Turkish Forum

Blog

  • Inaquration of the 44th President of United States

    Inaquration of the 44th President of United States

    On the Inaquration of the 44th President of United States

    This 20th day of January 2009,

    The Turkish Forum “World Turkish Coalition”

    Congratulates

    President Barack Huseyin Obama and his Familiy

    And Celebrates

    the continuation of Long standing “Stratejik Partnership”

    and Friendship of the people of the Unites States and Turkey


    Turkish Forum – Dunya Turkleri Birligi

    2009 yili Ocak Ayinin 20’sinde

    Amerika Birlesik Devletlerinin 44 uncu Baskani Olan

    Sayin Barack Huseyin Obama’yi ve Ailesini tebrik eder

    Ve cok uzun zamandan beri devam etmekde olan

    ABD-Turkiye Stratejik ortakligi ile

    Turk ve Amerikan Toplumlarinin yakin isbirligininin devamini Kutlar<–>

  • Poor Richard’s Report

    Poor Richard’s Report

    Turkey: Officials Persuade Hamas To Announce Cease-Fire
    January 19, 2009Turkish officials said on Jan. 19 that they have persuaded Hamas to announce a cease-fire

  • Norman Finkelstein: Israel is committing a holocaust in Gaza

    Norman Finkelstein: Israel is committing a holocaust in Gaza

    Jewish-American Professor Norman Finkelstein has said Israel, a state built on the ashes of the Holocaust, is now committing a holocaust against Palestinians in Gaza.

    American Jewish Professor Norman Finkelstein has heavily criticized Israel over its operation in Gaza. A son of Holocaust survivors, Finkelstein has been barred from Israel for 10 years and was denied tenure at DePaul University in Chicago because of his critical stance on Israeli policies.

    According to Finkelstein, Israel, a state built on the ashes of the Holocaust, is now committing a holocaust against Palestinians in Gaza. In a telephone interview with Today’s Zaman, Finkelstein said Israel was a “terrorist state” created by the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948. Praising Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and the Turkish people for their courage in supporting Palestinians, Finkelstein referred to Israel as a  “satanic” and “lunatic” state. Finkelstein’s parents survived the Nazi camps in World War II and then immigrated to the US.

    After his book “The Holocaust Industry,” in which he accused many prominent Jewish leaders of abusing the victims of the Holocaust, was published, Finkelstein was almost declared persona non grata by America’s influential Zionist circles.

    What does Israel want to achieve with this operation?

    Basically, Israel wants to achieve two goals: to restore what it calls its deterrence capacity — that means to spread fear among Arab states about itself. This is a core principle of Israeli strategic doctrine. Arab states have to be afraid of Israel, afraid of its military might, and Arabs should do what Israelis want. They shall follow Israeli orders.

    Israel’s military deterrence suffered a setback in May 2000, when Hezbullah succeeded to expel Israeli occupying forces from south Lebanon. Almost immediately in the aftermath of the failure, Israel planned another war with Hezbullah to re-establish its deterrence capacity. In 2006, after long preparation and using its air force, Israel suffered another ignominious defeat in Lebanon against Hezbullah.

    The second goal was to defeat the Palestinian peace offensive. This has been another basic principle of Israeli doctrine: You do not negotiate with Arabs. You give them orders. The Palestinian organization Hamas was becoming too moderate; it was transmitting, giving the signal that it was ready to go along with the two-state settlement based on pre-1967 borders. The leadership of Syria and the West Bank have also been making statements like this. So Israel started to get worried that it would be obliged to negotiate a settlement which the international community has been supporting for the last 30 years.

     

    Those who are against this settlement are the US or Israel, backed by the US. So when Hamas was becoming moderate and holding to the cease-fire it agreed in June 2008, it was showing herself to be a credible negotiating partner. Hamas was standing by its word. In the meantime, Israel has neglected another core principle of cease-fire, namely easing the blockade. So Israel had to defeat this Palestinian peace offensive. It always does this. It provokes Palestinians into reacting, and it wants to either destroy Hamas or inflicts so much damage that Hamas will have to say it will never negotiate with Israel. That is exactly what Israel wants. Israel never wants a moderate negotiating partner because if there is one, pressure on Israel will grow. Hamas is willing for a settlement; Hamas stands by its word. But Israel does not want to negotiate.

    What you are basically saying is that Israel is not interested in peace at all.

    Israel wants peace in its terms, and its terms are that West Bank should belong to their state.

    Will the operation be successful?

    First of all, we have to use proper language. There is no operation, and there is no war. What is happening is a slaughter, a massacre. When you have 200 to 300 kids killed, that is not a war. When you have a strong military going in against a defenseless population, that is not a war. When you shoot a fish in a barrel, we do not call it a war. As an Israeli columnist put it, it does not need too much courage to send jets and helicopter gunships to shoot inside a prison. What just happened was not a war. One-third of the casualties were children. It was not a war; it was a just a massacre.

    In terms of the Israelis’ goals, you have to say it was successful. It inspired fear among Palestinians and Arabs generally that Israel is a lunatic state and that you have to follow its orders. No. 2, it destroys Hamas as a negotiating partner. You now hear from Hamas that it will not negotiate peace. That is what Israel wanted.

    On your Web site, there is an argument that the grandchildren of Holocaust survivors are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them by the Nazis. Do you agree with that?

    I think Israel, as a number of commentators pointed out, is becoming an insane state. And we have to be honest about that. While the rest of the world wants peace, Europe wants peace, the US wants peace, but this state wants war, war and war. In the first week of the massacres, there were reports in the Israeli press that Israel did not want to put all its ground forces in Gaza because it was preparing attacks on Iran. Then there were reports it was planning attacks on Lebanon. It is a lunatic state.

    But do you agree with the characterization?

    Look at the pictures and decide for yourself. I am not going to tell people what they should think about it. But what I say is they should look at the pictures and decide for themselves. (For the pictures go to: )

    Why have you been barred from entering Israel for 10 years? As the son of Holocaust survivors, you cannot enter Israel.

    Let’s be clear on a certain point. I was not entering Israel; I have no interest in going to Israel. I was going to see my friends in the occupied Palestinian territories. And Israel blocked me to go and see my friends in the West Bank. Under international law, I do not think they have any right to do that! I was not posing any security threat to Israel. The day after I was denied entering Israel, the editorial of Haaretz was asking, “Who is afraid of Norman Finkelstein?” They were also saying that I was not a security threat. I do not have any particular interest to go and visit that lunatic state.

    There are Jewish intellectuals who now call Israel a “terrorist state.” Is that a correct naming?

    I am not sure how you cannot agree with that. The goal of the operation was to terrorize the civilian population so that Palestinians would be afraid of Israel. This is the dictionary definition of terrorism. The dictionary definition of terrorism is targeting a civilian population to achieve a political goal. The goal of this operation or rather massacre was to terrorize the civilian population and to wreck and destroy as much civilian infrastructure such that the Palestinians would submit. When you attack schools, mosques, ambulances, hospitals, UN relief organizations, what is that? If this is not terrorism, then what is terrorism?

    In your famous book, “The Holocaust Industry,” you argue that the state of Israel, one of the world’s most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, cast itself as a victim state in order to garner immunity to criticism. Have we seen this during the Gaza operation?

    They tried to use the Holocaust; it was funny in a very sick way. The leader of the American Jewish Committee, David Harris, wrote an article, and he said it is no coincidence that this war in Gaza is occurring around Jan. 27, which is Holocaust Remembrance Day. He wants to pretend some connection. In fact there is a connection, and the connection is Israel is committing a holocaust in Gaza. But that is not the connection he had in mind. He wanted to play the Holocaust card; I think that it is not working very much anymore. It was clear that during this last massacre in Gaza, liberal Jewish public opinion turned against Israel. If you look at the petitions, demonstrations, letters, support to Israel, not only in the international community but also among the Jewish community, is diminishing. So the Holocaust card, the anti-Semitic card, is not working as efficiently as it was working once.

    You will probably be called anti-Semitic as well.

    I do not think this propaganda is successful anymore.

    In your book “Beyond Chutzpah,” you argue that Israel was created after the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, but the question whether it was premeditated remains to be answered. If it is premeditated, then can it be called genocide?

    Well, it was premeditated, and I think the record is pretty clear. Even Israel’s former minister of foreign affairs, Shlomo Ben-Ami, in his book published several years ago called “Scars of War,” said that it was quite clear that it was a premeditated expulsion in 1948 and it was anchored in the Zionist philosophy of transfer. Ethnic cleansings are ethnic cleansings, and they are war crimes.

    Why do you think US media is so one-sided and so pro-Israeli?

    I think it has two components. First of all, Israel serves American interests in the region and American media always give a free pass to those states that serve American interests. That is the overall picture and not much different from other parts of the world. The horrendous governments like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, they also get free passes in the American media. This is the larger context. And there is, of course, the secondary factor, which is the ethnic element. In many of these newspapers and the media in general, there is a large Jewish presence, and there is a sense of Jewish ethnic solidarity, which plays a role. But I think we have to qualify the secondary factor in two ways. We should not lose sight of the primary factor, which is Israel is the client state of US. No. 2: In this past war, the liberal Jewish population mostly under the age of 40 completely defected from the war, the massacre. They have been opposed to the massacres from the first day.

    Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has been very critical of Israel on Gaza, and some American circles lambasted him in return. What do you think about his stance?

    I wish he had done further. I wish he had gone as far as Qatar, Mauritania, Bolivia and Venezuela in breaking diplomatic relations with that lunatic state. But as far as he has gone, the point on which he stands, has been terrific. And I was glad to see Hamas respected the gestures of the Turkish government and said they would be willing to have Turkish troops stationed on “our border.” That is a very high praise for the Turkish government.

    Turks are showing Palestinians compassion, decency and justice. All the Turkish people should take pride of this stance as was the case on the eve of the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. It was the Turkish people and government who showed courage. Ninety-six percent of Turkish people opposed the war in Iraq. The Turkish government refused to give Americans use of their land to attack Iraq. Now Turkish people and Turkish government are redeeming themselves again by standing on what is right, what is decent and what is just. I say the highest praise for Erdoğan and the Turkish people.

    How do you feel about Israel’s operation in Gaza personally as the son of Holocaust survivors?

    It has been a long time since I felt any emotional connection with the state of Israel, which relentlessly and brutally and inhumanly keeps these vicious, murderous wars. It is a vandal state. There is a Russian writer who once described vandal states as Genghis Khan with a telegraph. Israel is Genghis Khan with a computer. I feel no emotion of affinity with that state. I have some good friends and their families there, and of course I would not want any of them to be hurt. That said, sometimes I feel that Israel has come out of the boils of the hell, a satanic state. Ninety percent of the population continues to cheer, to exalt and feel proud and heroic. They send a Sherman tank to a playground and torch children. Is this heroism? Is this courage?

    You were not allowed to teach at DePaul University despite a very good academic record and also had some problems in getting your Ph.D. from Princeton. Why?

    Well, I had some problems. I really cannot discuss my problems in the face of what is going on in Gaza. It will be so silly, trivial and stupid. Three hundred or so children — they were incinerated to death; phosphor bombs were thrown indiscriminately over Gaza. Everything these people wanted to rebuild, rebuild and rebuild was destroyed again. This state invaded in 1978, again in 1982, again in 1993, again in 1996, again in 2006, and 2008, and it always destroys, destroys and destroys. And then these satanic narcissistic people throw their hands up in the air and ask, “Why doesn’t anybody love us? Why don’t our neighbors want us to be here?” Why would they?

    19 January 2009, Monday
    SELÇUK GÜLTAŞLI  BRUSSELS

    Todays Zaman

  • APPEL DE BLOIS (THE BLOIS APPEAL)

    APPEL DE BLOIS (THE BLOIS APPEAL)

    APPEL DE BLOIS  (THE BLOIS APPEAL)

    (Columnist’s note:  Those who read this column regularly know that I always supported the view that  history cannot be legislated.  I believe that the historical controversies can be resolved only by mustering all the available evidence, allowing peers to honestly review and scrutinize it, and permitting free and open debates to take place, without the intimidation by partisan fanatic groups of citizens and/or politicians.   Armenians for years tried very hard to stifle debate by pressuring  politicians into legislating the Turkish-Armenian conflict into law as genocide, totally ignoring Armenian complicity, Armenian war crimes, Armenian hate crimes and the resulting Turkish victims.   They have almost succeeded it in France.  I am saying “almost”, because French scholars, historians and other intellectuals, fed up with nagging Armenian demands destroying history scholarship, finally rose up against such travesty  and with the appeal below, they turned the tables on vocal groups (mostly Armenians) dictating certain historiographies on the unsuspecting public.  “Memory laws” in Europe are signs of double standards and disrespect for freedom of expression. I hope that the same mistake will not be repeated in the United States.  Otherwise, you will have zealots, armed with only one side of the story allowed by legislation, attacking and demonizing scholars and citizens with differing views as “genocide deniers”, not unlike those KKK lynch mobs.  I am delighted to note the following developments in France regarding the de-legalization of the alleged Armenian genocide.  I signed “The Blois Appeal” immediately and congratulate here the French intellectuals who showed the civil courage to also sign it.  Let’s read the “Appel De Blois” : )

    ***

    ( Note by the authors of the “Blois Appeal”;  Pierre NORA, Chairman, LIBERTÉ POUR L’HISTOIRE:  If you wish to approve the “Appel de Blois”, send an e-mail to [email protected];  give your first and last names; and write “read and approved”. Everyone is entitled to give his/her signature.  Academics should add their university and others their residency.

    Since 2005 Liberté pour l’Histoire has fought against the initiatives of legislative authorities to criminalize the past, thus putting more and more obstacles in the way of historical research.   In April 2007, a framework decision of the European Council of Ministers has given an international dimension to a problem that had until then been exclusively French.  In the name of the indisputable and necessary suppression of racism and anti-Semitism, this decision established throughout the European Union new crimes that threaten to place on historians prohibitions that are incompatible with their profession. In the context of the Historical Encounters of Blois in 2008 dedicated to “The Europeans”, Liberté pour l’Histoire invites the approval of the following resolution .)

    ***


    Concerned about the retrospective moralization of history and intellectual censure, we call for the mobilization of European historians and for the wisdom of politicians.

    History must not be a slave to contemporary politics nor can it be written on the command of competing memories.  In a free state, no political authority has the right to define historical truth and to restrain the freedom of the historian with the threat of penal sanctions.

    We call on historians to marshal their forces within each of their countries and to create structures similar to our own, and, for the time being, to individually sign the present appeal, to put a stop to this movement toward laws aimed at controlling history memory.

    We ask government authorities to recognize that, while they are responsible for the maintenance of the collective memory, they must not establish, by law and for the past, an official truth whose legal application can carry serious consequences for the profession of history and for intellectual liberty in general.

    In a democracy, liberty for history is liberty for all.

