From: Progressive Response [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Saturday, October 06, 2001 1:16 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Agenda to Combat Terrorism, New Multilateralism, Global Justice
Movements
************************************************************************
Click http://www.fpif.org/progresp/volume5/v5n33.html to view an
HTML-formatted version of this issue of Progressive Response.
************************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progressive Response 5 October 2001 Vol. 5, No. 33
Editor: Tom Barry
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progressive Response (PR) is a weekly service of Foreign Policy in
Focus (FPIF)--a "Think Tank Without Walls." A joint project of the
Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies, FPIF
is an international network of analysts and activists dedicated to "making
the U.S. a more responsible global leader and partner by advancing citizen
movements and agendas." We encourage responses to the opinions expressed in
the PR and may print them in the "Letters and Comments" section. For more
information on FPIF and joining our network, please consider visiting the
FPIF website at http://www.fpif.org/.
**** We Count on Your Support ****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Updates and Out-Takes
*** A NEW AGENDA TO COMBAT GLOBAL TERRORISM ***
*** WHAT BIN LADEN AND GLOBAL WARMING HAVE IN COMMON ***
By Robert M. Cutler
*** NEW FPIF POLICY ANALYSIS ***
II. Outside the U.S.
*** THIRD WORLD IN GLOBAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT ***
By Patrick Bond
III. Letters and Comments
*** DURBAN: GLIMPSE OF A CHANGING WORLD ***
*** LET'S FIGHT BACK ***
*** LET'S ASK OURSELVES ***
*** OFFENDED BY ZUNES ***
*** LET'S KILL THE RUSSIANS ***
*** U.S. HELPS PROPAGATE TERRORISM ***
*** MODERATION FOR MUSLIMS IN TURKEY ***
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Updates and Out-Takes
*** A NEW AGENDA TO COMBAT GLOBAL TERRORISM ***
(Editor's Note: Immediately following the September 11 attacks, the FPIF
staff and network of experts mobilized to provide policymakers, the media,
the advocacy community, and our readers with relevant policy analysis. We
have established an online clearinghouse at www.fpif.org/justice, that is
tracking citizen response to the declared war on global terrorism. We have
also formulated a policy agenda with pragmatic policy recommendations and
guiding principles to counter terrorism that will give the U.S. a greater
sense of national and individual security. Excerpted below, the policy
document--which includes detailed recommendations on prevention,
strengthening international systems to respond to such crimes, protecting
civil liberties, and addressing root causes--is available at:
http://www.fpif.org/justice/tobedone.html. It is a living document in the
sense that we will revise and update it as necessary.)
Everything changed on September 11, and the United States will never be the
same. This conventional wisdom has become a mantra, repeated over and over
again by the media and now echoing throughout America. As the dead are
memorialized and the dust settles, the U.S. public, for the most part, has
gradually assumed its former routines. Undoubtedly, however, the concept of
U.S. national security has undergone a dramatic transformation.
For the first time in recent memory, Americans have begun to think of
national security in terms of ensuring their individual safety and
protecting the American homeland. Suddenly, foreign policy and military
policy are not just about the U.S. role in global affairs but about the
security of Americans themselves. In an instant, foreign policy became no
longer about distant lands and their peoples but about U.S. families,
homes, communities, and workplaces. Defense policy was redefined as
defending America and Americans rather than as force projection. Moreover,
there is a new consensus emerging which holds that international
cooperation and multilateralism constitute the only viable approach to
preventing and combating terrorism. In other words, America knows it cannot
do it alone.
There exists no universally accepted definition of terrorism. The Bush
administration's proposed anti-terrorist legislation defines terrorism too
broadly and risks conflating political protest with terrorism. Rather,
terrorism should be defined as a form of violence that kills or maims
civilians and creates an atmosphere of fear and alarm beyond the immediate
human and physical damage that such acts may cause. While acts of terrorism
are politically motivated, political grievances do not justify terrorism.
All acts of terrorism are crimes and terrorists alone retain the
responsibility for their actions. If a state of war existed, many would
also be judged as violations of the rules of war.
