Discuss INU FORUM !

Un cheveu sépare le faux du vrai. Omar Khayyam

A quoi peuvent donc servir les académies? A entretenir le feu que les grands génies ont allumé. Voltaire

Il importe à l'homme supérieur que ses capacités ne soient pas limitées. Il lui importe peu qu'elles ne soient pas reconnues. Confucius

Since all human life is of undetermined but limited duration, very different lifestyles may be regarded as rational and valid. Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations

The only objective (behavioral) measure of collective happiness is the diminution of the suicide rate.                                                 INU                                                                                

A classic published by INU Press

  GLOBAL COMMUNICATION WITHOUT UNIVERSAL CIVILIZATION
             Vol I : COEXISTING CONTEMPORARY CIVILIZATIONS :
                                          Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western
                                          by Guy Ankerl
                                          530 pp. ISBN 2881550045, $40.
                                          For detail see INU Press
                                          Order via email :  INU@INUGE.CH or 
                                          INU PRESS, case 5044, CH-1211 Genève-11

  Some important questions discussed in this book:
  - Are there any civilizations other than the Western one living in our so-called Global-Age?
  - "Eastern civilization"? Is the concept of East anything more than non-West? Or does there
  only exist, in reality, a distinct Chinese, Indian, Arabo-Muslim, and Western civilization?
  - Is the construction of large civilization-states such as China and India an unparalleled historical  achievement?
  - Do economic ties always eclipse other forms of affiliation such as those formed through kinship or 
    between speech communities?
  - What is the role of the "Latin" and the Jewish Peoples in our Anglo-American-lead Western world?
  - Is English today the global language or merely an international?
  - Is the Chinese thought pattern closely related to its writing system?
  - Is today's world one of (symmetrical) interdependence? Or rather one of hegemony?
  - If the so-called North-South or East-West dialogue fails in construction a universally accepted world  civilization, then what is the appropriate arrangement for reaching such a consensus within  human-kind ?
 

INSTITUT INTERUNIVERSITAIRE

Genève

Interuniversity Institute

CH-1211 Genève-11, case 5044 
Phone/fax: 41+22+7341718 
e-mail: INU@INUGE.CH

INU

Français
Deutsch
Español
Russian
Arab
Chinese
Hindi (devanagari)
 
  The Interuniversity Institute (INU) is an entirely independent, non-governmental institution founded in 1980. As the Founding Act states, it promotes the collaboration of academics with diverse backgrounds and affiliations in the field of human sciences adhering to principles of strict scientific standards.

INU endeavors to steadily enlarge the circle of people from different continents and civilizations who cooperate to realize the two major aims:

1) Freeing the human sciences from any Western-centered or other authoritarian arguments and sophism by researching and applying universally acceptable principles and methods, as it is the case in other sciences. Accordingly, the INU promotes research especially in those areas, where methods and paradigms can be developed that allow exact formulation, conceptualization in operational terms and inductive proofs. The objectives and approaches are detailed in the Founding act.

2) Contributing to the construction of a truly universal world civilization by systematic appreciation of approaches and accumulated knowledge emanating from the different living civilizations. (See Current main project.)

The field of activities includes - besides research - conference organization, lectures, documentation and publication (INU Press).

Indeed, the INU elaborates concepts and ideas, brings to light facts as well as proposes action. Although INU combats undisciplined thinking and the proliferation of information parading under the pseudonym of science, this self-imposed discipline in the creation and discovery of knowledge doesn't lead to a "weltfremd" mentality but implies a responsible approach to the solving of practical problems as perceived by individuals and communities. It also remains open to the discussion of any new ideas or findings with any group or individual independent of social status or prestige. This openmindedness, eliminating all considerations extraneous to its creative work, determines the INU's approach and spirit. The INU develops its own research program having its own priorities, disseminating the results for a broader audience, but it also serves as a clearing house for the communication of knowledge coming from others. The INU is a type of non-governmental cooperative university bringing together motivated people, a creative circle held together not by egotism but by common interests. It definitely doesn't try to perpetuate such traditional institutions as credentials and recommendations, affiliated or not, student or professor, full or associate, etc. Indeed, within the INU, dialogue is determined exclusively by complementarity and community of interest and knowledge. The INU is fundamentally against any form of self-complacency and fashionability.

Why and how to cooperate with INU?

As noted, the INU is open to the suggestions and arguments of groups and individuals from different cultural backgrounds without hierarchical considerations. It encourages, assists, and coordinates the work of individuals and groups following rigorous epistemological criteria.

In conformity with its goals the INU disseminates verified research results as well as verifiable ideas through its publications by INUPress and other modern non-conventional means - so far as these techniques are appropriate to channel scientific knowledge and do not serve as vehicles for undisciplined reflection however attractive the presentation might be.

The INU is not guided by other values than sound scholarship and scientific probity.

You can make commentaries by any of the above mentioned electronic or other means of communication. The INU replies to all inquiries.

For practical and financial reasons INUForum's "lingua franca" is English; however, as far as possible, any contributions or letters written in any other of the 6 languages of the U.N. - Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish - as well as in German - will be considered.

Feedback welcome: INU@INUGE.ch.


INU PRESS

Recent publications:

Dirk Pereboom:   Logique et Logistique. Une initiation. 2nd enlarged edition. ISBN 2-88155-002-9
  Apprentissage pratique des bases de la logique et de la logistique, en 233 pages assorties de nombreux exercices et leur solution.

- Guy Ankerl: Urbanization Overspeed in Tropical Africa. Facts, Societal Problems, and Policy. ISBN 2-88155-000-2

- Théopiste Butare: Secteurs traditionnel et moderne dans un processus de développement. ISBN 2-88155-003-7

 NOW AVAILABLE:
- Guy Ankerl: Global Communication without Universal Civilization
  Book one:    Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations
               (Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western)
2000. XXIX+501 pp.
ISBN 2-88155-004-5 ISBN in Bookland/EAN 978 288 155 004 1.
$40 or 60 Swiss Francs.
Orders may be placed through your local bookseller or addressed directly to INU PRESS
1. case postale: 5044, CH-1211 Genève-11,
2. fax 041-22-7341718 or by
3. e-mail: INU@INUGE.CH
4. site: www.inuge.ch , or
5. via: Amazon.com.
All orders must be prepaid by the following means:
money order to PostFinance : IBAN CH05 0900 0000 1202 5493 3

Contents:
Preface
Introduction
I.  Communication and Civilizations                             1
The Problem, Approaches, Methods and Presentation
II. Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, Western Civilizations     49
Their Axial Institution and the Three Building-Blocks
(Shared Scripture of each one, Genetic Variation of
Breeding Communities and  Collective Self-Preservation)
III. The West as a Particular Civilization                    119
The Identity of the Western Civilization; its Parts;
Afro-Brazil Amalgam and the Anglo-American "Melting-
Pot" Paradigm
IV. Globalism                                                 245
The Globe as Anglo-American Sphere of Influence
V.  The Federative Agenda                                     339
From Hegemonic "Salvation of the Third World" to Co-
operation among Civilization-States
- Name Index with Bibliographical Reference
- Subject Index with Conceptual Cross-References

In preparation book two: A WORLD CIVILIZATION BY FEDERATION OF CIVILIZATION-STATES

This unorthodox penetrating study exercises a fundamental criticism on the bipolarizing approach of the Western social sciences and  politics.

The "civilized West" should accept that there are not only major past civilizations but more than just one living civilization with which - at least in the foreseeable future - the West should coexist, as well as each one with each other.
Identifying these living civilizations and the problems caused mainly by the Western pretense of being a universal civilization is the main concern of this work.
This first volume outlines the Arabo-Muslim, Chinese, Indian and  Western civilizations according to their own anthropological, material and scriptural building-blocks. Because - beyond the present Western "civilization of business" - every other civilization  ranks these 3 fundamentals differently and practices a different scale of values, each also has a distinct axial institution.
Within the Western world the  interplay of the Anglo-American core, the Latin-Catholic periphery and the Diaspora is treated and contrasted with the Chinese and Indian civilization-states as well as with the countries of the Arabo-Muslim civilization brought together in the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC).
In relation to the Western-inspired tendency toward globalism projected by a New-York-type cultural pattern and melting pot, the Brazilian model is also discussed as a more attractive one for the integration of the African civilization complexes.
The last, concluding part of the book introduces the second book. It proceeds with the falsification of the  Manichean formula of the Western mind set which divides the world into East-West, North-South or more precisely  into West and Non-West; consequently it looks for a valid replacement of so-called West-Third World dialogue by a round table of civilizations. Therefore the second book will design the passage from an unauthentic duologue to a  worldwide dialogue based on civilizational pluralism.



   
Subject index with conceptual cross-references
                                                      *



 Guy C. ANKERL’S  PUBLICATIONS  (2012)

 

In English

BOOKS 

- Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western. INU Societal Research Series. Geneva: INU Press, 2000. 530 pp.

ISBN 2-88155-004-5.



REVIEWS:

Epistemological Enlightenment Centre, Khartoum 3.2007

Theology in Global Context by Neville.R.C. p.56, 2004

Xuehai, Hawai 1.2003

Etudes Internationales, 2002

British Journal of Middle East Studies,1.5 2002

Journal of Economic Literature, 2001

Amazon. Com., 2001

ACHA Bulletin, Sept. 5,2001



Urbanization Overspeed in Tropical Africa: Facts, Social Problems, and Policy.

INU Societal Research Series. Geneva: INU Press, 1986. 117 pp.

ISBN 2-88155-000-2.

REVIEWS:

Salvatore, Dominique: African Development Prospects: A Policy Modelling  Approach , p.70, 1989

The Rotarian. 5.1989

Labour, Capital and Society,1988

Contemporary Sociology, 1988

Africa News, 1988

African Urban Quarterly, 1988

The Black Scholar, 1988

Population and Development Review, 1988

The Third World Reports, 1988

Journal of Economic Literature, 1988

Population Index, 1988

Labour, Capital and Society, 1986

Budapest Reriews of Boooks,1.1992

 

Experimental Sociology of Architecture: A Guide to Theory, Research, and Literature. Studies in the Social Sciences Nr 36. New York – Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1981. 564 pp. ( Paperback edition1983).

ISBN 90-279-3219-0.

REVIEWS:

 Symbolic Interaction 123-55, 2.2006

Caliber 2.2006

Croome, Derek J. et al: Creating the Productive Workplace, p.66, 1999

McGuire, W.: Constructing  Social Psychology: Creative and Critical Aspects. p.105,1999

Vliet, van Willem (ed.): The Encyclopaedia of Housing. p.3,32,150, 1998

Fletcher, R et al: The Limits of Settlement Growth. New Studies in Archaeology. p.151, 1995

Sterling, Raymond L.: Underground Space Design.1993

Theory, Culture and Society,195-201,  8.1991

Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1985

Contemporary Sociology, 1985

Environment and Behavior, 641-3. 1985

Canadian Journal of Sociology,476-9, 1984

Schweizer Ingenieur und Architekt, 1984

Sage Urban Studies, 1984

Architectural Science Review, 1983

International Journal of Psychology, 1983

Magyar Epitömüvész, 1983

Design Book Review, 88-89, 1983

Domus, 1982

Review Journal of Social Science, 1982

Architects’ Journal, 1982

 

Towards a Social Contract on a Worldwide Scale. ILO Research Series Nr 47. Geneva: ILO, 1980. 50 pp.

ISBN 92-9014-165-4

REVIEWS:

World Development, 1983

Social Forces 1033, 1978

 

Beyond Monopoly Capitalism and Monopoly Socialism: Distributive Justice in a Competitive Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Schenkman, 1978. 117 pp. (Paper ed. 1979).

ISBN 0-87073-938-7

REVIEWS:

B. Burchell et al.: Job Insecurity & Work Intensification. P. 125. 2001

Jahrbuch für Sozialwissenschaften, 1990

Political Theory pp.121-4. 2.1981

ILO Review,1980

Sociologie Economique, 1979

Journal of Economic Literature, 1978

ARTICLES

 The Relativity of Human Rights within the era of  society based on contracts between  equals.

International  Journal of Human Rights. London, sept. 2011, 14-36.

 Protection by Persuasion.

Contemporary Sociology. Washington D.C., 6.2010

 Mobilities.

Contemporary Sociology. Washington D.C., 3.2009.

 Stages of Globalization: Priority for Co-operation among Civilization-states instead of  New York-type Global Mixing of  Individuals by Migration (Dialogue among spheres of civilizations – the Key to safe future)

Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of  Global Awareness Society International. Bloomsburg University, 11.2005

 Business and Civilizations: The Basic Issues.

The Social Science Journal. Greenwich, CT., 1.1997. Pp. 1-5.  

 Post-modern Spaces and Cities. 

Contemporary Sociology. Washington, D.C., 7.1996. Pp. 517-518.

 Tolerance: Variation of the Concept According to Different Civilizations.

Democracy and Tolerance. Paris UNESCO, 1995. Pp. 59-78.

The Relative Social Coherence or Connectedness in Europe given by a Preference Indicator of Telecommunication (With Dirk Pereboom).

Communications & Strategies. Montpellier, 1.1995. Pp. 117-130. and Cahiers de sociologie économique et culturelle. Univerité du Havre, 23. 6.1995, 123-134 l.

 The Native Right to Speak Hungarian in the Carpathian Basin.

The Hungarian Quarterly. Budapest, 1.1994. Pp. 7-23.

 Theses on Migration, on Society Mixed with Natives and Immigrants and on Relation between  Societies of Different Civilizations.

Europa-Ethnica.Vienna, 2.1994. Pp. 70-73.

 Mother Tongue and Others: The Use of One’s Mother Tongue in a Mixed Society.

Family, Child, Youth. Budapest, 3.1994. Pp. 11-15.

 New Orientation for  the “Contemporary Sociology”.

ASA Footnotes. Washington, D.C., 3.1994. P. 4.

 Computers in African Development. (rev.)

Contemporary Sociology. Washington, D.C., 4.1993. Pp. 613-614.

 Urbanization Overspeed Reconsidered.

Contemporary Sociology. Washington, D.C., 1988. Pp. 727-728.

 World Urbanization in Global Perspective. (rev.)

Contemporary Sociology. Washington, D.C., 5.1987. Pp. 478-479.

Experimental Sociology of Architecture, no more and no less: A Comment.

Journal of Environmental Psychology. New-York, 1986. Pp. 86-87.

 Architectural Sociology.

Contemporary Sociology. Washington, D.C., 2.1985. Pp.150-152.

 Traditional Construction and the Immediate Improvement of Tropical Africa’s Housing Conditions in the Urban Sprawls.

Actes de l’Académie Royale des Sciences d’Outre-Mer. Brussels, 1984. Pp. 77-99.

Rapid Urbanization in the Third World, with Special Reference to Tropical Africa.

Labour and Society. Geneva ILO, 3.1983. Pp. 277-288.

Politics and Science.

Science. Washington, D.C., 1983. P. 604.

An Antibibliography of Book Titles Listed in Well-known Special Bibliographies and  Review Journals: A Research in Applied Epistemology. INUForum. Geneva, 1983. Pp. 1-26.

What Makes the Present Economic Trend Critical and the Economic Policy Open to Criticism in the OECD-Countries? INUForum. Geneva, 1982. Pp. 1-7.

Migration from Rural to Urban Habitat in Tropical Africa.

Mondes en Développement. Paris, 1982. Pp. 511-533.

Scientific Methods in Ethology (With Dirk Pereboom).

Science. Washington, D.C., 1974. Pp. 814-815.

From Intuitive to Formal Book Critique: A Semiotic Approach.

Heuristics. Chicago, 1.1972. Pp. 35-43

Epistemometrics: A Case Study of a Sociological Work.

Computers and Humanities. New-York, 1970. P. 1257.

Criteria for Ensuring Every Child’s Right to the National Welfare by means of the Family Allowance.

World Justive . Louvain, 1964. Pp. 435-451.

 

 EN FRANCAIS :

 

LIVRES

 - Urbanisation rapide en Afrique Tropicale : Faits, conséquences et politiques sociétales. Paris-Abidjan-Dakar-Lomé: Berger-Levrault & Les Nouvelles Editions Africaines, 1987. 180 p.

ISBN 2-7013-0673-6.

      COMPTES RENDUS :

Population Index, 1988

Jouve, E. :Le Tiers monde. Que sais-je ? pp. 77 et 122, 1988

Afrique Contemporaine, 1987

 - Sociologues allemands : Etudes de cas en sociologie historique et non-historique avec le dictionnaire analytique de « L’éthique protestante et l’esprit du capitalisme » de Max Weber. Coll. Langages. Neuchâtel-Paris: La Baconnière-Payot, 1972. 316 p.

COMPTES RENDUS :

Moscovici, Serge etc.: The Invention of Society : Psychological Explanations  for Social Phenomena. 1999
Contemporary Sociology, 1977

Contemporary Sociology, 1976

Gazette Littéraire, 1975

Gazette Littéraire, 1974

Archives de Sciences Sociales des Religions, 1973

- Communauté et Société : l’âge écologique et l’âge économique. Carnet bleu. Montréal : Les Presses Universitaires, 1970. 50 p.

- Concept de l’investissement humain comme aspect de la politique de répartition. (Thèse de doctorat). Ed. élargie : L’épanouissement de l’homme dans les perspectives de la politique économique. Coll. Internationale des Sciences Sociales et Politiques. Paris-Köln: Sirey-Westdeutscher Verlag, 1965. 266 p.

 

COMPTES RENDUS :

Schmollers Jahrbuch, 1969

Revue d’Economie Politique, 1968

La Pensée, 1968

Revue Française de Science Politique, 1968

Année Sociologique, 1967

Revue Economique, 1967

Les Etudes Sociales, 1967

Statistical Review, 1967

Revue Philosophique de Louvain, 1967

Neues Europa, 1967

The Economic Review, 1966

Revue Internationale du Travail, BIT, 1966

Recherches Economiques de Louvain, 1966

Population, 1966

Justice dans le monde, 1966

Archives Diplomatiques et Consulaires, 1966

Europäische Begegnung, 1966

Gazette Littéraire, 1966

Bibliographie de Philosophie, 1966



ARTICLES

 

Scientifiques:

La coexistence des sphères de civilisations. De l’Etat-nation à l’Etat-civilisation.

(Essai de révision conceptuelle)

Mélanges Edmond Jouve. Paris, 2006.

Urbanisation mondiale: Un essai de synthèse des aspects démographiques, politiques, économiques et ethno-civilisationnels. 

Cahiers de sociologie économique et culturelle. Le Havre, 12.1990. Pp. 97-130.

Quelques données linguistiques sur la population indienne de l’Amérique ibéro-indienne.

Correo del Sur. Lausanne, 3.1990. Pp. 29-39 

Développement occidental, progrès sociétal et solidarité politique pour un pluralisme civilisationnel.

Mélanges. Paris, Berger-Levrault, 1988. Pp. 223-240.

Sururbanisation dans le tiers-monde ? Urbanisation rapide, problèmes et solutions.

Futuribles. Paris, 1.1984. Pp. 25-64.

Rapide urbanisation dans le tiers monde et plus particulièrement en Afrique tropicale. Répercussions sociales et perspectives.

Travail et Société, juillet 1983, 299-310 l.

Sociologie de l’espace, thème de l’architecture : Méthodes et  concepts objectifs dans les récentes recherches américaines.

Architecture, Mouvement, Continuité. Paris, 12.1973. Pp. 37-40.

L’environnement total et ses architectes.

Architecture Concept. Montréal, 1.1971. Pp. 24-26.

Face au synchronocentrisme, la sociologie est-elle l’histoire immédiate de l’ère audio-visuelle ?

European Journal of Methodology: Quality and Quantity. Bologne, 9.1971. Pp. 209-223.

Pourquoi et comment la répartition communiste est-elle dissociable de l’abondance et de la gratuité générale?

France Nouvelle. Paris, 10.1969. P. 5. 

Les critères  pour l’assurance des droits de chaque enfant au bien-être national par l’allocation familiale. (Mémoire de doctorat).

Justice dans le Monde. Louvain, 4.1964. Pp. 439-456.

 

Journal :

De l’Etat-nation à l’Etat-civilisation.

La Tribune. Genève, 6.6.2001.

L’unité des régions européennes n’est pas pour demain.

La Tribune. Genève, 4.3.1996.

Une Europe des cantons.

La Suisse. Genève, 17.12.1992.

Et si l’on sortait du schéma gauche-droite?

Journal de Genève. 20.6.1988.

 Mythes et réalités.

Fraternité Matin, Abidjan, 26.3.1982, 22-23 l.

Aucune trace.

La Liberté. Fribourg, 4.10.1957.

Que veut la nouvelle génération ?

La Liberté. Fribourg, 6.9.1957.



DEUTSCH :

ARTIKEL

 Die besondere Bedeutung des Kinderzulagensystem für die persönliche Einkommensverteilungspolitik.

Sozialer Fortschritt. Bonn, 10.1974. Pp.236-238.

 

Spezifische Faktoren in stadtsoziologischen Analysen : Uberlegungen zur systematischen Analyse der Stadt als einem Netz und Struktur unmittelbarer Kommunikation.

Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Köln, 3.1974. Pp. 568-587.

Austausch und Integration.

Europäische Begegnung. Hannover, 3.1967. Pp. 130-132.

 

ESPANOL :

ARTICULOS

Globalizacion y globalismo.

La Provincia. Las Palmas, 1.1995.

Las Consecuencias Sociales del Creciente Poriceso de l’Urbanization.

Acts of the Second Congress of the AMS. Caracas, 1.1983.



BIOGRAPHICAL SOURCES

American Men and Women of Science.  Jacques Cattell Press.

 Who’s Who in America, Marquis ed.  New Providence, NJ

Who’s Who in the World, Marquis ed. New Providence, NJ

International Who’s Who of Contemporary Achievement. ABI, Raleigh, NC

International Biographical Centre,  Men of Achievement, Cambridge, UK

 

THE FOUNDING DECLARATION

What is INU?

The Interuniversity Institute (INU) advances scientific research according to universal concepts of science, without committing itself to a national school of thought or a particular ideology.

The INU primarily promotes the application and dissemination of exact knowledge in human sciences.

The INU has basically 2 functions: a critical and a creative one.

1. What is its critical function?

By analyzing postulates, premises, and basic concepts of scientific theories, the INU strives to identify and eliminate arguments implicitly or explicitly extrinsic to scientific reasoning.

The INU is independent of any authoritarian argument that might come from political authority, economic organizations, information monopolies, academic institutions, or individuals.

Within the academic community, the INU combats sophism, which by its implicit rhetoric obfuscates creative scientific research. For that purpose the INU develops and applies the methods of epistemology (e.g., practical epistemology for scientific criticism of sociological books), and the sociology of scientific knowledge.

The INU encourages all publications solely for their intrinsic scientific merit. It considers anonymous publications such as Bourbaki's, as a very appropriate way to restore scientific debate and creativity to their true concern, because anonymity prevents ad hominem arguments and the proliferation of self-serving publications.

It is clearly within the scope of the INU to consider critically the exactness of established facts in general. To benefit the everyday praxis of public life, the INU exposes abuses of semantics as well as inaccuracies in information that misrepresent the data of social reality.

2. What is its creative function?

By considering the present state of the human sciences and their position in the scientific community, the INU claims for them the same exacting stature that the others have earned for themselves. The Institute strives to conduct research according to strict scientific standards. Rather than perpetuating the ambiguous distinction between 'hard science' and ' soft science', the INU promotes research especially in those areas of the human sciences, where methods and paradigms can be developed that allow exact formulation, conceptualization in operational terms, and inductive proofs by falsification procedures (e.g., exchange, communication, and other spatio-temporal collective behaviors).

By insisting on vigorous scientific standards, the INU remains mindful of the societal purpose of knowledge, which is to enlighten and fulfill human aspirations - individual, collective, and social. Moreover, the INU's insistence on an objectivistic and experimental research strategy enhances the internal validity of findings and so prepares the ground for relevant and responsible action.

Experimentally controlled research applied to answering concrete questions also contributes to verifying the effective predictive power of science and so gives new impulses to further research.

Public and private organizations as well as individuals consult with the INU, giving advice and expert opinions based on interdisciplinary and transnational cooperation for solving technical, political or clinical problems. In order to assure the full usefulness of its recommendations, the Institute, with out necessarily agreeing with it, refers ultimately to the preference system expressed by the decision-makers themselves.

However, these preference systems are not completely out of reach of possible scientific scrutiny. The INU not only applies the science of decision-making and assists the decision-makers to reformulate their questions in scientifically operational terms, but it might also suggest categories for a discipline, called private science, in order to explicitly restructure a preference system.







INU Forum

This is an on-line publication. Articles can either be added as a new entry or replace a previous version. Thus each point in time an "up-to-date" version is delivered.



If you write us (inu@inuge.ch), we will publish your text.



The A POLITICAL DIARY:

The putch against Erdogan has Zionist origin like the Putch against Morsi in Egypt had.





VULNERABILITY  in international politics.

Nuclear vulnerability of both(!) sides guaranteed peace until 2000.

If NATO looks for one-sided invulnerability, it does  since it looks for hegemony.

Cf., International Newe York Times (June 17,2916): .."NATO looks vulnerable.." by D E Sanger.



THE REASON OF ISLAMIC VIOLANCE

-        Muslim countries like to be independent from the West and other civilizational  areas (like China).

-        If  there are free election, in most - if not all – Muslim countries the majority vote for Islamic parties.

-        This was the case in Algeria (90s), in Egypt, in Tunisia, Libya etc.

-        However, the West hindered these democratic processes by military coup (e.g., in the key coutry Egypt) and other  - indirect – maneuvers or illegal interventions.

-        This is the main reason that the Muslims use violence for reestablishing their sphere’s independence.

 

"Why terrorists commit terrorism?" Peter Bergen  INYT (=International New York Times) June 16,16. p8.

 No Muslim is born as "terrorist". The situation creates terrorism, people are radicalized. Why?

Muslims in general  became open to Salafist violent tactic after (!) the Western governments under Zionist pressure overthrow the elected Islamist government of Egypt.

 Peter Bergen  also recognizes in his article that the raison of terrorist acts is:

"dislike  of American foreign policy",

"oppositon to the American foreign policy" and

"objection to the American foreign policy".

Therefore the solution of terrorism problem in the West is not an issue of police but a policy, namely the liberation of the Western policy from one-sided Zionist influence.

Indeed, Islamism is the political Islam, while Zionism the political Judaism, Both concepts include more then one (strategical) tendencies, namely democratic as well violent one.

*

Tunisia's “new revolution” is - according  to H. Ibish  of the Washington's Arab Gulf States Institute, - post-Islamist. (INYT June 3,2016, p.6)

This so-called “post-islamist new revolution" is as Sisi's in Egypt rather a restauration of  Western hegemony.

The West intimidated the old  Ghannouchi to distance himself from the political and democratic islamist Muslim Brotherhood.

The West dreams about an emasculated Islamism subordinated to Zionism like Sisi in Egypt.

But truly, the Christian  Europeans' dream is post-Zionism!

*

We can foresee (!)  the handling 0f each country by the Western mass media:

If the influence of Zionist plutocracy increases there, the handling  will be better; in other cases worse.

            Indeed, in Jun 2016 Brazil's, Argentina's image became better because the regime change.

            Turkey's, Venezuela's, Equator's, Bolivia's, Iran's. Russia's are the worst.

since their goverments are presently not directly under Zionist influence.

*

The Zionists don't accept an independent Muslim state in Israel's neighborhood. After annihilating by US assistance Iraq, Libya - and by military coup Egypt - they try Syria too.

And they didn't arrive to prevent the Iran-West agreement, now they try to make its realization impossible by maintaining U.S. sanctions.

(E. A. Cohen, E.S. Edelman and R. Trakeyh: Time to get tough on Iran. In: Foreign Affairs, Febr.2016. Roger Cohen: U.S. policy puts Iran deal at risk. INYT May 7,16, 9) 

 

  *


"Turkish model' under fire" by Mustafa Akyol (INYT May6,16, 9).

          The Western image of Erdogan  was until 2010 positive.

Why did it change?

In this year Erdogan had a conflict with Netanyahu about the Gaza help action.

          According  to Akyol Rachid  Ghannouchi and its Islamist Ennahda Party is the example how the Islamists should cooperate with the West.

          Why?

Ghannouchi subordinated himself and his party to Western instructions. The West doesn't accept that an Islamist movement with its majority leads even a Muslim country (cf Morsi).



*

Defense against invasion by soft power:

          INYT April 29 and 30: "China places strict control on groups from abroad. U.S. faults Chinese law on NGOs from aboard"

          Is this an expression of the dictatorship of an authoritarian non-democratic state?

          No, "powerful natons, including Russia and even India (! the world largest democracy) are cracking down on (foreign!) nongovernmental organizations." (INYT May 2,16,8)

         There aren't in the U.S. itself laws which prescribe registration for foreign nongovernmental organizations? (Double standard!)

*

(Stephen Castle, INYT April 29,2016, p.3 )

British Zionist supervision of Labour Party:

Since Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of British Labour Party the party is no more unanimously subordinated to the Zionist cause. Its big sponsor, David Abrahmans, Executive in the Channel Four - and former founder (with the BBC World and Virgin) of the UKTV - complaint in the Jewish News that the deputy Naseem Shah "endorsed a Facebook post displaying a graphic  that showed Israel's outline  superposed  on a map of the U.S."

Jeremy Corbyn is facing revolt (INYT June27,2016,1)

Indeed, he is not a Zionist like the Miliband brother are.



          The INYT (May 2,16,3) announces that the Labor candidate in the mayoral race in London, Mr. Khan former transport minister is an observant Muslim, however the other candidate, Mr. Goldsmith's religious belonging is not indicated in the article. Why?

*

April 26,2016:

The expansion of American military engagement is for hindering the enlargement of the Syrian government's influence,  and not in relation with the Islamic State. The pro-Zionist lobby tries for a long period of time to involve the US against Syria as it did in the case of  Israel's all rivals like Iraq and Libya. It also will the prolongation of  the occupation  of  Golan highs. Indeed, Syria has now a chance to win the internationalized civil war with Russian assistance.  By this American involvement the number of victims in Syria will increase.

*

Apropos: Impeachment in Brasilia 18.4.2016

Members of Congress explained their decisions as they voted for impeachment: They voted 'for peace in Jerusalem^for the truckers 'for the FreeMasons of Brazil'”..

INYT, April 21,2016 .

March 29.23016. The Zionists try to reverse the Brazilian government, since it  doesn't agreed to nominate DANI DAYAN as Israel's ambassador who were chef of the Yesha Council, the umbrella organization of  the  West Bank settlers. (al Jazeera).

*
Israel, viz. the world Zionism exercises its power mainly by its Western diaspora, the Zionist oligarchy.

1. It finances the main think tank in order to substitute Israeli interest for Western one (e.g. WINEP).

2 It finances the (re)election of the political decision makers (also by AIPAC), and finally,

3. by financing and controlling the mass media it exercises a censorship on the communication between the decision makers  and  the people.

 Therefore, it is not a hazard  that  the USA worked to overthrow the Brazilian president who refused to accept Dani Dayan  - who comes from the Occupied Territories - as Israeli ambassador;

it also is not a hazard  that Venezuela has a bad image in the press, Israel has not an ambassador in Caracas any more;

it is not a hazard  that Erdogan has a bad press too, since he has a bad relation with Netanyahu.

          The only question remain open in 2016:

why doesn't Obama - without possibility  to be reelected -  force an independent US policy, and  accepts  personal and national humiliation from Israel.

And in 2016, of course, all the US presidential candidates are Zionist.

Only   Sanders  refused to go for audition of the AIPAC.

A hero? No, he is Jew and doesn^t need a declaration of loyalty to Zionism

*

Basic dilemma of Europe:

The Western civilization

- either will pretend to be universal one and therefore must admit the Muslim and other costums in public life,

- or it will stay as a particular civilisational sphere with mainly Christian tradition, and in this  case it can ask immigrants to accommodate.

*

"The next chapter for Ukraine”  after the Zionist putsch (of Yatsenyuk, Proshenko, Groysman). See the global Zionist front:

"The Ukrainians who demonstrated against corruption remain an active force through civic organizations. One of  their is, Mikhail Saakashvili, the former president  of Georgia (!), who was brought  in by Porosheno as governor of Odessa.."

INYT April 16,16, p.8.

*

New York Times' Zionist prpaganda. Title of an article:

 "A Brussels mentor who spread 'gangstar Islam'"

 April 12,2016, p.4



INYT April 9-10 and 11. 2016: Muslim Radicalization

But why?

The democratically elected Islamist president of Egypt had been overthrow by a military putsch accepted – and even assisted – by the Zionist USA. Now the Salafists find justification for their violent policy.

"Faulting Belgium, not Islam."

Yves Goldstein, chef of staff for the minister-president of  Brussels Capital Region will explain on the German Marshall Funds meeting in Brussels why the young Muslims can't find their identity in "our society". INYT Apr.8,2016 p.2)

          Why? Indeed, the Belgian government as the other Western government accepts de facto the expansion of  Israel and participates  in the bombing of various territories with Muslim majority (by an obscure international coalition), like Israel did in Gaza.

*

Typical imperialism is  to control relation between other  countries.

Indeed, the policy institution of  China and Latin America  program at Inter-American  Dialogue is in Washington (!) directed by Margaret Myers. (INYT April 5,2016,p10.)

*

The Zionist campaign against Erdogan's - Morsi's friend - Turkey's  NATO membership goes on, - as did the camaign against Morsi in January 2013, - meanwhile the the Palestinian-Israeli “peace process” should be oblitered.

In the campaign against Erdogan the apostat clerk, Fethullah Gulen (living in the U.S.) does participate too. (INYT , March 31, 9 Thomas L. Friedman and INYT March 9.16. INYT March 30,2016).

Indeed, the Zionists'  objective is to throw out Turkey from the NATO, (INYT  March30,2016,7 [“Does  Turkey still belong in NATO?” INYT March30,16]. Turkey hinders that, in long view, Israel enters the NATO.

Meanwhile, as we said already, the campaign against Erdogan goes on since 2010, when Israel attaqued the Turkish Ship sent to Gaza.

* * *

 NEW STUDIES IN 2015/2016:

  1. The West, and the confrontation between Islamism, the political Islam and the Zionism, the political Judaism.

  2. The financing of  (so-called) independent think-tanks and the distinction between US and Israeli interest.

June 28, 2014.Netanyahu at  INSS think-tank in Tel Aviv told:

Obama should find(!) one(!)  think-tank in the States which is ready to distinguish between USA and Israeli interests.

(Per definitionem, in Washington the WINEP can’t, since it defines American interest by Israel’s.)

           Indeed, they are Zionist control of the US foreign policy on 3 levels:

1.     The epistemological: by financing the prominent think tanks advising the government, in order that the definition of American interest follows Israel’s.

2.     The real political: the Zionist oligarchy finances the candidates’ campaign for (re)election.

3. The same plutocracy controll the media and therefor all the communication between the poltical decisionmakers and thr people.

Literature about the financing of  US think tanks:

Thomas Medvetz  wrote a book about  Think Tanks in America (324 pp .Chicago UP, 2010; CS July 2014,558). He criticizes their financing which according to him comes from the Right and brings biased views. He doesn’t  show however that for the mainstream foreign policy think tanks  the main variable is not Right or Left, Republican or Democrat. Largely the bipartisan Zionist – or called also neoconservative - lobby supports them (Cf. in the USA well known [neo]conservative institutions;   WINEP [Washington  Institute  for Near East Policy], JINSA [Jewish Institute  for National (!) Security Affairs], MEF [Middle East Forum], PNAC [Project for a New American Century], AEI [American Enterprise Institute, CSP [Center for Security Policy], HUDSON Institute, Heritage Foundation, FDD [Foundation for Defense of  Democracies], FPRI [Foreign Policy Research Institute], IFPA [Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis], Haim Saban Center at Brookings  Institution; for the personal interconnectedness and the media connection  see Mearsheimer and Walt [131].)These institutions are funded and run  by individuals  who are deeply committed to advancing  Israel’s agenda.” (Cf. Mearsheimer-Walt .) However, in the current literature about think tanks the Zionist connection is rarely identified. Mearsheimer and Walt’s work is rare exception, but their work is not specially concentrated to the issue of think tanks (175-6, 131, 117). This statement is valid for roughly for the whole special literature, esp. because the most authors themselves are engaged Zionists.

Publications:

 Abelson, D. E. 2002. Do think tanks matter? Montreal Ithaca, N.Y.: McGill-Queen's University Press.

---. 2004. The business of Ideas: the think tank industry in the USA. In Think Tank Traditions, Policy research

and the politics of ideas., eds. D. Stone & A. Denham. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

---. 2006. A capitol idea: think tanks and US foreign policy. Canada: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Adler, E. & P. M. Haas (1992) Conclusion: epistemic communities, world order, and the creation of a

reflective research program. International Organisation, 46, 367-390.

Bentham, J. (2006) The IPPR and Demos: Think Tanks of the New Social Democracy. The Political Quarterly, 77, 166-174.

BEPA. 2012. European think tanks and the EU. In Berlaymont Papers, eds. A. Misiroli & I. Ioannides.

Bertelli, A. M. & J. B. Wenger (2009) Demanding Information: Think Tanks and the US Congress. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 225-242.

Braml, J. (2006) U.S. and German Think Tanks in Comparative Perspective. German Policy Studies, 3, 222-267.

Dickson, P. 1972. Think tanks. New York: Ballatine.

Fischer, F. 1990. Technology and the Politics of Expertise. United States: Sage.

---. 2003. Reframing Public Policy. Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gaffney, J. (1991) The political think-tanks in the UK and the ministerial cabinets in France. West European Politics, 1, 1-17.

Haas, P. M. (1992) Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46, 1-35.

Hajer, M. A. 1993. Discourse Coalitions. The Case of Acid Rain in Great Britain. In The Argumentative Turn in

Policy and Planning, eds. F. Fischer & J. Forester, 43-76. London: University College Press.

Jochem, S. & A. Vatter (2006) Introduction: Think Tanks in Austria, Switzerland and Germany - A

Recalibration of Corporatist Policy Making? German Policy Studies, 3, 139-152.

Kelstrop Jesper Dahl : Four Think Tank Perspectives. (Doctioral thesis.)

McGann et al., J. G. 2012. Global Go-To Think Tank Index 2011. University of Pennsylvania: Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, International Relations Program, University of Pennsylvania.

McGann, J. G. (2010) The Fifth Estate: Think Tanks and American Foreign Policy. Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 11, 35-42.

Mcgann, J. G. & R. Sabatini. 2011. Global think tanks: policy networks and governance. New York:

Routledge.

