-----Original Message-----
From: Progressive Response [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 15 May 2002 01:39
To: Progressive Response
Subject: Military Training, War on Terrorism, Intellectual Property
Rights
************************************************************************
Click http://www.fpif.org/progresp/volume6/v6n14.html to view an
HTML-formatted version of this issue of Progressive Response.
************************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progressive Response 14 May 2002 Vol. 6, No. 14
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) (online at 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
*** FPIF SPECIAL REPORT: TRAINING ARMIES AROUND THE WORLD ***
*** RIGHT-WING IDEOLOGY & U.S. GLOBAL MILITARY REACH STAND AGAINST CRIMINAL
COURT ***
By Jim Lobe and Tom Barry
*** A U.S. CABAL PULLING AMERICA TOWARD WAR ***
By Conn Hallinan
*** FPIF TALKING POINTS: MYTHS ABOUT FAILURE OF CAMP DAVID 2000 ***
By Stephen Zunes
II. Outside the U.S.
*** ANTHRAX, DRUG TRANSNATIONALS, AND TRIPs ***
By Kavaljit Singh
III. Letters and Comments
*** RIGHT ON THE MONEY ***
*** ABOLISH OPIC ***
*** ENOUGH RACISM ***
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Updates and Out-Takes
*** FPIF SPECIAL REPORT: TRAINING ARMIES AROUND THE WORLD ***
The U.S. is equipping and training foreign armed forces with some of the
world's worst human rights records. Yet since September 11, the Bush
administration has stepped up training operations, while congressional and
public oversight has declined. A new study, U.S. Foreign Military Training:
Global Reach, Global Power, published by Foreign Policy In Focus, finds
that 51 foreign militaries receiving U.S. training through the IMET
(International Military Education and Training) program have "poor" or
"very poor" human rights records, according the State Department's 2002
Human Rights Report. The study, written by human rights and military
analyst Lora Lumpe, details how more than 150 institutions in the U.S. and
abroad are now involved in training about 100,000 foreign troops each year,
with U.S. Special Operations Forces alone training foreign soldiers in more
than 100 countries. The study is the first to describe and link together
the broad range of military training programs, and analyze the human rights
and civilian oversight issues.
Some of the major findings of the report include:
· Since September 11 the administration has offered new police or military
training to numerous countries with poor human rights records, including
Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Ethiopia, Colombia, and Yemen.
· The Bush administration's March 2002 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations request asked for more than $1 billion in new military aid,
including $100 million in weapons and training for countries without any
congressional oversight. The bill specifically proposes that the Pentagon
be allowed to discard human rights and other conditions that Congress has
previously enacted to minimize abuses of U.S. military aid.
· The Executive Branch is delaying release and seeking to scale back the
Foreign Military Training Report, which is the only comprehensive public
accounting of global military training programs, thus restricting the flow
of information to Congress and the public.
The study concludes that the U.S. government needs to ensure that the fight
against terrorism is "pursued by means consistent with our democratic
ideals." At a minimum, it calls for an "increase in transparency
surrounding military training programs in order to ensure public
accountability, as well as greater dialogue and cooperation between
congressional committees with oversight responsibilities."
This new FPIF Special Report is available at:
http://www.fpif.org/papers/miltrain/index.html
(Also see our printer-friendly version at:
http://www.fpif.org/pdf/papers/SRmiltrain.pdf .)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** RIGHT-WING IDEOLOGY & U.S. GLOBAL MILITARY REACH STAND AGAINST CRIMINAL
COURT ***
By Jim Lobe and Tom Barry
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs Commentary
available in its entirety at:
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0205righticc.html .)
One cannot fault the Bush administration for a lack of a foreign policy
vision. That was the main critique leveled at the Clinton administration by
foreign policy pundits. Unsigning treaties, purging multilateral
commissions, pumping up the military budget, and deploying U.S. military
Special Forces around the globe are all part of the administration's
unabashed mission to construct a Pax Americana. It's a go-it-alone strategy
based on power politics. As the dominant global military and economic
power, the U.S. should acknowledge and embrace its imperial status--and not
let entangling alliances and treaties impede the exercise of its supremacy.
The recent administration decision to renounce the government's obligations
as a signatory to the 1998 Rome Statute to establish an International
Criminal Court (ICC) shocked and dismayed U.S. allies. But it was not
surprising. It follows on the heels of Washington's withdrawal from the
Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse emissions, its abandonment of the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and other attacks on the international arms
control system. The ICC has long been a target of right-wing critics, who
have contended that the court could pursue politically motivated
prosecutions against U.S. military personnel.
