Uncertain World: Political Responses to Economic Challenges in the Next Decade by *Fyodor Lukyanov

The world is preparing for the worst in the next decade, and indeed the next few years promise to be rocky. The old world order has grown obsolete, and the leading countries have yet to forge a new order in its place.

 

Relations between the United States and China – which both define the global economy and are defined by it – will be the main collision point, determining the future trajectory of the world. 

The profound interdependence of these two countries – with the United States as borrower and consumer and China as lender and producer – has long been a burden on both nations. And as the global financial crisis has shown, an economic system based on U.S.-Chinese interdependence is unstable and capable of wreaking havoc around the world. Ideally, the two countries should join forces to diversify the sources of their growth and development, but first they must fundamentally change their economic policies.

China can do this, theoretically. Several years ago it initiated policies aimed at reducing its dependence on the U.S. market, but that goal cannot be achieved overnight and the risks involved are high. China needs to maintain the pace of its economic growth to ensure social and political stability. A major change in its economic policy could provoke the United States and the EU to take response measures that would not be in China’s interests.

The situation in the United States is even more complicated. There are deep political divides between the two political parties and in U.S. society at large, while a new economic strategy will require both national unity and substantial new investments. In this highly polarized political climate, there is little appetite for either. Washington will most likely have to search for a foreign policy solution to America’s economic challenges. In other words, it will have to wield its military and political influence to try to make China play by its rules.

Support for a hard-line approach to China could increase dramatically by the middle of the next decade, when a new political cycle puts a Republican back in the White House.

The difficulty for America is that its symbiotic relationship with China is more a domestic issue than a foreign issue for America, as it greatly affects both the unemployment level and the competitiveness of U.S. industry. 

The economic disagreements between the two countries are deep and global in nature, but it could very well be events in East Asia that cause an escalation. China, which has been acting cautiously on the international stage, has made its intentions in the region clear. China recently laid claim to almost the whole of the South China Sea, alarming its neighbors and Washington most of all, which sees this newfound Chinese assertiveness in the region as an unwelcome change. 

The countries in the region are looking on with concern. Most analysts agree that economically China has all but replaced the United States as the dominant power in East Asia. The question is: What will Washington do in response?

The United States has used the growing tension between the two Koreas as a pretext to build up its military presence in the region and to strengthen ties with its Asian allies: Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Australia. However, if China continues to expand its influence in the region, some East and Southeast Asian countries may consider switching allegiance. To reverse this trend, the United States will have to flex its muscles. 

Territorial disputes, which China has with nearly all of its neighbors, could potentially lead to conflicts. The focal point is Taiwan, which could become an outpost of U.S. influence if U.S.-Chinese relations deteriorate significantly. Any U.S. actions regarding Taiwan could escalate tensions to the point of military conflict. An all-out war is unlikely, but a regional arms race and greater confrontation on all other issues are possible.

The United States and China have also started to butt heads in other parts of the world.

The Iranian nuclear problem will be resolved in the next decade, one way or another. If negotiations fail, the United States could use military force to neutralize Iran’s nuclear capabilities. But this show of strength will also be a message to China, the largest foreign investor in Iran, that the United States is not afraid to use force to reaffirm its authority. True, the outcome of a military strike on Iran is unpredictable, and it could very well backfire and weaken the United States, as was the case in Iraq.

U.S.-Chinese disagreements are unlikely to escalate to the point of armed conflict, if only because China is aware of its relative weaknesses. Washington could take measures to curtail China’s economic expansion across the world and to strengthen relations with its traditional allies in the region and with other countries that could be used to offset China, primarily the “neutral” Southeast Asian countries, India and, possibly, Russia.

Russia will have to review its international strategy if China’s role in global politics changes. The world is changing, and the era when the West was Russia’s reference point is coming to an end. The role of the West (and Europe in particular) in the world is decreasing, while China, with which Russia shares the longest land border, is surging to the fore.