According to the FBI and other agencies that monitor terrorism, the number
of terrorist incidents declined in the 1990s compared to the 1980s, but the
lethality of such incidents increased, leading to a greater number of
deaths from fewer events. This highlights a concern noted in a recent
General Accounting Office (GAO) report, that "the federal government lacks
a national strategy to guide resource investment for combating terrorism."
Unfortunately, the Bush administration has continued the emphasis of
previous administrations on military and police responses to terrorism. A
different strategy would focus upon and strengthen the civilian public
sectors and the international cooperation that are necessary to prevent and
respond to terrorist attacks. Although the military has a clear role to
play, it is a supporting actor in the fight against terrorism.
America needs a new agenda for combating terrorism--one that integrates the
use of force within an international legal and policy framework that
enables holding terrorists accountable for their crimes and facilitates the
prevention of terrorism in the first place. Below, we outline a four-part
framework for a new national security policy that counters terrorism and
propagates justice by:
* Preventing and mitigating the effects of terrorist violence.
* Strengthening the national and international legal system to insure that
those responsible for planning, financing, directly supporting, and
engaging in terrorist violence are held accountable. When necessary, the
use of military force may need to be used to advance the rule of law within
a multilateral and international legal framework.
* Defending and promoting basic civil liberties and rights at home while
working to insure that individuals and groups are neither made into
scapegoats nor become the victims of hate crimes. Abroad, the policy must
insure that U.S. efforts at combating terrorism do not increase violations
of internationally recognized human rights and that, in all cases, innocent
civilians are not harmed in the pursuit of terrorists.
* Attacking the root causes of terrorism by addressing the socioeconomic
and political conditions that enable terrorism (in whatever form and for
whatever ends) to appear to be a viable strategy for pursuing political
objectives.
** Our Challenge Is to Change
The sobering reality of terrorism is that it constitutes a threat to
individual, national, and international security that can never be
completely eliminated. Despite our best efforts, there will always been
ideologues, fanatics, and alienated groups that may resort to terrorism to
express their frustration and make their political point. No single
strategy of this four-part framework is an adequate response to terrorism.
Only by joining all four strategies--defending and promoting civil rights,
pursuing prevention and preparedness, strengthening the international
framework for multilateral action, and addressing roots causes--will the
U.S. government be able to tell the American people that it is doing all
that it can to prevent future terrorist attacks.
Combating terrorism should not become a crusade that trumps all other
policy concerns. Our commitment to environmental protection, human rights,
democratic political transitions, economic development, poverty
alleviation, disarmament, and gender equality--to name a few of the stated
U.S. policy goals--must remain strong. But neither can counter-terrorism
just be added to these policy imperatives. The challenge is to construct a
counterterrorism policy that demonstrates America's new commitment to
protecting Americans and U.S. national security while asserting our new
commitment to constructing an international framework of peace, justice,
and security that locks terrorists out in the cold--with no home, no
supporters, no money, and no rallying cry.
If that is our response, then September 11 will indeed have changed America
and the world.
(This four-part policy framework for a new counterterrorism policy
represents the views of the FPIF directors but does not necessarily reflect
the views of the FPIF Advisory Committee or of the board members of FPIF's
two sponsoring organizations, the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC)
and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS). John
Gershman,<[log in to unmask]>, who is codirector of the Global Affairs
Program of the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) and Asia-Pacific
editor of Foreign Policy In Focus www.fpif.org, directed this effort to
formulate an effective and just response to global terrorism.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** WHAT BIN LADEN AND GLOBAL WARMING HAVE IN COMMON ***
By Robert M. Cutler
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs Commentary,
available in its entirety at:
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0109warming.html.)
Toward the end of President Bush's September 24 statement about freezing
terrorists' assets, one finds the overlooked but no less remarkable
assertion that the U.S. is "working closely with the United Nations, the EU
and through the G-7/G-8 structure to limit the ability of terrorist
organizations to take advantage of the international financial systems."