The ICC treaty, which was signed by President Clinton, has been signed by
139 countries, ratified by 66, and takes effect July 1. The letter
renouncing the earlier U.S. signature that was sent May 6 to UN Secretary
Kofi Annan means that the U.S. will no longer be able to participate in the
negotiations to set up and staff the ICC. "We've washed our hands [of the
ICC process]; it's over," said Pierre-Richard Prosper, Washington's
ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, after the announcement.
The decision to "unsign" the ICC treaty followed a high-level debate within
the administration between the unilateralists--including Vice President
Cheney and Bush appointees at the Pentagon--and senior State Department
officials who argued that the move would needlessly alienate European
allies without gaining anything in return. As in other recent debates, the
hardliners won the day, thereby further diminishing the influence and
credibility of moderate conservatives like Secretary of State Powell.
The hawks, who have strong support among Republican right-wingers in
Congress, wanted to go much further by launching a campaign to undermine
the treaty and the Court by, for example, banning U.S. military aid and
other assistance to countries that ratify the treaty or actively cooperate
with the Court.
Aside from its implications for the future of international law and the
prosecution of international criminals, the recent U.S. decision was yet
another signal that the hardliners and neoconservatives in the
administration are driving U.S. foreign policy. Significantly, the letter
to Secretary General Annan was signed by Under Secretary of State for Arms
Control and International Security John Bolton, one of the administration's
leading right-wing ideologues.
Bolton, whose office has no authority over human rights or international
justice issues, has long been hostile to the UN and other manifestations of
multilateralism, including arms control agreements and the campaign to
establish the ICC. As vice president of the American Enterprise Institute
and a trusted adviser of Sen. Jesse Helms, Bolton argued that the ICC would
be a threat to U.S. sovereignty and had a hand in drafting the American
Servicemen's Protection Act (ASPA), a still-pending bill that not only bars
U.S. cooperation with the court and sanctions countries which ratify it,
but even authorizes the use of force to free any U.S. soldiers who might be
hauled before the ICC, which will be based in The Hague in the Netherlands.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, among other unilateralist members of the
administration, also signed a letter endorsing ASPA before Bush's
inauguration.
In addition to the ideological opposition to multilateralism within the
administration, the U.S. campaign to undermine the ICC is also driven by
concerns that as the U.S. military extends its global reach it will likely
be increasingly subject to governmental and nongovernmental criticism. In
opposing the ICC, the U.S. government is acting to ensure that this
discretion to use U.S. troops as the U.S. sees fit is not endangered.
Explaining the U.S. position renouncing the ICC, Undersecretary for State
for Political Affairs Marc Grossman told reporters: "The United States has
a unique role and responsibility to help preserve international peace and
security. At any given time, U.S. forces are located in close to 100
nations around the world conducting peacekeeping and humanitarian
operations and fighting inhumanity."
(Jim Lobe <[log in to unmask]> writes regularly for Inter Press Service
and Foreign Policy In Focus. Tom Barry <[log in to unmask]> is a senior
analyst at the Interhemispheric Resource Center and codirector of Foreign
Policy In Focus.)
Related Citizen Action and Agendas
The NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court is actively
supporting the establishment of the ICC. The coalition has a website and a
listserv devoted to ICC issues, which are maintained by the World
Federalist Movement and Institute for Global Policy.
NGO Coalition for an International Criminal Court
Email: [log in to unmask]
Website: http://www.igc.org/icc/
Reacting to the Bush administration's decision to revoke the U.S.
government's signing of the ICC treaty, 23 human rights, peace, and
religious groups, including AFSC, British American Security Information
Council, and World Federalist Association, signed the following statement:
"Unsigning is an unprecedented act that has little practical effect, but is
symbolically powerful because it undermines American leadership and
credibility at the worst possible time. This rash action signals to the
world that America is turning its back on decades of U.S. leadership in
prosecuting war criminals since the Nuremburg Trials."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** A U.S. CABAL PULLING AMERICA TOWARD WAR ***
By Conn Hallinan
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new Global Affairs Commentary available in
its entirety at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0205cabal.html .)
Sometime this fall, probably before the mid-term elections, the U.S. will
probably be at war with Iraq. But why are we headed to war in the Mideast?
Not because Iraq is engaged in terrorism. According to the CIA, it isn't.
Not because Iraqi arms threaten our security. According to most arms
inspectors, Iraq is essentially disarmed.
No, it will happen because more than a decade ago a small cabal of
political heavyweights in the administration of George Bush the First, who
now also run the foreign and defense policy of George Bush II, sat down and
drew up a blueprint to rule the world. X-Files fantasies?
