

The TV series revival started in the mid-70's in the USA. Since then cult series such as the Sopranos or Deadwood have used the same methods to keep and develop their audience.

Besides good directing and production, all scripts are written by large teams of writers with emphasis on brainstorming and originality. More importantly, the interactivity of the writing process enables script writers to take the fans comments and criticisms into account before shooting the future episodes and seasons.

In some cases the script writers have, at best, a vague idea of the way the series will end and if the audience levels permit it they can easily stretch the story line or add to it. The result is efficient. Punctuated by cliff-hangers and twists in the plot which many devout followers say brings on a form of addiction.

Finally, their format - around 40 minutes - seems to fit with consumers and is often designed to maximize commercial time, which is highly profitable for TV channels.

[Copyright Expatica news 2006]
http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=24&story_id=34291

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

That Anti-American Feeling: It's All About European economics, stupid!

Posted by Gabrielle Cusumano on Monday, November 13, 2006 7:58:34 PM
 
Europe’s Not Working  (Feature Article)
By Olaf Gersemann

BERLIN—They call themselves “The Happy Unemployed,” and they fight “the dictatorship of wage dependency”—at a very leisurely pace.

This German group so far consists of a few amateur humorists, and seems unlikely to grow larger. For while there is persistent mass unemployment in many European countries— with jobless rates hovering near double-digit levels in Germany, France, and other parts of the continent for most of a decade now—it’s unlikely that many Europeans enjoy being unemployed. Like other people, most Europeans strive for the benefits that come with being a member of the work force: financial independence, a feeling of usefulness, self-confidence, and respect from fellow citizens.

Europeans who are unable to get work find the experience as stressful as Americans do. A German government report describes the personal afflictions that have sprung up amidst the country’s economic stagnation: “Depressive moods, general dissatisfaction with life, fear, helplessness and hopelessness, low self-esteem, resignation bordering on apathy, a low level of activity, social isolation, and loneliness.”

The inescapable reality is that the economies of the major countries on the European continent are basket cases: They produce the unemployed by the millions. Even more frightening, European economies are creating a new kind of stratified society, in which a substantial and growing minority is shut out from the labor market permanently through absurdly high minimum-wage requirements and overly strict regulations (like the employment protection laws that can make it almost impossible to fire people).

The syndrome has not blighted all European countries equally—parts of Eastern Europe, and some Western European countries, are healthier than the norm. But in the three countries with the largest economies—France, Germany, and Italy— stagnation, joblessness, and low or no growth are now facts of life. Together, these Big Three countries account for about three fifths of the Euro Zone’s economic output, and they are not healthy—and haven’t been for years.

Help on the way? Hold your cheers

Some help may be on its way. About the time this magazine reaches readers, it is likely that mid-September elections in Germany will have swept out Gerhard Schroeder’s Social Democrats and brought in a more reform-minded government. Meanwhile, handicappers suggest that when France’s damaged Jacques Chirac leaves office (perhaps as early as the spring of 2007), the man most likely to succeed him is Nicolas Sarkozy—a man who is in at least some ways more supportive of free-market reform than any recent major French politician.

And across the Channel, recently re-elected British prime minister Tony Blair has made it his mission to open an economic debate across Europe. By adopting economic policies

much closer to America’s than to those of France and Germany, Britain has thrived over the last decade. The U.K.’s unemployment rate is half the continent’s, its growth has been almost twice the level of the Euro Zone, poverty is declining in Britain, and business creativity is rising.

In a June speech to the European Parliament, before Britain took over the E.U. presidency for six months, Blair argued against French and German insistence that to trim Europe’s welfare state and unravel some of its socialist policies would be to ape an American economy that “tramples on the poor and disadvantaged.” He asked bitingly: “What type of social model is it that has 20 million unemployed in Europe? Productivity rates falling behind those of the USA? That, on any relative index of a modern economy—skills, R&D, patents, information technology, is going down, not up?”

“The issue,” Blair warned his fellow Europeans, is not ideology, but “modernization.” It is absurd, he suggested, for the European Union to spend 46 percent of its money on subsidies to farmers. He called on Europe’s political leaders to show enough nerve to “send back some of the unnecessary regulation, peel back some of the bureaucracy, and become a champion of a global, outward-looking, competitive Europe.”

For making these points, Blair was attacked by French president Jacques Chirac and other Europeans, and a June E.U. summit and budget meeting degenerated into a debacle. Similarly, a series of market-oriented reforms proposed by European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso was dashed earlier in 2005 by a group of European countries led by Chirac and Schroeder.

In reality, there is not much hope that continental Europe will catch up economically any time soon. There are three reasons for this sad judgment: First, the economic woes of large parts of Europe are so serious that no quick fix can cure them. Second, the real reasons for the problems (suffocated domestic markets) have not been understood fully even among reform-minded Europeans, despite a quarter century of never-ending debates. Third, even if reformers managed to agree on a comprehensive platform of economic changes and pushed hard for it, they would meet overwhelming resistance from a majority of Europeans. To put it bluntly: Most French, German, and Italian voters simply refuse to accept the necessity of a Thatcher/ Reagan-style economic revolution. Things will have to get even worse before many Europeans realize the depth of their countries’ stagnation.

It’s underperformance, stupid

Adjusted for differences in price levels, per capita income in the United States now exceeds France by close to 40 percent. Germany and Italy lag even further behind.

Princeton economist Paul Krugman, when recently comparing Europe and the U.S. in the New York Times, wrote that: “The big difference is in priorities, not performance.” Krugman’s assertion is basically this: The income gap is not the result of lower efficiency in Europe. It is the result of Europeans working less than Americans. Not because they can’t find work, but because they work fewer hours, preferring to spend more time with their families and on leisure activities.

True, measured simply as GDP per hour worked, productivity is not much higher in the United States than, say, France. But what Krugman doesn’t mention is that America is close to full employment, whereas in Europe millions of poorly educated people can’t find an employer willing to pay them the artificially high minimum wage or willing to take a chance on such hires because they may be impossible to fire in the future. In other words, Europe seems to be so productive only because a large portion of its people are simply left out of the productivity statistics (and working life).

If labor productivity in Germany and in the U.S. continues on the same path as from 1996 to 2003, per capita income in Germany will grow by only 44 percent by the time American incomes double in 2026. Put differently, within a generation, Americans will enjoy twice the economic status that Germans do.

Even more ignorant is Krugman’s claim that Europeans work less because they choose to. While Europeans do love their five or six weeks of vacation per year, that’s a sideshow. The real problem in continental Europe is the involuntary unemployment of millions, because of economies that do not grow. That, not love of family or beach time, is the reason for the lower output and smaller incomes in European societies. More specifically, the U.S. labor market is much better equipped to integrate workers who may be disadvantaged— high-school dropouts, the very young, the very old, women, immigrants. Consider this: In the U.S., the employment rates for citizens and immigrants are virtually the same. In Germany, the working-age immigrant population doubled over the last 25 years, yet the number of immigrants with jobs didn’t rise at all. That failure to provide economic opportunity is one of the factors that has let Germany and other European nations become fertile soil for militant Islam.

“Eurosclerosis” misunderstood

There’s no evading it: Europeans are falling behind Americans and Asians on the economic front. There has been a debate about “Eurosclerosis” since the early 1980s. With that term, prominent German economist Herbert Giersch expressed his concerns about the “institutional rigidities and structural constraints that are an inherent part of Rhineland capitalism.”

Despite the length of this debate, the real reasons for Europe’s economic malaise are still widely misunderstood on the continent. Many politicians and businesspeople point to an alleged lack of international competitiveness in Europe’s manufacturing sector. But manufacturing is yesteryear’s frontier and hardly Europe’s biggest problem: The much more serious differences in employment growth between the United States and competitors like France, Germany, and Italy stem entirely from Europe’s failure to develop a dynamic service sector—the primary job machine in today’s economy.

International competitiveness, on the other hand, is not Europe’s deepest problem. If it were, the Euro Zone wouldn’t run a persistent trade surplus, and Germany wouldn’t be the world’s biggest exporter. Much more serious is the lack of vibrancy in continental Europe’s own domestic markets— which, by definition, represent the bulk of any modern economy. Domestic markets in Europe suffer from a misallocation of resources that lowers consumption and standards of living, wastes human talents, and leaves many potential productivity gains unrealized. Structural reforms of everything from store hours to labor regulations are desperately needed.

Marx is smiling

It is quite clear by now that “Rhineland capitalism” serves its people badly. It deprives them of technology-enabled income gains that the American system generates routinely. It creates persistent mass unemployment and huge economic injustices.

Prominent German sociologist Ulrich Beck recently argued that, “The middle class realizes nothing is stable anymore. Suddenly, very quickly, you can lose everything: the job, the apartment, your life in dignity.” He described Germany as being in a “pre-revolutionary situation: I am sure that Marx is smiling right now.”

To be sure, Beck exaggerated. It is true, however, that Europeans sense that their economic systems are failing. They have noticed that their beloved welfare and regulatory systems no longer provide the economic security they used to.

Consider a poll conducted among 11,200 Europeans earlier this year. The German market-research company GfK asked people what they considered the most important challenge facing their respective home country. In each of the Big Three countries, the largest share of respondents spontaneously named unemployment as the most pressing problem: 38 percent in Italy, 58 percent in France, and a staggering 81 percent in Germany. (In the U.K., which is much closer to the laissez-faire economic model, the share choosing unemployment as the major national problem was a minuscule four percent.)

The insecurity that Germans feel these days can also be seen in their lack of willingness to commit themselves financially. Germans have been shying away from buying houses, for instance. That is why real estate prices in Germany have been falling in recent years, while in nearly all other major industrialized countries they were booming. Germans are even reluctant to buy cars. The number of new automobile registrations fell for four years in a row before growing less than one percent last year. New car registrations are still 14 percent below the level in 1999. This is a sign of diminished economic confidence.

Compare this to Europe’s political rhetoric

Nearly every top politician in Germany is on record giving a grave, smug warning about the danger of letting “American conditions” seep into the German economy. In Germany’s economic debate, “American conditions” is code for stiff economic competition, low taxes, minimal state intrusion, and limitedduration welfare payments. Ireland and Britain have adopted many of these policies themselves, rocketing past Germany and France in living standards in the process. But for political opportunists in continental Europe, the quickest way to dismiss any talk of market freedom or reduction in the size of government is to ooze concern about American economic brutalism.

Even Kajo Neukirchen, widely considered to be Germany’s toughest business executive, has said that he does “not want American conditions, with hiring and firing being the order of the day.” And during British attempts to talk France and Germany into some economic reforms this summer, even Blair cabinet member Jack Straw made it a point to insist that his country does not have “a far-right economy” like the U.S.

While condemning American-style capitalism, Europe’s politicians continue to present their own continent as an economic beacon. During the national convention of his socialist party in 2003, German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder insisted that “a Europe formed by Social Democrats is more necessary today than ever before. Such a Europe is needed because we Europeans, based upon our unique European model of social participation and our embrace of the welfare state, have something to offer to the whole world, something in opposition to the dangerous tendency toward confrontation and unilateralism, an alternative of just development and shared wealth.”

Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, Germany’s minister for economic cooperation and development, was even more direct when she said on national television in April 2005 that, “It is necessary that we fight for the survival of our model in the face of American turbo-capitalism. When the fight is won right here in Germany, then the verdict has been passed worldwide. That is why I am in favor of an international victory of our system over the American one.”

Sadly, remarks like these aren’t aberrations; politicians, union leaders, and businessmen across Europe speak this way. These blustery claims, so divorced from comparative economic realities, reflect widespread attitudes among Europe’s people.

Dancebands on the Titanic

When a majority of French voters rejected the proposed European constitution this summer, they could have been acting for any number of good reasons. Start with the fact that at over 60,000 words—touching everything from the “right to good administration” to the “right to be heard” to the promise of “a free placement service” for every worker—this is a bureaucratic monster rather than a constitution. Yet when the French said “non,” polls showed it was not out of any qualms over the megalomaniacal document itself. It was because the average Frenchman wanted to punish the European Union for its role in opening up Europe’s economies somewhat. The typical French voter was not upset because her economy is too centralized and manipulated; she said she wanted France’s economy to be more statist than even Brussels allowed.

Likewise, the backlash against Gerhard Schroeder solidified not when his socialist nostrums ran the German economy further into the ground over six years, but when he finally put forth some timid reforms—such as cautiously cutting unemployment benefits—to try to slip out of his economic mess. A majority of Germans pronounced these reform steps as going in the “wrong direction”—as if Germany could possibly survive going any further in the social democratic direction.

The attitude still most widely held in Europe is that it is the job of politicians to distribute and redistribute society’s goods—be it jobs, income, or wealth. There is a deep zero-sum mentality in Europe which starts from the idea that politics, not competition, should govern economics. Asked in April 2005 whether competition is good for economic growth and employment, only 45 percent of Germans strongly agreed. In both France and Italy, the share was only 29 percent.

Do not be surprised, then, if Angela Merkel, the leader of Germany’s Christian Democrats, and likely successor of Gerhard Schroeder as German chancellor, behaves little better in the economic realm. Consider government finances. Germany’s federal government currently taxes away about 44 percent of the nation’s output, and the Schroeder government has long insisted this is not enough. When introducing its draft for next year’s budget during this summer, the Schroeder administration complained that “with the current financial endowment, an adequate public infrastructure, a good public education systemÉ can’t be guaranteed any more.”

You might expect that Ms. Merkel, as the head of Germany’s supposed conservative party, would want to change course. Yet her fiscal platform is remarkable mainly for two things: She has proposed a reduction of payroll taxes—but only in exchange for an increase of the Value Added Tax from 16 to 18 percent on purchases. Furthermore, this year Merkel abandoned a whole host of tax-cutting proposals that her party had demanded previously in its status as the opposition. With the announcement of the special national elections on September 18, and the chance to regain power, the Christian Democrats abandoned many of the economic principles that had served to separate them from the Social Democrats. Prominent, allegedly pro-capitalist German pundits applauded, with one of them explaining that “there is simply no room for a lasting tax relief.”

Germans, in other words, are behaving like people on the sinking Titanic who insist their drinks be shaken, not stirred.

“Things are bad enough already!”

When following the economic policy debates in France or Germany, it is tempting to give up all hope that Europe will get back on track any time soon. But one can’t count out the sick men of Europe completely. For one thing, all the economic woes from which we Europeans suffer are clearly self-made. They are there because of political decisions, not because Europeans have been hit by some uncontrollable external economic shock. These errors are reversible. Once there are majorities for real, comprehensive change, the European economies can improve.

When economic performance got bad enough in a number of European countries in the recent past, majorities decided they were ready to change course. A good example is Great Britain and its “Winter of Discontent” in 1979, which swept Margaret Thatcher into Downing Street. Another is Ireland, not too long ago one of the poorest countries in Europe. After decades of struggling under socialist-influenced economic nostrums, it made a sweeping move toward the American model— cutting taxes and regulations, and inviting many U.S. corporations to set up bases under business-friendly conditions. Ireland exploded in prosperity, and today enjoys a per capita income about 20 percent higher than in France or Germany.

On the European continent, the Netherlands has made some sensible policy changes. So has Denmark. The government there has maintained fairly high unemployment benefits, but it has made it easier for employers to fire employees; and gotten tough on people who receive welfare benefits yet don’t actively look for jobs. The result is a labor market that is more Americanized than any other in continental Europe, and an unemployment rate at or below U.S. levels.

So, not all Europeans are terminally resistant to sensible economic reforms. There is no insurmountable reason why France, Germany, and Italy couldn’t move toward new policies as well.

