The Progressive Response

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/.

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 <tom@irc-online.org>.

We Count on Your Support!

Editor: Tom Barry (IRC)

Table of Contents

I. Updates and Out-Takes

FARM BILL OUTRAGE GOES GLOBAL
By Sophia Murphy

SECURITY ASSISTANCE AFTER SEPTEMBER 11
By Tamar Gabelnick

LINKING TEXTILES TO LABOR STANDARDS: PROSPECTS FOR CAMBODIA AND VIETNAM
By Andrew Wells-Dang

II. Outside the U.S.

THE PRICE OF FAILURE IN KASHMIR
By Achin Vanaik

III. Letters and Comments

WHICH WAY AFRICA?

EINSTEIN, ROBESON, AND ZIONISM

MALAYSIAN INTERNAL SECURITY

I. Updates and Out-takes

FARM BILL OUTRAGE GOES GLOBAL
By Sophia Murphy

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new Global Affairs Commentary available in its entirety at: http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0205farmbill.html .)

The ink was hardly dry on the furious newspaper editorials inspired by the Bush administration's decision to protect the steel industry when along comes the Farm Bill to further stoke the fire. The world is supposed to be moving toward more open markets, embracing liberalization as the route to globalization--and then the self-appointed leader of free trade abandons the script. These turnabouts couldn't come at a worse time, as negotiations to deepen global trade rules at the World Trade Organization (WTO), just getting started in Geneva, will now begin with almost every country in the world expressing disgust with the U.S. retreat behind trade barriers.

The Farm Bill seems to have hit a sore spot with nearly everyone, but howls of protest are perhaps the loudest outside of the United States. From Brazil to Brussels to Brisbane, countries are lining up to challenge the Farm Bill before the WTO. The Farm Bill really puts U.S. trade negotiators in a bind. The U.S. can no longer pretend that the billions of dollars it was already spending, in steadily increasing amounts since 1997, were somehow an anomaly related to emergencies.

The WTO Agreement on Agriculture was ostensibly about disciplining EU and U.S. expenditures on agriculture. Currently, the U.S. is engaged in WTO negotiations to renew the Agreement on Agriculture while simultaneously increasing its spending on agriculture. Hence the outrage around the world. This subsidization of U.S. agribusiness while at the same time demanding liberalization of farm trade abroad is indeed an outrageous and duplicitous strategy.

The WTO trade rules for agriculture and the U.S. Farm Bill share the same flawed vision for food production that is at the core of this outrageous behavior. That vision prohibits limits on production, privatizes stockholding of food, focuses attention and investment on commodities as inputs for food processing at the expense of food production and rural livelihoods, and, above all, not only ignores but aggravates the gross distortions in markets caused by private oligopolies. Rules are needed to ensure that agricultural trade--whether local or international--is carried out in markets free from the distortions created by dumped production from large producers like the United States.

International trade rules should not attempt to prohibit a government role in food production. Governments have an obligation to protect people's right to food, and thus to ensure that whatever the distribution system, market-based or otherwise, a plentiful supply of nutritious food is available to all. Governments must also correct the market failures inherent in agriculture, not least to protect our soil and water, which will be the basis for adequate food production for future generations.

Instead of pouring money into a bankrupt system that subsidizes agribusiness, we need to rethink our objectives and the obstacles to their realization. Instead of subsidizing cheap inputs to grain companies and food processors, let's look instead at how to regulate excessive market power, how to create incentives for more sustainable production, and how to keep dumped food off world markets where it wreaks havoc with production in developing countries. It seems the more government tries to get out of the market in the U.S., the more it costs the public purse. It's time to stop casting the struggle as a fight between market and government. We have to accept the essential role of public oversight and reconsider the Farm Bill, and our global trade rules, to ensure our policies address the real distortions in our food system.

(Sophia Murphy <Smurphy@iatp.org> is an analyst with Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org) and director of Trade Programs at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (online at www.iatp.org).)