    Pierre NORA, chairman of Liberté pour l’Histoire

    First signatories :

    AABELVIK Hanne-Guro, Oslo (SE) · ABAJO VEGA Noemi, Barcelone (ES) · ABBATTISTA Guido, Trieste (IT) · ABBÈS Anne (FR) · ABBOTT Steve (GB) · ABEL Burkhard, Osthofen (DE) · ACCORNERO Cristina, Turin (IT) · AGBAZAHOU Christel, Blagnac (FR) · AGRIANTONI Christine, Volos (GR) · AGULHON Maurice, Villeneuve-les-Avignon (FR) · AKGÜRBÜZ Cemal Engin, L’Horme (FR) · ALARY Éric, La Croix-en-Touraine (FR) · ALBERTI Elisabetta, Massagno (CH) · ALDEBERT Jacques, Vanves (FR) · ALDERMAN Geoffrey, Buckingham (GB) · ALEXANDRE Françoise, Paris (FR) · ALLAIN Jean-Claude, Paris (FR) · ALLAIRE Jean-Marie, Rennes (FR) · ALLCOCK Matthew (GB) · ALLEN Andrew, San Francisco (US) · ALLIES Paul, Montpellier (FR) · ALPTEKIN K. Ekim, Ankara (TR) · ALVAREZ DO BARRIO Manuel, Alicante (ES) · ÁLVAREZ JIMÉNEZ David, Madrid (ES) · AMIEL Pierrette, Pantin (FR) · AMORETTI Francesco, Salerne (IT) · ANDERSON Gordon, Glasgow (GB) · ANDREAU Jean, Paris (FR) · ANDREUX Jean-Émile, Jérusalem (IL) · ANGRÉMY Jean-Pierre, Paris (FR) · ANGUSTURES Anne, Paris (FR) · APPETECCHIA Ilaria, Rome (IT) · ARMAROLI Andrea, Modène (IT) · ARNAUD Patrice, Paris (FR) · ARREDONDO Jaime, Houston (US) · ASSERETO Giovanni, Gênes (IT) · ASSMANN Aleida, Constance (DE) · ASSMANN Jan, Heidelberg (DE) · ATAUZ Devrim, Houston (US) · AUDOUSSET Sophie, Paris (FR) · AURELL Martin, Poitiers (FR) · AYA Ukru, Istanbul (TR) · AYGEN Zeyno, Rockville (US) · AZÉMA Jean-Pierre, Paris (FR) · BABÈS Leïla, Lille (FR) · BACCON Suzanne, Vendôme (FR) · BACKERRA Manfred, Hambourg (DE) · BADINTER Élisabeth, Paris (FR) · BÄHRE Klaas, Hanovre (DE) · BAIADA Luca, Rome (IT) · BARACCA Pierre, Lille (FR) · BARBERON Martine et Michel, Tours (FR) · BARBIER Elsa, Chatou (FR) · BARBLAN Marc Antonio, Genève (CH) · BARDOT Christian, Sceaux (FR) · BARNAVI Élie, Tel Aviv (IL) · BARRET Christophe, Paris (FR) · BARROCHE Julien, Paris (FR) · BARROS Oscar, Santander (ES) · BARTHÉLEMY Dominique, Paris (FR) · BASKERVILLE Geoffrey (GB) · BASSETS Lluc, Llagostera (ES) · BASTOGY Gilles, Paris (FR) · BATTLE Max, Oxford (GB) · BAUMLER Alan, Keith (US) · BAUR Georges, Bruxelles (BE) · BEAUFORT Reynald, Reims (FR) · BECKER David, Sumy (UA) · BECKER Jean-Jacques, Paris (FR) · BEGOT Danielle, Fort-de-France (FR) · BÈGUE Michelle, Montpellier (FR) · BELALA Monika, Paris (FR) · BEN M’BAREK Khaled, Besançon (FR) · BENAITEAU Michèle, Naples (IT) · BEN-AMOS Avner, Omer (IL) · BENDER Ryszard, Lublin (PL) · BENNASAR Bartolomé, Toulouse (FR) · BENTLEY Jerry H., Honolulu (US) · BERELOWITCH Wladimir, Paris (FR) · BERGER Gérard, Saint-Étienne (FR) · BERGÈS Michel, Bordeaux (FR) · BERGVELT Ellinoor, Amsterdam (NL) · BERKTAY Halil, Istanbul (TR) · BERMAN Franklin (GB) · BERTHOD Laurent, Villeurbanne (FR) · BERTIN Cécile, Nantes (FR) · BERTIN Sandrine, Bruxelles (BE) · BERTON Mathias, La Roche-sur-Yon (FR) · BERTRAM Günter, Hambourg (DE) · BERTRAND Christiane, Blois (FR) · BERTRAND Jean-Marie, Paris (FR) · BERTRAND Mickaël, Dijon (FR) · BESSON Hugo, Aubervilliers (FR) · BEYLAU Pierre, Paris (FR) · BEZIAS Jean-Rémy, Nice (FR) · BÉZIAU Loïc, Béziers (FR) · BIANCO Lucien, Dauphin (FR) · BIAO Yang, Shanghai (CN) · BIGOTTE Samuel, Issy-les-Moulineaux (FR) · BILE Federico, Annunziata (IT) · BILLARD Hugo, Meaux (FR) · BIMBENET Jérôme, Le Raincy (FR) · BIZRI Hala, Beyrouth (LB) · BLACHÈRE Camille, Lyon (FR) · BLACK John, Londres (GB) · BLANCHARD Pascal, Marseille (FR) · BLOCKMANS Wim, Wassenaar (NL) · BLOFELD Piers, Londres (GB) · BLOM Philipp, Vienne (AT) · BLUSSÉ Leonard, Leyde (NL) · BOGAERT Brenda (GB) · BOISSEL Isabelle, Taverny (FR) · BOISSELLIER Stéphane, Blois (FR) · BOLOGNE Jean-Claude, Paris (FR) · BOMPRESSI Ovidio, Massa (IT) · BONNET Jean-pierre, Poitiers (FR) · BORDES François, Paris (FR) · BORRELLI Antonio, Venise (IT) · BØRRESEN Jacob (NO) · BOSSHART Ruedi, Zurich (CH) · BOSSIS Mireille et Philippe, Paris (FR) · BOTZ Gerhard, Vienne (AT) · BOULIGAUD Françoise, Roanne (FR) · BOURDELAIS Patrice, Paris (FR) · BOURGON Jérôme, Lyon (FR) · BOUSQUET-LABOUÉRIE Christine, Tours (FR) · BOWERS Anthony, Huddersfield (GB) · BOYER Michel, Lussas (FR) · BRACHET Jean-Paul, Paris (FR) · BRADDELL Jocelyn, Dublin (IE) · BRANCACCIO Maria Teresa, Amsterdam (NL) · BRAUMAN Rony, Paris (FR) · BRAZZODURO Andrea, Rome (IT) · BRICE Catherine, Paris (FR) · BRIQUEL CHATONNET Françoise, Paris (FR) · BRIZAY François, Angers (FR) · BRÖMER Rainer, Mayence (DE) · BROUGH Douglas, Ashford (GB) · BROWN Martin D., Londres (GB) · BROWN Sheryl J., Liberty (US) · BRUHIERE Monique, Saint-Rémy (FR) · BRUHNS Hinnerk, Paris (FR) · BRÜLL Christoph, Eupen (BE) · BRUMONT Francis, Magnan (FR) · BRUN Jean-François, Saint-Étienne (FR) · BRUNI Lorenzo, Pérouse (IT) · BRUNNER Rainer, Villejuif (FR) · BUR Michel, Nancy (FR) · BURGER Michael, Columbus (US) · BURNHAM Jennifer, Londres (GB) · BYFORD Grenville (GB) · BYNUM Caroline W., Princeton (US) · CACHIN Françoise, Paris (FR) · CAJANI Luigi, Rome (IT) · CALDWELL Peter, Athènes (GR) · CALLAND Napoléon, Rambouillet (FR) · CALLINAN Brian, Melbourne (AU) · CAMARGO Paola, Bogotá (CO) · CAMPBELL David, Portsmouth (GB) · CANAVAGGIO Perrine, Paris (FR) · CANDIDO Giuseppe, Cessaniti (IT) · CANNADINE David, Londres (GB) · CARRÉ DE MALBERG Nathalie, Paris (FR) · CARRÈRE D’ENCAUSSE Hélène, Paris (FR) · CARRION Rodolfo (ES) · CARSENAT Danièle, Chavenay (FR) · CASANOVA Jean-Claude, Paris (FR) · CASSET Marie, Lorient (FR) · CASTA Michel, Amiens (FR) · CASTELLÓN VALDÉZ Luz Mary, Benito Juárez (MX) · CATTOIR Édouard, Saint-Jean-d’Arvey (FR) · CAUSARANO Pietro, Florence (IT) · CERINO Christophe, Ploemeur (FR) · CHADWIN Alastair (GB) · CHAGNON Louis, Courbevoie (FR) · CHALLET Vincent, Montpellier (FR) · CHALUPECKÝ Ivan, Levoča (SK) · CHAMBERS Colin, Kingston (GB) · CHANDERNAGOR Françoise, Paris (FR) · CHAPPUIT Jean-François, Meudon (FR) · CHAR Marie-Claude, Paris (FR) · CHARNAY Christine, Lyon (FR) · CHASTELAND Jean-François, Grenoble (FR) · CHAUVIN Raphaël, Villeurbanne (FR) · CHAVAND Marie-Claude, Soisy-sur-Seine (FR) · CHEMTOV Nathalie, Aix-en-Provence (FR) · CHENILLE Vincent, Paris (FR) · CHIAPPONI Gemma, Gênes (IT) · CHISHOLM R. J. (GB) · CIUTI Francesco, Pise (IT) · CLAIR Jean, Paris (FR) · CLARKE Georgia, Londres (GB) · CLASTRES Patrick, Orléans (FR) · CODIGNOLA-BO Luca, Gênes (IT) · COISSON Fabrizio, Rome (IT) · COJA Ion, Bucarest (RO) · COLELLA Radames, Avellino (IT) · COLLEC Odile et Yves (FR) · COLLEY Linda, Princeton (US) · COLMAN Steven, Sydney (AU) · COLWILL Richard (GB) · CORAM Geoff, Shrewsbury (GB) · ÇORBACI Ertunç, Istanbul (TR) · CORNER Paul, Sienne (IT) · CORTIAL Marie-Claude, Chaise-Dieu-du-Theil (FR) · COUDRY Marianne, Mulhouse (FR) · COUGNARD Jean, Thaon (FR) · COURCHINOUX Martine, Bordeaux (FR) · COURLY Éric, Mireval (FR) · COURTOIS Stéphane, Paris (FR) · CRAIG Jennifer, Londres (GB) · CRISTOFFANINI Giorgio, Gênes (IT) · CRONIN James E., Boston (US) · CROUBOIS Claude, Tours (FR) · CSESZNEKY de MILVÁNY Miklós, Spalding (GB) · CUESTA MACIAS Ana, Barcelone (ES) · CUROTTO Ivo, Rome (IT) · CURRLIN Wolfgang, Friedrichshafen (DE) · CURTOSI Filippo, Cessaniti (IT) · CZOUZ-TORNARE Alain-Jacques, Marsens (CH) · D’ABOVILLE-CRAVERI Benedetto, Paris (FR) · DAIX Pierre, Paris (FR) · DALVIT Matteo, Milan (IT) · DAMAYE Joëlle, Paris (FR) · DANIEL Ute, Braunschweig (DE) · DAURIAC Éric, Isle (FR) · DAVELU Myriam, Ousse (FR) · DAVIES Dorothy (GB) · DE ARCOS Manuel, Salamanque (ES) · DE CARLO Nerio, Milan (IT) · DE CRISENOY Chantal, Saint-Cyprien (FR) · DE FARAMOND Julie, Paris (FR) · DE LUCA Giuseppe, Modène (IT) · DE PAOLI Cesare, Modène (IT) · DE ROOIJ Piet, Haarlem (NL) · DE ZAYAS Alfred, Genève (CH) · DECAUX Alain, Paris (FR) · DEHEE Yannick, Paris (FR) · DEL COL Andrea, Trieste (IT) · DELARUE Frédéric, Tours (FR) · DELARUELLE Jason, Paris (FR) · DELLE DONNE Giorgio, Bolzano (IT) · DELORME Philippe, Versailles (FR) · DELPORTE Christian, Paris (FR) · DELROT Jacqueline, Tournai (BE) · DELUMEAU Jean, Cesson-Sévigné (FR) · DEMM Eberhard, Koszalin (PL) · DEN BOER Pim, Amsterdam (NL) · DEN HOET Michael, Hambourg (DE) · DEQUEKER Édouard, Paris (FR) · DESCAMPS Cyr, Gorée (SN) · DESREUMAUX Alain, Paris (FR) · DETTI Tommaso, Sienne (IT) · DEYERMOND Alan (GB) · DI CUONZO Luigi, Barletta (IT) · DI NUNZIO Max, Rome (IT) · DI RIENZO Eugenio, Rome (IT) · DÍAZ HERNÁNDEZ Ramón, Las Palmas (ES) · DIAZ SANCHEZ Pilar, Madrid (ES) · DICKINSON Olly (GB) · DOLADILLE Nicolas, Nîmes (FR) · DOLAT André, Jeugny (FR) · DOMANGE Gérard, Dugny-sur-Meuse (FR) · DORVILLE A., Melun (FR) · DOSSE François, Paris (FR) · DRAPER Karl (GB) · DRAPER Matthew E., New York (US) · DRESNER Jonathan, Pittsburg (US) · DUBOIS J.