McGann, J. G. & R. K. Weaver. 2000. Think tanks and civil societies: catalysts for ideas and action. 617 s.

New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

---. 2002. Think tanks and civil societies. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

---. 2005. Think tanks and civil societies. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Medvetz, T. 2008. Think Tanks as an Emergent Field. The Social Science Research Council.

--- (2010) 'Public Policy is Like Having a Vaudeville Act': Languages of Duty and Difference among Think Tank-Affiliated Experts. Qual Sociol.

Osborne, T. (2004) On Mediators: Intellectuals and the Ideas Trade in the Knowledge Society. Economy and Society, 430-447.

Pautz, H. (2010) Think Tanks in the United Kingdom and Germany: Actors in the Modernisation of Social

Democracy. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 12, 274-294.

--- (2011) Revisiting the think-tank phenomenon. Public Policy and Administration, 26, 419-435.

---. 2012. Think-Tanks, Social Democracy and Social Policy. Palgrave Macmillan. New York.

Plehwe, D. 2008. Forging a neoliberal knowledge elite (perspective) and restricted pluralism: The history of the Mont Pèlerin Society networks of intellectuals and think tanks. New York: Social Science Research Council.10

---. 2010. Paying the Piper - think tanks and lobbying. In Bursting the Brussels Bubble.The battle to expose corporate lobbying at the heart of the EU. Brussels: ALTER-EU.

Rich, A. 2004. Think tanks, public policy, and the politics of expertise. Cambridge, UK New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sabatier, P. & H. C. Jenkins-Smith. 1993. Policy change and learning. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Schmidt, V. 2011. Discursive institutionalism: Scope, Dynamics and Philosophical Underpinnings. In The Argumentative Turn Revised: Public Policy as Communicative Practice, eds. F. Fischer & J. Forester.

Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Shoup L.: Wall Street's Think Tank. The Council on Foreign Relations and the Empire of Neoliberal Geopolitics. 1976-2014. Monthly Review Press, New York, 2015.

Smith, J. A. 1991. The idea brokers: Think tanks and the rise of the new policy elite. New York: The Free Press.

Stone, D. 1996. Capturing the Political Imagination. Think Tanks and the Policy Process. London: Frank Cass.

--- (2001) Think Tanks, Global Lesson-Drawing and Networking Social Policy Ideas. Global Social Policy, 1, 338-360.

--- (2007) Recycling Bins, Garbage Cans or Think Tanks? Three Myths Regarding Policy Analysis Institutes. Public Administration, 85, 259-278.

Stone, D., Denham & Garnet. 1998. Think Tanks Across Nations: A Comparative Approach. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press.

Stone, D. & A. Denham. 2004. Think Tank Traditions - Policy research and the politics of ideas. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Thunert, M. W. (2000) Players Beyond Borders? Think Tanks as Catalysts of Internationalisation. Global Society, 14, 191-212.

--- (2004) Think tanks in Germany. Society Abroad, 41, 66-69.

--- (2006) The Development and Significance of Think Tanks in Germany. German Policy Studies, 3, 185-221.

Ullrich, H. 2004. European Union think tanks: generating ideas, analysis and debate. In Think tank

traditions. Policy research and the politics of ideas., eds. D. Stone & A. Denham. Manchester and

New York: Manchester University Press.

Weaver, K. R. (1989) The Changing World of Think Tanks. PS: Political Science and Politics, 563-78.

Wells, P. (2011) Prescriptions for Regional Economic Dilemmas: Understanding the Role of Think Tanks in the Governance of Regional Policy. Public Administration, 90, 211-229.

Xufeng, Z. (2009) The Influence of Think Tanks in the Chinese Policy Process: Different Ways and

Mechanisms. Asian Survey, 49, 333-357

Soehnchen Stefan: Politikberatungistitute in Israel und deren Einfluss uaf die Nahostpolitik. In Orinet 41(2000)1, 39-63 (Uber Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Begin-Sadat Cneter for Strategic Studies; Harry S Truman Research Insitute for Advancement of Peace; Mosghe Dayan enter for Middle Eastern nad African Studies; Leonard Davis Insitute for Internationa relations .

W. Reinicke: Lotsendienste für Politik: Think Tanks..Güterloh: Bertelsmann, 1996.

W. Gellner: Ideenagenturen für Politik und Öffentlichkeit: Opladen, Westdeutscher Vlg. 1995.

*

  ad 1. 2014 (YEAR OF GAZA INVASION)

THE WEST FOLLOWS ZIONIST POLICY

  The West’s, the “NATO-world's" agenda  is subordinated to the Israeli interest (especially the US’s).

This politics is formulated by think tanks financed by the Zionist oligarchy which defines US interest itself in function of Israel’s. (Cf. in the USA well known [neo]conservative institutions;   WINEP [Washington  Institute  for Near East Policy], JINSA [Jewish Institute  for National (!) Security Affairs], MEF [Middle East Forum], PNAC [Project for a New American Century], AEI [American Enterprise Institute, CSP [Center for Security Policy], HUDSON Institute, Heritage Foundation, FDD [Foundation for Defense of  Democracies], FPRI [Foreign Policy Research Institute], IFPA [Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis], Haim Saban Center at Brookings  Institution. For the personal interconnectedness and the media connection  see Mearsheimer and Walt [131].)

On this basis the American interest coincides with Israel’s eo ipso, since the American interest is defined by American Zionists.

Foreign governments - democratically elected or not  - are backed, legitimized by the USA as far as  the Zionist influence is strong in them. Others are even exposed to subversion, to the regime change agenda. (That concerns today among others Russia, Belarus,Turkey, Iran, Venezuela, Bolivia.  For subversive strategy see e.g. Michael McFaul, colonel Robert Helvey, Gene Sharp; for historics Stephen Kinzer. )

Because the geographical situation of expansive Israel, the West can’t cooperate and even accept sovereign Islamist states.  The Zionist paradigm for the cooperation with the Arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere is the submission of the occupied Palestine.

In the Arabic core state, Egypt, following Western inspiration (2012/13) Sisi subverted the democratically elected Morsi regime (2013) because its independent anti-Zionist tendency.

In general, according to the Zionist policy no truly independent Arabic state should be stronger in Middle East than the nuclear power Israel. Syria, Iraq should be break up in micro-states (Oded Yinon Plan of 1982; Jeffrey Goldberg).

As a rule, the West  tries to disqualify as  chaotic, disordered and even illegitimate all countries, geopolitical regions which are outside Zionist influence, - without distinction such as China, Russia. (Thomas L. Friedman’s opinion expressed in the New York Times [Order vs. Disorder 1-4. July 15,2014, etc] is Israel centric worldview.)





 22.3.2016

PAX ET IUSTITIA

Les attentats islamistes ne peuvent être éliminés qu'en supprimant les motifs.

Or, les motifs sont géopolitiques.

La politique occidentale est sousmise à l'intérêt sioniste.

Elle a démoli tous les Etats concurrents de l' hégémonie d'Israël:

 Iraq,  Syrie, Lybie, Egypte démocratique de Morsi.

L'Occident veut une relation de soumission avec le monde arabo-musulman, à l'exemple de la relation entre Israël et les palestiniens.

Sans justice il n'y aura jamais de  paix.

(Et les 2000 morts à Gaza! Conséquence pour Israël: 0.)

*

2016 Geopolitics today in short:

The global influence of the US is overwhelming but not without limit (China).

However, thanks to the influence of the Zionist oligarchy in the West,  the “American and Western interests” follow the Zionist one (called by code Neocon, hawks, etc).

Every country has positive or negative image in the global media according to its degree of submission to  Zionist influence (Negative for example: Turkey, Russia).

Therefore without deep understanding of the international Zionist factor, geopolitical analysis can’t have validity. 

(For the Vatican:) The opposition between the arabo-muslim world  and the Western one - largely under Zionist influence - is not an issue

            of violence and hate,

            but of power and justice.



Explanation of the  present chaos in the arab-muslim geopolitical sphere

It is a fact that any democratic election in the Muslim world brings an Islamist majority (Algeria [1990], Egypt, Libya, Tunisia).

Yet the West can’t support, acquiesce this historical fact.

Therefore it tries to reverse the political situation  by coup d’Etat (Egypt).

As a result, the Muslim world learns that it can’t have independent power by democratic means.

This is the reason for present violence.

Meanwhile, the West remains without legitimate Muslim political representation to solve the conflict with dialogue.

 Consequence is that by the – neo-colonialist, neo-crusadist, neo-conservative - anti-Islamist mobilization of the West, it looses its energy in  endless battle for Israel’s regional hegemony instead of concentration for a competition with China. 

Summa summarum:

Basic world problem:

The American Zionist oligarchy by financing the prominent American think tanks assures that the US interest is defined  by Israel’s one, and on the other hand by financing – and helping by the media – their candidates in election campaign, it assures that anyway in political action US interest can’t prevail over Israel’s.

 Today Syria, Iraq, ISIS are not Western protectorates. Before any kind of deadly intervention in ISIS Organization of Islamic Cooperation  (OIC) should not be consulted? December 1, 2015.

February 28,2016

The destruction and dissolution of  stable  non-Zionist  countries like Syria, Libya, Libya and Iraq - as well as Sisi's anti-democratic putch in Egypt - serves the interest of Zionists.

*

CURRENT CONCERNS (FACTS AND STANDARDS)



 Dictionary for Western newsmen:

La démocratie occidentale:

-L'éligibilité est de facto déterminée financièrement par l'oligarchie.

-Donc les votants ont un choix restreint. Et car d'être élu ne nécessite pas un minimum de nombre de votant  (quorum), ça arrange les réélection pour les candidats de l'oligachie. Ainsi  certaines opinions ne peuvent pas arriver à un expression politique.

-En plus par remplacement des votes populaires par "l'opinion publique" des sondages payés (sur les questions arbitrairement choisies) par les media qui financent, la démocratie oligarchique est  "bouclée".  

Neither the G7 nor NATO nor Obama+Markel+Hollande could be called “the international community”.

The international Community is the UN General Assemble or its Security Council.

A new US world policy by extension of  its jurisdiction beyond its national borders

Instead of using the principles of international public law, - e.g., declaration of war - the USA tries to obtain satisfaction for its goals by targeting individuals, targeting  by drone attack (in Pakistan), or by blacklisting (concerning Russia). Beside the CIA, the FBI itself becomes an important instrument of foreign policy.

This new perspective (used again Russia and Muslim states) implies that the USA considers the whole world  under its jurisdiction.

However, in term of efficacy, this strategy overestimates the (targeted) individuals' influence in international policy.

 

Dimensions and terminology for analysis of  the Middle East conflicts and other intercivilizational conflicts:

Xenophobia is not identical with racism or supremacism.

Anti-Christian, anti-Semitic or anti-Islam propaganda can be condemned as blasphemy, or hate speech, but Islamism – the political Islam – and Zionism – the political Judaism – are ideologically inspired political movement and the right to their criticism belong to the right to freedom of  speech.

 

DISTINCTION

The coexistence between the  autochthon Westerns and the Muslim immigrants is a problem of  acceptance of the life style and norms of the autochthon population.

The imposition of  Western power and norms on countries with Muslim majority (Dar el-Islam) is an international political problem, an aggression.

Clarification

The islamophobia propaganda tries to confuse two different problems:

- the desirability the immigration of  large Muslim population into the West and

- the respectful  coexistence between the Western countries and  the independent Dar al-Islam.

          You can agree with the second without agreeing with the first.



..The West is today politically subordinated to Zionism, while  in  case of free election, in Muslim countries the majority vote for Islamism.

Understood  that Zionism and Islamism are political movements. Concerning the means, in both are democrats and violent tendencies.  

*

Translate mainstream press: "populist" means "population", "political elite" means "establishment submitted to Zionist oligarchy".

*

 WHAT IS DOUBLE STANDART IN GENERAL?


1.If a country condemns a military coup which doesn’t serve its interest, and in contrary it doesn’t condemn an other which serves its geopolitical interest (e.g. USA in relation to the coup in Egypt or Ukraine);
2. if an international organization like UNSC condemns a country’s action but doesn’t prescribe sanction (e.g. counter Israel) but again in other similar cases they prescribe sanctions (e.g. Iran).
(See the issue of nuclear arms in Near East.)

Double standard on terrorist organizations

The EU and USA dressed an official list of terrorist organizations:

Most Muslims, even charitable institutions are listed. But The Israeli Honenu and Price Tag – often violent - extremist organizations didn’t figure on this list.  In the Western media the term “terrorism” became a synonym to Islamism. (See Anshel Pfeiffer’s articles in Haaretz and S. Erlander: Extremism leads Israelis to look within INYT July 11,2014)

 In the core county of the Arabic geopolitical sphere, Egypt, the democratically elected president Morsi has been overthrow in 2013. This has been prepared already in 2012 outside Egypt, when Kirkpatrick David D. attacked Morsi as anti-Zionist (IHT 16.1.2014/17.1.14).
Domino-effect follows (Tunisia, Libya),  since it is for the Western world unacceptable that the majority choice an Islamist government.

Israel isn’t perturbed by “The Middle East meltdown” (cf. R. Dothat INYT, June 16,14) since it will create “micro-states” (Jeffrey Goldberg), smaller than Israel (David D. Kirkpatrick INYT June 19,14; ).

2014. Israel also found peace talks useless because the Palestinian authority is not united. Now it will not peace talks because they are united. And US follows the Lobby. Anyway, a fair peace negotiation should include the Arab league, since it is evident (!) that the US is party in the conflict on Israel's side.

  Th US  isprofoundly troubled’ by brutal beating of Palestine teen who turned out to be American ? No problem, Israel doesn’t risk American sanction like Muslim countries. Obama hasn’t the sufficient independence from the American Israeli lobby and  the Zionist oligarchy for that. This the basic world problem!



June 28, 2014.Netanyahu at Tel Aviv INSS think-tank told:

Obama should find(!) one(!)  think-tank in the States which is ready to distinguish between USA and Israeli interest.

(Per definitionem, in Washington the WINEP can’t, since it defines American interest by Israel’s.)

See again WINEP follows Netanyahu’s position on Kurdish independence too. (INYT July 5, 14, p.5)

 The international Organization of  Islamic Conference changed its name in 2011 into ORGANIZATION OF ISLAMIC COOPERATION (OIC).  It is "the collective voice of the  Muslim World" and works to "safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony.”

What did the Organization fo Islamic Cooperation concretely (!) to solve the bloody conflict in Iraq (and Syria) and to establish within the “Umma” - if not a effective  cooperation but at least - a peaceful coexistence?

 The idea of Brothers Defence Alliance between Turkey, Pakistan and Iran (2014) goes back to former  Turkish prime minister Necmettim Erbakan’s proposal  for a pan-Islamic  NATO of 8 countries in 1995 (with reference to Jama al-Din-Afgani (1838-97).

 INTERNATIONAl LEGAL ORDER. The Soviet power was accused of subversive activities. Now the situation is reversed: the so-called Western democratic nations reverting all regimes of which does not follow its dictate. Indeed, the West helped to overthrow representative (!) democratic regimes like Egypt, Ukraine. They also try to do in Venezuela, Libya (and even in Russia).  They use the social media based in USA for inducing  crowding. They follows Nye’s soft power theory.

Soft power.

Indeed even Pew and other so-called “non-partisan data tanks”  try to “eclipse “ democratic vote results by - so-called global and other  - public opinion polls based on dubious samplings and ambiguous questionaries in order to legitimate coup d’Etat (in Ukraine [2013-4], Egypt [2012].

 In order to prevent the (re)election of non popular candidates, they should introduce a quorum, a minimal number  of votes to be elected.

 The Neocon – and neocolonialists - will have – maintain (?) – world hegemony. The only hope to preserve civilizational  pluralism by geopolitical equilibrium,  comes from an active and effective cooperation between Russia and China (and the BRIC).Guy Ankerl (Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations.  ISBN  2881550045).

 The Soviet Union and Bolshevik danger are finished. Against which geopolitical enemy is necessary to have a special North-Atlantic Alliances? Russia or the  Arabo-Muslim geopolitical sphere? No one of them threaten any  NATO member-state.



Interestigly, the US refused to Germany – and other non-Anglo-Saxon allies – to be integrated into the so-called “Five Eyes” convention  of the Anglo-Saxon powers. (See Atlantic Charter of August 1941) (July 12,2014)

   D.E. Sanger: Nuclear deal is elusive as (local?) opposition at home (!) ties(!) negotiators’ hand  INYT July 14,14).

Does come the opposition from the American opposition party, the Republican?

No expressly, the opposition is bipartisan. The party affiliation is not a main parameter in issues concerning Israel interest.

Many member s of the Congress in Washington would like to see this whole effort collapse.”

Is this perhaps Netanyahu’s position?

No, no, it is the position  of the American Democrat senator Robert Mendendez and  American Republican senator Lindsey Graham (who are by chance near to the American-Israel lobby AIPAC)

Presidential election 2016 in U.S.

In the  "pluralistic" U.S. the bipartisan choice  means:

you can choice Demacrate or Republican

both financed by the Zionist oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson from Las Vegas

There is a competition : to determine which one serves better Zionism.

On the marge:

Important fact about the distinction between the "gay right" and the publicity  for gays.

"..anti-gay violence has  never been about  individual acts against individuals (!),but. Against  the very idea that  L.G:B.T. people  should  be free to express ..  themselves in public."

Jim Downs A History of anti-gay violence . (In International New York Times, June 13,2016, p.13.)

    



 INTERRELATIONSHIPS:

If you hear in the synagogue that you as Jew should support Israel without condition, the criticism of Zionism becomes - as a result - Anti-Semitism.Israel can’t have regional military hegemony without the efficient pressure of the American Israeli lobby upon the US Administration and Congress. This the basic world problem!

        Until the American Administration isn’t enough independent from the sponsoring Zionist oligarchy - in order to penalize Israel for the expansion on the West Bank, - the West can’t have normal friendly, cooperative relation with the Arabo-Muslim  world.

The West doesn’t will democracy in countries with Muslim majority, since the Islamist parties will win the democratic election. Now it equates terrorist groups with Islamist, however the true causality is reverse:  since the West doesn’t accept democratically elected Islamist government, the terrorist movement expands.

The US accepted and promoted the  overthrow of  democratically elected Morsi – since he was the ancient president of anti-Zionist group in California. The military coup d’Etat  has been prepared already in 2012 outside Egypt, when Kirkpatrick David D. attacked Morsi as anti-Zionist (IHT 16.1.2014/17.1.14).
         Now the US will tacitly accept the subversion against the Libyan government by the American General Khalifa Haftar (their puppet like Sisi)

[The Helms-Burton Act of  1996  (against Cuba) show in general how the USA (using  USAID too) tries to reverse goverments which don’t follow its instructions. (INYT Nov.11,14, 6)]

  1. Vandewalle-N Jahr: Libya’s unexpected Strength INYTMay 9,15: “A system was adopted after the war  to prevent  certain political parties, particularly  Islamist (!) ones  from dominating the system.” (See also F. Wehrey: Taking side in Libya. INYT July 8,14; INYT July 29,14, p.4)

Turkey's  government  defends  itself  against  Fehhulah Gulen an apostate Muslim clerk who live now in Pennsylvania and serves Zionist interest (see INYT  March  5, 2016).

 Reaction to Roger Cohen's An Anti-Semitism  of  the  left (INYT March 8,2016):

Anti-Semitism on the left or on the right; it is entertained by the fact that the Jewish communities in all countries identify themselves with  Israel's expansive policy.



DOCUMENTS

             Connie  Bruck (“Friends of Israel, The New Yorker  cf  Roger Cohen: War of Choice in Gaza INYT Sept 9,14) quotes Brian Baird former Democratic congressman: “The difficult reality  is this:  in order to get elected to Congress, if you’re not independendetly  waelthy, you have  to raise  a lot of money.  And you  learn  pretty quickly that, if AIPAC is on your side,  you can do that. Connie Bruck quotes also the congressman, John Yarmuth : “We  all took an oath  of office. And AIPAC in many instances, is asking  us to ignore it.”

LRB | Vol. 28 No. 6 dated 23 March 2006 |

John Mearsheimer and

      Stephen Walt:

      printable layout

      The Israel Lobby

      For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in

      1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its

      relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel

      and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has

      inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but

      that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in

      American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its

      own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the

      interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two

      countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral

      imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level

      of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.

      Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely

      from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel

      Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy,

      but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national

      interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US

      interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are

      essentially identical.

      Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level

      of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest

      annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976,

      and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of

      well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion

      in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid

      budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is

      especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a

      per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.

      Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel

      receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and

      can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military

      purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed

      to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence

      industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how

      the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money

      from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements

      on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3

      billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer

      weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives

      Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies and has turned

      a blind eye to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.

      Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since

      1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of

      Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other

      Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put

      Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda. The US comes to the rescue

      in wartime and takes Israel’s side when negotiating peace. The Nixon

      administration protected it from the threat of Soviet intervention and

      resupplied it during the October War. Washington was deeply involved in

      the negotiations that ended that war, as well as in the lengthy

      ‘step-by-step’ process that followed, just as it played a key role in the

      negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. In each

      case there was occasional friction between US and Israeli officials, but

      the US consistently supported the Israeli position. One American

      participant at Camp David in 2000 later said: ‘Far too often, we

      functioned . . . as Israel’s lawyer.’ Finally, the Bush administration’s

      ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at

      improving Israel’s strategic situation.

      This extraordinary generosity might be understandable if Israel were a

      vital strategic asset or if there were a compelling moral case for US

      backing. But neither explanation is convincing. One might argue that

      Israel was an asset during the Cold War. By serving as America’s proxy

      after 1967, it helped contain Soviet expansion in the region and inflicted

      humiliating defeats on Soviet clients like Egypt and Syria. It

      occasionally helped protect other US allies (like King Hussein of Jordan)

      and its military prowess forced Moscow to spend more on backing its own

      client states. It also provided useful intelligence about Soviet

      capabilities.

      Backing Israel was not cheap, however, and it complicated America’s

      relations with the Arab world. For example, the decision to give $2.2

      billion in emergency military aid during the October War triggered an Opec

      oil embargo that inflicted considerable damage on Western economies. For

      all that, Israel’s armed forces were not in a position to protect US

      interests in the region. The US could not, for example, rely on Israel

      when the Iranian Revolution in 1979 raised concerns about the security of

      oil supplies, and had to create its own Rapid Deployment Force instead.

      The first Gulf War revealed the extent to which Israel was becoming a

      strategic burden. The US could not use Israeli bases without rupturing the

      anti-Iraq coalition, and had to divert resources (e.g. Patriot missile

      batteries) to prevent Tel Aviv doing anything that might harm the alliance

      against Saddam Hussein. History repeated itself in 2003: although Israel

      was eager for the US to attack Iraq, Bush could not ask it to help without

      triggering Arab opposition. So Israel stayed on the sidelines once again.

      Beginning in the 1990s, and even more after 9/11, US support has been

      justified by the claim that both states are threatened by terrorist groups

      originating in the Arab and Muslim world, and by ‘rogue states’ that back

      these groups and seek weapons of mass destruction. This is taken to mean

      not only that Washington should give Israel a free hand in dealing with

      the Palestinians and not press it to make concessions until all

      Palestinian terrorists are imprisoned or dead, but that the US should go

      after countries like Iran and Syria. Israel is thus seen as a crucial ally

      in the war on terror, because its enemies are America’s enemies. In fact,

      Israel is a liability in the war on terror and the broader effort to deal

      with rogue states.

      ‘Terrorism’ is not a single adversary, but a tactic employed by a wide

      array of political groups. The terrorist organisations that threaten

      Israel do not threaten the United States, except when it intervenes

      against them (as in Lebanon in 1982). Moreover, Palestinian terrorism is

      not random violence directed against Israel or ‘the West’; it is largely a

      response to Israel’s prolonged campaign to colonise the West Bank and Gaza

      Strip.

      More important, saying that Israel and the US are united by a shared

      terrorist threat has the causal relationship backwards: the US has a

      terrorism problem in good part because it is so closely allied with

      Israel, not the other way around. Support for Israel is not the only

      source of anti-American terrorism, but it is an important one, and it

      makes winning the war on terror more difficult. There is no question that

      many al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are motivated by

      Israel’s presence in Jerusalem and the plight of the Palestinians.

      Unconditional support for Israel makes it easier for extremists to rally

      popular support and to attract recruits.

      As for so-called rogue states in the Middle East, they are not a dire

      threat to vital US interests, except inasmuch as they are a threat to

      Israel. Even if these states acquire nuclear weapons – which is obviously

      undesirable – neither America nor Israel could be blackmailed, because the

      blackmailer could not carry out the threat without suffering overwhelming

      retaliation. The danger of a nuclear handover to terrorists is equally

      remote, because a rogue state could not be sure the transfer would go

      undetected or that it would not be blamed and punished afterwards. The

      relationship with Israel actually makes it harder for the US to deal with

      these states. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is one reason some of its

      neighbours want nuclear weapons, and threatening them with regime change

      merely increases that desire.

      A final reason to question Israel’s strategic value is that it does not

      behave like a loyal ally. Israeli officials frequently ignore US requests

      and renege on promises (including pledges to stop building settlements and

      to refrain from ‘targeted assassinations’ of Palestinian leaders). Israel

      has provided sensitive military technology to potential rivals like China,

      in what the State Department inspector-general called ‘a systematic and

      growing pattern of unauthorised transfers’. According to the General

      Accounting Office, Israel also ‘conducts the most aggressive espionage

      operations against the US of any ally’. In addition to the case of

      Jonathan Pollard, who gave Israel large quantities of classified material

      in the early 1980s (which it reportedly passed on to the Soviet Union in

      return for more exit visas for Soviet Jews), a new controversy erupted in

      2004 when it was revealed that a key Pentagon official called Larry

      Franklin had passed classified information to an Israeli diplomat. Israel

      is hardly the only country that spies on the US, but its willingness to

      spy on its principal patron casts further doubt on its strategic value.

      Israel’s strategic value isn’t the only issue. Its backers also argue that

      it deserves unqualified support because it is weak and surrounded by

      enemies; it is a democracy; the Jewish people have suffered from past

      crimes and therefore deserve special treatment; and Israel’s conduct has

      been morally superior to that of its adversaries. On close inspection,

      none of these arguments is persuasive. There is a strong moral case for

      supporting Israel’s existence, but that is not in jeopardy. Viewed

      objectively, its past and present conduct offers no moral basis for

      privileging it over the Palestinians.

      Israel is often portrayed as David confronted by Goliath, but the converse

      is closer to the truth. Contrary to popular belief, the Zionists had

      larger, better equipped and better led forces during the 1947-49 War of

      Independence, and the Israel Defence Forces won quick and easy victories

      against Egypt in 1956 and against Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967 – all of

      this before large-scale US aid began flowing. Today, Israel is the

      strongest military power in the Middle East. Its conventional forces are

      far superior to those of its neighbours and it is the only state in the

      region with nuclear weapons. Egypt and Jordan have signed peace treaties

      with it, and Saudi Arabia has offered to do so. Syria has lost its Soviet

      patron, Iraq has been devastated by three disastrous wars and Iran is

      hundreds of miles away. The Palestinians barely have an effective police

      force, let alone an army that could pose a threat to Israel. According to

      a 2005 assessment by Tel Aviv University’s Jaffee Centre for Strategic

      Studies, ‘the strategic balance decidedly favours Israel, which has

      continued to widen the qualitative gap between its own military capability

      and deterrence powers and those of its neighbours.’ If backing the

      underdog were a compelling motive, the United States would be supporting

      Israel’s opponents.

      That Israel is a fellow democracy surrounded by hostile dictatorships

      cannot account for the current level of aid: there are many democracies

      around the world, but none receives the same lavish support. The US has

      overthrown democratic governments in the past and supported dictators when

      this was thought to advance its interests – it has good relations with a

      number of dictatorships today.

      Some aspects of Israeli democracy are at odds with core American values.

      Unlike the US, where people are supposed to enjoy equal rights

      irrespective of race, religion or ethnicity, Israel was explicitly founded

      as a Jewish state and citizenship is based on the principle of blood

      kinship. Given this, it is not surprising that its 1.3 million Arabs are

      treated as second-class citizens, or that a recent Israeli government

      commission found that Israel behaves in a ‘neglectful and discriminatory’

      manner towards them. Its democratic status is also undermined by its

      refusal to grant the Palestinians a viable state of their own or full

      political rights.

      A third justification is the history of Jewish suffering in the Christian

      West, especially during the Holocaust. Because Jews were persecuted for

      centuries and could feel safe only in a Jewish homeland, many people now

      believe that Israel deserves special treatment from the United States. The

      country’s creation was undoubtedly an appropriate response to the long

      record of crimes against Jews, but it also brought about fresh crimes

      against a largely innocent third party: the Palestinians.

      This was well understood by Israel’s early leaders. David Ben-Gurion told

      Nahum Goldmann, the president of the World Jewish Congress:

        If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is

        natural: we have taken their country . . . We come from Israel, but two

        thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been

        anti-semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault?

        They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why

        should they accept that?

      Since then, Israeli leaders have repeatedly sought to deny the

      Palestinians’ national ambitions. When she was prime minister, Golda Meir

      famously remarked that ‘there is no such thing as a Palestinian.’ Pressure

      from extremist violence and Palestinian population growth has forced

      subsequent Israeli leaders to disengage from the Gaza Strip and consider

      other territorial compromises, but not even Yitzhak Rabin was willing to

      offer the Palestinians a viable state. Ehud Barak’s purportedly generous

      offer at Camp David would have given them only a disarmed set of

      Bantustans under de facto Israeli control. The tragic history of the

      Jewish people does not obligate the US to help Israel today no matter what

      it does.

      Israel’s backers also portray it as a country that has sought peace at

      every turn and shown great restraint even when provoked. The Arabs, by

      contrast, are said to have acted with great wickedness. Yet on the ground,

      Israel’s record is not distinguishable from that of its opponents.

      Ben-Gurion acknowledged that the early Zionists were far from benevolent

      towards the Palestinian Arabs, who resisted their encroachments – which is

      hardly surprising, given that the Zionists were trying to create their own

      state on Arab land. In the same way, the creation of Israel in 1947-48

      involved acts of ethnic cleansing, including executions, massacres and

      rapes by Jews, and Israel’s subsequent conduct has often been brutal,

      belying any claim to moral superiority. Between 1949 and 1956, for

      example, Israeli security forces killed between 2700 and 5000 Arab

      infiltrators, the overwhelming majority of them unarmed. The IDF murdered

      hundreds of Egyptian prisoners of war in both the 1956 and 1967 wars,

      while in 1967, it expelled between 100,000 and 260,000 Palestinians from

      the newly conquered West Bank, and drove 80,000 Syrians from the Golan

      Heights.

      During the first intifada, the IDF distributed truncheons to its troops

      and encouraged them to break the bones of Palestinian protesters. The

      Swedish branch of Save the Children estimated that ‘23,600 to 29,900

      children required medical treatment for their beating injuries in the

      first two years of the intifada.’ Nearly a third of them were aged ten or

      under. The response to the second intifada has been even more violent,

      leading Ha’aretz to declare that ‘the IDF . . . is turning into a killing

      machine whose efficiency is awe-inspiring, yet shocking.’ The IDF fired

      one million bullets in the first days of the uprising. Since then, for

      every Israeli lost, Israel has killed 3.4 Palestinians, the majority of

      whom have been innocent bystanders; the ratio of Palestinian to Israeli

      children killed is even higher (5.7:1). It is also worth bearing in mind

      that the Zionists relied on terrorist bombs to drive the British from

      Palestine, and that Yitzhak Shamir, once a terrorist and later prime

      minister, declared that ‘neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can

      disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.’

      The Palestinian resort to terrorism is wrong but it isn’t surprising. The

      Palestinians believe they have no other way to force Israeli concessions.

      As Ehud Barak once admitted, had he been born a Palestinian, he ‘would

      have joined a terrorist organisation’.

      So if neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America’s

      support for Israel, how are we to explain it?

      The explanation is the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby. We use ‘the

      Lobby’ as shorthand for the loose coalition of individuals and

      organisations who actively work to steer US foreign policy in a pro-Israel

      direction. This is not meant to suggest that ‘the Lobby’ is a unified

      movement with a central leadership, or that individuals within it do not

      disagree on certain issues. Not all Jewish Americans are part of the

      Lobby, because Israel is not a salient issue for many of them. In a 2004

      survey, for example, roughly 36 per cent of American Jews said they were

      either ‘not very’ or ‘not at all’ emotionally attached to Israel.

      Jewish Americans also differ on specific Israeli policies. Many of the key

      organisations in the Lobby, such as the American-Israel Public Affairs

      Committee (AIPAC) and the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish

      Organisations, are run by hardliners who generally support the Likud

      Party’s expansionist policies, including its hostility to the Oslo peace

      process. The bulk of US Jewry, meanwhile, is more inclined to make

      concessions to the Palestinians, and a few groups – such as Jewish Voice

      for Peace – strongly advocate such steps. Despite these differences,

      moderates and hardliners both favour giving steadfast support to Israel.

      Not surprisingly, American Jewish leaders often consult Israeli officials,

      to make sure that their actions advance Israeli goals. As one activist

      from a major Jewish organisation wrote, ‘it is routine for us to say:

      “This is our policy on a certain issue, but we must check what the

      Israelis think.” We as a community do it all the time.’ There is a strong

      prejudice against criticising Israeli policy, and putting pressure on

      Israel is considered out of order. Edgar Bronfman Sr, the president of the

      World Jewish Congress, was accused of ‘perfidy’ when he wrote a letter to

      President Bush in mid-2003 urging him to persuade Israel to curb

      construction of its controversial ‘security fence’. His critics said that

      ‘it would be obscene at any time for the president of the World Jewish

      Congress to lobby the president of the United States to resist policies

      being promoted by the government of Israel.’

      Similarly, when the president of the Israel Policy Forum, Seymour Reich,

      advised Condoleezza Rice in November 2005 to ask Israel to reopen a

      critical border crossing in the Gaza Strip, his action was denounced as

      ‘irresponsible’: ‘There is,’ his critics said, ‘absolutely no room in the

      Jewish mainstream for actively canvassing against the security-related

      policies . . . of Israel.’ Recoiling from these attacks, Reich announced

      that ‘the word “pressure” is not in my vocabulary when it comes to Israel.

      Jewish Americans have set up an impressive array of organisations to

      influence American foreign policy, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and

      best known. In 1997, Fortune magazine asked members of Congress and their

      staffs to list the most powerful lobbies in Washington. AIPAC was ranked

      second behind the American Association of Retired People, but ahead of the

      AFL-CIO and the National Rifle Association. A National Journal study in

      March 2005 reached a similar conclusion, placing AIPAC in second place

      (tied with AARP) in the Washington ‘muscle rankings’.

      The Lobby also includes prominent Christian evangelicals like Gary Bauer,

      Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson, as well as Dick Armey and Tom

      DeLay, former majority leaders in the House of Representatives, all of

      whom believe Israel’s rebirth is the fulfilment of biblical prophecy and

      support its expansionist agenda; to do otherwise, they believe, would be

      contrary to God’s will. Neo-conservative gentiles such as John Bolton;

      Robert Bartley, the former Wall Street Journal editor; William Bennett,

      the former secretary of education; Jeane Kirkpatrick, the former UN

      ambassador; and the influential columnist George Will are also steadfast

      supporters.

      The US form of government offers activists many ways of influencing the

      policy process. Interest groups can lobby elected representatives and

      members of the executive branch, make campaign contributions, vote in

      elections, try to mould public opinion etc. They enjoy a disproportionate

      amount of influence when they are committed to an issue to which the bulk

      of the population is indifferent. Policymakers will tend to accommodate

      those who care about the issue, even if their numbers are small, confident

      that the rest of the population will not penalise them for doing so.

      In its basic operations, the Israel Lobby is no different from the farm

      lobby, steel or textile workers’ unions, or other ethnic lobbies. There is

      nothing improper about American Jews and their Christian allies attempting

      to sway US policy: the Lobby’s activities are not a conspiracy of the sort

      depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. For the most

      part, the individuals and groups that comprise it are only doing what

      other special interest groups do, but doing it very much better. By

      contrast, pro-Arab interest groups, in so far as they exist at all, are

      weak, which makes the Israel Lobby’s task even easier.

      The Lobby pursues two broad strategies. First, it wields its significant

      influence in Washington, pressuring both Congress and the executive

      branch. Whatever an individual lawmaker or policymaker’s own views may be,

      the Lobby tries to make supporting Israel the ‘smart’ choice. Second, it

      strives to ensure that public discourse portrays Israel in a positive

      light, by repeating myths about its founding and by promoting its point of

      view in policy debates. The goal is to prevent critical comments from

      getting a fair hearing in the political arena. Controlling the debate is

      essential to guaranteeing US support, because a candid discussion of

      US-Israeli relations might lead Americans to favour a different policy.

      A key pillar of the Lobby’s effectiveness is its influence in Congress,

      where Israel is virtually immune from criticism. This in itself is

      remarkable, because Congress rarely shies away from contentious issues.

      Where Israel is concerned, however, potential critics fall silent. One

      reason is that some key members are Christian Zionists like Dick Armey,

      who said in September 2002: ‘My No. 1 priority in foreign policy is to

      protect Israel.’ One might think that the No. 1 priority for any

      congressman would be to protect America. There are also Jewish senators

      and congressmen who work to ensure that US foreign policy supports

      Israel’s interests.

      Another source of the Lobby’s power is its use of pro-Israel congressional

      staffers. As Morris Amitay, a former head of AIPAC, once admitted, ‘there

      are a lot of guys at the working level up here’ – on Capitol Hill – ‘who

      happen to be Jewish, who are willing . . . to look at certain issues in

      terms of their Jewishness . . . These are all guys who are in a position

      to make the decision in these areas for those senators . . . You can get

      an awful lot done just at the staff level.’

      AIPAC itself, however, forms the core of the Lobby’s influence in

      Congress. Its success is due to its ability to reward legislators and

      congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who

      challenge it. Money is critical to US elections (as the scandal over the

      lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s shady dealings reminds us), and AIPAC makes sure

      that its friends get strong financial support from the many pro-Israel

      political action committees. Anyone who is seen as hostile to Israel can

      be sure that AIPAC will direct campaign contributions to his or her

      political opponents. AIPAC also organises letter-writing campaigns and

      encourages newspaper editors to endorse pro-Israel candidates.