It was believed before that Moscow would never accept the role of Beijing’s junior partner. But now things are not so black and white, and Russia may have to get used to the idea in the next decade. 

This, of course, is only one of many possible scenarios, and efforts could be made to prevent this from happening. One thing is clear, though: As the U.S.-Chinese confrontation grows, Russia will be forced to choose a side.

The underlying problem in today’s world is that the global economy has outgrown national policies. This fact is clearly seen in U.S.-Chinese relations, problems in the European Union, and the vastly different national responses to the global economic crisis. Initially, it was believed that this problem could be overcome if political processes were modeled after economic ones – through the trans-nationalization of politics, which is just what the EU intended. But there is another option: To return to more traditional economic processes, which would require gradually scaling back globalization.

The next decade of the 21st century will likely be a period of political responses to economic challenges. Globalization was once a beneficial process, especially for the leading economies that acted as its driving force. The West may now benefit from curtailing globalization, as China and India are becoming increasingly dependent on the global market. It is China and India, not the West, that stand to benefit most if globalization continues at the present pace.

Scaling back globalization would be no mere change in policy but rather a paradigm shift requiring great political will and skills and a clear understanding of the end goal. But the emerging powers will not sit idly by; they will try to maintain the current trajectory of the global economy.  

Neither politicians nor the public are ready for such a drastic change. But, if nothing else, the last 20 years have shown us that the improbable is far from impossible. 

Uncertain World: U.S.-Russian alliance cannot be ruled out

Uncertain World: A troubled year across the former Soviet Union

Uncertain World: Arguments against Russia joining NATO

Uncertain World: Lukashenko set for re-election, not surprisingly

Uncertain World: WikiLeaks document dump to undermine Obama’s clout in Moscow

Uncertain World: Unfinished business - Asia’s troubles rooted in a disputed past

Uncertain World: A quarter-century of going in circles

Uncertain World: The disputed Kuril Islands and Russia’s broader Asian strategy

Uncertain World: Talking Afghanistan without schadenfreude

Uncertain World: Russia’s Asia challenge

*

Is Russia unpredictable? Perhaps, but one shouldn’t exaggerate – its randomness often follows a consistent pattern. But is the world at large predictable? The past two decades have seen all forecasts refuted more than once and have taught us only one thing – to be ready for any change. This column is on what the nations and governments are facing in the era of global uncertainty.

*Fyodor Lukyanov is Editor-in-Chief of the Russia in Global Affairs journal – the most authoritative source of expertise on Russian foreign policy and global developments. He is also a frequent commentator on international affairs and contributes to various media in the United States, Europe and China, including academic journals Social Research, Europe-Asia Studies, Columbia Journal of International Affairs. Mr. Lukyanov is a senior member of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy and a member of the Presidential Council on Human Rights and Civic Society Institutions. He holds a degree from Moscow State University.

Faith in a Globalized Age by *Tony Blair

For years, it was assumed, certainly in the West, that, as society developed, religion would wither away. But it hasn’t, and, at the start of a new decade, it is time for policymakers to take religion seriously.

The number of people proclaiming their faith worldwide is growing. This is clearly so in the Islamic world. Whereas Europe’s birthrate is stagnant, the Arab population is set to double in the coming decades, and the population will rise in many Asian Muslim-majority countries. Christianity is also growing – in odd ways and in surprising places.

Religion’s largest growth is in China. Indeed, the religiosity of China is worth reflecting on. There are more Muslims in China than in Europe, more practicing Protestants than in England, and more practicing Catholics than in Italy. In addition, according to the latest surveys, around 100 million Chinese identify themselves as Buddhist. And, of course, Confucianism – a philosophy rather than a religion – is deeply revered.

There is a huge Evangelical movement in Brazil and Mexico. Faith remains for many in the United States a vital part of their lives. Even in Europe, the numbers confessing to a belief in God remain high. And, of course there are hundreds of millions of Hindus and still solid numbers of Sikhs and Jews.