-C. (FR) · DUMONT Jacques, Fouillole (FR) · DUNSKUS Thomas, Faleyras (FR) · DURÁN LAGUNA Jorge, Tervuren (BE) · DURAND Cécile, Chanteloup-les-Vignes (FR) · DURAND Yves, La Celle-sous-Gouzon (FR) · ECKERT Jean-Philippe, Metz (FR) · EDMONDS Adrian, Ramat Yishay (IL) · EDWARDS Ruth Dudley (GB) · EISMANN Gaël, Caen (FR) · ELIE Marc, Moscou (RU) · EMMER Pieter C., Leyde (NL) · ENGEL Lidia et Robert, Gdynia (PL) · ERSANLI Büşra, Istanbul (TR) · ESCANDE Jean-Paul, Paris (FR) · ETEMAD Bouda, Genève (CH) · EVANS Richard J., Cambridge (GB) · EVJU Stein, Oslo (SE) · FABBRI Michele, Forli (IT) · FATYGA Barbara, Varsovie (PL) · FAUCHOIS Yann, Paris (FR) · FAUDE Ekkehard, Lengwil (CH) · FAULKNER Simon, Manchester (GB) · FERRO Marc, Paris (FR) · FICHANT Michel, Paris (FR) · FICKESS Ralph, Oklahoma (US) · FIELDHOUSE Roger, Exeter (GB) · FINZSCH Norbert, Cologne (DE) · FIRER Jean-François, Bourg-en-Bresse (FR) · FLORES Marcello, Sienne (IT) · FOCARDI Filippo, Padoue (IT) · FORLIN Olivier, Grenoble (FR) · FORNEROD Nicolas , Genève (CH) · FOSCARI Giuseppe, Salerne (IT) · FOURCAUT Annie, Paris (FR) · FRAGNITO Gigliola, Parme (IT) · FRANÇOIS Étienne, Berlin (DE) · FRAY Jean-luc, Clermont-Ferrand (FR) · FREÁN HERNÁNDEZ Oscar, Besançon (FR) · FREDA Flavio, Monza (IT) · FREEDMAN Paul, New Haven (US) · FREI Norbert, Iéna (DE) · FRIGAU Céline, Paris (FR) · FRIJHOFF Willem, Amsterdam (NL) · FRITSCHY W., Amsterdam (NL) · FRITZ Gerhard, Schwäbisch Gmünd (DE) · FUMAROLI Marc, Paris (FR) · GAETANO Buccheri, Niscemi (IT) · GAILING André, Coulommiers (FR) · GALASSO Giuseppe, Naples (IT) · GALLO Max, Paris (FR) · GALWAY Neil, Belfast (GB) · GARANDEAU Jacques, Niort (FR) · GARAUD Marie-France, Paris (FR) · GARCIA Charles, Poitiers (FR) · GARCIA Patrick, Paris (FR) · GARCÍA GALINDO Juan Antonio, Malaga (ES) · GARDI Andrea, Udine (IT) · GARRONI Susanna, Naples (IT) · GARTON ASH Timothy, Oxford (GB) · GASPARINI Matteo, Trévise (IT) · GAUCHET Marcel, Paris (FR) · GAUTIER Alban, Dunkerque (FR) · GAY NAVARRO Raúl (ES) · GAZEAU Véronique, Vanves (FR) · GEAL Alan, Bristol (GB) · GEARY Patrick, Los Angeles (US) · GEMPP Théodore, Saint-Denis (FR) · GEORGIADIS Sokratis, Stuttgart (DE) · GIARDINA Andrea, Florence (IT) · GIGLI Marzia, Bologne (IT) · GILBERT Brian (GB) · GILLES Michel, Claix (FR) · GINZBURG Carlo, Bologne (IT) · GIVEN Anne, Belfast (GB) · GLOFF Richard, Taos (US) · GOEGEBEUR Werner, Bruxelles (BE) · GÓMEZ PUYUELO José Luis, Madrid (ES) · GÓMEZ RODRÍGUEZ Enrique, Bilbao (ES) · GOODEY Thomas (GB) · GORZIGLIA ACHILLINI Maurizio, Pieve Ligure (IT) · GOTOVITCH José, Bruxelles (BE) · GOULD Graham, Londres (GB) · GRAHAM Tony (rev.), Crawley (GB) · GRANERO CHULBI Rafael, Barcelone (ES) · GRANIER Thomas, Montpellier (FR) · GRAY Russell A., Sunderland (GB) · GREVER Maria, Rotterdam (NL) · GRIMES Declan, Conwy (GB) · GROSE Peter, Saint-Pierre-d’Oléron (FR) · GRYNBERG Anne, Paris (FR) · GUAIANA Yuri, Milan (IT) · GUÉNAIRE Michel, Paris (FR) · GUENIFFEY Patrice, Paris (FR) · GUERIN Mathieu (FR) · GUETTARD Hervé, Blois (FR) · GUIMONNET Christine, Laon (FR) · GUIOMAR Jean-Yves, Paris (FR) · GUIOT Gwenaëlle, La Vieille-Lyre (FR) · GUSTAFSSON Harald, Lund (SE) · HAJMRLE Karel, Alberta (CA) · HALÉVI Ran, Paris (FR) · HAMBY Alonzo L., Athens (US) · HANNIN Valérie, Paris (FR) · HANSEN Randulf Johan, Oslo (NO) · HARKIN Jacqueline, Londres (GB) · HARLEY Graham D. (GB) · HARRIS Keiren (GB) · HARRISON Noel (GB) · HARTOG François, Paris (FR) · HASENOHR Geneviève, Paris (FR) · HAUREZ Rosemonde, Paris (FR) · HAYAERT Valérie, Tunis (TN) · HAYAT Jeannine, Paris (FR) · HAYDN JONES Chris et Jan (GB) · HAYNES John Earl, Kensington (US) · HECHT Carmen Rebecca (DE) · HEINTZ Robert, Vincennes (FR) · HENNE Thomas, Tokyo (JP) · HENRY Maryvonne, Boulogne-Billancourt (FR) · HERMAN Jacques, Pully (CH) · HERUCOVA Angelika, Bratislava (SK) · HIERONIMUS Marc, Amiens (FR) · HIGGINS Ronald, Hereford (FR) · HOBSBAWM Eric, Londres (GB) · HÖCHST Michael, Hambourg (DE) · HOCQ Christian, Bullion (FR) · HÖRNLA Christian, Dorsten (DE) · HUBBARD William H., Haugesund (NO) · HUIBAN Patrice, Saint-Germain-en-Laye (FR) · HUIJSMAN Ronald, Delft (NL) · HUNT Lynn, Los Angeles (US) · HUSSON Benoît, Rosny-sous-Bois (FR) · IACHELLO Enrico, Catane (IT) · IDRISSI Mostafa Hassani, Rabat (MA) · IEVA Frédéric, Turin (IT) · IOGNA-PRAT Dominique, Paris (FR) · IPSEN Gabriele, Stuttgart (DE) · JACQMIN Claire, Tokyo (JP) · JACQUIN Christian, Nevers (FR) · JAMIN DE CAPUA Barbara, Levallois-Perret (FR) · JANSON Henrik, Göteborg (SE) · JASKOWIAK Alexis, Valenciennes (FR) · JAUME Lucien, Pantin (FR) · JEAN-MARIE Laurence, Caen (FR) · JEANNENEY Jean-Noël, Paris (FR) · JESTAZ Étienne, Mandelieu-La-Napoule (FR) · JEWSIEWICKI Bogumil, Québec (CA) · JIMENES Rémi, Tours (FR) · JOBBINS Bob (GB) · JOHANNSEN Joerg, Flensburg (DE) · JONAS David G. (GB) · JONES Steve (GB) · JORIOT Philippe, Gap (FR) · JOUVE Dominique, Rouziers-de-Touraine (FR) · JULLIARD Jacques, Paris (FR) · JUNYENT SÁNCHEZ Emili, Lérida (ES) · JUPEAU REQUILLARD Françoise, Vincennes (FR) · KAESS Élisabeth, Strasbourg (FR) · KALINDE Antoinette, Genève (CH) · KALUS Ludvik, Paris (FR) · KARTHÄUSER Michael, Recht (BE) · KAUFFMANN Grégoire, Paris (FR) · KAZANCIGIL Ali, Paris (FR) · KERR Charles J., Independence (US) · KESSEL (van) Tamara, Amsterdam (NL) · KESSLER Christian, Tokyo (JP) · KHAPAEVA Dina R., Saint-Pétersbourg (RU) · KIMBER Richard A., Saint Andrews (GB) · KIMOURTZIS Panayotis, Rhodes (GR) · KINDO Yann, Privas (FR) · KINKELIN Konrad, Villeurbanne (FR) · KIWITT Eckhardt, Munich (DE) · KLEIN Jean-François, Paris (FR) · KLINKHAMMER Svein, Trondheim (NO) · KNÖRIG Rüdiger, Berlin (DE) · KOCHANEK Joseph (FR) · KOESSLER Thierry, Reims (FR) · KOKKINOS Georges, Rhodes (GR) · KOPOSSOV Nikolaï, Saint-Pétersbourg (RU) · KOSOWSKI Therese, Wiesbaden (DE) · KOULOURI Christina, Corinthe (GR) · KRAKOVITCH Odile, Garches (FR) · KREIS Georg, Bâle (CH) · KRIEG-PLANQUE Alice, Paris (FR) · KUBLER Anne, Paris (FR) · KUNNAS Tarmo, Helsinki (FI) · LABORIE Pierre, Paris (FR) · LACHAISE Bernard, Talence (FR) · LAHIRE Bernard, Lyon (FR) · LALANDE Nicolas, Pau (FR) · LAMAZOU-DUPLAN Véronique, Pau (FR) · LAMBIN Jean-Michel, Genech (FR) · LAMOTHE Mathilde, Pau (FR) · LANCEL Juliette, Cachan (FR) · LANDRY-DERON Isabelle, Paris (FR) · LANDSMANN Ingo, Münster (DE) · LASPOUGEAS Jean, Troarn (FR) · LATOSI Didier, La Terrasse (FR) · LAURENT Élisabeth, Foix (FR) · LAVILLE Christian, Québec (CA) · LAVIN Marie, Nogent-sur-Marne (FR) · LAVOISY Pierre, Rumegies (FR) · LE FUR Yannick, Versailles (FR) · LE GALVIC Patrick, Saint-Denis (FR) · LE GOFF Jacques, Paris (FR) · LE GOFF Jean-Pierre, Chatou (FR) · LE POURHIET Anne-Marie, Paris (FR) · LE QUANG Grégoire, Lyon (FR) · LE RU Laetitia, Perrigny (FR) · LEBOE Jason P., Winnipeg (CA) · LEBRETON Jean-Claude, Cellettes (FR) · LECAILLON Jean-François, Paris (FR) · LECLANT Jean, Paris (FR) · LECLERE T. (FR) · LECUIR Jean, Toulouse (FR) · LEDDA Michele, Leeds (GB) · LEFEUVRE Daniel, Saint-Denis (FR) · LEGENNE Guillemette, Marseille (FR) · LEHERISSEL François, Saint-Maur (FR) · LELEUX Marie-claude, Sèvres (FR) · LEMAIRE André, Paris (FR) · LEMONDE-SANTAMARIA Anne, Saint-Vincent-de-Mercuze (FR) · LEMONIDOU Elli, Rhodes (GR) · LENA Mathieu, Lorient (FR) · LERCH Dominique, Vincennes (FR) · LERESCU Nick, Glenwood (US) · LESAGE Sylvain, Guyancourt (FR) · LETERRIER Sophie, Arras (FR) · LEWIS Brian, Montréal (CA) · LEWY Guenter, Washington (US) · LEYMARIE Michel, Lille (FR) · L’HÉRITIER Michel, Besançon (FR) · LIAKOS Antonis, Athènes (GR) · LIÉBERT Georges, Paris (FR) · LIEVEN Anatol, Washington (US) · LINDEPERG Sylvie, Paris (FR) · LINDLEY Clive, Monmouth (GB) · LINNEBANK Geert, Londres (GB) · LØKHOLM Sigurd, Haslum (NO) · LOSONCZY Anne-Marie, Paris (FR) · LOUBET DEL BAYLE Jean-louis, Colomiers (FR) · LUCIANO Persico, Crémone (IT) · LÜDEMANN Gerd, Göttingen (DE) · LUIS Jean-Philippe, Clermont-Ferrand (FR) · LUKOWSKI Jerzy, Birmingham (GB) · LYTTELTON Adrian, Bologne (IT) · MADSEN Roar, Trondheim (NO) · MÄGER Mart (EE) · MAIER Charles S., Cambridge (US) · MAILLARD Christophe, Besançon (FR) · MAIRE Catherine, Paris (FR) · MAJOR Peter, Budapest (HU) · MALANIMA Paolo, Naples (IT) · MALOSSE Pierre-Louis, Mauguio (FR) · MANDIL François, Pontarlier (FR) · MANEUVRIER Christophe, Caen (FR) · MANTERO Rafael Sánchez, Séville (ES) · MARAVAL Pierre, Paris (FR) · MARCO Jorge, Madrid (ES) · MARCONIS Robert, Ramonville-Saint-Agne (FR) · MARESCALCHI Maria Laura, Bologne (IT) · MARINA Sellia, Cessaniti (IT) · MARMO Marcella, Naples (IT) · MARRUS Michael R., Toronto (CA) · MARTIN Michèle, Montreuil (FR) · MARTINA Giancarlo L., Udine (IT) · MARTÍNEZ GONZALO Pilar (ES) · MARTÍNEZ MORENO Vicente (ES) · MARTOIRE Jeanne-Laure, Lyon (FR) · MARTZ Jean-Patrick, Villeurbanne (FR) · MARUEJOL Florence, Paris (FR) · MASON Simon, Petersfield (GB) · MASTROGREGORI Massimo, Rome (IT) · MATEOS Abdón, Barcelone (ES) · MATHER Charles (rev.), Gloucester (GB) · MATHIEU Amélie, Lyon (FR) · MAURICIO IGLESIAS Miguel, Montpellier (FR) · MAURO Manno, Rome (IT) · MAURY François, Orléans (FR) · MAYALL J. B. L., Cambridge (GB) · MAZEL Florian, Rennes (FR) · MAZOYER Camille, Sante Fe de Bogota (CO) · MAZZINI Elena, Pise (IT) · MCCAIG Donald, Williamsville (US) · MCINTYRE Andrew (GB) · MCKAY Bob, Séoul (KR) · MÉDARD Madeleine, Autun (FR) · MEDRI Guido, Bologne (IT) · MELANDRI Pierre, Paris (FR) · MENESES CASTAÑEDA Zenobia, Santa Cruz de Tenerife (ES) · MERIGGI Maria Grazia, Bergame (IT) · MERSI Stefano, Genève (CH) · MESSICK Melissa, Cadix (ES) · MESSNER Claudius, Lecce (IT) · MIAS Claude, Paris (FR) · MICCOLI Luisa et Giovanni, Trieste (IT) · MICHAUX Madeleine, Nevers (FR) · MIDDELL Matthias, Leipzig (DE) · MIGONI Riccardo, Capoterra (IT) · MIKULSKI Krzysztof, Torun (PL) · MILDT (de) Dick, Amsterdam (NL · MILLER Scott C., Boulder (US) · MILLIGAN Don, Manchester (GB) · MILLOT Jean-Paul, Nevers (FR) · MILZA Pierre, Paris (FR) · MINK Georges, Nanterre (FR) · MINNITI Fortunato, Rome (IT) · MIRANDA Cándido, Ponte Vedra (ES) · MISTRAL Madeleine, Grand-Saconnex (CH) · MITTEAU Anne (FR) · MODZELEWSKI Karol, Varsovie (PL) · MOISL Hermann, Newcastle (GB) · MOMBELLI Mirella, Rome (IT) · MONIOT Henri, Paris (FR) · MONNERAT Sandrine, Berne (CH) · MONTCHALIN (de) Véronique, Chartres (FR) · MOORE Edwin, Glasgow (GB) · MORAT Daniel, Berlin (DE) · MOREAU Mickaël, Bonneville (FR) · MORENO CHÁVEZ José Alberto, Mexico City (MX) · MORO Francesco, Cuneo (IT) · MOSTARDINI Andrea, Rome (IT) · MOTIKA Raoul, Hambourg (DE) · MOUGIN Françoise, Paris (FR) · MOUHOT Jean-Francois, Birmingham (GB) · MOUT Nicolette, Leyde (NL) · MUHAJIR Umair Ahmed (GB) · MÜLLER Klaus-Jürgen, Hambourg (DE) · MUNS Maarten, Diemen (DE) · MURDOCH Iain, Warwickshire (GB) · MURGESCU Mirela Luminiţa, Bucarest (RO) · MURRAY Peter, Maynooth (IE) · MUSALLAM Adnan, Bethléem (Cis-JO) · NANICHE Claudette, Igny (FR) · NASRA Mostefa, Échirolles (FR) · NAVEH Eyal, Tel Aviv (IL) · NEANDER Joachim, Cracovie (PL) · NERSESSIAN Vrej, Londres (GB) · NEVEU Valérie, Angers (FR) · NICHOLLS A. J., Oxford (GB) · NIEUWOUDT Egbert, Stellenbosch (ZA) · NIHAT Ali, Oxford (GB) · NIJHUIS Ton, Amsterdam (NL) · NIKEL Séverine, Paris (FR) · NILSSON Sara Ellis, Göteborg (SE) · NORA Pierre, Paris (FR) · NOTARI Matteo, Neggio (CH) · NOYON Joël, Mâcon (FR) · OLIVA Vincenzo, Rome (IT) · OLOFSSON Magnus, Lund (SE) · ORAN Baskin, Ankara (TR) · ORAN-MARTZ Sirma, Villeurbanne (FR) · ORY Pascal, Chartres (FR) · OUSTLANT Jean-luc, Plaisir (FR) · OVREVIK Bjorn Oystein, Horten (NO) · OWENS Dr. (GB) · OZOUF Mona, Paris (FR) · ÖZTÜRK Erkan Can, Levallois-Perret (FR) · PAGANO Emanuele (FR) · PAILLETTE Céline, Paris (FR) · PAINTING Brian, Reading (GB) · PALM Lennart Andersson, Göteborg (SE) · PARCOLLET Dominique, Paris (FR) · PARKS Michael, Los Angeles (US) · PARRAD Sylvie, Essômes-sur-Marne (FR) · PARVÉRIE Marc, Saint-Augustin (FR) · PASCHEN Joachim, Hambourg (DE) · PAUL Jean-Louis, Dinan (FR) · PÉAN Pierre, Bouffémont (FR) · PEARCE Martin (GB) · PECHA-SOULEZ Michel, Chanzeaux (FR) · PEIRANI Nicolas (IT) · PELAT Mathieu, La Réunion (FR) · PÉRARD Alain, Draveil (FR) · PÉREZ Joseph, Bordeaux (FR) · PERIN-DUREAU Michel-Philippe, Châteauneuf-sur-Isère (FR) · PERRIER Éléonore, Grenoble (FR) · PERRIN Pascale, Bruxelles (BE) · PERROT Jean-Claude, Paris (FR) · PERVILLÉ Guy, Toulouse (FR) · PETOT Françoise, Antony (FR) · PÉTRÉ-GRENOUILLEAU Olivier, Paris (FR) · PETROVIC Vladimir, Skopje (MK) · PEUSCH Marc, Wasserbillig (LU) · PEZZI Teresitta, Ravenne (IT) · PEZZINO Paolo, Pise (IT) · PFEIL Ulrich, Paris (FR) · PFUETZNER Andreas, Salzburg (AT) · PHAM Karine, La Corogne (ES) · PICARD Christophe, Paris (FR) · PIKETTY Guillaume, Bourg-la-Reine (FR) · PISA Michele, Hamilton (CA) · POLLMANN Judith, Leyde (NL) · POMIAN Krzysztof, Paris (FR) · PONDARD Aude, Paris (FR) · PORTEVIN Jacques, Levallois-Perret (FR) · POTEKHIN Dmytro (FR) · POUILLON François, Paris (FR) · PRAT André (FR) · PRAUSER Steffen, Birmingham (GB) · PREVEDEL Michael, Centennial (US) · PRODI Paolo, Bologne (IT) · PROST Antoine, Paris (FR) · PUENTE RUBIO Dimas, Guadalajara (ES) · PUISEUX Hélène, Paris (FR) · PUISSANT Jean, Bruxelles (BE) · PULT Anna Maria, Pise (IT) · PURSEIGLE Pierre, Birmingham (GB) · QUENTIN Bernadette, Évreux (FR) · QUINSAT Françoise, Lille (FR) · QUINTANA-PAZ Miguel Angel (ES) · RACHET Sylvie, Paris (FR) · RAPOPORT Michel, Paris (FR) · RAYTCHEVA Lilia, Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (FR) · READ Piers Paul, Londres (GB) · REDIGOLO Stefano, Venise (IT) · REGOURD François, Massy (FR) · REID David (FR) · REISINGER Craig M. (GB) · REMY Sylvie, Paris (FR) · RENDERS Hans, Amsterdam (NL) · RENE-BAZIN Paule, Meudon (FR) · RENONCIAT Annie, Paris (FR) · REPOUSSI Maria, Thessalonique (GR) · REVEL Jacques, Paris (FR) · RICHARD Gilles, Tours (FR) · RINDONE Elio, Rome (IT) · RIVARD Robert Leon, Amherst (US) · ROBIN Jacques (FR) · RODOLPHE François, Jouy-en-Josas (FR) · RODRIGO Javier, Saragosse (ES) · ROGER Liliane, Loudéac (FR) · ROMAN Alain, Saint-Malo (FR) · ROMANO Sergio, Milan (IT) · RONCUZZI Giovanni, Ravenne (IT) · ROSE Jonathan, Madison (US) · ROSSELLÓ Alex Homar, Barcelone (ES) · ROSSI Paolo, Florence (IT) · ROUAULT Rémi, Caen (FR) · ROUDINESCO Élisabeth, Paris (FR) · ROUGIER Hélène, Lyon (FR) · ROUSSEAU Paul, Paris (FR) · ROUSSELIN Paul, Caen (FR) · ROUSSO Henry, Paris (FR) · ROUVEURE Adine, Lyon (FR) · ROUX Jean-Pierre, Grenoble (FR) · RUIZ-MANJÓN Octavio, Madrid (ES) · RUMBLE Greville, Nutley (GB) · RUMIN Fanch, Saint-Nazaire (FR) · SABINE Mark, Nottingham (GB) · SABY Pierre, Lyon (FR) · SAGER Alain, Nogent-sur-Oise (FR) · SAGNER Pavel (CZ) · SAINT-ROBERT (de) Philippe, Paris (FR) · SALACHAS Jasmine, Paris (FR) · SALAMITO Jean-Marie, Paris (FR) · SALOMONI Antonella, Bologne (IT) · SALVATORI Olivier, Paris (FR) · SALVUCCI Richard, San Antonio (US) · SANTAMARIA Yves, Grenoble (FR) · SANTIN Nathalie, Caen (FR) · SANTOMAURO Michael (GB) · SÁPI Géza, Francfort-sur-l’Oder (DE) · SARAGAT Maria Pia, Rimini (IT) · SARRAZIN Franck, Paris (FR) · SARTRE Maurice, Chambray-lès-Tours (FR) · SAURÍ MERCADER Francisco Manuel (ES) · SAUTEREAU Manuelle, Le Havre (FR) · SAYAG Yves, Montalcino (IT) · SCHEBEN Thomas, Francfort-sur-le-Main (DE) · SCHILLER Ben, East Anglia (GB) · SCHILLING Robert, Montpellier (FR) · SCHMIDT Dieter, Berlin (DE) · SCHOETTLER Peter, Paris (FR) · SCHWARCK Christian, Oxon (GB) · SCHWARTZ Annie, Bailly (FR) · SÉCAIL Claire, Paris (GB) · SELLIER Geneviève, Paris (FR) · SELVA Anne, Salon-de-Provence (FR) · SENARD-BLOCH Catherine, Gif-sur-Yvette (FR) · SÉRANDOUR Arnaud, Paris (FR) · SERRIER Thomas, Francfort-sur-l’Oder (DE) · SHELDON Richard, Bristol (GB) · SHEPPARD Gordon J., Londres (GB) · SINEUX Pierre, Caen (FR) · SLOSS Colin (GB) · SMITH Richard (GB) · SOCRATE Francesca, Rome (IT) · SORENSEN Oystein, Oslo (NO) · SOTINEL Claire, Paris (FR) · SOUBBOTNIK Michael A., Paris (FR) · SOULEZ-LARIVIERE Daniel, Paris (FR) · SOURICE François-Xavier, Franqueville-Saint-Pierre (FR) · SOUYRI Pierre-François, Genève (CH) · SPAGNOLO Carlo, Bari (IT) · SPRENGER Scott, Provo (US) · STALLMAN Richard M., Cambridge (US) · STANO Vito, Bari (IT) · STEINBERG Thomas Immanuel, Hambourg (DE) · STENHOLM Markku, Kotka (FI) · STILES Dean, Douvres (GB) · STOLS Eddy, Herent (BE) · STOLZ Peter, Berlin (DE) · STONE Roger (FR) · STORA Frank, Paris (FR) · STOUDER Paul, Grosrouvre (FR) · STOUFFS Nadia et Jacques (CH) · STRAZZA Michele (IT) · STROUMSA Guy G., Jérusalem (IL) · SUMPTION Jonathan, Londres (GB) · SUSSEL Philippe, Paris (FR) · TAMAS Gergely, Budapest (HU) · TEGÜN Bülent, Istanbul (TR) · TEULINGS Jasper, Amsterdam (NL) · TEYSSÈDRE-JULLIAN Emily, Le Monastère (FR) · THESEN Rainer, Nuremberg (DE) · THEVENET Anne-Marie, Niort (FR) · THOMAS David, Londres (GB) · THOMPSON Peter, Wahroonga (AU) · THONGNAM Somchai, Bangkok (TH) · TIBERTO Franca, Lugano (CH) · TILLMAN Christian, Leamington Spa (GB) · TINTORÉ Natalia, Paris (FR) · TISON Hubert, Paris (FR) · TORRI Michelguglielmo, Turin (IT) · TOUREAUX Guy, Sarzeau (FR) · TOURNÈS Ludovic, Cachan (FR) · TOURON Émilie, Labastide-Cézéracq (FR) · TOUZALIN Marie-Hélène, Paris (FR) · TRAVERSO Enzo, Paris (FR) · TROISI SPAGNOLI Giovanna, Paris (FR) · TRYZNA Nicolas, Thiais (FR) · TÜRKOĞLU Didem, Istanbul (TR) · TURREL Denise, Paris (FR) · TUTIAUX-GUILLON Nicole, Arras (FR) · VAAGLAND Odd (NO) · VABRE Sylvie, Toulouse (FR) · VAÏSSE Maurice, Paris (FR) · VALAT Bruno, Albi (FR) · VALGE Jaak, Viljandi (EE) · VALLEJO Luisa, Madrid (ES) · VALLS MONTÉS Rafael, Valence (ES) · VAN BOXTEL Carla, Rotterdam (NL) · VAN DER LEEUW-ROORD Joke, La Haye (NL) · VAN TORHOUDT Éric, Saint-Pierre-sur-Dives (FR) · VANKOVSKA Biljana, Skopje (MK) · VATTA Antonio, Gênes (IT) · VEINSTEIN Gilles, Paris (FR) · VELDE Henk te, Leyde (NL) · VELLUT Jean-Luc, Louvain-la-Neuve (BE) · VERCLYTTE Thomas, Nîmes (FR) · VERDES-LEROUX Jeannine, Paris (FR) · VERGE-FRANCESCHI Michel, Tours (FR) · VERGEZ-CHAIGNON Bénédicte, Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (FR) · VERGNON Gilles, Valence (FR) · VERLEY Patrick, Genève (CH) · VERSINI Alain, Paris (FR) · VEYNE Paul, Bédoin (FR) · VIAL Éric, Paris (FR) · VICENTINI Claudio, Naples (IT) · VIENNOT Anne-Catherine, Le Havre (FR) · VIGNAUX Michèle, Paris (FR) · VILLAPADIERNA Ramiro, Berlin (DE) · VILLE Sébastien, Budapest (HU) · VINATIER Jean, Paris (FR) · VINCENT Catherine, Paris (FR) · VIOLLET Christian, Orléans (FR) · VIRET Jérôme, Caen (FR) · VODISEK David, Volmerange (FR) · VOGT Michael, Elbingen (DE) · VOIRON Philippe, Châtenay-Malabry (FR) · VOLPATO Sébastien, Nogentel (FR) · VUILLEMIN Alain, Vincennes (FR) · WALKER Roger, Paris (FR) · WALKER Syd, Kuranda (AU) · WALLACE Edward (US) · WALRAND Gilles Marie, Jouars-Pontchartrain (FR) · WALSHE Robert, Aix-en-Provence (FR) · WASSEF Pierre, Paris (FR) · WEBER Jacques, Nantes (FR) · WESSELING Henri, La Haye (NL) · WESTSTEIJN Arthur, Florence (IT) · WHEATCROFT Andrew, Moffat (GB) · WIDMANN Andreas, Hanovre (DE) · WIESENAECKER Philipp, Niedernhausen (DE) · WIEVIORKA Annette, Paris (FR) · WILLEMARCK Frederik, Londres (GB) · WILLEMART Philippe, Sao Paulo (BR) · WINKLER Heinrich August, Berlin (DE) · WINOCK Michel, Paris (FR) · WINTERHALTER Cecilia, Rome (IT) · WIRZINGER Heidrun, Neustadt (DE) · WOOLF Linda (GB) · WRIGHT Nicholas, Norfolk (GB) · YOUNG Alistair, Fife (GB) · YOUNG Emily, Londres (GB) · YUEN John, Hong Kong (CN) · YVOREL Jean-Jacques, Juvisy-sur-Orge (FR) · ZANNI ROSIELLO Isabella (IT) · ZARCONE Thierry, Paris (FR) · ZARROW Peter, Taipei (TW) · ZATON Monique, Cornebarrieu (FR) · ZELIS Guy, Louvain-la-Neuve (BE) · ZELLER Pierre-Marc, Prissé (FR) · ZEN Stefano, Naples (IT) · ZIVOJNOVIC Sanja (NL) · ZOELLNER Reinhard, Berlin (DE) · ZUNZ Olivier, Charlottesville (US).

