The Progressive ResponseVolume 4, Number 39
Editor: Tom Barry (IRC)
Table of ContentsI. Around the WorldBy Tom Barry
II. Updates and Out-TakesBOLIVIA: ANOTHER DRUG WAR CRISIS
III. Self-Determination Crisis WatchCLINTON NEEDS TO TAKE FIRM STAND TO INSURE PEACE SRI LANKA'S MARRED ELECTIONS
I. Around the WorldBy Tom Barry Candidates’ Agenda Not a Citizens’ Agenda The diversion during the first presidential debate away from prescription drugs and tax policy into international affairs was disappointing. The narrow parameters within which the presidential candidates address global affairs issues help keep vital foreign policy issues out of the public debate. For most Americans, the candidates’ professions of their foreign policy commitments--variously to keep the military strong or to strengthen our armed forces--provide little reassurance that the U.S. government has moved past the cold war framework and into this new era of international relations. For all their polling, the Democrats and Republicans have failed to grasp the opportunities at hand to present a new vision of U.S. leadership, reinterpreting traditional notions of national security and national interests. The 20th century paradigms of national security, national interests, geopolitics, and geo-economics have been superceded. In the 1990s, the foreign policy brain trusts associated with the major think tanks and universities attempted to fashion a post-cold war agenda. But these brain trusts and the U.S. political leadership they advised found themselves stuck in the past, mired in the ideological and theoretical constructs of yesteryear. Instead of a new vision of global affairs, they offered the world a retrograde one. A few of the hallmarks of the new world order advanced by the U.S. government were the revival of the cold war relic NATO, the resurrection of the Star Wars missile defense, and a new version of 18th century "open door" economic imperialism privileging transnational corporations. Instead of peace conversion and sustainable development, the foreign policy priesthood gave us new enemies (rogue states and foreign drug producers) and the new economic dogma of free marketeerism. Instead of a new internationalism, these antediluvians gave us the old liberal internationalism with its usual corollaries of U.S. exceptionalism to international rules, the U.S. right to unilateral military action, and special privileges for U.S. corporations. The new agenda is driven by citizen action, not by old theories of international relations. In 1989 when citizens, eastern and western, joined together spontaneously to tear down the Berlin Wall, they were at the same time laying the foundation for a new structure of international affairs. Now, more than a decade later, the framework of a new global agenda stands firmly in place. Acting together across borders public citizens have--in their efforts to promote respect for human rights, respond to humanitarian crises, halt environmental deterioration, ban land mines, set social rules for the global economy, end the tyranny of the IMF’s structural adjustment programs, set corporate codes of conduct, grant debt relief, advance women's rights, and ensure that global governance institutions are transparent and accountable--set the agenda to which governments must respond. Something fundamentally different is shaking up the elite domain for foreign policy. Rather than just reacting to international affairs, civil society movements are establishing the terms of debate and setting the directions of global affairs for the 21st century. Around the world, public citizens are asserting themselves in international arenas with a new freedom and confidence. Although each international citizens’ movement has its own special focus, they are all products of a new epoch and a new world. The key features of this time--our time--are also the key features of these agenda-setting movements. With the end of the cold war, the old ideological camps have faded, creating enormous possibilities for an international re-visioning of norms and structures of global politics. Advances in communications and computer technology have, together with the rapid pace of economic integration, eroded the prevailing concepts of national borders and national sovereignty. The portents of global environmental degradation have awakened a one-world consciousness, while deepening economic divisions among the world’s nations have underlined the pressing need for strategies that unite the two worlds--developed and poor, North and South. The new internationalism of the citizens’ global affairs agenda has run a collision course with U.S. foreign policy. Set on maintaining its dominance in international affairs, the U.S. government has largely failed to shift course. Time and time again, the U.S. government has resisted the tides of change in international affairs. On the salient issues of the post-cold war period--such as the international criminal court, child soldiers, arms control, climate change, biodiversity/biosafety, international financial architecture, structural adjustment programs, neoliberal reforms, and the role of the United