Those of faith do great work because of it. Around 40% of health care in Africa is delivered by faith-based organizations. Muslim, Hindu, and Jewish relief groups are active the world over in combating poverty and disease. In any developed nation, you will find selfless care being provided to the disabled, the dying, the destitute, and the disadvantaged, by people acting under the impulse of their faith. Common to all great religions is love of neighbors and human equality before God.

Unfortunately, compassion is not the only context in which religion motivates people. It can also promote extremism, even terrorism. This is where faith becomes a badge of identity in opposition to those who do not share it, a kind of spiritual nationalism that regards those who do not agree – even those within a faith who live a different view of it – as unbelievers, infidels, and thus enemies.

To a degree, this has always been so. What has changed is the pressure of globalization, which is pushing the world’s peoples ever closer together as technology advances and shrinks the world. Growing up 50 years ago, children might rarely meet someone of a different cultural or faith background. Today, when I stand in my ten-year-old son’s playground or look at his friends at his birthday party, I find myriad different languages, faiths, and colors.

Personally, I rejoice in this. But such a world requires that mutual respect replace mutual suspicion. Such a world upends traditions and challenges old thinking, forcing us to choose consciously to embrace it. Or not.

And there is the rub: for some, this force is a threat. It menaces deeply conservative societies. And, for those for whom religion matters, globalization can sometimes be accompanied by an aggressive secularism or hedonism that makes many uneasy.

So we must make sense of how the world of faith interacts with the compulsive process of globalization. Yet it is extraordinary how little political time or energy we devote to doing so. Most of the conflicts in today’s world have a religious dimension. Extremism based on a perversion of Islam shows no sign of abating; indeed, it will not abate until it is taken on religiously, as well as by security measures.

This extremism is, slowly but surely, producing its own reaction, as we see from Islamaphobic parties’ electoral gains in Europe, and statements by European leaders that multiculturalism has failed.

Of course, throughout time, religion has often been part of a political conflict. But that doesn’t mean that religion should be discounted. On the contrary, it requires a special focus. I see this very plainly spending so much time in Jerusalem, where – East and West – there is an emphatic increase in religiosity.

I started my Faith Foundation precisely to create greater understanding between the faiths. My reasoning is simple. Those advocating extremism in the name of religion are active, well resourced, and – whatever the reactionary nature of their thinking – brilliant at using modern communication and technology. We estimate that literally billions of dollars every year are devoted to promoting this view of religion.

So my Foundation has a university program – now underway in nine countries – that is designed to take religion out of the sole preserve of divinity schools and start analyzing its role in the world today. We have another program – in 15 countries, with others set to join – that links high school students across the world through interactive technology to discuss their faith and what it means to them. And we have an action program through which young people work with those of another faith to raise awareness of the Millennium Development Goals, the United Nations-led program to combat world poverty.

We are just one organization. There are others starting. But governments should start to take this far more seriously. The Alliance of Civilizations, begun by Spain and Turkey, is one example. The King of Saudi Arabia has also shown great leadership in this sphere. Yet this is not just about bringing high-level people together. It has to be taken down into the grassroots of nations, especially into the media of their young people.

Finally, religious leaders must accept a new responsibility: to stand up firmly and resolutely for respecting those of faiths different from their own. Aggressive secularists and extremists feed off each other. Together, they do constitute a real challenge to people of faith. We must demonstrate the loving nature of true faith; otherwise, religion will be defined by a battle in which extremists seize control of faith communities and secularists claim that such attitudes are intrinsic to religion.

This would be a tragedy. For, above all, it is in this era of globalization that faith can represent reason and progress. Religion isn’t dying; nor should it. The world needs faith.

*Tony Blair is a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Project Syndicate, 2010.

Commonsense Money by *Jeff Gates

Since 1913, debt has been the only way that we in the U.S. have known to create money. Choking on debt yet short on money, Americans are reeling from too much monetary theory and too little commonsense.