Their names should be familiar: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Deputy
Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff. Their goal
is to "shape" the world to "preclude the rise of another global rival for
the indefinite future," in the words of one of the group's leading
thinkers, Zalmay Khalizad (now special envoy to Afghanistan).
The tone of these people is chilling. Our allies are cast as a bunch of
spineless whiners, international agreements are dismissed as straitjackets,
and the "enemy" portrayed as a mob of wogs, easily scattered by a show of
cold steel. In his briefing of senior White House staff on the Mideast,
Bernard Lewis of Princeton (another "team" member) argued that "in that
part of the world, nothing matters more than resolute force and will."
Homework was undoubtedly the collected works of Cecil Rhodes and Rudyard
Kipling.
When Bush addressed the nation Sept. 20, he called on the American people
and our allies to join a "war on terrorism." But in the intervening six
months, the goals of that war have changed drastically. National Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice told Lemann that the policy was not just to go
after terrorists, but to prevent the accumulation of weapons of mass
destruction in "the hands of irresponsible states."
This is a handy little distinction, because on Feb. 5 the CIA said there
was no evidence that Iraq has engaged in any terrorism directed at the
United States or its allies. And while the administration has trumpeted
that Iraq blocked all arms inspections three years ago, few people outside
of Washington (except British Prime Minister Tony Blair) actually think
that Iraq has such weapons.
(Conn Hallinan <[log in to unmask]> writes for Foreign Policy In Focus
(www.fpif.org) and is a journalism lecturer and the provost at the
University of California, Santa Cruz.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** FPIF TALKING POINTS: MYTHS ABOUT FAILURE OF CAMP DAVID 2000 ***
By Stephen Zunes
(Editor's Note: This series of FPIF talking points is also available at:
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0205talkmideast.html .)
1. Both the Clinton and Bush administrations, along with leading members of
Congress of both parties, have deliberately misrepresented what happened in
the peace process before, during, and after Camp David, as well as what has
transpired since the outbreak of the second intifada in late September
2000. This has served to justify a policy of supporting an increasingly
repressive occupation army, something that would otherwise be unpalatable
to the American public.
2. The Palestinians bear some major responsibility for the tragic turn of
events following the unsuccessful end of the talks hosted by President
Clinton. However, a careful examination of the events appears to indicate
that the primary fault for the failure of the peace process and the
subsequent violence lies squarely with the occupying power--Israel--and its
patron--the United States.
3. Throughout the peace process, the Clinton administration seemed to
coordinate the pace and agenda of the talks closely with Israel, ignoring
Palestinian concerns.
4. The U.S. insistence to jump to final-status negotiations without prior
confidence building measures--such as a freeze on new settlements or the
fulfillment of previous Israeli pledges to withdraw--led the Palestinians
to question the sincerity of both Israel and the United States.
5. Claims that Barak offered 95% of the West Bank to the Palestinians at
the Camp David summit are misleading. This figure does not include greater
East Jerusalem, which includes Palestinian villages and rural areas to the
north and east of the city unilaterally annexed by Israel. Nor does this
figure include much of the Jordan Valley, the Dead Sea coast and parts of
the Judean Desert, which would have remained under exclusive Israeli
military control for an indefinite period. Taking these additional areas
into account, this offer totaled only slightly more than 80% of the West
Bank, forcing the Palestinians to relinquish land needed for their
development and absorption of refugees.
6. Also under Barak's U.S.-backed plan, the West Bank would have been split
up by a series of settlement blocs, bypass roads and Israeli roadblocks, by
some interpretations dividing the new Palestinian "state" into four
non-contiguous cantons. In addition, Israel would have supervision of
border crossing between the new Palestinian state and neighboring Arab
states. Israel would also control Palestinian airspace, seacoast and
aquifers.
7. Although Barak's offers did go further than any previous Israeli
government, they fell well short of what Israel was required to do under
basic international legal standards--such as the Fourth Geneva
Convention--and a series of UN Security Council resolutions. These include
the departure from the Jewish settlements, rescinding the annexation of
greater East Jerusalem and withdrawal from territories seized in the 1967
war in return for security guarantees.
8. Clinton naively thought that he could pressure Arafat to accept Israeli
terms, even though negotiations up to that time indicated that the two
sides were still far apart on some key issues. Even if Clinton had been
successful in forcing Arafat to agree to Israeli terms, there simply would
not have been enough support among the Palestinian population to make it a
viable agreement.
