From: Progressive ResponseTo: [log in to unmask]
Sent: 14/12/01 03:39
Subject: U.S. Supremacism, Fast Track, Global Investment, War Spending
************************************************************************
Click http://www.fpif.org/progresp/volume5/v5n42.html to view an
HTML-formatted version of this issue of Progressive Response.
************************************************************************
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The Progressive Response 13 December 2001 Vol. 5,
No. 42
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/, or email <[log in to unmask]> to
share
your thoughts with us.
Tom Barry, editor of Progressive Response, is a senior analyst with the
Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) www.irc-online.org and codirector
of
Foreign Policy In Focus. He can be contacted at <[log in to unmask]>.
**** We Count on Your Support ****
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
I. Updates and Out-Takes
*** U.S. SUPREMACISM & WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD) ***
By Michael Klare
*** FAST-TRACK LEGISLATION WON'T DEFEAT SEATTLE COALITION ***
By Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh
*** WAR'S IMPLICATION FOR BUDGET AND MILITARY SPENDING ***
*** INVESTMENT RULES AFTER DOHA ***
By Lyuba Zarsky
*** SELF-DETERMINATION AND CONFLICT NEWS ***
II. Letters and Comments
*** KEEPING SEATTLE COALITION ALIVE ***
*** ISRAEL-PALESTINE: IGNORING ANOTHER OPTION ***
*** ONLY ONE TRUE INTENTION ***
*** SEARCHING FOR A REASONABLE PALESTINIAN ***
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
I. Updates and Out-Takes
*** U.S. SUPREMACISM & WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION (WMD) ***
By Michael Klare
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a presentation at an FPIF-sponsored
conference on WMD after September 11, posted in its entirety at
http://www.fpif.org/presentations/011126wmd-klare.html .)
If bipolarity and decolonization were the dominant features of the cold
war
era, then unipolarity and economic globalization are the dominant
features
of the current era. And just as the first pair of factors influenced WMD
developments during the earlier period, unipolarity and globalization
are
shaping the WMD environment of this period. Unfortunately, I believe
that
we're much more knowledgeable about the WMD dynamics of the cold war era
than of the present, and so I'd like to use the rest of my time to
sketch
out the implications of unipolarity and globalization for WMD dynamics
in
the future.
The most important of these for our discussion is, of course,
unipolarity,
or the emergence of the United States as the world's sole superpower.
This
is a situation that is truly unprecedented in recent times. Indeed, I
think
you have to go back to the Roman period to find an era in which one
country
so completely dominated the military landscape of the time.
Now, I don't think that American leaders set out to achieve this
extraordinary condition. Rather, they sought to accumulate sufficient
power
to overwhelm the Soviet Union. But when the Soviet Union collapsed, the
United States stood alone as a global military power, and no other
country
has emerged as an equal challenger since then. And it does not look as
if
such a challenger will arise any time soon. So it seems likely that the
United States will remain the world's sole superpower for some time to
come.
It is easy to view this as a temporary phenomenon, to be replaced by
something more familiar to us from the cold war era. But I don't think
this
will occur anytime soon. Instead, I believe that unipolarity will remain
the dominant reality for the foreseeable future. And even if there were
any
doubt about this, U.S. leaders are determined to make unipolarity a
permanent fact of life, through whatever means necessary. You can see
hints
of this outlook in the Clinton era, but it is really in the Bush
administration that you see an explicit drive for permanent military
supremacy.
When President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld talk about
the
"transformation" of the U.S. military establishment, they mean the
acquisition of weapons and technologies that will ensure U.S. dominance
over any conceivable adversary, now and far into the future. You can't
really appreciate the military thinking of the Bush administration
without
grasping this essential precept. To give you just a flavor of what I'm
talking about, let me quote from President Bush's most important
pre-election speech, his Sept. 23, 1999 address at the Citadel in South
Carolina. "My goal," he said, "is to take advantage of the tremendous
opportunity--given to few nations--to extend the current peace into the
far
realm of the future. A chance to protect America's peaceful influence,
not
just across the world but across the years." Now, this may strike some
of
you as sheer hubris, or worse, but it accurately describes the outlook
of
the current administration.
* 9-11 Reinforced Strategy of Supremacism
Before discussing the implications of all this for global WMD dynamics,
let
me raise the question of whether anything has changed as a result of
9-11.
The answer, I think, is no--if anything, the attacks of Sept 11 have
reinforced the administration's commitment to a strategy of supremacism.
