From: Progressive Response [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 1:03 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Open-Ended War, Terrorism Agenda, Women, Global Toxics
************************************************************************
Click http://www.fpif.org/progresp/volume5/v5n34.html to view an
HTML-formatted version of this issue of Progressive Response.
************************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progressive Response 15 October 2001 Vol. 5, No. 34
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
*** JOB OPENING ***
*** AN OPEN-ENDED WAR ***
By Michael Klare
*** WOMEN AND DEVELOPMENT AID ***
By Ritu Sharma, Women's EDGE
*** RATIFYING GLOBAL TOXICS TREATIES: THE U.S. MUST PROVIDE LEADERSHIP ***
By Kristin S. Schafer
*** NEW AGENDA TO COUNTER TERRORISM ***
II. Outside the U.S.
III. Letters and Comments
*** KLARE AND OIL ***
*** TAKING OUR CUES FROM THE ROMANS AND "THE PRINCE" ***
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Updates and Out-Takes
*** JOB OPENING ***
Communications Director
Responsible for planning, coordinating, and expanding outreach for Global
Affairs program, mainly the FPIF project. Also assist in planning,
coordinating, and expanding outreach for BIOS program and IRC.
See http://www.fpif.org/job_announce.html for more information.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** AN OPEN-ENDED WAR ***
By Michael Klare
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from an FPIF Global Affairs Commentary posted in
its entirety at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0110war.html.)
Thus far the U.S. war against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban has followed
the carefully scripted plan devised by the White House and the Pentagon
over the past few weeks: first, air and missile strikes against the few
visible expressions of Taliban military power, to be followed by
commando-type raids on suspected terrorist hideouts. What is unknown,
however, are the steps that will follow. While most Americans will support
a relatively short war to crush the Taliban and capture Bin Laden, there
are signs that President Bush and associates favor a much longer and more
elaborate conflict--one that shows every risk of turning into a
Vietnam-like quagmire.
The likelihood that we face a long, drawn-out conflict was raised by the
president himself in his television address announcing the first U.S.
strikes on Sunday [October 7]. "Today we focus on Afghanistan," he told the
nation. "But the battle is broader." Any other nation that aids or supports
terrorism, he suggested, will also come under attack from the United States.
The concept of an ongoing war against terrorist groups and the states that
support terrorism has been a consistent theme in White House rhetoric.
"This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a
decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion," Bush told a joint
session of Congress on September 20. "Americans should not expect one
battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any we have ever seen."
What, exactly, might such a conflict entail? On this point, we have heard
little but hints and allusions from the Department of Defense. From what is
publicly known of U.S. troop movements, it appears that the Pentagon is
preparing for an extended campaign in Afghanistan aimed at the complete
overthrow of the Taliban regime and attacks on every cave and hiding place
that might be used by Bin Laden and his associates. This, in turn, is
likely to involve close collaboration with the anti-Taliban forces of the
Northern Alliance plus the deployment, for some time, of U.S. ground troops
in areas once occupied by Bin Laden's forces.
But if Bush's statements are to be taken at face value, this is only stage
one of the war against terrorism. The next steps, in all likelihood, will
include raids on terrorist camps in other countries, along with air strikes
against states that are said to aid the terrorists.
It is impossible, at this point, to predict which terrorist groups
Washington will go after. Likely candidates include Hezbollah in Lebanon,
the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), Islamic Jihad in Egypt, and Abu
Sayyef in the Philippines. It is also likely that Washington will step up
its indirect war against the guerrilla groups in Colombia.
In some cases, these operations may be relatively modest, involving
cooperation with local government forces in short-term commando raids. But
others could evolve into much larger campaigns, entailing multiple air
strikes and the extended deployment of ground troops. Given that these
organizations typically operate in remote, inhospitable areas, and have
resisted repeated attacks by local government forces, there is a very real
danger that American forces could get drawn into costly and protracted
conflicts like those once encountered in Southeast Asia.
(Michael T. Klare <[log in to unmask]> is a professor of peace and world
security studies at Hampshire College in Amherst and a member of the
Advisory Committee of Foreign Policy in Focus, online at www.fpif.org.)