Those who sold us the theory also ensured recurring recessions. Each debt-induced cycle features rich-get-richer booms followed by debilitating busts. We designed our way into this mess. We can design our way out.

As yet, there’s no sign that policy-makers know a way out. Nor do their advisers. Over the past century, every economist has been educated the same. They are unable to see the real problem because the theory they were taught is the source of the problem.

The U.S. Federal Reserve model of central banking was one of America’s key exports. Every nation now “monetizes” pretty much the same way—with debt. 

Good news is on the horizon from major exporting nations. Many of them are Islamic and flush with money. Much of that money originated as debt in industrialized nations.

Those nations are staggering under immense debt. Much of that debt is owed to nations where they must buy oil and gas to fuel their economies and generate funds to…repay debt. 

Yet the creditors too are in a bind. Where can they prudently invest their vast pools of debt-backed money? Do they buy more U.S. government debt? Euro bonds? Do they hold their reserves in dollars, euros or pounds sterling—all debt-based? 

Invest instead in commodities and they just bid up the price. That may be good news for speculators but it is not a sensible risk management strategy. So what to do? When all else fails, commonsense may yet find its way into this debate.

Tomorrow’s Commodity Today

The safest commodity is one you can control. Look at China’s control over rare earth metals. However control of that sort is a beggar-thy-neighbor approach, akin to investing in precious metals like gold or silver. Such investments miss the point—and the opportunity.

The commodity hedge for the foreseeable future is clean energy, particularly solar power due to its abundance and ease of collection. Clean energy is also what must be monetized—not debt but electrons captured by solar panels and converted to useable energy.

Monetization comes with an implied promise. To maintain value, currencies must be backed by productivity—the capacity to generate real goods and services. Productivity is what makes a financial security truly secure.

Those who designed America’s central banking system assured us that debt-based “monetization” would be backed by real productivity. That thin tether to reality was severed in 1971 when backing for the U.S. dollar shifted from precious metals to a candid slogan now stamped on U.S. currency: “In God We Trust.”

Federal Reserve Chief Alan Greenspan not only trusted Wall Street’s “financial creativity,” he also enabled it with cheap credit. Layer upon layer of cross-collateralized debt produced little more than more money for financial sophisticates. Meanwhile real people living in real communities witnessed the dismantling of the U.S. economy.

Ask around. Would those with commonsense prefer their money secured with debt or with clean energy? Which is more secure? 

Those who propose we reform central banking miss the point. Why reform it when, by design, it can gradually be displaced? 

Instead of relying solely on debt-backed money, why not also issue asset-backed currencies? Why not complement centralized money with decentralized monies? Instead of one-size-fits-all money, why not tailor currencies to the diverse needs of communities?

Rather than trust in God, why not put your faith in money secured by clean energy?

Commonsense Money

Total assets in sovereign wealth funds now exceed $8.1 trillion. China has reserves approaching $2.4 trillion. Oil exporters have considerably more including $1 trillion held by the United Arab Emirates and $510 billion by Norway. 

As an energy exporter with large currency reserves, Russia is revisiting the wisdom of investing in other countries those funds generated by the sale of its natural resources.

With increasing frequency, political leaders are looking at the global financial crisis as an opportunity to reconsider what they monetize—and for whom. That suggests commonsense may yet find a way.

An alternative is known, available and viable with energy-backed “complementary currencies” designed to operate parallel with national currencies.

Do not expect leadership from the U.S. Those who sold us the current system retain too much control—for now.  Their interest lies in more money secured by more debt. Or backed by nothing at all.

Look for this overdue innovation to emerge from cultures long wary of those who collect fixed interest regardless of the debtor’s condition. The Quran forbids it as “riba.” The Bible forbids it as “the pound of flesh.” 

The source of this common malady is now coming sharply into focus—as is the cure.