      There is no doubt about the efficacy of these tactics. Here is one

      example: in the 1984 elections, AIPAC helped defeat Senator Charles Percy

      from Illinois, who, according to a prominent Lobby figure, had ‘displayed

      insensitivity and even hostility to our concerns’. Thomas Dine, the head

      of AIPAC at the time, explained what happened: ‘All the Jews in America,

      from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians

      – those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire – got the

      message.’

      AIPAC’s influence on Capitol Hill goes even further. According to Douglas

      Bloomfield, a former AIPAC staff member, ‘it is common for members of

      Congress and their staffs to turn to AIPAC first when they need

      information, before calling the Library of Congress, the Congressional

      Research Service, committee staff or administration experts.’ More

      important, he notes that AIPAC is ‘often called on to draft speeches, work

      on legislation, advise on tactics, perform research, collect co-sponsors

      and marshal votes’.

      The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government,

      has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards

      Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important

      consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main

      branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As

      one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office,

      ‘you can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around

      here.’ Or as Ariel Sharon once told an American audience, ‘when people ask

      me how they can help Israel, I tell them: “Help AIPAC.”’

      Thanks in part to the influence Jewish voters have on presidential

      elections, the Lobby also has significant leverage over the executive

      branch. Although they make up fewer than 3 per cent of the population,

      they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The

      Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates

      ‘depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 per cent of the

      money’. And because Jewish voters have high turn-out rates and are

      concentrated in key states like California, Florida, Illinois, New York

      and Pennsylvania, presidential candidates go to great lengths not to

      antagonise them.

      Key organisations in the Lobby make it their business to ensure that

      critics of Israel do not get important foreign policy jobs. Jimmy Carter

      wanted to make George Ball his first secretary of state, but knew that

      Ball was seen as critical of Israel and that the Lobby would oppose the

      appointment. In this way any aspiring policymaker is encouraged to become

      an overt supporter of Israel, which is why public critics of Israeli

      policy have become an endangered species in the foreign policy

      establishment.

      When Howard Dean called for the United States to take a more ‘even-handed

      role’ in the Arab-Israeli conflict, Senator Joseph Lieberman accused him

      of selling Israel down the river and said his statement was

      ‘irresponsible’. Virtually all the top Democrats in the House signed a

      letter criticising Dean’s remarks, and the Chicago Jewish Star reported

      that ‘anonymous attackers . . . are clogging the email inboxes of Jewish

      leaders around the country, warning – without much evidence – that Dean

      would somehow be bad for Israel.’

      This worry was absurd; Dean is in fact quite hawkish on Israel: his

      campaign co-chair was a former AIPAC president, and Dean said his own

      views on the Middle East more closely reflected those of AIPAC than those

      of the more moderate Americans for Peace Now. He had merely suggested that

      to ‘bring the sides together’, Washington should act as an honest broker.

      This is hardly a radical idea, but the Lobby doesn’t tolerate

      even-handedness.

      During the Clinton administration, Middle Eastern policy was largely

      shaped by officials with close ties to Israel or to prominent pro-Israel

      organisations; among them, Martin Indyk, the former deputy director of

      research at AIPAC and co-founder of the pro-Israel Washington Institute

      for Near East Policy (WINEP); Dennis Ross, who joined WINEP after leaving

      government in 2001; and Aaron Miller, who has lived in Israel and often

      visits the country. These men were among Clinton’s closest advisers at the

      Camp David summit in July 2000. Although all three supported the Oslo

      peace process and favoured the creation of a Palestinian state, they did

      so only within the limits of what would be acceptable to Israel. The

      American delegation took its cues from Ehud Barak, co-ordinated its

      negotiating positions with Israel in advance, and did not offer

      independent proposals. Not surprisingly, Palestinian negotiators

      complained that they were ‘negotiating with two Israeli teams – one

      displaying an Israeli flag, and one an American flag’.

      The situation is even more pronounced in the Bush administration, whose

      ranks have included such fervent advocates of the Israeli cause as Elliot

      Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, I. Lewis (‘Scooter’) Libby, Richard

      Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and David Wurmser. As we shall see, these officials

      have consistently pushed for policies favoured by Israel and backed by

      organisations in the Lobby.

      The Lobby doesn’t want an open debate, of course, because that might lead

      Americans to question the level of support they provide. Accordingly,

      pro-Israel organisations work hard to influence the institutions that do

      most to shape popular opinion.

      The Lobby’s perspective prevails in the mainstream media: the debate among

      Middle East pundits, the journalist Eric Alterman writes, is ‘dominated by

      people who cannot imagine criticising Israel’. He lists 61 ‘columnists and

      commentators who can be counted on to support Israel reflexively and

      without qualification’. Conversely, he found just five pundits who

      consistently criticise Israeli actions or endorse Arab positions.

      Newspapers occasionally publish guest op-eds challenging Israeli policy,

      but the balance of opinion clearly favours the other side. It is hard to

      imagine any mainstream media outlet in the United States publishing a

      piece like this one.

      ‘Shamir, Sharon, Bibi – whatever those guys want is pretty much fine by

      me,’ Robert Bartley once remarked. Not surprisingly, his newspaper, the

      Wall Street Journal, along with other prominent papers like the Chicago

      Sun-Times and the Washington Times, regularly runs editorials that

      strongly support Israel. Magazines like Commentary, the New Republic and

      the Weekly Standard defend Israel at every turn.

      Editorial bias is also found in papers like the New York Times, which

      occasionally criticises Israeli policies and sometimes concedes that the

      Palestinians have legitimate grievances, but is not even-handed. In his

      memoirs the paper’s former executive editor Max Frankel acknowledges the

      impact his own attitude had on his editorial decisions: ‘I was much more

      deeply devoted to Israel than I dared to assert . . . Fortified by my

      knowledge of Israel and my friendships there, I myself wrote most of our

      Middle East commentaries. As more Arab than Jewish readers recognised, I

      wrote them from a pro-Israel perspective.’

      News reports are more even-handed, in part because reporters strive to be

      objective, but also because it is difficult to cover events in the

      Occupied Territories without acknowledging Israel’s actions on the ground.

      To discourage unfavourable reporting, the Lobby organises letter-writing

      campaigns, demonstrations and boycotts of news outlets whose content it

      considers anti-Israel. One CNN executive has said that he sometimes gets

      6000 email messages in a single day complaining about a story. In May

      2003, the pro-Israel Committee for Accurate Middle East Reporting in

      America (CAMERA) organised demonstrations outside National Public Radio

      stations in 33 cities; it also tried to persuade contributors to withhold

      support from NPR until its Middle East coverage becomes more sympathetic

      to Israel. Boston’s NPR station, WBUR, reportedly lost more than $1

      million in contributions as a result of these efforts. Further pressure on

      NPR has come from Israel’s friends in Congress, who have asked for an

      internal audit of its Middle East coverage as well as more oversight.

      The Israeli side also dominates the think tanks which play an important

      role in shaping public debate as well as actual policy. The Lobby created

      its own think tank in 1985, when Martin Indyk helped to found WINEP.

      Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel, claiming instead to provide

      a ‘balanced and realistic’ perspective on Middle East issues, it is funded

      and run by individuals deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda.

      The Lobby’s influence extends well beyond WINEP, however. Over the past 25

      years, pro-Israel forces have established a commanding presence at the

      American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Center for

      Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage

      Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy

      Analysis and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).

      These think tanks employ few, if any, critics of US support for Israel.

      Take the Brookings Institution. For many years, its senior expert on the

      Middle East was William Quandt, a former NSC official with a well-deserved

      reputation for even-handedness. Today, Brookings’s coverage is conducted

      through the Saban Center for Middle East Studies, which is financed by

      Haim Saban, an Israeli-American businessman and ardent Zionist. The

      centre’s director is the ubiquitous Martin Indyk. What was once a

      non-partisan policy institute is now part of the pro-Israel chorus.

      Where the Lobby has had the most difficulty is in stifling debate on

      university campuses. In the 1990s, when the Oslo peace process was

      underway, there was only mild criticism of Israel, but it grew stronger

      with Oslo’s collapse and Sharon’s access to power, becoming quite

      vociferous when the IDF reoccupied the West Bank in spring 2002 and

      employed massive force to subdue the second intifada.

      The Lobby moved immediately to ‘take back the campuses’. New groups sprang

      up, like the Caravan for Democracy, which brought Israeli speakers to US

      colleges. Established groups like the Jewish Council for Public Affairs

      and Hillel joined in, and a new group, the Israel on Campus Coalition, was

      formed to co-ordinate the many bodies that now sought to put Israel’s

      case. Finally, AIPAC more than tripled its spending on programmes to

      monitor university activities and to train young advocates, in order to

      ‘vastly expand the number of students involved on campus . . . in the

      national pro-Israel effort’.

      The Lobby also monitors what professors write and teach. In September

      2002, Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes, two passionately pro-Israel

      neo-conservatives, established a website (Campus Watch) that posted

      dossiers on suspect academics and encouraged students to report remarks or

      behaviour that might be considered hostile to Israel. This transparent

      attempt to blacklist and intimidate scholars provoked a harsh reaction and

      Pipes and Kramer later removed the dossiers, but the website still invites

      students to report ‘anti-Israel’ activity.

      Groups within the Lobby put pressure on particular academics and

      universities. Columbia has been a frequent target, no doubt because of the

      presence of the late Edward Said on its faculty. ‘One can be sure that any

      public statement in support of the Palestinian people by the pre-eminent

      literary critic Edward Said will elicit hundreds of emails, letters and

      journalistic accounts that call on us to denounce Said and to either

      sanction or fire him,’ Jonathan Cole, its former provost, reported. When

      Columbia recruited the historian Rashid Khalidi from Chicago, the same

      thing happened. It was a problem Princeton also faced a few years later

      when it considered wooing Khalidi away from Columbia.

      A classic illustration of the effort to police academia occurred towards

      the end of 2004, when the David Project produced a film alleging that

      faculty members of Columbia’s Middle East Studies programme were

      anti-semitic and were intimidating Jewish students who stood up for

      Israel. Columbia was hauled over the coals, but a faculty committee which

      was assigned to investigate the charges found no evidence of anti-semitism

      and the only incident possibly worth noting was that one professor had

      ‘responded heatedly’ to a student’s question. The committee also

      discovered that the academics in question had themselves been the target

      of an overt campaign of intimidation.

      Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all this is the efforts Jewish

      groups have made to push Congress into establishing mechanisms to monitor

      what professors say. If they manage to get this passed, universities

      judged to have an anti-Israel bias would be denied federal funding. Their

      efforts have not yet succeeded, but they are an indication of the

      importance placed on controlling debate.

      A number of Jewish philanthropists have recently established Israel

      Studies programmes (in addition to the roughly 130 Jewish Studies

      programmes already in existence) so as to increase the number of

      Israel-friendly scholars on campus. In May 2003, NYU announced the

      establishment of the Taub Center for Israel Studies; similar programmes

      have been set up at Berkeley, Brandeis and Emory. Academic administrators

      emphasise their pedagogical value, but the truth is that they are intended

      in large part to promote Israel’s image. Fred Laffer, the head of the Taub

      Foundation, makes it clear that his foundation funded the NYU centre to

      help counter the ‘Arabic [sic] point of view’ that he thinks is prevalent

      in NYU’s Middle East programmes.

      No discussion of the Lobby would be complete without an examination of one

      of its most powerful weapons: the charge of anti-semitism. Anyone who

      criticises Israel’s actions or argues that pro-Israel groups have

      significant influence over US Middle Eastern policy – an influence AIPAC

      celebrates – stands a good chance of being labelled an anti-semite.

      Indeed, anyone who merely claims that there is an Israel Lobby runs the

      risk of being charged with anti-semitism, even though the Israeli media

      refer to America’s ‘Jewish Lobby’. In other words, the Lobby first boasts

      of its influence and then attacks anyone who calls attention to it. It’s a

      very effective tactic: anti-semitism is something no one wants to be

      accused of.

      Europeans have been more willing than Americans to criticise Israeli

      policy, which some people attribute to a resurgence of anti-semitism in

      Europe. We are ‘getting to a point’, the US ambassador to the EU said in

      early 2004, ‘where it is as bad as it was in the 1930s’. Measuring

      anti-semitism is a complicated matter, but the weight of evidence points

      in the opposite direction. In the spring of 2004, when accusations of

      European anti-semitism filled the air in America, separate surveys of

      European public opinion conducted by the US-based Anti-Defamation League

      and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that it was

      in fact declining. In the 1930s, by contrast, anti-semitism was not only

      widespread among Europeans of all classes but considered quite acceptable.

      The Lobby and its friends often portray France as the most anti-semitic

      country in Europe. But in 2003, the head of the French Jewish community

      said that ‘France is not more anti-semitic than America.’ According to a

      recent article in Ha’aretz, the French police have reported that

      anti-semitic incidents declined by almost 50 per cent in 2005; and this

      even though France has the largest Muslim population of any European

      country. Finally, when a French Jew was murdered in Paris last month by a

      Muslim gang, tens of thousands of demonstrators poured into the streets to

      condemn anti-semitism. Jacques Chirac and Dominique de Villepin both

      attended the victim’s memorial service to show their solidarity.

      No one would deny that there is anti-semitism among European Muslims, some

      of it provoked by Israel’s conduct towards the Palestinians and some of it

      straightforwardly racist. But this is a separate matter with little

      bearing on whether or not Europe today is like Europe in the 1930s. Nor

      would anyone deny that there are still some virulent autochthonous

      anti-semites in Europe (as there are in the United States) but their

      numbers are small and their views are rejected by the vast majority of

      Europeans.

      Israel’s advocates, when pressed to go beyond mere assertion, claim that

      there is a ‘new anti-semitism’, which they equate with criticism of

      Israel. In other words, criticise Israeli policy and you are by definition

      an anti-semite. When the synod of the Church of England recently voted to

      divest from Caterpillar Inc on the grounds that it manufactures the

      bulldozers used by the Israelis to demolish Palestinian homes, the Chief

      Rabbi complained that this would ‘have the most adverse repercussions on .

      . . Jewish-Christian relations in Britain’, while Rabbi Tony Bayfield, the

      head of the Reform movement, said: ‘There is a clear problem of

      anti-Zionist – verging on anti-semitic – attitudes emerging in the

      grass-roots, and even in the middle ranks of the Church.’ But the Church

      was guilty merely of protesting against Israeli government policy.

      Critics are also accused of holding Israel to an unfair standard or

      questioning its right to exist. But these are bogus charges too. Western

      critics of Israel hardly ever question its right to exist: they question

      its behaviour towards the Palestinians, as do Israelis themselves. Nor is

      Israel being judged unfairly. Israeli treatment of the Palestinians

      elicits criticism because it is contrary to widely accepted notions of

      human rights, to international law and to the principle of national

      self-determination. And it is hardly the only state that has faced sharp

      criticism on these grounds.

      In the autumn of 2001, and especially in the spring of 2002, the Bush

      administration tried to reduce anti-American sentiment in the Arab world

      and undermine support for terrorist groups like al-Qaida by halting

      Israel’s expansionist policies in the Occupied Territories and advocating

      the creation of a Palestinian state. Bush had very significant means of

      persuasion at his disposal. He could have threatened to reduce economic

      and diplomatic support for Israel, and the American people would almost

      certainly have supported him. A May 2003 poll reported that more than 60

      per cent of Americans were willing to withhold aid if Israel resisted US

      pressure to settle the conflict, and that number rose to 70 per cent among

      the ‘politically active’. Indeed, 73 per cent said that the United States

      should not favour either side.

      Yet the administration failed to change Israeli policy, and Washington

      ended up backing it. Over time, the administration also adopted Israel’s

      own justifications of its position, so that US rhetoric began to mimic

      Israeli rhetoric. By February 2003, a Washington Post headline summarised

      the situation: ‘Bush and Sharon Nearly Identical on Mideast Policy.’ The

      main reason for this switch was the Lobby.

      The story begins in late September 2001, when Bush began urging Sharon to

      show restraint in the Occupied Territories. He also pressed him to allow

      Israel’s foreign minister, Shimon Peres, to meet with Yasser Arafat, even

      though he (Bush) was highly critical of Arafat’s leadership. Bush even

      said publicly that he supported the creation of a Palestinian state.

      Alarmed, Sharon accused him of trying ‘to appease the Arabs at our

      expense’, warning that Israel ‘will not be Czechoslovakia’.

      Bush was reportedly furious at being compared to Chamberlain, and the

      White House press secretary called Sharon’s remarks ‘unacceptable’. Sharon

      offered a pro forma apology, but quickly joined forces with the Lobby to

      persuade the administration and the American people that the United States

      and Israel faced a common threat from terrorism. Israeli officials and

      Lobby representatives insisted that there was no real difference between

      Arafat and Osama bin Laden: the United States and Israel, they said,

      should isolate the Palestinians’ elected leader and have nothing to do

      with him.

      The Lobby also went to work in Congress. On 16 November, 89 senators sent

      Bush a letter praising him for refusing to meet with Arafat, but also

      demanding that the US not restrain Israel from retaliating against the

      Palestinians; the administration, they wrote, must state publicly that it

      stood behind Israel. According to the New York Times, the letter ‘stemmed’

      from a meeting two weeks before between ‘leaders of the American Jewish

      community and key senators’, adding that AIPAC was ‘particularly active in

      providing advice on the letter’.

      By late November, relations between Tel Aviv and Washington had improved

      considerably. This was thanks in part to the Lobby’s efforts, but also to

      America’s initial victory in Afghanistan, which reduced the perceived need

      for Arab support in dealing with al-Qaida. Sharon visited the White House

      in early December and had a friendly meeting with Bush.

      In April 2002 trouble erupted again, after the IDF launched Operation

      Defensive Shield and resumed control of virtually all the major

      Palestinian areas on the West Bank. Bush knew that Israel’s actions would

      damage America’s image in the Islamic world and undermine the war on

      terrorism, so he demanded that Sharon ‘halt the incursions and begin

      withdrawal’. He underscored this message two days later, saying he wanted

      Israel to ‘withdraw without delay’. On 7 April, Condoleezza Rice, then

      Bush’s national security adviser, told reporters: ‘“Without delay” means

      without delay. It means now.’ That same day Colin Powell set out for the

      Middle East to persuade all sides to stop fighting and start negotiating.

      Israel and the Lobby swung into action. Pro-Israel officials in the

      vice-president’s office and the Pentagon, as well as neo-conservative

      pundits like Robert Kagan and William Kristol, put the heat on Powell.

      They even accused him of having ‘virtually obliterated the distinction

      between terrorists and those fighting terrorists’. Bush himself was being

      pressed by Jewish leaders and Christian evangelicals. Tom DeLay and Dick

      Armey were especially outspoken about the need to support Israel, and

      DeLay and the Senate minority leader, Trent Lott, visited the White House

      and warned Bush to back off.

      The first sign that Bush was caving in came on 11 April – a week after he

      told Sharon to withdraw his forces – when the White House press secretary

      said that the president believed Sharon was ‘a man of peace’. Bush

      repeated this statement publicly on Powell’s return from his abortive

      mission, and told reporters that Sharon had responded satisfactorily to

      his call for a full and immediate withdrawal. Sharon had done no such

      thing, but Bush was no longer willing to make an issue of it.

      Meanwhile, Congress was also moving to back Sharon. On 2 May, it overrode

      the administration’s objections and passed two resolutions reaffirming

      support for Israel. (The Senate vote was 94 to 2; the House of

      Representatives version passed 352 to 21.) Both resolutions held that the

      United States ‘stands in solidarity with Israel’ and that the two

      countries were, to quote the House resolution, ‘now engaged in a common

      struggle against terrorism’. The House version also condemned ‘the ongoing

      support and co-ordination of terror by Yasser Arafat’, who was portrayed

      as a central part of the terrorism problem. Both resolutions were drawn up

      with the help of the Lobby. A few days later, a bipartisan congressional

      delegation on a fact-finding mission to Israel stated that Sharon should

      resist US pressure to negotiate with Arafat. On 9 May, a House

      appropriations subcommittee met to consider giving Israel an extra $200

      million to fight terrorism. Powell opposed the package, but the Lobby

      backed it and Powell lost.

      In short, Sharon and the Lobby took on the president of the United States

      and triumphed. Hemi Shalev, a journalist on the Israeli newspaper Ma’ariv,

      reported that Sharon’s aides ‘could not hide their satisfaction in view of

      Powell’s failure. Sharon saw the whites of President Bush’s eyes, they

      bragged, and the president blinked first.’ But it was Israel’s champions

      in the United States, not Sharon or Israel, that played the key role in

      defeating Bush.

      The situation has changed little since then. The Bush administration

      refused ever again to have dealings with Arafat. After his death, it

      embraced the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, but has done little to

      help him. Sharon continued to develop his plan to impose a unilateral

      settlement on the Palestinians, based on ‘disengagement’ from Gaza coupled

      with continued expansion on the West Bank. By refusing to negotiate with

      Abbas and making it impossible for him to deliver tangible benefits to the

      Palestinian people, Sharon’s strategy contributed directly to Hamas’s

      electoral victory. With Hamas in power, however, Israel has another excuse

      not to negotiate. The US administration has supported Sharon’s actions

      (and those of his successor, Ehud Olmert). Bush has even endorsed

      unilateral Israeli annexations in the Occupied Territories, reversing the

      stated policy of every president since Lyndon Johnson.

      US officials have offered mild criticisms of a few Israeli actions, but

      have done little to help create a viable Palestinian state. Sharon has

      Bush ‘wrapped around his little finger’, the former national security

      adviser Brent Scowcroft said in October 2004. If Bush tries to distance

      the US from Israel, or even criticises Israeli actions in the Occupied

      Territories, he is certain to face the wrath of the Lobby and its

      supporters in Congress. Democratic presidential candidates understand that

      these are facts of life, which is the reason John Kerry went to great

      lengths to display unalloyed support for Israel in 2004, and why Hillary

      Clinton is doing the same thing today.

      Maintaining US support for Israel’s policies against the Palestinians is

      essential as far as the Lobby is concerned, but its ambitions do not stop

      there. It also wants America to help Israel remain the dominant regional

      power. The Israeli government and pro-Israel groups in the United States

      have worked together to shape the administration’s policy towards Iraq,

      Syria and Iran, as well as its grand scheme for reordering the Middle East.

      Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the

      decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical. Some Americans

      believe that this was a war for oil, but there is hardly any direct

      evidence to support this claim. Instead, the war was motivated in good

      part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow,

      a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board,

      the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to

      Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the

      United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’,

      Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002.

      ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it

      rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’

      On 16 August 2002, 11 days before Dick Cheney kicked off the campaign for

      war with a hardline speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Washington

      Post reported that ‘Israel is urging US officials not to delay a military

      strike against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.’ By this point, according to Sharon,

      strategic co-ordination between Israel and the US had reached

      ‘unprecedented dimensions’, and Israeli intelligence officials had given

      Washington a variety of alarming reports about Iraq’s WMD programmes. As

      one retired Israeli general later put it, ‘Israeli intelligence was a full

      partner to the picture presented by American and British intelligence

      regarding Iraq’s non-conventional capabilities.’

      Israeli leaders were deeply distressed when Bush decided to seek Security

      Council authorisation for war, and even more worried when Saddam agreed to

      let UN inspectors back in. ‘The campaign against Saddam Hussein is a

      must,’ Shimon Peres told reporters in September 2002. ‘Inspections and

      inspectors are good for decent people, but dishonest people can overcome

      easily inspections and inspectors.’

      At the same time, Ehud Barak wrote a New York Times op-ed warning that

      ‘the greatest risk now lies in inaction.’ His predecessor as prime

      minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, published a similar piece in the Wall Street

      Journal, entitled: ‘The Case for Toppling Saddam’. ‘Today nothing less

      than dismantling his regime will do,’ he declared. ‘I believe I speak for

      the overwhelming majority of Israelis in supporting a pre-emptive strike

      against Saddam’s regime.’ Or as Ha’aretz reported in February 2003, ‘the

      military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq.’

      As Netanyahu suggested, however, the desire for war was not confined to

      Israel’s leaders. Apart from Kuwait, which Saddam invaded in 1990, Israel

      was the only country in the world where both politicians and public

      favoured war. As the journalist Gideon Levy observed at the time, ‘Israel

      is the only country in the West whose leaders support the war unreservedly

      and where no alternative opinion is voiced.’ In fact, Israelis were so

      gung-ho that their allies in America told them to damp down their

      rhetoric, or it would look as if the war would be fought on Israel’s

      behalf.

      Within the US, the main driving force behind the war was a small band of

      neo-conservatives, many with ties to Likud. But leaders of the Lobby’s

      major organisations lent their voices to the campaign. ‘As President Bush

      attempted to sell the . . . war in Iraq,’ the Forward reported, ‘America’s

      most important Jewish organisations rallied as one to his defence. In

      statement after statement community leaders stressed the need to rid the

      world of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.’ The

      editorial goes on to say that ‘concern for Israel’s safety rightfully

      factored into the deliberations of the main Jewish groups.’

      Although neo-conservatives and other Lobby leaders were eager to invade

      Iraq, the broader American Jewish community was not. Just after the war

      started, Samuel Freedman reported that ‘a compilation of nationwide

      opinion polls by the Pew Research Center shows that Jews are less

      supportive of the Iraq war than the population at large, 52 per cent to 62

      per cent.’ Clearly, it would be wrong to blame the war in Iraq on ‘Jewish

      influence’. Rather, it was due in large part to the Lobby’s influence,

      especially that of the neo-conservatives within it.

      The neo-conservatives had been determined to topple Saddam even before

      Bush became president. They caused a stir early in 1998 by publishing two

      open letters to Clinton, calling for Saddam’s removal from power. The

      signatories, many of whom had close ties to pro-Israel groups like JINSA

      or WINEP, and who included Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith,

      William Kristol, Bernard Lewis, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and Paul

      Wolfowitz, had little trouble persuading the Clinton administration to

      adopt the general goal of ousting Saddam. But they were unable to sell a

      war to achieve that objective. They were no more able to generate

      enthusiasm for invading Iraq in the early months of the Bush

      administration. They needed help to achieve their aim. That help arrived

      with 9/11. Specifically, the events of that day led Bush and Cheney to

      reverse course and become strong proponents of a preventive war.

      At a key meeting with Bush at Camp David on 15 September, Wolfowitz

      advocated attacking Iraq before Afghanistan, even though there was no

      evidence that Saddam was involved in the attacks on the US and bin Laden

      was known to be in Afghanistan. Bush rejected his advice and chose to go

      after Afghanistan instead, but war with Iraq was now regarded as a serious

      possibility and on 21 November the president charged military planners

      with developing concrete plans for an invasion.

      Other neo-conservatives were meanwhile at work in the corridors of power.

      We don’t have the full story yet, but scholars like Bernard Lewis of

      Princeton and Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins reportedly played important

      roles in persuading Cheney that war was the best option, though

      neo-conservatives on his staff – Eric Edelman, John Hannah and Scooter

      Libby, Cheney’s chief of staff and one of the most powerful individuals in

      the administration – also played their part. By early 2002 Cheney had

      persuaded Bush; and with Bush and Cheney on board, war was inevitable.

      Outside the administration, neo-conservative pundits lost no time in

      making the case that invading Iraq was essential to winning the war on

      terrorism. Their efforts were designed partly to keep up the pressure on

      Bush, and partly to overcome opposition to the war inside and outside the

      government. On 20 September, a group of prominent neo-conservatives and

      their allies published another open letter: ‘Even if evidence does not

      link Iraq directly to the attack,’ it read, ‘any strategy aiming at the

      eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort

      to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.’ The letter also reminded

      Bush that ‘Israel has been and remains America’s staunchest ally against

      international terrorism.’ In the 1 October issue of the Weekly Standard,

      Robert Kagan and William Kristol called for regime change in Iraq as soon

      as the Taliban was defeated. That same day, Charles Krauthammer argued in

      the Washington Post that after the US was done with Afghanistan, Syria

      should be next, followed by Iran and Iraq: ‘The war on terrorism will

      conclude in Baghdad,’ when we finish off ‘the most dangerous terrorist

      regime in the world’.

      This was the beginning of an unrelenting public relations campaign to win

      support for an invasion of Iraq, a crucial part of which was the

      manipulation of intelligence in such a way as to make it seem as if Saddam

      posed an imminent threat. For example, Libby pressured CIA analysts to

      find evidence supporting the case for war and helped prepare Colin

      Powell’s now discredited briefing to the UN Security Council. Within the

      Pentagon, the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group was charged with

      finding links between al-Qaida and Iraq that the intelligence community

      had supposedly missed. Its two key members were David Wurmser, a hard-core

      neo-conservative, and Michael Maloof, a Lebanese-American with close ties

      to Perle. Another Pentagon group, the so-called Office of Special Plans,

      was given the task of uncovering evidence that could be used to sell the

      war. It was headed by Abram Shulsky, a neo-conservative with long-standing

      ties to Wolfowitz, and its ranks included recruits from pro-Israel think

      tanks. Both these organisations were created after 9/11 and reported

      directly to Douglas Feith.

      Like virtually all the neo-conservatives, Feith is deeply committed to

      Israel; he also has long-term ties to Likud. He wrote articles in the

      1990s supporting the settlements and arguing that Israel should retain the

      Occupied Territories. More important, along with Perle and Wurmser, he

      wrote the famous ‘Clean Break’ report in June 1996 for Netanyahu, who had

      just become prime minister. Among other things, it recommended that

      Netanyahu ‘focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an

      important Israeli strategic objective in its own right’. It also called

      for Israel to take steps to reorder the entire Middle East. Netanyahu did

      not follow their advice, but Feith, Perle and Wurmser were soon urging the

      Bush administration to pursue those same goals. The Ha’aretz columnist

      Akiva Eldar warned that Feith and Perle ‘are walking a fine line between

      their loyalty to American governments . . . and Israeli interests’.

      Wolfowitz is equally committed to Israel. The Forward once described him

      as ‘the most hawkishly pro-Israel voice in the administration’, and

      selected him in 2002 as first among 50 notables who ‘have consciously

      pursued Jewish activism’. At about the same time, JINSA gave Wolfowitz its

      Henry M. Jackson Distinguished Service Award for promoting a strong

      partnership between Israel and the United States; and the Jerusalem Post,

      describing him as ‘devoutly pro-Israel’, named him ‘Man of the Year’ in

      2003.

      Finally, a brief word is in order about the neo-conservatives’ prewar

      support of Ahmed Chalabi, the unscrupulous Iraqi exile who headed the

      Iraqi National Congress. They backed Chalabi because he had established

      close ties with Jewish-American groups and had pledged to foster good

      relations with Israel once he gained power. This was precisely what

      pro-Israel proponents of regime change wanted to hear. Matthew Berger laid

      out the essence of the bargain in the Jewish Journal: ‘The INC saw

      improved relations as a way to tap Jewish influence in Washington and

      Jerusalem and to drum up increased support for its cause. For their part,

      the Jewish groups saw an opportunity to pave the way for better relations

      between Israel and Iraq, if and when the INC is involved in replacing

      Saddam Hussein’s regime.’

      Given the neo-conservatives’ devotion to Israel, their obsession with

      Iraq, and their influence in the Bush administration, it isn’t surprising

      that many Americans suspected that the war was designed to further Israeli

      interests. Last March, Barry Jacobs of the American Jewish Committee

      acknowledged that the belief that Israel and the neo-conservatives had

      conspired to get the US into a war in Iraq was ‘pervasive’ in the

      intelligence community. Yet few people would say so publicly, and most of

      those who did – including Senator Ernest Hollings and Representative James

      Moran – were condemned for raising the issue. Michael Kinsley wrote in

      late 2002 that ‘the lack of public discussion about the role of Israel . .

      . is the proverbial elephant in the room.’ The reason for the reluctance

      to talk about it, he observed, was fear of being labelled an anti-semite.

      There is little doubt that Israel and the Lobby were key factors in the

      decision to go to war. It’s a decision the US would have been far less

      likely to take without their efforts. And the war itself was intended to

      be only the first step. A front-page headline in the Wall Street Journal

      shortly after the war began says it all: ‘President’s Dream: Changing Not

      Just Regime but a Region: A Pro-US, Democratic Area Is a Goal that Has

      Israeli and Neo-Conservative Roots.’

      Pro-Israel forces have long been interested in getting the US military

      more directly involved in the Middle East. But they had limited success

      during the Cold War, because America acted as an ‘off-shore balancer’ in

      the region. Most forces designated for the Middle East, like the Rapid

      Deployment Force, were kept ‘over the horizon’ and out of harm’s way. The

      idea was to play local powers off against each other – which is why the

      Reagan administration supported Saddam against revolutionary Iran during

      the Iran-Iraq War – in order to maintain a balance favourable to the US.

      This policy changed after the first Gulf War, when the Clinton

      administration adopted a strategy of ‘dual containment’. Substantial US

      forces would be stationed in the region in order to contain both Iran and

      Iraq, instead of one being used to check the other. The father of dual

      containment was none other than Martin Indyk, who first outlined the

      strategy in May 1993 at WINEP and then implemented it as director for Near

      East and South Asian Affairs at the National Security Council.

      By the mid-1990s there was considerable dissatisfaction with dual

      containment, because it made the United States the mortal enemy of two

      countries that hated each other, and forced Washington to bear the burden

      of containing both. But it was a strategy the Lobby favoured and worked

      actively in Congress to preserve. Pressed by AIPAC and other pro-Israel

      forces, Clinton toughened up the policy in the spring of 1995 by imposing

      an economic embargo on Iran. But AIPAC and the others wanted more. The

      result was the 1996 Iran and Libya Sanctions Act, which imposed sanctions

      on any foreign companies investing more than $40 million to develop

      petroleum resources in Iran or Libya. As Ze’ev Schiff, the military

      correspondent of Ha’aretz, noted at the time, ‘Israel is but a tiny

      element in the big scheme, but one should not conclude that it cannot

      influence those within the Beltway.’

      By the late 1990s, however, the neo-conservatives were arguing that dual

      containment was not enough and that regime change in Iraq was essential.

      By toppling Saddam and turning Iraq into a vibrant democracy, they argued,

      the US would trigger a far-reaching process of change throughout the

      Middle East. The same line of thinking was evident in the ‘Clean Break’

      study the neo-conservatives wrote for Netanyahu. By 2002, when an invasion

      of Iraq was on the front-burner, regional transformation was an article of

      faith in neo-conservative circles.

      Charles Krauthammer describes this grand scheme as the brainchild of Natan

      Sharansky, but Israelis across the political spectrum believed that

      toppling Saddam would alter the Middle East to Israel’s advantage. Aluf

      Benn reported in Ha’aretz (17 February 2003):

      Senior IDF officers and those close to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, such

      as National Security Adviser Ephraim Halevy, paint a rosy picture of the

      wonderful future Israel can expect after the war. They envision a domino

      effect, with the fall of Saddam Hussein followed by that of Israel’s other

      enemies . . . Along with these leaders will disappear terror and weapons

      of mass destruction.

      Once Baghdad fell in mid-April 2003, Sharon and his lieutenants began

      urging Washington to target Damascus. On 16 April, Sharon, interviewed in

      Yedioth Ahronoth, called for the United States to put ‘very heavy’

      pressure on Syria, while Shaul Mofaz, his defence minister, interviewed in

      Ma’ariv, said: ‘We have a long list of issues that we are thinking of

      demanding of the Syrians and it is appropriate that it should be done

      through the Americans.’ Ephraim Halevy told a WINEP audience that it was

      now important for the US to get rough with Syria, and the Washington Post

      reported that Israel was ‘fuelling the campaign’ against Syria by feeding

      the US intelligence reports about the actions of Bashar Assad, the Syrian

      president.

      Prominent members of the Lobby made the same arguments. Wolfowitz declared

      that ‘there has got to be regime change in Syria,’ and Richard Perle told

      a journalist that ‘a short message, a two-worded message’ could be

      delivered to other hostile regimes in the Middle East: ‘You’re next.’ In

      early April, WINEP released a bipartisan report stating that Syria ‘should

      not miss the message that countries that pursue Saddam’s reckless,

      irresponsible and defiant behaviour could end up sharing his fate’. On 15

      April, Yossi Klein Halevi wrote a piece in the Los Angeles Times entitled

      ‘Next, Turn the Screws on Syria’, while the following day Zev Chafets

      wrote an article for the New York Daily News entitled ‘Terror-Friendly

      Syria Needs a Change, Too’. Not to be outdone, Lawrence Kaplan wrote in

      the New Republic on 21 April that Assad was a serious threat to America.

      Back on Capitol Hill, Congressman Eliot Engel had reintroduced the Syria

      Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Restoration Act. It threatened

      sanctions against Syria if it did not withdraw from Lebanon, give up its

      WMD and stop supporting terrorism, and it also called for Syria and

      Lebanon to take concrete steps to make peace with Israel. This legislation

      was strongly endorsed by the Lobby – by AIPAC especially – and ‘framed’,

      according to the Jewish Telegraph Agency, ‘by some of Israel’s best

      friends in Congress’. The Bush administration had little enthusiasm for

      it, but the anti-Syrian act passed overwhelmingly (398 to 4 in the House;

      89 to 4 in the Senate), and Bush signed it into law on 12 December 2003.

      The administration itself was still divided about the wisdom of targeting

      Syria. Although the neo-conservatives were eager to pick a fight with

      Damascus, the CIA and the State Department were opposed to the idea. And

      even after Bush signed the new law, he emphasised that he would go slowly

      in implementing it. His ambivalence is understandable. First, the Syrian

      government had not only been providing important intelligence about

      al-Qaida since 9/11: it had also warned Washington about a planned

      terrorist attack in the Gulf and given CIA interrogators access to

      Mohammed Zammar, the alleged recruiter of some of the 9/11 hijackers.

      Targeting the Assad regime would jeopardise these valuable connections,

      and thereby undermine the larger war on terrorism.

      Second, Syria had not been on bad terms with Washington before the Iraq

      war (it had even voted for UN Resolution 1441), and was itself no threat

      to the United States. Playing hardball with it would make the US look like

      a bully with an insatiable appetite for beating up Arab states. Third,

      putting Syria on the hit list would give Damascus a powerful incentive to

      cause trouble in Iraq. Even if one wanted to bring pressure to bear, it

      made good sense to finish the job in Iraq first. Yet Congress insisted on

      putting the screws on Damascus, largely in response to pressure from

      Israeli officials and groups like AIPAC. If there were no Lobby, there

      would have been no Syria Accountability Act, and US policy towards

      Damascus would have been more in line with the national interest.

      Israelis tend to describe every threat in the starkest terms, but Iran is

      widely seen as their most dangerous enemy because it is the most likely to

      acquire nuclear weapons. Virtually all Israelis regard an Islamic country

      in the Middle East with nuclear weapons as a threat to their existence.