    ***

    THE CIVIC RESPONSIBILITIES OF HISTORIANS

    Jean-Noël Jeanneney, Conférence Pronconcée à l’Université de Melbourne , 29 April 2008

    ( Jean-Noël Jeanneney is a French historian and politician associated with LIBERTÉ POUR L’HISTOIRE,  23-25 rue Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 75001 Paris, France.  Here are some excerpts from his address at the University of Melbourne  🙂

    “… (T)he subject I want to explore with you, which is the responsibility of historians as they exercise their intellectual and professional activity, charged by the collectivity to which they belong to organise shared memory, to cast light on the common past, and to reflect on the traces it has left. In doing so, they may choose to cut themselves carefully off from contemporary politics, and moreover, while we can identify moments where historians intervene directly in domestic or international political life, we can also find moments of withdrawal or mistrust. This happened for instance in the 1920s in Europe, which saw academic historians withdrawing from the political struggles as a reaction against the orgy of nationalism, even though … most of them had been participants in it during the Great War.

    It remains the case that historians, however prudently they set themselves up to appear, can never completely escape the problem of their civic responsibility, because their entire intellectual activity is affected by it. They cannot ever get away from the possibility that their work will have major political consequences, by virtue of the fact that they are working on the past, and that the presence of that past … always weighs heavily … in the debates and sensitivities that weave the life of a democracy.

    Consequently, their responsibility is a great one – unless they choose to limit themselves to the superficial satisfaction of anecdotal history. I see the management of this responsibility as requiring three lines of approach. Firstly, historians must contribute to the truth about humankind – what it has been, and hence what it is. Secondly, there is the need to clarify ideas, in the service of those who engage in action. And finally they must serve the identity of the nation to which they belong. This third role, as we shall see, is the most ambiguous.

    The truth about humankind? Now that, assuredly, is rather daunting… Obviously the society of historians cannot claim any monopoly in bringing the truth to light, based on some professional know-how. That would be ridiculous. But it seems to me that there would be cause for guilt if historians did not, in such circumstances, contribute to the separation of truth and falsehood.

    …

    Personally, I consider that historians would be failing in their duty if they refused this task of bringing the truth to light when the public interest especially demands it. Clearly, it is also the responsibility of the justice system to draw out truth: does this mean there is competition when a judgment has a historical dimension? I think it’s probably possible to draw a line distinguishing the respective duties: if there is a crime or misdemeanor concerning the norms and laws of the national community, the historian can help define the responsibility of those implicated; but only the judges can reach conclusions in respect to possible punishment.

    This notion of historical ‘expertise’ is difficult to handle. But it becomes clear if we consider that it can and must help the moral, civic and legal judgment process to better understand and, potentially, to reach better conclusions. It can do this firstly by scrutinising the freedom of action of the protagonists, so that the diversity of possibilities they have faced can be reconstructed moment by moment. I think the very heart of our mission is in fact this constant effort, against the temptations of anachronism, to reconstruct what, at each successive moment, has been the freedom of those involved.

    …

    The second mission of historians in a democracy, as I see it, is to help clarify the thought of those engaged in political action. As a stimulus, we can return to the severity of Paul Valéry, who in the text I quoted earlier, affirmed that the work of historians made nations ‘bitter, arrogant and vain.’

    …

    At the risk of appearing paradoxical, I would claim that the task of historians is precisely to warn political agents against the fascination of repetition, by reminding them that nothing ever begins again in the same way, and that what follows is always new. ..

    Prudence and irony are needed to deal with the use that politicians can make of the large reservoir of situations and diverse positions that the past offers: we know how readily they can isolate a given fragment of an event that could easily be refuted by another, if only they should care to mention it.

    It is certainly not up to the historian to be the obliging furnisher of this arsenal of arguments that bring comfort and dynamism to politicians. But conversely, historians have to know that the history they write can and must play an essential role in enlightening these same political actors in the exercise of their power. ..

    In all democracies, we can see that the politicians who most clearly leave their mark are those with historical ballast, and that those who are not are almost always, like boats without keels, condemned to float on the surface of events without really influencing them.

    This responsibility of historians obviously has to be extended beyond leaders to the entire body of citizens, citizens who are educated to history through books, the press, the audio-visual media, and first of all through school.

    History as civic education… Certainly it is not a question of dropping some kind of revealed truth on our compatriots from on high. Rather, our task is to help sharpen their perception, by teaching the diversity of choices, the chains of events, the rhythms of duration in time.

    In the midst of the avalanche of information that modern media technology has intensified for all of us, the most effective citizens of tomorrow, the wisest, will be those who have learned – thanks first and foremost to history (what a responsibility!) – how better to classify, order and organise the complexity of the world which will be fashioned by their choices, their behaviour and their votes.

    They will learn that collective life does not operate in straight lines and that it is constructed according to complex rhythms – some slow and profound, some developing over the middle term, others again rapid and superficial; they will learn that it is all these rhythms together that, at any given moment, delineate the field of each person’s individual freedom within the life of the collectivity. This can readily be applied, in any nation, to all sorts of questions that thrown up by current events: for instance, among others, the sacrifices that each individual must make for the national defence, or the policy of solidarity towards the most needy, or the relations between society and religions, or the role of justice and the nature of punishment, or the tax system, and – in a more enduring way – the balance between the State and the market.

    I have one last area to consider, which is perhaps the most important, namely the links between our profession and the question of national identity. ..

    In the first decades of the Third Republic in France, all of historiography was influenced by a kind of secular pope, a ‘national school-master’ called Emest Lavisse. For a long time, Lavisse dominated the teaching of future citizens, through his hefty university-level History of France, right down to the primary school textbooks that, under his name, were distributed by the millions. This teaching was based entirely on the tenet that historical judgment had the right to sort the events of the past in a simple and peremptory fashion: the good was what favored national unity; the bad was what got in its way or threatened it.

    A tension with universal values results from this attitude, because of the risk that history is putting itself in the service not of patriotism but of patriotism’s degraded caricature, nationalism. I already mentioned this tension, from another angle, in relation to the Dreyfus Affair. In relation to the First World War, in our countries given over to the barbarous folly of a European civil war – and I’m not forgetting the price paid by Australia –, we could put together a very sad anthology of the excesses of historians carried away by their patriotism. It applied to both camps, and sometimes involved the most unreasonable attitudes, to the point of dishonouring the intelligence of the authors.

    I have read that you knew something of this phenomenon here at the same period, and that without going to those extremes, your great Ernest Scott, celebrated in this university, put his academic reputation at risk in his service to the Australian cause. In the other direction, we need to salute the efforts of those historians on both sides of the Rhine, who in the 1920s and 1950s, sought to bring convergence to the French and German textbooks, thanks to a dialogue undertaken in a spirit not of forgetting but of peace.

    From another angle, a nation is also the history of its conflicts and in some cases of its collective crimes – in other words of the way memory is worked over by history. I only know about your ‘history wars’ from the outside, and you won’t be surprised if I use the example of the historians of Germany and their grappling with the issue of the collective responsibility of the entire people in the flowering and perpetuation of nazism and its criminal barbarities. But I’ll also point to a situation that is closer to yours, namely the controversies in the United States and Canada that for several decades now have sprung up around the intervention of historians in the legal confrontations over the rights claimed by the descendants of the Indians who signed particular treaties with their conquerors. In their eyes, these treaties confer special rights that fall outside the common regulations – hunting and fishing rights, for example.

    In North America things are further complicated, in civic and moral terms, because many of our colleagues have accepted to be paid by one side or the other to defend their respective thesis. I remember rejecting, a few years ago, an offer made by lawyers for cigarette manufacturers in anticipation of future trials. They were asking me to certify, from documents that they would give me, that in the 1950s smokers were already perfectly aware of the risks they were running, and that consequently, no responsibility could be imputed to the firms concerned. You can see how slippery the ground is, from the point of view both of the ethics of the profession and of the public interest.

    Along this line, and more broadly, it is illuminating to consider those special moments that constitute commemorations – when a nation crystalises chronological chance to reflect on itself, and, in the best of cases, to cast light on the deep forces that have slowly created a state of ‘wanting-to-live-together’.

    I hope you’ll forgive me for taking a French example once again. I was charged by President Mitterrand, in 1989, to organise the commemoration of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. It was a privileged occasion for reflecting on the situation of historians, on their role, and their responsibility in such circumstances.

    At the time, I felt that a comparison with the two earlier commemorations, in 1889 and 1939, would be instructive. In 1889, Alphonse Aulard (the Revolution historian I mentioned earlier), stated explicitly:  ‘I wanted at once to teach and practice the French Revolution by serving knowledge and serving the Republic.’ The whole question was to know if at certain moments, given the dramas and passions of the past, there wouldn’t be a contradiction between those two goals. In truth, during that first Centenary, the historians’ action was characterised by sufficient fervour for them not to feel any contradiction or discomfort. The University was on the radical left, with a neo-Kantian orientation, and honoring the memory of the Revolution was a way of honoring the Republic, which was seen as the balanced, peaceful and ultimately successful incarnation of the generous ideals of 1789.

    In 1939, at the time of the hundred and fiftieth anniversary, instead of agreement and fervour, what dominated was rather awkwardness and discord, because of the weaknesses of the European democracies, which were beginning to doubt themselves in the face of the totalitarian ideologies. The attempt was made to mobilise historians to celebrate the so-called ‘translatlantic revolutions’ and to emphasise the links between the United States and France at the end of the 18th century (in an effort to attract the sympathy and support of Roosevelt’s America). But this provoked a lot of reticence, not because of sympathy for fascism (though there were some exceptions), but because the (history) profession did not feel carried by a sufficiently strong wave of collective determination to set aside their academic scruples and to descend into the arena.

    As for the 1989 Bicentenary, I was too involved in it to have the necessary critical distance. But it seems to me that, helped by the precedents, we managed to achieve a good balance between historical research and the civic implications of the event. The Mission I headed imposed a careful and strict separation between the scientific historiographical work – which the State kept its nose out of, even though it provided subsidies – and, on the other hand, the explicitly political task of crystalising deep hopes for the benefit of a certain idea of the French nation as a unique and universal entity in the real world.

    What I have been able to read, at the time and since, about the way Australia organised the celebration of the two hundredth anniversary of the birth of the nation, suggests to me that, notwithstanding the specificities of our two countries, you must have confronted problems somewhat similar to ours – especially in the light of your memorial debates about the relations between colonists and the indigenous populations.

    The issue goes beyond commemorations. In France, there have recently been sharp reactions to a law voted by the right-wing majority in the context of a much-needed and belated renewal of the historiography of French colonisation. This law imposed on the teachers in our junior and senior high schools the obligation to teach ¬ and I quote – the ‘positive aspects’ of colonisation. Quite a number of us responded that it was certainly not through a law that historians could be forced to have a balanced approach and that this text, therefore, was nothing more than a party-political injunction. I must say that when I saw that your former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, had sought in 1999 to introduce into the preamble of your constitution the statement that ‘Australians are free to be proud of their country and heritage’, I had a reaction bordering on the incredulous.

    In France, a great controversy has developed around what we call ‘memorial laws’ – laws that seek to shape the national memory. Whether they are passed by the Right or the Left, they claim to tell the truth about historical facts in the name and interest of the French nation. One of them has recognised the Armenian genocide, another has defined as a crime against humanity slavery and black slave trading (the western practice, rather than the Arab practice). The critique of the historians has moreover reached back as far as a 1990 law, the so-called Gayssot law which punished negationism, the negation of the gas chambers under the Nazis. Against these ‘memorial’ laws, we created an association called ‘Liberty for History’, under the presidency of the great René Rémond, who was my master. After his death, Pierre Nora became president. Neither of these men can be accused of being carried away by excessive emotion.

    Our conviction is that it is not the place of lawmakers to regulate the work of history in this way. You should not see this as self-protection by the profession. One does not need a university label to write good history. Negationism is ignominious. But if it has faded, it is because of the work of courageous colleagues, not because of laws, and moreover, before that law, we had plenty of legal means of punishing antisemitism. For us, it is absolutely unacceptable from a civic point of view, that successive and possibly contradictory parliamentary majorities should make determinations of threat sort about the interpretation of the past, relying on some transient and chance notion of the national interest. It is not only an offence to that intellectual freedom that the Republic must guarantee. It is also a peril to the dignity of a democracy in relation to its past. Patriotism, in truth, while a precious value, should take up its abode elsewhere.

    By way of conclusion, I would like to give the final word to another great historian, Gabriel Monod, who founded the Revue historique in 1876. Monod was a strict Protestant, and as such was more than most preoccupied with the ethical and civic foundations of his discipline. In an article on the progress of the science of history since the 16th century, he set about formulating a synthesis of the different duties I have outlined :

    “Without proposing any goal, any purpose other than the benefit to truth, history, in a mysterious and sure way, works towards the greatness of the nation and at the same time towards the progress of humanity.”

    No doubt, like him and like me, a century and a half later, you can feel how difficult the conciliation of these two objectives will always be. But in the end, it is perhaps that challenging task that gives our profession its savour, its scope, and, in the best of cases, when we succeed in fulfilling it, its virtue.

    Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for your kind attention.

    ***

    THE FREEDOM OF HISTORICAL DEBATE IS UNDER ATTACK BY THE MEMORY POLICE

    Timothy Garton Ash, [email protected] <br>

    Guardian, October 16 2008

    Well-intentioned laws that prescribe how we remember terrible events are foolish, unworkable and counter-productive.

    Among the ways in which freedom is being chipped away in Europe, one of the less obvious is the legislation of memory. More and more countries have laws saying you must remember and describe this or that historical event in a certain way, sometimes on pain of criminal prosecution if you give the wrong answer. What the wrong answer is depends on where you are. In Switzerland, you get prosecuted for saying that the terrible thing that happened to the Armenians in the last years of the Ottoman empire was not a genocide. In Turkey, you get prosecuted for saying it was. What is state-ordained truth in the Alps is state-ordained falsehood in Anatolia.

    This week a group of historians and writers, of whom I am one, has pushed back against this dangerous nonsense. In what is being called the “Appel de Blois”, published in Le Monde last weekend, we maintain that in a free country “it is not the business of any political authority to define historical truth and to restrict the liberty of the historian by penal sanctions”. And we argue against the accumulation of so-called “memory laws”. First signatories include historians such as Eric Hobsbawm, Jacques Le Goff and Heinrich Aug u st Winkler. It’s no accident that this appeal originated in France, which has the most intense and tortuous recent experience with memory laws and prosecutions. It began uncontroversially in 1990, when denial of the Nazi Holocaust of the European Jews, along with other crimes against humanity defined by the 1945 Nuremberg tribunal, was made punishable by law in France – as it is in several other European countries. In 1995, the historian Bernard Lewis was convicted by a French court for arguing that, on the available evidence, what happened to the Armenians might not correctly be described as genocide according to the definition in international law.