It's true, of course, that President Bush has attempted to promote
warmer
relations with Russia. But when push came to shove, Bush was unwilling
to
modify any of the policies I described above in order to gain President
Putin's acquiescence to changes in the ABM Treaty. So I don't really see
any major changes, except, perhaps, for a greater willingness to engage
in
preemptive military strikes.
So, what are the implications of all this for the future of WMD?
The first, I believe, is the total rejection of arms control agreements
of
the SALT and START variety. These agreements, after all, were predicated
on
the situation of essential equivalence in nuclear firepower between the
U.S. and the U.S.SR. But no such equivalence exists today--the Russians
are
in no position to maintain their nuclear capability at anything
approaching
the scale of the Soviet arsenal, and certainly cannot keep up with the
U.S.
in technological advances. So the U.S. has no incentive to negotiate
mutually restrictive agreements. From now on, Washington will only sign
accords that perpetuate America's overwhelming superiority. But why
would
Russia--or anyone else, for that matter--agree to such an arrangement? I
can't imagine that any Russian or Chinese leader could sign such an
accord.
So I find it hard to believe that we will see any more arms control
agreements of the sort we became accustomed to in the past.
The second implication is far more troubling. What will happen when we
face
a situation where the U.S. possesses a powerful nuclear arsenal and has
deployed a multilayered NMD system, making it seemingly invulnerable to
an
enemy counter attack. There are many in Washington who believe that this
will be a more peaceful and stable world, because no one will be willing
to
provoke U.S. hostility by challenging our global interests. Perhaps this
is
so. This is such a unique situation in human history that it is hard to
imagine what will transpire. Nevertheless, I am skeptical that the world
will be conflict-free in such an environment. If human history is any
guide
to this new era, I think we can expect continuing challenges to U.S.
hegemony, taking many different forms.
I fear that faith in U.S. invulnerability, whether justified or not,
will
lead U.S. leaders to engage in periodic interventions of one sort or
another. So I predict that we will see continuing conflict in this brave
new world. And I also believe that one of the responses to U.S.
superiority
will be the continuing pursuit of WMD by potential challengers. After
all,
if we insist that possession of a massive nuclear arsenal is the bedrock
of
the U.S. military preponderance, we can hardly be surprised if other
states
will seek to copy us. Russia and China, I suspect, will seek to overcome
the U.S. advantage in missile defense by expanding the size and potency
of
their nuclear arsenal, and by developing anti-NMD
countermeasures--multiple
warheads, decoys, and so forth. Other countries, lacking the capacity to
manufacture nuclear weapons, will develop chemical and biological
weapons,
along with unconventional means of delivery. The recent anthrax scare
shows
us just how easily this can be done. So, in the end, I believe that U.S.
efforts to preserve unipolarity forever will only lead to the spread of
WMD
and the emergence of new threats to global peace and security.
(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.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
*** FAST-TRACK LEGISLATION WON'T DEFEAT SEATTLE COALITION ***
By Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs Commentary,
posted
in its entirety at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0112fasttrack.html .)
The U.S. House of Representatives barely approved fast track trade
authority by a vote of 215 to 214, ending a long battle that pitted the
Fortune 500 against a broad alliance of labor, environmental, religious,
feminist, human rights, consumer, family farm, and other activists.
These
diverse forces defeated fast track twice during the Clinton
administration
and managed to delay a vote numerous times this year because of lack of
support. Now that fast track has been approved, pro-free trade analysts
would no doubt like to begin ringing the death knell of the opposition
forces. To the contrary, there are several reasons why this vote is only
a
small setback in the fight against corporate globalization.
1. Free Traders Undermined Their Legitimacy with Cheap Sell Tactics
The K Street lobbyists, Capitol Hill horse traders, and White House
spin-meisters had to really hustle just to win by one vote. We will
never
know how many millions of dollars in campaign contributions or pork
deals
were needed to eke out a win. When money wouldn't work, the
administration
diverted Colin Powell from the war effort to try to persuade members of
Congress with the ludicrous argument that fast track was needed to fight
terrorism. (Now that Bush has fast track, can we expect Osama bin Laden
to
emerge from his cave waving a white flag?) According to news reports,
the
decisive deal--a concession for the textile industry--came after voting
had
already begun. All this last-minute manipulation makes it impossible for
free traders to claim that fast track passed on its merits.