Unfortunately, economic results on the continent may have to get even uglier before a majority of citizens recognizes the foolishness of the path they are now on. For the time being, most Europeans still display the same mindset that Lord Palmerston summed up when he is to have said to Queen Victoria: “Change? Change? Why do we need change? Things are quite bad enough already!”

Olaf Gersemann is international news editor of the Financial Times Deutschland, and author of Cowboy Capitalism.


Published in  Red America, Blue Europe  October-December 2005
The American Enterprise Institute
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.18719/article_detail.asp


Sidebar Article

  Amerikanische Verhältnisse:
Die falsche Angst der Deutschen vor dem Cowboy-Kapitalismus
(American Conditions: The Misguided Fear of the Germans toward Cowboy Capitalism)
with
Olaf Gersemann U.S.
Correspondent for WirtschaftsWoche

Date: March 3, 2004
Location: Washington, DC

On March 3, 2004, AICGS was pleased to welcome Mr. Olaf Gersemann, US correspondent for WirtschaftsWoche and author of his recently published book: Amerikanische Verhältnisse: Die falsche Angst der Deutschen vor dem Cowboy-Kapitalismus (American Conditions: The Misguided Fear of the Germans toward Cowboy Capitalism). Olaf Gersemann has spent nearly five years in Washington, D.C., as chief correspondent for WirtschaftsWoche. During that time, he developed an extensive knowledge about the pros and cons of the American economic model. His book takes a hard look at the patterns of growth and employment, as well as the causes and consequences of the ups and downs of the American economy. He also examines the myths and realities with a particular eye on German perspectives, which often fear that American conditions, or "cowboy capitalism," may be encroaching on Germany's social market economy. He provides a balanced examination of the real challenges Germany and the United States face in the continuing effort to respond to the forces of globalization, as different or as similar as they may be.

Mr. Gersemann started his presentation by stating that there is a big coalition in Germany opposed to importing American conditions to Germany. This opposition ranges across the whole political spectrum, which Mr. Gersemann corroborated by quoting several politicians representing major German parties expressing their fear of and opposition to "American Conditions." Despite the fierce opposition, no one has yet defined exactly what constitutes "American conditions". Mr. Gersemann focused in his presentation on three points: First, Germany is paying a high price for its rigid economic model. Second, the stereotypes and preconceived notions that Germans have about the American economy and the social standards are false, or the social problems that do exist are not primarily caused by the fact that America's brand of capitalism is relatively unrestricted. And third, the claim that the German system does produce more economic justice and security does not stand up to the facts.

Statistics show that Europe did well economically in the past, but the convergence to the U.S. level of per-capita GDP rates was interrupted at the beginning of the 1980s, showing that the price Europe and especially Germany is paying for its rigid economic model is high.

Common European beliefs concerning the "American Conditions" are that living standards are declining or are financed by debt, that most jobs created are "McDonald-jobs", that most people have to have at least two jobs to survive and that most Americans can not afford decent health care. Mr. Gersemann argued in his presentation that the myth that most people have to have a second job to survive, for example, does not withstand closer scrutiny. Only 5.3% of employed persons in the United States hold multiple jobs. The official number in Germany in 2003 was 2.4%. This simple comparison, however, does not reflect the large shadow economy in Germany and the low incentives (high marginal tax rates) and fewer opportunities (shorter shopping hours) that Germans have for holding multiple jobs. Furthermore only 1.6% of the American working force is holding multiple jobs to make ends meet.

A Harvard Study showed that in the United States only the well being of those better off is affected by income equality, whereas in Europe only the worse-off are being hurt by inequality. This raises the question which kind of society produces more for economic justice: One in which the better-off fear for their status (i.e. the U.S.) - or one in which the poor do not believe that they can alter their fate.

Mr. Gersemann then continued his presentation by outlining the 'Tectonic shift', which describes the rising of college premiums between 1975 (57% before taxes) and 2001 (89% before taxes) and the ensuing increase in income inequality. This, however, will only be a temporary phenomenon, Mr. Gersemann maintains, as rising demand for skills will be matched by rising supply, if prices (i.e. wages) are allowed to rise. Furthermore if states try and prevent the college premium from rising, the adjustment process will take longer; new technologies would be adapted more slowly; income per capita would not grow as fast as could be possible; alternatively, a lack of skilled labor can lead companies to invest in technologies that are not skill-based and the income level could in this case fall permanently behind. There are indications that Germany is taking the second path.

Mr. Gersemann's presentation was followed by a discussion, in which it was pointed out that the fears of increasing income inequality in the United States are real fears that need to be addressed and that one cannot necessarily say that Europe is falling behind. The discussion then turned to the question of why Germans and Europeans are so afraid of the United States and "American conditions", if they in fact do not know much about them. This led to the role of the media in shaping public opinion and the problem of securing independent, objective information. Instead of a constructive debate regarding the economic models and systems in Europe and the United States, their problems and successes, Germany is locked into viewing America as a negative benchmark. An objective, constructive debate has to occur in Germany in order for reforms to be accepted and to overcome economic problems.

http://www.aicgs.org/events/2004/03032004_summary.aspx

AICGS would like to thank the Elfriede Draeger Memorial Foundation for its generous support of this event.

Sidebar #2     The French way implodes

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Through a combination of socialism at home and appeasement abroad, the French believed they had found a viable alternative to, in former Prime Minister Lionel Jospin's phrase, "jungle capitalism," as practiced by you know who. Jacques Chirac was more direct, condemning "ultra liberal Anglo-Saxon" economic policies, while also famously boasting that France would anchor a European pole in a "multipolar" world, with American influence vastly reduced. With 300 French cities in flames, French pretensions lie singed and shriveled.

By "ultra liberal" Chirac of course meant free market, not liberal in the American sense. American liberals are equivalent to European socialists. And French socialists have set the table for the current crisis. Yes, the rioters are all Muslim youths from North Africa and the Middle East. And the racism of French society may fuel the flames to some extent, but the most important factors in this story are economic. The French have accepted wave after wave of immigrants with no prospect of employing them. In the U.S., the unemployment rate among natives and immigrants is the same. Not so in France.

The French have enacted all of the economic policies that liberals would like to see implemented in this country. So, for example, jobs are protected. If a French company employing more than 600 people wants to fire someone, it must endure administrative procedures that last an average of 106 days. Because it is so difficult to fire employees, French companies are less willing to take risks in hiring. This hurts young, inexperienced workers disproportionately. Once unemployed, 40 percent of French workers can expect to remain so for more than a year. Not only are jobs hard to find, but joblessness is softened by generous benefits. Unemployment benefits range from 57 to 75 percent of the worker's last salary and can last as long as three years (with a cap of 5,126 Euros per month).

The French boast of (and American liberals drool over) France's 35-hour workweek. But French economic growth slowed to 0.1 percent in the second quarter of 2005 and is unlikely to reach 2 percent for the year. American economic growth, by contrast, was 3.8 percent in the first quarter of 2005. Payroll taxes are higher in France than in any of the other 30 nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Writing in The American Enterprise magazine, Olaf Gersemann estimates that per capita income in the U.S. now exceeds that of France by 40 percent. The French unemployment rate is more than 10 percent — 21.7 percent among 15- to 24-year-olds, and reportedly as much as 40 percent among Muslim youths. Since the 1970s, Europe has created only 4 million new jobs. The U.S. has created 57 million in the same period. Some Europeans may be enjoying their short workweeks and lavish paid vacations, but many others, particularly immigrants, cannot find jobs at all.

And welfare, while generous, does not quell the unrest — it stokes discontent. Immigrants who cannot find jobs, particularly young males from traditionalist Muslim societies, need dignity as much or more than comfort. Yet French society, with its rigid socialist economy and intrusive state, lacks the engine that can provide jobs — a vibrant private sector.

But socialism is an insidious poison. The vast majority of French voters seem wedded to their government-supplied goodies — failing to recognize that their economic and therefore social lives are unraveling because of that dependence. When they rejected the proposed EU constitution last summer, most French voters told pollsters they were worried about losing welfare benefits and trade protections.

The cars aflame in French cities now underscore the dangers of economic stagnation. The French have imported a small army of socially, culturally and economically estranged young men. These Muslim men would have been difficult to assimilate under the best of circumstances. But in a sclerotic, socialist state, where the prospect of jobs and economic advancement is so remote, the task becomes titanic.

So, Monsieur Jospin, which economic system deserves the prefix "jungle"?
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen111105.asp


Europe vs. America

Sidebar # 3

Big Dipper ride is not so scary

Bill Jamieson

OF ALL the voter doubts over Europe that Prime Minister Tony Blair has set out to dispel, the greatest and most daunting are not about straight bananas or harmonised cucumbers. Behind the steady rise in euroscepticism are clear and growing doubts across the UK on the ability of Europe’s economic model to succeed on the world stage. Many fear that Britain would be worse off in an integrated Europe with the regularity remit of the European Commission allowed free rein.

Twenty-nine years ago there were few such doubts about the superiority of the German economic model. The case for Britain’s membership of the Common Market was underpinned by the economic success of Germany and the continent and a confidence that if only we could get closer to the economies of continental Europe, how very much better our own would become. Britain in 1975 was battling against a 25% inflation rate, a billowing balance of payments deficit, trade union militancy and fitful, at best, economic growth.

Today the picture is very different. It is the UK economy that is consistently outperforming the Euro-zone. This year will mark the ninth year since 1994 that UK growth in real Gross Domestic Product has outperformed the Euro-zone average. The economy is likely to see growth this year of around 3%. In Germany, growth is forecast to hit 1.8%. This is on the strength of first quarter figures showing growth in Germany at its highest level for three years - at a measly 0.4%.

Unemployment is also scaring UK voters off. In Germany it stands at 9.3% on the OECD standardised measure. The figure across the Euro-zone is 8.8%. The figure in the UK is 4.8%.

Nor is it just Germany that is failing. France, too, has lost its momentum. The economy in the 1970s was about 25% bigger than Britain’s. Today it is 9% smaller. Comparisons with the US economy are even more damning. But continental Europe never tires of asserting the superiority of its economic model over that of ‘les Anglo Saxons’.

Is it not America that has large pockets of unemployment, whose citizens live in a Big Dipper economic system, that has a grossly inequitable distribution of wealth so that a few are super rich while there is a vast underclass trapped in poverty?

There is indeed a huge gap in economic growth and in living standards - but one that is much in America’s favour, according to a new comparative study, ‘The EU vs USA’. The report was written, I hasten to add, not by American economists but by two Swedish ones, Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag. It was published by the Swedish think tank Timbro and the results reported last week in the Wall Street Journal.

It found that if Europe was part of the US, only Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in GDP per head. Most European countries would rank below the US average - and below Arkansas - a state associated in the European imagination with grinding rural poverty, a working class population huddling in corrugated iron shacks or in rusting trailers, surrounded by chickens with barely the strength to walk.

The study does not purport to measure either output in the informal or ‘cash’ economy that is quite large in parts of continental Europe given the high tax regime. It also does not cover "the value of leisure or a good environment" or the way prosperity is spread across a society. Europeans may protest that this omits a great deal as the tax system is highly redistributive when it is not shelling out huge amounts in leisure and environmental benefits.

But continental Europe has a large unwanted leisure provision in the form of high unemployment. And the stated aim of Euro-zone governments is to step up economic growth as the best and most effective means to get on top of its jobless crisis.

What the study finds is that US GDP per head was a stunning 32% higher than the EU average in 2000 and that the gap shows little sign of closing. Higher GDP per head allows the average American to spend about $9,700 (£5,276) more on consumption every year than the average European. As the study says: "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near."

Apologists for the continental model would protest that such blanket comparisons mask the reality of rampant inequality and that continental Europe has a superior social model designed to minimise poverty. But according to the study, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has fallen from 22% since 1959 to 12%. In

1999 a quarter of American households were considered ‘low income’ - that is, they had an annual income of less than $25,000 (£13,595). If Sweden, regarded by many as the paragon of economic wellbeing in continental Europe, is judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low income.

‘Poverty’ is also a relative state. In the US Some 45.9% of the ‘poor’ own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200sq ft. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000sq ft.

Why, then, does continental Europe find it so difficult to lift its economic growth performance? The study says: "The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is, and remains, the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbour in the West."

In 1999 average EU tax revenues were more than 40% of GDP, and in some cases above 50%, compared with less than 30% in most of the US. Far from this high tax-to-GDP ratio being seen as a problem, many in continental Europe view it as a badge of pride and a stepping stone to higher levels.

The problem of continental Europe’s relative economic decline is of concern to the UK for several reasons. First, the rest of the EU constitutes our biggest single export market for goods and services, and a sluggish continent means sluggish business for UK exporters. Second, the more pronounced this relative decline becomes, the greater the pressure to solve it by government means: ever-greater expenditure on public projects funded by the EU through larger contributions from wealthier countries like the UK. The third reason is that it makes the whole of the EU that much less of an attractive prospect for inward direct investment. A vicious cycle kicks in. Euro-zone politicians believe the solution lies not in the labour market and economic reforms that Britain’s Chancellor Gordon Brown has been advocating for years - and with particular stridency at the Mansion House dinner last week - but through higher taxes and cuts in interest rates.

Far from enlargement working to rejuvenate the EU, most continental EU states passed legislation barring entrants from enjoying the full benefits of the single market and discriminating against their citizens in access to jobs. The abandonment of the Stability Pact - rammed through by France and Germany to enforce fiscal discipline across the EU and then duly flouted by these same two countries - further reinforces the sense of a private club where the rules are bent for the benefit of France and Germany.

If all this was working to close the economic gap with America, UK voters might be more willing to be persuaded. But Tony Blair has a mountain of a job.
©2006 Scotsman.com
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/business.cfm?id=699052004

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Globalism: "Just beyond the horizon of current events lie two possible political figures-both bleak, neither democratic."

Posted by Gabrielle Cusumano on Friday, November 10, 2006 1:35:23 PM
 

Globalism and Localism:
Changing our Political Understanding of Sovereignty and Democracy
Chahine Ghais, Ph.D.

Globalism and Localism influence state sovereignty at two opposing levels. They attract power and authority away from the state upwards to the international/global level through economic and ecological integration, while they detract state control downwards to the national and ethnic constituents. The state, especially in heterogeneous societies, is left in a very defensive position trying to maintain its basic role as the main organizer and protector of civility in human societies.

Democracy is threatened by globalization due to the latter's overwhelming forces of economic uniformity and cultural homogeneity that deprive the local peoples of their freedom of choice and sovereign participation in indigenous political institutions. Localism threatens democracy through its continuous intercommunal conflicts, minority oppression, and genocide. While recognizing that developing societies are affected more negatively than advanced societies by globalism and localism, the paper concludes that states remain, for the foreseeable future, the only viable organization capable of providing peace and democracy.

Abstract

Scholars of politics assign to the year 1989 the same importance as they assign the year 1648 in international politics. 1648 witnessed the creation, in Westphalia, of the nation-state system. What we witnessed in 1989, with the breakdown of the Berlin Wall, was tantamount to nothing less than the actual end of the Westphalia nation-state system. What we know about the emerging new world order is that it is insistently being shaped by two contradictory and complementary phenomena. Globalism, or integration, and localism, or fragmentation (based on nationalism), seem to compete and cooperate in the destruction of the nation-state order and the creation of a new order that is yet to be well defined. While scholars vary in defining the new order, we still express our hopes and fears regarding the effects of globalism and localism on democracy. This short paper presents a brief analysis of the probable new world orders and the relationships they may entail between globalism and localism on one hand and democracy on the other.