*Jeff Gates is author of Guilt By Association – How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War. See www.criminalstate.com

The Collapsing Hegemony of the West by *Kourosh Ziabari

In its path towards becoming a major regional and international player, Iran is achieving remarkable breakthroughs in science and technology which have started to flabbergast the rivals around the world, including the United States, once an economic and scientific leader and the neighboring countries in the Persian Gulf region that are years from reaching self-sufficiency in meeting their domestic needs.

Historically, Iran has been known as a cradle of civilization and home to a number of leading scientists and scholars in various fields of knowledge and academic endeavor. Many of the world's prominent scientific accomplishments and discoveries were first brainstormed, proposed and realized in Iran and the international community owes to the Iranian scientists its familiarity and acquaintance with a number of outstanding scientific achievements.

In the contemporary age and since the victory of Islamic Revolution in 1979, a growing tendency towards scientific activities and scholarly research began to appear in Iran and the country's scientific developments attracted international attention ever more. Since the victory of Islamic Revolution, a number of high-ranking, prestigious universities were established in Iran and the number of university students increased dramatically. According to the statistics, the number of university students in the year 1978 would not exceed 150,000; however, as of 2009, there are more than 2.5 million students studying in the universities of Iran.

The statistics released by the researchers who investigated Iran's scientific developments over the past 30 years also indicate that the country has seen an unbelievable advancement in terms of producing knowledge and scientific data. The Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) has announced that Iranian scholars and researchers have published a total of 60,979 scientific papers in major international journals during the past 19 years.

Mohammad-Hassan Aboutorabi Fard, the First Deputy Speaker of the Parliament of Iran has announced that the total number of scientific articles published by the Iranian scientists in the international journals during the first 50 days of the current Iranian year (starting March 21, 2010) outnumbers the total scientific articles published in Iran over the years leading up to the Islamic Revolution.

Iran's advancements in science and technology have been so notable and outstanding that even the most hostile enemies of the Islamic Republic have admitted the country's prominent position as a scientific hub in the Middle East and Persian Gulf region.

In terms of motor vehicle production and nationalized automobile industry, the statistic of the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers indicate that Iran is currently the 12^th largest automaker in the world, surpassing powerful economic and industrial powers such as the United Kingdom, Sweden, Italy, Russia and Australia. This simply shows that Iran is currently the largest automaker among 57 Islamic countries.

In terms of aeronautic capabilities, Iran is among the world's 9 countries which are scientifically capable of placing satellites into orbit and have the independent capacity to produce the necessary launching vehicle for it. Powerful economies such as Germany, Canada, Italy and Australia are not among these 9 countries.

In terms of scientific knowledge production, Iran has made dazzling breakthroughs in the recent years and in some cases, surpassed its most powerful rivals to the surprise of international community.

According to Ja'far Mehrad, the President of the Islamic World Science Citation Center, Iran is among the world's top 25 countries in term of science production. According to Mehrad, Iran qualified to the 22^nd rank in the year 2009 and surpassed countries such as Scotland, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Finland, Mexico and Norway and snatched the first berth among the Islamic countries in term of scientific papers published in the international journals.

As to the production of medicines and drugs for the chronic diseases, Iran ranks the first among the Middle Eastern countries, the Minister of Health and Medical Education says.

Overall, Iran is currently competing with the world's most powerful countries in terms of scientific activities and is not far from becoming an incontestable scientific hub in Asia.

Iran's nuclear program is in line with the country's long-term objectives for becoming a scientific superpower in the world and this is what the Western countries cannot tolerate. Nuclear energy is the only arena in which the bullying powers can employ political leverages to pressure an independent nation such as Iran to hinder its scientific progress. If Iran achieves the complete cycle of nuclear energy production, it can meet its needs in electricity, medicine and agriculture and then will be needless of Western states, so this self-sufficiency will be harmful to the long-run interests of the West and that's why they try restlessly to prevent Iran from fulfilling its nuclear program.