2. Just as NAFTA Pork Created an Anti-Free Trade Groundswell, So Too
Will
This Vote Doom Future Deals
In 1993, NAFTA backers faced defeat in the House of Representatives even
a
week before the vote. Then, Clinton started buying support with promises
of
military contracts, research centers, and protections for various
commodities. Although it succeeded in pushing the deal through, the
strategy proved short-sighted. The tainted nature of that vote, along
with
NAFTA's dismal record, paved the way for the defeat of fast track in
1997
and 1998 and for the recent wave of mass demonstrations against
globalization that first erupted in Seattle in 1999. This time around,
we're likely to see similar fallout. Even free traders such as Norman
Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute warned in the days leading
up
to the vote that the last-minute arm-twisting could create such harsh
feelings that Congress might reject future trade deals.
(John Cavanagh <[log in to unmask]> and Sarah Anderson <[log in to unmask]>
are
analysts at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-authors of The Field
Guide to the Global Economy. Cavanagh is a member of FPIF's Advisory
Committee.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
*** WAR'S IMPLICATION FOR BUDGET AND MILITARY SPENDING ***
(Editor's Note: Foreign Policy In Focus editors provide answers to
questions that policymakers, the media, and the public have asked us.
Look
for a new FAQ every few days on the FPIF homepage. These answers will be
regularly updated as circumstances change. See other FAQs at:
http://www.fpif.org/faq/index.html .)
Though no firm figures are available on what the war is costing us, the
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments estimates those costs at
between $500 million and $1 billion a month. This includes the costs of
cruise missiles (between $1 million and $2 million a piece),
laser-guided
"bunker-busting" bombs ($125,000 a copy) and the relatively
cheap--except
as measured in human carnage--unguided cluster bombs ($5,000 per). It
also
includes about $5,000 in fuel per hour for the long round trips of the
F/A
18 fighter-bombers, and about $25 million to deploy 1,000 ground troops
in
Uzbekistan. It does not include the costs of deploying National Guard
and
reserve troops to guard U.S. airports and the air patrols over several
cities.
Of more long-term significance is the Bush administration's (and the
defense industry's) use of the war as a platform for supporting massive,
sustained increases in overall military spending. The Senate has
recently
approved a defense budget for FY 2002 of $343 billion dollars, in
addition
to the $20 billion in emergency funds. The 9-11 windfall will provide
accelerated support for the Pentagon's full menu of systems, including
three overlapping fighter jet programs that have been proceeding in
tandem
despite all the talk of military transformation.
One exception to the rule of military budget expansion was the
Nunn-Lugar
Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which helps Russia dismantle its
nuclear weapons, secure its remaining arsenal, and divert its nuclear
scientists, via productive employment, from selling their skills to, for
example, terrorist networks. These programs took an $86 million hit.
This is curious, given President Bush's commitment at his summit with
President Putin to curbing the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. Indeed, Senate Democrats gave him a second chance to fund
this
"top priority" of his, in their package of $15 billion worth of proposed
budget additions for homeland security. Also among their proposals was
$215
million for increased security at U.S. nuclear power plants and weapons
facilities. He turned them down, saying we should wait until next year
to
figure all this out. Why? Because, one suspects, next year he will be
able
to pit these priorities against the domestic budget items--health care,
education, infrastructure, the environment, etc.--that were already
endangered by his (first) tax cut.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
*** INVESTMENT RULES AFTER DOHA ***
By Lyuba Zarsky
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from an FPIF Global Affairs Commentary, posted
in
its entirety at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0111wto.html .)
The agreement to begin WTO negotiations on investment should serve as a
call to action for NGOs, socially responsible business leaders, and
others
who seek to promote the global public interest. Now more than ever, it
is
time to mount a proactive advocacy effort based on a positive vision of
what constitutes "sustainable and ethical" investment rules.
Pundits and analysts are "spinning" the Doha agreement in different
ways.
U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick calls Doha a "big win" for the
United States. Mike Moore, Director General of the WTO, credits
delegates
for "saving the WTO." The Financial Times praises Washington's
"conciliatory style" but wonders if it reflects "fundamental shifts"
that
would make the WTO more manageable. NGO analysts think not and call Doha
a
"Pyrrhic victory" and a "massive defeat for poor people around the
world."
The reality is that there are deep divisions between the U.S. and the
EU,
and between developed and developing countries, especially on "issue
creep"--the tendency to stake out more and more market territory to fall
under WTO disciplines and dispute resolution. At Doha, much arm-twisting
was needed to get agreement to get the latest batch of new
issues--competition policy, government procurement, trade facilitation,
and
investment--on the negotiating table.