    A further law, passed in 2001, says the French Republic recognises slavery as a crime against humanity, and this must be given its “consequential place” in teaching and research. A group representing some overseas French citizens subsequently brought a case against the author of a study of the African slave trade, Olivier Pétré-Grenouilleau, on the charge of “denial of a crime against humanity”. Meanwhile, yet another law was passed, from a very different point of view, prescribing that school curricula should recognise the “positive role” played by the French presence overseas, “especially in North Africa”.

    Fortunately, at this point a wave of indignation gave birth to a movement called Liberty for History (lph-asso.fr), led by the French historian Pierre Nora, which i s also behind=3D2 0the Appel de Blois. The case against Pétré-Grenouilleau was dropped, and the “positive role” clause nullified. But it remains incredible that such a proposal ever made it to the statute book in one of the world’s great democracies and homelands of historical scholarship.

    This kind of nonsense is all the more dangerous when it comes wearing the mask of virtue. A perfect example is the recent attempt to enforce limits to the interpretation of history across the whole EU in the name of “combating racism and xenophobia”. A proposed “framework decision” of the justice and home affairs council of the EU, initiated by the German justice minister Brigitte Zypries, suggests that in all EU member states “publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes” should be “punishable by criminal penalties of a maximum of at least between one and three years imprisonment”.

    Who will decide what historical events count as genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes, and what constitutes “grossly trivialising” them?

    International humanitarian law indicates some criteria, but exactly what events qualify is a matter of often heated dispute. The only cast-iron way to ensure EU-wide uniformity of treatment would be for the EU to agree a list – call it the Zypries List – of qualifying horrors. You can imagine the horse-trading behind closed doors in Brussels . (Polish official to French counterpart: “OK, we’ll give you the Armenian genocide if you give us the Ukrainian famine.”) Pure Gogol.

    Since some countries with a strong free-speech tradition, including Britain, objected to Zypries’ original draft, the proposed agreement now also says: “Member states may choose to punish only conduct which is either carried out in a manner likely to disturb public order or which is threatening, abusive or insulting.” So in practice, individual countries will continue to do things their own way.

    Despite its manifold flaws, this framework decision was approved by the European Parliament in November 2007, but it has not been brought back to the justice and home affairs council for final approval. I emailed the relevant representative of the current French presidency of the EU to ask why, and just received this cryptic but encouraging reply: “The FD ‘Racism and xenophobia’ is not ready for adoption, as it is suspended to some outstanding parliamentary reservations.” Merci, madame liberté: that will do till the end of this year. Then let the Czech presidency of the EU, which covers the first half of next year, strike it down for good – with a dose of the Good Soldier Svejk’s common sense about history.

    Let me be clear. I believe it is very important that nations, states, peoples and other groups (not to mention individuals) should face up, solemnly and publicly, to the bad things d one by them or in their name. The West German leader Willy Brandt falling silently to his knees in Warsaw before a monument to the victims and heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto is, for me, one of the noblest images of postwar European history. For people to face up to these things, they have to know about them in the first place. So these subjects must be taught in schools as well as publicly commemorated. But before they are taught, they must be researched. The evidence must be uncovered, checked and sifted, and various possible interpretations tested against it.

    It’s this process of historical research and debate that requires complete freedom – subject only to tightly drawn laws of libel and slander, designed to protect living persons but not governments, states or national pride (as in the notorious article 301 of the Turkish penal code). The historian’s equivalent of a natural scientist’s experiment is to test the evidence against all possible hypotheses, however extreme, and then submit what seems to him or her the most convincing interpretation for criticism by professional colleagues and for public debate. This is how we get as near as one ever can to truth about the past.

    How, for example, do you refute the absurd conspiracy theory, which apparently still has some currency in parts of the Arab world, that “the Jews” were behind the September 11 2001 terrorist attacks on New York? By forbidding anyone from saying that, on pain of imprisonment? No. You refute it by=3D2 0refuting it. By mustering all the available evidence, in free and open debate. This is not just the best way to get at the facts; ultimately, it’s the best way to combat racism and xenophobia too. So join us, please, to see off the nanny state and its memory police.

    ***

    STATEMENTS OF LIBERTÉ POUR L’HISTOIRE,

    Pierre Nora, President <br>

    January, 12, 2009


    Dear Colleagues and Friends,

    I do not want the end of January, 2009, to pass without communicating to you an assessment of our activities in the past year. On the whole it is positive.

    As you have possibly learned from articles in the press, the mobilization of Liberté pour l’Histoire, today across Europe (cf. Le Monde November 28, 2008) and our Appel de Blois (October 11, 2008), have allowed us to score the following decisive points:

    1. The Parliamentary Mission of Information on Memorial Questions which had listened to numerous historians and jurists, among them our vice president, Françoise Chandernagor, and myself, decided that the National Assembly should cease enacting laws that designated as “genocide” and “crimes against humanity” (modern terms) events that took place in the past. The Mission, presided over by the President of the National Assembly himself, unanimously (thirty deputies representing all of the parties) reaffirmed that it was not the role of Parliament to write history. From now on, when members of Parliament wish to express their regrets or their compassion concerning an historical event it is recommended that they do so by “resolutions” which do not have the constraining power of law and that cannot result in judicial action. (See the Rapport of the Mission « Rassembler la Nation autour d’une mémoire partagée » www.assemblee-nationale.fr.)

    2. The government has decided against sending to the Senate the second proposal of the law concerning the “Armenian Genocide” voted at the end of 2006 by the National Assembly. In light of the arguments presented by our association and the conclusions of the Parliamentary Mission, the government no longer seeks to apply to the law on the “Armenian Genocide” of 1915 the penal sanctions envisioned by the “loi Gayssot” of 1990 concerning the nazi’s crimes. The law of 2001 on Armenia is retained, but it does not forbid debate.

    3. Before the menace of a European framework-decision concerning the “fight against certain forms of racism by means of penal law,” Liberté pour l’Histoire, on the occasion of the Rendez-vous de l’Histoire de Blois, October 10-11, launched an appeal published by Le Monde and echoed by the major European newspapers. As of today, we have received more than 1,100 signatures representing the collectivity of historians. We have published the list in the form of a full-page advertisement in Le Monde on November 28. On the same day this framework-decision was signed in Brussels. However, France has opted for a minimalist approach suggested by Liberté pour L’Histoire: the new crime, very general, established by this framework-decision (crime of “banalization” and of “complicity in banalization” of all war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocides”) only concerns those crimes previously qualified as such by an international tribunal. This allows, in practice:

    a) To reserve the application of this new charge to contemporary crimes, the only ones susceptible, in fact, to being adjudicated either by an ad hoc international tribunal or by the new International Criminal Court.

    b) To avoid retroactive and automatic penalization of all “historical laws” already adopted by our Parliament.

    Certainly it would have been even more preferable, both for scholars of the contemporary period and for future historians, to avoid any further criminalization of opinions or in the canonization of any judgement, but this framework-decision, proposed by the French government since 2001, had already been adopted by the Counsel of Ministers of the European Union and voted by the Parliament of Strasbourg when we became aware of it. At least, by prompting them to make the issues more precise, we have avoided the worst case scenario, that a historian, for example, could be brought before a court for having “minimized” and “contextualized” the massacre of the Angevins in the Sicilian Vespers of 1282…

    4. Concerning the intervention of Parliament in educational programs, a public exchange of letters took place between Xavier Darcos, Minister of National Education, and myself (see the letter on the Web site of Liberté pour l’Histoire.) The report of the Accoyer Parliamentary Mission clearly confirmed the decision that had been taken by the Constitutional Council on January 31, 2006, removing article 4 of the law of February 23, 2005 concerning the recognition by educational programs of the positive role of the French Presence in the Outre-mer. “It must be clear for all,” the Accoyer report affirmed, “that the Parliament must not exceed the realm of law by prescribing the content of history syllabi.”

    Not withstanding these successes we must remain vigilant:

    — First, because we must carefully follow the elaboration of future texts (the European framework-decision must be “transposed” by our Parliament within two years) as well as the evolution of the jurisprudence of courts.

    — Next, because nothing prevents our Parliament, which has for the moment returned to its senses, to come back at any time to its earlier errors.

    — Finally, because, in light of the recent reform of the Constitution, the Constitutional Council might have to pronounce, in the months to come, on the memorial laws that have already been enacted.

    Liberté pour l’Histoire must, more than ever, remain an active interlocutor with the public authorities. In this spirit a meeting has already been set for January with Claude Guéant, (General Secretary of the Elysée), Henri Guaino (Special Counselor for the President of the Republic) and Jean-Louis Debré (President of the Constitutional Counsel).

    We urge you thus to join, to rejoin, and to encourage others to join.

    For our international friends who belong to the European Union

    France established that, for the framework-decision adopted November 28, 2008 concerning the “fight against certain forms of racism and xenophobia” the option deadline offered to title 1 paragraph 4 remains, contrary to the project of the initial text, open for two years.

    This certainly means that the 27 countries of the European Union that are signatories to the framework-decision are already obligated to have in their laws the equivalent to our “loi Gayssot” of 1990 concerning nazi’s crimes (or of the similar German law), and even a bit more: penal sanctions extended to three years in prison for all attempts at “banalization” or “complicity in banalization” of war crimes and crimes against humanity adjudicated up to 1945 by the Nuremberg Tribunal (article one, paragraph one, line d).

    On the other hand, it remains possible, thanks to the option, to limit, for all other collective crimes committed in the course of history, penal sanctions incurred by possible commentators to only those “war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocides” recognized as such by an international criminal court (in other words, “contemporary crimes”).

    It is necessary and sufficient that a government requires to exercise the option envisioned by article 1, paragraph 4, of the framework-decision, an option that the French government, alerted by Liberté pour l’Histoire, has exercised at our request and that, as of the present, is the only government to have so acted.

    Since this option remains open to all states until November, 2010, it would be good if you would encourage your government (Minister of Foreign or European affairs and Parliament) to exercise this option with the Brussels authorities. The option is exercised in the form of a declaration, the text of which is as follows: “[this country] declares, in conformity with article 1, paragraph 4, that it will not make punishable the negation or gross banalization of the crimes addressed in paragraph 1, points c) and d) unless these crimes have been established by a definitive decision issued by a national court and an international court.”

    It is true that the “residual” penalization which remains, even after the exercise of the option, may trouble future historians, who will not be allowed to criticize either judgments of various international ad hoc tribunals created during the past fifty years or those of the International Criminal Court that has recently been established. Any reconsideration of the facts that these courts have considered as proven could result in the criminal sanctions envisioned by the European text. However, contemporary historians will not be hindered in the pursuit of their research and in the expression of their opinions on the more distant past (the Crusades, for example): this is the lesser evil.

    The future will require great vigilance because if the framework-decision which has just been adopted only concerns the “banalization” of collective crimes committed for reasons of racism, xenophobia, or religion (when these latter are focused on an ethnic minority), certain states of the European Union have again requested similar legislation condemning the “banalization” of collective crimes committed for political reasons by totalitarian regimes; in particular this is aimed at crimes of communist regimes in certain countries of the Union (especially the Baltic states). The Council of European Ministers has already invited the Commission to hold public hearings on these crimes and to examine, within two years, the possibility of the adoption of a second framework-decision.

    In the intermediate term one cannot thus exclude:

    — On the one hand, an extension of the European law to crimes committed for religious reasons without any “ethnic” connotation (the European wars of religion in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries or the Irish problems could be included).

    — On the other hand, an extension to political crimes committed in the past (without statute of limitations) by a totalitarian regime.

    If one is not careful, what margin of discussion and evaluation will remain to the historian who will soon be accused, concerning any crime that our contemporary society condemns, of “relativism,” “contextualization,” “comparativism,” or “complicity in banalization”?

    In the name of the Association Liberté pour l’Histoire, I send you my best wishes for the new year.

    Pierre Nora, President of Liberté pour l’Histoire, January 12, 2009.

  • The Endgame by John Mauldin

    The Endgame by John Mauldin

    Thoughts from the Frontline Weekly Newsletter

    The Endgame

    by John Mauldin
    January 17, 2009

    In this issue:
    The Endgame
    Employment Numbers Are Worse Than Posted
    Aye, Captain, I’m Giving Her All I’ve Got!
    Problem #1: Deflation
    Problem #2: Pushing on a String
    The Muddle Through Middle
    Conversations With John
    Deflation? Stimulus? Deleveraging? Recession? A soft depression? A return to a bull market? With all that is going on, how does it all end up? When we get to where we are going, where will we be? In chess, the endgame refers to the stage of the game when there are few pieces left on the board. The line between middlegame and endgame is often not clear, and may occur gradually or with the quick exchange of a few pairs of pieces. The endgame, however, tends to have different characteristics from the middlegame, and the players have correspondingly different strategic concerns. And in the current economic endgame, your strategy needs to consist of more than hope for a renewed bull market.

    Rather than looking at just one year, in this week’s letter we take the really long view and ask what the end result or endgame will look like. There are three possible scenarios (and multiple combinations) that I can think of, we will explore each. Any of them could happen, so we will need to look at some signposts to get an idea of what is actually going to occur. I can make the following prediction that will be absolutely correct: Whatever scenario I lay out here, events and time will change what actually happens. But this will give you an insight into my longer-term biases, and that should be useful. As I tell my kids, put on your thinking caps.

    There are a few housekeeping topics I need to cover, but I will do it at the end of the letter. I just did two interviews with Aaron Task and Henry Blodget at Yahoo Tech Ticker, and will provide the links. I also want to talk about the upcoming Strategic Investment Conference, April 2-4 in La Jolla, which is going to sell out. And make sure you get around to subscribing to my new information service, called Conversations with John Mauldin. I will be posting the first conversation very soon, and you don’t want to miss it! So, stay with me and let’s jump right into this week’s letter.

    Employment Numbers Are Worse Than Posted

    First, I have to address some more government data that can be misleading. We were told Thursday that initial unemployment claims were “only” 524,000. The talking heads immediately said that was proof the economy is simply bad, not falling off a cliff. Again, like last week, that seasonally adjusted number masks the real number, which was 952,151. That is not a typo. There were almost 1 million newly unemployed last week! That is up over 400,000 from the same week in 2008, while the seasonally adjusted number was up only 200,000. Last week the real number was 726,000, so this is a material rise of over 225,000, yet the seasonally adjusted number suggests a rise of only 57,000 from last week.

    The continuing claims data leaped over 500,000 to (again, not a typo!) 5,832,746. The length of time people are staying unemployed is also rising rapidly. We are up almost 1.5 million new continuing claims in just the last five weeks. That is a stunning rise of over 30% in unemployment claims in just over a month. The data is truly ugly, but it is what it is.

    When you are in periods where there are deep outliers to the data because of very real turning points in the economy (such as we are going through now), the seasonally adjusted numbers can mask the real underlying trends, both up and down.

    Aye, Captain, I’m Giving Her All I’ve Got!