Still more remarkably, he declared, "The United States has signed, but not
yet ratified, two international conventions, one of which is designed to
set international standards for freezing financial assets. I'll be asking
members of the U.S. Senate to approve the UN convention on suppression of
terrorist financing and a related convention on terrorist bombings and to
work with me on implementing the legislation."
In the days following the bombing, Bush qualified the battle with terrorism
as "war," but after several foreign ministries in Europe noted that the
term "war" had a rather different connotation in the Old World, he was led
to clarify what he meant. The Europeans had said that if what he meant was
an intensive mobilization of efforts behind a wide scope of activities
across the whole range of operations, then this was correct and called for.
Despite a continuing emphasis on the emplacement of military instruments,
awaiting a judgment as to their proper employment, it appears that this is
in fact what Bush meant. He has found an issue, and there is no pretending
it is not a vital issue, on which no foreign power will dare to disagree.
Global warming is an example of an environmental issue that is perhaps not
as obviously vital to national interests as terrorism, but which--like
terrorism--has the potential to affect the entire world and not just the
United States. Yet such issues are more difficult to address. There is no
easily defined (human) enemy against which to mobilize. A more radical
shift of thinking in the administration is required to embrace this sort of
issue, but nothing can be ruled out. After all, Richard Nixon went to
Beijing and Ronald Reagan became a good friend of the General Secretary of
the Soviet Communist Party.
The lesson to be learned is not just that we need the rest of the world
because we are inextricably entangled with it (whether by "entangling
alliances" or not) and not just that the rest of the world needs us--which
they do (because of the clout and leadership potential that the U.S.
provides). Rather, the U.S. needs the rest of the world to need us; and,
moreover, they need us to need them need us. Only after a reciprocal
recognition of our mutual entanglement can we act together with them, and
they with us. Only on this basis can we achieve the objectives that benefit
us all--the U.S. no less than any other. Indeed, that is a precise
description of the dynamic that took form after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Concerning international environmental policy, the small move that is
needed--no less great for its smallness--is to extend the logic of
antiterrorist cooperation to nontraditional security issues. In principle,
this may not be as difficult as it may seem. The terrorist threat and the
threat of global warming share a surprising number of qualities. To mention
only three, both are omnipresent, mainly visible in their effects, and
impossible to eliminate only by monitoring state borders. In both a
sociological and an ironic sense, the threats of international terrorism
and global climate change are "post-modern" fraternal twins.
(Robert M. Cutler <[log in to unmask]> <http://www.robertcutler.org/> is
Research Fellow, Institute of European and Russian Studies, Carleton
University, Canada. He is a U.S.-born American citizen.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** NEW FPIF POLICY ANALYSIS ***
How the War Against Terrorism Could Escalate
By Michael T. Klare
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0109war.html
Self-Determination Conflict Profile: Uzbekistan
By Jim Lobe
http://www.fpif.org/selfdetermination/conflicts/uzbek.html
Cozying up to Karimov
By Robert Cutler
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0110kari.html
Bin Laden and Mandela: Yesterday's Freedom Fighters, Today's Terrorist?
By William Martin
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0109mandela.html
Ratifying Global Toxics Treaties: The U.S. Must Provide Leadership
By Kristin S. Schafer
http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n31toxtreat.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Outside the U.S.
(Editor's Note: FPIF has a new component called "Outside the U.S.," which
aims to bring non-U.S. voices into the U.S. policy debate and to foster
dialogue between Northern and Southern actors in global affairs issues.
Please visit our Outside the U.S. page for other non-U.S. perspectives on
global affairs and for information about submissions at:
http://www.fpif.org/outside/index.html. The South-North page is at
http://www.fpif.org/southnorth/index.html.)
*** THIRD WORLD IN GLOBAL JUSTICE MOVEMENT ***
By Patrick Bond
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Discussion Paper, "Strategy and
Self-Activity in the Global Justice Movement," sponsored by our South-North
Dialogue project, online at http://www.fpif.org/southnorth/index.html. The
entire paper can be found at: http://www.fpif.org/papers/gjm.html.)