Nations--it has stood outside the emerging international consensus. Instead of rising to the challenges of the new era, the U.S. has unwisely sought to expand its power and privilege--leaving it increasingly isolated and despised. With disastrous consequences, the U.S. government has squandered post-cold war opportunities. Citizens’ movements have successfully seized these same opportunities and, in the process, have formulated the outlines of a new global affairs agenda. For too long, the U.S. has conducted international affairs with an elite, top-down approach that has made little effort to incorporate citizen views on three fundamental dimensions of foreign policy: 1) U.S. national interests in international affairs, 2) U.S. national security, and 3) U.S. role in promoting global peace and security. Typical of the way foreign policy has traditionally been conducted, the elite has failed to make the essential connections between domestic and international affairs--and, as a result, there is often little support for U.S. involvement abroad. It is time for the U.S. to stop resisting the citizens’ agenda and to adopt it as its own. In marked contrast to the official foreign policy doctrine, the citizens’ agenda embodies a bottom-up approach to policymaking. It is based on the following core principles:
To count on domestic support for U.S. foreign policy, U.S. policymakers will need to make a better case on how and why U.S. national interests are served. A citizens’ agenda--by deepening and broadening the prevailing definition of national interests--goes a long way toward explaining why the U.S. must play an active role in shaping the rules of the global economy. In supporting the institutions and treaties of international cooperation, the agenda would further the interests of all Americans. For a U.S. global affairs agenda to be credible abroad, it must be complemented by a domestic policy that earns international respect. As the world’s leading economic, political, and military power, the modeling impact of its practices and policies at home carries more weight than its stated foreign policies. As the U.S. government and the U.S. public look to address international environmental, human rights, labor, financial, corporate, military, and political practices abroad, we should look first to set in motion domestic policies that adequately protect the national environment, that ensure that human rights are respected within U.S. boundaries, that promote full employment, that regulate corporate activities, that reduce the role of the military, and that ensure a responsible role for government in providing for the general welfare. As important as it is to push forward a citizens’ agenda on global affairs--far beyond what either party is now willing to consider in their respective platforms--the presidential election does offer more of a choice than left populists like Ralph Nader and Jim Hightower would have us believe. Yes, there are similarities between Bush and Gore, but that doesn’t make this presidential campaign a contest between Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. Eric Alterman, one of The Nation’s best policy analysts, examines the Power of the Presidency in a new The Nation essay (October 16 issue), concluding: "The similarities between the two political parties do not hold a candle to their deep-seated differences. And because of the remarkable power of the office of the presidency, these differences in politics and philosophy have the potential to affect our society--particularly the most vulnerable among us." About foreign policy, Alterman notes these differences: "Another area where Gore and company look like Republicans from afar is on foreign policy. A New Democrat through and through, Gore (together with Joe Lieberman) has been on the hawkish side of virtually every intra-Democratic Party argument. Like his gutless boss, but without the excuse of being a ‘draft dodger,’ he supports the showering of the military with mountains of unneeded funds as well as a truly idiotic missile defense program that can only do untold harm to the nation's security along with its budget. Gore favors the immoral starvation policies directed at the Cuban and Iraqi people, and the further militarization of our ruinous drug policies, here and in Colombia. Too bad, therefore, that on every one of these issues, Bush is considerably worse. "An almost total novice (and frequent nitwit) when it comes to foreign affairs, Bush is dependent on his father's national security advisers, including Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Richard Armitage, Paul Wolfowitz, Brent Scowcroft, George Shultz, and Condoleezza Rice. All remain intellectually imprisoned inside a manichean cold war paradigm that was already out of date when they first came into power in the early eighties. Bush's team believes in an aggressive U.S. foreign policy backed by a strong military, but it couldn't care less about promoting human rights, labor rights, or environmental protection. (Dick Cheney's vote against freedom for Nelson Mandela is entirely consistent with this worldview.) Bush's advisers do