Globalism and Localism and the New World Orders

With the end of the Cold War came the political interest in shaping a new world order and a scholarly interest in defining and explaining the implications of the possible and probable new orders. Globalism and localism forced themselves as influential variables into all of the newly imagined paradigms of international relations. Kenneth Waltz's realist statement about the "remarkably low death rate of states" suddenly lost its empirical power with the death of the Soviet Union, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia and the incarnation of their spirits in 23 different new countries, many with a great potential for new offspring. The idealist paradigm also seemed questioned by local conflicts that quickly broke Francis Fukuyama's promise of an "end of history" and one world (Fukuyama, 1992). Fukuyama seems to resurrect the old and discredited views of the modernization theory. He claims that nationalism will become politically neutralized because of the integrational force of economic factors, which favor the breakdown of national barriers. He predicts that nationalist passions will be confined to the historical non-liberal world, where they may even play a role in promoting democracy (Fukuyama, 1992: 272). Fukuyama's conclusions seem to be rejected by empirical evidence that nationalism is alive and well in most of the western countries such as Canada, Great Britain, Italy, Spain, and even France. These examples provide clear indication that idealists, as much as the realists, need to incorporate localism and nationalism into their views of the world.

Samuel P. Huntington tries to remedy the theoretical deficiency of excluding nationalism but he ends up overcompensating by making identity, culture, and civilization the replacement of ideology as the new divides of the new world order. Huntington argues that in the post-cold war world, the most important distinctions among peoples are not ideological, political, or economic; they are cultural. Culture and identity are viewed as shaping the patterns of cohesion, disintegration, and conflict. "People define themselves in terms of ancestry, religion, language, history, values, customs, and institutions. They identify with cultural groups: tribes, ethnic groups, religious communities, nations, and at the broadest level, civilizations. People use politics not just to advance their interests but also to define their identity" (Huntington, 1996:21). This argument leads Huntington to the conclusion that "in this new world, local politics is the politics of ethnicity, global politics is the politics of civilizations. The rivalry of the superpowers is replaced by the clash of civilizations" (Huntington, 1996: 22).

Huntington is harshly criticized for putting so much emphasis on culture and civilization. His view of a world divided into the Judeo-Christian "West versus the rest," in the form of a coalition between the Confucian and Muslim East, overemphasizes the small conflictual aspects between these civilizations while underestimating the enormous cooperation and interdependence between them. States are not likely at any time in the near future, to surrender sovereignty to civilizational or religious institutions. Material interests, as well, are very likely to maintain their influence over human behavior in all cultures. Fouad Ajami makes these points observing that:

We have been delivered into a new world, to be sure. But it is not a world where the writ of civilizations runs. Civilizations and civilizational fidelities remain. There is to them an astonishing measure of permanence. But let us be clear: civilizations do not control states, states control civilizations. States avert their gaze from blood ties when they need to; they see brotherhood and faith and kin when it is in their interest to do so" (Ajami, 1993: 100).

A more balanced view than that of Huntington is a "bifurcated" world system (Rosenau, 1990) that combines integration and fragmentation simultaneously. This view is presented by James Rosenau and Benjamin Barber. It combines the main elements of the idealist and civilizational paradigms and reflects the weakening of state sovereignty in the international system. Localism, in this regard, is an outcome of the fragmentational forces and the weakened state authority. Barber defines this new world order saying:

Just beyond the horizon of current events lie two possible political figures-both bleak, neither democratic. The first is a retribalization of large swathes of humankind by war and bloodshed: a threatened Lebanonization of national states in which culture is pitted against culture, people against people, tribe against tribe-a jihad in the name of a hundred narrowly conceived faiths against every kind of interdependence, every kind of artificial social cooperation and civic mutuality. The second is being borne in on us by the onrush of economic and ecological forces that demand integration and uniformity and that mesmerize the world with fast music, fast computers, and fast food-with MTV, Macintosh, and McDonald's, pressing nations into one commercially homogenous global network: one McWorld tied together by technology, ecology, communications, and commerce. The planet is falling precipitantly apart and coming reluctantly together at the very same moment (Barber, 1995: 23).

The tendencies of international integration and domestic fragmentation lead to a loss of authority of the state. Integration forces help weaken the state's sovereignty from above. They tend to increase the "loss of control" by national governments over economic, social, and, increasingly, security policies. Internal subunits take advantage of the situation to express their independence aspirations in different ways. Jurgen Habermas describes this situation as a double crisis; a crisis of "rationality," where the state cannot protect its citizens in ways that meet their expectations, and a crisis of "legitimation," where the state cannot any longer rely on the loyalty of its citizens (Habermas, 1975: 46). The consequences are the dismantling of traditional affiliations, confusion, and the "weakening of political elites, compromising their power to reallocate resources and to promote stability... But atomization has not altogether destroyed the sense of allegiances citizens feel... It has displaced it, shifting all previous to different levels, based on perceived commonalties of ethnic background, religion, and language" (Horsman and Marshall, 1993: 15). These arguments convince Vincent Cable that there is a chain of cause and effect which links economic globalization forces to contemporary expressions of tribalism and cultural identity, and therefore provokes national or ethnic conflict (Cable, 1995: 43).

Susan Strange stresses the view that integration and fragmentation are irreversible trends that have fundamentally changed the nature and behavior of states. She does not argue that states have become obsolete. But despite the fact that states are still the most influential and critical sources of authority in the world system, they are increasingly becoming hollow or defective. She writes:

States are like old trees, hollow in the middle, showing signs of weakness and vulnerability to storms, drought, or disease, yet continuing to grow leaves, new shoots, and branches. Some are clearly more defective in terms of their ability to play their roles in society than others. But the structural forces bringing about the hollowing of state authority are common to all, and it is hard to envisage a reversal of the trends (Strange, 1995: 57).

States differ enormously in size and in terms of their vulnerability to the effects of globalization and fragmentation on their sovereignty. "In the United States, China, or India the narrowing of policy options as a result of global economic forces is much less obvious than in Holland or the Philippines, let alone in Tuvalu or Luxembourg" (Cable, 1995: 38). The situation is made worse in a country like Lebanon where there exists a whole mixture of factors that exacerbate the process of diffusing the state authority and national identity. The diffusion of state power is not a problem in itself. "It only becomes a problem if, in the process of dispersion of power, there are tasks that someone should do and no one, no institutions nor associations, does" (Strange, 1995: 72). In countries like Lebanon the absence of state authority has repeatedly led to anarchy and conflict between groups that tend to rush to claim sovereignty over their populations and territories, thereby trying to fill the vacancy left by the broken state.

In more developed societies that are more democratically institutionalized, anarchy and nationalist conflict are not necessarily the natural outcomes of the diffusion of state authority. Legal theorists in global jurisprudence have developed the notion of autopoesis as the possible basis for a new international order where government by state fails or is incomplete (Strange, 1995: 72). James Rosenau translates the legal notion of "autopoesis" to the political science notion of "governance in the absence of sovereignty." Theoretically, this is done through the replacement of the "notion of command mechanisms with the concept of control or steering mechanisms, terms that highlight the purposeful nature of governance without presuming the presence of hierarchy." Rosenau pushes the idealist horizon even further by delineating how it is practically possible to achieve "governance without government."

The evolution of inter-subjective consensus's based on shared fates and common histories, the possession of information and knowledge, the pressure of active or mobilizable publics, and/or the use of careful planning, good timing, clever manipulation, and hard bargaining can-either separately or in combination-foster control mechanisms that sustain governance without government (Rosenau, 1995: 15).

The trends of development seem to advance in Rosenau's general direction with an increasing acceleration due to great technological innovations. But different groups tend to advance at different velocities. The speed disparity, itself, has the potential of being transformed into a source of conflict. European history is rich in examples that clearly illustrate such a potential, such as the debate whether to "widen" or "deepen" the integration process of the European Union.

Barber provides a similar, but more practical, view of the new world order described by Rosenau. He declares:

It certainly seems possible that the most attractive democratic ideal in the face of the brutal realities of Jihad and the dull realities of McWorld will be a confederal union of semi-autonomous communities smaller than nation-states, tied together into regional economic associations and markets larger than nation-states-participatory and self-determining in local matters at the bottom, representative and accountable at the top. The nation-state would play a diminished role, and sovereignty would lose some of its political potency (Barber, 1995: 28).

Nationalism seems to constantly reemerge as an important social and political force at the level of the state, among states, or the clash of civilizations. This indicates a great need to study its dynamics and influence on democracy.

Nationalism and Democracy

The nationalist world order in effect emerged from the Romantic movement and its byproduct the French Revolution. In actual terms, the American Revolution was at least as much a nationalist movement. While American nationalism was based from the very beginning on sharing the same geography and life experience, the French and the rest of the old world nationalisms were based on ethnicity, language, and culture. Both kinds of nationalisms were fundamentally dependent on an emerging middle-class and intellectual leadership trying to set up and channel popular energies into support for the new states (Tamir, 1995: 436). The American Revolution succeeded in producing an exemplary lasting democratic system of government, after the transition period of the Confederacy. The middle-class and intellectuals were able to strike an equilibrium between their need to maintain their wealth and privilege and the need of the masses to perceive an opportunity of upward social mobility. On the other hand, the French Revolution failed to achieve democracy and ended up replacing the king with an emperor, after an intense period of domestic instability and foreign wars. What conclusions can we draw from the brief comparison of the first two nationalist revolutions about the relationship between nationalism and democracy?

The one conclusion we can derive is that nationalism helps in changing the regime. It does not, however, ensure an outcome of democracy. Democracy seems to depend more on the ability of the leadership to maintain relative unity and gradually allow for increased openness and political participation. In cases like France, where the military wins the power struggle, we may expect an added emphasis on security and order and lesser attention for democracy and development. At the personal level of the leaders, they seem more interested in immediate or short-term policies that enable them to establish their control and enhance their personal prestige and material benefits. This seems to have been the case with most of the third world countries that have failed to develop an adequate middle-class that would naturally be driven towards policies aiming at long term stability and enhanced economic opportunity. Such a situation is much further complicated by the addition of ethnic divisions. Nationalism ceases to mean patriotism, as it does in the United States and France for example. Nationalism begins to indicate a conflict between the minority ethnic groups on the periphery and the dominant group at the center. Authors like Narin (1977) and Wallerstein (1979) apply this type of Gramscian argument to highlight the role of nationalism as the forced mode of socio-economic and political evolution of peripheral regions. "Nationalism offsets the uneven development generated by capitalist core centers by fostering mobilization along broad cultural lines of ethnicity" (Tiryakian, 1995: 220).

If the mobilized ethnic groups on the periphery maintain an objective of enhanced political and economic participation within the institutionalized frameworks of the state, then their nationalist efforts can be deemed as democratic. However, if the level of disparity between the periphery groups and the center is too high, so would be the likelihood that nationalism would mean demands for self-determination and a new independent national state for the affected group. In most such cases, calls for independence are very likely to draw negative reactions from the state that is normally expected to protect the status quo and the interest of the dominant group. Instead of leading to democracy, nationalism in such cases, leads to repression or open bloody conflicts that tend to linger and regenerate. Such negative outcomes lead Conor Cruise O'Brien to the conclusion that "democracy and nationalism run on contradictory courses." He views nationalism as an anti-democratic force that is ironically released by democratic movements in multinational polities (O'Brien, 1991: 30).

O'Brien's conclusion is predicated on the assumption of maintaining the state as the basic unit of analysis. Scholars who tend not to put as much emphasis on maintaining the state structures tend as well to view nationalism as conducive to democracy. Fukuyama predicts the neutralization of nationalism in the developed world and its confinement to the historically non-liberal world, where he expects nationalism to play a role in promoting democracy (Fukuyama, 1992: 272). Barber seems to agree, for different reasons. He argues that fragmentation leads to "diminutive settings" where "real democracy flourishes." He supports his position by de Tocqueville's observation that "the spirit of liberty is local" (Barber, 1995: 28). Liah Greenfeld takes the argument further and presents the very opposite view to O'Brien's. She argues that "democracy was born with the sense of nationality, the two are inherently linked, and neither can be fully understood apart from this connection. Nationalism was the form in which democracy appeared in the world, contained in the idea of nation as a butterfly in a cocoon (Greenfeld, 1992: 10). Greenfeld's argument, though, seems more consistent with homogeneous societies-real nation-states-where nationalism is patriotism and not a source of conflict between nation and state. If nationalism was necessary for the development of democracy, it was not because it established political equality, but because it gave a rationale for the division of the world into distinct political units in which democratic principles could be implemented (Tamir, 1995: 436). Unfortunately, not all states are "nation-states." In the great majority of the world's states, it requires special political skills and understanding to adapt nationalism and democratic principles to produce a stable and peaceful society.

Conclusion

Our world is being reshaped by localism and globalism. Our states are losing their sovereignty, and our democracy is under an imminent threat. The idealist argument of globalized autopoesis and "governance without government" seems to remain as illusive to our human nature as Marx's stage of a "withering state." The confederal option of regional economic institutions and participatory local authorities sounds like a practical and pragmatic compromise between the two besieging phenomena of globalism and localism. Pragmatic compromises, however, tend to be quasi viable, depending for their continuity on a host of endogenous and exogenous variables that may be manipulated by superior interests in the system. In order for such a solution to last, we have to assume a conformity in the awareness level of the participants and commonality in their interests. These are difficult conditions that cannot be guaranteed in the present or in the foreseeable future. A sovereign state remains the sole insurance policy for democracy, while maintaining peace and justice.

Works Cited

Ajami, Fouad (1993) "The Summoning," Foreign Affairs 72, no. 4: 93-100.

Barber, Benjamin (1994/1995) "Jihad Vs. McWorld." Global Issues, 23-28.

Cable, Vincent (1995) "The Diminished Nation-State: A Study in the Loss of Economic Power," Daedalus, 23-53.

Fukuyama, Francis (1992) The End of History and the Last Man. London: H. Hamilton.

Gramsci, Antonio (1967) The Modern Prince. New York: International Publishers.

Greenfeld, Liah (1992) Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Habermas, Jurgen (1975) Legitimation Crisis. Boston: Beacon Press.

Horsman, Mathew and Andrew Marshall (1993) After the Nation State. London: Harper Collins.

Huntington, Samuel (1993) "The Clash of Civilizations?" Foreign Affairs 72: 22-49.

Huntington, Samuel (1996) The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Narin, Tom (1977) The Break-up of Britain: Crisis and Neo-Nationalism. London: NLB.

O'Brien, Conor (1991) "Nationalist and Democrats," Times Literary Supplement.

Rosenau, James (1995) "Governance in the Twenty-first Century" Global Governance l, 13-43.

Rosenau, James (1990) Turbulence in World Politics: A Theory of Change and Continuity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Strange, Susan (1995) "The Defective State," Daedalus, 55-72.

Tamir, Yael (1995) "The Enigma of Nationalism." World Politics 47, 418-40.

Presented at the "Local Community, Globalism and Environment: Challenges, Pledges and Alternatives", Notre Dame University, January 28, 2000, Zouk, Lebanon

http://www.ndu.edu.lb/rfr.htm?http://www.ndu.edu.lb/academics/palma/20010701/GlobalismLocalism.htm

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Secret Dem Agenda? Code Words: "Common Good", "Hot Issues"

Posted by Gabrielle Cusumano on Friday, November 10, 2006 1:26:54 PM


 Democratic House to Shift Left on Hot Issues

NewsMax.com Wires
Thursday, Nov. 9, 2006

Now that the Democrats have taken firm control of the House of Representatives, Americans can expect a decided shift to the left in Congress as the new majority party seeks to promote its agenda.

For starters, Nancy Pelosi is almost certain to become the new speaker of the House, giving the liberal representative from San Francisco extensive control over congressional business and putting her two heartbeats away from the Oval Office.

The Democratic takeover of the House will also usher in a cadre of the most liberal members to important committee chairmanships.