Also see:
Bombing Will Not Make U.S. More Secure
By Stephen Zunes
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0110catharsis.html
Afghanistan Conflict Profile
By Jim Lobe
http://www.fpif.org/selfdetermination/conflicts/afghan.html
Philippines Conflict Profile
By John Gershman
http://www.fpif.org/selfdetermination/conflicts/philippines.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** WOMEN AND DEVELOPMENT AID ***
By Ritu Sharma, Women's EDGE
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF policy brief posted in its
entirety at http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n33women.html.)
Over the past 30 years, study after study by academics, development
practitioners, and international agencies has demonstrated the seemingly
self-evident fact that women are equal to men, and sometimes surpass men,
in contributing to social and economic development.
Researchers have also documented the significant economic dividends of
investing in women and girls. Studies conducted by the World Bank, United
Nations, and various academics have shown that discrimination against women
and girls in education, health care, financial services, and human rights
dampens overall economic output, productivity, and growth rates. One World
Bank report found that gender inequality in education and employment
suppresses Africa's annual per capita growth by 0.8%.
Beyond direct economic impacts, women's increased access to education,
health care, and human rights brings a "virtuous" cycle of enhanced child
health, improved food production, lower population growth rates, higher
incomes, and, of course, better quality of life for women themselves.
In addition to undermining women's potential, discrimination and low status
have relegated many women and their children to the ranks of the poor.
Women-headed households make up a majority of the poorest of the poor both
in developed and developing countries. More than 900 million women live on
less than one dollar a day, and the number of rural women living in
absolute poverty has risen by 50% over the past 20 years, as opposed to 30%
for men.
Advocates, academics, and development practitioners have been working hard
for more than thirty years to integrate gender roles--that is, the
different roles males and females play in a society--into American aid
policy and programming. Yet, despite the evidence that women are active in
national development and that investing in women and girls yields a
multitude of benefits, U.S. international assistance programs and policy
have not caught up with the facts.
Why, despite congressional action, a law mandating gender integration,
committed practitioners within USAID, and years of advocacy, has gender
integration not penetrated U.S. development assistance as it has in other
nations' bilateral aid agencies, e.g., Canada and the Nordic countries?
Foreign policy decisionmakers often cite a reluctance to "impose our
culture" when it comes to women's issues, not recognizing that most women's
issues are matters of human rights. It is also ironic that policymakers do
not voice the same concern in other foreign policy matters that may be
equally cultural.
Secondly, most decisionmakers and the majority of development practitioners
view women (and, by association, gender integration) as just another
sector. They do not consider women as a constituency that must be part of
every program, nor do they view gender integration as an analytical tool to
help programs support women and get better results.
In addition, the attention gender integration receives within individual
USAID missions, bureaus, or projects depends heavily on the beliefs and
commitment of their leadership. The 2000 ACVFA report states that for true
integration of gender to take place, "senior leadership, particularly the
chief executive, must 'walk the talk'--with vision, commitment built on
consensus, requisite resources and training, and clear accountability."
The one bureau that received high marks in the ACVFA report was Eastern
Europe and Eurasia. Its recipe for success: an assistant administrator and
deputy assistant administrator who valued and promoted gender integration,
a highly skilled and diplomatic gender expert, who assisted missions and
projects in integrating gender; and adequate resources to promote gender
integration.
In addition to the lack of leadership, there was a paucity of
communications from Washington to USAID missions, bureaus, and partners
about the existence of past women-in-development policies and, in
particular, about the 1996 Gender Plan of Action. Though the administrator
announced the GPA, he did so just once and only on the electronic bulletin
board, which few personnel read. As one senior USAID official said during
the interviews that the ACVFA conducted, "The GPA has been invisible and
irrelevant."
Another internal obstacle has been the lack of real incentives for
integrating gender. The Gender Plan of Action's best tools--evaluating
performance on gender integration as part of personnel promotions, and
scoring bids for contracts based on the bidder's treatment of gender--were
weakened or delayed in their implementation. The gender criteria were only
included in evaluating and promoting junior and mid-level employees, not in
choosing and monitoring senior management. The procurement regulations were
adopted at the very end of the Clinton administration (four years after
they were proposed in the GPA), and only because of sustained advocacy by
the ACVFA. Because contractors, consultants, and grantees play such a large
and growing role in implementing USAID programs, this procurement
requirement has the potential to integrate gender like never before, but
that remains to be seen. The challenge now is to ensure that contracting
officers know how to evaluate the quality of gender integration in
proposals and that field staff know how to implement gender requirements in
their projects and planning processes.