      ‘Iraq is a problem . . . But you should understand, if you ask me, today

      Iran is more dangerous than Iraq,’ the defence minister, Binyamin

      Ben-Eliezer, remarked a month before the Iraq war.

      Sharon began pushing the US to confront Iran in November 2002, in an

      interview in the Times. Describing Iran as the ‘centre of world terror’,

      and bent on acquiring nuclear weapons, he declared that the Bush

      administration should put the strong arm on Iran ‘the day after’ it

      conquered Iraq. In late April 2003, Ha’aretz reported that the Israeli

      ambassador in Washington was calling for regime change in Iran. The

      overthrow of Saddam, he noted, was ‘not enough’. In his words, America

      ‘has to follow through. We still have great threats of that magnitude

      coming from Syria, coming from Iran.’

      The neo-conservatives, too, lost no time in making the case for regime

      change in Tehran. On 6 May, the AEI co-sponsored an all-day conference on

      Iran with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the Hudson

      Institute, both champions of Israel. The speakers were all strongly

      pro-Israel, and many called for the US to replace the Iranian regime with

      a democracy. As usual, a bevy of articles by prominent neo-conservatives

      made the case for going after Iran. ‘The liberation of Iraq was the first

      great battle for the future of the Middle East . . . But the next great

      battle – not, we hope, a military battle – will be for Iran,’ William

      Kristol wrote in the Weekly Standard on 12 May.

      The administration has responded to the Lobby’s pressure by working

      overtime to shut down Iran’s nuclear programme. But Washington has had

      little success, and Iran seems determined to create a nuclear arsenal. As

      a result, the Lobby has intensified its pressure. Op-eds and other

      articles now warn of imminent dangers from a nuclear Iran, caution against

      any appeasement of a ‘terrorist’ regime, and hint darkly of preventive

      action should diplomacy fail. The Lobby is pushing Congress to approve the

      Iran Freedom Support Act, which would expand existing sanctions. Israeli

      officials also warn they may take pre-emptive action should Iran continue

      down the nuclear road, threats partly intended to keep Washington’s

      attention on the issue.

      One might argue that Israel and the Lobby have not had much influence on

      policy towards Iran, because the US has its own reasons for keeping Iran

      from going nuclear. There is some truth in this, but Iran’s nuclear

      ambitions do not pose a direct threat to the US. If Washington could live

      with a nuclear Soviet Union, a nuclear China or even a nuclear North

      Korea, it can live with a nuclear Iran. And that is why the Lobby must

      keep up constant pressure on politicians to confront Tehran. Iran and the

      US would hardly be allies if the Lobby did not exist, but US policy would

      be more temperate and preventive war would not be a serious option.

      It is not surprising that Israel and its American supporters want the US

      to deal with any and all threats to Israel’s security. If their efforts to

      shape US policy succeed, Israel’s enemies will be weakened or overthrown,

      Israel will get a free hand with the Palestinians, and the US will do most

      of the fighting, dying, rebuilding and paying. But even if the US fails to

      transform the Middle East and finds itself in conflict with an

      increasingly radicalised Arab and Islamic world, Israel will end up

      protected by the world’s only superpower. This is not a perfect outcome

      from the Lobby’s point of view, but it is obviously preferable to

      Washington distancing itself, or using its leverage to force Israel to

      make peace with the Palestinians.

      Can the Lobby’s power be curtailed? One would like to think so, given the

      Iraq debacle, the obvious need to rebuild America’s image in the Arab and

      Islamic world, and the recent revelations about AIPAC officials passing US

      government secrets to Israel. One might also think that Arafat’s death and

      the election of the more moderate Mahmoud Abbas would cause Washington to

      press vigorously and even-handedly for a peace agreement. In short, there

      are ample grounds for leaders to distance themselves from the Lobby and

      adopt a Middle East policy more consistent with broader US interests. In

      particular, using American power to achieve a just peace between Israel

      and the Palestinians would help advance the cause of democracy in the

      region.

      But that is not going to happen – not soon anyway. AIPAC and its allies

      (including Christian Zionists) have no serious opponents in the lobbying

      world. They know it has become more difficult to make Israel’s case today,

      and they are responding by taking on staff and expanding their activities.

      Besides, American politicians remain acutely sensitive to campaign

      contributions and other forms of political pressure, and major media

      outlets are likely to remain sympathetic to Israel no matter what it does.

      The Lobby’s influence causes trouble on several fronts. It increases the

      terrorist danger that all states face – including America’s European

      allies. It has made it impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,

      a situation that gives extremists a powerful recruiting tool, increases

      the pool of potential terrorists and sympathisers, and contributes to

      Islamic radicalism in Europe and Asia.

      Equally worrying, the Lobby’s campaign for regime change in Iran and Syria

      could lead the US to attack those countries, with potentially disastrous

      effects. We don’t need another Iraq. At a minimum, the Lobby’s hostility

      towards Syria and Iran makes it almost impossible for Washington to enlist

      them in the struggle against al-Qaida and the Iraqi insurgency, where

      their help is badly needed.

      There is a moral dimension here as well. Thanks to the Lobby, the United

      States has become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the

      Occupied Territories, making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated

      against the Palestinians. This situation undercuts Washington’s efforts to

      promote democracy abroad and makes it look hypocritical when it presses

      other states to respect human rights. US efforts to limit nuclear

      proliferation appear equally hypocritical given its willingness to accept

      Israel’s nuclear arsenal, which only encourages Iran and others to seek a

      similar capability.

      Besides, the Lobby’s campaign to quash debate about Israel is unhealthy

      for democracy. Silencing sceptics by organising blacklists and boycotts –

      or by suggesting that critics are anti-semites – violates the principle of

      open debate on which democracy depends. The inability of Congress to

      conduct a genuine debate on these important issues paralyses the entire

      process of democratic deliberation. Israel’s backers should be free to

      make their case and to challenge those who disagree with them, but efforts

      to stifle debate by intimidation must be roundly condemned.

      Finally, the Lobby’s influence has been bad for Israel. Its ability to

      persuade Washington to support an expansionist agenda has discouraged

      Israel from seizing opportunities – including a peace treaty with Syria

      and a prompt and full implementation of the Oslo Accords – that would have

      saved Israeli lives and shrunk the ranks of Palestinian extremists.

      Denying the Palestinians their legitimate political rights certainly has

      not made Israel more secure, and the long campaign to kill or marginalise

      a generation of Palestinian leaders has empowered extremist groups like

      Hamas, and reduced the number of Palestinian leaders who would be willing

      to accept a fair settlement and able to make it work. Israel itself would

      probably be better off if the Lobby were less powerful and US policy more

      even-handed.

      There is a ray of hope, however. Although the Lobby remains a powerful

      force, the adverse effects of its influence are increasingly difficult to

      hide. Powerful states can maintain flawed policies for quite some time,

      but reality cannot be ignored for ever. What is needed is a candid

      discussion of the Lobby’s influence and a more open debate about US

      interests in this vital region. Israel’s well-being is one of those

      interests, but its continued occupation of the West Bank and its broader

      regional agenda are not. Open debate will expose the limits of the

      strategic and moral case for one-sided US support and could move the US to

      a position more consistent with its own national interest, with the

      interests of the other states in the region, and with Israel’s long-term

      interests as well.

      10 March

      Footnotes

      An unedited version of this article is available at

      http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011, or at

      http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=891198.

      John Mearsheimer is the Wendell Harrison Professor of Political Science at

      Chicago, and the author of The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

      Stephen Walt is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International

      Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. His most recent

      book is Taming American Power: The Global Response to US Primacy.

             copyright © LRB Ltd, 1997-2006HOME | SUBSCRIBE | LOGIN | CONTACTS | SEARCH



* * *

L'OTAN et Israël : Instruments des guerres de l'Amérique au Moyen-Orient

 Article original en anglais, « NATO and Israel: Instruments of America's Wars in the Middle East », publié le 29 janvier 2008.

 Copyright Global Research/Mondialisation.

 Traduction Mireille Delamarre pour www.planetenonviolence.org



Le rôle de l'OTAN sur le Théâtre de Guerre au Moyen Orient

 L'Organisation du Traité Nord Atlantique (OTAN) est devenue un instrument pour soutenir les objectifs étrangers et sécuritaires anglo-américains et franco-allemands. Bien qu'il existe des différences internes au sein de l'OTAN, les intérêts des US, de l'UE et d'Israël – qui depuis 2005 est traité comme un membre de facto de l'OTAN – sont intimement liés dans l'alliance militaire atlantique.

 Deux zones au Moyen Orient ont été militarisées par des puissances étrangères : le Golfe Persique et le Levant.

 Pour cela, il y a eu deux phases distinctes de militarisation au Moyen Orient depuis la fin des années 70, la première étant distinctement anglo-américaine, et remontant à la guerre Irak-Iran et la suivante étant un effort unifié de l'OTAN impliquant la France et l'Allemagne comme acteurs clés.

 Bien que le processus de militarisation au Levant ait commencé après la Seconde Guerre Mondiale avec la création d'Israël, le rôle distinct de l'OTAN dans ce processus a pris forme depuis le lancement de la « Guerre Mondiale contre le Terrorisme » en 2001.

 Paris et Berlin révèlent leurs fonctions dans la « Guerre Mondiale contre le Terrorisme »

 L'UE menée par la France et l'Allemagne, a effectivement soutenu la politique étrangère anglo-américaine depuis le lancement de la « Guerre Mondiale contre le Terrorisme ». La conséquence c'est l'expansion illimitée de l'OTAN au Moyen Orient et en Asie Centrale.

 Il est prévu qu'à la fois l'OTAN et Israël prennent des responsabilités majeures dans les conflits régionaux à venir avec l'Iran et la Syrie, s'ils devaient éclater. C'est évident quand on observe les positionnements des troupes de l'OTAN et des navires de guerre au Moyen Orient, Afghanistan, et aux frontières à la fois de l'Iran et de la Syrie.

 L'initiative de paix Arabe de 2002 : enfermer les Palestiniens à la Mecque et via une séparation entre Gaza la Cisjordanie

 En ce qui concerne la Palestine, la chaîne des évènements qui seront discutés mènera finalement à Annapolis. Ces évènements ont commencé avec l'initiative Arabe de 2002 qui a été proposée par l'Arabie Saoudite à Beyrouth pendant la conférence de la Ligue Arabe au Liban. La conférence d'Annapolis a seulement été une réponse extravagante à la proposition saoudienne prudemment élaborée, qui en fait a été fournie par Londres et Washington en 2002 aux Saoudiens comme faisant partie de leur feuille de route pour le Moyen Orient.

 Pour comprendre où la voie tracée à Annapolis conduit les Palestiniens et le Levant, on doit aussi comprendre ce qui s'est passé en Palestine depuis 2001. Pour aboutir à Annapolis on doit reconnaître ce qui s'est passé entre le Hamas et le Fatah, la tromperie calculée du rôle de l'Arabie Saoudite dans l'Accord de la Mecque, et les objectifs à long terme de l'Amérique et de ses alliés au Moyen Orient et sur le littoral Méditerranéen.

 D'abord, l'Amérique et l'UE ont réalisé que le Fatah ne représentait pas la volonté populaire de la nation palestinienne et que les autres partis politiques pourraient prendre le pouvoir d'entre les mains du Fatah. C'était un problème pour Israël, l'UE et l'Amérique car ils avaient besoin des dirigeants corrompus du Fatah pour appliquer leurs objectifs à long terme dans les territoires occupés palestiniens, l'Est Méditerranéen et le Moyen Orient.

 En 2005, le Département d'Etat US, la Maison Blanche, et Israël ont commencé à se préparer à la victoire du Hamas lors des élections générales palestiniennes. Alors une stratégie a été mise au point pour neutraliser non seulement le Hamas, mais toutes les formes légitimes de résistance palestinienne aux agendas étrangers qui ont maintenu en otage les palestiniens depuis la « Nakba. »

 Israël, l'Amérique, et leurs alliés, qui incluaient l'UE, avaient bien conscience que le Hamas ne serait jamais partie prenante de ce que Washington programmait pour les Palestiniens et le Moyen Orient. Simplement dit, le Hamas s'opposerait au projet du « Nouveau Moyen Orient » et ce qui devrait être l'une de ses conséquences au Levant, l'Union Méditerranéenne. Pendant tout ce temps, l'initiative de Paix Arabe de 2002 a été le portail pour la matérialisation à la fois du Nouveau Moyen Orient et de l'Union Méditerranéenne.

 Tandis que les Saoudiens ont joué leur part dans l'initiative de l'Amérique du « Nouveau Moyen Orient », le Fatah a été manipulé, pour ne pas employer d'autres mots, afin de combattre le Hamas de sorte qu'un accord serait requis entre le Hamas et le Fatah. Cela a été fait sachant que la première réaction du Hamas en tant que parti palestinien gouvernant, serait de maintenir l'intégrité de l'unité palestinienne. C'est là que l'Arabie Saoudite entre de nouveau en scène, à travers son rôle dans l'arrangement de l'Accord de la Mecque. L'Arabie Saoudite n'a pas reconnu diplomatiquement le Hamas avant l'accord de la Mecque.

 L'Accord de la Mecque était un traquenard pour prendre le Hamas au piège. La trêve entre le Hamas et le Fatah, et par la suite le gouvernement d'unité palestinien établi, n'a jamais été conçu pour durer, dés le jour ou le Hamas a été trompé pour signer l'Accord de la Mecque. L'Accord de la Mecque avait été conçu à l'avance pour légitimer ce qui allait se passer ensuite, une mini guerre civile palestinienne à Gaza.

 C'est après la signature de l'Accord de la Mecque que des éléments au sein du Fatah et dirigés par Mohammed Dahlan (supervisé par le lieutenant général US Keith Dayton) ont reçu l'ordre des US et d'Israël de renverser le gouvernement palestinien dirigé par le Hamas.

 Il existait probablement deux plans en réserve, l'un dans le cas d'une victoire possible du Fatah et l'autre plan en réserve (le plus probable des deux) dans le cas d'un échec du Fatah. Ce dernier plan était une préparation de deux gouvernements palestiniens parallèles, l'un à Gaza dirigé par le premier ministre Haniyeh et le Hamas, et l'autre en Cisjordanie contrôlé par Mahmoud Abbas et le Fatah. Mahmoud Abbas et ses associés ont également appelé à la création d'un parlement palestinien parallèle en Cisjordanie, sans substance et n'en ayant que le nom. (1)

 L'Accord de la Mecque autorisait effectivement le Fatah à diriger la Cisjordanie en deux coups. Puisque le gouvernement a été formé à la suite de l'Accord de la Mecque, un retrait du Fatah du gouvernement a été utilisé par le Fatah pour décrire le gouvernement dirigé par le Hamas comme illégitime. Ceci se passait alors qu'un regain de luttes à Gaza rendait de nouvelles élections palestiniennes non envisageables. Mahmoud Abbas a aussi été mis en position de pouvoir affirmer la légitimité de former sa propre administration en Cisjordanie, ce qui aurait été perçu mondialement comme ce que c'est vraiment, un régime illégal sans l'Accord. Ce n'est pas non plus une coïncidence si l'homme choisi pour diriger le gouvernement de Mahmoud Abbas le Dc Salam Fayyad, est un ancien employé de la Banque Mondiale.

 Le Hamas étant effectivement neutralisé, et coupé du pouvoir en Cisjordanie, la scène était dressée pour deux choses ; des propositions pour une force militaire internationale dans les territoires palestiniens et la Conférence d'Annapolis. (2)

 Le sommet de Paix d'Annapolis : annonce d'évènements encore à venir

 Selon Al Jazeera, avant la conférence d'Annapolis, des accords rédigés par Mahmoud Abbas et Israël appelés Accord de Principes, garantissaient que les palestiniens n'auront pas de force militaire quand il sera octroyé à la Cisjordanie une certaine forme d'auto détermination

 Les accords appellent également à l'intégration des économies du monde Arabe avec Israël, et le positionnement d'une force internationale, similaire à celle qu'il y a en Bosnie et au Kosovo, pour superviser l'application de ces accords dans les territoires Palestiniens. Cela devient aussi plus clair avec la révélation de cette information, pourquoi il fallait neutraliser le Hamas et légitimer Mahmoud Abbas.

 C'est là ou la France et la création de l'Union Méditerranéenne re-rentre en scène. Pendant des années, bien avant la « guerre Mondiale contre le Terrorisme » Paris avait appelé au déploiement d'un contingent de soldats soit de l'UE soit de l'OTAN au Liban et dans les territoires occupés palestiniens. Les gens au Moyen Orient doivent ouvrir les yeux sur ce qui a été planifié pour leurs terres.

 Le 19 février 2004, Dominique de Villepin a déclaré qu'une fois que les israéliens auront quitté la bande de Gaza, des troupes étrangères pourraient être envoyées là bas et une conférence internationale pourrait légitimer leur présence comme faisant partie de la deuxième phase de la feuille de route israélo palestinienne et comme faisant partie d'une initiative pour « Le Plus Grand Moyen Orient » ou le « Nouveau Moyen Orient ». (3) Cette déclaration a été faite avant que le Hamas arrive au gouvernement et avant l'Accord de Principes de Mahmoud Abbas. Cependant cela a suivi l'initiative Arabe proposée par les Saoudiens.

 Considérant les choses sous cet aspect, c'est clair que les évènements qui se passent au Moyen Orient font partie d'une feuille de route militaire avant la « Guerre Mondiale contre le Terrorisme ».

 Cela nous amène aux propositions de Nicolas Sarkozy pour une Union Méditerranéenne. L'intégration économique de l'économie israélienne avec les économies du Monde Arabe développerait le réseau de relations mondiales qui sont étroitement tissés par les agents mondiaux du Consensus de Washington. L'initiative de paix Arabe proposée par les Saoudiens, l'Accord de Principes, et Annapolis sont toutes des étapes de la création d'une intégration économique Monde Arabe Israël, via le projet pour le « Nouveau Moyen Orient » et l'intégration de tout le pourtour Méditerranéen dans l'Union Européenne via l'Union Méditerranéenne. La présence de troupes à la fois de l'OTAN et de pays de l'UE au Liban fait aussi partie de cet objectif.

 Déjà vu au Liban : Internationalisation de la Bande de Gaza par l'OTAN ?

 Il y a suffisamment de preuves que la guerre israélienne de 2006 contre le Liban a été planifiée par Israël, les US et l'OTAN. (4)

 Après son déploiement à l'intérieur du Liban en 2006 sous la bannière de l'UNIFIL, il était aussi prévu que l'OTAN entre dans la Bande de Gaza à un moment donné dans le futur proche. Coïncidant avec la guerre de 2006 contre le Liban, Israël devait également lancer une importante campagne contre les Palestiniens dans la Bande de Gaza. Les responsables israéliens disaient qu'après les combats entre l'armée israélienne et les palestiniens, l'OTAN serait désignée pour rentrer dans la Bande de Gaza. La Bande de Gaza était vue comme la nouvelle destination pour les « opérations de maintien de la paix » de l'OTAN par Avigdor Lieberman, l'ancien ministre des affaires stratégiques israélien (à la tête du parti d'extrême droite sioniste Israël Beitenou ndlt). Avigdor Lieberman était aussi le vice premier ministre d'Israël à cette époque.

 Avigdor Lieberman a même insisté, en présence de Condoleezza Rice, et de responsables US, qu'une opération militaire contre les Palestiniens dans la Bande de Gaza était « inévitable » et que « les résultats d'une telle action devraient être l'entrée de 30 000 forces (soldats) de l'OTAN pour se déployer à Gaza » pour empêcher plus de concentration armée (palestinienne). (5) Amir Peretz, alors qu'il occupait le poste de ministre de la défense israélien, a aussi déclaré en mars 2007, que l'armée israélienne avait l'autorisation de mener de nouvelles opérations militaires dans la Bande de Gaza. (6)

 Les combats prédits par les responsables israéliens et les commandants militaires ont eu lieu, mais, pas en premier entre les israéliens et les palestiniens. Les affrontements ont eu lieu entre les Palestiniens dans Gaza et puis les Israéliens ont commencé leurs opérations. Les Israéliens ont simplement fait sous traiter leur sale boulot par des collaborateurs palestiniens dans Gaza, tels que Mohammed Dahlan. Même les Israéliens ont appelé à l'internationalisation de la situation à Gaza, comme la situation au Liban. Mahmoud Abbas, le dirigeant du Fatah, s'est compromis en suivant le script US, israélien à la lettre.

 Israël : De Facto un Bras Armé de l'OTAN

 « L'objectif diplomatique et sécuritaire d'Israël…doit être clair : rejoindre l'OTAN et entrer dans l'Union Européenne. » Avigdor Lieberman, (ex ndlt) ministre des affaires stratégiques d'Israël.

Israël a établi un accord de coopération militaire de haut niveau avec l'OTAN. Avigdor Lieberman a déclaré qu'Israël est destiné à devenir un avant poste de l'UE et un membre effectif de l'OTAN. (7) L'ancien ministre israélien a aussi dirigé les contacts israéliens de haut niveau avec l'OTAN et le dossier de guerre contre l'Iran. Il a été impliqué avec les US et l'OTAN en ce qui concerne les préparations coordonnées contre la Syrie et l'Iran.

 Depuis la création de l'état juif, Israël a été perçu comme un avant poste de ce que l'on appelle « l'Occident » et de ses intérêts au Moyen Orient et dans le Monde Arabe. Israël est un membre actif de l' »Operation Active Endeavour in the Eastern Mediterranean” (Opération Effort Actif dans l'Est Méditerranéen) de l'OTAN. Bien qu'Israël ne soit pas un membre de l'OTAN, Israël ensemble avec la Turquie, constitue l'épine dorsale de la force de l'OTAN au Moyen Orient. La Turquie et Israël sont tous deux destinés dans le futur à jouer un rôle militaire de premier plan dans la région Méditerranéenne.

 A la fin de 2007, Israël a commencé à affirmer qu'il avait reçu le « feu vert » des US, de l'UE, et de leur corps militaire mutuel, l'OTAN, pour lancer une attaque contre l'Iran. Cela provoquerait l'embrasement du Moyen Orient. L'armée israélienne s'est entraînée en continu et leurs supérieurs ont dit aux soldats israéliens de se préparer pour une « guerre totale ».

 Créer des Barrières dans les territoires de Palestine : avancées calculées pour le futur ?

 La Bande de Gaza a été comparée par beaucoup en Palestine et Israël à un vaste centre de détention ou prison. Les mouvements y sont restreints, les droits à la mobilité violés, et toute la zone est entourée de barrières et barbelés. Des morceaux sont également toujours occupées par l'armée israélienne et utilisés comme zones tampon.

 La Cisjordanie est une immense zone comparée à la Bande de Gaza. Celle-ci est aussi en taille uneraction de celle de la Cisjordanie. Elle fait environ 360 km2 au total et partage avec Israël une frontière de 51 km. La Cisjordanie d'un autre côté à une superficie totale officielle de 5.949 Km2. C'est beaucoup plus facile pour l'armée israélienne de contrôler et fermer hermétiquement la plus petite frontière de Gaza que celle de la Cisjordanie. Du point de vue du nombre de soldats israéliens et ressources humaines israéliennes, c'est la même chose. Des deux zones, c'est donc Gaza qui est la plus facile à boucler hermétiquement et à gérer.

 En Cisjordanie, ce sera le Fatah avec l'aide des armées étrangères qui sera utilisé pour contenir les combattants palestiniens au cas ou une guerre plus étendue éclaterait au Moyen Orient. Le projet d'internationaliser la situation dans la Bande de Gaza et la Cisjordanie avec la présence de troupes étrangères de l'OTAN et de pays Arabes, peut aussi être vu comme faisant partie de l'effort pour créer une barrière militaire pour protéger Israël.

 Gabi Ashkenazi, un général israélien, d'origine mixte bulgare et syrienne, avec une expérience de terrain au Liban où il y a supervisé la SLA, South Lebanon Army (Armée du Sud Liban) a succédé à Daniel Halutz à la tête de l'armée israélienne. Ashkénazi a été chargé de construire la barrière qu'on appelle communément le « Mur de l'Apartheid », entre la Cisjordanie et Israël. Bien qu'il ne soit pas terminé, le mur de l'Apartheid, en cas de guerre régionale, servirait à empêcher les combattants palestiniens à passer de Cisjordanie en Israël pour combattre les forces israéliennes.

 Créer des barrières supplémentaires entre le Liban et Israël

 L'UNIFIL post 2006 qui s'est déployée au Sud Liban après le bombardement du Liban n'est pas la même que l'UNIFIL pré 2006. C'est une entité plus robuste et prête au combat, et elle aussi peut être utilisée pour protéger Israël contre les Libanais en cas de guerre régionale lancée par Israël.

 Un autre point important, c'est le largage de 3 millions (voire plus) par l'armée israélienne de bombes à fragmentations, fournies par les US, dans le Sud Liban pendant la guerre de 2006 contre le Liban. Ce qui s'est révélé comme extrêmement sinistre c'est la précipitation israélienne pour saturer le Sud Liban de ces bombes à fragmentation alors que les attaques israéliennes contre le Liban tiraient à leur fin. La géographie du Sud Liban en donne une explication partielle ; c'est la région du Liban qui a des frontières avec Israël.

 Ce largage massif des bombes à fragmentation au Sud Liban était une action délibérée pour créer une autre barrière israélienne contre des potentiels combattants lors d'une future guerre au Moyen Orient. Ces bombes à fragmentation sont en fait devenues des mines terriennes qui empêcheraient des vagues de combattants libanais de pénétrer en Israël en cas de guerre contre l'Iran, la Syrie, les Palestiniens, et le Liban.

 Scénario de guerre régionale : préparations israéliennes pour une tempête de représailles par missiles

 Le projet pour un « Nouveau Moyen Orient » coûtera très cher, et le prix en sera une guerre. La militarisation de la Bande de Gaza comporte plusieurs volets et est liée aux préparatifs d'un conflit plus large au Moyen Orient. Le déploiement de troupes étrangères dans la Bande de Gaza et la Cisjordanie, comme au Liban, et l'emmurement de la Cisjordanie servent aussi les mêmes objectifs pour contenir les Palestiniens si une guerre éclatait au Moyen Orient entre Israël, l'Amérique, et l'OTAN d'un côté, et la Syrie, l'Iran et leurs alliés de l'autre.

 Le raisonnement qui fonde cette analyse c'est qu'une guerre contre l'Iran et la Syrie réduirait et affaiblirait l'armée israélienne : les forces israéliennes seraient exposées aux missiles balistiques de l'Iran et les différents groupes de résistance palestiniens en ont bien conscience. Si une guerre régionale éclate entre Israël et l'Iran et la Syrie, les Palestiniens pourraient se voir élever en tant que combattants pratiquement à égalité avec les Israéliens dans les territoires occupés palestiniens. La dynamique du conflit entre Israéliens et Palestiniens serait immédiatement transformée.

 Des divisions entre les Libanais et les Palestiniens feraient obstacle à l'efficacité d'un effort combiné militaire contre Israël dans le cas d'une guerre plus étendue. La situation est la même que celle en Irak : plus les irakiens sont divisés, plus faible est leur effort de guerre contre les US et leurs alliés occupant l'Irak. En dehors de la Palestine, la Nakba a été répétée en Irak. Il n'y a pas d'erreur là-dessus, les occupations de la Palestine et de l'Irak sont de même nature, et ont les mêmes architectes. Bilad Al-Sham, l'Irak, et leurs peuples souffrent de la même source.

 Existe-t-il un lien entre les discussions sur un état Palestinien et la Guerre ?

 « La guerre que nous (Israël) menons au Moyen Orient ce n'est pas seulement la guerre de l'état d'Israël… et nous (Israël) sommes sur les lignes de front. » Avigdor Lieberman, (ex) ministre des affaires stratégiques.

 Suite à l'assassinat d'Hariri, la France et l'Allemagne sont devenues plus actives dans la valse diplomatique au Moyen Orient. Les ressources franco allemandes sont totalement activées et alignées sur les intérêts anglo américains sur le front diplomatique. Avant de se rendre en Egypte pour une visite d'état, la chancelière Angela Merkel a déclaré que l'Allemagne et l'UE redémarreraient le processus de paix arabo israélien. (8) Des diplomates franco allemands et l'UE ont aussi harmonisés leurs efforts avec l'Arabie Saoudite pour ce qui est de calmer les Palestiniens. (9)

 On peut dresser de nombreux parallèles entre la marche vers la guerre de 2002 et 2003, en relation avec l'Irak et l'actuelle marche vers la guerre contre la Syrie et l'Iran. L'un de ses parallèles c'était l'initiative de la Maison Blanche pour ranimer le « processus de paix arabo israélien » ainsi nommé, et aider à l'établissement d'un état palestinien indépendant avant l'invasion anglo américaine de l'Irak.

 Il y a un lien étroit entre les guerres américaines au Moyen Orient et les ouvertures faites en direction des Arabes pour la création d'un état palestinien. Les Accords d'Oslo ont également été liés à la défaite de l'Irak en 1991 lors de la Guerre du Golfe. Est-ce pour cela que George W. Bush a plus parlé de la menace de l'Iran que de paix lors de sa tournée présidentielle au Moyen Orient et sa visite en Israël ?

 L'une des explications pour les déclarations US concernant l'état pour les Palestiniens, une façade, c'était de s'assurer qu'aucun des gouvernements clients dans le Monde Arabe serait renversé par des révoltes de populations arabes et remplacé. La Question Palestinienne et le soutien aux palestiniens sont un problème qui peut faire gagner ou perdre les cœurs et les esprits dans le Monde Arabe et avec beaucoup de populations musulmanes. L'idée c'est tant qu'il y a un silence temporaire sur le front palestinien, des nouveaux fronts peuvent être ouverts sans créer une révolte de masse au Moyen Orient et ailleurs.

 Consultation de guerre OTAN-Israel aux Quartiers Généraux de l'OTAN à Bruxelles

 Une trame consistante se construit impliquant l'OTAN, l'Est Méditerranéen, et la « Guerre Mondiale Contre le Terrorisme ». Fin juin 2007, Avigdor Lieberman et des responsables israéliens ont eu des rencontres de haut niveau avec des responsables de l'OTAN aux Quartiers Généraux de l'OTAN à Bruxelles. (10) Le vice secrétaire général de l'OTAN, Alessandro Minuto Rizzo d'Italie, et une délégation israélienne conduite par Avigdor Lieberman ont discuté le déploiement anticipé d'unités et forces de l'OTAN dans la Bande de Gaza (11)

 Le vice secrétaire général de l'OTAN et le côté israélien ont aussi discuté du déploiement d'une force internationale à Gaza pour maintenir l'ordre et empêcher les Palestiniens de s'armer. (12) Les rencontres ont aussi porté sur l'Iran et la question des défenses aériennes d'Israël, et l'approfondissement de la coopération des services secrets entre l'OTAN et Israël. (13) Avigdor Lieberman est rentré en Israël après ses rencontres en Europe Occidentale, en affirmant à la radio de l'armée d'Israël que les US, l'UE, et l'OTAN avaient donné le « feu vert » à Israël pour initier une guerre au Moyen Orient en lançant une attaque contre l'Iran à une date non révélée. (14)

 En 2004 l'OTAN a donné à Israël le « feu vert » pour commencer une guerre contre l'Iran à une date non révélée.

 « L'Iran est un pays compliqué et il ne semble pas qu'Israël ait le pouvoir de le contrer (défier). » Javier Solana responsable de la politique étrangère et de la sécurité pour l'UE et ancien secrétaire général de l'OTAN (Der Tagesspiegel)

 Après son retour de voyage en Europe de l'Ouest et suite aux entretiens qu'il y avait eu aux Quartiers Généraux de l'OTAN, l'ancien ministre israélien des affaires stratégiques, Avigdor Lieberman, a dit début juillet 2007 qu'il avait reçu l'accord tacite de l'UE, les US et l'OTAN pour initier une attaque militaire israélienne contre l'Iran. « Si nous commençons des opérations militaires seul contre l'Iran, alors l'Europe et les US nous soutiendrons » a dit Avigdor Lieberman à la radio de l'armée israélienne dans un message à destination des soldats, suite à son voyage et à ses rencontres avec des responsables de l'UE, José Maria Aznar d'Espagne, et le vice secrétaire général de l'OTAN.

 Avigdor Lieberman a aussi affirmé qu'à cause des guerres en Afghanistan et en Irak, les US, la Grande Bretagne et leurs alliés européens étaient dans l'impossibilité d'initier une guerre contre l'Iran et ses alliés, mais étaient d'accord pour autoriser Israël à attaquer l'Iran.

 Avigdor Lieberman a aussi affirmé que les US et l'OTAN interviendraient au côté d'Israël une fois que la guerre contre l'Iran et ses alliés aurait démarré. Le message transmis à Lieberman par l'OTAN et les responsables de l'UE c'était qu'Israël devait «empêcher lui-même la menace » ce qui veut dire qu'Israël doit lancer une guerre contre l'Iran et ses alliés régionaux. (15)

 Israël sera protégé par l'OTAN dans un scénario de guerre contre l'Iran et la Syrie

 « La meilleure façon de fournir à Israël ce supplément de sécurité c'est d'actualiser sa relation avec le bras armé collectif de l'Occident : l'OTAN. Que cette actualisation de la relation culmine avec Israël devenant membre de l'OTAN ou simplement une garantie d'une relation stratégique et opérationnelle (défense) bien plus étroite, cela peut être discuté. Après tout, une garantie classique sécuritaire exige des frontières reconnues pour être défendues, quelque chose qu'Israël n'a pas aujourd'hui. Arranger une actualisation de la relation Israel-OTAN nécessitera une diplomatie prudente et une planification. » Ronald D. Asmus, directeur exécutif du German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Center à Bruxelles (21 Février 2006) »

 Israël ne peut pas défier l'Iran militairement. Le Téhéran militaire est au-dessus des capacités d'Israël, malgré l'illusion de la puissance d'Israël. Tel Aviv ne lancera pas une guerre contre l'Iran si les US et l'OTAN ne sont pas partenaires dans l'opération militaire.

 Dans un tel scénario, les US, la Grande Bretagne, et l'OTAN rallieront immédiatement, ou presque immédiatement Israël, comme l'a déclaré Avigdor Lieberman.

 C'est un arrangement prémédité. Les dirigeants de l'OTAN diront à leurs citoyens qu'Israël a été obligé d'attaquer l'Iran par peur et à cause de « son droit d'exister ». Puis ils resserreront les rangs autour d'Israël. Il faut également déclaré que quand le « droit d'exister » d'un organisme vivant s'impose au dépend du droit d'exister de tout ce qui se trouve autour, alors cela devient une menace comme le cancer.

 En mars 2006, on a rapporté en Grande Bretagne que des responsables de l'OTAN avaient sous entendu qu'ils joueraient un rôle dans une attaque US-Israel contre l'Iran.

 Sarah Baxter et Uzi Mahnaimi ont rapporté que le général en chef Axel Tüttelmann, le commandant de l'AWAC (Airborne Early Warning and Control Force – Force Aérienne d'Alerte Précoce et de Contrôle) de l'OTAN a affirmé aux responsables israéliens que l'OTAN serait impliquée dans une future campagne contre les Iraniens. (16)

 « Les commentaires du Général en chef Tüttelmann ont révélé que l'alliance militaire (l'OTAN) pourrait joué un rôle de soutien si l'Amérique (et Israël) lance des attaques aériennes. » Le rapport a aussi révélé que le général en chef avait présenté aux Israéliens une démonstration de l'avion de surveillance d'alerte précoce de l'AWAC. (17) Les démonstrations des avions de surveillance de l'OTAN suggérent l'existence de préparations conjointes Israel-OTAN de guerre.

 L'analyste en études stratégiques Patrick Cronin de l' International Institute for Strategic Studies (Institut International d'Etudes Stratégiques) a dit au Guardian (GB) en 2007, que si Israël insistait pour frapper l'Iran, les US devraient mener« une action décisive », insinuant par là que l'Amérique entrerait dans la guerre initiée par Israël, au côté d'Israël. (18)

 Israël travaille à créer une atmosphère et un environnement stratégiques : mais pour qui ?

 Napoléon Bonaparte une fois a dit : « on ne doit pas laisser les incidents internationaux façonner la politique étrangère, la politique étrangère doit façonner les incidents ». Quelque soit ce qui est affirmé et dit sur ce personnage historique, c'était un génie militaire et un grand homme d'état. Au cours de sa vie, l'officier Corse s'est élevé lui-même au grade de général et est devenu l'Empereur de France, roi d'Italie, protecteur de la Confédération du Rhin, et Médiateur de la Confédération Helvétique (Suisse). Ses campagnes l'ont mené des pyramides d'Egypte et ses collines de la Péninsule Ibérique jusqu'aux plaines de Pologne et les bords de fleuve à Moscou. C'était un homme de tête qui connaissait très bien la profondeur des relations internationales et la politique des incidents.

 Si Napoléon était encore en vie, il n'aurait pas été surpris des évènements qui secouent l'environnement mondial, spécialement au Moyen Orient. Aujourd'hui, la politique étrangère façonne encore les incidents internationaux. Israël a été une entité combattant et luttant pour sculpter et façonner son environnement stratégique.

 Si les US ou la Grande Bretagne devaient prendre l'initiative de lancer une guerre, leurs dirigeants politiques devraient faire face à une violente opposition de l'opinion publique qui pourrait menacer l'establishment anglo américain et même créer une instabilité nationale. Mais si Israël lançait une guerre la situation serait différente.

 Si Israël devait lancer une guerre au prétexte de se défendre d'une menace croissante iranienne, les US et l'OTAN interviendraient pour « protéger Israël » des représailles iraniennes sans avoir l'air d'avoir commencer une guerre internationale illégale.

 Le blâme serait porté sur les israéliens pour la guerre plutôt que sur l'administration US et son indéfectible allié britannique. Les dirigeants politiques occidentaux avanceraient comme argument que c'est le devoir national de protéger Israël quelque soit les violations israéliennes du droit international.

 Armageddon nucléaire au Moyen Orient : Israël ciblerait le Monde Arabe et l'Iran avec ses armes nucléaires ?