SECURITY ASSISTANCE AFTER SEPTEMBER 11
By Tamar Gabelnick

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF policy brief available in its entirety at: http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol7/v7n04post911.html .)

Among the countless repercussions from September 11 is a new rationale for doling out security assistance: the war on terrorism. Not since anticommunism was used to excuse the arming and training of repressive governments during the cold war has there been such a broad, fail-safe rationale to provide military aid and arms to disreputable foreign militaries. Already the largest weapons supplier in the world, the U.S. government is now providing arms and military training to an even wider group of states in the name of "homeland security."

At first, the Bush administration cited the need to garner support for the fighting in Afghanistan, opening the door for renewed aid to Pakistan, given its critical geopolitical role. Then Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan were lavished with excess U.S. military equipment and other security assistance as a reward for providing basing or overflight rights to U.S. planes for Operation Enduring Freedom. Seemingly unaffected countries like Azerbaijan, Armenia, and even Kenya were also given military aid, supposedly for their potential contributions to U.S. military operations.

But even after the first round of fighting in Afghanistan wound down, the administration continued enlarging the definition of the war on terrorism to justify military aid and training elsewhere. Countries faced with the threat of "terrorists" (formerly labeled "insurgents") are said to need American assistance to root them out. Hundreds of U.S. Special Operations Forces have been shipped off to the Philippines to train soldiers in active combat with the Abu Sayyaf, guerrilla forces with alleged ties to al Qaeda. U.S. Special Forces--along with excess helicopters and tens of millions of dollars worth of light weapons--are also being sent to the former Soviet republic of Georgia, where a small number of Arab fighters are supposedly hiding out in the northern Pankisi Gorge region.

And the Pentagon is itching to renew military aid to Indonesia, said to be the next breeding ground for terrorists. A new Defense Department counterterrorism training program created last fall would allow the Pentagon to circumvent most of the congressionally mandated limits on training for Indonesia, which are primarily tied to the State Department's foreign aid budget. The administration is also trying to justify a greater role in Colombia's war with leftist rebels by linking the conflict to antiterrorism efforts.

Overall, the Bush administration has increased military aid and training by significant amounts relative to past levels. Foreign Military Financing (FMF), which provides grants for countries to buy U.S. military equipment and services, rose from $3.57 billion in FY 2001 to a requested $4.12 billion for FY 2003. The administration's FY 2002 supplemental appropriation request included another $372.5 million in counterterrorism-related FMF for a wide range of countries including Oman, Nepal, Ethiopia, and Djibouti. Funding for International Military Education and Training (IMET), one of many foreign military training programs, rose from $58 million in FY 2001 to a requested $80 million for FY 2003, a jump of 38%.

Often these allocations of new security assistance can only be made after legal restrictions are brushed aside. Sanctions against both Pakistan and India--imposed because of their nuclear tests in 1998--were dropped immediately after September 11. The State Department then tried to sneak a five-year moratorium on almost all arms transfers restrictions into the antiterrorism bill presented to Congress in September, but it ultimately failed to convince legislators to abandon congressional policies and oversight capacity. However, in late spring 2002 the administration was again trying to circumvent congressional intent by prefacing almost all requests for military aid in the FY 2002 supplemental appropriations bill with the clause "notwithstanding any other provision of the law," a virtual blank check to send aid regardless of legal restrictions.

While opposed to carte blanche waivers, Congress has been more willing to eliminate country-specific bans on arms transfers. A bill giving a two-year waiver of all remaining limits on security assistance to Pakistan--skirting the congressional ban on foreign aid to countries that have undergone a military coup--passed easily in October 2001. In addition, prohibitions on arms transfers to Azerbaijan--in response to a still-unresolved conflict with its neighbor Armenia--were waived for a year through an amendment to the FY 2002 Foreign Operations Appropriations bill last fall. Restrictions were permanently lifted for Azerbaijan in March, when the State Department exempted it from arms sanctions in its International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) list. Tajikistan and Armenia were also removed from the list to allow for counterterrorism aid.