not understand, much less embrace, the emerging view of foreign policy professionals that issues like the depletion of the ozone layer, Third World debt reduction, the global AIDS epidemic, increasing depopulation of ocean fisheries, and biochemical threats to the world's agriculture qualify as foreign policy issues. ‘Global social work’ is what Armitage calls these causes. Though not as isolationist-minded as the GOP Congress, this crew has little more use for the United Nations than does Jesse Helms. What's more, in Cheney, Bush has signed off on a politician who publicly endorsed the thuggish extraconstitutional adventurism undertaken by Oliver North during the Iran/contra scandal. "On missile defense, perhaps Gore's most appalling cave-in to right-wing hysteria, the vice president cravenly favors ‘developing the technology for a national missile defense system to protect against ballistic-missile attacks from rogue states.’ But Bush says he would deploy a much more extensive defense right away, whether it works or not. (‘Now is the time not to defend outdated treaties but to defend the American people,’ he told the GOP convention.) As former Reagan Pentagon official Larry Korb has observed, ‘With President Gore, it would be very limited, and it would go a long way toward accommodating the Russian desires. Bush is willing to do the whole nine yards,’ and damn the consequences for the budget, the ABM treaty, the arms race and U.S. relations with allies and potential adversaries." The Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC), one of the two sponsoring organizations of Foreign Policy In Focus, has provided a useful summary of the varying approaches of the two candidates on U.S.-Mexico border affairs and related issues. An excerpt on trade issues follows, and the entire comparative look at policy differences can be found on the FPIF website at: http://www.irc-online.org/bordline/updater/2000/oct5BushGore.html Both Bush and Gore are adherents to the Washington Consensus of trade and investment liberalization, with no discernable difference on adherence to neoliberal trade doctrine. Gore, mindful of labor's financial support and vote, claims to be willing to agree to labor and environmental standards in trade regimes and agreements. Bush is not. Bush. Bush favors expanded trade with Mexico and Latin America, saying that NAFTA "promised a blueprint for free trade through the hemisphere" but that the Clinton administration "squandered" that opportunity. However, Bush’s proposals are a bit blurry around the edges and lack specific details. On international labor standards, according to the Bush platform, the governor, "like all Americans, wants to see improved working conditions worldwide" and believes that "the best way to address this issue is not through unilateral trade sanctions, but through international agreements." Bush supports the International Labor Organization’s "Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labor," and the World Trade Organization provision that permits member countries to ban imports made by prison labor. These are hardly controversial stances, and a lot depends on what the United States would do to live up to these nonbinding agreements. However, Bush certainly would not work to include any sort of social or environmental conditionality in trade agreements. His philosophy is that "the better way to raise living and working standards is to increase trade" and that "we must guard against countries using labor standards as an excuse to erect protectionist barriers." On the environment, Bush says that "in most countries, trade and higher living standards result in more, not less, support for environmental protection. As people move beyond a struggle for survival, a clean environment and other aspects of life become a priority, and the wealth and resources needed to attack environmental problems are generated." Late last year Bush said that he would not "allow labor and environmental codicils to scuttle free trade. I'm a free trader." Gore. According to his platform, "Al Gore will continue to advocate reforms of the WTO and new international measures to protect the global environment. Al Gore believes trade negotiations should include both labor and environmental components in the fabric of trade agreements. As president, Gore will insist on the authority to enforce workers' rights and environmental protections in those agreements." There is little doubt as to the veracity of the first statement. A Gore administration would certainly include at least a discussion of these issues in international trade negotiations. Less clear is whether or not Gore would fight to make trade preferences in agreements contingent upon meeting certain standards. He’d be more likely to back toothless side agreements like those drawn up alongside NAFTA. For all their shortcomings, these side agreements in and of themselves are a step in the right direction and an important advancement in the policy debate surrounding global trade. Source for More InformationFPIF Candidates Page (Around the World is a weekly column of news commentary by Tom Barry, FPIF codirector.)