To compound matters, if mission directors, bureau chiefs, or project
directors proactively seek to analyze gender and/or target women as part of
their work, the Office of Women in Development (WID) lacks the technical
staff and resources to adequately assist them. With a budget of $10 million
and only 5-7 direct-hire staff, it is essentially impossible for WID to
give attention to more than a small fraction of USAID's 200-plus projects
with a budget totaling $2.7 billion.
Furthermore, foreign direct investment and trade now grossly overshadow
USAID's development assistance, and trade and investment are increasingly
touted as the alternative to aid. USAID's economic growth portfolio over
the last five years has shifted from building nationally based enterprises
to assisting developing nations in joining and adhering to international
trade pacts and collaborating with the World Trade Organization. In other
words, it provides aid for trade.
(Ritu Sharma <[log in to unmask]> is co-founder and executive director
of Women's EDGE.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** RATIFYING GLOBAL TOXICS TREATIES: THE U.S. MUST PROVIDE LEADERSHIP ***
By Kristin S. Schafer
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF policy brief posted in its
entirety at http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n31toxtreat.html.)
The international community has, at long last, recognized that there are
some toxic chemicals that are just too dangerous to produce, use, and
store--put simply, too dangerous to have on the planet. The global treaty
resulting from this recognition is an important and welcome international
policy milestone that is long overdue.
The chemicals in question are persistent organic
pollutants--"POPs"--substances that are toxic, persist in the environment,
accumulate in the body fat of humans and animals, concentrate up the food
chain, and can be transported across the globe. At very low levels of
exposure, POPs can cause reproductive and developmental disorders, damage
to the immune and nervous systems, and a range of cancers. Exposure during
key phases of fetal development can be particularly damaging.
Infants around the world are born with an array of POPs already in their
blood. Many POPs pervade the environment, even in remote regions such as
the Arctic and Antarctic; several have been found at high levels in the
blood and breast milk of Inuit women living thousands of miles from the
nearest possible source of pollution. POPs are found in today's U.S. food
supply, even though many of the chemicals in question have been banned in
the U.S. for decades.
The global nature of these pollutants led the UN Environment Program (UNEP)
to sponsor several years of negotiations that recently culminated in an
international treaty. The treaty, now known as the Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants, was signed into formal legal existence in
Sweden on May 23, 2001 by 91 countries and the European Community.
The treaty identifies an initial list of 12 POPs slated for elimination.
Nine of the 12 (aldrin, endrin, dieldrin, chlordane, DDT, heptachlor,
hexachlorobenzene, mirex, and toxaphene) are pesticides, all of which have
been targeted for elimination by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)
around the world since the early 1980s as part of Pesticide Action Network
(PAN) International's Dirty Dozen campaign. The other chemicals on the
convention's initial list are PCBs, dioxins, and furans. PCBs and all of
the nine listed pesticides have been banned in the U.S., some--like
DDT--for decades. The U.S. continues to produce dioxins and furans,
however, as byproducts of chlorine-based industries and waste incineration.
The Stockholm Convention establishes various timetables for elimination of
the intentionally produced POPs, which include all the listed pesticides
and PCBs. Provisions specific to DDT call for its ultimate elimination but
allow interim use of the pesticide for vector control and call for
aggressive efforts to develop and implement safe and effective alternatives
to combat malaria. The byproduct POPs are also slated for ultimate
elimination, with an emphasis on alternative, cleaner production processes
rather than end-of-the-pipe controls.
The Rotterdam Convention is a complementary treaty providing important
controls on international trade of highly toxic chemicals. This convention,
signed by 73 nations in 1998, is the formalization of a voluntary Prior
Informed Consent (PIC) procedure, administered jointly by UNEP and the Food
and Agriculture Organization (FAO) since 1989. The PIC procedure requires
that any country importing pesticides and certain other hazardous chemicals
must be informed of bans or severe restrictions on that chemical in other
countries.
The volume of hazardous pesticides crossing international borders is
tremendous--an estimated 2.4 billion pounds per year in 1990. Developing
countries often lack the capacity to adequately evaluate and regulate
highly toxic chemicals imported from their Northern neighbors. The PIC
procedure is the international community's response to this inequity, and
it continues to be implemented on a voluntary basis, while the treaty
accumulates the needed 50 ratifications to come into force. Although the
convention could be strengthened, it represents an important tool for the
international community to monitor and control the world's massive trade in
dangerous substances.