 Selon ce qu'écrit Norman Podhoretz, l'un des pseudo intellectuel derrière la politique étrangère de l'administration Bush Jr, dans l'édition de février 2008 du Commentary Magazine, « la seule alternative qui semblait pour moi plausible même de loin c'est qu'il ( George.W. Bush) pourrait sous traiter le boulot (pour commencer une guerre contre l'Iran) aux Israéliens. »

 Non seulement Podhoretz a-t-il appelé à ce que Tel Aviv attaque l'Iran pour les US, il a aussi affirmé qu'une guerre nucléaire au Moyen Orient entre les Israéliens et les Iraniens est inévitable, sauf si l'Iran est bombardé. Ceci malgré le fait que le programme d'énergie nucléaire iranien a été certifié comme étant pacifique par l'AIEA. Sur la base du travail d'Anthony Cordesman, Podhoretz a aussi mis en avant l'idée qu'Israël devra éliminer ses voisins arabes, tels que l'Egypte, et la Syrie (même si comme l'Egypte ils sont alliés d'Israël, et ont signé un accord de paix avec lui.)

 Selon les propres termes de Podhoretz : « dans l'horrible scénario que décrit Cordesman, des dizaines de millions mourraient effectivement, mais Israël- malgré que sa population civile serait décimée et malgré la destruction de ses principales villes – survivrait même si seulement à peine comme une société fonctionnant. Ce ne serait pas le cas de l'Iran, ni de ses (voisins) arabes les plus importants, particulièrement l'Egypte et la Syrie car Cordesman pense qu'Israël devrait aussi les viser pour « s'assurer qu'aucune autre puissance peut capitaliser sur une attaque contre l'Iran. » De plus, Israël pourrait être amené par désespoir à s'en prendre aux puits de pétrole, raffineries et ports dans le Golfe Persique. »

 Osirik/Osiriq déjà vu : Une attaque israélienne contre l'Iran en gestation ?

 On doit noter que Pervez Musharraf a commencé un tour d'Europe en même temps que les tours présidentiels du président américain et de Nicolas Sarkozy au Moyen Orient, et la démission d'Avigdor Lieberman du cabinet israélien. (19). Le but du voyage de Musharraf c'est de se coordonner avec l'UE, et l'OTAN à Bruxelles, de même que de visiter la France, la Grande Bretagne et la Suisse. (20) Le voyage de Musharraf a lieu au moment ou le Pakistan traverse une crise politique de division et à la vieille d'appels d'Israël pour une guerre contre l'Iran.

 Le secrétaire général de l'OTAN, Jakob (Jaap) de Hoop Sheffer a aussi rendu visite aux Emirats Arabes Unis peu de temps après les déplacements de G.W.Bush et Nicolas Sarkozy ; de Hoop Sheffer a dit à ses hôtes d'Abu Dhabi que l'OTAN travaillerait dans le Golfe Persique pour contenir l'Iran. (21) Le secrétaire général de l'OTAN a aussi défini l'Iran comme une menace commune à la fois pour le GCC et pour les membres de l'OTAN. Ses voyages et déclarations sont dans la ligne des plans anglo-américains et franco-allemands au Moyen Orient pour affronter l'Iran. Alors qu'il était aux Emirats, le secrétaire général de l'OTAN a également laisser entendre que l'OTAN serait impliqué dans un conflit arabo-israélien, qui, comme on l'a noté, est en préparation depuis plusieurs années.(22)

 Des déclarations alarmantes ont fait état de tentatives menaçantes de Tel Aviv pour attaquer l'Iran, tentatives menées depuis 2004 et devenues plus fortes. Lors de la conférence 2008 d'Herzliya, une conférence annuelle israélienne sur la sécurité nationale, John Bolton a encouragé Tel Aviv à bombarder l'Iran tandis qu'il mentionnait l'attaque aérienne israélienne de septembre 2007 contre la Syrie comme précédent pour une autre attaque. (23) Ironiquement, Ehurd Barak a commencé à affirmer fi n janvier 2008 que l'Iran est dans les étapes finales de fabrication de têtes nucléaires, tandis que le gouvernement israélien annonçait le succès de ses missiles porteurs de têtes nucléaires (24).

 Paris a aussi suggéré qu'Israël commencera une guerre avec l'Iran; dans une interview au Nouvel Observateur, Nicolas Sarkozy a déclaré que la possibilité qu'Israël commence une guerre contre l'Iran était bien plus grande qu'une attaque américaine contre l'Iran. (25) Le Secrétaire National à la Sécurité, Michael Chertoff, a aussi confirmé que les US ne lancerait aucune attaque contre l'Iran dans une interview à RIA Novosti (26)

 L'Iran et la Syrie ont déclaré qu'ils sont prêts à se protéger et lanceraient des représailles en cas d'agression israélienne. (27) Partout au Moyen Orient les forces qui résistent au contrôle étranger sont en état d'alerte contre toute forme d'hostilité israélienne. « Si Israël lance une nouvelle guerre contre le Liban, nous leur promettons une guerre qui changera la face de toute la région » le secrétaire général du Hezbollah Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah a-t-il ainsi prévenu Tel Aviv, en anticipation d'une nouvelle agression israélienne au Moyen Orient pendant une cérémonie publique à Beyrouth. (28)

 Israël :un instrument de la politique étrangère US au Moyen Orient

 Tel Aviv a fourni des preuves aux affirmations de ses opposants qu'il est un outil des projets coloniaux au Moyen Orient. La majorité des Israéliens eux-mêmes sont manipulés par un système complexe incluant la désinformation par les médias, susciter la peur, et un conditionnement psychologique de longue date. Le sang israélien est utilisé pour opprimer, tuer, s'approprier, et alimenter les machines des empires économiques. Le Mercantilisme est toujours très vivant, mais sa forme a muté.

 Israël, par le biais de ses responsables et de ses dirigeants gouvernementaux, est utilisé pour maintenir la tension au Moyen Orient. Israël est un instrument qui justifie l'intervention anglo américaine et franco allemande. Pourquoi les US se sont –t-ils mis en colère contre Israël parce que Tel Aviv ne mettait pas en danger ses propres intérêts en attaquant la Syrie pendant la guerre d'Israël contre le Liban en 2006 en refusant d'affronter la colère de l'Iran et de la Syrie dans une guerre régionale étendue ? (29)

 Malgré les demandes et opinions d'une majorité de la population israélienne, Ehud Olmert, un homme qui est connu pour sa corruption alors qu'il était maire de Jérusalem Ouest, est toujours au poste de premier ministre. Tout comme la volonté démocratique du peuple américain a été ignorée en ce qui concerne l'Irak, la volonté démocratique des Israéliens a été ignorée pour ce qui est de faire partir Ehud Olmert. Comme dans bien d'autres endroits, les intérêts de la population d'Israël n'ont aucune importance pour les échelons supérieurs du pouvoir. Les dirigeants israéliens ne servent pas les intérêts des Israéliens, ils sont au service du i(« Consensus de Washington ».]i

 La coalition d'Ehud Olmert peut durer suffisamment longtemps pour commencer une guerre régionale. La carrière politique du premier ministre Ehud Olmert est pratiquement terminée et il n'a rien à perdre en démarrant une autre guerre. Avigdor Lieberman, l'homme qui a conduit les consultations de haut niveau avec l'OTAN de la part de Tel Aviv, a quitté le cabinet israélien pendant la visite de G.W.Bush en Israël lors du voyage présidentiel récent de ce dernier au Moyen Orient. Lieberman a déclaré que son départ était à cause des « pourparlers de paix » avec les palestiniens, mais en réalité il a pris la décision à cause de la Commission Winograd et comme tactique pour maintenir le parti Travailliste d'Israël dans le gouvernement de coalition d'Ehud Olmert. C'est une tactique pour donner suffisamment de vie et de temps au gouvernement d'Ehud Olmert pour lancer une guerre régionale en essayant d'attaquer l'Iran.

 Même les ennemis d'Israël sont d'accord pour reconnaître que Tel Aviv est un proxy des intérêts étrangers anglo-américains. Le Contre Amiral Ali Shamkhani, ministre de la défense d'Iran en 2004, a prévenu le gouvernement US qu'en cas d'attaque par Israël, les représailles militaires iraniennes seraient dirigées à la fois contre les US et lsrael. On admet sur ce point que si Tel Aviv lançait une guerre, il devrait recevoir le feu vert des US avant de commencer les attaques. (30) La Maison Blanche a aussi été complètement impliquée dans tous les tests de missiles israéliens et les préparations de guerre israéliennes ont impliqué une coordination israélo américaine via de tels institutions comme le Israeli-U.S. Joint Political Military Group- Groupe Conjoint Politico Militaire Israelo-US. (31)

 Suite à la guerre de 2006 contre le Liban, le vice secrétaire général du Hezbollah Sheikh Naim Qassam (Kassam) a déclaré dans une interview à la TV Al Manar : « qui a commencé la guerre ? Israël. Il se trouve qu'Israël n'a pas répondu de façon proportionnée, mais plutôt pour exécuter des décisions pré planifiées américaines. L'agression a été planifiée d'avance. » (32) Sheikh Naim Qassam a de plus accusé « Israël de fonctionner comme le bras armé des Etats-Unis ». Sheikh Naim Qassam a expliqué que «tout le monde a toujours dit qu'Israël tire les ficelles de l'Amérique, mais actuellement il se trouve que c'est l'Amérique qui dirige Israël. Israël est devenu un bras armé de l'Amérique » (33)

NOTES

 [1] Khaled Abu Toameh, PLO to form separate W. Bank parliament, The Jerusalem Post, January 14, 2008.

[2] Emine Kart, Ankara cool towards Palestine troops, Today's Zaman, July 3, 2007.

[3] Dominique René de Villepin, Déclarations de Dominique de Villepin à propos du Grand Moyen-Orient, interview with Pierre Rousselin, Le Figaro, February 19, 2004.

[4] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, The Premeditated Nature of the War on Lebanon: A Stage of the Broader Middle East Military Roadmap, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), September 10, 2007.

[5] Israeli action in Gaza ‘inevitable,' Al Jazeera, January 14, 2007.

[6] Tom Spender, Israel ‘planning Gaza invasion,' Al Jazeera, April 4, 2007.

[7] Avigdor Lieberman: Israel should press to join NATO, EU, Haaretz, January 1, 2007.

[8] Germany to help renew Mideast peace efforts: Chancellor, Xinhua News Agency, December 10, 2006.

[9] Angela Merkel sets off to Middle East, Associated Press, March 31, 2007.

[10] Ronny Sofer, Lieberman wants NATO troops in Gaza, Yedioth Ahronoth, June 28, 2007.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] NATO: The US and Europe can not suspend Iran's nuclear program, Azeri Press Agency (APA), July 11, 2007.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Sarah Baxter and Uzi Mahnaimi, NATO may help US strikes on Iran, The Times (U.K.), March 5, 2006.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Julian Borger and Ewen MacAskill, Cheney pushes Bush to act on Iran, The Guardian (U.K.), July 16, 2007.

[19] Pakistan President arrives in Belgium for Europe tour, The Times of India, January 2008.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Indel Ersan, NATO chief urges cooperation with Gulf over Iran, ed. Andrew Roche, Reuters, January 24, 2008.

[22] Jamal Al-Majaida, NATO chief discusses alliance's role in Gulf, Khaleej Times, January 27, 2008.

[23] Yuval Azoulay and Barak Ravid, Bolton: ‘Near zero chace' Pres. Bush will strike Iran, Haaretz, January 24, 2008; Israeli Transportation Minister, Shaul Mofaz, also indicated at the Herzilya Conference that the years 2008 and 2009 will also see the last diplomatic efforts against Tehran before an implied military option (attack) against the Iranians. The Israeli Transportation Minister also made similar threats before saying that sanctions had till the end of 2007 to work against Iran until the military option would be prepaired. This prior threat was made as he led the Israeli delegation of the Israeli-U.S. Joint Political Military Group, which focuses on Iran, Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon. Shaul Mofaz was also the former commander of the Israeli military, a former Israeli defence minister, and hereto is one of the individuals in charge of the Iran file in Tel Aviv.

[24] Iran may be working on nuclear warheads: Israeli Defence Minister, The Times of India, January 26, 2008; Israel suspects Iranians already working on nuclear warhead, Agence France-Presse (AFP), January 16, 2008; Lally Weymouth, A Conversation With Ehud Barak, The Washington Post, January 26, 2008, p.A17.

[25] Sarkozy: France worried by Iran-Israel tension, Associated Press, December 12, 2007.

[26] U.S. will not attack Iran, Russian News and Information Agency (RIA Novosti), January 25, 2008.

[27] Bush trying to foment discord in Mideast, Tehran Times, January 28, 2008, p.A1+; Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, America's “Divide and Rule” Strategies in the Middle East, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), January 17, 2008; Nir Magal, Syrian VP: We'll retaliate for Israeli aggression, Yedioth Ahronoth, September 8, 2007.

[28] Hezbollah chief scoffs at Israel at rare public appearance, Agence France-Presse (AFP), January 19, 2008.

[29] Yitzhak Benhorin, Neocons: We expected Israel to attack Syria, Yedioth Aharonot, December 16, 2006.

[30] Anthon La Guardia, Iran wars Israel on pre-emptive strike, The Telegraph (U.K.), August 19, 2004.

[31] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Israel's Nuclear Missile Threat against Iran, Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), January 19, 2008; Hilary Leila Krieger, Mofaz warns sanction on Iran must bite by year's end, The Jerusalem Post, June 7, 2007.

[32] Hanan Awarekeh, Kassem: If Israel attacks, we'll show them surprise, Al-Manar, July 12, 2007.

[33] Ibid.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya est un auteur indépendant basé à Ottawa et spécialisé dans les affaires du Moyen-Orient. Il est chercheur associé au Centre de recherches sur la mondialisation.

 Articles de Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya publiés par Mondialisation.ca  




FIELD OF RESEARCH ACTIVITIES

Investigations in human science could be divided into the following spheres:

0.Categoriology and Practical Epistemology

Foundation of the universality of knowledge; universals of civilizations; prolegomenous questions in research; scientific methods of criticism (metalanguage of science, conceptual and terminological analysis).

1. Science of Collective Human Facts

Descriptive demography; data banks of cohorts, aggregates; inferences.

2. Egology: Behavioral and Psychological Self Studies as a Private Science

Patterns of external spatio-temporal behavior; categories for handling of introspective data and of self-decision; "equations" with normative and behavioral terms for complex personal decision-making.

3. Social Communication Science

Human social entities and processes as interaction networks and structures.

4. Human Ecosciences

Economics and ecology; systematic interaction of human social entities with the whole non-human sphere.

5. Societal Decision Making and Engineering

Operationalization of the system of public objectives; usable knowledge (applied science, trial and error) for societal and physical planning; complex (interactive) models.


RESEARCH ISSUES AND PRIORITIES

Sciences have their internal dynamics, since in most instances a new question is implied in the response given to a previous one. The history of science shows, however, that the selection of issues that receive priority, and to which are allocated material as well as intellectual means, does not necessarily proceed according to the inner logic of the science in question, but is largely determined by extrinsic factors, such as: authoritarianism, personality cult, position of power, political opportuneness that makes certain subjects fashionable (e.g., the energy crisis following the Middle East war in 1974). INU considers research priorities independently of these considerations and intends to counterbalance these tendencies with its limited means.

The determination of research priorities is an opportunity to return to essentials. As a matter of fact, recently the over-abundance of means generated a plethora of dubious, ephemeral, and theoretically unreflected data (esp. polls, survey and interview data) that obstruct outlook and encumber clear perspectives. In order to prevent further wasting of human and material resources, INU doesn't contribute to the proliferation of pseudo-scientific publications that serve personal promotion or vanity unnecessarily overloading our information systems. To this end INU often publishes research results anonymously and determines research priorities only according to its own criteria.

In general terms, INU considers it imperative for the development of the human sciences today that assumptions inherent in the concepts used be revisited and made explicit before generating new data. In the light of this conceptual control, data should be reevaluated, unreliable or invalid data discarded from data banks (however costly their production proved to be), and other data should be reinterpreted in this perspective.

The subsequent list of priority research topics doesn't claim to be exhaustive but represents an invitation to reflection. At the same time INU has neither the intention nor the means to carry out research on all these questions on its own, but rather submits them as suggestions to fellow researchers.

1. Issues of the epistemology and sociology of scientific knowledge (esp. human sciences).

What are the requirements for a publication to be called a "communication in human sciences"?

How can it make its content controllable in order to detach scientific knowledge from journalism at least as clearly as a publication in physical science does?

Anatomization: syntactic rules, terms (defined technical and non-technical terms: e.g., verbs), direct (experimental) or indirect (inferential) falsifiability.

Which format facilitates (or hinders) the scientific control of the publication's content?

Pragmatics of scientific communication process; texts and hypertexts, transparency (formal versus natural language) and exclusion of distracting extrascientific argumentation (such as terms with affective connotation, stylistic prowess, unproductive professional ritual and mannerism, plain authoritarian arguments).

By which procedure can scientific criticism (book reviews, etc.) fulfill its control function?

Development of scientific methodology for criticism (metalanguage of practical epistemology, criticism of actual book review praxis of scientific periodicals).

Threshold of scientific communication: the entry of a title in a special bibliography. Elements and construction of a scientific title. Methods for automatic selection and abstracting. Thesaurus construction.

2. Issues in studies of the making of a world civilization.

(See Current main project.)

How does a civilization define itself by its universals?

How should coexisting civilizations be enumerated as geopolitical blocks? How can current geographical and political labeling prejudge the enumeration of actually coherent blocks?

How is the spatio-temporal variety of living civilizations being reduced to a mainly temporal succession of civilizations, (from "aires" to "ères") a globalistic doctrine of econo-centered development?

How does the different approach to international social policy and humanitarian action delineate and classify subsidiarily coexisting civilizations?

Degrees of solidarities... Universalist-altruistic versus particularist...Solidarity by shared script(ure), ancestral affiliation (race-preservation) and/or shared collaboration for livelihood (collective self-preservation).

Are true universals of a world civilization in the making or just one-sidedly Western values and categories diffused by global communication?

Coexisting and dominant civilizations. (Criteria for their enumeration and mapping... Classifications... Ideo-pictographic... Alphabetic scripts... Oral...Categorial and conceptual arrangement of their thoughts.)

Civilizational interactions. Descriptive assessment of the world's communication networks and flows with their dominant positions (Nodes of diffusion...The unique position of American-English... Broadcasting telemedia versus reciprocal processes... Existing systems, tendencies, policies...)

The universal character of specific scientific knowledge (Conditions... Characteristics... Proofs through its predictive power and replicability in application.)

Underlying assumptions of concepts and theories. (Universals of general models.. in systems theory.)

Which kinds of approach to problem-solving did different civilizations develop?

Their assessment from this viewpoint...Relative effectiveness of scientific problem-solving...Inadequacy of end-means dichotomy models... Non-analytical, action-oriented, interactive and other problem-solving procedures... Immediacy of goal achievement... Satisfaction...
Behavior of other mammalia in life situations.

3. Issues of objective sociology.

How can social behavior be studied exclusively by correlations between external (physical) variables?

Macro- and micro-population systems, geographical distribution, movements.

Spatio-temporal substrata of communication networks and structures. Face-to-face communication and telecommunication systems. Transformation by transportation. (Telecommunication- transportation tradeoff.)

Natural and architectural space variables. Sociological experimentation in built (artificial) space systems.

Probability of encounter as an urbanity index.

4. Issues in the study of the transposition of ecological phenomena into economic terms (the economics of primary resources).

How are natural (non-processed) goods priced?

Pricing of rare, non-renewable resources... Absolute ground rent...Differential ground rent... Urban land.. Artificial rarity and speculation... Oil prices expressed in the price of gold...

5. Issues of forecasting human actions.

How is the predictive power of a body of knowledge a criterion for its scientificalness?

Individual behavior...Social events...

Extrapolations and models..Limits in time and scope...Supervention as insufficient proof. (Incidental occurrence...Futurological sophism: repercussion of published predictions on future events and thus unverifiability of the epistemological value of past predictions. Self-fulfilling prophecy.) Modern augury: deliberate use of ideological effects ("Historical necessity", Cassandran alarmism, doomsday catastrophism...)

Is value-free forecasting possible and how could it be realized?

The exhaustive listing of alternative policy options...Tacitly accepted taboos and disregard of some possible scenarios. (E.g., Evaluation of the OECD's forecastings... Model adequacies. Dichotomic reasoning and suboptimal policy decisions: either unemployment or inflation...either unemployment or technological stagnation...)

6. Issues of policy evaluation.

What is the relation between categories of personal value judgment, those of collective choice, and those of external observation?

Value judgments objectivized in rhetorical policy justification. Goal-setting and decision-making...

How to compare ideal-types of societal systems?

Distributive and competitive systems...Archaic and technological progress-oriented...Other bipolarities...

How to measure the discrepancy between the rhetorics of ideal-type and the functioning of real-type systems?

Societal policy as a general, value order setting model...Political competence distribution among decision-making centers...

Societal efficiency and economics...

Efficient overall use of resources... (Discrepancy in growths of stock, shares, production and employment...) Production, distribution and conservation... with spec. emphasis on processes besides national accounts (Informal and quaternary sector...)

7. Issues of suicidology.

What is revealed by suicide?

The measure of eudemonia by its negative, the manifest negation of the value of life... Objective description. (Demographic... Of personal history... Life-cycles... Health... Life-long contacts... Social frequentations... Other activities.)

How can a counselor enter into the private science of self? How can he revise categories of self-image and enumerate alternatives?

Life problems... Perceiving... Analyzing... Solving...


CURRENT MAIN RESEARCH PROJECT
"GLOBALISM": GLOBAL COMMUNICATION WITHOUT UNIVERSAL CIVILIZATION
(5 active civilizations and the 3 elements of social cohesion)
Abstract

We are more and more in a Global Age.

It is well-known: our time's (a) instantaneous telecommunication, (b) worldwide (jet air) mass transportation and (c) increasing world trade globalize the social connectedness or coherence.

The social cohesion itself is structured by (a) social heritage preserved by various Scriptures, (b) parenthood for race-preservation and (c) collaborative (eco-)resource management for self-preservation.

Global Age and its rhetoric of "globalism" doesn't bring spontaneously universal civilization but rather the ambition for global hegemony of (1) the so-called "West", which does not recognize the necessity of civilizational cooperation based on reciprocal interdependence.

This corresponds to the tenet that the Western ideology, the economism, attributes to the model, which will and should be imitated by all. The vitality of the existing civilizations having other cardinal institutions and other core values than the Western ones such as (2) the Chinese and peri-Chinese (Japanese, Korean), (3) the Hindu, (4) the Muslim (originating in the Arabic Scripture of the Koran) and (5) the Brazilian (Afro-Euro-Indian) - American - alloy is denied, archaized and ostracized.

In short, we approach the exposed scope of the problem by identifying the active civilizations of our age as actors by their coherence and actual cohesion, as well as their specific relations and interactions. If we conjecture the existence of the enumerated actors, we do not privilege the relation between the West and Non-West but study all 10 competitive and cooperative relations between them. Finally, we overcome the Western-centered viewpoint also by asking the representative intellectuals of each civilization considered not only to discuss its own but in parallel all the 5 civilizations with its 10 relations. (See also G. Ankerl: Variation of the Concept According to Different Civilizations in Democracy and Tolerance UNESCO, Paris, 1995, pp. 59-78.)

 In 2000 we published the results of the first phase of the project (see INU Press) and work on the second one: A World civilization by Federation of civilization-states.


RESEARCH NOTES

THE WEST AND THE ARABO-MUSLIM WORLD

[Commentary by G. Ankerl, professor of sociology]

In my book on the peaceful coexistence of geopolitical spheres (Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese and Western) and in my papers published also in Hungarian, furthermore, in my article published in Magyar Nemzet on 10 April 2010 under the heading "What Can the West Do in the Interest of Reconciliation With the Arab-Muslim Sphere?" I expounded the independent nature of the Arab-Muslim cultural community. The flared-up popular movements raise the question of how they can be interpreted in a long-term and global perspective.

We can pick out two aspects in the objective description of the phenomenon. One: it can be considered as a new feature that, unquestionably and surprisingly, rather than arising under Western motivation, the movement was generated in the Arab-Muslim world itself, and it spread like wildfire, almost completely embracing the sphere of Arab speakers, be they Shi'i or Sunni populations. (For example, Sunni Muslims live in Tunisia and Egypt, while the majority is Shi'i in Bahrain.) Another neglected aspect can be related to this, namely the fact that this is not some kind of boundless internationalist movement guided by the slogan of "Proletarians of the world, unite!" In addition to the domestic demands of democratic rule, an important role is also played in the movements by the fact that the rule of the more or less despotic kings, princes (sultans), and other tyrants was not legitimized by referenda but basically by the western recognition of their power. (See the idea of the influential Saban Centre for Middle East Policy, Washington, that the US Government should continue to support with its advice the continuance of the oil-producing principalities, and attempt to replace the remaining autocrats with not yet compromised pro-Western "pro-consuls.") Therefore, it is not just an uprising but also a fight for independence that is going on in the Arab-Muslim world.

The West places its strategy on the comfortable world view that, outside its own sphere of civilization, it only recognizes the Chinese and perhaps Indian independent existence, and considers these competitive with its own only to the extent that they copy (to use Bill Clinton's words) the western market democracy. However, as the Arab-Muslim world has not yet managed to establish a state comprehensively representing its civilization (like, in addition to China and India, the United States in the West), the West simply ignores the interconnection of the Arab-Muslim geopolitical sphere, and in fact is treating it in its own way with salami tactics. Its moguls have been given the task to deepen the conflicts between Shi'i and Sunni Muslims, Arab and non-Arab Muslims - and the (pre-nationalism) tribal conflicts - although in its community striving for unity (ummah), Islam is the least discriminative doctrine regarding origin and nationality. I would note that we are only dealing here with the religious issue in so far as it is a cohesive force in a geopolitical sphere.

The majority of rebels coming from anonymous Muslim families - whether they practice their religion or not - probably were not members of the persecuted Muslim Brotherhood founded by the Egyptian Hassan al-Banna in 1928, whose membership was decimated by the dictatorial regimes. However, as the founder's grandchild Tariq Ramadan (who was naturalized in Geneva and is currently lecturing in Oxford) points out in his works, this multi-faceted movement that does not strive for exclusiveness, which has been fighting with political means for the independence of the Arab-Muslim cultural community from the very beginning, will perform an important role in the Muslim world of the new self-governments through its organization and widespread reach.

The question arises: what is the western trend based on, which ignores the ummah? Yossi Klein Halevi, a fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute, writes in the 3 February 2011 issue of The New York Times under the title "Israel, Alone Again?": "In its relationship with the Palestinians, Israel is Goliath. But in its relationship with the Arab and Muslim worlds, Israel remains David."

Nevertheless, whether we like it or not, the connection of the Arab-Muslim world has to be realized and recognized. The attempts at division and the wars waged on individual countries like Iraq or Afghanistan - possibly Iran - only lead to the West bleeding (to death), consequently, also to its geopolitical weakening against China.

We must start from the paradigm that when the West only supports Israel by demanding certain justified conditions - like ending the illegal colonization of Palestine - and adherence to these, our geopolitical sphere is not in an irreconcilable conflict with the Arab-Muslim world. If this in turn corresponds to international political reality, the West must strive for conciliation with the Muslim world as between equals, which would take the sting out of the extremist Islamic movements that are mistrustful of the West.

A historic opportunity is provided for this by the Muslim population's potent action for its all-embracing (both in terms of democratic rule in the country and international independence) self-determination, demanding a political system that is compatible with, even if not identical to the western model. This is the international significance of the current uprisings for us.

However, let us briefly review the issues put forward for maintaining the western dissatisfaction with the Arab-Muslim world, namely the flood of Muslim immigrants, the oil blackmail, and the Iranian nuclear threat.

When we talk about conciliation with the Arab-Muslim geopolitical sphere, this is about interstate political conciliation. As for generations no Muslim country's army has set foot on European land, it is the West that has to give up threatening actions with the military, attacking, or occupying Muslim countries under any pretext. Spontaneous personal immigration is basically an internal matter for every country. Western colonization has in fact opened wide the gates before it, however, the real establishment of self-governance in the Arab-Muslim countries could largely reduce this pressure.

In connection with the current uproar, as well as to the biggest Arab country Egypt, the West is also paying special attention to the "less populous" Arab monarchies owing to their rich oil reserves. As for ensuring the oil supply, just like all, more or less rare raw materials (see metals), it is unevenly distributed throughout the world. It is a normal phenomenon that every country depends on the others in something. According to the modern, liberal model of free trade, (instead of colonizing them,) the resources can be obtained through world market bargaining. In reality only the 1973 oil embargo, which afflicted the West, has remained in the memory of world political consciousness. However, it can be established that this was a response to the western attitude in the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Since Iran started to conduct independent politics, the West has considered it almost as a casus belli [Latin, justification for acts of war] that in the Middle East, in addition to Israel, perhaps the Persians will also obtain the nuclear weapon. Well, a country's deterrent potential does not in itself present a danger for all others. Only those deny this who base the world order on hegemony. Iran is not threatening the West. What interest would it serve for it to fire missiles at Hungary, for example? It was precisely Israel that did not accept the establishment of the proposed Middle East nuclear free zone. An agreement between the West and the Arab-Muslim geopolitical sphere cannot wait for David to defeat Goliath.

The Arab-Muslim peoples' democratic realization and attainment of self-determination provide a unique historic opportunity for the West to establish accord with them. Turkey's resourceful foreign minister could play an important role in this deal.



 MULTUCULTURAL COOPERATION AMONG SPHERES OF CIVILIZATIONS INSTEAD OF CONTINENTS

                                                                                          by Guy Ankerl 

The worldwide cooperation should be based on the various coexisting spheres of civilizations. The most significant are the Arabo-Muslim, the Bharati (Hindu), the Chinese and the Western one.  In respect to a global cooperation it is an important (geo-)political fact that the Chinese and the Bharati one already arrived to constitute civilization-states, while the (tricontinental) Arabo-Muslim and the Western have some important entities (like USA), but their larger political unification (umma) is unachieved (EU).

The toponym, ‘Asia’ as such have no title to participate in a global intercivilizational dialogue and cooperation. Even if it is today physically more or less delineated,  historically this ancient denomination has been used by various Western powers  as the ‘East’ - or non-West - ready for conquest. In the present-today effort to recognize the existence and validity of other rankings of human value as the West’s, it is a conceptual pitfall to look for so-called “Asian values”. Confucian’s, Hindu and Muslim value orders are not only different in some aspects from the Jewish and Christian ones but also differs among themselves.

For this very reason, - even if  since 2002 a loosely constituted  Asian-wide organization, the Asian Cooperation Dialogue exists, - the various Asian regional organizations such as  ASEAN,  SAARC, CCASG handle very differently the issues of  the so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Thus further work for global community should federate spheres of civilizations, and not proceed from the western-centered continental divisions of the globe. (Ref.: Guy Ankerl: Global Communication without universal civilization. Vol. I: Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western, 2000. “From hegemonic “Salvation of the ‘Third World’ to Cooperation among Civilizations”, pp. 339ff. G. A.: The Relativity of Human Rights within the era of  society based on contracts between  equals. In: International  Journal of Human Rights. London, Sept. 2011, 14-36.)

 

 



 



RELATIVITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS: RIGHT TO LIFE (LIVING) AND TO PRIVATE PROPERTY (INHERITED CAPITAL) IN A SOCIETY BASED ON CONTRACTS BETWEEN EQUALS) 



            Following  Locke and Pufendorf  in the XVII century and then Rousseau and Kant in the XVIII century the Western Enlightenment developed, in the fight against the authority of the aristocracy by birth and against the spiritual authority of the clergy, a liberal model of society based on an individualistic value order (J. Beckert: Inherited Wealth, Princeton UP, Princeton, 2008. Original edition: Unverdientes Vermögen, Campus, Frankfurt, 2004, 29). This model is built upon everyone’s equal rights and upon a society constituted solely of ‘market-type’ relations contracted between individuals with self-determination. So man should be born into a society in which no social discrimination disturbs the equality of chance. (It is to be remarked that society has nothing to say regarding the in-born natural gifts but does regarding a given title, such as nobility, as well as capital transfer by inheritance. (S. J. McNamee and R. K. Miller Jr.: The Meritocracy Myth.  2nd ed. Rowman, Lanham, 2009, 55-64.) This secular doctrine postulates that, since this reasoning meets the natural human sense for justice, the deduced basic human rights are (a) natural ones (inalienable), with (b) universal validity traceable to the fundamental principles. Therefore they are in harmony with themselves and do not require a principle of ranking. Finally, (c) the state is no more than a constitution of means contracted by free individuals. (Hobbes sees it as a “compact for self-preservation and protection”.)

            Since in our time mankind is in possession of the technical means to construct a unified civilization embracing the whole world, it is above all timely to study the universal validity and applicability of the societal model offered by the West.

            For this inquiry the United Nation’s so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) from 1948, as an institutional embodiment, could constitute an empirical basis. This list of rights draws upon the “Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen” from the French revolution of 1789 (modified in 1793 and 1795.) (G. Chinard: La déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen et ses antécédents américains. Institut Français, Washington DC, 1945). It was completed in 1966 by two international covenants.

            First we will examine the concordance of the enumerated rights with the liberal fundamental principles and then the system’s internal coherence. John Locke and the natural right theorists presupposed a priori a harmony and therefore didn’t look for a principle of ranking. However, as the spontaneous unity of the human rights is not obvious, we must consider the ranking them. For paradigmatic reasons we will study chiefly how the ontological fundamental principle of liberal doctrine dictates the ranking of the right to life of man (including the means of living) relatively to the right to private property (including the right to inherited capital). This will be done on two levels, (1) that of the UDHR as a non-binding document and, (2) in light of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), in that of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

            After these normative considerations we confront the liberal norm system with the anthropological realities of mankind in order to learn its relevancy and applicability. For paradigmatic reasons we consider, especially, that aspect of man’s anthropological fate that each man is not born as a self-supporting adult (“self-made man”) but as a dependent baby into a particular civilization already in progress and into its history that is well under way. Thus, for the realization of the liberal utopia, man is born too early and too late.

            Two questions arise: (1) with these anthropological realities is it possible to reduce all human relations to contracts made between responsible individuals and (2) is the right of the transmission of private capital property by inheritance compatible with the equality of new-born individuals and their equal chance?

            Willy-nilly the humanist value order of the Enlightenment is only one of the existing and conceivable ones [G. Ankerl: Global Communication without Universal Civilization. Vol. I. Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western. INUPress, Geneva, 2000, xxvi], even if the West tries on all the occupied territories (of Dar al-Islam like Afghanistan and Iraq/ to educate the children in schools corresponding to neoliberal prescripts, raise them then in its likeness.

            Indeed, for neoliberal globalism the issue of the alternative world view is settled by portraying the Western one  as rationally superior, while labeling the others as archaic. Eclipsing all others, the Western civilization should be the prefiguration of the future world civilization. Yet, the real prospective value of a model can only be evaluated in the light of its fitting into the given conditions of human beings.

            As we just demonstrated, it is a primordial and inescapable anthropological fact that man, in opposition to some other mobile living beings, ie: “animals”, does not come into the world as a self-supporting adult. Consequently, before man can create a society with a network of contracts, he is at the mercy of the charity of the ‘full-fledged individuals’ community and its spiritual influence. Even man becomes only part of a determined human society as a speech community by learning “his” mother tongue. Before he can freely make a contract his parents put him, progressively, in determined, distinctive relations to his kinship, siblings, playmates (later co-workers), neighbors, fellow countrymen, to the followers of a Script, as well as to the other animals and the animate as well as the inanimate world. As a matter of fact, all existing societies are held together and function by (a) axiomatic (pre-)Script, (b) genealogical reproductive ties and (c) contractual exchange for economical and ecological subsistence (Ankerl 49ff).

            The individualist prescript is one of many conceivable possibilities. In the extreme, ego-centered perspective, the individual can take the other beings in his surrounding as a simple means of his well-being and the whole society could be considered as simple means. (In fact the ego can be inspected only from the interior by introspection. Durkheim shows in the attribution of a soul to man the sacrilization of the individual (E. Durkheim: The Division of Labor in Society. Macmillan, New York, 1984 [1893]). According to John Locke, the relation of the individual to its environment consists in the taking possession of it. Possession of private property takes precedence over the existence of society (Beckert 71, 28, 7).

For example consider the case of a non-Western individual who falls into a Hindu nest and will be educated in that society. His first idea for survival will not be the appropriation of his environment by economic transformation but his adaptation to the universe. (For a true Hindu the present wave of fashionable regard for the environment, as well as for the rights of animals, seems a hasty patch up of the anthropocentric individualism of the Enlightenment.)

            We will now develop the presented material in the following order:

- first the principles of a societal order based on the equal rights of individuals;

- the concordance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights with their requirements and its legal application in the ICCPR and in the ICESCR;

- in the case of possible contradictions among these rights the determination of priorities by considering, especially, the relation between the right to life (living) and the monolithic concept of all types of private property as a absolute human right;

- the role of private property (right of inherited capital) in the new system of discrimination and in the establishment of a plutocratic dynasticism.

- Finally we raise the question whether the anthropological fact of the state of human capabilities at birth does not make, from the whole construction of a society based exclusively on contracts among equal individuals, an utopia which serves as a rhetoric justification of the existing Western societal model, where, in fact, only one discrimination is admitted; namely the right of inheritable private propert



 Guy Ankerl:

THE RELATIVITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS:

RIGHT TO LIFE (LIVING) AND TO PRIVATE PROPERTY (INHERITED CAPITAL) IN A SOCIETY BASED ON CONTRACTS BETWEEN EQUALS.

The equal human right to living 

(A reconceptualization of the right to life)

The liberal societal model based on the individualistic value-order was developed by the Western Enlightenment – in the XVIIth century by Locke and Pufendorf and in the XVIIth by Rousseau and Kant – in opposition to the authority of the aristocracy and clergy[i].

  This model recognizes an order based only on the equal right to life of all individuals and on their freely concluded – market-like – contracts and commitments. In this manner man is born into a society where social discrimination will not hurt equal opportunity for anyone. (Of course, the society has nothing to say about biologically inherited abilities. It is concerned only with treating people differently according to social criteria such as nobility, but also, in principle, to inherited capital wealth.)  The secularist doctrine postulates that this reasoning agrees with natural human rationality, and therefore the rights methodically deduced from these principles are inalienable, in line with the requirements of natural law[ii]. They are universal because: (a) they concur with the intuitive normative predisposition of all human beings;  (b) they are deduced from basic axioms and therefore they are eo ipso in harmony among themselves; and (c) the state itself is nothing more than an instrument constituted as an association by the free will of autonomous individuals. (According to Hobbes, the state exists for self-preservation and protection.)