    Let me repeat a point I made last week, which is important and necessary for us to grasp if we are to understand where we are headed.

    We are in completely uncharted territory in terms of the economic landscape. Like the USS Enterprise in Star Trek, we are boldly going where no man has gone before. But the captains of our fleet are Keynesians to their core (and they don’t have any Vulcan advisors). They don’t have any historical maps to guide us back to a functioning economy; they only have theory. The North Star they are guiding us by, for good or ill, is John Maynard Keynes, with a slight nod to Milton Friedman.

    It is not a question of whether or not there will be massive stimulus. The question is simply how much and for how long. And my wager, as outlined below, is that it will be far larger than anyone would want to admit today. Think of Scotty, aboard the Enterprise, when Captain Kirk demands more power, “But Captain, I’m giving her all she can take. She’s ready to explode!” (But he always finds a little bit more.)

    Let’s set the scene for where we are today. The US likely just experienced a 4th quarter with GDP down over 4%. Some estimates suggest 5%. For all of 2009 we are likely going to be down at least 1-2%, which will make this the longest recession since the Great Depression. Unemployment is headed to at least 9%. Consumer spending will be off by at least 3% this year and again in 2010, as consumers start to find virtue in savings, which should rise in the US to 6% within a few years. Housing prices are going to drop another 10-15%, taking homes back to a level where they may be more affordable.

    Corporate earnings are going to be dismal for at least the first two quarters, with forward estimates being lowered again and again. (For a thorough analysis of earnings, look at the January 2, 2009 issue in the archives.) Global trade is falling rapidly, and it is likely that we will see a global recession this year, which will result in further negative feedback on US, European, and Japanese exports.

    On a more positive note, oil is below $40, which is more of a stimulus to consumers than anything anticipated by the incoming Obama administration (at least as far as consumers go). With short-term rates at zero, adjustable-rate mortgages are actually not the problem anticipated a year ago, and many homeowners are rushing to refinance their homes at lower rates. Large banks have indicated a willingness to actually cut the principle and interest on troubled mortgages, which might lower the number of defaults.

    Conversely, the number of defaults is high and rising — throughout the developed world. It is likely to be 2011 before the housing market finds a real bottom and housing construction can begin to rise.

    The credit markets are still in disarray. While there are some signs that the frozen markets are thawing, the Fed and the US Treasury are having to provide more bailout capital to large US banks. Citigroup is breaking up. Bank of America needs massive amounts of capital to digest Merrill. The hole that is AIG just keeps getting deeper. It is going to take several years for the credit markets to function at anything close to normal, as we simply vaporized a whole credit industry worldwide. To think it will take anything less is simply naive. And in the meantime, the various central banks of the world, along with their governments, are going to step in to fill the need for credit.

    Obama has signaled that he needs the remaining $350 billion of Troubled Asset Relief Program money as soon as possible, although his delegated Treasury Secretary, who will run the program, may be in some trouble, as he failed to pay taxes on his income from his stint at the IMF.

    (This is not an “Oops, I forgot!” The IMF does not withhold income taxes from its employees. However, he was given a memo about the taxes he owed. And he did pay them for two years when he was audited and caught. He clearly knew the nature of the taxes due the two prior years, yet did not come clean on those years. Dumb move for someone on a fast-track career and who clearly has an impressive intellect. He has got to be kicking himself. Since the Treasury Secretary is in charge of the IRS, this is not good for Obama. Someone on his team should have vetted this more thoroughly. I do think Geithner is otherwise as qualified as anyone else on the short list, but this is a very large cloud hanging over him.)

    The auto industry is reeling. Without a lot more government funds, it is unlikely that GM or Chrysler will survive without going through bankruptcy. The industry needs to shed about 20% of capacity. No amount of government funding will change that reality. Beyond autos, industry after industry is on the ropes.

    I could go on and on, but you get the picture that is facing the Obama administration and the entire rest of the developed world.

    So, how do we get out of this mess? As noted above, the captains of our collective ships are Keynesians. They are going to provide as much stimulus as needed.

    Problem #1: Deflation

    We got the Consumer Price Index numbers today, and they tell a tale of deflation. On an annualized basis, the CPI for the last three months was a negative -12.7%! Even core CPI, which is without food and energy, was a minus 0.3%. The CPI for 2008 was just 0.1% for the whole year. This was the smallest calendar-year increase since 1954, and it’s down from 4.1% for 2007. (To see the whole release and data, you can go to www.bls.gov.)

    I outlined the problem of deflation last week in my 2009 Forecast so I will not go into detail, except to note that central bankers are going to fight tooth and nail any tendency for deflation to catch hold in the economic mind of the country. It is simply part of their DNA.

    Obama wants an extra $825 billion in his stimulus package, in addition to the $350 billion in TARP monies. The Fed has started to buy mortgage assets, and that could be $500 billion or more. That is in addition to some $300 billion plus and growing in commercial paper, in addition to bank assets, etc.

    Let me predict right here that this is merely the first installment. The problems described above are very large. It is one thing to make credit cheap and yet another to make consumers either want to borrow more, or be able to convince a lender that borrowers can repay their debts. On the one hand, the government is providing capital to banks and hoping they will lend it, and on the other hand the regulators are telling them to reduce lending and increase their capital. Their commercial mortgages on a mark-to-market basis are imploding. Consumer credit risk is high and rising. What’s a bank to do?

    Let’s add it up. In the US, we have seen massive wealth destruction on personal balance sheets. At the end of the third quarter the losses totalled $5.6 trillion, between housing and stocks. They could be over $10 trillion at the end of the fourth quarter. (Source: Hoisington) The losses will almost certainly top $12 trillion by the middle of the year as housing continues to deteriorate. Pick any country in the developed world or much of the developing world, and it’s the same picture: wealth destruction.

    We have seen at least a trillion dollars of capital on financial companies’ balance sheets disappear; and given the recent spate of bailouts, it is likely to get worse.

    As I have been pounding the table about, a credit crisis and imploding balance sheets, a housing crisis, and a massive earnings shortfall that yields a relentless stock market drop are all independently deflationary. The combined forces are massively so. To think that a mere trillion or so dollars in stimulus will be enough to reflate the US and the world economies is simply not realistic.

    Let me offer a simplistic definition of what I mean by reflation: it’s when the velocity of money stops falling for at least two quarters and the economy emerges from outright recession.

    And much of the proposed stimulus is not really stimulus. Temporary tax cuts, as much as I like them, that are not targeted at getting small businesses recharged (which is where the real growth in jobs will come from) will likely be saved, much in the way that the last stimulus package did little real good for the economy, and simply put us another $177 billion in debt that our kids will have to pay. Helping keep people in their homes when they are already over their heads in debt is not really stimulus, however noble it sounds. Over 50% of mortgages that are reduced and rewritten are delinquent again within 6 months. That does not bode well for future efforts. Better to let the home go at some price to someone who can afford it. Tough love, but realistic.

    Giving money to states to allow them to continue to spend beyond their budgets is not stimulus. And why should Texas pay for a profligate California? We have our own problems. The Robin Hood approach to stimulus programs is nonproductive and only encourages bad budgeting habits.

    What will work? Infrastructure development, although that takes time, and some real thought should be given as to which projects are undertaken, rather than allocating according to which Senator has the most seniority. Spending on defense equipment, which must all have US content (which will be distasteful to the left), is real stimulus. Upgrading technology in a number of areas qualifies, although past experience suggests governments are not good at spending new tech money wisely.

    Spending on green technologies? Creating a million new jobs in clean tech? Get real. How do we go from less than a 100,000 real clean-tech jobs to 1,000,000 in five years, let alone one? And three million new jobs? Really? From where? What government program could do this? In what universe? It makes for nice feel-good talk, but has no bearing on reality.

    Don’t get me wrong. In the midst of the late 1970s malaise, when the gloom was as thick as it is today, the correct answer to the question, “Where will all the new jobs come from?” was “I don’t know, but they will.” And it is still the correct answer. The US free market system is still the most dynamic economy in the world, and I truly believe that we will see new industries spring up, which will be a jobs dynamo. But that will take time. It is not a short-term solution, and by short-term I mean 1-2 years.

    My bet is that in the third quarter, when earnings reports come out and are terrible, unemployment is over 8% and pushing 9%, and there is no evidence of a recovery, that we will see more stimulus from both the Fed and Congress. Count on it.

    The Fed and the Keynesian captains of our economic ship are “all in.” If the current plans do not reflate the economy, they are not going to say, “Well, that is too bad. We did what we could. Now we just have to go ahead and let the US economy catch Japanese disease.” Not a chance. They will up the ante.

    And they will keep trying to “jump start” the economy until it works. Obama told us to expect trillion-dollar deficits for years to come. Give him this: he is being candid and honest.

    The Fed, and I think other central banks, are going to step in and be the buyers of last resort for a whole host of debts, both corporate and consumer. There are those who worry about creating inflation, because they actually do have to print money to buy these debts. While I would prefer a world where a central bank does not intervene in the markets, the time to fix the problem of excess leverage was a decade ago. Allowing banks to go to 30:1 leverage based on “value at risk” models and other financial wizardry that clearly neither the banks nor the regulators understood, was simply bad policy, and we are paying for it. As Woody Brock so wisely notes, 30:1 leverage is not three times more risky than 10:1 leverage, it is 25 times more risky. (Trust me, or at least Woody, on the math.) As an aside, many European banks were even more highly leveraged.

    The End Game

    The US (and indeed soon the whole world) is in a deep recession. The US is going to try and combat that recession with stimulus on a scale never before tried. It is a grand experiment. On the one hand is the theory that you can allocate stimulus and keep the velocity of money from falling. On the other hand is the theory that once the deleveraging process starts, there is not much you can do about it: it is going to work its way through the economy. We are about to find out which theory is correct.

    So, let’s look at three possible outcomes, with the best outcome first. The basic optimistic assumption is that, while this recession is deep and the worst in the post-WWII era, it is still just a recession. Free-market economies eventually recover. Recessions do their work of reducing excess capacity, and the businesses which survive enjoy increased market share and potential for profits to rise. And corporations do indeed have on balance stronger than usual balance sheets going into this recession, except for most financial corporations. Another exception is businesses that were bought by private equity firms with large leverage. Many of those will have to be restructured. And those that have too much leverage or were too aggressive with expansion programs? They will go the way of all overleveraged flesh.

    Besides, the optimistic scenario holds, the massive amount of stimulus being applied to the US economy is on a scale never seen. It will work, just as an easy monetary policy has always worked. (Except in the ’70s, but we won’t make that mistake again! We learned our lesson, yes we did! Volker can stay in retirement.)

    This scenario assumes that the psyche of US consumers has not actually been seared all that much, and that they will return to their spending habits as soon as they are able. It also assumes this is a normal business-cycle recession. There really is no endgame. It is business as usual. There has been no fundamental altering of the US dynamic. Banks will start lending again, businesses and consumers will start borrowing, and things get back to normal. Deflation is just some bugaboo that a weird coterie of economists and investment writers harp on to scare the children into behaving more rationally. It can’t really happen here. And besides, the Fed can print enough money to make deflation go away. The real worry will be if they overshoot and inflation comes roaring back.

    Problem # 2: Pushing on a String

    The economy clearly let leverage run to an irrational level. You’ve seen the graphs. US debt to GDP is now over 300% and has risen precipitously in the last ten and especially the last five years. Leverage and debt fueled the growth of the economy, but debt growth hit a wall and now the deleveraging process is the painful result. This brings us to the worst-case scenario: that all the efforts of the Fed will go for naught and that we are in a liquidity trap.

    A liquidity trap is a situation in monetary economics in which a country’s nominal interest rate has been lowered nearly or equal to zero to avoid a recession, but the liquidity in the market created by these low interest rates does not stimulate the economy. In these situations, borrowers prefer to keep assets in short-term cash bank accounts rather than making long-term investments. This makes a recession even more severe, and can contribute to deflation. (Wikipedia)

    And there is no question, at least in my mind, that the economy, if left to its own devices, would fall into a soft deflationary depression, which would take years to climb out of. The contention of those who believe that we are headed for such a state of affairs is that no matter what the Fed does, excesses on the part of consumers and unrestrained government deficit spending is going to create a Perfect Storm. First of deflation and then, because the Fed is going to try to re-inflate the economy by printing money, we will see a resurgence in inflation and a collapse or, at the very least, a serious drop in the value of the dollar. Further, to expect foreign governments to continue to buy depreciating dollars and allow the dollar to continue to be the world’s reserve currency is not realistic. And of course, there are those who think we will eventually see hyperinflation as the Fed is forced to monetize the national deficits, with gold going to $3,000 (or higher!). And Obama, with his talk of trillion-dollar deficits for an extended period, certainly adds fuel to that fire.

    If, and it is a big but possible if, the Fed is indeed pushing on a string, then we are likely to see 15% unemployment, yet another lost decade for the stock market, and a real calamity in the pension, endowment, and insurance worlds, which are planning on 8% long-term portfolio returns to meet their obligations. And while I think it is a possibility we must be mindful of, it is not the most likely scenario.

    The Muddle Through Middle

    Now, we come to the third scenario and — no surprise to long-time readers — the one I think is most likely. I think that after we climb out of recession, we Muddle Through for an extended period of time. Follow my reasoning, and remember that I am often wrong but seldom in doubt! And please allow me some room to speculate. I can guarantee that I have some (or most) of the particulars wrong. But I think I have the general direction we are heading in.

    We are in a serious recession. We have to allow time for both the housing market and the credit markets to heal. This will take at least two years. I think we have permanently seared the psyche of the American consumer. Consumer spending is likely to drop at least 6-7% over the next two years, and maybe more. The combination of all three bubbles (consumer spending, credit, and housing), which were made possible by increasing leverage and poor lending standards, is by definition deflationary. (I know, I keep repeating, but most readers do not really get the rather disturbing implications.)

    The US government in general and the Fed in particular will react to the problem. Most of the government stimulus, other than that used to reliquefy the banking system, build useful infrastructure, and encourage small business to expand, will be wasted or have little short-term effect. The Fed (and central banks around the world), on the other hand, do have the potential to succeed with a “shock and awe” type of stimulus program.

    The problem is the Velocity of Money. (You can see this explained in my December 5, 2008 letter.) There is just no way of knowing when the Fed programs will really create some traction. Anyone who shows you a model that says such and such an amount of stimulus is needed is from the government, trying to tell you that this time we really do know what we’re doing. Any such models are based on assumptions about things we have no way of knowing.

    The Fed (and the US government) are going to continue to run deficits and print money until the economy begins to reflate. That is one thing I truly believe. Will it be a total of $2 trillion? Three? Four? More? I don’t know. How large will the Fed balance sheet be in a few years? I don’t know. And neither does anyone else. There are just too many damn variables.

    But I do believe that at some point there will be some inflationary traction. And combined with an economy resetting itself at some new level of consumer spending, and with a basically resilient US free-market system, a recovery will begin.