Many NGOs, including PAN International and the International POPs
Elimination Network (IPEN), are calling for 50 countries to ratify these
important conventions by September 2002, when the World Summit on
Sustainable Development (Rio +10) takes place in Johannesburg, South
Africa. To date, Canada and Fiji have ratified the Stockholm Convention,
and 14 countries have ratified the Rotterdam Convention. The U.S. has not
yet ratified either.
(Kristin S. Schafer <[log in to unmask]>, Program Coordinator with
Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), is coauthor of Nowhere to
Hide: Persistent Toxic Chemicals in the U.S. Food Supply (PANNA, 2001). She
coordinates PANNA's POPs Elimination program and cofacilitates the IPEN
working group on pesticides.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** NEW AGENDA TO COUNTER TERRORISM ***
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 stated U.S.
policy goals--must remain strong. But neither can counterterrorism 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 at the same time
asserting our new commitment to constructing an international framework of
peace, justice, and security that keeps terrorists out in the cold--with no
home, no supporters, no money, and no rallying cry.
Foreign Policy In Focus has formulated an alternative framework to increase
national security and counter terrorism, for which it is seeking
endorsements for its release to media and policymakers.
FPIF Counterterrorism Agenda
http://www.fpif.org/justice/tobedone.html
FPIF Sign-On Statement
http://www.fpif.org/form_nowar.html
Justice Not War: A Policy and Citizen Action Clearinghouse
http://www.fpif.org/justice/index.html
Also see:
International Terrorism
By Stephen Zunes
http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol3/v3n38terr.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Outside the U.S.
(Editor's Note: In the best of times and in the worst of times, it is hard
for Americans to remove ourselves from the U.S.-centric view of the world
propagated by our media, our government, our schools, and many of our
churches. These are certainly among the worst of times--a conjuncture in
global affairs that calls for a fundamental reexamination of our
perspectives and policies. When searching for the right, smart, and just
ways to respond to the threat of terrorism, Americans would do well to
listen to those who live outside the United States. FPIF and IRC have two
projects that aim to make non-U.S. perspectives more accessible in a world
dominated by the U.S. media. These are our Outside the U.S. project
http://www.fpif.org/outside/index.html and our South-North Dialogue project
http://www.fpif.org/southnorth/index.html We encourage non-U.S. experts and
organizations to send us (direct to John Gershman <[log in to unmask]>)
their perspectives for inclusion in these pages for dissemination. The
following are some links to non-U.S. analysis we have collected on our
Justice Not War site http://www.fpif.org/justice/index.html illustrating
the often starkly different views of this crisis that come from outside the
United States.)
"Slaughter of the innocent bolsters view that this is war against Islam,"
by Robert Fisk, The Independent (October 15, 2001)
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=99519
"Yes, there is an effective alternative to the bombing of Afghanistan," by
Tariq Ali, The Independent (October 15, 2001)
http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=99442
"September apocalypse: who, why and what next?" by Karen Armstrong, The
Guardian (October 13, 2001)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,568512,00.html
"United States: all-powerful but powerless," by Stephen C. Clemons, Le
Monde Diplomatique (October 2001)
http://www.en.monde-diplomatique.fr/2001/10/02usa
"An enemy. At last," by Ignacio Ramonet, Le Monde Diplomatique (October
2001)
http://www.en.monde-diplomatique.fr/2001/10/01leader
"An enemy with no forwarding address," by Marwan Bishara, Le Monde
Diplomatique (October 2001)
http://www.en.monde-diplomatique.fr/2001/10/03asymmetry
"My country, post Taliban," by Jawed Ludin, The Guardian (October 13, 2001)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,573220,00.html
"A war can only be judged 'just' in retrospect," by Patrick Comerford,
Irish Times (October 9, 2001)
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2001/1009/opt3.htm
"When the force is with you: On what legal basis can states justify going
to war?," by Clare Dyer and Peter Lennon, The Guardian (October 9, 2001)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,565882,00.html
"Now it is war - but for what?," by Mick Hume, Spiked Online (October 8,
2001)
http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/00000002D262.htm
"It will take more than bombs to defeat al-Qaeda," Editorial, The Daily
Star (Lebanon) (October 8, 2001)
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/08_10_01_a.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Letters and Comments
*** KLARE AND OIL ***
I think Michael Klare ["Asking Why"
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0109why.html] is wrong about only a few
things. The U.S. does not occupy Saudi Arabia to protect it from external
attack. Eqbal Ahmad has disagreed with emphasis: (a) Saddam has already
been decimated, and (b) the U.S. already proved in the Gulf War that it can
mobilize troops from aircraft carriers and adjacent countries to annihilate
any foreign invader. The reason that the U.S. occupies Saudi Arabia is to
protect it from the kind of internal revolt that toppled the Shah's Iran.