Under House rules, the majority party selects the chairmen of each committee and subcommittee, and Democrats traditionally go strictly by seniority when selecting a chairperson.

Here's how the Democratic agenda will likely play out on several important fronts:

Taxes and Finance

Charles Rangel of New York is set to become the new chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, the most powerful committee in the House, with jurisdiction over taxes, trade, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Rangel has already said he would put all of the Bush tax cuts on the congressional "chopping block" and wouldn't continue "a single one" of the cuts when they expire after 2010.

Rangel has waffled a bit on this issue lately, but by simply doing nothing as head of the committee and allowing the cuts to expire, he and fellow Democrats could over time impose a cumulative tax increase of $2.4 trillion.

Steny Hoyer of Maryland, who could become the majority leader, has admitted to being a "tax-tax spend-spend" Democrat.

And George Miller, a close ally of Pelosi who is in line to chair the Education and Workforce Committee, will reportedly propose cutting interest rates for student loans and increasing fees on banks and other financial institutions in the student lending business.

Impeachment

John Conyers of Michigan is in line to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, which would initiate any impeachment proceedings against President Bush. But Conyers released a statement to the media on Thursday stating that he was in total agreement with Nancy Pelosi's statement that impeachment of Bush was off the table..

A report released by Conyers in August cites "approximately 26 laws and regulations" that he says may have been violated by the Bush administration, and there still may be hearings and investigations into the allegations.

Iraq War

John Murtha of Pennsylvania is poised to chair the Appropriations Committee's Defense Subcommittee. He is an outspoken critic of the Iraq war and in November called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops from that nation.

Pelosi emphatically backed Murtha's call.

Murtha has said he will seek to become the majority leader in the new House.

What the Bush administration fears most from a Democratic Congress is efforts to cut off funds to support the war effort, although Murtha has said he would not pursue that tactic while troops are still in the field.

Congressional Oversight

Los Angeles-area Rep. Henry Waxman will be chairman of the powerful House Government Reform Committee. He has said that as chairman he would boost oversight of the Bush administration and target what he's called "profiteering" by drug companies and oil companies that have enjoyed soaring profits.

Waxman has already led campaigns to get tobacco regulated as an addictive drug, increase federal oversight of dietary supplements, and toughen auto-emission standards.

He has also said he wants to allow the government to negotiate lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.

"Corporate executives may not be familiar with Waxman yet, but some of them will be by this time next year," Andy Laperriere, a political analyst at the brokerage and research firm International Strategy & Investment, told The Wall Street Journal.

In October, Waxman asked the Food and Drug Administration to investigate whether the main ingredient being used by some makers of over-the-counter cold medicines might be ineffective. Now as chairman of the committee, he will have the power to issue subpoenas, compel testimony and call hearings.

Intelligence

Jane Harman of California is the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. But Pelosi wants to block her ascension to the committee chair largely because she feels Harman has not sufficiently used her position to attack the Bush administration for its prewar intelligence failures on Iraq, The New York Times reported.

That would turn over the chairmanship to Alcee Hastings of Florida — who was impeached and removed from his federal judgeship in 1989 for conspiring to take a $150,000 bribe and hand out light sentences to two convicted swindlers.

As Committee chairman, Hastings would have access to the most sensitive national security secrets. According to the Web site OutsideTheBeltway, that "would virtually ensure that the Bush administration, already ridiculously paranoid about sharing information that Congress rightfully ought to have to conduct its oversight duties, would be even more reticent."

Security

When the House passed the Electronic Surveillance Modernization Act in September, authorizing the National Security Agency to intercept terrorist communications entering the U.S., 177 Democrats voted against it.

More than 160 Democrats also voted against authorizing military tribunals to try the most dangerous terrorist suspects.

A majority of Democrats voted against renewing the Patriot Act, and Democrats have repeatedly opposed a U.S. missile-defense system. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio is in line to become chairman of the Government Reform Committee's subcommittee on national security. Kucinich once introduced a bill to "abolish all nuclear weapons," refused to condemn Hezbollah terrorists, called for an end to the war on drugs and to the death penalty.

Social Issues

As recently as 2003, 137 Democrats in the House voted against banning partial-birth abortions.

In 2005, 145 Democrats in the House voted against legislation prohibiting the transportation of a minor girl across state lines to obtain an abortion without the consent of a parent, guardian, or judge.

Stem Cell Research

In May 2005, 187 Democrats voted for a bill expanding public funding for embryonic stem cell research and only 14 Democrats opposed it.

President Bush vetoed stem cell legislation this past July, but a Democratic House, with some GOP support, could have the votes to override a veto.

Pelosi, President Bush and others have been promising to work together and "reach across the aisle," so to speak, since the midterm election. But the main goal for this group of Democrats who will soon control the House of Representatives, and who so revile President Bush and the GOP, will be to investigate and dismantle what the Repblicans have done over the last six years, and gain the White House for the Democrats in 2008.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/11/9/131152.shtml?s=lh


Second article from News Max

New Democratic Catch Phrase: 'Common Good'

Ted Lamont uses it in his Connecticut Senate race. President Clinton is scheduled to speak on the idea in Washington this week. Bob Casey Jr., Pennsylvania candidate for Senate, put it in the title of his talk at The Catholic University of America - then repeated the phrase 29 times.

The term is "common good," and it's catching on as a way to describe liberal values and reach religious voters who rejected Democrats in the 2004 election. Led by the Center for American Progress, a Washington think-tank, party activists hope the phrase will do for them what "compassionate conservative" did for the Republicans.

"It's a core value that we think organizes the entire political agenda for progressives," said John Halpin, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. "With the rise of materialism, greed and corruption in American society, people want a return to a better sense of community - sort of a shared sacrifice, a return to the ethic of service and duty."

Republicans have used the phrase, too. GOP Sen. Rick Santorum, who faces Casey, a fellow Catholic, in November, wrote a book last year titled, "It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good." But liberals say that Republican policies promote a "radical individualism" - advocating individual retirement accounts above Social Security, health savings accounts over affordable insurance, and tax cuts that Democrats say benefit only the rich.

"We really feel that it speaks to the central moral challenge of our time," said Alexia Kelly, executive director of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, an advocacy group that formed two years ago.

 

Tom Perriello, a co-founder of the Catholic Alliance, said the approach would help end what he sees as a self-defeating practice among liberals - treating religious Americans as a constituency that needs special handling, instead of crafting a message meaningful to all voters.

But he acknowledged that the strength of the "common good" as a unifying theme also is a weakness. The term is so broad it's hard to define and can be misinterpreted as a call for "big government," Perriello said. "The question right now is who is going to define it."

Advocates say they don't want to tie the phrase to a laundry list of narrow policies, but intend to convey a broad philosophy of governing with a positive appeal.

It won't be easy. Under Roman Catholic teaching, promoting the "common good" would include opposing abortion - a position both Santorum and Casey embrace - and opposing gay marriage to protect human dignity and the family. "Common good" Democrats are generally changing how they talk about abortion, calling it a tragedy to avoid - rather than a private issue. But most have not come out against the procedure.

"I would argue that the conservative evangelical and traditional Catholic stands on same-sex marriage and abortion are stances in favor of the common good," said Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention and a supporter of President Bush.

"We believe that traditional marriage is the basic building block of society."

The "common good" theme came up in meetings among Democrats and faith groups after the 2004 election, when the party felt blind-sided by the values vote and was frantic to solve its religion problem. Exit polls showed 78 percent of white evangelicals voted for President Bush. Bush, a Methodist, also won the Catholic vote 52 percent to 47 percent over Kerry, who is Catholic.

Around the same time, The American Prospect, a liberal policy magazine, ran articles by its editor Michael Tomasky, and by Halpin and analyst Ruy Texeira, urging the Democrats to develop a clear vision of the "common good" so Americans know what Democrats stand for.

Tomasky drew on political philosophers, and Presidents James Madison and Franklin D. Roosevelt, among others. But the term also conveniently tapped into a guiding concept in Catholic and some Protestant traditions. It can be found in many papal encyclicals - a pontiff's most authoritative declaration - most recently in Deus Caritas Est, the first encyclical from Pope Benedict XVI, who wrote "the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply."

The twin sources of the idea can be seen in who's adopting it.

From the political left, the Campaign for America's Future, which has worked with MoveOn.org and the AFL-CIO, released an "Agenda for the Common Good" in June.

Mara Vanderslice, a religious outreach director for Kerry's presidential campaign, formed a political consulting firm last year called Common Good Strategies to "help Democrats reframe the national religious debate." The Casey campaign in Pennsylvania is a Vanderslice client.

© 2006 Associated Press.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/10/16/164614.shtml

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We're On Our Way, Next Harvard Will Offer Courses In World Criminal Court Prosecution Defense Methods?

Posted by Gabrielle Cusumano on Friday, November 10, 2006 1:14:10 PM

Beware, Will the new US Congress now join the World Criminal Court and allow Americans to be prosecuted in a rabid Anti-American World. Will there be any true justice for Americans in this age?

Two Articles

Shift in Harvard Curriculum Reflects Larger Trend Toward Global Law

Leigh Jones
The National Law Journal
10-24-2006

Harvard Law School's recent announcement that it is making the most sweeping changes to its first-year curriculum in 100 years heralded a major shift in legal education, including a new emphasis on global law.

But some of its competitors say that they already have revamped their programs in similar ways.

Harvard will begin requiring first-year students to take three new courses, including a class on legislation and regulation, another covering global legal systems and a third focusing on problems and theories.

The school's Oct. 6 announcement created plenty of buzz for the institution, which historically was instrumental in establishing the basic law school curriculum of torts, contracts, property and other first-year classes required at almost every law school across the nation. And while some competing schools say they welcome the changes at Harvard, they also are a bit perturbed by all the fuss.

"When Harvard does it, it becomes news," said Evan Caminker, dean of the University of Michigan School of Law.

Since 2001, Michigan's law school has required its students to complete a three-credit "transnational" course, Caminker said. They have the option to take the course during any one of the three years in law school, he said, adding that about half of the school's first-year class takes the course.

"While we thought it was critically important that every law student take the course, it wasn't critical that it come in the first year," Caminker said.

Stanford Law School Dean Larry Kramer said his school also has similar requirements. But it has decided to follow a more traditional approach in its first-year curriculum and to leave the other courses for the second and third years of law school.

"The first year is the one year that works," he said. "It is rather bizarre that, in general, law schools have focused on reforming the first year when the problems and failures in the curriculum are all in the second and third years."

Harvard decided to modify its first-year curriculum because of the "imprint" that the initial year of study has on law students, said Martha Minow, a Harvard Law School professor who spearheaded its curriculum reform project.

"To postpone introduction to legislation and regulation is to communicate to students that it's an add-on. To postpone introduction to international law is to say 'that's for later,' " she said.

Minow also said that the changes at other schools influenced Harvard's revisions. "We are simply enacting what a lot of people have talked about and what a lot of people have done in pieces," she said.

Although Northwestern University School of Law recently altered its first-year legal research and writing course to include a broader communications and legal-reasoning component, it does not plan to change markedly its 1L curriculum, said the school's dean, David Van Zandt.

"I'm not a big fan of what Harvard's done," he said.

Harvard's new course on legislation and regulation will focus on the separation of powers, the legislative process, statutory interpretation, administrative agency practice and more. For the global legal systems course, students will choose one of three classes: public international law, international economic law and comparative law.

Students will take the problems and theories course after they complete their first term. It will include solving problems from simulated case studies. Harvard will accommodate the changes by reducing the number of class hours in torts, contracts, civil procedure, criminal law and property, and by adding a new January term for first-year students for the problem-solving course. It will implement the changes over the next three years.

http://www.law.com/jsp/law/LawArticleFriendly.jsp?id=1161606920757

The US Assault On World Criminal Court

Published on Monday, July 1, 2002 in the Boston Globe
The US Assault On World Criminal Court
by Eric Schwartz
 

TODAY the world reaches a milestone in the effort to punish perpetrators of some of the worst human rights abuses - genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. A treaty to establish the first permanent international criminal court comes into force today, and the court should be up and running by the middle of next year.

The International Criminal Court, or ICC, is the product of many years of discussions among dozens of governments. It will serve as a living monument to the millions of victims of killings and torture over the past several decades, from Cambodia to Congo, who never obtained justice against the perpetrators of such abuses.

The ICC will also inherit the legacy of ad hoc international war crimes tribunals established after World War II, as well as those more recently established for the Balkans and Rwanda. The court will be composed of judges and a prosecutor chosen by states that have ratified the 1998 Rome Statute of the ICC and will have jurisdiction over the most heinous abuses that result from international conflict.

One might expect that the US government would be organizing celebrations for today, or at least planning to ensure that the ICC be made part of this year's Independence Day activities. After all, the goals of civil rights, due process, and basic justice that are imbedded in our Constitution are the central elements of the ICC Treaty.

Instead, the Bush administration has renounced the Clinton administration's signing of the treaty and has set out to cripple this new institution. Last month, US officials brought their offensive against the court to the United Nations, where they are seeking a Security Council resolution that would exempt from the jurisdiction of the court member-state officials participating in all UN peacekeeping operations. The issue has come to a head in Security Council debate on a resolution to extend the UN mission in Bosnia.

No matter how the Bosnia issue is resolved, the Security Council - most of whose members have signed or ratified the treaty - will resist a broad exemption for all UN peacekeeping missions, as such an exemption would conflict with the text of the treaty and its principle of accountability. In turn, the Bush administration has threatened to bring home US peacekeepers from around the world if it does not get its way.

The Bush administration says it is acting to insulate US officials from the risk of unfair and politicized prosecutions by the ICC, but US actions are wildly out of proportion to any such threat against Americans.

For one thing, the ICC is not permitted to initiate a prosecution against any individual if the person's country of nationality is prepared to investigate the case. Even if the administration does not believe the ICC will respect that requirement, the Treaty permits the Bush administration to negotiate agreements with other governments against surrender of US citizens to the ICC.

Rather than an assault on the court, the Bush administration should become involved in the development of this institution to ensure that it effectively promotes justice.

Senior officials at the State Department do support a less confrontational US approach toward the court, but they have been run over by a Defense Department juggernaut not only against the ICC, but also against US involvement in peacekeeping generally. This is unfortunate for several reasons.

First, if the United States makes good on its threat to pull out of peacekeeping missions, we will damage our own security interests. From the Balkans to the Iraq-Kuwait border, US soldiers and civilians have played critical roles in keeping the peace and ensuring against instability.

Second, at a time when we are depending on the leadership of others in peacekeeping in Afghanistan, the Balkans, and East Timor, our disengagement will be an affront to allies whose support in the war on terrorism and other issues will be crucial in the years ahead.

Finally, the administration's hardline posture will inevitably encourage its friends on Capitol Hill to seek to eliminate US financial support for UN peacekeeping, making a mockery of US protestations of support for the United Nations at a time when the president is asking so much of the institution in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

It is probably far too much to ask Bush to embrace the International Criminal Court. But it is certainly reasonable to expect his administration to abandon an arrogant and self-defeating campaign against the ICC, which will serve only to antagonize valued allies and undermine US leadership around the world.

Eric Schwartz, a former senior White House adviser on UN issues during the Clinton administration, is a visiting lecturer of public and international affairs at Princeton University.

© Copyright 2002 Globe Newspaper Company

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0701-01.htm
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Replacing democracy with a despotism of the mob"= Globalism (Just look at Europe today.

Posted by Gabrielle Cusumano on Friday, November 10, 2006 12:35:50 PM
Yesterday the  Europeans loved a newly elected Congress now with a majority of Democrats who I suspect year mightily for the loved of the Europeans.  This is the program I fear the Europeans will ask  the Democrats  to follow in order to be invited to the big table.