9. The Palestinian uprising in late September was a spontaneous eruption
exacerbated by excessive use of force by Israeli occupation troops. There
is no evidence that Arafat or anyone else the Palestinian Authority planned
it.
10. Clinton's peace plan in December improved Israel's July proposal only
slightly and was initially rejected by the Palestinians. However,
Israeli-Palestinian talks in Taba the following month, without active U.S.
participation, led to major concessions by both sides and came within
striking distance of a peace agreement. The Israelis balked at the last
minute, however, soon followed by Barak's electoral defeat.
11. The bipartisan consensus in the U.S. is that the fate of the
Palestinians is up to their Israeli occupiers. Statements by both the
Clinton and Bush administrations and congressional resolutions passed by
huge bipartisan majorities have made it clear that Washington conditions
Palestinian independence to Israeli terms.
(See the new FPIF Special Report: The U.S. Role in the Breakdown of the
Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process (online at
http://www.fpif.org/papers/ispal/index.html), written by Stephen Zunes
<[log in to unmask]>. Zunes is the Middle East editor for Foreign Policy In
Focus (online at www.fpif.org), and an associate professor of politics and
chair of the peace & justice studies program at the University of San
Francisco.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
dialog 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.)
*** ANTHRAX, DRUG TRANSNATIONALS, AND TRIPs ***
By Kavaljit Singh
(Editor's Note: Excerpted from an Outside the U.S. FPIF commentary
available in its entirety at:
http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0204trips.html .)
Against the backdrop of September 11th terrorist attacks in the U.S., the
anthrax attacks in late 2001 raised highly controversial issues related to
intellectual property rights. Just a few months earlier, the world had
witnessed heated debates on the patent controversy when the Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers' Association of South Africa (PMASA), a body representing
South African subsidiaries of 39 drug transnational corporations (TNCs),
took the South African government to court to prevent it from importing
cheaper versions of patented drugs for patients suffering from Acquired
Immuno Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). However, under tremendous pressure
generated by health activists and concerned groups around the world, the
drug TNCs unconditionally dropped the lawsuit against the South African
government.
No doubt, it is unfair to compare the AIDS pandemic in South Africa with
the current anthrax crisis in America. As compared to over 4.7 million
patients suffering from AIDS and nearly 300 AIDS patients dying every day
in South Africa, the anthrax attacks in the U.S. only killed five people,
made 13 others fall ill and caused more than 30,000 people to take
precautionary antibiotics. Both instances relate to public health, but more
importantly, the bone of contention revolves around the Trade-Related
Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) agreement of the World Trade
Organization (WTO).
The wider concerns for protecting public health were expected to usher in
substantial changes to the existing TRIPs agreement at the Fourth WTO
Ministerial Conference in Doha, Qatar held November 9-13, 2001. Not only
health activists and NGOs, but also several poor and developing countries
had shown determination to raise this vital issue at the Doha conference.
But the outcome of the Doha conference was disastrous for the world's poor
because it provides few concessions on the drug patents issue. Except for
providing least-developed countries an additional 10 years to implement
TRIPs and giving autonomy to governments to define public health
emergencies in which TRIPs could be suspended, the Doha conference failed
to resolve the fundamental conflicts between patents and public health. The
lip service approach to this vital issue can be gauged from the fact that
the declaration on the TRIPs agreement and public health was issued
separately, not as part of the main Ministerial Declaration. With the key
issues related to drug patents remaining unresolved, the world is likely to
witness patents versus poor patients conflicts in the coming years.
The agreement reached at Doha for a new round of negotiations is a
significant achievement for the U.S., the EU, and Japan as it opens up new
opportunities for TNCs to further expand their global reach. It is
important to highlight the hypocritical stand of Indian authorities on WTO
issues, which was completely exposed during the Doha Conference. A few
weeks before the Doha conference, Indian authorities took a strong posture
seeking drastic changes in the TRIPs agreement as well as opposing any new
round of negotiations until contentious issues related to the
implementation of Uruguay round of negotiations were resolved. Not only the
poor and developing countries, but also several Indian and international
NGOs joined the ranks in support of Indian authorities. But within hours
after asserting that "a new round of trade talks at the WTO is not
necessary, it is evil," India's Commerce Minister, Murasoli Maran, agreed
to a new round of formal negotiations without any major gains in key areas
such as textiles, agriculture, TRIPs, and transfer of technology. This is
hardly surprising given the fact that the same Indian government is not
just pursuing amendments in domestic patent laws to conform with the WTO
regime but also is pushing a liberalization agenda in several sectors of
economy (for instance, financial sector) that are well beyond the purview
of WTO.