(Tamar Gabelnick <tamarg@fas.org> is director of the Arms Sales Monitoring Project of the Federation of American Scientists.)

Also see:

U.S. Foreign Military Training: Global Reach, Global Power, and Oversight Issues
By Lora Lumpe
Available online at http://www.fpif.org/papers/miltrain/index.html

Too Much is Never Enough: Bush's Military Spending Spree
by Michelle Ciarrocca
Available online at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0205armsspend.html

LINKING TEXTILES TO LABOR STANDARDS: PROSPECTS FOR CAMBODIA AND VIETNAM
By Andrew Wells-Dang

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Policy Report available in its entirety at: http://www.fpif.org/papers/txt-labor.html .)

Efforts to craft effective vehicles to link trade and labor rights continue to be a major goal for fair trade advocates and members of the global justice movement. Much of this debate has focused on the issue of a social clause in the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the appropriate use of sanctions as a policy tool to advance labor rights. Alongside this debate, a different approach linking trade and labor rights has emerged in the context of the textile trade between the U.S. and Cambodia. The first trade agreement of its kind, the 1999 U.S.-Cambodian textile compact links increases in garment export quotas to improvements in labor conditions. Labor provisions similar to those in the Cambodian textile agreement, but applying to all sectors of the economy, also make up part of the U.S.-Jordan Free Trade Agreement, signed in 2001. Senate Finance Committee leaders Max Baucus (D-MT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA), despite their different political views, see both the Jordan and Cambodia agreements as setting a precedent for future negotiations.

This policy report focuses on the cases of Cambodia and Vietnam, two countries with clear historical reasons for wanting trade and improved relations with the U.S. In the quarter century since the end of the Vietnam War, normalization of relations with both countries has come gradually. Since Cambodia was granted NTR in 1996, however, its total exports to the U.S. have skyrocketed from $3.7 million in 1996 to $300 million in 1998 and nearly $1 billion in 2001. Clothing constitutes over 95% of this total.

After years of delay, Vietnam's bilateral trade agreement (BTA) with the U.S. was signed in 2000 and ratified in the fall of 2001. As part of the debate over Normal Trade Relations (NTR) for Vietnam, several members of Congress conditioned their approval on the approval of a textile agreement along similar lines to Cambodia's. Preliminary negotiations between Washington and Hanoi have already begun, in what is bound to be a contentious process on both sides. In light of the Cambodian experience, American and Vietnamese officials need to consider a number of complex policy issues as they work toward an agreement.

In the U.S., responses to the Cambodian textile agreement have been generally positive across partisan lines. Labor activists, while continuing to criticize working conditions and legal abuses in Cambodia, agree that labor standards are improving. Free-traders, while opposed to quotas along with other trade barriers, have also responded favorably to the agreement's use of incentives for "good" behavior, rather than sanctions for non-compliance.

Textiles are not included in general trade agreements due to the provisions of the Multi-Fiber Agreement (MFA) and the WTO Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC). The MFA, which dates from 1975, assigns quotas as a means to limit textile imports to the U.S. It is due to MFA quotas that clothing sold in U.S. stores often comes from unlikely locations such as Nicaragua, Bangladesh, or Mauritius--as well as Cambodia. Quotas may benefit some small country producers that might otherwise have difficulty selling to the U.S., but the MFA is a prime example of how the U.S. has sought to protect key domestic industries while preaching free trade for others. In the words of a recent Oxfam report, "from its inception, the MFA has been a clear departure from the principles underpinning the entire multilateral trading system." Few other industries have such obvious double standards.