Anti-Globalism = Anti-Americanism
By Jean-Francois Revel

How to understand this war against globalization, which has grown in scope and virulence over the past five years? First, we must realize that it is a war in the real, not the figurative, sense of the word. It is a physical struggle being fought in the streets, not just theoretically. The demonstrators who are its shock troops are organized by activist organizations, many of them subsidized by governments, and they sack cities and lay siege to international meetings during their battles.

What motivates this extraordinary resistance? Globalization simply means freedom of movement for goods and people, and it is hard to be violently hostile to that. But behind this fight lies an older and more fundamental struggle—against economic liberalization, and against the chief representative thereof, which is the United States. Anti-globalism carnivals often feature an Uncle Sam in a Stars-and-Stripes costume as their supreme scapegoat. In this way, the new movement taps into an old socialist tradition, where opposition to economic freedom and opposition to America are impossible to separate.

The simplistic article of Marxist faith that capitalism is absolute evil, and that it is incarnated in and directed by the United States, may be the most important principle shared by the current crop of anti-globalizers. America is the object of their loathing because for a half century or more it has been the most prosperous and creative capitalist society on earth. But ultimately it is something even bigger that the anti-globalizers want to destroy: liberal democracy and free-market economics. Or quite simply liberty itself.

According to the anti-globalists, the global marketplace will breed ever-increasing poverty for the profit of an ever-richer minority. This is of course the outcome Karl Marx predicted in the middle of the nineteenth century for the industrialized nations of Western Europe and North America. But we all know how history has confirmed that brilliant prophecy. So the old prediction has been transferred to a new locale, new time, and new active agency. Ah, the genius of “scientific socialism.”

But today’s anti-globalists are much more than false prophets. Their violence has gone far beyond legitimate protest into real savagery. They have killed people through charming acts like bombing McDonald’s restaurants. In Seattle, Nice, Genoa, and other cities, rioters destroyed millions of dollars worth of property and attacked officials and police.

Anti-globalists have tried to replace democracy with a despotism of the mob, advancing the brutal proposition that street demonstrators are more legitimate than elected governments. Wherever they have been active, their goal has been to prevent elected heads of state or appointed officials of international organizations from meeting. Like other totalitarians, they treat the mere expression of ideas contrary to their slogans as a crime.

Anti-globalizers have no ambition to advance a program by democratic means, for the simple reason that they don’t have a program, or coherent ideas, or facts on their side. So instead they beat relentlessly on the archaic anti-capitalist and anti-American drum. In Genoa we saw red flags adorned with hammer and sickle, effigies of Che Guevara, and the acronym for the Red Brigades.

The anti-globalists are often incoherent. They brought mayhem to Seattle in the name of combating a “savage” globalism that “profits only the rich.” Yet which groups met in Seattle? The World Trade Organization (WTO), whose role is precisely to monitor international economic transactions so as to prevent them from being “savage.” There has not been a country in the world that hasn’t been eager to be admitted into the WTO, and the poorest are the most eager.

At Genoa, the hooligans who smashed the facades of banks before the conference even began said they objected to rich countries that didn’t care about the poor countries of the world. Actually, the goal of the international summit they were warring against was specifically to help poor countries. The eight leading industrial countries present were meeting to target aid for economic development in the Southern Hemisphere, and for creation of a global fund to finance the medical campaigns against AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.

If you ask the developing countries what they want, they will tell you they want more globalization, not less. What they desire most of all is freer access to the world’s best markets for their products. So when well-heeled young radical protestors try to subvert meetings whose goal is to extend free trade and strengthen poor countries’ ability to export goods, they actually act as enemies of the world’s poor. The 2001 conference meeting in Quebec City that was invaded and wrecked by protestors, for example, had been organized to lay out the basis for a single American market that would open the rich northern countries of U.S. and Canada to the products of the poorer South American countries.

So it is astonishing when European leaders declare themselves “impressed” by the rioters, and convinced of the necessity to “dialogue” with them. It is grotesque to see the leftist press and political stratum, seemingly having learned nothing from the socialist catastrophes and absurdities of the last generation, now greet this new crusade against capitalism with open arms. The president of the French republic, Jacques Chirac, paid tribute to a “global social consciousness” and pleaded before his peers in favor of “normal and permanent dialogue” with the demonstrators.

Governments discredit themselves when they give in to violent demonstrators, because violence paralyzes democracy itself. Democrats worthy of the name should not forget that power is conferred by ballots, not by bricks hurled through windows. It is disturbing that the Left too often ignores this principle.

It’s important to recall that it is only market globalization that the Left rejects. In fact, the Left has always hoped for globalization without the market—an ideologically correct world government. Soviet and Maoist communists always felt the vocational urge to impose their models on the whole of humanity, if need be by armed subversion, which they did not hesitate to use on five continents. Although they lack the means to undertake bellicose operations on such a scale, today’s anti-globalizers are no less internationalist in their ambitions.

But history shows that only capitalism can deliver a form of globalism whose balance sheet, while not without liabilities, is on the whole positive. The beneficial effects of widening commerce were evident as far back as the Middle Ages and ancient Rome. But it was not until after the great explorations of the late fifteenth century and the growth of transatlantic trade that globalization in the modern sense of the term began. Merchant capitalism developed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; the industrial revolution spread throughout Europe and North America from about 1840 to 1914.

It was Europe that created the first world markets, as her capital, technologies, languages, and people spread over every continent. She was the driving force of an international circulation of commodities, scientific knowledge, ideas, and techniques. After the catastrophe of World War I, Europe drew back and turned in on herself. Her supremacy became a thing of the past. She even became divided within as her countries erected barriers against each other.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the United States, Argentina, and Brazil, whose immense territories were traditionally open to immigrants and foreign products, barricaded themselves in turn. International trade plummeted, capital could no longer circulate, exchange controls were instituted and there were efforts to fix currencies by decree. All over the world, economic life stagnated and came to resemble what today’s enemies of globalism desire for us. The result was not long in coming: the stock market crash of 1929, followed by the Great Depression, with tens of millions unemployed. (France would not return to her 1914 per capita income level until the beginning of the 1950s.)

After World War II, the United States became a powerful advocate in favor of free world commerce. If world economic activity at the turn of the millennium is now thoroughly global, capitalist, and U.S.-led, this has nothing to do with “arrogance.” The enfeebling of the Europeans’ position in the world is self-caused: They alone are responsible for their own heaped-up aberrations and follies over the first half of the past century. This weakening entailed the corresponding and virtually automatic rise of the United States.

Strikingly, Americans continue to increase their lead, even since the consolidation of the European Union. That a united Europe hasn’t yet risen to the challenge is obviously not for lack of material and human resources, but rather for lack of understanding of how to use them. Inhibited by ideological prejudices, Europe, despite her successes, continues to live overshadowed by America. Witness the fact that the health of her economy is dependent on the state of America’s economy: Whenever the latter goes into recession, as in the beginning of 2001, Europe falters.

Elsewhere, American-style market capitalism is equally successful and dominant. Third World countries have developed at sharply different rates basically according to the degree to which they have respected free markets, and left economic activity to private enterprise rather than to undertakings of the state. Even in nations like China where political communism has artificially prolonged its existence, it has done so only by thoroughly expunging economic socialism through privatization, appeals to foreign investors, deregulation of commerce, and establishment of cross-border trade agreements. Only Cuba and North Korea have clung to economic collectivism, with utterly disastrous results.

Will jealous activists from Europe and some other nations treat globalism as poisonous merely by virtue of its association with America? In July 2001, when the “Network of French Cultural Cooperation” gathered at France’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, French foreign minister Lionel Jospin called upon the participants to fight liberalizing, American-style globalization with their brand of globalization, which Jospin said would be based on the “affirmation of states against the unbridled laws of the market.” In the process, France would replace America as the global leader.

This crusade has deep roots. Back in May 1944, Hubert Beuve-Méry, the future founder and editor of Le Monde, the most influential journal in France today, was able to write that “The Americans constitute a real danger for France…. They cling to a veritable cult of the idea of liberty [and] don’t feel the need to liberate themselves from the servitudes that their capitalism entails.” The fact that an important Frenchman was able to argue this even while France was occupied by the Nazis, with the possibility of American liberation being their only hope for a different future, indicates the depth of both the hatred for economic liberty and the anti-American obsession in France.

Resentments that lead to the rejection of every idea that comes from America simply because it is American can only weaken countries. To follow such a course is to let phobias become guiding principles. Does anyone really believe today that nations which substitute government edicts for economic markets are likelier to prosper? Must we close our eyes to the achievements of the last 50 years of increasing economic liberty, when worldwide production grew by a factor of six and the volume of exports by a factor of 17? Must investment capitalism abroad, the engine of extraordinary, racing progress for many previously poor countries, be banned just because it often brings links to America?

We French have had little to say against Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi, Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, the imams of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or the bosses of China and Vietnam. We reserve our admonitions and our contempt and our attacks for the U.S., for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and for Europeans like Margaret Thatcher, Silvio Berlusconi, and Tony Blair, because they are insufficiently hostile to capitalism. Our enemy is not the dictator but the free market economy.

Anti-globalizers make the same mistake. What’s important to them is not the eradication of poverty. Rather, it is the propaganda value they gain from linking poverty to the spreading market economy. But this puts them on the wrong side of all evidence, of reality, of history.

Life expectancy in Third World countries has more than doubled during the free-market dominated second half of the twentieth century. In India, food production has grown by a factor of ten, leading to the elimination of massive famines. In Latin America, per capita income doubled between 1950 and 1985. Over the past 50 years, Latin America on the whole has experienced an annual growth of 5 percent. No European country can boast an equivalent rate. These figures show to what an extent the mantras about ever-increasing poverty spring from ignorance or simple dishonesty. Where poverty continues to exist today it is almost wholly due to ruinously inefficient public sectors.

This is most obvious in Africa, the only Third World continent to have actually declined. Impoverishment there has political, not economic, causes. It is statism, not the market, and socialism, not capitalism, that has destroyed the African economies. After independence, the African elites who formed the political leadership generally adopted the Soviet and Chinese systems. Thus they were able to assume absolute power with access to the levers of personal enrichment. And from communism they borrowed an infallible recipe for agricultural ruin: collectivizing the land, from Algeria to Tanzania, setting up “cooperatives” that quickly became unproductive.

In these fatal mistakes the Third World has had false friends. In particular, the privileged pseudo-revolutionaries of Seattle and Göteborg have encouraged them down the primrose path of anti-capitalism. Lacking any real knowledge about the African cataclysm, and careless about finding remedies, the anti-globalist agitators prefer hurling brickbats at their perennial hobgoblin to the moral imperative of saving and improving lives.

This just licenses Africa’s socialist dictators to commit their robberies. In Madagascar, the anti-American radical Didier Ratsiraka received a fortune in francs, but the starving Madagascan people never had the slightest whiff of it. An investigative journalist could do well to search for traces in Switzerland or elsewhere of the billions of dollars stolen by the late Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha. And what’s the point (other than irritating America) of defending Robert Mugabe, a typical dictator who has rigged every election in Zimbabwe and managed in 20 years to transform one of the most fertile lands of Africa into one of the most desolate? Between 1960 and 2000, Africa received four times as much funding and aid per capita as Latin America or Asia. How was it that these last two continents took off, and not Africa? By practicing capitalism and establishing world trade.

But it is pointless to set forth facts like these to anti-globalizers; they simply howl in indignation. In spreading the lie that globalization impoverishes the most needy, the protestors simply act upon their twin enthusiasms: anti-American and anti-capitalism. Their floating mass of some hundreds of thousands of demonstrators is their compensation for the frustration of having seen all the socialisms and all the revolutions fail. At a time when they have no positive alternative, yelling slogans and trashing cities and blocking international gatherings provide them with the illusion of moral action.


http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleid.18005/article_detail.asp

Published in Are We Being Run Over By Global Capitalism? June 2004



The Dark Side of Globalism
By Tom DeWeese
CNSNews.com Commentary
January 26, 2004

There are many faces of globalism and it comes with many names, but in all cases the goal of globalism is to erase national borders, eliminate national sovereignty, reduce national identities and move toward global governance through the United Nations.

The European Union is the prime example of the results of globalism, where once-proud nations have surrendered famous currencies like the deutsche mark, the franc and the lira. It's where ancient cultures like Greece and Rome have erased their borders and buried their cultures to be led by a Union of Socialists with loyalty to nothing but the drive for more and more power.

Yet it's done in the name of equity, economic prosperity and ecological integrity. Globalism is sold to the unsuspecting public with words like free trade, open borders and environmental protection, but it's really about redistribution of wealth; your wealth.

It's about erasing national borders and national sovereignty. And it's about top-down control, not necessarily by elected officials, but by special interests called Non-governmental organizations (NGO's), which are only sanctioned by the United Nations.

Globalism calls for a wrenching transformation of our society, away from representative government and independent nations to the establishment of a global village with global citizens. The entire plan is outlined in detail in the UN's Agenda 21, a treaty signed by then-President George Bush at the UN's Earth Summit in 1992.

You've heard some of the terms used to implement that treaty. The Wildlands Project is one. Smart Growth is another. The Wildlands Project calls for the "re-wilding" of 50% of all of the land in every state, restoring everything back to the way it was before Christopher Columbus stepped foot on the continent. In other words, the elimination of human presence on over 50% of the American landscape.

Smart Growth is the plan to herd us all into specific human habitat areas, out of the suburbs and our beautiful yards and into crowded cities and high rises. As one smart growth advocate gleefully put it: "It will be the humans in cages with the animals looking in."

Both of these schemes are part of an overall agenda called "Sustainable Development." If you remember nothing else, remember these words. Sustainable Development. And remember that Sustainable Development is your enemy.

What is it? Imagine an America in which a specific "ruling principle" is created to decide proper societal conduct for every citizen. That principle would be used to consider everything you eat, what you wear, the kind of home you live in, the way you get to work, the way you dispose of waste, the number of children you may have, even your education and employment decisions. That "ruling principle" is Sustainable Development.

The goal of Sustainable Development is to transform the world into feudal-like governance by making NATURE the central organizing principle for our economy and society.

This is what Sustainable Development policy advocates: "Nature has an integral set of different values (cultural, spiritual and, material) where humans are one strand in nature's web and all living creatures are considered equal. Therefore, the natural way is the right way and human activities should be molded along nature's rhythms."" This quote comes from the UN's Biodiversity Treaty.

An international agenda has been set in motion, beginning with the United Nation's treaties and agreements. That agenda is now working its way down through federal to state to local government policy. It is now the official policy of the United States government and every single city, town and small burg in this nation are working on plans to implement it. There are no exceptions.

Wherever you live there are an average of 10 to 18 Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) working directly with your elected councilmen and commissioners on plans for your community to determine:

-- How your property will be used;
-- How business may operate in the community (indeed which businesses may even operate),
-- The type of housing that may be built,
-- Where roads may or may not be run,
-- How food is to be grown,
-- How labor is to be used and how your children are to be educated.

The plan is to change your way of life to fit into the new global society. According to Sustainable Development policies, air conditioning, convenience foods, single-family housing and cars are among the products, habitats and modes of transportation that have already been determined to be "unsustainable."

Add to them, ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing fields, logging, dams and reservoirs, and power line construction, as outlined in the UN's Biodiversity Treaty (also a product of the Earth Summit) and you can get the full picture of America under Sustainable Development.

Across this nation people are already suffering under Sustainable Development policies as they are losing their homes, their jobs and, in some cases, whole communities under this wrenching transformation of our society in the name of the global village.

There has never been a single vote in Congress to create Sustainable Development. It's all done through cleverly rearranged wording of existing programs and budgets, using UN treaties as guidelines. It's all under the radar.