Historically, authors often stated falsely that the concept of human rights was first formulated in the English Magna Carta of 1215. In reality, the Carta’s human rights concern not all human beings but only individuals according to their social function or rank. The recognition of the nobles’ prerogatives was the issue.[iii]

Now in our time, when mankind has at its disposal the technical means – in communication and transport - to construct a unified world civilization, it is very timely to study the universal validity and the applicability of the societal model offered by the West. The institutional appearance of this doctrine is the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, when the winning powers needed to give a moral backing to their success.  This catalogue of rights draws upon the French Declaration of Human and Civil Rights of 1789. In 1966 the U.N. produced two binding international treaties. First we examine how declared human rights conform to the basic liberal principles, then how the rights are in agreement among themselves. Where agreement is absent, we look for meta-principles that establish an order of precedence. As noted, John Locke didn’t give guidance on this question, since the believers in natural law presuppose an accord among them. However, general experience doesn’t confirm a general harmony. For paradigmatical reasons we give a high priority to the study of the relation between the right to life  – to man’s existence - and to private property (including transmission of capital fortune by inheritance).

After this normative reasoning we compare the principles resulting from these ideas with the real conditions of mankind in order to see their practical relevancy. Again, for paradigmatical reasons among the anthropological conditions, we lay particular emphasis on the implications of the fact that the human being  – in contrast to some animal species - is not born as an independent self-made man but as a helpless “unweaned baby,” dependent on a preexisting civilizational context. (The biblical Adam is the sole exception.) Indeed, obviously before men can constitute their society by free contract, all are exposed to the assistance and spiritual influence of adults. As a species capable of speaking, men will become members of a society by learning their mother tongue. So before the adolescent can contract freely, the educators of the little fellows give them a world outlook for coexistence and cooperation with their parents, siblings, neighbors, fellow citizens, with men in general, with other animals, and with the whole of animate and inanimate nature.

Two fundamental issues arise: 1) under these circumstances is it possible to base all human relations exclusively on free contracting among equals and 2) is the unearned inheritance of capital fortune compatible with the equality of all newborn individuals and their equal opportunity?

Willy-nilly, the Western worldview originating and outlined in the Enlightenment is only one of the existing[iv] world conceptions (even as the West, in occupied territories like Afghanistan, offers to assume the children’s education, putting them in school at a young age in order to form them in their Western libertarian likeness). Namely, the neoliberal globalism considers the value order of other civilizations on the premise that its own value order is rational and all others are archaic. It postulates its own value order as paradigmatic for the future and that, in the course of time, it will eclipse the others [v]. Yet, the pragmatic value of Western humanism for the prospective society can be evaluated only by answering the question of whether it fits well with the inescapable condition of man.

For example, in the eyes of those in the West who were socialized in an extreme anthropo- and self-centered[vi] spirit, all living beings that have neither soul nor the faculty of speech can be considered as simple means. For an ego-centered world view this handling of the external environment as a means can also extend to other human beings as well as to all of society.[vii]  According to John Locke, an individual perceives himself by introspection and relates first to his environment by taking possession of property;  consequently private property precedes the society.[viii] Now if we consider an individual born and raised in a Hindu nest, his first idea will not be to transform his environment by economic activity, as a Westerner will do, but to look for how he might adapt himself to the universe. (The Hindu and the Buddhist[ix] will consider our rediscovery of the legal status of animals as an improvised rehearsal of eternal principles.)

         According to our working plan we examine first the doctrinal base of the human rights system; then we study the case of the right to private property and that of the right to living; how these rights are in harmony with the UDHR; then with the two binding international treaties; and finally their relative ranking. We evaluate the societal implication of the extension of private property to the right to inherited capital. In the end, we discuss the question whether, on the pragmatic level, the liberal individualistic societal model necessarily meets the development of the helpless newborn human being better than the value order of other civilizations.

 

THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIETAL MODEL BASED ON CONTRACTS CONCLUDED BETWEEN EQUAL INDIVIDUALS

Now we develop briefly the basic normative requirements derived from theenlightened societal model that disregards divine revelation. We abstract from the consideration that this model is perhaps unreal from an anthropo-social viewpoint. Rawls, in his classic work[x] with reference to Locke, Rousseau and Kant, elaborated his general theory -  “justice as fairness” - and as “ideal-regarding principle”. It supposes a “hypothetical” “well-defined (!?) initial situation” in which “independent” and not “heteronymous” (cf., Kant) individuals make contracts[xi]. (It is strictly speaking an exchange or commutative justice theory derived from the market situation extended to the constitution of the whole society[xii] and state. Looking now again at the newborn human being’s initial situation, - and the saying  “We are born into history that is well under way” – it is clear that the whole society with all its connections could not be reconstructed exclusively by exchange contracts.)

1.The first epistemological definition of the individual as an ego is self-consciousness. Independently, whether a Self comes from a homozygote twin or is a true unique individual, he is exclusively the concrete location of perceptions and feelings. This prime “vécu” can be perceived only personally, subjectively from the interior existence. Even Max Weber’s pioneering  “verstehende” sociology could reconstitute someone else’s inner mental processes only indirectly by analogy involving all its epistemological uncertainty. This is the individual’s - the subject’s - inevitable primacy.

2. Each person, their plurality, everybody has the right to life, to existence, to living, to subsistence. This right has an ontological primacy; it is a substantial sine qua non condition for any other human attributes or disposing powers. (Aristotle speaks about the being and his property.) We can say that if this right contradicts any other right – for example the right to private capital or property or its inheritability - it should always enjoy a priority.

Let us explore an issue of definition and terminology that involves serious implications. If we will be truly precise in the formulation of the right to life, we should say “living human being’s right to existence.” This expression is a ponderous one but not without purpose. As opposed to the elegant expression “right to life”, it grasps the substance of the concept in its entirety. The right to life without a careful interpretation will be seen in an incomplete manner; namely, as with other rights – such as private property – it will be understood in a passive, defensive manner, simply as a right not to be killed, tortured, or illegally executed. However, unlike the nature of inanimate substances, life is a process. The right to life makes no sense without involving how life will be sustained. (If the Rechtsstaat left through indifference some people to die by starvation, the right to life in this state is not respected.) The fundamental point here is the complete definition of the right to life. We can add special human dimensions to the right to life, the right to existence proper to living beings endowed with the faculty of speech. Since the right to livelihood is an inseparable part of the right to life, we will use alternately the term right to “life”, to “living”, to “existence” or “subsistence” as the context requires.

Contrary to slavery and vassalage, the liberal bourgeois view proclaimed the individual’s “liberty” and “self-determination”.[xiii] According to the U.S. Declaration of Independence of 1776 it is self-evident that (a) all men are created equal, (b) have the right to life, (c) to freedom and (d) to pursuit of happiness. Johannes Kaspar Schmidt, alias Max Stirner, in his Der Einzelne und sein Eigentum (1844) examined this issue thoroughly. The liberal position from the outset relates the individual’s independent existence to private property, which includes the individual himself as well as the necessary environment for his subsistence.[xiv]

3. The equal right is an essential foundation of the liberal model. By definition, all individuals have the same rights; inversely, if a right can’t be provided to everybody, it becomes a privilege and can’t be a “natural” subjective right due to everyone. The principle of equality puts limits on the spontaneous “self-evident” private possession of the individual’s environment. Indeed, the possession of natural resources, which are available only in limited quantities, is mortgaged by everyone’s right to access a source of livelihood. This universal prerogative - like the absolute (land) rent – presents all private properties as mortgaged. The disposition of national resources - as Clifford Hugh Douglas stated in 1919 – should be viewed as shares or dividends belonging to everyone.

According to the liberal societal model the individual’s equal and independent existence enjoys  –at least conceptually – a natural priority. This is the posited initial principle for the constitution. The state or other social formations exist only as a function of the freely contracted obligations of responsible individuals,[xv] and consequently they dispose only on definite, transferred competency. (According to Rawls, man gives up some of his prerogatives  – except the inalienable human rights - for security and some economic advantages.) In this perspective the state can’t be considered as a given fact. In its nature the state constitution isn’t different from a market contract or agreement.

4. The social philosophers who conceived the capitalist society were concerned especially with the prior right to private propertytransferable by inheritance – and in relation to the state. Although the respect for private property has a biblical basis, these philosophers eliminated from their vision the divine creation, and were therefore obliged to look for other rational justifications for the natural right to property. Among the thinkers of the Enlightenment there is no consensus concerning that question of whether we can or cannot speak about rights in general before the existence of the state. The issue remains open how to distinguish in a secularized perspective between a moral requirement and a right without enforcement by a state.[xvi]

The individual right to property in its abstract general form appears to provide (a) privacy and (b) an external condition for sustaining oneself. (My house is my castle.) It should be immediately stated that according to equal rights, the private property necessary for privacy should concern only such objects that could be guaranteed for everybody[xvii]. (Compare a household farm plot with capital in money.)

One of the founders of Anglo-American common law (and constitutionalism), John Locke – and Samuel Pufendorf too – presupposes such natural rights exist before the state and enjoy precedence in relation to the state. The emphasis goes immediately to the “natural” possession of the environment by the property right and not to each person’s right to existence[xviii].

As Locke postulates the individual right to property as a natural right, he doesn’t do it by considering the other’s possible claims in a context of distributive justice[xix]. He considers only the right of an individual to possess, master, make use of his non-human environment. The initial situation is well illustrated in Daniel Defoe’s fiction, Robinson Crusoe.  By the way, Rousseau recommends the reading of this work in his Émile.

On closer scrutiny Locke’s conceptualization shows that he extrapolated the general right to all kinds of private property from a particular historical situation, namely at the frontier of English colonization. In the American Wild West, the immigrants found fallow land. Since these lands were unlimited, boundless and available, the immigrant became owner of an “abundance of land” which had no market value by its rarity. The lot became valuable when he weeded it. The right to the fruit of his work became inseparable from the land and he fenced off this lot from the land of native Indians.[xx] In reality, the right concerned effectively the fruits of his labor. From this particular legal situation Locke, on one hand, generalized the right to private property to all accumulated, “intangible” goods like capital, and on the other hand, he introduced tacitly the right to property by inheritance (even if it is for the heir an “effortless wealth”). The arbitrary nature of this right is characterized well by Robert Dahl.[xxi]

Ownership transferred by inheritance reveals a lot about the liberal interpretation of individual right to property; namely, on one hand, this “money-making” is not preceded by an individual effort, and on the other hand, some individual already in statu nascenti becomes proprietor of such a fortune that he can live his whole life without working. By this “freedom” the heirs have the advantage of a good start.[xxii]

Let us see, after condemning racial, sexual and many other forms of discrimination, how the late John Rawls categorizes the differences of inherited wealth. In his already quoted work, entitled modestly A Theory of Justice, he states that the inequality of inheritance is no more unjust than that of intelligence The range of discrimination resulting from succession compared with that of nature could be acceptable for a submissive religious man but not for a secular free-thinker, since one discrimination is natural and the other social and man-made.

In order to avoid a shocking effect of this categorization Rawls adds reluctantly the remark that the inheritance could possibly be an object of social control. He says this control is not necessary “provided that the resulting inequalities are to the advantage of the least fortunate and compatible with liberty and fair equality of opportunity.” [xxiii] It is clear that assuming these conditions is not obvious. Rawls doesn’t explain precisely how “equality of opportunity” can be realized. He says also vaguely that the basic institutions of the society are in danger, if difference in wealth goes beyond some limits[xxiv] (cf., concentration of capital).

In sum, following the previous reasoning, we can state that the legitimacy of the individual right to property is not on the same level of preeminence as everybody’s equal right to existence. The right to private “possession” is deduced from the fact that man should master nature. Private ownership is pragmatically justified by the hypothesis that postulates that comparatively it provides the best exploitation of natural resources and a result that will be useful for everybody[xxv].

After establishing that in a consequent liberal doctrine the individual right to property does not have the same prime legal standing as everybody’s right to existence, we also state immediately that the “privacy-argument” supporting the right of private property can’t be applied uniformly as it is often done by application of Roman Law. As we will see, the right should vary according to the form, scale, or aspect of the property. It cannot be indifferent to whether the object is a family house or intangible mobile capital, and that the legal bearer, the “individual” proprietor, is a physical person, an individual or a corporate body.

 

THE APPLICATION OF LIBERAL PRINCIPLES IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM: CONCORDANCE OR RANKING OF THE RIGHT TO EXISTENCE AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY

(The priority of the human right to living)

 

Even if an ideal-typical liberal conception of society based solely on contracts between self-created, adult and responsible individuals is unhistorical and does not match human reality, we can still think about it.  Now we call to account the consequent application of the liberal principles in international legislation. Namely, the charter of the U.N. refers to these principles. The Preamble to this constitution was the first in history to use the term ”human rights”. Based on this charter The Universal Declaration of Human Rights  (UDHR)[xxvi] was elaborated in 1948. Mary Ann Gledon, law professor at Harvard University, describes how four thinkers, - René Cassin, the Lebanese, and Charles Malik (both specialists in the Israeli-Palestinian issue), the American educated, Chinese native Peng-Chun Chang, and Eleanor Roosevelt, president of the commission - composed the right catalogue in the shadow of the commotion of the Second World War. The UDHR adopted by the U.N. General Assembly on 10. December 1948 enumerates 30 basic human rights. Its survey shows that this catalogue – despite its loftily worded title - is not exhaustive and doesn’t bear the marks of axiomatic composition. It reflects without doubt the value order of the victorious Anglo-Saxon powers, while the Vienna Declaration of 1993 embodies a more “plural grounding”[xxvii], the plurality of the value order of the diverse (co)existing civilizations. Despite this fact the system of universal human rights is represented as being unified and indivisible, and therefore there remains no place for ranking them.  The U.N. “unity resolution” in 1966 and all further U.N. declarations - like the just mentioned Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action - confirm the unity, equivalence and inseparability of human rights. This position doesn’t leave space for the rights’ ranking; however in the international “legislation” and in the requirement of the application we find de facto inequalities, priorities and neglects. 

It is striking that the various international human rights watch organizations – emanating from the West - are primarily preoccupied with respect for free speech – and right to freedom - and less with the poverty-stricken indigents’ living conditions. When in 1998 Mary Robinson, then president of the U.N.’s human rights commission, exposed that in spite of a permanent solemn confirmation of the equivalence of human rights, the respect for economic and social rights are less strictly called to account. The liberal vice-president of the European Parliament, Berthal Haarder, wrote in the New York Times[xxviii] that despite the unity declaration of Vienna all human rights do not have equal importance, since for example contrary to political rights the respect for the right to work could not be strictly required.  Glendon also says in her already mentioned book that in the affluent West we tend to concentrate criticism on the rights we don’t violate, - such as torture and slavery, - but we don’t say much about freedom from hunger and deprivation. As we will see later, at the same time, the right to life is interpreted in a narrow manner and separated from the right to subsistence, yet the U.N. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966  (ICESCR) in the second point of its article 11.2 recognizes the right to be “free from hunger”[xxix] as a basic human right.

      The human rights workshops supported by the U. N. and held in New York and Hong Kong also expressed the opinion that from the liberal viewpoint political rights are overemphasized over the right to have an adequate standard of living (ICESCR 11.1), and the right to living, according to human decency, is not adequately monitored. Although the issue here is “who will live and who will die”, the international human rights watch organizations, Amnesty International and Freedom House, neglect this aspect of human rights and have a “misguided priority” [xxx]

In the Preamble of the UDHR the U. N. states that the “equal and inalienable human rights” are due to “all members of the human family”. The two first articles prescribe brotherhood and equality without discrimination, while the third article declares, beside the right to liberty and security, the right to life. The §17 declares in general terms everyone’s “right to own property alone as well as in association with others.”

Let us look now more deeply into these articles.

According to the exposed basic principles of liberal doctrine (a) every human being has (b) the right to existence. This is so strongly a prime ontological principle that the right to private property can only be considered later mainly as a means to achieve the right to living; otherwise it can curtail somebody’s right to living.

If we compare how these two rights could be exercised, for the right to private property it is enough to declare passively the free exclusive right to disposal.[xxxi] In the West according to mainly prevailing Roman law and British Common Law, the property right is provided by the fact that the state – by force, if necessary —should prevent every hindrance to its free disposal. In the UDHR the right to life is also associated with the idea that it is enough to hinder any violent extinguishing of life. However if we compare the right to property and that to life we can observe their fundamental difference. While well-protected property is enduring, life expires by itself in time, even without violent intervention. For an effective right to life it is not enough to restate the biblical principle “not to kill”. The right to life does not exist without the guarantee of the means to its continuous subsistence. For this very reason Article 22 mentions the right to ”social security”, the § 23 the right to work and the § 25 the right to adequate “standard of living”. When the supposed exclusive private ownership of land or other means of production excludes others from exercising their right to livelihood, to work, - we can say - the entitlement to life has priority over the right to private property.

The UDHR of 1948 is an authoritative, benchmark document, but it is not a legally binding instrument. It can’t be called an International Human Rights Law[xxxii]. In the following decade the U.N. began to construct a legally binding international covenant. But meanwhile it became clear that because of the divergent interests and views of the different states belonging to various spheres of civilization there was not a spontaneous unanimity in the Assembly. The Western powers tried to limit the treaty to handle the political rights, while the former colonies and the socialist states tried to extend the treaty to the conditions of living. Therefore in 1966 the accepted international covenants resulted from a compromise: on one hand, the U. N. declared in the “unity resolution” the inseparability of the rights; on the other hand, the rights were not included in one but in two covenants - a political and civil, and another economic, social and cultural. Both have been accepted by the U.N. Assembly  (2200A[xxi]) December 16; however it remained open that some countries accepted and ratified only one of the two covenants. There is also a difference in the formulation of the two covenants: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) is expressed in mandatory terms, while the rights of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) – often called second generation rights - are formulated in conditional terms as simple aspirations which should be realized if the resources are available.[xxxiii] Characteristically the U.S. didn’t ratify the ICESCR. We can infer that the Western powers with the U.S. first in line indirectly ranked the basic human rights.

We examine now how the necessary rights for existence are present in the first and in the second covenant.

Both covenants lay down in the first article of the first part two basic principles: (§ 1.1) All people’s right to self-determination as well as (§ 1.2) the people’s right to free disposal of their natural wealth; and that “in no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.” The same principles are confirmed in § 47 of the ICCPR and in § 25 of the ICESCR. These principles are essential for the effective exercise and enforcement of the citizen’s right to living. The people’s declared right to the natural wealth existing in the country’s sovereign territory provides a kind of absolute land rent to secure the citizen’s subsistence. This is in line with the previously mentioned idea of Clifford Hugh Douglas about a dividend for every citizen derived from the use of natural resources. This prerogative has priority over the right to private property. (Note that the “right to own property” declared in the article 17 of the UDHR has not been repeated in either of the two international covenants of 1966.) This is a cardinal point, since it actualizes the requirement for the right to subsistence.

The ICCPR reproduces in 6. article that of the § 3. of the UDHR concerning the right to life, while the 6. article of the ICESCR states the right to work derived from the right to earn a living. Article 11. goes further since it posits the right to living in general, which also includes that of the disabled.

We can state that the two legally binding international Covenants give priority to the citizens’ right to subsistence (consequently their right to necessary access to the means of production) over the right to private property or capital equipment goods. We also can state that when the various human rights watch organizations are primarily concerned about the political rights and the freedom of the press and not the right to subsistence[xxxiv], they don’t act in the spirit of the two international covenants of human rights but to please the Western powers and the capital owners.

The right to life in a broad sense[xxxv] means the  “entitlement” to living. It includes all the have-nots. It embraces the right to living, the right to work, as well as an annuity for every disabled citizen derived from the use of the national wealth, and the right to work as a minimal expression of right to living. Historically the recognition of right to work goes back to the International Labor Organization (I.L.O.) founded by the League of Nations. To counterbalance the constitution of the Communist International in Moscow in March 1919, the I.L.O. formulated the right to work in a manner that is compatible with private property as the means of production. By the way, the I.L.O. was the only specialized organization that survived the League and became in 1946 the first specialized organization of the U.N. The I.L.O.’s[xxxvi] inspiration is present in the two international human rights covenants and in the Charter of the U.N. in § 55, which promotes the full employment.

In the legislation of Western countries, the comprehensive right to private property compared to the right to work is expressed as a priority. The I.L.O.’s studies show that in the present societal framework full employment cannot be realized by the labor market and self-employment alone. The state or other non-profit agencies must fulfill the labor demand. While the Soviet Union realized grosso modo full employment, it involved grave consequences. Not only all private property as a means of production was suppressed but the free choice of workplace, and in general the self-determination of individuals.  Individual autonomy became almost an unknown concept.

The two international human rights covenants that originated from the Western world of thought claim universal validity. However, following their adoption in 1966, in a pragmatic way, other spheres of civilization conceived their own human rights declarations, which integrated the value orders of their own traditions alongside the sole application of the individualist contractarian societal model. They try to put individual rights in relation to social obligations. Since man is born helpless without self-determination his rights are necessarily embedded in the rights of the family and other collectives. It seems necessary to involve communitarian aspects in the human rights conception against the West’s dazzling individualism.

It is not without interest to remind the reader of article 23. of the ICCPR, which states: “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”  Again, respect for the stipulation of this article doesn’t much interest the Western human rights watch organizations. Today Islam is especially preoccupied with the unique role of marriage and family in man’s procreating and sexual life.

Let’s now examine some regional human rights declarations. Within the Western sphere of civilization in 1950, - and before 1966, - the Council of Europe concluded a covenant about fundamental human rights that allows, - optionally and among others, - an individual to bring a case to the European Court against his own government. We also can add that the first complementary protocol of the treaty recognizes in the most general terms the right to private property, while the European Social charter, promulgated in 1965, mentions the right to work in a facultative and diluted form.[xxxvii]

When the Organization of the American States (O.A.S.) was formed in April 1948 in Bogotá, the American Declaration concerning Human Rights and Obligations was attached to the Charter. This declaration is not a legally binding document. In 1969 the American Human Rights treaty was established (c.f. ICCPR); in 1988, a complementary protocol about the economic, social and cultural rights (cf., ICESCR), and in 1990, a protocol suppressing capital punishment. The most important member of O.A.S., the U.S., didn’t ratify the three treaties, nor did the ICESCR.[xxxviii] The commission to provide respect for human rights has only an adductory and advisory function.

Outside the Western sphere of civilization, the Organization of African Unity - today it is called the African Union and includes 53 member states - drafted in 1979 and adopted in 1981 the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. This charter recognizes the individual’s right to migrate (§ 12), but it doesn’t conceive of the individual’s right apart from its rootedness in the collective. The second chapter posits the individual’s social obligations. It doesn’t rank political and social-economic rights but attaches particular attention to the latter.[xxxix] Respect for the prescription of the African human rights charter is not guaranteed by a continent-wide court, but only by the consensus of the states. Fundamentally, the cause of human rights remains an internal affair of the states.[xl] By the way, we can raise the question: beside the common burden of European colonization and the physical-geographical unity, what characteristics are held in common between northern-African Arab Algeria and the south Africa converted to Christianity?

And what about Asian human rights? Two decades ago, there was a lot of talk about it. Interestingly an important initiative came from one specific region. The former prime minister of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, the erudite Singaporean diplomat of Indian origin, Kishore Mahbubani[xli], as well as the former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Muhammad encouraged the idea. Indeed, the Malaysian Confederation, after two years of existence, broke up in 1965 chiefly on an ethnic basis. However the problem remained that half of the population of the new Islamic Republic of Malaysia continued to be not Muslim but Chinese and Hindu. It served the interest of the unity of these states to popularize the idea of a uniform Asian value order and a human rights system derived from it. Meanwhile, the West accused its propagandists of using the idea to cover up the authoritarian nature of these political regimes. As a matter of fact, Asian values and human rights are a false concern. It is a debate without cause, since it is objectless. Asia as a point of reference for a civilization that is non-existent. The geographical entity cut out since ancient times from Eurasia is not based on some civilizational uniformity. It covers roughly the artificial concept of ‘East’, which became a metaphor for designing one of the hunting grounds of Western colonization.[xlii] Concerning guiding ideas, Asia is composed of Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian and Muslim thoughts, which have no unified common ground in contrast to Western Christianity.

Nevertheless, in the last decades some Asian regional organizations have been established: in 1967 the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN); in 1985 the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC). While in 1981 the CCASG brought together the Arab States of the of the - Persian/Arab - Gulf. And in 2002 the sole comprehensive Asian organization, the Asian Cooperation Dialogue (ACD), came into being.

The objectives of these organizations are in general the promotion of economic development and the achievement of a position from which they can negotiate with the West on equal terms. Their charters don’t have a special chapter about human rights but the rights issue is embedded in the system of objectives of economic, social and cultural progress. Because of their cultural diversity, the member states don’t meddle in the internal affairs of other states, and, except in uncommon cases, respect for human rights remains the states’ internal affair.

The Western human rights watch organizations, swarming out of New York, are particularly preoccupied with eliminating the hindrance to the diffusion of the global media, and often criticize the non-Western regional organizations that are more concerned with economic human rights than with the individual’s political rights and basic freedom.

We will discuss shortly in the last part of our study the “universal” and “regional” aspects of human rights in a broader realization-focused basis. Note that unfortunately the regionalist praxis of the U. N. itself doesn’t help to approach the human rights issue in a larger less Western-centered way. Indeed, the U.N.’s regional divisions don’t reflect spheres of civilization that could eventually be characterized by some deep-rooted doctrinal traditions like Hindu, universist Chinese, Arabo-Muslim as well as Western. The groupings follow mainly physical-geographical ones, and even, from time to time, recent political divisions like the so-called East-European group of former Soviet satellite countries. These divisions also have no direct denominative civilization content.

          The anti-racist treaty, the so-called treaty of emancipation, of 20 December 1965 constitutes an exception (2106/A XX). In its 4-8 articles the U.N. states that the composition of the supervisory authority should be composed in such a way that different civilizations and legal systems are represented in a proportional manner. In this case it is not the physical-geographical division that is the base of equitable (universal) representation.

          Let us now return to the specific subject of the present study, surveying how the two international covenants follow the contract-based model concerning the right to life and the right to property.

         

- The U.N.’s so-called Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) of 1948 expresses everyone’s right to life (§ 3) and to own property (§ 17) in general.

 

- The exercise of these two rights makes necessary the fulfillment of very different conditions. The right to property needs only protection, while life without active constant nurture wastes away. Indeed, the § 25 of the UDHR enumerates elements necessary for the livelihood.

 

- Yet, the UDHR is not a legally binding document. The two U.N. international covenants of 1966, one, the ICCPR concerning political and civil human rights and the other, the ICESCR protecting economic, social human, and cultural rights, are legally binding. Though accepted simultaneously, the division of the rights into two documents reveals that the Western powers tried to formulate the first group in a more compulsory manner than the second one. The division also provided the possibility of ratifying not both but selectively one of the covenants. As a matter of fact, the U.S. didn’t ratify the second covenant and so, despite the declared unity of human rights, they became the subject of ranking[xliii].

 

- The ICCPR in its Article 6 expresses the right to life in a restrictive manner with the command “do not kill!”

 

- It is only the ICESCR that in its Article 6 recognizes the right to living and in this framework the right to work.

 

- Both international covenants recognize in the common part  (I. part § 1.2) the right of all peoples to free disposal of their natural wealth and resources. This right is repeated in the § 47 of ICCPR and in the § 25 of ICESCR.

 

- The public property of natural resources could be charged as a kind of absolute (land) rent to cover the basic need of the population (people’s dividend).

 

- The right to private property can’t be without limit. This is reinforced by the fact that neither of the two legally binding international human rights covenants (ICCPR and ICESCR) repeats the right to private ownership, declared in the 17. § of the UDHR.

 

-The “marble tablet” of human rights is not an axiomatically consistent and exhaustive system. Therefore it could be completed. Indeed, it has been first by the convention against racism (ICERD), in 1981 by the convention again discrimination of women (CADAW), in 1984 against torture (CAT), in 1989 for the protection of children (CRC) and in 1990 for the protection of migrants (ICRMW). However, not one of these additions reinforced specially the basic non-peremptory right to living.

 

- Everybody’s equal right to living is a sine qua principle of the individualistic liberal doctrine. This right could be institutionalized, on the one hand, by the people’s mentioned prerogative to the natural resources, and on the other hand, by the limitation of the right to private ownership of capital goods by the others’ right to work, more exactly to the sources of livelihood.      

 

- Finally, by virtue of the unity of human rights, it is inadmissible that the Western human rights watch organizations concentrate their attention arbitrarily and selectively with respect to some rights concerning the freedom of the press and other rather elite concerns, while they abstain from unmasking situations where the right to private capital goods hinders others’ right to living, since in the individualistic liberal model each one’s equal right to existence as a basic ontological principle should have a prior claim.

 

THE (MONOLITHIC) RIGHT TO PRIVATE OWNERSHIP AS A HUMAN RIGHT AND OUR AGE

We have just finished studying how the fundamental liberal norms are reflected in the international human rights covenants. The Western Enlightenment considered as a fundamental achievement of the societal model composed of contracts among equals, the “restoration” of the individual to himself by emancipating him from slavery and vassalage. This accomplishment also included the individual’s right to private ownership of his (physical) surroundings without mediation by the family, church or other social institution. The right had been declared “natural” or “normal” (Locke) and added the pragmatic consideration that natural resources are used best in this way.

Now we look at how this historical achievement is working out in today’s society. First we raise two simple questions:

- In today’s society who are the major owners of the largest part of private properties?

- What are the principal objects of properties?

In light of the answer, we will examine how the monolithic concept of property resolves into component parts in order to see how this right could be limited as a function of everyone’s prior right to living.

1. The ideal subject of the liberal owner is the self-interested pioneer entrepreneur – Robinson Crusoe. His private ownership provides[xliv] not only the conditions of his freedom but ensures the best use of goods.

The American constitution (which follows Locke’s line), apart from the state, which is constituted by the individuals’ contracts for service, recognizes individuals only as legal entities.  Today, what is behind the legal concept of the “individual” who has the sacrosanct right to private ownership? In 1800 individuals as a legal abstraction were 80 percent individual producers, while in 2006 only 7.3 percent are still truly individual producers. In accordance with these circumstances, in 2004 corporations “as individuals” produced 83.5 percent of national income, while the truly individual proprietors only 5.2 percent[xlv]. (It is consistent with this picture that 80 percent of American citizens have no inheritance.) 

The perversion of the “exemplary” American legal system is that most of the capital owners are no longer pioneers breaking up fallow land but are now corporations.  Corporations (not inaptly called in French societés anonymes) are personified legal persons, “individuals,” who are freed from all kind of social servitude. The most important object of private ownership is no more the immobile inherited home, the family cottage with its symbolic value, but the intangible capital of stock exchanges, or even derivatives of the less visible private exchange or Second Market.  While the pioneer entrepreneur taking possession of uncultivated land today has become – at least in the U.S and the West in general – a rare exception, based on this prototype and by tacitly extending the circle of individuals to the corporations — by this misleading terminology[xlvi]  — the latter enjoy all the individual’s “human rights.”

By the tacit transfer of individual proprietor’s right to corporations, neo-liberalism safeguards the interests of global capital owners who can pursue international financial speculation independent of productive processes. The most celebrated defenders of the absolute right to property forms the so-called Mont Pélerin Society in Switzerland, including the late Friedrich A. von Hayek, Ludwig E. von Mises, W. Röpke and today Milton Friedman.  We discuss here, of course, only the human rights aspect of the neo-liberalism.

It is possible that the liberal ideal is only an utopia, but in this case it should be openly and clearly stated, and point to those who profit from the ethical nihilism and cynicism of its loose interpretation and application; the acceptance of the neo-liberal outlook has a negative effect on the ordinary citizen’s respect for the law and on social solidarity[xlvii].

2. We discuss now the right to private property from the viewpoint of the characteristics of its objects. The American constitution has been tailored to the individual independent small owner-producers. Although the constitution of 1789 hasn’t changed, the main objects of property have changed. Property can be classed by its purpose and use-value. When demand exceeds supply, anything has a trade-in value[xlviii]. By market transfer, all property can be expressed in monetary value. Objects can be exchanged by this equivalence and the size of someone’s fortune evaluated.

A first group constitutes the object of personal use, mobile and immobile. This is the kind of private ownership – personal effects - to which personal attachment or affection is sometimes related.  As an example of this, the sacrosanct respect for private property is hammered into the heads of children during their socialization. If the exclusive and free disposal of private property could be limited only to this category of objects, neither the liberal nor any other doctrine would take issue. (Perhaps the familial or individual right of inheritance could constitute an object of discord. We will discuss this subject later on.)

The means of production constitutes yet a very different group. Of course, some objects are childishly associated with spade and hoe. In reality in this group we find very expensive objects. Often they enjoy exclusivity not only by their price. We can evoke the trade names that are protected as a brand. Sometimes a whole geographical locality or region is privately appropriated as a registered trademark and even the inhabitants of the region can’t put their own products into circulation under their place-name. It is clear that this right of private property could not be handled as a condition of everybody’s freedom.

In a third category we find natural resources. The unlimited private ownership of natural wealth could not be considered as a basic individual human right, since all international human rights covenants stated without ambiguity the peoples’ collective prerogative to freely dispose of it. Of course, this doesn’t exclude the possibility that some aspect of this ownership right could be temporarily transferred into private hands.

Finally, the objects enumerated above represent a monetary value beyond their physical identity. Today this value is expressed generally by a “government letter of credit” or banknotes. If it is possible to attach a price tag to any object, on the other hand, in our age the largest part of capital assets in the global economy can’t be visibly associated with physical objects, but only with a financial state. This is composed of various pledges, orders, agreements-for-sale, liabilities to pay, derivatives transferable worldwide instantly by electronic means from one kind of currency to others or to drawing rights. The private property of these corporate “liquidities” is the essence of today’s global capitalism.

When under the pretext of defending personal freedom and facilitating initiative, the ultraliberal school argues for the absolute right to individual private ownership, in fact, in today’s global economy, it militates mainly for the unlimited wandering of financial speculation[xlix].

3. Neo-liberalism posits the right to private ownership in a monolithic form. We now analyze the monolithic concept of private ownership by its components. This refined approach allows us to identify with more precision which aspect of the private ownership right can prejudice other more fundamental human rights such as the right of others to make living.

In general terms, property means the right to be in possession of value, and private property can’t exist without the exclusion of others. According to the Roman legal tradition private property has three aspects: (a) usus, (b) fructus and (c) abusus. The owner can use the object, lease its usufruct and convey his right to others by sale or donation, or in virtue of abusus even simply destroy it (the case of pure exclusion). It is a completely absurd idea that an absolute (unrestricted) right to private property of anything and all its aspects could exist. Fortunately the two international human rights covenants don’t posit the right to private ownership; but the constitution and laws of numerous countries  “enshrine” it without qualification.  The right to private property and the limitation of its practice could be judged only in the context of its aspects and in the light of the objects’ classification. A general, exclusive and absolute private property right could not be formed that applies uniformly to homestead, non-home real estate, immovable property and to variable movable, or intangible properties such as negotiable financial instruments, stocks,  bonds, capital shares and other assets.

As already indicated, the exclusive use of personal property - if it doesn’t concern a socially indispensable object - cannot be truly limited. As the Common Law states, its disposition is “free simple absolute”. Indeed, this kind of property interferes rarely with others’ right to living and work[l]. Only this kind of private property can be considered an external condition for a free personal and familial life. Without going into detail, it is clear that the fructification of the means of production as private property or its transfer to possible annihilation could be the object of limitation on others’ right to living.[li]

We should qualify, by the somewhat abused word “speculation,” disposals, transfers and other movements of financial capital that look for profit often unrelated to the trade of useful goods. And yet on a global level these operations account for an ever greater part of the transactions. These transactions on the stock market and other secondary private markets can usually be recognized by their rapidity, volatility and short duration. Contrary to appearance, most of these transactions can’t be characterized as ingenious anticipation that is necessary to accelerate the market’s adaptation; in fact most of the time it operates by a self-fulfilling prophecy, taking profits to the detriment of central banks and states (bonds). Because the concentration of global capital advances in relation to the yet fragmented state powers, the specific survey and limitation of determined property sectors is a very timely task. If its rapid spread is not contained, it can endanger the sovereignty of (indebted) states, and even more the entire national economies of small countries.[lii] As mentioned, these manipulations could be recognized among others by their speed, short-term, entangled and chaotic nature and therefore could be limited by appropriate international legislation.

The transfer of ownership (the abusus in Roman law) and the intergenerational accumulation of wealth by inheritance deserve special attention. Some capital, inherited by newborn children without personal merit creates discrimination that reduces the liberal principle of equal chance to nothing. Indeed, this free transmission of fortune allows some to live without effort, while others are perhaps even deprived of the possibility of work. The general effect of this practice on the societal system as a whole will be discussed in the following chapter.

The theoretical debate about the right to private property as a human right in general, shelters vested interests. As mentioned, contrary to the non-binding UDHR, the two binding international human rights covenants don’t mention the right to private ownership; however the constitutions and laws of many states do. We have here dissected the issue by its subject, objects and characteristics, and arrived at the conclusion that a general monolithic right to private property extended uniformly to all three aspects of ownership, to any proprietors (physical individuals and global corporations) and to any kind of property (family cottage or natural wealth) is incompatible with the most basic principle of liberal society based on everybody’s equal right to existence. 

We repeat again and again, if the justification of the right to private ownership is to provide personal freedom for everybody, this justification covers without reserve only the personal belongings. 

 

THE HUMAN RIGHT TO INHERITANCE OF CAPITAL AS A BASE OF “LIMITLESS” MODERN PLUTOCRATIC DYNASTICISM

The contemporary Western societal model is based on individuals and their equal rights. This means that the society should eliminate all of the newborn’s “use-values” that are produced not by nature but by the society. Reputed family names and all other social circumstances created by the society should not compromise the newborn’s equal chance.

Still the absolute interpretation of the right to ownership of private fortune is extended to its inheritability and other forms of transfer[liii]. Some infants could also be the heir-apparent of capital wealth. But not everybody! If we include in the private ownership of capital the hereditary right, the equality of the individual is impaired by the society at the very moment of birth.