If the Global Justice Movements have transcended futile and unsatisfying
reforms in Washington/Geneva, are African and other third world progressive
activists necessarily left behind, "marginalized" from globalization, or
are they instead near or at the cutting edge of the process?
In fact, diverse social forces, North and South, East and West, are feeding
into international and local demonstrations with increasing militancy, and
with comparable values, norms, and discourses. There are even parallel
strategies and tactics emerging. The January 2001 World Social Summit in
Porto Alegre, Brazil began an important process of sketching alternative
visions for genuinely sustainable development, far-reaching human
empowerment, and serious eco-stewardship. One thing that the Global Justice
Movements can claim as a unifying force, is a familiar set of enemies.
Whether located in obscure third world cities or the centers of global
commerce, the struggles of the Global Justice Movements increasingly
intersect because they focus on virtually identical opponents: the agencies
and representatives of neoliberal capitalism--global, regional, national,
and local. If there is, therefore, a genuine movement of Global Justice
Movements afoot, and if that movement aims not to further exacerbate uneven
global development, it is reasonable to posit the need for a greater
recognition of and influence by varied third world grassroots
organizations--community-based groups, trade unions, cooperatives and
mutual aid systems, traditional and ethnic-based organizations, church
networks, women's and youth clubs, environmental groups, and many others.
What, then, can be said about current role of these organizations, their
potential for participating in local and global alliances, their relations
with their own states and ruling parties? What opportunities are emerging
for the parallel heightening of consciousness, politicization, and
democratization that will flow, South-North and North-South, through the
greater involvement of African grassroots activists and strategists in
particular?
Most importantly, many of the key third world grassroots organizations have
a common experience, facing not only an anonymous force-field of
international capital flows and policies shaped by persistent "advice" from
Washington, but also concrete institutions responsible for the most direct
source of austerity: the IMF, World Bank, and World Trade Organization.
How, then, do the Global Justice Movements respond to those from the
Post-WashCon and Third World Nationalist camps, who insist upon the
expansion, not contraction, of the Bretton Woods and similar institutions?
"Without the international financial institutions, things would be even
worse for poor countries," claimed South African finance minister Trevor
Manuel at the Prague debate in late September 2000. This is, indeed, the
core argument Manuel--then the chairperson of the IMF/WB Board of
Governors--and many third world leaders resort to: access to capital
markets is impossible for poor African countries, hence the Bank and IMF
are crucial sources of hard-currency financing.
There are many technical responses to such an assertion that should be
mentioned at least in passing. The main argument is that by restructuring
international financial architecture in the interests of the world's
majority, there would be no need for Bank/IMF loans (which even for
impoverished countries when provided at a "soft" rate of less than 1%, are
extremely expensive when currencies crash, and when hard currency is
required to repay the lender). Instead of hard-currency loans, an
ideal-type, alternative development finance strategy at global and national
scales would have the following elements:
* third world debt should be completely canceled once and for all;
* capital controls should be permitted, to allow states to adopt pro-poor
policies without fear of a run by the rich;
* local basic developmental needs with no foreign inputs should only be
paid for with local currency (not on the basis of loans denominated in
dollars, yen, or marks);
* development loans should carry subsidized interest rates as needed (even
if that "distorts" local and global financial markets);
* to the extent that redistributive North-South funding flows can be
established--drawn, for example, from financial speculation taxes or
strings-free Overseas Development Assistance--they should occur on a grant
(not loan) basis;
* finance agency economists are not allowed to whimsically impose
neoliberal conditionality; and
* trade finance should be freely available from export credit agencies to
support vital imports and for progressive input-requirements (instead of
just for inappropriate megaprojects and luxury good imports).
(Patrick Bond <[log in to unmask]> is an associate professor at the
University of the Witwatersrand Graduate School of Public and Development
Management, and a research associate of the Alternative Information and
Development Centre.)