However and so forth, the world should accept that Iran is a new scientific power which has the capability to stand on its own feet and even help the other independent nations of the world in their scientific projects. Nuclear energy, Information and Communication Technology, nanotechnology and all of these areas of scientific endeavor are today dominated by the Iranian researchers and scientists and nobody can put a barricade on this path toward progression and supremacy.

*Kourosh Ziabari is an Iranian freelance journalist and media correspondent. His articles and interviews haveappeared on a number of media outlets and news websites including Tehran Times, Press TV, Global Research and Foreign Policy Journa.

Why Is Israeli Spy Jonathan Pollard Back in the News? by *Jeff Gates

 

Why Is Israeli Spy Jonathan Pollard Back in the News?

Over the past two months, Benjamin Netanyahu has mentioned the fate of jailed Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard six times in meetings with President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The Israel lobby also mounted a letter-writing campaign on Pollard’s behalf.

When Pollard was arrested for espionage in the 1980s, Tel Aviv swore he was part of a "rogue" operation. Only 12 years later did Israel concede he was their spy the entire time. That insider espionage by a purported ally damaged U.S. national security more than any incident in U.S. history.

During an earlier term as Prime Minister, Netanyahu secured a verbal agreement from Bill Clinton in 1998 to release Pollard. Clinton then faced a rebellion among U.S. intelligence agencies aware of the damage done. Clinton backed down and Netanyahu backed off.

Pollard took more than one million documents for copying by his Israeli handler. When transferred to the Soviets, reportedly in exchange for the emigration of Russian Jews, that stolen intelligence shifted the underlying dynamics of the Cold War.

What has its entangled alliance with Israel cost the U.S.? The U.S. committed $20 trillion to Cold War defense from 1948-1989 (in 2010 dollars). Pollard negated much of that outlay yet even now Israel pretends to be an ally. Few believe it; many realize the U.S. has been played for a fool.

Why Now?

The timing could be a Christmas season plea for clemency after 25 years of imprisonment. Former Assistant Secretary of State Lawrence Kolb now claims the sentence was excessive due to a personal distaste for Israel by then Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger.

At trial, Pollard claimed he wasn't stealing from the U.S.; he was stealing secrets for Israel—with whom the U.S. has a "special relationship." Aware of the harm done by Pollard during the Reagan-era defense buildup, Weinberger pressed for a longer sentence than the prosecution.

From 1981-1985, this U.S. Navy intelligence analyst provided Israel with 360 cubic feet of classified military documents on Soviet arms shipments, Pakistani nuclear weapons, Libyan air defense systems and other intelligence sought by Tel Aviv to advance its geopolitical agenda.

Even while in prison, Pollard's iconic status among pro-Israelis may have played a strategic role. Or was it just coincidence that Tel Aviv announced a $1 million grant to their master spy ten days before 911? Is that how Israel signals its operatives in the U.S.?

Could that explain the timing of Israel’s latest announcement? Could this news flurry be a signal to pro-Israeli volunteers (sayanim in Hebrew) that another operation is underway?

Timing is Everything

Tel Aviv routinely schedules its operations during political “downtime” in the U.S. The Suez crisis was scheduled for the last week of President Eisenhower’s 1956 reelection campaign. Fast forward to 2008 and Israeli troops invaded Gaza just after Christmas, killing 1,400 Palestinians before exiting just prior to the Obama inaugural.

That well-timed provocation generated more outrage at the U.S. as Israel’s reliable enabler. The carnage also catalyzed reactions worldwide that undermined peace talks

This latest news about Pollard coincides with another political downtime. The U.S. Congress has adjourned and the White House has shut down for the holidays. Plus WikiLeaks successfully removed peace talks from the news and restored talk of war with Iran.

If there is another “incident” in the U.S. or the E.U., will the evidence point to Tehran? Islamabad? Damascus? If the U.S. cannot be persuaded to invade Iran, can it be provoked to do so? Stay tuned.