The best possible solution to the dilemma of bilateral agreements would be an international agreement on labor standards that applies to all U.S. trading partners and all sectors of the economy equally, rather than individual accords that must be negotiated separately. But such a common standard is still a long way in the future. In the meantime, Vietnam and the U.S. both stand to benefit from a textile agreement, with or without labor conditions. Given the inherent inequalities and political obstacles in trade negotiations, both sides may have to settle for second- or third-best. With patience and a little luck, a compromise should be possible in the short term, though much work still lies ahead.

(Andrew Wells-Dang is Washington representative of the Fund for Reconciliation and Development, a nonprofit organization advocating for normal economic, cultural, educational, and diplomatic relations with Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam.)

II. Outside the U.S.

(Editor's Note: FPIF's "Outside the U.S." component 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. )

THE PRICE OF FAILURE IN KASHMIR
By Achin Vanaik

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF Global Affairs commentary available in its entirety at: http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0205kashmir.html .)

Following Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf's speech on May 27th and the Indian government's official response the following day, it is clear that while war clouds have temporarily receded they have most certainly not been lifted. India will wait to see "results," i.e. what steps the Pakistan government will take to end the ability of terrorists to strike from across the border into Indian territory, including Jammu and Kashmir. One must distinguish here between two claims. Any attribution that the Musharraf government is directly behind the December 13 attack on Parliament and now the May 14 attack in Kaluchak, Jammu, is not substantiated by evidence and is, politically speaking, utterly implausible. The Musharraf government is not so foolish or naïve as to impose even further pressure on itself in circumstances when his own regime is fighting for internal survival, or to want to shift attention away from the state-sponsored anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat and the world's criticism of the Indian government on that score.

The claim that Musharraf has done far from enough to curb fundamentalist groups determined to carry out terrorist actions in India, and has often shut his eyes to their activities, is by contrast, quite justified. This Indian government, however, has refused to make this distinction--effectively holding Musharraf culpable for any failure to end cross-border terrorist attacks. In this respect it is, like Israel, using the same dishonest, spurious, and ethically and legally untenable argument of making no distinction between actual terrorist perpetrators and the country that harbors them, a rationale that the Bush administration used to justify its assault on Afghanistan. No doubt, this makes it that much more difficult for Washington to draw this distinction to Indian attention, although it is clearly determined to prevent a war from breaking out between India and Pakistan, even as it pursues separate alliances with both countries.

In fact, if there has been no Indian military attack by its official armed forces across the border into Pakistan this time, it is because Washington said no, and India has heeded. But for how long? Herein lies the problem. Washington will put pressure on Musharraf to do more against the fundamentalist groups using Pakistan, and Pakistan-controlled Kashmir, as a base to organize operations in India. But because Musharraf is not in full control, there is simply no guarantee that another terrorist attack will not take place, anymore than one can guarantee even after the U.S. war on Afghanistan that there will never be another terrorist attack on the U.S. Indeed, Islamic fundamentalist groups who are out to destabilize the Musharraf government, strike at the U.S. presence in Pakistan, and to keep the Kashmir issue boiling, would like nothing better than to provoke a war between India and Pakistan, which they believe can help them on all three counts.

What the anti-nuclear opponents of the May 1998 tests in Pokharan and Chagai warned against most consistently has indeed come to pass. This is the part of the world where the unthinkable--a nuclear exchange--is most likely to take place. If it happens it will be in the context of a war sparked by developments in Jammu and Kashmir anytime over the next several years. While the long-term challenge is to find a stable, final, and just solution to this problem, the short- and medium-term need is to find ways of de-nuclearizing South Asia, and to separate the militaries of the two countries perhaps through some kind of truly effective international buffer force along the Line of Control in Kashmir. The price of failure in these respects could be disastrous.

(Achin Vanaik <pamela@del3.vsnl.net.in> is an independent journalist and visiting profesor at the Academy for Third World Studies, Jamia Millia Islamia (National Muslim University), New Delhi. Author of numerous books on Indian politics and India's nuclear policy, his most recent book, co-authored with Praful Bidwai is New Nukes: India, Pakistan and Global Nuclear Disarmament (Interlink 1999).)