Other Recent Discussion Papers:
Bonn and Genoa: A Tale of Two Cities and Two Movements
By Tom Athanasiou and Paul Baer
http://www.fpif.org/papers/kyoto.html
Global Economic Governance: Strategic Crossroads
By Tom Barry
http://www.fpif.org/papers/ecgov.html
Addressing the Demand Dimensions of Small Arms Abuse: Problems and
Opportunities
By Alejandro Bendaqa
http://www.fpif.org/papers/arms.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Letters and Comments
*** DURBAN: GLIMPSE OF A CHANGING WORLD ***
September 11 changed the context of all conversations about race, class,
and oppressed peoples. My wife and I were returning from South Africa,
where we attended the United Nations NGO Forum against Racism, Xenophobia,
and Related Intolerance. As we landed at JFK in New York, we passed through
customs and waited to board our Delta flight to Boston. Then came the
announcement: "An airplane has struck the World Trade Center." We looked
across the runway to see a vast, dark cloud of smoke. As the unspeakable
drama unfolded on TV and Radio, thought of sharing the energy and
excitement of Durban went up in smoke too.
As Americans, we will need time to grieve. Many prayers are being offered
for calm and reason. Americans don't like to be exposed or feel vulnerable.
We, who are white in America, take pride in our security and safety even as
inner-city neighborhoods face daily violence and terror. Terror lashed out
on a scale too grand to ever be fully comprehended. We would do well to
remember that its roots are embedded in intolerance, racism, and oppression.
In Durban, the United Nations put together a consensus document on the
Middle East without the presence of the United States. The delegates
recognized that the historical suffering of the Jews and the Holocaust must
not obscure the historical injustices being perpetrated against the
Palestinians. The denial of civil rights anywhere can move us from hope to
chaos. The World Conference brought almost every group of oppressed peoples
on earth together so their pain could be heard. An Op-Ed political cartoon
in the Cape Town Times pictured Bush with earplugs before a TV expressing
the voices of the oppressed. The caption read: "Our great nation is willing
to defend the right to free speech around the world--BUT I DON'T HAVE TO
LISTEN TO IT."
When there is no voice, no seat at the table, no hope, the seeds are
planted that give growth to terrorists. In our war against terrorism we
must listen and give voice to the cries and pain of the oppressed and those
denied justice and hope. Any offense against terrorism must work to
eliminate hatred, xenophobia, and intolerance because these are the
breeding grounds for violence and monstrous acts of complete disrespect for
human life. Inconvenient as it is, Americans must listen and respond to
global cries for justice as attentively as we would in a family dispute.
Compromise and reconciliation must be the end result, as any family knows,
if it is ever to restore joy, peace, and happiness.
Durban gave us a glimpse of our changing world. In a world free of racism,
xenophobia, and intolerance, white America is put in its proper minority
context. As the developing world progresses, other super-powers will
emerge--the U.S., itself, is evolving into a Nation of Color--and this will
dramatically alter our perceptions and understandings of our world. Now,
more than ever, we must embrace our differences and overcome fear with love
and understanding. Now, more than ever, we must unite to end racism,
xenophobia, and intolerance. It is the best weapon to use in the war
against terrorism. The only real security is for the United States to
become a friend to all the world's people.
- Rev. William M. Briggs <[log in to unmask]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** LET'S FIGHT BACK ***
Why are we so afraid to defend ourselves as a nation? At least, the men who
lost their lives at Pearl Harbor were trained to fight battles. But the
men, women, and children at the WTC, who have not all been counted yet, had
no idea they were going to die like that. It wasn't a pleasant, kind act
that took place there. IT WAS INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM! How long are we
going to put up with this kind of self-centered evil before we stamp it
out? ENOUGH WITH THIS ANTI-WAR MIND-SET! We have been seriously injured as
a nation and I am tired of it, aren't you? I'm ready to fight back.
- William F. Hall <[log in to unmask]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** LET'S ASK OURSELVES ***
Americans must ask themselves: Is it fair for the U.S. to illegally mine
harbors? Is it fair for the U.S. to fund the overthrow of democratically
elected governments? Is it fair for the U.S. to fund and supply death
squads? Is it fair for the U.S. to sell guns for hostages? Is it fair for
the U.S. to engage in all sorts of unspeakable, "black bag" atrocities
around the world? Is it fair for the U.S. to lead world in exporting the
engines of death and destruction to poor nations?