II. Updates and Out-TakesBOLIVIA: ANOTHER DRUG WAR
CRISIS
In September 2000, Bolivia, South America’s poorest country, was rocked by a series of civilian protests, including roadblocks throughout the country. Unionists, teachers, peasant coca farmers, and others have demanded that the Bolivian and U.S. government stop efforts to completely eradicate coca growing and to build three new military bases in the Chapare region. Protesters are also demanding that the government increase teachers’ salaries, eliminate tariffs on water and electricity, and improve alternative development programs in the coca-growing region. Bolivia is weighed down by a tremendous foreign debt of $6.2 billion, according to 1999 World Bank figures. Much of this debt was incurred during the 1970s, when Bolivia was plagued by military dictatorships. But particular fury is directed at President Hugo Banzer’s neoliberal economic policies and his inability to move the country out of its severe economic crisis, as well as his heavy-handed antinarcotics efforts, involving forced eradication with a target of no coca production beyond that grown for domestic use by the end of 2000. Most heavily affected are Bolivia’s indigenous people who comprise over 50% of the population. Banzer was Bolivia’s military dictator from 1971 to 1978, when he was widely accused of profiting personally from the cocaine business. He reentered politics in 1997, winning only 23% of the popular vote, which led to an unwieldy and ineffectual coalition government. Despite Banzer’s unsavory history, the U.S. has continued to back him, largely because he is carrying out war on drugs policies. With the end of the cold war, U.S. military policy in Latin America has shifted from fighting communism to fighting drugs. This "war" has focused on the lowest, most vulnerable rung of the drug ladder: the coca growers and the drug industry workers. Unlike Peru and Colombia, where antidrug efforts have been combined with controlling guerrilla warfare, Bolivia has no guerilla movement so the full force of repression has been felt by the 35,000 coca-growing families. Coca is not cocaine: the leaf has been consumed for over 2,000 years in the Andes and, when chewed or taken as a tea, provides a mild stimulant which decreases hunger, fatigue, and altitude sickness. While traditional use continues, the coca leaf, the source for cocaine, has become Bolivia’s main crop export, making Bolivia the world’s third-largest coca cultivator. Since 1995, U.S.-financed war on drugs policies appear to have had considerable success in slowing down Bolivian and Peruvian production, but much coca was replanted in more remote areas. In addition, Colombian growers have picked up the slack, with the result of little or no net reduction in world cocaine production. Banzer claims eradication efforts have reduced coca production by more than half. In April 2000, 5,000 troops moved into the Chapare coca-growing region in Cochabamba province. Popular forces calling for democracy are growing in Bolivia, and the U.S. is standing on the wrong side. Bolivians from a wide spectrum of political persuasions resent U.S. economic and military policies and interference in their internal affairs. But because President Banzer and his small coterie of collaborators need the U.S. dollars, they continue to bow down to "the Yankees." U.S. policies in Bolivia should be geared to eradication of poverty, not coca. About 70% of Bolivians live below the poverty line, per capita income is only around $1,000 per year, and social indicators are appallingly low, similar to sub-Saharan African countries. The U.S. must first stop its war on drugs strategy based on forced crop eradication and drop the zero coca option for the Chapare. More fundamentally, the U.S. needs to concentrate on controlling drug use primarily through education and treatment in the U.S., rather than eradication and interdiction in the Andean source countries. U.S. antinarcotics operations and assistance should target for arrest and prosecution money-laundering and trafficking kingpins, not small-time growers and users. Second, the U.S. should stop funding for the military barracks at the Bolivian armed forces’ three new bases in the Chapare. If built, these bases will likely be used to carry out attacks on peasant growers, increasing the Bolivian military’s already sorry human rights record. Any U.S. military assistance to Bolivia should be for protection of its borders, not for controlling its civilian population. Third, the Leahy Amendment must be carefully enforced in Bolivia. This provision states that no U.S. funding can go to police and military units implicated in human rights violations when those responsible have not been prosecuted. Fourth, the U.S. should drop its annual drug certification charade which forces Bolivia and other drug-producing and -exporting countries--under pain of loss of U.S. aid--to demonstrate, at least in the days before the administration issues its report card, some level of support for the war on drugs. This program is deeply resented by Bolivians and other Latin Americans who see this process as U.S. meddling in their internal affairs. In terms of economic policy, the U.S. should use its influence with the international financial institutions (IFIs) to push for full cancellation of foreign debts owed by Bolivia and the other most heavily indebted countries. In April 2000, the debt relief provided by the U.S. and other most industrialized countries (the G-8) led to reduction in Bolivia’s debt servicing by 27%, but this is far from adequate. In addition, the U.S. should stop tying its aid to structural adjustment policies that have hurt the poor and working and middle classes of Bolivia for 15 years now. U.S.-backed alternative development programs must include the majority of Chapare-based peasants, who want such programs to be of their own design and implementation, rather than imposed by outside "experts." Marketing of traditional crops, agricultural extension, and infrastructure development, including agro-industrial facilities, are all needed. On the political front, the U.S. should only support the Bolivian government if it is upholding democratic processes and the rule of law. Banzer did not win a majority of the popular vote in the 1997 election, and many believe that this disaccord within his coalition government has made the administration ungovernable. Thus, in Bolivia as in Peru, there are increasing doubts about the legitimacy of the president, as well as his ability to govern. Given the U.S’ stated objectives of promoting democracy and human rights in the region, the U.S. government should give serious weight to civilian petitions for new elections, and should take a strong stance against human rights violations committed by the Banzer government. (This brief was written by George Ann Potter <gapotter@albatros.cnb.net> who is based in Cochabamba, Bolivia and Linda Farling <lindaclarefarthing@hotmail.com> who is co-founder of the Andean Information Network and is based in Ithaca, New York. Gina Amatangelo <GAmatangelo@wola.org>, a Fellow at the Washington Office on Latin America, provided background information.)