The governance of investment strikes at the heart of sustainable and
equitable development. The rules and practices surrounding investment
decisions affect both access to capital and a broad range of social and
environmental impacts. "Quality" investment is crucial for the
development
of cleaner technologies, for sustainable resource management, and for
human
and environmental infrastructure of all kinds. According to UNCTAD's
2001
World Investment report, about 75% of global foreign investment flows
between the thirty rich countries of the OECD. Africa gets less than 1%.
To date, investment rules in regional and bilateral agreements have
strengthened investor rights without specifying social and environmental
obligations either of private investors or governments. NAFTA's Chapter
11
goes even further, allowing corporations to successfully challenge the
rights of states to regulate in the public interest.
A sustainable and ethical approach to investment rules would, first of
all,
affirm the rights of states to regulate. It would also spell out
positive
obligations, such as for investors to undertake environmental impact
assessments and to maintain environmental and social management systems
as
part of good corporate governance; and for states to embrace and enforce
global human rights, labor, and environmental agreements. Finally, it
would
create a balanced dispute settlement mechanism, accessible to both
citizens
and investors and offering protection for both investors and the public
interest.
Without exception, NGOs with missions to promote global sustainable and
poverty-reducing development opposed the launch of WTO negotiations on
investment. Their fear was that the WTO would squeeze the complex
ethical
and environmental issues surrounding the governance of investment into a
narrow "liberalize-at-all-costs" formula aimed at increasing market
access
and protection for rich country corporations.
Now that the WTO has decided to launch negotiations, it is time to
ratchet
up advocacy on investment based on a positive vision. Two tasks are
urgent.
The first is to figure out what the content of a sustainable development
framework for investment rules would be. The second is to coalesce on a
feasible implementation strategy. The record of the WTO inspires little
confidence that it can carry such an agenda.
A more fertile institutional arena is the Earth Summit, which will take
place in Johannesberg next September. The Summit could launch a Working
Group on Sustainable Investment to complement and feed into the WTO or
even
to work toward a standalone framework agreement. UNEP, UNDP, the ILO,
the
Commission on Sustainable Development, and the UN's Financing for
Development Initiative could all play a part. But only the NGO
community,
both North and South, can provide the trigger and, with business, the
muscle. Now is the time to sow.
(Lyuba Zarsky <[log in to unmask]> is codirector of the Nautilus
Institute and directs its Globalization and Governance program.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
*** SELF-DETERMINATION AND CONFLICT NEWS ***
New analysis available from our Self-Determination and Governance
project
(now online at www.selfdetermine.org) includes the following:
*** CONFLICT PROFILE: UIGHUR MUSLIMS IN XINJIANG ***
By Sean L. Yom
http://www.selfdetermine.org/conflicts/uighur.html
*** CONFLICT PROFILE: DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO ***
By Thomas Turner
http://www.selfdetermine.org/listserv/011213.html
*** WASHINGTON GAVE GREEN LIGHT TO INVASION OF EAST TIMOR ***
By Jim Lobe
http://www.selfdetermine.org/crisiswatch/0112timor.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
II. Letters and Comments
*** KEEPING SEATTLE COALITION ALIVE ***
In reference to "Fast Track Legislation Won't Defeat Seattle Coalition"
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0112fasttrack.html :
The current "post 9/11" multilateralism espoused by the Bush
administration
is limited in scope to military and economic strong-arm tactics to
achieve
unilateral goals. Absent from this discussion is environmental
interdependence and the selfish maintenance of an overly consumerist
social
agenda that threaten all of us in ways much more tragic than crashing
airliners.
While the world is preoccupied with dealing with Washington on terrorism
and security issues, Bush and Co. are ramming through or ignoring
relevant
environmental legislation that will have far-reaching consequences not
only
for Americans, but for all world citizens. Free trade issues lack the
environmental debate once associated with bilateral negotiations. More
at
issue is the hard-line stance in Washington concerning opening foreign
markets to multinational hegemony, disruption of local agriculture, and
free use of biotechnology to ensure American domination of market
forces.
All without regard to local ecology and environmental impact.
