Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Do humans have needed kno...
Today at 03:31 PM

افضل الايام
by akay
Today at 10:26 AM

Ramadan
by akay
Today at 12:02 AM

Russia invades Ukraine
Yesterday at 06:30 PM

Gaza assault
February 26, 2025, 09:25 AM

New Britain
February 25, 2025, 08:11 PM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
February 23, 2025, 09:40 AM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
February 22, 2025, 09:50 PM

Lights on the way
by akay
February 22, 2025, 02:56 PM

German nationalist party ...
February 21, 2025, 10:31 AM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
February 14, 2025, 08:00 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
February 13, 2025, 10:07 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Henry Jackson Society (Politics/think tanks)

 (Read 1368 times)
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Henry Jackson Society (Politics/think tanks)
     OP - April 29, 2011, 12:49 AM

      So the CSC has joined with The Henry Jackson Society
    http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/files/1302514904_1.pdf
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Jackson_Society

    Now, before you dismiss The Henry Jackson Society before you've read the seventh word in the wikipedia article, (i.e. The Henry Jackson Society is a neo-conservative[citation needed] think tank ...) I would agree citation is needed for that remark because it's Statements of Principles I guess could be interpreted rather Hawkish but it isn't clear cut (well, since they've been updated):

    Statement of principles

    Quote
    Believes that modern liberal democracies set an example to which the rest of the world should aspire.

    Supports a ‘forward strategy’ – involving diplomatic, economic, cultural, and/or political means -- to assist those countries that are not yet liberal and democratic to become so.

    Supports the maintenance of a strong military, by the United States, the countries of the European Union and other democratic powers, armed with expeditionary capabilities with a global reach, that can protect our homelands from strategic threats, forestall terrorist attacks, and prevent genocide or massive ethnic cleansing.

    Supports the necessary furtherance of European military modernisation and integration under British leadership, preferably within NATO.

    Stresses the importance of unity between the world’s great democracies, represented by institutions such as NATO, the European Union and the OECD, amongst many others.

    Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that the political or human rights pronouncements of any international or regional organisation which admits undemocratic states lack the legitimacy to which they would be entitled if all their members were democracies.

    Gives two cheers for capitalism. There are limits to the market, which needs to serve the Democratic Community and should be reconciled to the environment.

    Accepts that we have to set priorities and that sometimes we have to compromise, but insists that we should never lose sight of our fundamental values. This means that alliances with repressive regimes can only be temporary. It also means a strong commitment to individual and civil liberties in democratic states, even and especially when we are under attack.

    The society's statement of principles have been changed from those first signed by supporters in Cambridge on 11th March 2005, to de-emphasise military methods and to more recognise the legitimacy of international organisations. The original versions were:[9]

    Supports a ‘forward strategy’ to assist those countries that are not yet liberal and democratic to become so. This would involve the full spectrum of ‘carrot’ capacities, be they diplomatic, economic, cultural or political, but also, when necessary, those ‘sticks’ of the military domain.

    Supports the maintenance of a strong military, by the United States, the countries of the European Union and other democratic powers, armed with expeditionary capabilities with a global reach.

    Believes that only modern liberal democratic states are truly legitimate, and that any international organisation which admits undemocratic states on an equal basis is fundamentally flawed.[/li][/list]

  • Re: Henry Jackson Society (Politics/think tanks)
     Reply #1 - April 29, 2011, 12:56 PM

    Have you seen its list of International Patrons? There's something of a Who's Who of Neoconservatives going on there.
  • Re: Henry Jackson Society (Politics/think tanks)
     Reply #2 - April 29, 2011, 03:32 PM

    Well, I only see this true of some patrons not all. Some of wikipedia links are a good reflection of some of the political commentator's take in the media, brushing it as completely necon:

    What’s left, right, centre and neocon all over
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article597039.ece

    The neoconservative temptation beckoning Britain's bitter liberals
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/nov/21/foreignpolicy.iraq

    Inside the hawks' nest
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2005/nov/22/leftrightunap

    But then the society itself refutes this perceived notion:

    Quote
    ... assertion that The Henry Jackson Society, as an intellectual project, is "rightwing" or "neoconservative" is false. We are non-partisan across the board. Our signatories, patrons and organising committee members represent strands throughout the political spectrum, and we have a number of supporters from all main political parties.


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/nov/23/iraq.comment
  • Re: Henry Jackson Society (Politics/think tanks)
     Reply #3 - April 29, 2011, 03:42 PM

    An awfully pompous "Statement of Principles."

    This raised a chuckle, though:
    "Supports the necessary furtherance of European military modernisation and integration under British leadership, preferably within NATO."
  • Re: Henry Jackson Society (Politics/think tanks)
     Reply #4 - April 29, 2011, 04:20 PM

    Yeah I'm not sure about that one ... though I'd like to read the justification behind it.
  • 1« Previous thread | Next thread »