Sources for More InformationOrganizationsAndean Information Network Centro Integral de Desarrollo Económico y Social (CIDES) Washington Office on Latin America European Network on Debt and Development Secretariat WebsitesCentro de Documentación e Información Bolivia Jubilee 2000 - Bolivia Jubilee 2000 - World Resource Center of the Americas
III. Self-Determination Crisis Watch
CLINTON NEEDS TO TAKE FIRM
STAND TO INSURE PEACE Israel has dramatically escalated the conflict by attacking not just stone-throwing youths and renegade police with sidearms, but also the government centers of the Palestinian Authority itself--the very body from which Israel expects a peace agreement. As a result, the Israelis are deliberately sabotaging the chances for peace. The most the Clinton administration can do, however, is make bland appeals for both sides to exercise restraint. All these attacks are on Palestinian territory. Such military actions outside of a country's internationally recognized borders are illegal under most interpretations of international law. Yet the Clinton administration refuses to insist that Israeli forces return to their own internationally recognized borders. The weapons used in Israel's military operations are largely of U.S. manufacture. Despite reputable human rights groups’ widespread condemnation of Israel's attacks on civilians and other human rights abuses, however, the Clinton administration has rejected calls to suspend its massive arms shipments to the Israeli government. The vicious lynching by a Palestinian mob of the two Israeli soldiers was horrific, but it can in no way justify the Israeli attacks. If the Israeli government is really concerned about the safety of its citizens, the Barak government must withdraw its armed forces and remove the settlers from the Palestinian lands seized in the 1967 war. Not only is Israel obliged to do so under UN Security Council resolutions, but the country would also be in a much better position strategically: It is far easier for the Israeli Defense Forces to defend a clearly defined, internationally recognized border than a patchwork of roads, settlements, and military outposts amidst a hostile Palestinian population. Israeli security and Palestinian rights are not mutually exclusive, but mutually dependent on each other. The Clinton administration, however, has never appreciated this fact, sending massive arms shipments to Israel while refusing to support the establishment of a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel. But force alone will not suppress the Palestinians' desire for freedom. The Jews did not give up their dream of a national homeland for 2,000 years. The Palestinians will not give up after just 50 years. Rioting and mob violence is both morally wrong and politically counterproductive to the Palestinian cause. The corrupt, inefficient, and autocratic Palestinian Authority has proved unwilling or unable to curb such violence. Yet far greater violence has come from the Israeli side, armed and supported by the U.S. government, which then expects to be trusted by the Palestinians and other Arabs as a fair mediator. When Secretary of State Albright says both sides cannot get everything they want, she refuses to acknowledge that the demands of the Palestinians are far more modest than those of the Israelis. The Palestinians have already conceded 78% of Palestine to Israel. All they are asking for is what remains: the West Bank, Gaza, and the eastern half of Jerusalem, all of which are outside of Israel's internationally recognized boundaries. The Israelis, backed by the Clinton administration, are demanding the right to control most of East Jerusalem and to retain most of their illegal settlements in the West Bank and Gaza, as well as a vast network of Jewish-only highways connecting them with each other and Israel--isolating Palestinian areas into tiny noncontiguous territories, not unlike the Bantustans of apartheid South Africa. That the Clinton administration appears willing to allow Israel to retain these lands, settlements, and roads, which are in direct violation of the Geneva Convention and several UN Security Council resolutions, raises serious questions about the credibility of the U.S. as a mediator. Indeed, whatever one may think of Yasir Arafat and his quasi-government, the Palestinian negotiating position is actually far more consistent with international law and the UN Security Council than that of Israel or the United States. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak has further sabotaged the peace process by inviting rightist leader Ariel Sharon--a war criminal and notorious anti-Arab racist--into his government. The Clinton administration has failed to raise any objections. If there is to be peace in the Middle East, the United States must exercise some "tough love." This would include reiterating our unconditional support for Israeli security within that country's internationally recognized borders, but a firm refusal to offer any more economic, diplomatic, or military support for Israel's ongoing occupation and repression in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. To do otherwise, is simply to invite more bloodshed. (Stephen Zunes <nanlouise@igc.org> is a member of the FPIF advisory committee and the FPIF Middle East editor. He is also an associate professor of politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco.)