Also see:

Overview of Self-Determination Issues in Kashmir
By John Gershman
Available online at http://www.selfdetermine.org/conflicts/kashmir.html

Nuclear Proliferation in South Asia: U.S. Policy Challenges
By Samina Ahmed, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Available online at http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n28nuclear.html

III. Letters and Comments

WHICH WAY AFRICA?

Re: Africa Action Launches "Africa's Right to Health Campaign" [http://www.fpif.org/advisers/booker.html]

I can't believe the callous manner in which Africans are held hostage by the Bretton Woods institutions. When concerned Africans raised the alarm as structural adjustment programs took their toll, accusations flew back and forth with spin doctors and security services countering "dissidents."

In the cold war days, interests were more important than human lives and the world was divided in stark pro and anti camps. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the human rights hype set in, but only to the extent that a few clever lawyers jockeying for State Houses now turned into embarrassing dictators.

Next phase: good governance, trade liberalization with the grim reaper scything away effortlessly. I am not an Afropessimist nor do I succumb easily to conspiracy theories, but this must be rated as a crime against humanity on several counts. First came the debt crisis, cuts in social spending and then deregulation and privatization. (There is evidence that some of the debts were contracted in corrupt deals involving Western transnationals and ruling elites. The jury is still out on the three African heads of state and the Elf corporation. There are cases of arms deals, forward dealing in Angolan oil and the like). But what was the impact on the ordinary Africans like myself, unemployed and caught up in situations of conflict and living on less than a dollar a day in the name of debt servicing ? How do you squeeze the life out of millions of people, deny them health and education, retrench the few employed into the abject poverty in the villages, then force the hand-over of the few viable enterprises to non locals usually in cahoots with some well-connected locals? How convincing are these good governance seminars when as a result of earlier policies wretched Africans are being wiped out by preventable diseases in countries where there is no health insurance or social security after government funds have been looted to finance "joint ventures." Is this sinister war of attrition a strategy to reduce Africa to some desolate moonscape then move in to take over vast tracts of land and plant GMOs [genetically modified organisms] to feed the rest of the world? Impoverished African academics at times have no choice but to go into exile or join the staff of donor-funded NGOs or transnationals to stay above the poverty line. We have seen instances when local health professionals are fired for striking over pay, then replacement workers ferried in from the Asian Tigers. How can Africa ever surmount its human resource deficit with that kind of take it or leave it stance again jeopardizing the few trained people who have hung on in there regardless. How do we get our so-called flying geese, our economic locomotives to scale new heights? I remain to be convinced by all the new-fangled initiatives like the much touted NEPAD and all the rest AGOA. To my mind these are mere palliatives to obscure all past crimes. I'd be happier if there was to be some kind of audit and balancing of the books on both sides: African governments, the Bretton Woods cousins, and the slew of consultants involved in the entire process before we can start on a clean slate.

- Fatoumata Toure <lolwe2212@yahoo.com>

EINSTEIN, ROBESON, AND ZIONISM

At a moment when so much of the world decries the shockingly senseless, destructive militarism of the Israeli state and demands protection of the sacred human rights of Palestinian people, the historic relationship between Jewish people and Zionism requires re-examination. Even when most popular immediately after World War II, Zionist ideas never enjoyed unanimous support from the world's Jewish community. In the United States where he had taken refuge from Hitler's Germany, the greatest scientific genius of the century and noted world philosopher, Dr. Albert Einstein, favored not a Zionist state but one in which Jews and Arabs shared political power.