From a secular viewpoint[liv], contrary to Rawls position, the inheritance of fortune could not be grouped with the “fatality” of inherited gift or intelligence. From the viewpoint of liberal doctrine, the fundamental hereditary right to fortune belongs to the same category as do inherited names or title by descent, since all these are not given by nature but by social decision. These are all differences attached to the person by the society, undeservedly at birth. Family and forename are relatively individual designations, but in an emancipated society it should not have more importance than a social security number, which also unequivocally identifies an individual but in a neutral, impartial manner. The enlightened legal system took aim at the suppression of the blue-blooded nobility, of “dynasticism”, of all distinction independent from personal accomplishment.  To repeat, from the viewpoint of the social equality of individuals, the inheritance of fortune should be classed with the inherited pedigree of nobility and not with differences in native talent. The point relating to matters of principle is that contrary to a viewpoint of fairness, if the liberal doctrine will truly exclude indiscriminately all kinds of socially induced privileged situations due to birth, and therefore suppress that of nobility but not that of inherited fortune, equal rights are not served, since the new human rights system makes an exception, an econocratic one. The inheritance of fortune encroaches upon the liberal value order. By admission of this exceptional social difference at birth, the new system becomes susceptible to dynastic tendencies, this time to a plutocratic one, where the specifically economic discrimination of the newborns violates the ground principle of the equal rights of liberal justice — the individual’s Ebenbürtigkeit (Beckert).

Before we characterize an era by a definite societal phenomenon calling it plutocratic dynasticism and studying its effects and consequences, we should learn (a) what is the proportion of the inherited part of the private fortunes in a society, (b) how is the inherited wealth distributed within the population, and finally (c) what is the distribution of private wealth in general within the modern “democratic” society.

Studies of the “caste-system” related to inheritance of fortune in the bourgeois society are sparse and the subject has been approached in various ways.

a. The difference between total national wealth and the inherited one characterizes economic growth as well as the intergenerational distribution in general (consumption versus accumulation). We examine here only the issue from the viewpoint of the individual having an equal start in life.

According to Kotlikoff’s[lv] estimate in the U.S. 80 percent of the wealth comes from inheritance, while according to Modiglani’s different model of calculation it is only 20 p. c. Kesseler Masson’s model gives 35-40 percent. Indeed, the estimation is difficult since gifts, the inter vivos transfer, should be counted too.

b. Concerning the distribution of the inherited fortune, the largest part of the population has not inherited capital wealth. In the last years 4/5 of the U.S. population inherited no wealth. According to Luc Arrondel[lvi] in 1987 in France 51 percent of the inherited wealth went to 10 percent of the population; and within that group 1 percent profited from 19 percent of the inherited fortune.

c. The economies of our societies are characterized by large differences in fortune. According to the report of 2007 of the U.S. Census Bureau in 2006 1 percent of the households held 190 times more fortune than the average wealth of all households.  In 1981 this gap was only 125 times. These disparities are higher than those within the income distribution, even if between 1981 and now the personal income difference also increased. (The U.S. Census data for 2010 shows the highest income gap on record.) For that matter, the difference in the U.S. is higher than in Europe, except for Great Britain[lvii] and the present American legislation favors the increase of the gap.

We can conclude that individuals exercise their right to living in our Western society in two fundamentally different manners:  one will live from his capital gain by  “negotiating” a good return, and the other, by far the larger part, should find a place of employment in order to make a livelihood. This is the basic initial situation for Rawls social contract. This is the division of labor and the accepted public order. Contrary to the privileged classes of the Ancient Regime, the capital holders now dispose of their fortune, formally and freely, without explicit personal legal obligation corresponding to their economic situation. (For example, to make the unused means of production available for the living of have-nots.) This tendency became even stronger by the freedom of the speculator to create artificial shortages of various global commodities for profit. Since capital proprietors neither individually nor collectively are legally responsible for the shortage of workplaces, the right to work can’t be recognized as a paramount human right. We have seen that the relative number of self-employed is constantly diminishing,[lviii] the difference between the two classes is not fading, nor is the passage between them smoother; therefore the situation could only be corrected by reforming the succession of property rights  (cf., land reforms).

To identify a plutocratic dynastic republic, it is not only important to count the proportion of inherited fortune and the cross-section of wealth distribution, but also the permanency of dynasties from generation to generation - whether they experience significant changes, class mobility with relative rises and “come-downs”.

Charles Kerwin[lix] observed with his collaborators that 36 percent of the descendants of the families, which constitute the 20 percent richest in the society, could be found in the next generation in the same class, and that 36 percent of 20 percent of descendents of the poorest families also remain in the group where their parents were. Within the other social strata vertical intergenerational mobility is also very limited.

By the multigenerational reproduction of the functional social division between those detaining the capital goods by means of inheritance and those who look for work as a source of livelihood, the plutocratic dynasticism became a cardinal institution of the bourgeois society. The feudal system[lx] was characterized by inherited titles with rights and obligations attached. The new system guaranteed pro forma the self-determination of man and we call it progress. The political characteristic of the new system is that the class living from capital gain and investment  - called the business class, largely the corporate establishment - as representative of the Economy has the right to be specially consulted by the State before any important decision[lxi]. On the other hand, willy-nilly in the representative democracy the business-class can preselect the eligible, since without financial support there are no viable candidates; and the fact that – following the suffragist movement (Sen 363) - in more and more countries, where the women and even adolescents have the right to vote, there has been no change in this basic state of affairs.

As a matter of fact, the development of the new bourgeois human rights order protects progressively all newborns from all discrimination by origin; however it makes a fundamental exception. The declaration of the right to private capital with the right to its transfer by inheritance institutionalizes inequality according to plutocratic descent, and the intergenerational strengthening of this process makes it the cardinal institution of the society.

In our bourgeois society this “exemption”, privilege is not even considered a disgrace, since the so-called “old money”[lxii] will be on display and is the object of envy. The virtuous pride in it is expressed by the naming of plutocratic dynasties. Family foundations replace the aristocratic houses, - the Carnegies, the Eszterházys - and in the succeeding generations of ultra-rich families, descendents add to their name a Roman numeral, e.g., Ford III, J. Paul Getty III. Since 1887 the Social Register enumerates the American elite. In 1976 the plutocrat Malcolm Forbes unified all the local Social Registers. Of course, some families die out, even if countered by admission of the female lineage, but 92 percent of the names registered in 1940 are also present in the list of 1977 and 87 percent of the original names in 1995. Half of them use the Roman numeral in their name. In 1915 a U.S. congressional report called the plutocratic system “industrial feudalism” and the new ruling class is discreetly called the Business.

Jens Beckert formulated clearly how the present Western human rights practice on this point deviates from the societal model based strictly on individuals with equal chance.[lxiii] Beckert also describes the varieties of legal forms of intergenerational transfer of fortunes  – by inheritance or will – in the Anglo-Saxon, French and German legal systems. However in the plutocratic dynastic republics the combination of the right of corporations, foundations and trusts provides an intergenerational unity of the class living essentially from capital gain.

As exposed, the presently applied human rights system, in which the right to private ownership can counter the equal right of others to physical existence, can’t be considered as a consequent embodiment of the enlightenment’s model society based on the equal right of everybody. However, some try to justify on a pragmatic basis the usefulness of the institution of dynastic inheritance. They consider that entrepreneurial ability can be somehow inherited. Joseph Schumpeter’s arguments are well known.[lxiv]  To imagine that the investor-entrepreneur’s capacity also runs in the blood of his descendents is a capitalist version of the eugenics of blue-bloodedness inspired to some extent by Darwin.[lxv]

This kind of genetic hypothesis is only ideologically founded. Multigenerational successes are not based on inherited quality but on socialization, on social pedagogical transmission: the helpless individual born in a wealthy family receives a different education and different know-how. He learns what matters, what issues the parents consider to be of vital importance to the family: it is not the quest for employment but for profitable investment. (Jean-Paul Sartre tells us in his autobiographical work Les mots [1964] that first he learned words from the family bookshelf and only afterward identified the designated objects themselves.) Further, the infants of wealthy families also inherit different networks of connections.

After studying the normative consistency of the liberal (ideal-typical) societal model applied to human rights, we now consider another level: whether this system is at all compatible with anthropo-social reality. In order to enlarge our perspective let us refer briefly to two concepts of Indian jurisprudence. The classical legal theorist Manu[lxvi] developed a consequence-independent, ideal-typical, rule-bound arrangement of justice (somewhat like Rawls), in Sanskrit called niti that is distinguished in the Indian legal tradition from the nyaya, which is a realization-focused perspective and which considers the comprehensive outcome. In the next section we will examine the issue of the relativity of human rights in the nyaya-like perspective.

 

THE CONTRACTARIAN SOCIETAL MODEL BASED ON EQUALITY AMONG INDIVIDUALS AND THE HUMAN-BIOLOGICAL AND SOCIAL-ANTHROPOLOGICAL REALITY OF THE HELPLESSNESS OF NEWBORN HUMAN BEINGS.

The constitutional recognition of private property as a fundamental human right – including the inheritance of capital wealth – is at variance with the liberal social order, which is based on everybody’s equal right to existence. However we can observe that in various historical epochs and civilizations some progenitors succeed   – by diverse hidden or open ways and means – to provide favours to their descendents.

Usually historians look in two directions for appropriate examples: in the old European feudal system and in so-called archaic “civilizations” like the Hindu caste-system or the Muslim emirates. However a more objective impartial examination of facts shows that we can find cases of transmission of political power and social influence attributable to blood relationship of descent other than in countries with explicitly hereditary dynastic systems like Saudi-Arabia, Jordan, the Moroccan Kingdom or the Arab emirates. We can observe signs of it in republics like Syria, or even in the Westminster-type “rotating” representative democratic systems. In these systems, for example, the publicly recognizable nature of a family name gives close relatives a great advantage for election. This can be observed not only in India concerning the Ghandi family, but also in the U.S. concerning the Bushes. Examples can be multiplied in other representative democracies; as Adam Bellow[lxvii] notes, even revolutionaries who reversed unjust political systems often made from their descendents a – hereditary – successor. As we already noted, the economist Joseph Schumpeter imagined a kind of inherited entrepreneurial ability, while the also quoted Dawkins explained the continuation of dynasties by the biological inheritance of genes. Contradicting this biological explanation is the fact that widows of influential politicians in very different lands have sometimes “inherited” political positions like Christina Kirchner in Argentina, Corazon Aquino in the Philippines, or W.R.D. Bandaranaike’s widow in Sri Lanka.

We will here discuss the subject in more general terms than these single historical cases. We look for an answer to a comprehensive question: in the light of the empirical human sciences is there any chance that the historically unprecedented promise of the individualistic liberal doctrine is within our reach, namely that all social discrimination given by birth will be progressively suppressed? To answer this question we should establish an overall realistic conception of all human societies and their components. Undoubtedly, general experience shows some characteristics common to the human race. All individuals come into the world not fully grown, but as helpless infants, dependent on their parents or other caregivers. Self-made, without nurturance newborns can’t reach the majority. This fact is often neglected but is of great consequence. Then the question arises instantaneously:  how to implement an environment of equal treatment of newborns without tearing them from their families by putting them in orphanage or janissary-like educational systems? (By the way, perhaps in the near future, this will be the case in the modern Western society, where compulsory schooling begins at an ever-earlier age.) Marx and especially Engels[lxviii] express great interest in this question.

The institutions of upbringing form the first social ties of the little ones. Consequently, if it happens in the framework of the family, the first ties are related to the blood relationship. Beyond the period of “suckling”, the formation of habits during the long socialization process with the mother tongue brings with it a whole cultural background and world outlook.

Whatever the parents’ motivation, whether self-centred[lxix] love or altruism in the upbringing of their children, they hope to be compensated in their old age.  The newborn receives services without synchronous reciprocation. This initial situation can’t be denied in the liberal ideology. Living together under the same roof creates intense affective ties, even if they can turn negative. The landed property – family cottage, mansion or castle – symbolizes the parental home. By the way, the special literature about the right of inheritance concentrates largely on this problem. In different countries and in different epochs the experts tried to solve the problem of inequality between generations and individuals of different descents by various systems of taxation [lxx].

Yet, in our era of financial globalism, the problem of the family’s immovable property is only a small tip of the iceberg. The truly big capital in money is reshaped in the form of stock certificates and financial participations hardly fixed to a place. Their proprietors cannot at any moment identify their fortune in tangible material objects. We should now add to this picture that a donation or gift is a main means for nourishing intimate relations. It is obvious that the most clever tax-collector can’t catch all the intergenerational transfers, even large ones, especially if they happen through an intermediary or by off-shore trusts and foundations. (We can also include the donation of gems, jewellery and other small but highly valuable objects hidden in a safe. See Salter’s quoted volume.)

The socialization process comprises the relation within the large network of extended family. To the unavoidable circumstances of becoming adult - beside the habit formation – an intergenerational formation of acquaintanceship also belongs.

In the Ancient Regime and in other civilizations the distinction by birth has been formally recognized and accepted. Today’s republics, based on the individual’s equal human rights, postulate that socially generated discrimination by birth could be suppressed by further refinement, patching and enlargement of the catalogue of human rights. The completeness of the bourgeois human rights list remained silent about the discriminative consequences of intergenerational transmission of capital fortune (which could be freely used, without subordinating its use to the common good) by way of succession or will.

Among the advantages given by birth, the “nominal” one – nobility – could be eliminated by a stroke of the pen, but the advantages coming from the parents financial condition could in fact not be abolished because of man’s helpless birth and the following necessary socialization process. If this is the case, could the liberal Western human rights construct preserve its unique, supreme, universal stature?

 

WESTERN INDIVIDUALISTIC HUMAN RIGHTS IN A REALIZATION-FOCUSED AND COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

Summing up what has been said, Western liberalism - following Locke and Rousseau – deduces the constitution of the society and of the state exclusively from the contracts concluded among equal partners. So for a large number of individualist authors, the individual with his natural human rights exists – at least conceptually – before the state. The U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948 has fundamentally evolved from the liberal doctrine. It posits everyone’s right to life (§3) and even the right to work and livelihood (§22ff), but also in general terms the right to private property (§17). However, for international law, only the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and that on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) concluded in 1966 are binding. The U.N. General Assembly (2200A[XXI]) as well as the Declaration of Vienna in 1993 states the inseparability of all human rights. Since no contradiction among them is presupposed, meta-principles for ranking them have not been established. However, the fact that the ICCPR and ICESCR are distinct documents and could be ratified separately allows an implicit ranking of human rights. You can’t escape the fact that the Western states consider only the ICCPR as completely obligatory and so all ratified it even if with some reservations. Amartya Sen states that economic and social rights, which are excluded from the “inner sanctum of human rights” as so-called “second generation’ rights, should be applied only if some conditions could be realized.[lxxi] We also observed that the Western inspired Human Rights Watch organization as well as Amnesty International and the New York based Freedom House keep their eyes only on the application of the ICCPR.

The UDHR declared the right to property without restriction on intergenerational transfer. If the International Covenants of 1966 didn’t confirm this right, the constitutions of most Western states did. Then again, in the spirit of a liberal worldview, everyone has an equal right to living – “debited” on the people’s prerogatives for natural wealth and resources (ICCPR §I.1.2 and § V.47). This right of everybody should rank before all other rights since existence itself is an ontological sine qua condition for the exercise of any other rights. Therefore, according to fundamental liberal reasoning about equal rights for everyone, if this right of living conflicts with the right to private property, the latter should be subordinated to the first. 

If subordination of private ownership to everybody’s right to live does not come about, certain newborns become proprietors of inherited fortune that guarantees their whole existence - perhaps without other personal merit, - while the existence of others is only guaranteed if they find a job and can join the workforce. Because this difference is induced by the society, the equality of chance cannot materialize.

This being granted, in the realization-focused perspective, we should confront the ideal-typical individualistic liberal societal model with empirical anthropological reality. As already evoked, it is a basic biological fact that the human being – even if conceived in a test tube – comes helplessly to light not so differently from the kangaroo as we sometimes imagine.  Therefore, initially, a unilateral, social-anthropological “insertion” precedes, always necessarily and without exception, man’s emancipation, his introduction as an adult into the already established society where he can freely contract later on. The socialization process usually happens in the framework of family, generates multigenerational intertwining, and so makes the intergenerational transfer of fortune, by gift or inheritance, natural. The complete extinction of the differentiated inborn transfer of wealth could be realized only by fostering all newborns as orphans. This would necessitate the forcible shattering of natural family ties and privacy.

Again, if we accept human birth with family fostering as natural and unavoidable, we must acknowledge that there are profound implications for the value of the prescription of liberal norms.

          In this case, we can’t impute a prototypical exclusive role to the contract among adult individuals, derived basically from the situation of market the exchange transactions in all human relations. Since everyone is born helpless, other social relations should be accepted as constitutive ones that are not based on mutual free will and individual choice with all its implications; this is the fundamentally unequal relationship between the helpless infant and his parents,

          Yet, if we accept that by force of the human way of nurturing, it is, in reality, impossible to hinder intergenerational transfer of family wealth; and if the right to this transfer is not limited to a determined range of personal goods (including the home), but is formulated in a comprehensive monolithic manner, — in opposition to the suppression of the inherited caste-system or nobility titles — the “dynasticist discrimination” is not eliminated completely. It happens only that by maintaining intergenerational private property transfer to the newborn without merit, the system of discrimination now becomes concentrated on the difference in fortune. In this way the liberal doctrine, after the liberation of slaves and serfs, becomes, in fact, a subtle apology for the inborn prerogatives of the capitalist class. By the intergenerational transfer of capital wealth within a community, from generation to generation, the society becomes primarily characterized by a plutocratic form of dynasticism. While our society bears many important societal traits (the Information society and so on), it is for this very reason that it could be called essentially a capitalist society.

          The inequity of inheritance without merit and the ensuing social disequilibria, as well as the loss in economic efficiency[lxxii] due to the spread of developing plutocratic dynasticism, can only be corrected by repeated property reforms like the agrarian reforms. However, contemporary post-industrial finance is organized on a worldwide scale and operates trans-nationally, scattered and unobserved. And the states, the various jurisdictions  – even the largest like the U.S.A., China, India or Russia – are organized on a smaller geographical level. For the time being – since we can only dream about a world state - no efficient political oversight and control of the global accumulation of speculative capital is possible.  If man’s social biological conditions are at such a fundamental point, that in light of this constraint the individualist liberal contract-based model seems unachievable. It can’t be a universal role model and therefore loses its unmatched global attraction. So in a realization-focused comparative perspective, on the pragmatic real-type level, the Western model should enter into competition with conceptions of other coexisting civilizations. It is possible that according to the criteria of societal improvement, other concepts, which recognize the unavoidable social entanglement of helpless-born man, perform better than our Western one. Indeed, Joanne R. Bauer and D. A. Bell insist that the fundamental purpose of the human rights regime is the promotion and protection of vital human interests, the betterment.[lxxiii] 

We are now at the realization-focused level, what Sen called in Sanskrit - in opposition to the ideal arrangement-centred perspective - nyaya [lxxiv]. As we discussed elsewhere, the society is not only held together[lxxv] (a) by market contracts coming from the division of work necessary for collective self-preservation, but also (b) by the instinct to propagate the species and  (c) the shared scriptural Tradition, transmitted first by the mother tongue.

In reality, the development of the helpless-born human being brings about a multigenerational social fabric that in turn leads to a system of human rights in which the family should be recognized as an important subject. Indeed, Article 23.1 of the ICCPR states that “the family is a natural and fundamental group”  [lxxvi]. Today’s Western civilization insists on the individual’s right to free choice of a partner (§23.2). However, for some other contemporary civilizations the founding of a family is not exclusively a matter of two partners (for reproduction) but also of the predecessors, the whole “legating” family. Western liberals are shocked by this community based proceeding. However, if we compare globally the durability of the family institution and the stability of the families, we can observe that the bonds based essentially on instantaneous sensual sympathy, the attraction of two youths, is much more exposed to erosion over  time and to divorce than alliances built on a larger socio-anthropological, multi-generational  – and therefore often more multidimensional (!) – consensus.

By evoking the existence of rankings of human rights other than those of the West, we should not go too far in suggesting that the West should follow some other civilization’s norm system. We will say only that, because of the unavoidable social-anthropological embeddedness of the newborn human being in his initial position, the applied individualistic liberal model doesn’t suppress inborn social discrimination per se. It contributes only to bringing the dynastic plutocracy into an exceptional position. Therefore, from the realization-focused perspective, the Western liberal-capitalist system as historical achievement is very relative and, considering the total outcome, it remains in competition with the system of norms applied in other coexisting civilizations. The realistic reading of the alternative achievements of different human rights frees us from the Western-centred parochial bias[lxxvii].

Today, many authors state that if we will develop a truly universal system of the enumeration and ranking of fundamental human rights, we should take into consideration the “Eastern” and/or the “Asian” value order. We mention here again Daniel A. Bell who teaches now at the Chinese Tsinghua University.[lxxviii] According to him, if we consider the societal well-being indexes (among others the number of divorces, the life expectancy) of some non-Western, perhaps authoritarian societal systems, they show more compatibility with the specific characteristics of the human being and of mankind; therefore these systems could produce an even more satisfactory outcome for individuals than the strictly individualistic Western model[lxxix].

          Paradoxically, if authors reduce the intercivilizational pluralism to a dichotomy between the West and a non-western amalgam called East, the approach itself becomes European-centred. It deprives precisely the particular non-western civilizations of their very identity. It is a further pitfall to speak about an “Asian” value-order as it refers to a Western, colonial-inspired geographical denomination and doesn’t encompass a homogeneous sphere of civilizations.

          In general terms,[lxxx] we can state that the human rights system can be only truly universal if, along side the individualistic Western norm system, we also consider in an impartial manner the principles and practices, as well as  the legacy of the Arabo-Muslim, Bharati and  Chinese spheres of civilization, since they have preserved their autonomy and identity throughout a  great past.

 

 



[i] Beckert J.: Inherited Wealth, Princeton UP, Princeton, 2008. Title of the original edition: Unverdientes Vermögen, Campus, Frankfurt, 2004, 29.

[ii] Already in 1792, Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism in his Anarchical Fallacies Being an Examination of the Declaration of Rights Issued during the French Revolution dismisses all such claims as artificially elevated nonsense. Bentham writes: “right, the substantive right, is the child of law; from real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from ‘law of nature’, come only imaginary rights.” The Works of Jeremy Bentham Williams Tait, Edinburgh, vol. II,  (republished in 1843), 523.

Indeed, contrary to Sen’s argument (Sen Amartya: The Idea of Justice, Penguin Books, London, 2010, 361-4) for clarity of terminology ethical right and obligations should be clearly distinguished from substantive right enforced by law.

[iii] Onuma Yasuaki: Toward Intercivilizational Approach to Human Rights, In: Bauer J. R. and Bell A. D.: The East Asian Challenge for Human Rights. Cambridge UP, Cambridge 1999, 109-110. Y. Tyagi: Third World Response to Human Rights. In: Indian Journal of International Law 1981, 119-40.

[iv] G. Ankerl: Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western. INUPRESS, Geneva, 2000. HANCOCK R.C.: AMERICA,  THE WEST, AND  LIBERAL EDUCATION. ROWMAN@LEITTLEFIELD,  LANHAM, 1999, 7-25.

[v]Axel de Waal: The Moral Solipsism of Global Ethic, Inc. In: London Review of Books 2001.

[vi] About “the individual conceived as absolute”, see Adolph Wagner: Grundlegung  der politischen Ökonomie. Winter’sche Verlag, Leipzig, 1894, 12.  R. von Ihering: Der Zweck im Recht. Breitkopf, Leipzig, 1877. Beckert  58.

[vii] Durkheim sanctifies the individual with soul  (Beckert 117). Sen (192): ..”unique dominance of single-minded pursuit of our own goals.”  

[viii] Beckert 71, 28 and 57.

[ix] For Gautama Buddha (see Sutta Nipata) humanity is enormously more powerful than other species, and - like mothers toward their children - because of this asymmetry of power we have some particular responsibilities toward them (Sen 205).

[x] Rawls J.: A Theory of Justice. Harvard UP, Cambridge MA, 1978 (9. ed.), 16, 11 12, 14, 256 and 326.

[xi] See Rawls definition of “autonomy” of “rational persons” (252). We find in game theory the “rational choice” (17). (Rawls presented his theory first in 1958 in an article.)

[xii] The extension of the marketplace-like situation on the whole social life as paradigm is expressed by Cass R. Sunstein (in her On Rumors, Penguin, London, 2010, 67): “The optimistic view – that the marketplace of ideas is essentially reliable – played a large role in the XXth century constitutional law.”

[xiii] In this context the expression habeas corpus is very often used. However, this right instituted in 1679 in the English law meant only that the arrested individual has the right to appear before the judge in person.

[xiv] Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in his Common Law (1881) opposes the individual right of property to the familial and ecclesiastical rights. (John E. Welsh: Max Stirner’s Dialectical Egoism: a New Interpretation. Lanham MD, Lexington Books, 2010.)

[xv] E. Kant: The Metaphysical Elements of Justice. V.I. Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals. Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, 1965, §47, 32. Rawls 11.

[xvi] In A. Lalande’s Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie (PUF, Paris, 9.ed.,1962, 253.) Robespierre and Mirabeau don’t recognize the private property as a natural right existing before the society. (Mirabeau: “positive laws that made property possible in the first place.”) Rousseau and Montesquieu (Spirit of the Law. 1748) deduce the private property from the social contract. Hegel does the same by references to Fichte (Foundations of Natural Rights. According to the Wissenschaftslehre. Cambridge UP, Cambridge, 2000 [1796]). See Beckert  57, 27, 71 and 302. 

[xvii] Peter Singer: The Right to be Rich or Poor.” In: New York Review of Books. 6 March 1975.

[xviii] For Locke  “property was a natural law that precedes all social institutions… individual right of property arises from human appropriation of nature.” The natural law justifying private property includes the inheritance.  Locke exercised a predominant influence on the Fundamental Constitution of Carolinas” of 1671. (See Beckert  71, 28 and 177.)

[xix] G.Ankerl: Beyond Monopoly Capitalism and Monopoly Socialism: Distributive Justice in a Competititve Society. Schenkman, Cambridge MA,  1978, 9-16.

[xx] F. J. Turner: The Frontier in American History. H Holt, New York, 1947. S. J. McNamee and R. K. Miller: The Meritocracy Myth. Rowman, Lanham, 2009, 9. Beckert 69, 73, 126, and 71.

[xxi] R. Dahl: A Preface to Economic Democracy. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1985, 69. Beckert 80

[xxii] In a competitive society the equality before the law is expressed by equal opportunity. (Beckert 28). We can already mention that in the U.S., for example, 17 percent of households have no fortune (only debt), and only 20 percent inherited something. It is also to observe that if somebody has a great fortune, the larger part of it came from inheritance (McNamee 59ff, 68; Beckert 28, 71, 275, 278 and 14-15.)

[xxiii] Rawls 278, 14-15.

[xxiv] A. Roberto: The Limits of Rawlsian Justice. Johns Hopkins UP, Baltimore, 1998.

[xxv] This goes back to Aristotle (1261b34), who states that a private owner makes the best use of things.

[xxvi] I. Brownlie: Principles of Public International Law. Oxford UP, Oxford, 2003, 531-2. M. A.Gledon: A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Random House, New York, 2001.

[xxvii] A. Sen 2.  G. Ankerl: Tolerance: Variation of the Concept According to Different Civilizations. In: Democracy and Tolerance. UNESCO, Paris, 1995, 59-78.

[xxviii] B. Haarder: Beware, Broadening the Definition of Rights Can Make a Wrong. In: New York Times, 1998.11.26. Onuma Yauaki 112-113.

[xxix] Sen 47.

[xxx]Curt Goering 16-17, in  D. A. Bell and  J.M. Coicaud (eds.): The Ethics in Action: The Ethical Challenges of International Human Rights of Nongovernmental Organizations. Cambridge UP, Cambridge, 2007, 8, 13, 16-21. In the same volume see Gilmore Mertz’s article (8). Coicaud notes that today the international non-governmental organizations (INGO) are stronger ,than the trade unions.  

[xxxi] C. Scott: The Interdependence and Permeability of Human Rights Norms: Toward a Partial Fusion of International Covenants on Human Rights. In: Osgood Law Journal. Vol. 27, 1989. Maurice Cranston (Are There Human Rights? In Daedalus, Fall 1983, 13) “political and civil rights are not difficult to institute. For the most part, they require..leave a man alone.” (Sen 382.) Marie-Dembour (What are Human Rights? Four Schools of  Thought. In: Human Rights Quarterly  February 2010, 1-20, p.2-3) wrote: For the natural school of human rights “only negative obligations can be absolute, for positive obligations (e.g., to provide education) are never  as clear-cut as a simple prohibition to do something.”

[xxxii] Brownlie, 530-539.

[xxxiii] Louis Henkin: The International Bill of Rights. In: R. Bernhardt and Jolowicz (eds.): International Enforcement of Human Rights. North Holland Pub., New York, 1987, 6-9. According to Brownlie the obligations in the ICESCR are “programmatic and promotional”  (539). The critique of the ICESCR says these rights are not accomplishable.  (Onora O’Neill: Bounds of Justice. Cambridge UP, Cambridge, 2000.)

[xxxiv] Among the workers’ rights the trade union’s one is yet somehow watched by these organizations (ICESCR §8 and Brownie 539), since it also has a political dimension (ICCPR §22.1). It is to note that the trade unions lost in some countries their original mission. They organize the state employees who enjoy a relatively stable situation instead of the workers in the private economy. See for example in France.

[xxxv] About the institutional aspects of restoration of capitalist system see Alfio Cerami et al.: Post-Communist Welfare Pathways: Theoretician Social Policy Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe. Palgrave-MacMillan, New York, 2009.

[xxxvi] The I.L.O. Convention of 1964 declares in its §122.1(2) “there is work for all who are available for and seek work.”  G. Ankerl: Toward a Social Contract on a World Wide Scale: Solidarity Contracts. I.L.O., Geneva, 1980.

[xxxvii] The first article states: “to accept…responsibilities for the achievement and maintenance of as high and stable employment as possible, with a view to attainment of full employment.” The second articles states: “… to protect.. the right of the worker to earn his living…”

[xxxviii] See Judith Blau (et al) volume: The Leading Rogue  State: The U.S. and Human Rights. Boulder, CO, Paradigm Publ., 2009. (See also esp Brian S. Turner’s article.)

[xxxix] E. Jouve: Relations internationales. PUF, Paris, 1992, 412ff.

[xl] Brownlie 4 and 540.

[xli] Kishore Mahbubani: Can Asians Think? Times, Singapore, 1998.

[xlii] Joy Hendry and Heung Wah Wong (eds.): Dismantling the East-West Dichotomy. Routledge, New York, 2006, G. Ankerl, 2000, 55.

[xliii] In Rawls’ theory the freedom from hunger - §11.2 of ICHSCR – isn’t the first kind of freedom. Sen 65, 47 and 85. See also Philippe Van Parijs:  Real Freedom for All: What (if Anything) Can Justify Capitalism. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995.   

[xliv] H. de Soto and Francis Cheneval (Realizing Property Rights. Ruffer and Rub, New York, 2006) write about external sphere of freedom of human being.

[xlv]The rest 12.1 percent is constituted of “cooperatives”, so-called partnerships. McNamee 68, 174-5, 166 and 180. A. S. Miller: The Modern Corporate State: Private Government and the American Constitution. Greenwood, Westport CT, 1977. W. Roy: Socializing Capital. Princeton UP, Princeton, 1997. Ch. Perrow : Organizing Amerce : Wealth, Power and the Origins of Corporate Capitalism.  Princeton UP, Princeton, 2002.

[xlvi] David Harvey in his A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford UP, Oxford, 2005, 21) uses the term “juridical trick”.

[xlvii] Without contesting the absolute property right of corporations, the human rights system could obviously not be the object even of “wishful thinking”. (Samuel Mojn: The Last Utopia: Human Rights in History. The Belcamp Press of Harvard UP, Cambridge, 2010.)

[xlviii]  F. Bastiat (Economic Harmonies. W.Hayden Poyres, 1850) stated that “in our relations with one another, we are not owners of the utility of things, but of their value, and value is the appraisal made of reciprocal services.

[xlix] It is to note that in the U.N. debate about the human rights in 1966, when the right to work arose, the neo-liberals tried to link it to the right to free international trade as a possible source to work. However, since international trade is practiced more by companies than by individuals, it is not mentioned as a human right.

[l] During the Great Depression in his speech of June 19 in 1935 President Roosevelt distinguished the defensible private property necessary for the security of individuals and families in opposition to inherited capital wealth (Beckert 189-90, McNamee 59).

[li] The 8. article of ICESCR prescribes  the right to form trade unions,  to strike and in an implicit manner other limitations on the use of the ownership as a means of production (Brownlie 539).

[lii] To form an opinion of the size, leverage and interconnectedness of the global   banking (and also nonbanking) financial institutions, and consequently their systemic significance, we must consider that for example in Switzerland the two largest bank’s assets exceed four times the country’s G.D.P. And even in the U.S. the banks’ assets total about 82 percent of the country’s G.D.P., while eight of the ten largest  banks  are now  - “offshore”,  viz., - outside the country. (Steven M. David: Finding just-right rules for ‘ too big to fail’. In: International Herald Tribune, 16.02.2011.)

[liii] Abusus; inter vivos transfer (McNamee 64).

[liv]A theist, a believer in a Creator could assimilate natural fortune to social one, but Rawls (212) represents an ideological neutral position and from the viewpoint of secular justice this is unacceptable.

[lv] The data comes from McNamee (259 and 68) and from Beckert (15 and 300[10]).

[lvi] L. Arrondel et al.: Bequest and Inheritance: Empirical Issues and France-U.S. Comparison. In:  G. Erreygers et al. eds.: Is Inheritance Legitimate? Springer, Berlin, 1997, 89-125.

[lvii] L. Mishel  et al.: The State of Working America: 2006-2007. Cornell UP, Ithaca NY, 2007, 253.  H. R. Kerbo: World Poverty: Global Inequality and the Modern World System. McGraw-Hill, Boston, 2006. McNamee 59-60.

[lviii] McNamee 174.

[lix] Ch. Kerwin et al.: The correlation of wealth across generations. In: Journal of Political Economy. 2003, 1155-82. McNamee 61, Beckert 15-16, 18 and 300.

[lx] Beckert 11

[lxi] G. Ankerl 2000, 385.

[lxii] Beckert 18, 177 and 180. McNamee 70-1.

[lxiii] Beckert (14): “Once legal privileges derived from birth and the heritability of offices were abolished, the inheritance of property was and is the central (!) institution of social privilege in modern societies that is based not on effort, but on birth.” Beckert goes on (300[9]: “The reason one must speak of purely social privilege is that while different degrees of intelligence and physical attractiveness also bestow advantages that are independent of effort and achievement, these are largely the result of nature.” This is a snappy retort to Rawls who refuses to make a fundamental distinction between inherited intelligence and inherited fortune. (Cf., Beckert 11, 315[41].)

[lxiv] Becker, Markus et al. eds.: The Entrepreneur: Classic Texts by A. Joseph Schumpeter. Stanford UP, Stanford, 2011.

[lxv] Cf.,  R. Dawkins: The Selfish Gene. Oxford UP, Oxford, 1976. Roland P. Sokol: Justice after Darwin. Michie Co, Charlottesville VA, 1975.

[lxvi] The Laws of Manu (translated by W. Doniger) Penguin, London, 1991). Sen  20.

[lxvii] Steve Sailer in his review – of Adam Bellow’s book (In Praise of Nepotism: A Natural History. Doubleday, New York, 2003) for the National Interest (4.2003) - calls this situation “revolutionary nepotism”. The fact that Adam Bellow enjoys the advantage of his father’s literary Nobel-prize certainly helped him to become aware of the existence of advantage by birth. About the intergenerational transmission of fortune and influence in general see also Frank K. Salter’s volume (Risky Transactions: Trust, Kinship and Ethnicity. Berg Hahn Books, Oxford, 2002).

[lxviii] G. Ankerl 1978, 87.

[lxix] Gary S. Becker: The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1976, 24.

[lxx] Beckert  186-225. McNamee 251.

[lxxi] Sen 380-6. For the “feasibility critique” see also Onora O’Neill op. cit.

[lxxii] Beckert 14, 300, and 180.

[lxxiii] In Bauer J. R. and D. A. Bell op. cit, Bell B. and D. A. state: the right regime’s “essential purpose is: to promote and protect vital human interests”. (p.3). See in ibid Onuma Yauaki, 123.

[lxxiv] Sen 20-2 and 82.

[lxxv] G. Ankerl 2000 vol. I, 53. In the Bharatiya (Hindu) philosophy we find the concept of  Trivarga. The society is “cemented” by artha  (mode of livelihood /production), by kama (procreative relations) and by dharma (Holy scriptural tradition). Cf., Jon Elster: The Cement of Society. Cambridge UP, Cambridge, 1989.  (See also in Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah asabiyya, social cohesion.)

[lxxvi] The group right, the “We” becomes a bearer of human rights like the “self” in individualistic human rights. Bauer and Bell 23.

[lxxvii] Sen in his quoted work underlines repeatedly the necessity to read social philosophical issues through the anthropological way, accepting the “eyes of the rest of mankind”. Adam Smith: Lectures on Jurisprudence. Liberty Press, Indianapolis IN, 1982, 104. Sen XIV, 70, 80, 127 and 404. Cf. S Moyn: The Last Utopia: Humna Rights in History. Belknap, Cambridge MA, 2010.

[lxxviii] D. A. Bell  studies in his East Meets West: Human Rights and Democracy in East Asia (Princeton UP, Princeton, 2000) the system in Singapore and in his China’s New Confucianism (Princeton UP, Princeton, 2008) the mainland Chinese one.

[lxxix] Onuma Yasuaki 114.

[lxxx] See Guy Ankerl’s already quoted Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations (149, 257, 382ff)

 Bibliography :

The Relativity of Human Rights within the era of  society based on contracts between  equals by Guy Ankerl published in International  Journal of Human Rights. London, sept. 2011, 14-36.