What Next?

Tel Aviv may be growing desperate and for good reason. Israel and pro-Israelis were the source of the fixed intelligence that induced the U.S. to invade Iraq in response to the provocation of 911. Those facts are well known to intelligence agencies worldwide.

As with Pollard, Tel Aviv denies it.

With Pollard back in the news, anything is possible. Recall how long it took for a confession that he was an Israeli spy. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Tel Aviv to concede its role in provoking its primary ally to pursue a Zionist agenda in the Middle East.

Absent the mass murder of 911, would the U.S. now find itself at war in the Middle East? Absent another provocation, Americans are not inclined to expand these wars. At least not yet.

"I know what America is," Benjamin Netanyahu assured a group of Israelis in 2001, apparently not knowing his words were being recorded. "America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction."

Pollard has long been a rallying point for Jewish nationalists, Zionist extremists and ultra-orthodox ideologues. Only time will tell why he is back in the news. And whether this news is a means for moving the U.S. in the right direction.

*Jeff Gates is author of Guilt By Association—How Deception and Self-Deceit Took America to War. See www.criminalstate.com

Tell that to the Liberty’s survivors, Mr. Lieberman by *Alan Hart

Question: Why is it that in this Christian season of “Peace on Earth and good will to all men (and women)” the name of Israel’s Soviet-born foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, described by some as Israel’s “Hitler in-the-making”, should enter my mind?

Answer: Because I’ve been thinking about a most extraordinary statement (extraordinary even by his own standards) he made on a recent visit to Australia.

His Australian counterpart, Kevin Rudd, had apparently asked him if Israel would sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to assist the cause of stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.

Liberman said “No” because “Israel does not pose a threat to peace in the world.” (My emphasis added).

The problem, Liberman asserted, “is not focused on the issue of the deployment of nuclear weapons itself” but on “the responsibility of the states which possess weapons of this kind.”

So according to Lieberman, the nuclear-armed Zionist state is a responsible state. There’s no need for the world to be concerned about its refusal to sign the NPT.

When Lieberman joined Ehud Olmert’s coalition government as minister in charge of strategic threats, Ha’aretz’s editorial writers commented as follows: “The choice of the most unrestrained and irresponsible man around for this job constitutes a strategic threat in its own right. Lieberman’s lack of restraint and his unbridled tongue, comparable only to those of Iran’s president, are liable to bring disaster down upon the entire region.”

Back in November 2003, the findings of an unpublished but leaked poll for the European Commission in 15 EU member states found that Israel was regarded as the “top threat to world peace” – ahead of North Korea, Afghanistan and Iran – by 59% of the 7,500 Europeans interviewed. Seven years and two Israeli wars (acts of state terrorism) later, that finding can only have been re-enforced.

If Lieberman really believes there is a plausible case for Israel as a “responsible” state, he could test it by making it to the Liberty’s survivors – those who survived Israel’s attack on America’s most advanced and sophisticated spy ship, an assault by air and sea including torpedoes that killed 37 Americans and wounded 174, 90 of them seriously. If on the fourth day of the 1967 war things had gone according to the plan of the man who ordered the attack, Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, the Liberty would have been sunk with all American hands on board, leaving nobody to tell the story of what really happened.

For those who are not aware of the truth of what happened, the Liberty was on station off the coast of Gaza as the Johnson administration’s insurance policy. Listening to Israeli military communications, its main mission was to prevent Israel going to war with Syria and possibly provoking a U.S-Soviet confrontation. President Johnson had given Israel a greenlight to attack Eygpt but only Eygpt. Dayan ordered the attack on the Liberty to prevent it giving the Johnson administration early warning of his intentions to extend the war to Syria after he had taken the West Bank of Jordan. As it happened, Israel’s last land grab of the war – the taking for keeping of the Syrian Golan Heights – did provoke the threat of Soviet military intervention. For some hours there was the prospect of a superpower confrontation and possibly World War III. But at the brink, catastrophe was averted by use of the White House-Kremlin hot line.