As the most admired Jewish American of the day, Einstein did not hesitate to express his political views. On the contrary, he tended to be an outspoken foe of fascism and racial discrimination, and he had struck up a friendship with Paul Robeson, African American peace and justice advocate and activist, a foe of fascism and anti-Semitism. In 1946, Robeson and Einstein served as co-chairs of a nationwide anti-lynching petition campaign, and Robeson delivered their collected petitions to President Harry Truman at the White House. Two years later Einstein and Robeson united to support Henry Wallace's Progressive party that opposed U.S. government cold war policies that tolerated violations of civil liberties and repression of dissenters. Master of more than a dozen languages, Robeson's musical concerts and records celebrated the gallant contributions of African Americans and other minorities, the heroism of union organizers such as Joe Hill, and paid homage to those who bravely fought fascism--as in his powerful Yiddish rendition of the "Song of the Warsaw Ghetto."

In 1948 Einstein publicly announced his political preference for a socialist over capitalist system in the United States. By then Robeson had been the world's most admired American for more than ten years, surpassing even President Franklin D. Roosevelt. But in 1952 though the fanatical anti-Communists of the McCarthy era hesitated to challenge Einstein, they waged a war against Robeson. In a stinging public rebuke to this cold war era mentality, in October, 1952 Dr. Albert Einstein asked his old friend to visit him at Princeton University. It was a momentous time for Einstein because he had been invited to serve as president for the new state of Israel. Einstein told Robeson and Brown that while he had seen some merit in Zionism and wished the new state success, he had long opposed a Zionist state. Instead, he had always favored a "reasonable agreement" between Palestinians and Jews to share power in any state carved out of British-controlled Palestine.

Einstein was worried that once in their own state his people, like others, would abandon their idealism and spirituality, slavishly follow a narrow nationalism, and capitulate to a state apparatus concerned with its borders, building an army, demanding conformity, and exerting repressive power. He could not encourage this course, so Einstein denied the new state his enormous prestige and declined its presidential office.

Einstein died in 1955 the sage of Princeton, committed to his people, still skeptical of the state of Israel, and like Robeson, still an advocate of justice and peace for the world's people. Robeson died in 1976, still hounded by the FBI and other government agencies, and remains known to the world largely through his recordings, movie roles, and a few books.

One can only speculate about how Albert Einstein, who feared an aggressive Jewish state, would have reacted to the Israeli occupation and invasion of Palestinian territories in violation of United Nations resolutions. One can only speculate about how Robeson, who sang the praises of anti-fascist freedom-fighters such as the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto, would have reacted to the Israeli army's savagery against largely unarmed Palestinian civilians seeking liberty, sovereignty, and justice.

- By William Loren Katz <www.wlkatz.com>

MALAYSIAN INTERNAL SECURITY

Re: U.S. and Malaysia Now Best Friends in War on Terrorism [http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0205malaysia.html]

President Bush and the American people must know that for Mr. Mahathir the fight against terrorism is the fight against his political opponents. Almost all those imprisoned under Malaysia's Internal Security Act, which is supposed to be a law for terrorists, are those that are a threat to Mahathir's hold on power.

Sad to say, just due to the September 11 incident Mr. Bush and the U.S. government choose to befriend this dictator who is hiding under a democracy mask. It is sad scenario for the majority of the world citizens, when elected leaders pay more attention to their political survival instead of to justice. It seems that those in the seat of political power are often the actual culprits.

- A very concerned Malaysian

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.iexposure.com/fpif.org/donate.cfm to support FPIF online, or for information about making contributions over the phone or through the mail.

We Count on Your Support. Thank you.

Subscribe to The Progressive Response!

To subscribe to The Progressive Response, send a blank email to:

To unsubscribe from The Progressive Response, send a blank email to:
lists-unsubscribe@irc-online.org

Simply click the appropriate hyperlink above, or send a blank email to the appropriate email address above.

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 irc@irc-online.org. 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.

IRC
Tom Barry
Editor, Progressive Response
Codirector, Foreign Policy In Focus
Email: tom@irc-online.org

IPS
Martha Honey
Codirector, Foreign Policy In Focus
Email: ipsps@igc.org

This page was last modified on Friday, May 31, 2002 4:54 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.