- Don Baron <[log in to unmask]>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
*** ISRAEL-PALESTINE: IGNORING ANOTHER OPTION ***
In your essay, "Israel's True Intentions," (online at
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0112arafat.html) R.S. Zarharna writes:
"The
comments of Sharon and Bush over the weekend in the "war on terrorism"
are
not seemingly and uncannily similar; they are identical. Neither
envisions
an immediate end to terrorism, but both have clearly identified the
source
and actions needed to fight terrorism. For Bush, it is Osama binLaden.
For
Sharon, it is Yasser Arafat. And, as Bush also indicated, the sooner the
better."
Neither does Arafat envision an immediate end to terrorism. Only
yesterday
he said that he cannot stop the suicide bombings against Israeli
civilians
and that there must be a peace settlement first. Arafat is apparently
admitting that he's lost control of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. But does
anyone really believe that Hamas or Islamic Jihad will end their
violence
against civilians after a "final" peace settlement is agreed upon? Or do
we
simply want to believe that Arafat would get tough with Hamas and
Islamic
Jihad if he had such a signed piece of paper?
There is another option that you seem to ignore. Arafat can crack down
on
members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad by mass arrests now, not just the
token
hundred arrests his security forces have made. Is it morally okay to ask
Arafat to make such a crack-down after signing a final peace settlement,
but not morally okay to expect Arafat to exercise police powers during
the
negotiation phase?
- Timothy A. Canova <[log in to unmask]> Associate Professor of Law,
University of New Mexico School of Law
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
*** ONLY ONE TRUE INTENTION ***
Israel has only one true intention [see:
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0112arafat.html ] in the Middle East: it
is
to secure their people security and a homeland. Anything more than that
Israel does not care about. Israel only wants peace and quiet. Israel is
the good guy, and it only wants peace. As for Arafat, it has been proven
time and again that he is not capable of signing a peace accord. He
likes
the international spotlight. He likes the violence, the wars, the bombs,
and the blood. He isn't capable of one day signing peace and having to
deal
with everyday problems like taxes, traffic problems, welfare, etc. He
likes
the action. So maybe someone else who doesn't want action anymore is
someone Israel needs to put in the place of Arafat.
- Royi Markowitz <[log in to unmask]>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
*** SEARCHING FOR A REASONABLE PALESTINIAN ***
I wanted to express to you my deep concerns about the R.S. Zaharna
article
at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0112arafat.html on the current
situation
in Israel/Palestine.
I don't agree with what the Israelis are doing now, so I read Mr.
Zaharna's
article hoping to find an alternative. None was offered. To sum up Mr.
Zaharna's point, Arafat cannot control the situation on the ground and
should not be expected to, but Israel should not try to defend its
citizens, either. Where does that leave the peace process? Even while
basing his paranoid hypothesis on the idea that the Israelis want the
West
Bank, Mr. Zaharna concedes (almost unwittingly, it seems) that the
Israelis
want the land so they can protect themselves. How then can he write an
entire article on the subject without addressing this very important
issue?
Do Hamas and Islamic Jihad support a two-state solution--in other words,
if
the Palestinians got every concession they want from Sharon in terms of
statehood, would the suicide bombings stop?
I understand that we may not agree on the best way to bring peace to the
region, but as a long-time supporter of both peace and a Palestinian
state
with a piece of Jerusalem as its capitol (and, yes, the removal of
Israeli
settlements from Palestinian areas of the West Bank), I am troubled that
at
this point you would highlight an article that always puts the word
"violence" in quotation marks if it follows the word "Palestinian." One
wouldn't know from the article that there were 4 bombings in Israel this
weekend, never mind a 5th this morning, or that it is even vaguely
possible
that Israel has a right to defend itself.
The fact is, most Palestinians support suicide bombings while 60% of
Israelis support peace and a Palestinian state even now. An article that
addresses only Israeli violence that leads to the kind of frustration
that
builds support for suicide bombings without addressing at all the
Palestinian violence--no quotes needed--that leads to Israeli attempts
to
defend itself (whether or not the author finds such attempts misguided
is
up to him, of course) is not at all helpful to the peace process.
I am still trying to find a Palestinian or a supporter of their cause
who
will say, unequivocally, that Israel has a right to exist. Not that it
does
exist--that's a different statement--but that it has a right to and
should.
I think that as progressives we have an obligation at this point to be
balanced in our approach to the issue of a Palestinian state. Otherwise
we
leave the process to the right-wingers.
- Tom Lowenstein <[log in to unmask]>
Sr. Editor, Electronic Policy Network
(Editor's Note: R.S. Zaharna is not a "he.")
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
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/donate/index.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
*************************************************************************************
|