SRI LANKA'S MARRED ELECTIONS After a bloody campaign period that left 70 people dead, Sri Lanka's ruling party has narrowly won the October 10th general election. The People's Alliance (PA) received 107 of the 225 parliamentary seats, while the opposition United National Party (UNP) won 89. Now the PA will have to negotiate with several smaller parties to try to form the government, a situation very similar to the past 6 years--except that this time they will have a smaller majority than before. The Muslim National Unity Alliance (NUA), previously part of the government, won 5 seats, and is still deciding whether or not to join with the PA or the opposition. Tamil parties won small numbers of seats, and are in the position of deciding whether or not to join with the PA. The Marxist Peoples Liberation Front (JVP), which has fought two armed battles with the government in the past, but has now renounced the use of violence, won 10 seats and has already announced that the JVP will join neither of the two main parties. The violence began almost immediately after President Chandrika Kumaratunga announced the elections in August. Shootings, bombings, beatings, destruction of property, and widespread intimidation were carried out by supporters of the major parties as well as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The LTTE attacks were mainly against the ruling PA, indicating a rejection of the previous government as negotiating partners, but they also targeted the Muslim party. Local election monitoring organizations declared the election free and fair in only 12 of the 20 electoral districts. One positive sign was the very poor showing of political parties representing Sinhala chauvinist views, despite their widespread and expensive advertising. This seems to indicate that the majority of voters do not share such extreme views and that they would be more supportive of a political solution to the war. The other hopeful sign in an otherwise fairly depressing situation was a mass campaign against campaign violence, in which the people wore yellow ribbons to show their support. Casting a bizarre shadow over election day itself, the president's mother and former prime minister, Mrs. Sirimavo Bandaranaike, died of a heart attack as she was returning home from casting her ballot. Mrs. B. was the first woman prime minister in the world, having taken up the reins of power after her husband was assassinated in 1959. She ruled Sri Lanka on and off through the 1960's and 70's and held onto the leadership of her party for 40 years. The focus of the elections seemed to be more on whether they could be free and fair rather than on the issues. Both major parties promised to bring an end to the 17-year war between the government and the LTTE. Yet fighting on the battlefield actually intensified during the campaign. There was no voting in areas under LTTE control, while many Tamils in the conflict area expressed no confidence that the outcome of the elections would make a difference in the day-to-day misery of their lives. The conduct of the elections reflects the weak state of democracy in Sri Lanka today. It should be taken seriously because it raises questions of whether the country's institutions would even be capable of implementing a negotiated solution to the ethnic conflict should the government and the LTTE be able to work out an agreement. Therefore, as an imperative first step, the authorities must bring the perpetrators of the recent violence and crimes to justice as soon as possible. President Kumaratunga has staked her reputation on being able to pass constitutional reforms that would address the Tamils’ long-standing grievances. She needs a 2/3 majority of parliament to do this, requiring cooperation from the opposition UNP. Her attempts failed miserably in the last government because she couldn't win the necessary support. A spirit of accommodation is desperately needed among the parties, if there is to be any progress toward ending the long war with the LTTE. Up to now, it has been a war where the poor on both sides are the ones who suffer, while the elites in Colombo squabble for power and privilege. That must change, and the international community should make clear to the new government that it expects no less. (Miriam Young <miriam@apcjp.org> is the executive director of the Asia Pacific Center for Justice and Peace and the coordinator of the U.S. NGO Forum on Sri Lanka.)
Subscribe to The Progressive Response!
This page was last modified on Thursday, June 20, 2002 6:07 PM |
|
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2000 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved. |