    But here’s the problem. Let’s assume, and we can, that we find this new set point for the US economy (see the “Economic Blue Screen of Death“). And that the economy begins to grow, but the Fed has injected a lot of liquidity. Now some of that liquidity is “self-liquidating.” By that I mean, commercial paper is typically 90 days. The Fed simply has to begin to wind down its commercial paper investments, and it takes away some of the liquidity it created. Those mortgages they bought? Each month, as payments are made, a little liquidity is taken back from the economy.

    And if inflation is an issue, they can begin to withdraw that liquidity or raise rates. Of course, that will serve to slow the economy down, but better a slower Muddle Through Economy than a return to the high stagflation of the ’70s.

    That gets us to 2011-12. The economy is growing, albeit slower than anyone would like, but government deficits are still in the trillion-dollar range, as Obama and the Democratic Congress have increased the entitlement programs, locking in big deficits for a long time. High deficits put the dollar under pressure. The demand from voters is to get the deficit under control. However, the Social Security surpluses are beginning to dwindle. And just like in the early ’80s, we have a Social Security crisis. Some combination of higher taxes, reduced benefits for wealthier Americans, later retirement ages, and a different methodology of indexing for inflation will be the order of the day.

    But Social Security is the relatively easy problem. Medicare benefits will be at nose-bleed levels and will swamp the ability of the government to fund it and other government programs. Democrats will never allow the programs to be cut back. And getting the 60-plus Republican senators needed for such cuts is just not likely to happen by 2012-2014.

    The problem will be dealt with by cuts in some government programs, but mostly by tax hikes on the “rich” and increased contributions by participants. Since many of the rich are the very small business people who we need to create jobs, this is going to be very anti-growth, extending the Muddle Through Economy for yet another few years. And if taxes are raised too much in 2010 when the Bush tax cuts go away, then we could see a relapse back into a recession.

    Such an environment of higher taxes and slow growth is not good for corporate earnings. Earnings in the recent years have been at all-time high levels as a percentage of GDP. Earnings as such are mean reverting, and thus are unlikely to rise back to previous levels in terms of percentage of GDP. (Of course, in nominal terms they should rise.) This is going to put a constraint on stock market growth.

    Pension plans, endowments, insurance companies, and individual investors who are counting on 8% long-term compound returns from their stock portfolios are as likely to be disappointed in the next five years as they were in the last ten. The environment I am describing is one of compressing price to earnings ratios, much like the period from 1974 to 1982.

    This environment is going to force the creation of new investment programs and products based on income generation. And that is one of the forces that will bring about a real recovery in the middle of the next decade. Investment capital will be made available to businesses that can generate low double-digit or high single-digit returns, as well as new technologies with the promise to deliver new paths to profits.

    The second major force will be the arrival of new waves of technological change. We will see a biotech revolution beyond our current comprehension. It has the real potential for solving a great deal of the Medicare entitlement program problems. For instance, it is likely we will have a real cure for Alzheimer’s within five years. Since that is as much as 7% of US medical costs, that can create a real cost reduction. The same for heart disease, obesity, cancer, and a host of other medical conditions that will start to be dealt with by a new generation of therapies. That is going to create a new, very real bull market in biotech.

    I expect to see a new generation of wireless broadband that powers whole new industries. And it will not just be green tech, but entirely new forms of energy generation that drive the cost of energy down and, combined with other new technologies, make electric cars practical. And along about the end of the decade, the nanotech world begins to really get into gear.

    And just as the tightly wound, low P/E ratios of the early ’80s gave way to a spring-loaded major bull market as new technologies became the driver for a whole new set of public companies, we could (and should!) see a repeat of that performance. There is a new bull market in our future.

    The problem is getting from where we are today to that next dawn. The definition of insanity is to keep repeating what you have done in the past and expect a different result. We are in a long-term secular bear market. P/E ratios are going to decline over time to low double digits. Hoping that stocks somehow rebound to new highs and that the economy is going to go back to what we saw in 1982-1999 or 2003-2006 is not a strategy. You need to be proactive and take charge of your portfolio, looking for absolute-return types of investments for the next 4-5 years. Simply using a traditional 60-40 split of stocks and bonds is not going to get you to retirement nirvana. It will lead to retirement hell.

    Conversations With John

    As we announced a few weeks ago, I am starting a new subscription-only service. While this letter will always be free, we are going to create a way for you to “listen in” on my conversations with some of my friends, many of whom you will recognize and some who you will want to know after you hear our conversations. Basically, I will call one or two friends each month, and just as we do at dinner or at meetings, we will talk about the issues of the day, with back and forth, give and take, and friendly debate. I think you will find it very enlightening and thought-provoking and a real contribution to your education as an investor. You can still subscribe now, before the actual launch of the service (in a week or so), at the holiday rate of 50% off. I will be having the first conversation next week, and it will include a spirited debate about the topics in this letter. Then, at some point in February, when Nouriel Roubini and I can match our schedules and continents, we will have a conversation you can listen in on as well. This is going to be a very fun project, and you won’t want to miss one chat.

    You will be able to listen online, download to your iPod, or read a transcript. To learn more, just click on , click the Subscribe button, and type in the code “JM33” to get your 50% discount. And read about the bonuses we will offer as well!

    To see my interviews on Yahoo with Aaron Task and Henry Blodget, go to:

    • John Mauldin’s 2009 Outlook: Deflation, Recession, New Market Lows
    • Trillions More: Govt. Will Keep Spending Until Economy Reflates, Mauldin Says

    Along with my partners Altegris Investments, I will be co-hosting our 6th annual Strategic Investment Conference in La Jolla, California, April 2-4. I have invited some of the top economic minds in the country to come and address us, giving us their views on what seems to be a continuing crisis. It will be a mix of economic theory and practical investment advice. Already committed to speak are Martin Barnes, Woody Brock, Dennis Gartman, Louis Gave, George Friedman (of Stratfor), and Paul McCulley. I anticipate adding another stellar name or two. This is as strong a lineup as we have ever had, and on par with any conference I know of anywhere.

    Due to securities regulations, attendance is limited to qualified high-net-worth investors and/or institutional investors. Early registrants will get a discount. Last year we had to close registration, and I anticipate we will run out of room again, so I would not procrastinate. Simply click on the link below, give us your name and email, and you will be sent a form next week to register.

    I should note that most attendees say this conference is the best investment conference they have ever been to. One of the benefits is being with several hundred very nice people in a relaxed setting. We do it up right.

    For whatever reason, this letter has kept me up very late. At 4 AM (!), it is time to hit the send button. For those of you who can actually take a three-day weekend, enjoy it! Alas, Tiffani has me working on a tight schedule as our book deadline looms, although I will slip away tomorrow evening to watch the Mavericks. And hit the gym of course.

    Have a great week! And seriously, there are lots of opportunities in the world today. Just open your mind to some “out of the box” possibilities.

    Your enjoying the ride analyst,

    John Mauldin
    [email protected]

    Copyright 2009 John Mauldin. All Rights Reserved

    Note: The generic Accredited Investor E-letters are not an offering for any investment. It represents only the opinions of John Mauldin and Millennium Wave Investments. It is intended solely for accredited investors who have registered with Millennium Wave Investments and Altegris Investments at www.accreditedinvestor.ws or directly related websites and have been so registered for no less than 30 days. The Accredited Investor E-Letter is provided on a confidential basis, and subscribers to the Accredited Investor E-Letter are not to send this letter to anyone other than their professional investment counselors. Investors should discuss any investment with their personal investment counsel. John Mauldin is the President of Millennium Wave Advisors, LLC (MWA), which is an investment advisory firm registered with multiple states. John Mauldin is a registered representative of Millennium Wave Securities, LLC, (MWS), an FINRA registered broker-dealer. MWS is also a Commodity Pool Operator (CPO) and a Commodity Trading Advisor (CTA) registered with the CFTC, as well as an Introducing Broker (IB). Millennium Wave Investments is a dba of MWA LLC and MWS LLC. Millennium Wave Investments cooperates in the consulting on and marketing of private investment offerings with other independent firms such as Altegris Investments; Absolute Return Partners, LLP; Pro-Hedge Funds; EFG Capital International Corp; and Plexus Asset Management. Funds recommended by Mauldin may pay a portion of their fees to these independent firms, who will share 1/3 of those fees with MWS and thus with Mauldin. Any views expressed herein are provided for information purposes only and should not be construed in any way as an offer, an endorsement, or inducement to invest with any CTA, fund, or program mentioned here or elsewhere. Before seeking any advisor’s services or making an investment in a fund, investors must read and examine thoroughly the respective disclosure document or offering memorandum. Since these firms and Mauldin receive fees from the funds they recommend/market, they only recommend/market products with which they have been able to negotiate fee arrangements.
    Send to a Friend | Print Article | View as PDF | Permissions/Reprints

    You have permission to publish this article electronically or in print as long as the following is included:

    John Mauldin, Best-Selling author and recognized financial expert, is also editor of the free Thoughts From the Frontline that goes to over 1 million readers each week. For more information on John or his FREE weekly economic letter go to: http://www.frontlinethoughts.com/learnmore
  • Studying the Islamic Way of War

    Studying the Islamic Way of War

    Middle East Forum
    January 15, 2009
    MEF Home |    Research & Writings |   Middle East Quarterly

    Recently joining the Forum as associate director, Raymond Ibrahim (best known for authoring The Al Qaeda Reader and a daily writer at JihadWatch.org) will be regularly supplying the Forum with analyses regarding radical Islam. Fluent in Arabic and well acquainted with the primary texts of Islam (he worked for six years as a reference assistant at the Library of Congress,) Mr. Ibrahim is particularly well-suited at delineating the otherwise obscure doctrinal and historical aspects that fuel radical Islam.

    Studying the Islamic Way of War

    by Raymond Ibrahim
    National Review Online
    January 11, 2009

    https://www.meforum.org/2050/studying-the-islamic-way-of-war

    Send RSS

    At the inaugural conference for the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA) back in April, presenter LTC Joseph Myers made an interesting point that deserves further elaboration. Though military studies have traditionally valued and absorbed the texts of classical war doctrine — such as Clausewitz’s On War, Sun Tsu’s The Art of War, even the exploits of Alexander the Great as recorded in Arrian and Plutarch — Islamic war doctrine, which is just as if not more textually grounded, is totally ignored.

    As recently as 2006, former top Pentagon official William Gawthrop lamented that “the senior Service colleges of the Department of Defense had not incorporated into their curriculum a systematic study of Muhammad as a military or political leader. As a consequence, we still do not have an in-depth understanding of the war-fighting doctrine laid down by Muhammad, how it might be applied today by an increasing number of Islamic groups, or how it might be countered [emphasis added].” Today, seven full years after September 11, our understanding of the Islamic way of war is little better.

    This is more ironic when one considers that, while classical military theories (Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, Machiavelli, et. al.) continue to be included on war-college syllabi, the argument can be made that they have little practical value for today’s far different landscape of warfare and diplomacy. Contrast this with Islam’s doctrines of war: their “theological” quality — grounded as they are in a religion whose “divine” precepts transcend time and space, and are believed to be immutable — make Islam’s war doctrines unlikely ever to go out of style. While one can argue that learning how Alexander maneuvered his cavalry at the Battle of Guagamela in 331 BC is both academic and anachronistic, the exploits and stratagems of the prophet Muhammad — his “war sunna” — still serve as an example to modern-day jihadists.

    For instance, based on the words and deeds of Muhammad, most schools of Islamic jurisprudence agree that the following are all legitimate during war against the infidel: the indiscriminate use of missile weaponry, even if women and children are present (catapults in Muhammad’s seventh century context; hijacked planes or WMD today); the need to always deceive the enemy and even break formal treaties whenever possible (see Sahih Muslim 15: 4057); and that the only function of the peace treaty, or “hudna,” is to give the Islamic armies time to regroup for a renewed offensive, and should, in theory, last no more than ten years.

    Quranic verses 3:28 and 16:106, as well as Muhammad’s famous assertion, “War is deceit,” have all led to the formulation of a number of doctrines of dissimulation — the most notorious among them being the doctrine of “Taqiyya,” which permits Muslims to lie and dissemble whenever they are under the authority of the infidel. Deception has such a prominent role that renowned Muslim scholar Ibn al-Arabi declares: “[I]n the Hadith, practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its need is more stressed than [the need for] courage.”

    In addition to ignoring these well documented Islamist strategies, more troubling still is the Defense Department’s continuing failure to appreciate the pertinent “eternal” doctrines of Islam — such as the Abode of War versus the Abode of Islam dichotomy, which maintains that Islam must always be in a state of animosity vis-à-vis the infidel world and, whenever possible, must wage wars until all infidel territory has been brought under Islamic rule. In fact, this dichotomy of hostility is unambiguously codified under Islam’s worldview and is deemed a fard kifaya — that is, an obligation on the entire Muslim body that can only be fulfilled as long as some Muslims, say, “jihadists,” actively uphold it.

    Despite these problematic — but revealing — doctrines, despite the fact that a quick perusal of Islamist websites and books demonstrate time and again that current and would-be jihadists constantly quote, and thus take seriously, these doctrinal aspects of war, senior U.S. government officials charged with defending America do not.

    Why? Because the “Whisperers” — Walid Phares’s apt epithet for the majority of Middle East/Islamic scholars and their willing apologists in the press — have made anathema anyone who dares to point out a connection between Islamic doctrine and modern-day Islamist terrorism — as witness, the Steven Coughlin debacle. This is an all too familiar tale for those in the field (see Martin Kramer’s Ivory Towers on Sand: the Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America).

    While there exists today many Middle East studies departments, one would be sorely pressed (especially in the more “prestigious” universities) to find any courses dealing with the most pivotal and relevant topics of today — such as Islamic jurisprudence and what it says about jihad or the concept of the Abode of Islam versus the Abode of War. These topics, we are assured, have troubling international implications and are best buried. Instead, the would-be student is inundated with courses dealing with the evils of “Orientalism” and colonialism, gender studies, and civil society.

    The greater irony — when one talks about Islam and the West, ironies often abound — is that, on the very same day of the ASMEA conference, which also contained a forthright address by premiere Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis (“It seems to me a dangerous situation in which any kind of scholarly discussion of Islam is, to say the least, dangerous”), the State Department announced that it would not call al-Qaeda type radicals “jihadis,” “mujahadin,” nor incorporate any other Arabic word of Islamic connotation (“caliphate,” “Islamo-fascism,” “Salafi,” “Wahhabi,” and “Ummah” are also out).

    Alas, far from taking the most basic and simple advice regarding warfare — Sun Tzu’s ancient dictum, “Know thy enemy” — the U.S. government is having difficulties even acknowledging its enemy.

    Raymond Ibrahim is Associate Director of the Middle East Forum and editor of The Al-Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda.

    Related Topics: Islam