Many Americans meet the answers of the long history of U.S. atrocities done
in their name with astonishment. However, ignorance of this woeful record
is no excuse. It is time for America and her citizens to grow up and behave
in a manner worthy of respect and honor from other nations. War and
violence are obsolete in the 21st century. It would be helpful if our
leaders were apprised of this fact.
- Franklin L. Johnson <[log in to unmask]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** OFFENDED BY ZUNES ***
I take offense with Prof. Zunes' comments that Israel practiced a policy of
ethnic cleansing when it forcibly expelled Palestinians during the 1948
war, a war that the Arabs started. Israel should recognize the
Palestinians' right to a state, but the expulsion of Palestinians in
1948--which was wrong--coincided with the expulsion of similar numbers of
Jews from Arab countries. I rarely, if ever, hear about those actions being
ones of ethnic cleansing. Why?
- Steven Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** LET'S KILL THE RUSSIANS ***
Tell Russia that if they back any country that supports terrorism that
their people will be killed!!!!
- Todd Quenemoen <[log in to unmask]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** U.S. HELPS PROPAGATE TERRORISM ***
"How the War Against Terrorism Could Escalate,"
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0109war.html though realistic to some
extent, overlooks the impact of any sort of attacks on the countries
harboring or used to harbor terrorism (e.g. Sudan). How much do the U.S.
and allies' intelligence really know about the actual population of the
supporters of leaders of and groups tagged as "terrorists"? The number of
supporters and how they are armed and their hideouts are unknown! They
shall definitely retaliate in one way or another against easy targets, like
the regimes joining hands with the U.S. and its coalition. This shall
definitely create a worldwide chaos and disarray that will be hard to
contain.
Furthermore, the U.S. is joining hands with regimes that have contributed
positively to the propagation of terrorists and fanatical populaces (for
example, NIF regime of Sudan and Pakistan). As such, the U.S. is losing the
sympathy of the populations oppressed by these regimes.
- Abubakr Sidahmed <[log in to unmask]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** MODERATION FOR MUSLIMS IN TURKEY ***
Re: Turkey: Arms and Human Rights.
http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol4/v4n16turk.html
With Turkey there is a real opportunity for the world to make a peaceful
foreign policy atmosphere. But in Turkey we are under enormous pressure
from the militiamen. If you are a moderate Muslim in Turkey, it is
impossible for you to live in tranquility because the foreign policy of
Turkey is directly determined by the militiamen. And unfortunately it
becomes pro-Russian and pro-Chinese. Turkey immediately must become a
moderate Islam country. Its people are already moderate, but the state is
nearly Jacobinist. We the moderate Muslims in Turkey need the help of
Western countries to promote our way of life.
- Serkan Seman <[log in to unmask]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please consider supporting Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF). FPIF is a new
kind of think tank--one serving citizen movements and advancing a fresh,
internationalist understanding of global affairs. Although we make our FPIF
products freely available on the Internet, we need financial support to
cover our staff time and expenses. Increasingly, FPIF depends on you and
other individual donors to sustain our bare-bones budget. Click on
https://secure.webburner.net/fpif/form_donate.html to support FPIF online,
or for information about making contributions over the phone or through the
mail.
***** We Count on Your Support. Thank you. *****
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progressive Response aims to provide timely analysis and opinion about
U.S. foreign policy issues. The content does not necessarily reflect the
institutional positions of either the Interhemispheric Resource Center or
the Institute for Policy Studies.
We're working to make the Progressive Response informative and useful, so
let us know how we're doing, via email to <[log in to unmask]>. Please put
"Progressive Response" in the subject line. Please feel free to cross-post
the Progressive Response elsewhere. We apologize for any duplicate copies
you may receive.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe to the Progressive Response, go to:
http://www.fpif.org/progresp/index.html and follow the instructions.
To subscribe directly, send a blank message to:
[log in to unmask]
To unsubscribe, send a blank message to:
[log in to unmask]
************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************
|