 







  

STAGES OF GLOBALIZATION:
PRIORITY FOR CO-OPERATION AMONG CIVILIZATION-STATES INSTEAD OF NEW-YORK-TYPE GLOBAL MIXING OF INDIVIDUALS BY MIGRATION
 Abstract
DIALOGUE AMONG CIVILIZATIONS - THE KEY TO A SAFE FUTURE
(World Conference of  UNESCO, 23-26 April 2003)

We are more and more in a Global Age. The ideological rhetoric of  'globalism' implicitly postulates that globalization will inevitably, and regardless of circumstances, lead to the creation of a universal civilization. In reality, the means prioritized, and the particular stages through which the process passes, cannot be looked upon indifferently, as they both have a considerable effect upon the character of the globalization achieved. - There are 2 main variants:  (1)(a)  The "NEW-YORK-TYPE MIXING of individuals of various civilizational origins by means of unruly migration,  (b) accompanied by the boundless penetration of Western-type consumerism into all civilizational areas under Anglo-American predominance or 'leadership',  or (2) a passage by  (a) by enlarging and  enforcing  the internal bonds within living civilizations, and (b) by  the constitution of  CIVILIZATION-STATES, like India and China,  through the assembling of smaller national states (cf. EU). A truly universal civilization is constructed on an initial basis of civilizational regionalism, within relatively autonomous geopolitical areas, which is then followed by a co-operation among equal partners based on consensus. (Reciprocal interdependence.) This  mutualist approach prevents hegemonism, and among others, civil war-like conflicts within states caused by intrusive and invasive large-scale migration; and, as an end result, it produces worldwide solidarity. As Ankerl exposed in his "Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese and Western"  (2000), 'civilization' signifies a genuine collective life-style, and 3 "glues" provide societal cohesion: (1) A type of livelihood, (eco-)resource management for collective self-preservation; (2) an anthropological component for race preservation (including awareness of common ancestry) and (3) a writing-system,  Scripture that relates to a shared sacred heritage.  Nations are mostly mother-tongue-based entities, civilizations are  writing-based. (E.g., Chinese pictographic-originated,  Muslim Arabic-based.) - Euro-centric continental-based divisions (cf ., 'Asia',), as well as  'Oriental' or ' Third world' civilizations are empty terms to constitute an amalgam of  the whole non-West to be colonized ("The West and the Rest").
If  "dialogue among civilizations is the key to a safe future" (for everybody) and only equal sovereign international actors  can have true exchange (and avoid dictate), the constitution of an universal civilization needs first and foremost strong autonomous civilization-states.

 *         *         *

In our age, the development of (a) efficient and instantaneous forms of telecommunication, and (b) the worldwide (jet air) mass transportation system increase connectedness and make globalization possible. However, the preference given to far-reaching connections and broad-spectrum mixing, and to the promotion of international exchange and 'trade'
 (at the expense of national, 'vicinal', and local forms), at any price (e.g. by inexpensive export credits), is largely an ideological option. The rhetoric of the ideology of 'globalism' implicitly postulates that this process will inevitably, and regardless of circumstances, lead to the creation of a universal civilization. In reality, the means prioritized, and the particular stages through which the process passes, cannot be looked upon indifferently, as they both have a considerable effect upon the character of the globalization achieved.

In short, we can distinguish two main variants:

A./ (a) The "NEW-YORK-TYPE MIXING of individuals of various civilizational origins by means of unruly migration, (b) accompanied by the boundless penetration of Western-type (fancy) consumerism into all civilizational areas under Anglo-American predominance or 'leadership'; or

B./ A passage by other stages: first at all, (a) by enlarging, enforcing and intensifying the internal bonds within living civilizations, and (b) - by following the example of presently existing CIVILIZATION-STATES
 such as India and China - by the constitution of new civilization-states, such as the European Union, through the assembling of smaller national states. Put briefly, a truly global civilization is constructed on an initial basis of civilizational regionalism, within relatively autonomous geopolitical areas, which is then followed by the promotion of co-operation between these groups.

This second way contains two fundamental promises: avoiding chaotic, civil war-like conflicts within states caused by intrusive and invasive large-scale migration; and, as an end result, worldwide solidarity within the framework of a truly universal civilization, brought about by co-operation among civilizations on the basis of reciprocal interdependence. This mutualist approach to globalization is already prefigured in the five principles ( "panca sila" ) of co-operation outlined in the Declaration of the Bandung Conference of Non-Aligned Countries in 1955.

CIVILIZATION signifies a genuine collective lifestyle, sustained by an encompassing and sufficiently large population which, by extension, occupies a sufficiently large (resource-rich) area (Ankerl 2000, 28).

Each civilization has three vectors that serve as 'glues' to provide societal cohesion:

1. A type of livelihood (also summarily called 'mode of production'). This signifies collaborative (eco-)resource management for collective self-preservation (including class solidarity with regard to income distribution);

2. The anthropological component includes the awareness of a common ancestry beyond genealogical (lineal and affinal) kinship for race preservation.

3. The third 'glue', by no means the least important, is a Scripture that relates to a shared sacred heritage. Despite being one of the most tangible characteristics of a civilization, this element is frequently neglected by Western science, due to the more or less phonetic nature of all Western writing systems. Indeed, while nations are mostly mother-tongue-based entities, civilizations are writing-based.

The Chinese civilization, for instance, is fundamentally shaped by the Confucian ideograms. New concepts are transcribed into the pictographic-originated scripture, which thus assures China's continuity in time and space. The Brahmi-Devangari writing is  the medium of  the Veda, the shared tradition of all Hindus, while for the whole 'constituency' of the Muslim civilization, the Koran's Arabic writing is an essential relying base. (Many writing systems in non-Arabic Muslim countries originally derive from Arabic.)

This being granted, the importance of each of the three vectors varies between different civilizations, and each civilization establishes a different cardinal institution (economy, religion, family, ethnicity, etc.).

Our present Western civilization is fundamentally a business civilization that establishes an econocratic society. (In Old English, bisinesse was opposed to 'art'.) In this ideological system, 'progress', 'modernization', 'rationalization', and other key terms become defined and measured by profit-oriented calculation. Business-type, short-term reasoning becomes the norm. Its science of 'universal history' interprets longum et latum the ultimate cause of any historical event by historical economism. This statement is valid for both liberalism and the post-Ricardoian Marxist school. The West also applies sciences to its colonization of the world. In this perspective, all contemporary, geographically co-existing civilizations are arranged in temporal order and, as a result, all non-Western ones appear as archaic and behind the times.

Yet how can we conceive of different co-existing civilizations if all human values are universal? Human values may indeed be universal; however, they do not perforce exist in harmony together. It is therefore necessary - in the case of conflicting obligations - to rank them, and each civilization arranges (subordinates) values and institutions differently, according to its principles.

Living civilizations cover geopolitical areas. This should not be confused with the CONTINENTAL division of the globe, such as Europe or Asia, particularly as these divisions and denominations are noticeably Eurocentric and do not have a firm foundation in physical geography. Why should India be a 'subcontinent', and why is Europe a 'continent' and not a subcontinent of Eurasia? (The calculation and comparison, for instance, of an 'Asian average' or a 'European average' consequently become scientifically meaningless operations.)

The most important point for us is that the existing continental divisions are not substantiated divisions in terms of civilization. For geopolitics, as well as for human geography, only the civilizational division of geographical areas is relevant, such as the Chinese, Bharati, Arabo-Muslim, Western and Sub-Saharan civilizations.

As a matter of fact, the concept of 'Asian civilization' is misleading; so too is 'ORIENTAL' or even 'Third World' civilization. Not one of them is a scientific concept with heuristic value. They are confusing empty boxes, Euro-colonial amalgams. Their true content is negative, namely, that of a NON-WESTERN mass, passively awaiting colonization by 'Promethean Western business'. Edward Said, Professor of English Literature at Columbia University, of Christian Arab Palestinian origin, made a pioneering work that demonstrates how Orientalism
 is a tendentious science. However, by seeking the true content of the Orient, he misses the essential point, namely the fact that an 'oriental civilization' is itself a false, non-operating concept. In contrast, the Indian-Singaporean Ambassador to the U.N., Kishore Mahbubani's formulation of "the West and the Rest" suitably expresses the purely negative nature of the concept 'Orient'.

Through independent and impartial observation, it becomes clear that the differences between the Chinese and the Arabo-Muslim civilizations - both frequently labelled as "oriental" by the West - are as significant as their respective differences to the Western civilization. Are there indeed any characteristics common to the so-called oriental civilizations, beyond a comfortable colonizing prejudice? (For that matter, when the Chinese pilgrim, Xijou Ji, traveled to India, he called his trip, "Voyage en Occident".) Incidentally, the term 'Third-World civilization' shares the same negative connotation as the aforementioned binary distinction. It suggests that the non-Western world is little more than a civilization of misery. Taken together, these binary conceptualizations of the West fulfill one sole function: to conceal and to obliterate the identity of all living civilizations other than the Western one.

The WESTERN civilization presents itself as a model for an eventual universal civilization. Its ambitions are hegemonic. As set out in our "Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations" (pp.50-245), it is composed of several relatively coherent forces that operate together: (a) The Anglo-Saxon grouping includes Anglo-America and the 'white' Commonwealth. Presently, its predominance and its cohesion are visible on the international scene. Against all its pretensions, we cannot admit that the English language, spoken by less than 10 % of the world's population, is the bearer of a universal civilization, as many publications on globalization would imply. While English is the most important international language, it is not a global language. (b) The populous Latin Catholic periphery is another important cultural and ethnic component of the Western civilization. (c) Over recent decades, the Jewish people have become an increasingly autonomous cultural, economic and political influence in the Western world, despite its large majority living in Diaspora.

For any civilization, by virtue of its yearning for permanence and an autonomous internal order that mirrors its value system, statehood constitutes an important historical landmark. In the globalization process, statehood has a particular system-value regarding the self-expression of each civilization. The EUROPEAN part of the Western civilization seeks a united statehood. The European Union has been in formation for a half century. So far, the steps toward unification have been largely based on the econocratic ideology prevailing in the West, namely, beginning the whole process with a 'common market' and following it up with a common currency. For the constitution of a federal or confederal state, its organs appear to look to the United States of America for inspiration. Other civilizations, however, such as the Chinese and the Bharati or Indian civilizations, have already constructed their civilization-states. Moreover, the human geography of Europe has far more in common with India than with the United States of America. Europe is composed of peoples with diverse linguistic and ethnic traditions, settled geographically in different countries. This is the case in the Republic of India, which is composed of   (pra)deshes or 'homelands'. The states in the U.S.A. do not possess this societal signification. The Anglo-American U.S. is composed mainly of immigrants of various origin, widely dispersed across its entire territory, with some reserves for the indigenous Indian populations. One language, English, is clearly predominant. It is becoming the sole (quasi-)official language. The constitution of a united European state would therefore provide an opportunity to reverse the customary (uni-)directional tendency of the international learning process. The constitution of India could serve for such a model.

CONCLUSIONS:

The differences of value and institutional order that exist between various contemporary living civilizations in no way necessitate a clash between them. Only the aggressive economic, cultural(-mediatic), and political(-military) penetration of the Western civilization into other (particularly Arabo-Muslim) civilizational areas can. indeed result in clashes. In this sense, Samuel Huntington's seminal book (The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York, 1998) is more an invitation and an agenda for Western imperial penetration into other - chiefly Arabo-Muslim - civilizational areas, than it is a historical description of the contemporary world situation. Salim Rashid's volume demonstrates this viewpoint clearly, among others, and recent events in the Middle East confirm this evaluation. However, the originality of each living civilization requires that the eventual construction of a universal civilization be brought about through dialogue and consensus building.

On the other hand, effective and fertile dialogue among civilizations on equal footing is only possible between partners who consider each other as equals. Again, recent events in the Middle East have demonstrated that only politically balanced power relations can provide such a ground and serve as a counterbalance to Anglo-American transnational econocracy. In this perspective, the next step towards globalization should be the reinforcement of currently existing civilization-states such as India and China, as well as the constitution of new ones, such as the European Union. The authentic political representation of the Arab-Muslim civilization in this international dialogue is a particularly timely and salient issue. It cannot be done by dividing the Muslim world and replacing the dialogue with the Organization of the State of Islamic Conference with "multiple unilateralism" (Hubert Verdine) involving individually weak and intimidated Arab, or other, Muslim states.

In this phase of globalization, the installation and perpetuation of Western econocratic world hegemony by means of the unilateral diffusion of Western merchandise and merchandized mass media products, as well as by the migration of individuals from various civilizational background as cheap manpower, are unproductive for the construction of a universally accepted world civilization. Such actions can additionally create chaotic socio-political conditions, awkward problems (e.g. in Canada, where the most important immigrant population now has Chinese as its mother tongue and writing system), the decomposition of families, and individual alienation. The promotion of such historical processes could produce a hotbed for both xenophobia and supremacism. The massive penetration of alien populations can engender feelings of invasion and generate xenophobia. (Furthermore, democratization is not necessarily a solution for deeply divided societies; the mechanic application of 'democratic' majoritarianism can lead to a dictatorship by fixed majority blocks.) In this context, xenophobia should not be confused with racism; xenophobia can be attributed simply to situations, whereas racism involves peoples' inherent, constitutive, and substantive characteristics. By crossing a border, a person can nullify his state as a 'foreigner', but he cannot change his race in this way. Racism, on the other hand, is a form of supremacism, and supremacism, as a prejudicial ideology, can be based not only on race but also on religion, oligarchic heritage, etc. Again, the assertion of existing anthropological group differences itself refers to the scientific field and issue of genetics, and should therefore not be equated simply with racism.

If a dialogue among civilizations is the key to a safe future", we should consider this dialogue not only in terms of an academic dialogue, but also as an exchange among actors in international politics. However, a civilizational dialogue among international actors can only occur when each actor recognizes the equal sovereign might of his partners. Thus the constitution of a number of strong, independent civilization-states is a condition for this dialogue and the key to a safe future for all peoples and states, be they Western or Arabic or other; it is the key to mutual international security based on world-wide consent and not on dictate.

NOTES:

 'Trade' refers to the increasing number of financial transactions - such as cosmopolitan transnational and multinational capital exports - operating on the basis of symbols instead of on natural or transformed raw materials.

 Ankerl, G.: Global Communication Without Universal Civilization. Vol. I: Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations: Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western. Geneva, 2000, 530 p. ISBN 2-88155-004-5, p. 28.

 Comte, A.: Bandoung, tournant de l'histoire. Paris, 1965. Jouve, E.: Le Tiers Monde. Paris, 1990.

 A parallel can be drawn between these and the Trivarga: Dharma (adherence to the (pre)Scripture); Kama (race-preservation through love); and Artha (self-preservation through economic and ecological activity).

 The Sikh's religion, for example, is related to Gurmuki writing, Buddhism to Prakrit, the natural Pali, Western Chiristian to Latin, and Orthodox to Cyrillic.

 Western sciences, which constitute a basis of our axiomatic belief system, are related to their own particular writing system. E.g., chemistry.

 Pirenne, H.: Grands Courants de l'Histoire Universelle. Paris, 1945-56. Sanderson, K. S.
(ed.): Civilizations and World System: Studying World-Historical Change. Walnut Creek,
Calif. 1995,

 Ankerl, G.: Tolerance. Variation of the concept according to different civilizations. In: Democracy and Tolerance. Paris-Seoul: UNESCO, 1995, pp. 59-78.

 Said, E.: Orientalism. New York, 1978. Said, E.: Culture and Imperialism. New York, 1993. Carrier, J. G. (ed.): Occindentalism. Oxford, 1995, p.4.

 Kishore Mahbubani: Can Asians Think? New York, 2nd ed., 2002.

 Ankerl, G.: Global … id. Pp.119-344.

 Oommen, T.K.: Ethnicity, Immigration, and Cultural Pluralism: India and the USA. In: Kohn, M. L. (ed): Cross-Cultural Research in Sociology. Newbury Park, Calif. 1989, p. 291

 S. Huntington's well-publicized theses are simple tools for substantiating Western rule in our time. Indeed, his enumeration (and description) of living civilizations is scientifically unfounded, and the historical necessity of a clash between them remains undemonstrated. See especially Salim Rashid (ed.)'s 'Clash of Civilizations?' Asian Response (Dhaka, 1997), Abul Kalam's chapter, 'Huntingtion and the World Order: Systematic Concern or Hegemonic Vision?' (839-64 pp.), Amit Gupta, 'The Clash of Militarized Civilizations?' (65-74 pp.), and Ankerl, G., op cit 2000, pp.133, 153, 174-5, 250-1, 274, 290, 308, 316, 360-2, 386, 428, 433, 452, 460, and 470.

 Keat, Russell: Cultural Goods and the Limits of the Market: Beyond Commercial Modelling. New York, 2001.

 Udell, J.: Toward Conceptual Codification in Race and Ethnic Relations. New York, 1979,
pp.25ff.
 
 



GLOBAL COMMUNICATION AND PEOPLES' MOTHER TONGUE

Introduction:

So they are all a single people with a single language!
said Yahweh. This is but the start of their undertaking!..
It was named Babel therefore, because there Yahweh confused the language of the whole earth."

Genesis 11:6,9

"If English is ever adopted as the international language,
it will not be on account of its perfection as an
instrument, but for economic, political, and cultural reasons."

A. L. Guérard: Short History of the International
Language Movement. New York, pp. 40, 45

Communication is the real substratum of all social relations, and language is specific to human communication. Every human being as a "symbol-using animal" has at least a mother tongue which is an objective criterion for his membership in a speech community. The (primary) verbal linguistic competence acquired in an intimate family setting as the mother tongue plays - beyond its pragmatic function of communication - a fundamental role for the individual's first world-view, general cognitive categorization, social orientation and for his integration into his community's cultural heritage. It remains a primary building block of his personal identity during his whole life. Being a people's mother tongue is also the guarantee for a language as such to being neither dead (as Latin is) nor Utopian (as Esperanto and Volapük are) but to be living.

In societies with script the "scholastically" learned writing is already a deliberate intellectual integration in a wider (literate) social and historical entity (perhaps an empire) which relates the individual to what we call a civilization with shared scripture - Bible, Koran, Buddhist or Confucian writings. On this level of education the individual might already encounter other languages with which his mother tongue shares - or not - one and the same writing system (e.g. Roman, Arabic alphabets, Chinese morphemic writing, picto-, ideo-, logograms).

On this level of formal scholarly assimilation of "writing and reading" the language appears as a supplementary burden on people, possibly with a net disadvantage, for whom this step necessarily means the learning of a second language.

As far as the second language is concerned, it implies a deliberate passage of communication between cultures. By historical and geo-political circumstances this easing of intercultural compenetration could be (1) reciprocal or (2) one-sided, implying some hierarchization. In the first case the relation between contact languages could be symbiotic, while in the second accommodative - or even assimilative. Second language learning in the Helvetic Confederation, for example, is a mutual process, while the learning of Spanish by Indian immigrants in Ibero-American cities or that of English by Hispanic immigrants in the USA are examples of the second case. (See the exclusivist official English Language Movement in the American States as reborn nativism.) The latter is a matter of linguistic expansion which enlarges the cultural influence of one speech community, while it imposes on the others a multi-layer identity (and eventually a new enculturation) as the price for intercultural communication and understanding, and in the extreme maybe an alienation or acculturation. Depending on the lexical, structural, syntactical and scriptural proximity of a mother tongue as the "source" language to that of the learned second language indicates the cost of this integration into a wider, eventually global civilizational entity. Indeed, the construction of a globalistic world order requires a thorough transnational linguistic understanding.

Presently the development of multiform (mostly electronic) instantaneous telecommunication - largely thanks to ubiquitous computing - and partly that of the supersonic intercontinental mass transport generated an intensive globalization process, even if as yet it touched - esp. beyond the mass media such as radio and TV - unequally (and only a small proportion of) the world population. This fact and especially Internet generated a powerful tendency to use English - as well as the Roman writing pattern - in many alleys of international relations in exclusivity. The English language also penetrated the everyday life of many societies (esp. those with similar roots) with its idioms and "cultural configurations", - even if the reflection of a culture in each specific language is relative and not uniform.

We can empirically gauge the size, speed and the mechanisms of the implicit and explicit imposition of English (Crawford) by many ways and methods such as the number of anglicisms as neologisms, borrowed words, loan translations in newspapers, - and even deep interference of plain linguistic techniques (not only by phonetic and morphemic structural elements but by paradigmatic and syntactic features) - as well as by the statistics of the choice in second language learning.

The global and local - political and cultural - impact of these tendencies is a subject for timely studies.

Even if in our scientifically advanced epoch all of the world's languages have not yet been investigated by Western scholars, accumulating knowledge of facts and their effect on linguistic interaction helps us not only to comprehend the phenomenon but to prevent impending tensions due to loss of identity and the feeling of collective alienations as well as to reestablish equilibria in the coexistence of languages based on frank linguistic cooperation. The open, explicit discussion of the subject itself will smooth out the uneasiness felt about the world hegemony of one of the living languages due to "designatio unius est exclusio alterius".

Issues of discussion:

Mother tongue as a first basic building block of cultural (and social) identification.


Top



 


 
 

DECLARATION



L'Institut Interuniversitaire (INU) a pour but de créer, d'appliquer et de diffuser des connaissances exactes en sciences humaines basées sur une conception universelle de la science. L'Institut exerce ses activités dans une perspective multicontinentale et polyglotte sans l'interférence d'idéologies, de préjugés ou d'autres considérations extra-scientifiques.

L'INU s'efforce de mettre au service de la communauté les découvertes des sciences humaines, tout en se référant aux acquis d'autres disciplines scientifiques.

Pour atteindre son but, l'INU s'engage à remplir une fonction critique et une fonction créatrice.

1. FONCTION CRITIQUE DE L'INU

Par l'analyse des prémisses, des postulats et concepts fondamentaux des théories scientifiques, l'INU contribue à l'élimination de toute considération implicitement ou explicitement extrinsèque aux raisonnements scientifiques, sans s'arrêter aux intérêts personnels. Il est affranchi de la tutelle de tout argument d'autorité émanant du pouvoir politique, de la puissance économique, du monopole d'information, du privilège acquis ou statutaire, académique ou de naissance.

Au sein même de la communauté académique, l'INU s'applique à combattre le sophisme qui, par sa rhétorique implicite, fait obstacle à la recherche créatrice. A cette fin, il développe et applique les méthodes de l'épistémologie et de la sociologie de la connaissance scientifique. Il soutient également les publications pour leur seul mérite scientifique. L'Institut considère la publication anonyme du type Bourbaki comme un moyen approprié pour ramener le débat et la création scientifique à leur véritable domaine, car l'anonymat empêche toute argumentation ad hominem et élimine la prolifération de vaines publications.

En conformité avec ses intérêts scientifiques et son opinion déontologique, il est, d'une manière générale, de la compétence de l'INU de soumettre à un examen critique l'exactitude des faits établis. L'INU révèle les abus de la sémantique et l'inexactitude des informations qui déforment la réalité sociale, en tant que données sociologiques, dans la pratique quotidienne de la vie publique.

2. FONCTION CREATRICE DE L'INU

Fondé sur la connaissance positive, l'Institut se propose de faire des recherches selon des critères épistémologiques les plus stricts.

Considérant l'état actuel des sciences humaines et leur situation dans la communauté scientifique, l'INU leur attribue un statut dévolu aux sciences exactes et expérimentales. Pour se garder de maintenir la distinction entre 'hard science' et 'soft science', l'INU favorise plutôt la recherche dans les domaines des sciences humaines où méthodes et paradigmes, permettant des formulations exactes, une conceptualisation en termes opérationnels et une vérification inductive, peuvent être développés. (Par exemple, recherche sur la communication, l'échange et autres domaines du comportement spatio-temporel).

Bien que l'INU mette l'accent sur la rigueur dans la recherche sociale, il ne perd pas de vue qu'une destination primordiale de la connaissance est d'éclairer les aspirations humaines - que ce soit au plan individuel, collectif ou social - et de contribuer à leur épanouissement. Bien au contraire, grâce à son orientation objectiviste et à sa préférence pour une stratégie de recherche basée sur l'expérimentation, l'INU renforce la validité interne des résultats obtenus et prépare ainsi le terrain pour une action relevante et responsable.

De plus, l'utilisation des résultats de la recherche expérimentale, pour résoudre des problèmes concrets, permet d'évaluer le pouvoir prévisionnel de la science et donne de nouvelles impulsions aux recherches futures.

L'INU recourt à la coopération interdisciplinaire et multinatio-nale afin d'établir des expertises pour des organisations publiques et privées, de conseiller des particuliers et ainsi de résoudre des problèmes techniques, politiques ou cliniques. Pour que ces recommandations soient pleinement utiles, l'Institut se réfère au système de valeurs exprimé par les responsables de décision ( decisionmakers), sans toutefois le partager nécessairement. Cependant, les systèmes de valeurs ne se situent pas hors de toute investigation scientifique. Outre que l'INU applique la science de la décision et assiste les responsables de décision dans la reformulation de leurs problèmes pratiques en une problématique scientifique, il développe aussi les catégories de la 'science privée' qui permettent de restructurer ces systèmes de valeurs en termes explicites.

*

L'INU est ouvert aux suggestions et aux arguments de groupes ou d'individus ayant été socialisés dans diverses cultures, sans considération hiérarchique. Il encourage, anime, aide et coordonne les chercheurs individuels et les groupes de recherche qui souscrivent à des normes épistémologiques rigoureuses. Conformément à ses objectifs, l'INU diffuse les hypothèses vérifiables et les résultats de recherche vérifiés par des publications et par l'emploi d'autres média - télétransmission, diffusion et communication - pour autant que ces techniques permettent d'acheminer des connaissances scientifiques et non des réflexions indisciplinées, même sous une forme esthétiquement très séduisante. L'action de l'INU est fondamentalement orientée vers la probité scientifique.
   

RECHERCHES RECENTES
 

NOUVELLES PUBLICATIONS DE L'INU PRESS

- Guy Ankerl: Global Communication without Universal Civilization

Vol. one:        Coexisting Contemporary Civilizations

                     (Arabo-Muslim, Bharati, Chinese, and Western)

2000. XXIX+501 pp.

ISBN 2-88155-004-5 ISBN in Bookland/EAN 978 288 155 004 1. 

$40 or 60 Swiss Francs. 

Par cet ouvrage très fouillé, l'auteur exerce une critique fondamentale sur l'approche bipolaire pratiquée en politique et en sciences sociales par l'Occident.

En effet, l'Occident "civilisé"doit accepter qu'il y a non seulement plusieurs civilisations anciennes, mais qu'il est appelé à coexister avec plusieurs civilisations présentes.

Le premier volume intitulé Coexisting Contemporary Civiliza­tions identifie les civilisations arabo-musulmane, chinoise, indienne et occidentale selon leurs constituants anthropologique, matériel et scriptural. Au-delà de la civilisation de business occidentale actuelle, ces trois constitutants sont différemment hiérarchisés selon les civilisations. Cet ordre de subordination engendre un ordre de valeurs spécifique; par conséquent les différentes civilisations présentent une institution axiale distincte. 

L'ouvrage traite l'interaction du noyau anglo-américain avec la périphérie catholique latine et la Diaspora au sein du monde occidental. Il différencie aussi clairement l'Occident de la civilisation-Etat chinoise, de la civilisation-Etat indienne et des pays de civilisation arabo-musulmane réunis dans l' Organisation de la Conférence Islamique.

Avec la tendance occidentale à adhérer au globalisme, représenté par l'échantillon culturel du melting pot new-yorkais, l'auteur considère le modèle brésilien comme étant très efficace pour l'intégration de complexes de civilisation africains.

La partie conclusive du premier volume du Global communication without universal civilization introduit le lecteur dans le sujet du deuxième volume. En effet, l'auteur s'efforce de réfuter la formule manichéenne occidentale qui divise le mondeen catégories est-ouest, sud-nord et, plus précisemment, ouest et non-ouest. Il vise ainsi à remplacer le dialogue entre l'ouest et le tiers monde par une table ronde des civilisations vivantes. Le deuxième volume va traiter le passage du dialogue actuel nord-sud, d'ores et déjà discrédité, au dialogue global plus authentique basé sur le pluralisme des civilisations.


Autres titres récents:

- Dirk Pereboom: Logique et Logistique. Une Initiation. Deuxième édition élargie. Collection Méthodes. ISBN 28781550029. 38 CHF.

Apprentissage pratique des bases de la logique et de la logistique, en 233 pages assorties de nombreux exercices et leur solution.

-Théopiste Butare: Secteurs Traditionnel et Moderne dans le Processus de Développement.INU Societal Research Series. ISBN 2881550037. 42 CHF.

- Guy Ankerl: Urbanization Overspeed in Tropical Africa. INU Societal Research Series. ISBN 2881550002. 20 CHF.

Traduction de l'Urbanisation Rapide en Afrique Tropicale. Paris, Berger-Levrault. Paris. ISBN 2701306736. 

Début
 
 



 

DEKLARATION



Das Interuniversitäre Institut (INU) fördert wissenschaftliche Forschung nach einem universalen Wissenschaftskonzept, d.h. ohne sich zu Lehrmeinungen bestimmter nationalen Schulen oder besonderer Ideologien zu bekennen. Sein Character ist multikontinental und multizivilisatorsch. Weiterhin verbreitet en exakte humanwissenschaftliche Kenntnisse und wendet sie an.

In seinem Bestreben, der menschlichen Gesellschaft durch Anwendung wissenschaftlicher Forschungergebnisse zu dienen, konzentriert das INU sich auf die Humanwissenschaften, aber - wenn nötig - verwendet es auch Beiträge anderer Wissenschaften.

Um seine Ziel zu verwirklichen, erfüllt das INU 2 Aufgaben:

1. DIE KRITISCHE AUFGABE DES INU

Durch die Analyse des Prämissen, Postulate und Zentralbegriffe wissenschaflicher Theorien, sucht das INU alle Argumente, die implizit oder explozit einer wissenschaftlichen Beweisführung fremd sind, zu identifizieren und auszuschliessen. Diesen Aufgabe widmet sich das Institut ohne Rücksicht auf Personen oder persönliche Interessen. Das INU hält sich frei von der Vormundschaft autoritätsgläubiger Argumentation, die von politischen Instanzen, wirtschaftlichen Verbänden, Informationsmonopolen, akademischen Institutionen oder persönlicher Einflussnahmen ausgeht.

Im Bereich der Wissenschaft setzt sich das INU mit jener Sophistik auseinander, die mit im Grunde nur rhetorischen Mitteln produktive Forschung behindert. Zu diesem Zweck entwickelt das INU Methoden der Epistemologie und der Wissenschaftssoziologie und wendet sie entsprechend an. Es fördert Veröffentlichungen ausschliesslich um ihres wissenschaftlichen Wertes willen. Das iNU hält anonyme Veröffentlichungen - wie z.B. von Bourbaki - für ein geeignetes Mittel, die wissenschaftliche Auseinandersetzung und Porduktivität auf ihr eigentliches Anliegen zurückzubringen, da Anonymität eine personenbezogene Argumentation und das Überhandnehmen von Veröffentlichungen verhindert, die vor allem der persönlichen Eitelkeit dienen sollen.

Zu den Verpflichtungen des INU gehört weiterhin, die Exaktheit festgestellter Tatsachen kritisch zu überprüfen. Im Interesse der Alltagpraxis des öffentlichen Lebens stellt das INU semantischen Missbrauchen und ungenaue Informationen bloss, die Daten der sozialen Wirklichkeit entstellen.

2. DIE PROUKTIVE AUFGABE DES INU

Das Institut führt Forschungen nach stregen wissenschaftlichen Standards durch.

Ausgehend vom gegenewärtigen Stand der Humanwissenschaften im allgemeinen und ihrer Stellung in der Wissenschaft im besonderen, beansprucht das INU für sie denselben Rang, den andere, exakten und experimentellen Wissenschaften haben. Statt die Teilung zwischen 'hard science' und 'soft science' fortzuführen, fördert das INU Forschung auf jenen Gebieten der Humanwissenschaften, in denen Methoden und Paradigmen entwickelt werden können, die exakte Formulierung, operationalisierbare Begriffsbildung und indiuktive Beweisführung als Verifikation ermöglichen (z.B. Forschung auf den Gebieten der Kommunikation und anderes raum-zeit-lichen Verhaltens).

Indem das INU auf strengen wissenschaftlichen Standards besteht, sieht sich das INU nicht behindert, die gesellschaftlichen Auf-gabe der Erkenntnis zu berècksichtingen, menschliches Strebens - persönlicher, kollektiver oder sozialer Art - aufzuklären und in seiner Entfaltung zu fördern. Gerade indem das INU auf seiner objektivistischen und experimentellen Forschungsstrategie besthet, erhöht es die interne Gültigkeit seiner Forschungsergebnisse und schafft so die Voraussetzung für relevantes und verantwortliches Handeln. Ferner trägt die Anwendung experimentell kontrollierter Forschungsergebnisse bei der Lösung konkreter Probleme auch zur Überprüfung der Voraussagekraft der Wissenschaft bei und gibt damit künftiger Forschung neue Impulse.

Öffentliche und private Organisationen wie Einzelpersonen werden vom INU sachverständig auf der Grundlage interdisziplinärer und transnationaler Zusammenarbeit zur Lösung technischer, politi-scher und klinischer Probleme beraten. Um die praktische Brauchbarkeit seiner Empfählungen zu sichern, bezieht sich das INU letztlich auf das Präferenzsystem derer, die die Entscheidungen treffen, auch wenn es diese Präferenz nicht teilt. Diese Präfe-renzsysteme selbst liegen jedoch nicht völlig ausserhalb jeglicher wissenschaftlicher Überprüfung.

Das INU nutzt nicht nur die Entscheidungswissenschaft und hilft den Entscheidenen dabei, ihre Fragen in wissenschaftlich anwendbare Begriffe umzuformulieren, sondern es kann auch Kategorien für eine als Privatwissenschaft zu bezeichnende wissenschaftliche Disziplin anbieten, um das Präferenzsystem explizit rekonstruierbar zu machen.

*

Das INU ist offen für Vorschläge und Argumente von Individuen und Gruppen verschiedener kultureller Herkunft und unabhängig von hierarchisachen Erwägungen. Es ermutigt, fördert und koordiniert die wissenschaftliche Arbeit von Individuen und Gruppen nach strengen epistemologischen Kriterien. Im Einklang mit seinen Zielsetzungen verarbeitet das INU verifizierbare Indeen in seinen eigenen Veröffentlichungen und durch andere Medien der Fernübertragung, Diffusion und Kommunikation, insofern diese Techniken geeignet sind, wissenschaftliche Kenntnisse zu vermitteln, und nicht als Übermittler disziplinloser Spekulationen dient, auch wenn diese in ästitisch ansprechneder Form geboten wird. Das INU lässt sich von keinen anderen Werten leiten als denen der wissenschaftlichen Zuverlässigkeit.

Anfang
 
 



   


DECLARACION

El Instituto Interuniversitario (INU) tiene como fin crear, aplicar y difundir conocimientos exactos en ciencias humanas basadas en una concepción universal de la cienca. El Instituto ejerce sus actividades con una perspectiva multicontinental y políglota sin interferencias ideológicas, prejuicios u otras consideraciones extra-científicas.

El INU se esfuerza en poner al servicio de la comunidad los descubrimientos de las ciencias humanas, refiriendose siempre a lo adquirido en otras disciplinas cientificas.

Para alcanzar su fin, el INU se compromete a desempenar une función crítica y une función creadora.

1. FUNCION CRITICA DEL INU

Por análisis de las premisas, de los postulados y conceptos fundamentales de la teorias cientificas, el INU contribuye a la eliminación de toda consideración implícamente o explícamente extrinseca a los razonamientos cientificis, sin pararse en los intereses personales. Está exento de la tutela de todo argumento de autoridad que emane del poder poltico, de la potencia económica, del monopolio de informacíón, del privilegio adquirido o estatuario, academico o de nacimiento.

En el seno mismo de la comunidad académica, el INU se aplica en combatir el sofisma que, por su retórica implícita, obstaculiza la investigación creadora. Con este fin, desarrolla y aplica métodos de la epistemologia y de la sociologia del conocimiento científico. Apoya igualmente las publicaciones anónimas, del tipo Bourbaki, como un medio apropiado para conduir el debate y la creación cientificos, a su verdadero campo, ya que el anonimato dificulta toda argumentación ad hominem y elemina la proliferación de publicaciones vanas.

Conformemente con sus intereses científicos y su opinión deontológica, es de manera general, competencia del INU el someter a examen crítico la exactitud de los hechos establecidos. El INU revela los abusos de la semantica y la inexactitud de las informaciones que deforman la realidad social, como datos sociológicos, en la practica cotidiana de la vida publica.

2. FUNCION CREADORA DEL INU

Fundado en el conocimiento positivo, el Instituto se propone hacer investigaciones según los criterios epistemológicos más estrictos.

Considerando el etado actual de las ciencias humanas y de su situación en la comunidad científica, el INU les atribuye un estatuto tan exigente como es el estatuto correspondido en dereche a las ciencias exactas y experimentales. Para poder manener la distinción entre 'hard ciencia' and 'soft ciencia', el INU favorece más las investigaciones en el campo de ciencias humanas, donde métodos y paradigmas, permiten formulaciones exactas, una conceptualización en términos operacionles y una verificación inductiva, pueden asi desarrollarse. (Por ejemplo, investigación sobre la communicación, el intercambio y otros campos del comportamiento espacio-temporal.)

Aunque el INU marca el acento sobre el rigor en la investigación social, no pierde de vista que un destino primordial del conocimiento es aclarar las aspiraciones humanas - sea en el plano individual, colectivo o social - y contribuir a su realización. Por el contrario, gracias a su orientación objectivista y a su preferencia por una estrategia de investigación basada en la experimentación, el INU refuerza la validez interna de los resultados obtenidos y prepara asi el terreno para una acción de realce y responsable.

Además, la untilización de los resultados de la investigación experimental, para resolver problemas concretos, permite evaluar el poder previsional de la ciencia y de nuevos impulsos a las investigaciones futuras.

El INU recurre a la cooperación interdisciplinaria y multinational afin de establecer peritajes para organismos públicos y privados, de aconsejar a los particulares y resolver asi problemas tecnicos, politicos o clinicos. Para que estas recomendaciones sean plenamente útiles, el Insituto se refiere al sistema de valores expresado por los responsables de decisión (decisionmakers), sin por ello compartirlos necesariamente. Sinembargo, los sistemas de valores no se situan fuera de toda investigación científica.

Además de que le INU aplica la ciencia de la decisión y asiste a los responsables de decisión en la reformulación de sus problemas practicos en una probelmatica cientifca, desarrolla tambien categorías de la "ciencia privada que permiten estructurar estos sistemas de valores en términos explícitos.

*

El INU esta abierto a sugestiones y argumentos de grupos o individuos socializados en diversas culturas, sin consideración jerárquica. Sostiene, anima, ayuda y coordina a los investigadores individuales y a los grupos de investigación que sus-criben a normas epistemológicas rigurosas. De acuerdo con sus objectivos el INU difunde hipótesis verificables y los resultados de investigación verificados por publicaciones, y por el empleo de otros media - teletransmisión, difusión y comunicación - siempre y cuando estas técnicas permitan canalizar conocimientos científicos no reflexiones indisciplinades aunque sea en forma estéticamente seductora. La acción del INU esta fundamentalmente orientada hacia la probidad científica.

Comienzo