The U.S. military extracts a massive price for protecting the royal family
from its internal enemies. The major U.S. energy companies are given the
best concessions at very good prices, which then allow those energy
companies to enjoy super-profits at the pump. Second, the U.S. is able to
coerce the royal family to recycle petrodollars in such a way to help U.S.
defense companies, to maintain the U.S. stock market, and to maintain the
value of the dollar (Saudi Arabia fights against OPEC accepting a basket of
currencies).
Third, the U.S. can press the Saudis as the swing producer to act in the
interests of the U.S. economy. So if world demand drops off and crises of
profitability erupt, the U.S. can coerce the Saudis into breaking quotas
and thereby lowering the price of oil, even if this ruins the highly
populous OPEC countries and turns the terms of trade massively against the
OPEC countries. Of course the Saudis have their own interest in this since
they make more money off Wall Street than the sale of oil.
I do not think the U.S. is there to ensure the flow of oil; the oil will
flow no matter what kind of regime is in place. Iran has not held the world
over the barrel. It's true that OPEC could become more aggressive with the
energy companies but this would not necessarily increase prices unless the
energy companies insisted on their super-profits. The U.S. is there not to
ensure the flow of oil but to get the best concessions on the best terms,
to have petrodollars recycled in its own interests, and to ensure that
Saudi Arabia can be used to maintain terms of trade favorable to oil
companies and the Western economies at the expense of the raw-material
exporting nations.
Once this economic exploitation is coupled with the deep sense of
humiliation of having lost land over the past fifty years to foreign
invaders and foreign invaders then occupying their holiest sites, it's no
surprise that the jihadi whom the U.S. once nurtured have now turned on it.
I do support the American attempt to annihilate terrorist networks, such as
the Egyptian jihadi and al Qaeda and the Taliban (I just don't want Cheney
again saying that ANC organizations are terrorist), but we are dealing with
a hydra unless--as Michael Klare shows--these regimes are internally
democratized.
- Rakesh Bhandari <[log in to unmask]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** TAKING OUR CUES FROM THE ROMANS AND "THE PRINCE" ***
"The Prince" has many applications to what is happening in Afghanistan and
our military policy. According to Machievelli's theory, Afghanistan would
be an easy country to capture but a hard one to maintain. The cruel nature
of the existing Taliban government has created factions within the state.
There will be no unified resistance to our occupation as in the earlier
Soviet invasion. Many Taliban soldiers are already defecting. The Northern
Alliance will welcome U.S. troops and as a weaker party would use our
forces to gain in domination. The return of the King would again be an easy
matter. He would unify all parties and factions under one directive. And
depending on his reputation, if he were loved formerly, he may again be
loved by the masses. However, once our objectives are achieved, Afghanistan
will be difficult to maintain control of. The factions will still exist,
and some will rebel. We should exit after our goals are completed.
Iraq, however, is a different story. It would be an extremely difficult
nation to invade and occupy--as Saddam's central government would offer
unified resistance. However, once defeated, it would be an easy nation to
occupy and colonize. The death of Saddam, and the elimination of his
government, would leave the nation without leadership to offer organized
resistance. We should, as the Romans did, establish a colony there and use
it as a base to establish our rule in the region. For too long America has
made a tragic mistake. We have mixed our personal morality with our
political and military policy. There needs to be a separation of the two.
We have seen the results of being the good, open, liberal, peace-loving,
Christian nation. Now it is time to be like the Romans, establish colonies,
destroy opposition and in that way bring a new "pax Romana" to the middle
east. Our weakness stems from our national morality. It should not govern
our foreign policy.
- Peter Valunas <[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
*************************************************************************************
|