Sustainable Development is anti-property rights. Anti-free enterprise. It is anti-individual liberty. It is anti-national sovereignty and national borders. It is anti-Western culture. There can be no hope of living in a nation of limited government with Sustainable Development as official government policy because the two are diametrically opposed.

Americans would never concede their liberty to Swastikas or Hammers and Sickles, but tuck it in a green blanket for environmental protection and we'll toss it all on the fire like an old-fashioned book burning.

This is about totalitarianism. It's about controlling every aspect of our lives with decisions made by non-elected committees that will get more powerful and more oppressive with each passing day and each new regulation proposed by newly empowered special interest groups.

Sustainable Development is anti-science. It is anti-knowledge. It is anti-human. It is the creed of the mindless savage who seeks brute force over reasoned thought.

And if we don't learn of its evil now, if we don't heed the warning, if we don't rip it out of every level of government policy by its well entrenched roots, then American life, indeed human existence, as we know it, will enter a new dark ages of pain and misery unlike any ever experienced by the community of man.

There is one sure way to stop Sustainable Development and the globalist movement. I tell it to everyone I meet, everyday of my life. I tell it to you now: Get the United States out of the United Nations.

(Tom DeWeese is the publisher/editor of The DeWeese Report and president of the American Policy Center, an activist think tank headquartered in Warrenton, Va.)

Copyright 2004, Tom DeWeese
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200401/COM20040126a.html
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A "New World Order"

Posted by Gabrielle Cusumano on Friday, November 10, 2006 12:14:19 PM
" As the Second World War and its aftermath fade, they reveal a "new world order" that is strangely familiar--amazingly like the Western world of the 1920s, with its love of self-determination and loathing of imperialism and war, its liberal Germany, shrunken Russia, and map of Europe crammed with small states, with America's indifference to Europe and Europe's disdain for America, with Europe's casual, endemic anti-Semitism, her politically, financially, and masochistically rewarding fascination with Muslim states who despise her, and her undertone of self-hatred and guilt. "
The Roots of European Appeasement
It's the 1920s all over again.
by David Gelernter
09/23/2002, Volume 008, Issue 02


ON NOVEMBER 11, 1920, there was a strange and moving scene in London. The king and his entourage unveiled the Cenotaph in Whitehall and laid solemnly to rest, in Westminster Abbey, an unknown soldier of the Great War. The ceremony had been carefully planned. The whole nation came to a transfixed halt--which had not been planned. No one had foreseen (writes David Cannadine in his essay on Lord Curzon, who designed the ceremonials) the "overwhelming emotion" of that day. Cannadine quotes the Times: "The authorities frankly admit that the extent to which the public imagination has been stirred has exceeded all their expectations." By the end of the week, roughly a million people had visited the Cenotaph and the graveside.

There were ample grounds for grief-stricken remembrance: Some million British Empire soldiers had died in the First World War. But another memory (conscious or not) must have transposed the nation's grief into a different, nearly unbearable key. Almost every visitor at the Cenotaph or the graveside would have recalled August 1914, when war broke out andLondon rejoiced--uproariously. In fact, virtually all Europe rejoiced uproariously. "Europeans of all stripes," according to the historian Peter Gay, "joined in greeting the advent of war with a fervor bordering on a religious experience." The pacifist philosopher Bertrand Russell writes of discovering, "to my amazement," as he wandered the streets of London, "that average men and women were delighted at the prospect of war." In August 1914, the war's ghastly end was unforeseeable and unimaginable. On November 11, 1920, its jubilant beginnings were unimaginable. On that sad November day, millions of Englishmen confronted not merely grief but guilt, and modern Europe was born.

What happens when a fundamental axiom we have believed for generations turns out to be wrong? Today we are finding out. We have believed that the Second World War was a continuation of the First; that the Cold War was a grotesquely extended prolongation of the Second. But the truth cannot have been that simple, because the effects of the Second World War are vanishing while the effects of the First endure.

The First World War seemed unimaginable but turned out to be human, all too human when compared with the Second, which was too big for the mind to grasp. As the Second World War and its aftermath fade, they reveal a "new world order" that is strangely familiar--amazingly like the Western world of the 1920s, with its love of self-determination and loathing of imperialism and war, its liberal Germany, shrunken Russia, and map of Europe crammed with small states, with America's indifference to Europe and Europe's disdain for America, with Europe's casual, endemic anti-Semitism, her politically, financially, and masochistically rewarding fascination with Muslim states who despise her, and her undertone of self-hatred and guilt.

During the decades following the Second World War, this world of Versailles seemed to be gone for good. It had begun to unravel in the 1930s. "The year 1929, the midpoint in the two decades between the wars, was an important watershed," writes Donald Kagan in his "On the Origins of War and the Preservation of Peace" (1995). "In October of that year Gustav Stresemann died and with him the politically careful, if determined, program of the peaceful revision of the Versailles settlement in Germany's favor. In the same month the Wall Street stock market crash gave impetus to a great depression that swept across the industrialized world, causing political shock waves of great significance in Europe."

Looking around today, we find ourselves in a nightmare house where the clocks all stopped on the eve of an unthinkable disaster. It is 1928 all over again.



THE FIRST WORLD WAR ended on November 11, 1918. The victors met in Paris (the vanquished would have spoiled the party and were not invited); the Treaty of Versailles, which imposed peace terms on Germany, was signed on June 28, 1919. (The Allies settled separately with Austria, Turkey, and Bulgaria.)

Europe pondered the jubilant beginnings and tragic end of the World War--and her spirit was damaged irreparably. On top of which, the victorious allies soon came to feel that the peace they had dictated to the Central Powers was vindictive and unjust--especially the huge reparation payments imposed on Germany as punishment for having started the war. (The exact figure was left unspecified in the treaty, like a blank check.)

The British diplomat Harold Nicolson kept a diary at the Paris Peace Conference, and included excerpts in his classic "Peacemaking, 1919." The last sentence of the book is his verdict on the conference: "To bed, sick of life." Before long, that sentence came to epitomize Europe. Horror-struck guilt and self-hatred blossomed into 1930s appeasement, the policy with which Britain and France approached Nazi Germany's increasingly outrageous violations of the Versailles treaty.

"To bed, sick of life"--the historian Christopher Thorne wrote (in 1967) of the "weary ignorance" of Stanley Baldwin, prime minister twice during the 1920s and again from 1935 to '37; of France's "weakness and despair" between the wars. In 1933, when Nazi rule was just beginning, Churchill spoke of "the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals." That was the year in which the undergraduates of the Oxford Union passed (275 to 153) their infamous motion "that this House refuses in any circumstances to fight for King and Country." In 1936 R.M. Barrington-Ward, assistant editor at the Times, told a staffer that "We are, as the Prayer Book says, 'tied and bound by the chains of our sins' stretching all the way back to the General Election of 1918"--when Britain voted for Lloyd George and vengeance on Germany.

Once upon a time we thought of appeasement as a particular approach to Hitler. We have long since come to see that it is a Weltanschauung, an entire philosophical worldview that teaches the blood-guilt of Western man, the moral bankruptcy of the West, and the outrageousness of Western civilization's attempting to impose its values on anyone else. World War II and its aftermath clouded the issue, but self-hatred has long since reestablished itself as a dominant force in Europe and (less often and not yet decisively) the United States. It was a British idea originally; it was enthusiastically taken up by the French. Today (like so many other British ideas) it is believed more fervently in continental Europe than anywhere else.

Consider the "Continental attitude" towards our proposed war against Saddam Hussein. If you had the Second World War in mind, you might think: Nothing could be more dangerous than to dither while a bloody-minded tyrant builds his striking power. It is crazy to let him choose D-Day, on the theory that if you leave him alone long enough, he will switch personalities and call the whole thing off. Human adults do not switch personalities--but if someone were going to blaze a trail and be first, a bloody swaggering dictator is not the man. Hitler didn't change even when his whole world had burnt to ashes. The last testament he composed in his bunker in 1945 is strikingly like "Mein Kampf," dictated in the comfort of his five-star prison cell in 1924.

The wisdom of "act first, dither later" as an approach to threats from tyrannies was borne out by Western experience in the Cold War. When the Soviets threatened Western interests directly by trying to starve West Berlin, put nuclear missiles in Cuba, and float the Arabs to victory against Israel (in 1973) on a tidal wave of weaponry, America did not wring her hands and ponder; she acted fast, and won.

But suppose your attitudes were shaped, consciously or not, by the First World War and its aftermath. In that case, the lesson you'd take away would be very different: Whatever you do, never rush a war. Austria did not have to declare war against Serbia on July 28, 1914, but she was in a hurry to forestall proposed negotiations. Russia did not have to mobilize on the 30th, she was under no military threat, but she mobilized anyway. Germany did not have to go crashing into Belgium on August 4, she was in no danger of being overrun by hot-headed Flemings, but once she had mobilized (which she had to do because Russia had), her famous master-plan (to concentrate on the Western front, pivot through Belgium, and come down on France like a sledgehammer) would be exposed and rendered as useless as lightstruck film unless she hit right away.

Some Europeans know these details and some do not. But what every educated European knows is that World War I could have been prevented if only Europe hadn't been in such a demented hurry to fight. And the graveyards of World War I are a permanent feature of the European landscape. In consequence and in tribute, many Europeans are against all war on principle--defensive or offensive, just or unjust, mandatory or frivolous; and they hate Western civilization into the bargain. Can you blame them? The contempt for Western ideas, morality, religion, and traditions that is so prominent among European intellectuals is not the sheer malice it sometimes seems. Europe has earned the right to hate herself. If things go wrong, a scratch can fester. A pardonable act of (at worst) bad judgment--to whoop up a war along with throngs of your fellow citizens--can turn to scalding remorse as the death toll rises and rises. And such quiet emotions as private remorse can reshape history, when you sum up over a whole civilization.

This frantic compulsion to do nothing was countermanded by the Second World War and the Cold War--both of which centered on totalitarian tyrannies. That Iraq is more like these tyrannies than it is like Imperial Germany seems not to matter to the world's Continental Thinkers, who dominate the opinion-making elite nearly everywhere.



LOOK AT EUROPE TODAY: The peace of 1919 gave it political shape and intellectual substance. Versailles ratified the transformation of militant Imperial Germany into liberal, democratic Germany--basically the Germany we know today. Of course the liberal, democratic Germany of the 1920s went through several interesting transformations before it reemerged after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. But that is exactly the point. The effects of the Second World War were profound but are vanishing. (Or: were so profound that they are vanishing.)

The Peace of 1919 recreated the independent Polish and Czech states that had been submerged for generations. It created the independent Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia--which (again) disappeared during the Second World War and its aftermath, and have again popped to the surface as World World II vanishes from the scene like a drug that has worn off. The German, Austro-Hungarian, and Turkish empires were overthrown by the victorious allies in 1919; Imperial Russia overthrew herself. Today's Russia is the logical successor of the 1920s Soviet Union. When Russia made a separate peace with Germany in March 1918, she surrendered huge chunks of territory. Although she regained some with the defeat of Germany and the withdrawal of the German army, and others with the Red Army's victory and the expansion of Communist rule in the early '20s, she only reestablished herself as an empire much later. Stalin's deal with Hitler in 1939 and the defeat of Germany in '45 restored Russia to imperial grandeur--but only temporarily. With the end of the Soviet Union, the Russian Imperium took up where it had left off in 1918, and resumed shrinking. The resurgence of Imperial Russia under the Soviets was a passing fad, or so it seems.

Bolshevik tyranny retreated a step under the New Economic Policy of the 1920s; resumed retreating in the late '80s under Gorbachev, and then disappeared. Had the Second World War not intervened to build up stupendously the power and glory of Stalin and communism, the Soviet Union would presumably have vanished long ago.



THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE is gone--or so it seems. Why does it seem reasonable to bet against the resurgence of a Russian Empire anytime soon? Because the spiritual legacy of World War I and its aftermath is even more important than the political legacy.

Before 1914, imperialism and colonialism were two of the world's strongest forces. The pre-1914 world is just as strange to us as the world of the '20s is familiar. Listen (as you might to the chirp of an extinct bird) to the world before '14: The historian Edward Hallett Carr quotes the British imperialist Cecil Rhodes--"I contend that we are the first race in the world, and that the more of the world we inhabit, the better it is for the human race." In working "to maintain the greatness of the Empire," Lord Wolsey wrote, "I work in the cause of Christianity, of peace, of civilisation, and the happiness of the human race generally."

In the pre-World War I era, England and France led the world in colonial possessions; the emperors of Russia and Austria-Hungary lacked colonies but had vast European empires. The Kaiser in Berlin had a third-rate colonial empire and no proper European empire either, except for odd bits of Poland, Denmark, and France, which hardly counted. So Germany was the world's least-contented great power. The other great European powers quite understood the Kaiser's unhappiness.

Because the empires of Britain and France survived until after the Second World War, it is hard to grasp the big changes in attitude that came about because of the First. Vice President Cheney insisted in a recent speech on the importance of self-determination in Iraq; self-determination is a classic Wilsonian principle, a monument to the 1920s. The Versailles Peace Conference confiscated the colonial possessions of Germany and Turkey, but in most cases handed them over to new rulers not as colonies but as League of Nations mandates, to be prepared for self-rule.

British rule in India was the supreme manifestation of European colonialism. But when the British foreign policy establishment decided, in the 1920s and '30s, that India should become (in due course) a self-governing Dominion--in other words a free country, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand--it discovered to its surprise that Englishmen loved the idea. Colonialism still existed, but the fun had gone out of it. The government's India policy was supported by all three major political parties. Winston Churchill led the opposition; he predicted that British withdrawal would lead to massacres of Muslims by Hindus and vice versa. It turned out he was right. But in the 1920s and '30s, the tide ran overwhelmingly against colonialism--and it is hard to see (despite Churchill) how Britain could have acted differently.

No one defends British appeasement of Hitler; everyone agrees that Churchill was right to oppose it from the start. No one criticizes British appeasement of Gandhi and the Congress party in India (Gandhi and Hitler stand at opposite ends of the moral spectrum, but there is a clear analogy between British attitudes towards the two of them); everyone agrees that Churchill was wrong to oppose it from the start. Hitlerite Germany was the exception. India proved to be the rule.

So modern Europe's visceral loathing of war is a consequence of World War I. Self-determination, anti-colonialism, and the rights of small nations are Wilsonian ideals that took hold in the 1920s. The idea of Western civilization's blood-guilt established itself in the aftermath of the peace of Versailles, bore fruit in 1930s appeasement, and still flourishes today.



THE EVANESCENCE of World War II, and Europe's political and spiritual (and in some ways economic) return to the 1920s, has practical consequences--for instance, for Jews and for Israel. In the 1920s, anti-Semitism was an accepted element of mainstream European opinion. In the 1920s there was no state of Israel, and few "mainstream" Europeans felt any need for one.

The Palestine mandate had been presented to Britain with the thought that she would carry out the promise of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, to establish "a national homeland for the Jewish people" in Palestine. Palestine at the end of the First World War was impoverished and underpopulated. There was ample room (as events proved) for millions of newcomers. Yet Britain was increasingly inclined to appease Arab agitators by restricting, and ultimately terminating, Jewish immigration. In fairness, Britain was, at the time, as she liked to advertise, "the greatest Mohammedan power in the world." Such statesmen as Edwin Montagu urged Britain repeatedly to be "the friend and head of the Moslem world." Montagu was secretary of state for India in Lloyd George's cabinet--a rabid anti-Zionist, a leading opponent of the Balfour Declaration, and a Jew. The British found the existence of such people as Montagu confusing. Montagu's spiritual disciples live on: One of the most unsettling, least discussed aspects of today's Israel crisis is the part well-placed American Jews in newspapers, TV, and radio have played in slanting the news against Israel. For the most part these seem to be well-meaning people who care so deeply about right and wrong, they have no time to distinguish between true and false. (The left often operates on that basis. Consider its man-the-torpedoes response to Bjorn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist.") Meanwhile other American Jews, and their friends, and truth's friends, work frantically to set the record straight.