Several inferences can be drawn from the anthrax crisis in the U.S. First,
by sacrificing the public health concern of its own citizens to protect the
private interests of drug TNCs, the U.S. has unabashedly acknowledged the
supremacy of patents over public health. Second, the present patent regime
not only poses a grave danger to public health in the poor and the
developing world, even the developed world is also not immune to it. Hence,
this episode should serve as a wake up call to the rest of the developed
countries who usually follow the footsteps of the U.S. on patent issues.
Poor and ordinary people, whether they live in New York or New Delhi, have
a basic right to sound health, and therefore, safeguarding public health
must take precedence over patents and monopoly profits of the drug TNCs.
Third, apart from universal health programs and other publicly funded
interventions, it is of utmost importance that monopolies in the drug
industry be dismantled to ensure that crucial drugs are made accessible to
poor patients at affordable prices. Therefore, strict regulation of drug
TNCs must be an integral component of building a public health system in
the developed as well as the developing world.
Fourth, with critical support from the developed countries not forthcoming,
the responsibility for demanding a comprehensive review of TRIPs, including
reduction in the duration and scope of patent protection for drugs that are
essential for public health, rests with the poor and developing countries.
This calls for greater unity and solidarity among the poor and the
developed world on issues of common interest at the WTO and other
international economic negotiations.
Finally, it is high time that the primacy of national health policy over
international agreements, including the WTO, be restored.
(Kavaljit Singh <[log in to unmask]> is the Director of Public Interest
Research Centre, Delhi and is also associated with Asia-Europe Dialogue
Project (online at www.ased.org).)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Letters and Comments
*** RIGHT ON THE MONEY ***
War mongrels seems to fit those in the current administration in this rush
to war. 9/11 and Bin Laden seem like afterthoughts to the real agenda, as
mentioned in this article ["A U.S. Cabal Pulling America to War" at
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0205cabal.html]. Power is the name of
the game and there is room for only one power. Why the rest of the world
allows the United States to continue to run amok is not a mystery. Behind
the power fetish is the money fetish, and the corporations of the world.
The U.S. foreign policy mimics the needs, desires, wants, and greed of the
corporations. We can blame this rise to corporate power on the not-so
Supreme Court. Giving corporations the status of humans is as dumb as
making George W. Bush president. Your article is right on the money.
- Fred Jakobcic <[log in to unmask]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** ABOLISH OPIC ***
As a concerned citizen primarily, an environmentally conscious individual
secondly, and almost as an after-thought, a small business owner, I believe
that the insidious government agency OPIC should be put out of its misery
sooner than later. [See FPIF Policy Brief: Overseas Private Investment
Corporation at http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol2/v2n17opi.html ]. Just a
mention that the OPIC was intimately involved in the vast and underhanded
dealings of Enron (Cuiaba, Chiquitano Forest) should in itself warrant an
immediate and scrutinizing investigation of the agency as a whole.
Pontificating that this agency finances and insures well-intended projects
is an absolute farce, and should not be tolerated by the American people,
nor by the officials they elect to represent their best interests. The
dictum of this agency was backward from its inception in 1971, and it
should be done away with expeditiously.
- Bradley S. Romo <[log in to unmask]>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** ENOUGH RACISM ***
I agree 99% with your recent article in the Progressive Response
["Neoconservative/Christian Right Axis" at:
http://www.fpif.org/progresp/volume6/v6n13.html ]. I am upset about this
line: "...Rumsfeld's staff, chief hawks--both Jewish
neo-conservatives--include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and
Under Secretary for Policy Douglas Feith..." Unless these people are
members of right-wing Jewish groups, the mention of their Judaism is racist
and provocative, and there is no reason to point it out. Plenty of Jews are
as disgusted as you are with both Sharon and Bush (including some
Israelis). There is enough racism in all corners of the Israel-Palestine
conflict without progressives falling into this unproductive trap, which
dilutes our effectiveness.
- Mow Kazati <[log in to unmask]>
/-------------------------------------------------------------------\
+++---------- PARTNER: OneWorld U.S. ----------+++
Know Your World
OneWorld U.S. (http://www.oneworld.net/us/) now offers a Daily Headlines
email service. We save you time by culling through hundreds of nonprofit
and specialized news agency articles every weekday to find the most topical
and engaging articles on environment, development, human rights, U.S.
foreign policy, and globalization. Subscribe to the new service at:
http://owa.benton.org/archives/oneworldus.html.
+++---------- PARTNER: OneWorld U.S. ----------+++
\-------------------------------------------------------------------/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
*************************************************************************************
|