Israel’s attack on the Liberty ought to have been a sensational, headline-grabbing news story, but beyond the fact that an “accident” had happened and that Israel had apologized, it did not get reported by America’s news organisations. It was too hot an issue for them to handle. If it had been an Arab or other Muslim attack on an American vessel, it’s reasonable to speculate that America would have resorted to a military strike, if not war, on the country it held responsible. What did President Johnson do? Out of fear of offending the Zionist lobby and its stooges in Congress, he ordered and led a cover-up which remains in force to this day. And the mainstream media went along with it. As it still does.

The lesson of the cold-blooded attack on the Liberty was that there is nothing the Zionist state might not do, to its friends as well as its enemies, in order to get its own way.

The job Mr. Lieberman wants most of all is Netanyahu’s. The way things are in Israel and look like going, it’s not impossible that he will get it. If he does become prime minister, I imagine that would signal a move from rhetoric to action as in the chants of his supporters – “Death to the Arabs!”

* Alan Hart Alan Hart has been engaged with events in the Middle East and their global consequences and terrifying implications – the possibility of a Clash of Civilisations, Judeo-Christian v Islamic, and, along the way, another great turning against the Jews – for nearly 40 years…

Should America be trusted by *Wayne Madsen

Rumsfeld wanted to meet Tariq Aziz at Camp Cropper

While on his second trip to Iraq in November 2003, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld requested officials on Paul "Jerry" Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to set up a meeting between Rumsfeld and imprisoned former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz, who Rumsfeld described to CPA officials as his "old friend."

WMR has been told by a senior U.S. Army commander in Iraq that Bremer's people scuttled the planned Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam Hussein's deputy after CPA officials spoke in the clear on cell phones about Rumsfeld's planned meeting with Aziz. Saddam's former deputy was being held at the U.S. prison at Camp Cropper, located near Baghdad International Airport.

WMR has also been informed that Rumsfeld's planned meeting with Aziz was also likely deep-sixed with the help of a number of Israeli contractors working at Camp Cropper who were also made aware of Rumsfeld's plans. The official reason given to Rumsfeld for cancelling the meeting with Aziz was that because his travel plans became public, there was an increased security risk to Rumsfeld and his security detail.

Rumsfeld met with Aziz on December 19, 1983, when the Reagan administration decided to "tilt" to Iraq during the nation's bloody war with Iran. Rumsfeld was a special envoy of President Reagan to Saddam Hussein. A secret cable from Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Lawrence Eagleburger to Rumsfeld stated one of the main reasons for Rumsfeld's trip to Baghdad: "We are talking with oil industry representatives about their plans for construction of new alternative facilities for Iraq's oil exports."

What is known about Rumsfeld's dealings with Aziz in the 1980s is that there was a quid quo pro being discussed: America would arm Saddam Hussein with weapons, including biological warfare agents like those used against Kurds in northern Iraq, in return for Iraq's support for re-establishing the old Iraq-to-Haifa oil pipeline to bypass the Persian Gulf and the naval war being waged there between Iraq and Iran. WMR was told by Israeli sources that Aziz was careful not to discuss this proposal with Saddam Hussein at an early stage because the deal would have involved Israel and the payment of oil royalties to Israel for the pipeline. The deal also would have included Jordan and payments to King Hussein.

Aziz has been sentenced to death by Iraq's Shi'a-dominated government. However, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has refused to sign the execution order, citing Aziz's advanced age and poor health. The Iraqi government has also ignored pleas for clemency for Aziz from Pope Benedict XVI. Aziz is a Catholic.

Rumsfeld is currently working on his memoir. However, it is not likely that his friendship with Aziz will be featured in the book. And Rumsfeld has not publicly said or done anything to help his friend escape a hangman's noose in Iraq.

*Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. He has written for several renowned papers and blogs.