In 1947, the United Nations (pondering the Holocaust) voted to establish the State of Israel in a smallish fragment of the original Palestine Mandate. In the 1950s, Europe gave Israel substantial support. Anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism were out of style. But as the memory of World War II faded, European support for Israel faded too, and anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism made a comeback. The end of the Cold War meant not merely the end of World War II; for Europe, it seems to have meant the end of the Holocaust itself. Europe wants to hate itself, certainly, but not for the sin of killing Jews; for the sin of killing Europeans. An important distinction. So Israel can no longer explain itself to Europe in World War II terms. World opinion (much influenced by Europe) isn't Israel's biggest problem; but it is a big problem.

Yet if the reversion to 1920s thinking is a tragedy for Jews and for Israel, it is also an opportunity. Many Europeans and their admirers think of Israel as a mere colonial power, an ugly European implant in the pristine body of the Arab Middle East. But there is a much better analogy--to the very states Versailles created in its devotion to self-determination.

In 1914 (for example) there was no such state as Poland. Poland had disappeared from the map in 1795, partitioned like a jumbo apple pie among the powers of east-central Europe. In 1914 it belonged to Germany, Russia, and Austria-Hungary. The reemergence of independent Israel required a unique historical catastrophe. As for Poland's reemergence, "only a prodigy" could have brought that about, Churchill wrote in 1929; "it was necessary that every single one of the three military Empires which had partitioned Poland should be simultaneously and decisively defeated in war, or otherwise shattered."

During the long years of Poland's submersion, many Poles stayed at home; some left for Western Europe or America. Many non-Poles settled in Polish territory. Germany in particular colonized its Polish holdings aggressively.

Obviously the analogy between Poland and Israel is rough. Poland was submerged for 123 years, Israel for nearly two millennia. But the similarities are obvious, too. Lots of Arabs moved to Israel during the years when no Jewish state existed. Lots of Germans moved to Poland. But Poles and Jews maintained an unbroken presence in their homelands. The idea that a Pole returning to Poland is a "colonist" is idiotic; a Jew returning to Israel is no "colonist" either. Nor does the fact of a large Polish diaspora in America make Poland's existence any less necessary. Nor does the Jewish diaspora make Israel less necessary.

Poland's 1919 borders (finally fixed in '21) incorporated a large German minority, many of whom stayed on. Her 1945 borders incorporated even more Germans, most of whom fled or were driven out; the historian Henry Ashby Turner reports a staggering "exodus of between ten and twelve million German refugees from these eastern regions." German refugees from Poland might have been the same kind of festering problem as Palestinian refugees from Israel. They aren't, because Germany took them in--after all, they were Germans. It is tragic whenever a settler of long standing has to pull up roots and move elsewhere. This is a tragedy that Jews, hounded from country to country for 2,000 years, know better than anyone else. It is a tragedy no Jew has ever made light of. But when such refugees can find a new homeland where the language, religion, and worldview are all familiar, it is a manageable tragedy. Jews have known worse.

Many thousands of Jews were driven out of European and Arab countries. Many came to Israel. By way of comparison, Arab refugees who left or fled Israel in 1948 (as Israel struggled to fend off invaders who had jumped her on every side) numbered something over half a million, according to Martin Gilbert in his "Atlas of the Arab-Israeli Conflict." By an interesting coincidence, roughly the same number of Jewish refugees fled from Arab countries (where "most of their communities dated from Roman times," Gilbert notes) to Israel. So things are all even on refugees. Except that they aren't. Because another half million or so refugees came to Israel in the postwar years from the devastated Jewish communities of Europe--more than 150,000 from Poland, over 200,000 from Romania.

Israel might have kept them all in filthy camps, taught them to pine bitterly for their lost homes and eventually sent forth their teenagers to murder Poles and Germans, Iraqis and Egyptians at random, in order to establish themselves as romantic heroes in the minds of self-hating appeasers the world over. But they were Jews, and Israel took them in. For any fair-minded student of history, there is only one conclusion: The Mideast refugee story is first and foremost a story of Jewish refugees. (And yet sometimes, listening to NPR or ABC, you don't get quite that impression.)

Europe should be (you would think) very glad it all worked out this way--that Israel (like Germany) welcomed its countrymen home instead of (like the Arab countries) sending them back where they came from to blow up buses, schools, and supermarkets. Or does Europe feel, in its worshipful admiration of Palestinian refugees, that Jewish refugees should emulate them? Should Israelis whose families lived in Cologne or Cracow for a thousand years go home to murder German and Polish schoolchildren? The next time Europe feels inclined to blast Israel on account of the Palestinians, it might think this over, and cast its mind back to the 1920s, and shut up. "Our wish," Lord Robert Cecil said in 1918, "is that Arabian countries shall be for the Arabs, Armenia for the Armenians, and Judea for the Jews."



THE IDEA that World Wars I and II are a single "thirty years war" has a long heritage. In 1919 Marshall Foch said of the Treaty of Versailles, "This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years." (He was right, to the exact year.) Many historians still think so. In his newly published "Shield of Achilles," for example, Philip Bobbitt refers to a great war that "began in 1914 and only ended in 1990." (One important exception is "While America Sleeps," by Donald Kagan and Frederick Kagan, which points out all sorts of disturbing similarities between America's behavior in recent decades and Britain's during the 1920s and '30s.)

Obviously the thirty-years-war idea is true in a way. But there is an alternative tradition too. People at the time understood the Second World War as an unspeakably large event, outside the realm of ordinary history. Churchill predicted, after the fall of France, that Britain's lonely fight against Nazidom would be remembered as her finest hour for a thousand years. Hitler spoke of a thousand-year Reich. By way of urging his master to join the attack on reeling, staggering France, Italy's foreign minister Ciano told Mussolini that no such chance would recur in 5,000 years. Churchill's contempt for the Axis was unbounded, yet in a speech of September, 1943, he reported Ciano's forecast--five thousand years--with a certain respect in his voice; a certain awe.

So perhaps it is not surprising that World War II should have changed the human mind forever, yet vanished from the world's everyday thoughts like your memory of a dream the next morning. It was too big an event to swallow and has been disgorged. It was too searing to remember and has been repressed--only to live on in the world's nightmares and (indirectly) on the faces of all those calendars we have set back to 1928.


David Gelernter is a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard.

© Copyright 2006, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
http://weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/001/659rpqyj.asp
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Number of Jewish senators rises from 11 to13

Posted by Gabrielle Cusumano on Thursday, November 09, 2006 5:18:56 PM
 

Jews take root in Capitol Hill

Democrats may have conquered both houses of Congress, and so have Jewish politicians. Number of Jewish senators rises from 11 t o13 and number of Jewish representatives jumps to 30 thanks to six new faces creating all-time high of Jewish politicians in Congress. Another precedent: First Muslim elected to House

Ynet  11/09/06

The picture isn't complete yet, but it seems that the Democrats executed a double takeover in the mid-term elections and have taken control not only in the House of Representatives, but also in the Senate. It also turns out that the number of Jews in the two houses of Congress has hit an all-time high.  

An accurate count shows that the number of Jewish senators has risen from 11 to 13, with the addition of two former representatives Benjamin Cardin (Maryland-D) and Bernard Sanders (Vermont-I) who were successfully elected to the Senate.

 Sander's and Cardin's departure from the House didn't lower the number of Jews there – on the contrary. The number of Jewish representatives elected to the House of Representatives also grew.

 They now number 30 thanks to six new faces: Gabrielle Giffords (Arizona), Ronald Klein (Florida), John Yarmuth (Kentucky), Paul Hodes (New Hampshire), Stephen Cohen (Tennessee), and Steve Kagen (Wisconsin). They are all Democrats.

 'Time for US to see a moderate Muslim voice'

At the same time, a new precedent was set with the election of the first Muslim to Capitol Hill. Keith Ellison (Minnesota) was elected to the House of Representatives on the Democratic ticket. Ellison's election is also unprecedented in that he is the first African American to be elected to Congress from Minnesota.

During his campaign tour, Ellison, 43, decidedly didn't refer to either of these issues – the color of his skin, or the religion that he adopted at the age of 20.

 He campaigned mainly on social and economic issues for advancing the middle class, and upgrading education. He was emphatic about not running as "the Muslim candidate," but as the American who wants to improve the conditions in his country.

 However, he said that he knows that his election will send a clear message to the American public and to the legislators on Capitol Hill.

 “I think it’s time for the United States to see a moderate Muslim voice, to see a face of Islam that is just like everybody else’s face,” Ellison said. “Perhaps it would be good for somebody who is Muslim to be in Congress, so that Muslims would feel like they are part of the body politic and that other Americans would know that we’re here to make a contribution to this country.”

 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3326053,00.html

Jewish Vote
87 percent of Jews vote Democrat / Yitzhak Benhorin

Democratic Party wins largest percentage of Jewish support since 1994. Elections expert: Jews voted for candidates good for Israel, but also focused on other issues Full story
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3325529,00.html
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Thank You Mr. Rumsfeld, You're A Great American (Tribute) The Rumsfeld Rules

Posted by Gabrielle Cusumano on Thursday, November 09, 2006 4:57:32 PM
  • "Walk around. If you are invisible, the mystique of the president's office may perpetuate inaccurate impressions about you or the president, to his detriment. After all, you may not be as bad as they're saying."  Donald Rumsfeld

    • Can't find the "text" of Secretary Rumsfeld's speech in Kansas today, So I am posting

    Rumsfeld's     Rules
    Advice on government, business and life.

    By Donald Rumsfeld

    The Wall Street Journal, Monday, January 29, 2001

    Many of these rules, reflections and quotations came from my role as chairman of the “transition team” for President Ford and my service as White House chief of staff. Others came from experiences as a U.S. naval aviator, a member of Congress, ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, secretary of defense, presidential Middle East envoy, business executive, chairman of the U.S. Ballistic Missile Threat Commission, and other experiences.

    These reflections and quotations have been gathered over the past 40 years. Credit is given where known. As the quotation has it, “If it's not true, it's still well founded.” -- Unknown

    Serving in the White House
    (for the White House chief of staff and senior staff)

    • Don't accept the post or stay unless you have an understanding with the president that you're free to tell him what you think “with the bark off” and you have the courage to do it.

    • Visit with your predecessors from previous administrations. They know the ropes and can help you see around some corners. Try to make original mistakes, rather than needlessly repeating theirs.

    • Don't begin to think you're the president. You're not. The Constitution provides for only one.

    • In the execution of presidential decisions work to be true to his views, in fact and tone.

    • Know that the immediate staff and others in the administration will assume that your manner, tone and tempo reflect the president's.

    • Learn to say “I don't know.” If used when appropriate, it will be often.

    • If you foul up, tell the president and correct it fast. Delay only compounds mistakes.

    • Walk around. If you are invisible, the mystique of the president's office may perpetuate inaccurate impressions about you or the president, to his detriment. After all, you may not be as bad as they're saying.

    • In our system leadership is by consent, not command. To lead, a president must persuade. Personal contacts and experiences help shape his thinking. They can be critical to his persuasiveness and thus to his leadership.

    • Be precise. A lack of precision is dangerous when the margin of error is small.

    • Preserve the president's options. He may need them.

    • It is easier to get into something than to get out of it.

    • Don't divide the world into “them” and “us.” Avoid infatuation with or resentment of the press, the Congress, rivals, or opponents. Accept them as facts. They have their jobs and you have yours.

    • Amid all the clutter, beyond all the obstacles, aside from all the static, are the goals set. Put your head down, do the best job possible, let the flak pass, and work toward those goals.

    • Don't say “the White House wants.” Buildings can't want.

    • Leave the president's family business to him. You will have plenty to do without trying to manage the first family. They are likely to do fine without your help.

    • Make decisions about the president's personal security. He can overrule you, but don't ask him to be the one to counsel caution.

    • Being vice president is difficult. Don't make it tougher.

    • Don't automatically obey presidential directives if you disagree or if you suspect he hasn't considered key aspects of the issue.

    • The price of being close to the president is delivering bad news. You fail him if you don't tell him the truth. Others won't do it.

    • You and the White House staff must be and be seen to be above suspicion. Set the right example.

    • The role of White House chief of staff is that of a “javelin catcher.” -- Jack Watson

    • Don't speak ill of your predecessors or successors. You didn't walk in their shoes.

    • Remember the public trust. Strive to preserve and enhance the integrity of the office of the presidency. Pledge to leave it stronger than when you came.

    • Don't blame the boss. He has enough problems.

    Keeping Your Bearings in the White House

    • Enjoy your time in public service. It may well be one of the most interesting and challenging times of your life.

    • Don't think of yourself as indispensable or infallible. As Charles de Gaulle said, the cemeteries of the world are full of indispensable men.

    • Let your family, staff and friends know that you're still the same person, despite all the publicity and notoriety that accompanies your position.

    • Have a deputy and develop a successor. Don't be consumed by the job or you'll risk losing your balance. Keep your mooring lines to the outside world -- family, friends, neighbors, people out of government and people who may not agree with you.

    • When asked for your views, by the press or others, remember that what they really want to know is the president's views.

    • Most of the 50 or so invitations you receive each week come from people inviting the president's chief of staff, not you. If you doubt that, ask your predecessor how many he received last week.

    • Keep your sense of humor. As Gen. Joe Stillwell said, “The higher a monkey climbs, the more you see of his behind.”

    • Be yourself. Follow your instincts. Success depends, at least in part, on the ability to “carry it off.”

    • Know that the amount of criticism you receive may correlate somewhat to the amount of publicity you receive.

    • If you are not criticized, you may not be doing much.

    • From where you sit, the White House may look as untidy as the inside of a stomach. As is said of the legislative process, sausage making and policy making shouldn't be seen close-up. Don't let that panic you. Things may be going better than they look from the inside.

    • Be able to resign. It will improve your value to the president and do wonders for your performance.

    • If you are lost -- “climb, conserve, and confess.” -- U.S. Navy SNJ Flight Manual

    Doing the Job in the White House

    • Your performance depends on your people. Select the best, train them, and back them. When errors occur, give sharper guidance. If errors persist or if the fit feels wrong, help them move on. The country cannot afford amateur hour in the White House.

    • You will launch many projects but have time to finish only a few. So think, plan, develop, launch and tap good people to be responsible. Give them authority and hold them accountable. Trying to do too much yourself creates a bottleneck.

    • Think ahead. Don't let day-to-day operations drive out planning.

    • Plan backward as well as forward. Set objectives and trace back to see how to achieve them. You may find that no path can get you there. Plan forward to see where your steps will take you, which may not be clear or intuitive.

    • Don't “overcontrol” like a novice pilot. Stay loose enough from the flow that you can observe, calibrate and refine.

    • A president needs multiple sources of information. Avoid excessively restricting the flow of paper, people, or ideas to the president, though you must watch his time. If you overcontrol, it will be your “regulator” that controls, not his. Only by opening the spigot fairly wide, risking that some of his time may be wasted, can his “regulator” take control.

    • If in doubt, move decisions up to the president.

    • When you raise issues with the president, try to come away with both that decision and also a precedent. Pose issues so as to evoke broader policy guidance. This can help to answer a range of similar issues likely to arise later.

    • See that the president, the cabinet and the staff are informed. If cut out of the information flow, their decisions may be poor, not made, or not confidently or persuasively implemented.

    • Don't allow people to be excluded from a meeting or denied an opportunity to express their views because their views differ from the president's views, the views of person who calls the meeting, or your views. The staff system must have integrity and discipline.

    • When the president is faced with a decision, be sure he has the recommendations of all appropriate people, or that he realizes he does not have their views and is willing to accept the consequence. They will be out of sync, unhappy and less effective if they feel they are or are seen as having been “cut out.”

    • Don't be a bottleneck. If a matter is not a decision for the president or you, delegate it. Force responsibility down and out. Find problem areas, add structure, and delegate. The pressure is to do the reverse. Resist it.

    • If the staff lacks policy guidance against which to test decisions, their decisions will be random.

    • One of your tasks is to separate the “personal” from the “substantive.” The two can become confused, especially if someone rubs the president wrong.

    • Test ideas in the marketplace. You learn from hearing a range of perspectives. Consultation helps engender the support decisions need to be successfully implemented.

    • If a prospective presidential approach can't be explained clearly enough to be understood well, it probably hasn't been thought through well enough. If not well understood by the American people, it probably won't “sail” anyway. Send it back for further thought.

    • Many people around the president have sizeable egos before entering government, some with good reason. Their new positions will do little to moderate their egos.

    • Move decisions out to the cabinet and agencies. Strengthen them by moving responsibility, authority and accountability their direction.

    • Control your time. If you're working off your in-box, you're working off the priorities of others. Be sure the staff is working on what you move to them from the president, or the president will be reacting, not leading.

    • Look for what's missing. Many advisers can tell a president how to improve what's proposed or what's gone amiss. Few are able to see what isn't there.

    • Think of dealing with Congress as a “revolving door.” You'll be back to today's opponents for their help tomorrow. Presidential proposals will need a member of Congress's support on some issue, at some time, regardless of philosophy, party or their positions on other issues. Don't allow White House links to members to be cut because they may disagree on some or even many issues.

    • Work continuously to trim the White House staff from your first day to your last. All the pressures are to the contrary.

    • Don't do or say things you would not like to see on the front page of the Washington Post.

    Serving in Government

    • Public servants are paid to serve the American people. Do it well.

    • Congress, the press and the bureaucracy too often focus on how much money or effort is spent, rather than whether the money or effort actually achieves the announced goal.

    • It is very difficult to spend “federal (the taxpayers') dollars” so that the intended result is achieved.

    • Beware when any idea is promoted primarily because it is “bold, exciting, innovative and new.” There are many ideas that are “bold, exciting, innovative and new,” but also foolish.

    • The federal government should be the last resort, not the first. Ask if a potential program is truly a federal responsibility or whether it can better be handled privately, by voluntary organizations, or by local or state governments.

    • As former Rep. Tom Curtis of Missouri said, “Public money drives out private money.”

    • Strive to make proposed solutions as self-executing as possible. As the degree of discretion increases, so too do bureaucracy, delay and expense.

    • Presidential leadership needn't always cost money. Look for low- and no-cost options. They can be surprisingly effective.

    • Include others. As former Sen. Pat Moynihan (D., N.Y.) said, “Stubborn opposition to proposals often has no other basis than the complaining question, 'Why wasn't I consulted?' ”

    • Watch for the “not invented here” syndrome.

    • “The atmosphere in which social legislation is considered is not a friend of truth.” -- Pat Moynihan

    • If in doubt, don't.

    • If still in doubt, do what's right.

    • Treat each federal dollar as if it was hard earned. It was -- by a taxpayer.

    • “Try to analyze situations intelligently, anticipate problems and move swiftly to solve them. However, when you're up to your ears in alligators, it is difficult to remember that the reason you're there is to drain the swamp.” -- Unknown

    • “In Washington, D.C., the size of a farewell party may be directly proportional to the honoree's new position and their prospective ability to dispense largess.” -- D.G. Cross

    • “Every government looking at the actions of another government and trying to explain them always exaggerates rationality and conspiracy, and underestimates incompetency and fortuity.” -- Silberman's Law of Diplomacy, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman

    Politics, Congress and the Press

    • First rule of politics: you can't win unless you're on the ballot.

    • Second rule: If you run, you may lose.

    • And if you tie, you do not win.

    • Politics is human beings; it's addition rather than subtraction.

    • “The winner is not always the swiftest, surest or smartest. It's the one willing to get up at 5 a.m. and go to the plant gate to meet the workers.” -- Unknown

    • In politics, every day is filled with numerous opportunities for serious error. Enjoy it.

    • The most underestimated risk for a politician is overexposure.

    • When someone with a rural accent says, “I don't know much about politics,” zip up your pockets.

    • If you try to please everybody, somebody's not going to like it.

    • Don't necessarily avoid sharp edges. Occasionally they are necessary to leadership.

    • “The oil can is mightier than the sword.” -- former Sen. Everett Dirksen (R., Ill.)

    • Arguments of convenience lack integrity and inevitably trip you up.

    • Remember where you came from.

    • Members of the House and the Senate are not there by accident. Each managed to get there for some reason. Learn what it was and you will know something important about them, about our country and about the American people.

    • With the press there is no “off the record.”

    • “There are only three responses to questions from the press: (1) 'I know and will tell you'; (2) 'I know and I can't tell you'; and (3) 'I don't know.' ” -- Dan Rather

    For the Secretary of Defense

    • The secretary of defense is not a super general or admiral. His task is to exercise civilian control over the department for the commander in chief and the country.

    • Reserve the right to get into anything, and exercise it. Make your deputies and staff realize that, although many responsibilities are delegated, no one should be surprised when the secretary engages an important issue.

    • Manage the interaction between the Pentagon and the White House. Unless you establish a narrow channel for the flow of information and “tasking” back and forth, the process can quickly become chaotic.

    • Normal management techniques may not work in the department. When pushing responsibility downward, be sure not to contribute to a weakening of the cohesion of the services; what cohesion exists has been painfully achieved over the decades.

    • When cutting staff at the Pentagon, don't eliminate the thin layer that assures civilian control.

    • Avoid public spats. When a department argues with other government agencies in the press, it reduces the president's options.

    • Establish good relations between the departments of Defense and State, the National Security Council, CIA and the Office of Management and Budget.

    • Be sure key U.S. ambassadors are informed on defense activities in their countries.

    • Develop a personal relationship with the chairman and each of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They are almost always outstanding public servants. In time of crisis, those relationships can be vital.

    • “If you get the objectives right, a lieutenant can write the strategy.” -- Gen. George Marshall

    • Napoleon was asked, “Who do you consider to be the greatest generals?” He responded, “The victors.”

    On Business

    • When you initiate new activities, find things you are currently doing that you can discontinue -- whether reports, activities, etc. It works, but you must force yourself to do it. Always keep in mind your “teeth-to-tail ratio.”

    • Watch the growth of middle-level management. Don't automatically fill vacant jobs. Leave some positions unfilled for six to eight months to see what happens. You will find you won't need to fill some of them.

    • Reduce the layers of management. They put distance between the top of an organization and the customers.

    • Find ways to decentralize. Move decision-making authority down and out. Encourage a more entrepreneurial approach.

    • Prune -- prune businesses, products, activities, people. Do it annually.

    • Know your customers!

    • Develop a few key themes and stick to them. It works. Repetition is necessary. “Quality.” “Customers.” “Innovation.” “Service.” Whatever!

    • That which you require be reported on to you will improve, if you are selective. How you fashion your reporting system announces your priorities and sets the institution's priorities.

    • People do better in staff jobs if they have had operational experience. It helps to look at things from others' perspectives.

    • Reduce the number of lawyers. They are like beavers -- they get in the middle of the stream and dam it up.

    • Beware of the argument that “this is a period for investment; improvements will come in the out years.” The tension between the short term and long term can be constructive, but there is no long term without a short term.

    • Too often management recommends plans that look like Bob Hope's nose or a hockey stick. The numbers go down the first year or so and then up in the later years. If you accept hockey-stick plans, you will find they will be proposed year after year.

    • The way to do well is to do well.

    • Don't let the complexity of a large company mask the need for performance. Bureaucracy is a conspiracy to bring down the big. And it can. You may need to be large to compete in the world stage, but you need to find ways to avoid allowing that size to mask poor performance.

    • “No plan survives contact with the enemy.” -- Old military axiom

    • Remember: A's hire A's and B's hire C's.

    • “The advantage of a free market is that it allows millions of decision-makers to respond individually to freely determined prices, allocating resources -- labor, capital and human ingenuity -- in a manner that can't be mimicked by a central plan, however brilliant the central planner.” -- Friedrich A. Hayek

    On Life (and Other Things)

    • “You can't pray a lie.” -- Mark Twain, “Huckleberry Finn”

    • “It takes everyone to make a happy day.” -- Marcy Rumsfeld, age seven

    • “The most important things in life you cannot see -- civility, justice, courage, peace.” -- Unknown

    • “Persuasion is a two-edged sword -- reason and emotion -- plunge it deep.” -- Prof. Lewis Sarett Sr.

    • “The art of listening is indispensable for the right use of the mind. It is also the most gracious, the most open and the most generous of human habits.” -- Attributed to R. Barr, St. John's College, Annapolis, Md.

    • “In writing if it takes over 30 minutes to write the first two paragraphs select another subject.” -- Raymond Aron

    • “In unanimity there may well be either cowardice or uncritical thinking.” -- Unknown

    • “If you're coasting, you're going downhill.” -- L.W. Pierson

    • “What's the difference between a good naval officer and a great one? Answer: About six seconds.” -- Adm. Arleigh Burke

    • “First law of holes: If you get in one, stop digging.” -- Anonymous

    • “Behold the turtle. He makes progress only when he sticks his neck out.” -- James B. Conant

    • “When drinking the water, don't forget those who dug the well.” -- Chinese proverb

    • “The harder I work, the luckier I am.” -- Unknown

    • “If it doesn't go easy, force it.” -- G.D. Rumsfeld's assessment of his son Don's operating principle at age 10

    • “But I am me.” -- Nick Rumsfeld, age nine

    • “You learn in life there are few plateaus; you are either going up or down.” -- Unknown

    • Perspective -- Maurice Chevalier's response when asked how it felt to reach 80: “Pretty good, considering the alternative.”

    • “For every human problem there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong.” -- H.L. Mencken

    • Simply because a problem is shown to exist doesn't necessarily follow that there is a solution.

    • “If a problem has no solution, it may not be a problem, but a fact, not to be solved, but to be coped with over time.” -- Shimon Peres

    • “If a problem cannot be solved, enlarge it.” -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

    • “Most people spend their time on the 'urgent' rather than on the 'important.' ” -- Robert Hutchins

    • “If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough.” -- Mario Andretti, racecar driver

    • “Victory is never final. Defeat is never fatal. It is courage that counts.” -- Winston Churchill

    • “Intellectual capital is the least fungible kind.” -- Unknown

    • “The better part of one's life consists of friendship.” -- Abraham Lincoln

    • “When you're skiing, if you're not falling you're not trying.” -- Donald Rumsfeld

    • “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.” -- F. Scott Fitzgerald

    • “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once.” -- David Hume

    • “History marches to the drum of a clear idea.” -- W.H. Auden

    • “Demographics is destiny.” -- John Scanlon

    • If you develop rules, never have more than 10.

    Mr. Rumsfeld is secretary of defense.

    http://www.analects-ink.com/weekend/020308.html

    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    The Weakness Of A Strand of U.S. Foreign-Policy Thinking With Pelosi's Name On It

    Posted by Gabrielle Cusumano on Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:17:40 PM
    "...recently published Democratic "plan" for "real security" offers some poll-tested words on "finishing the job in Afghanistan," spending more on body armor and veterans' benefits, getting out of Iraq fast and achieving energy independence by 2020."

    The Pelosi Doctrine
    Darfur and the Democrats' security delusions.
    Opinion Journal, The Wall Street Journal
    Sunday, April 16, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

    The killing in Darfur province of Sudan is terrible, but as a foreign policy problem it is also instructive. In particular, it is exposing the weakness of a strand of U.S. foreign-policy thinking that might be called the Pelosi Doctrine, after House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

    Darfur is the Sudanese province where Arab Janjaweed militia supported by the Khartoum government has murdered an estimated 200,000 mostly black Muslims and displaced another two million. President Bush has requested $439 million in humanitarian aid, proposed a NATO mission to the area (an idea our European allies instantly shot down) and is now pushing for a U.N. peacekeeping contingent to replace the ineffectual forces of the African Union, as well as targeted U.N. sanctions against Sudan's leadership.

    As an alternative, consider Ms. Pelosi's position. She has made Darfur a personal priority, demanding action and, to her credit, joining a recent Congressional delegation to Darfur and Khartoum to meet with Vice President Ali Taha, who denied there was anything much amiss. Ms. Pelosi described her experiences with obvious sincerity from the House floor recently. Then she offered this: The Administration must appoint a special envoy to Sudan as a way of "[signaling] that bringing peace and stability to Sudan is a priority of the United States."

    Now, why hadn't anyone else thought of that? We'll grant that a forceful envoy might orchestrate a more effective and coherent response to the Sudanese atrocities. Similar efforts by Jay Lefkowitz, Mr. Bush's special envoy for North Korea, have at least had the useful effect of devising ways to help trapped and abused North Korean refugees in northeastern China escape to free countries.

    Then again, the record of most other "special envoys" has not been promising. Cyrus Vance, David Owen, Peter Carrington and countless other worthies trooped through Belgrade in the early '90s, trying to make Slobodan Milosevic "see reason" as Serbian troops massacred civilians in Vukovar, Sarajevo and Srebrenica. Milosevic rightly interpreted this brand of diplomacy-by-signals as evidence the West lacked the political will to stop the killing, which would have meant stopping him.

    Yet this is exactly what Ms. Pelosi now proposes to do with Khartoum. The job of the special envoy, she says, is to find ways to "stop the violence, bring the people to the negotiating table and get humanitarian relief to the people who need it." These are contradictory goals. Bringing "people" to the table means giving Sudan's government--the perpetrator of the genocide--a seat and thus a veto over how and when the Darfur crisis is resolved. It is Khartoum that is the chief obstacle to deploying U.N. troops in the region.

    This is of a piece for what passes as a security policy in most of Ms. Pelosi's party. A recently published Democratic "plan" for "real security" offers some poll-tested words on "finishing the job in Afghanistan," spending more on body armor and veterans' benefits, getting out of Iraq fast and achieving energy independence by 2020. The word "democracy" is never mentioned, nor is the word "prevention." On outrages such as the one in Darfur, the plan promises to "lead international efforts to uphold and defend human rights; and renew long-standing alliances that have advanced our national security objectives."

    Terrific. In Sudan, that and the United Nations will get you exactly what we have now: slaughter. With the best of intentions, Ms. Pelosi urges Mr. Bush to "do something" about Darfur. But she then refuses to confront the fact that the very international institutions and sometime allies she wants the U.S. to defer to are unable or unwilling to help Mr. Bush do anything at all.

    Her "special envoy" is a substitute for the kind of action that might actually make a difference. In the short term, that would mean arming the Darfuris so they can defend themselves. In the long term, it means regime change in Khartoum--which would almost certainly require the use of U.S. military force.

    Mr. Bush's reluctance to commit U.S. troops in Sudan is understandable given our current battles in Iraq and Afghanistan and our obligations around the world. But if Ms. Pelosi's outrage over Sudan is more than posturing, she'd focus less on the White House and more on the fecklessness and obstruction of the countries and United Nations that she typically invests with so much moral authority.

    The Pelosi Doctrine
    Darfur and the Democrats' security delusions.
    Opinion Journal, The Wall Street Journal
    Sunday, April 16, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT Copyright © Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008243

    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
    « Previous12345Next »