The Progressive Response

The Progressive Response (PR) is produced weekly by the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org) as part of its Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF) project. FPIF, a "Think Tank Without Walls," 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." FPIF is joint project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies. 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 www.fpif.org, or email <feedback@fpif.org> to share your thoughts with us.

Tom Barry, editor of Progressive Response, is a senior analyst with the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) www.irc-online.org and codirector of Foreign Policy In Focus. He can be contacted at <tom@irc-online.org>.

We Count on Your Support!

Editor: Tom Barry (IRC)

Table of Contents

I. Updates and Out-Takes

FRONTIER JUSTICE: No. 13 | TAKING ON TORTURE
By John Gershman

SPACE INDUSTRY: SUPPORTING U.S. SUPREMACY
By Loring Wirbel

STUMBLING BLINDLY INTO WAR
By Frida Berrigan

OTHER NEW FPIF ANALYSIS

CALL FOR VOLUNTEER RESEARCHERS

II. Outside the U.S.

HOUSE OF CARDS
By Michael Dahan

III. Letters and Comments

NGOS ACCOUNTABILITY IN AFGHANISTAN

TROUBLES COMMENTARY VERY TROUBLING

I. Updates and Out-Takes

FRONTIER JUSTICE: No. 13 | TAKING ON TORTURE

(Editor's Note: Frontier Justice is a weekly column written alternately by Tom Barry and John Gershman, foreign policy analysts at the Interhemispheric Resource Center, chronicling instances of U.S. unilateralism and its assault on the multilateralism framework for managing global affairs. It is part of the new Project Against the Present Danger. These columns are now indexed on the www.presentdanger.org site at: http://www.presentdanger.org/frontier/2002/index.html.)

By John Gershman

In early November the UN General Assembly's Third Committee, (which deals with human rights issues) voted 104 to 8 with 37 abstentions to adopt the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The protocol, which establishes a system of inspection visits to prisons and places of detention worldwide, was opposed by the United States, Japan, Cuba, Iran, and China.

Continuing its pattern of obstructing international norms and treaties, the Bush administration argued against the protocol on the grounds of cost and constitutional obstacles. But the administration's opposition can also be plausibly read as the latest manifestation of broader efforts to combat initiatives aimed at enforcing international human rights law. This includes everything from trying to excise human rights commitments from a range of UN declarations, to the ongoing efforts to weaken the International Criminal Court. In a last-ditch effort to derail the protocol, the UN committee also soundly rejected--98 to 11 with 37 abstentions--a U.S. and Japanese amendment that would have removed funding for the treaty from the general UN budget and forced the parties to the protocol to shoulder its costs. The Optional Protocol will now face a floor fight during the plenary session of the UN General Assembly in early December and will subsequently be open for signature in January 2003.

The protocol was the result of over a decade of work by a coalition of human rights organizations and supportive governments. (The human rights organizations included Amnesty International, Association for the Prevention of Torture, Human Rights Watch, the International Commission of Jurists, the International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture, the International Federation for Human Rights, the International League for Human Rights, the International Service for Human Rights, the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, Redress Trust for Torture Survivors, and the World Organization against Torture.) Protocol advocates argued that one of the most effective ways of preventing torture is to open up prisons and other detention centers to the scrutiny of independent experts. This would establish an international mechanism with the potential to deter human rights abuses, as opposed to mechanisms that are used to bring charges of violations that have already taken place. No such mechanism currently exists at the global level and only some national human rights bodies are allowed to carry out visits to prisons and other detention centers to investigate human rights conditions. One regional body, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture, has visited places of detention within the 44 States of the Council of Europe for the past 15 years. Such visits have led to concrete improvements according to advocates.

In addition to its efforts to derail the expansion and institutionalization of international human rights law abroad, U.S. government efforts to bring known torturers who live in the U.S. to justice have been anemic. Since the U.S. ratified the Convention Against Torture in 1994, not one individual has been prosecuted, although a number of alleged torturers have been sued in civil courts.

According to the INS, which established a special unit to investigate these cases, there may be as many as 1,000 suspected torturers currently living in America. Amnesty International's own research (published in United States of America: A Safe Haven for Torturers) has identified nearly 150 alleged human rights abusers living in the United States. U.S. authorities have failed to prosecute any of these cases despite having been notified of many of the identities of the suspects and the evidence against them. In light of this record, Amnesty International has withheld the names of most of the suspects to avert prompting their flight from justice. The report does name 13 individuals who entered or live in the U.S. despite allegations that they committed torture and other human rights violations in Cuba, Somalia, Guatemala, Ethiopia, El Salvador, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Haiti, Honduras, and Chile. In these cases, the individuals were named because they have already been alerted to demands for their prosecution by civil lawsuits, investigative reporting, or other means.

Torture is strictly prohibited by international law, which requires states to extradite or prosecute individuals found in their territory who allegedly committed acts of torture, regardless of where such acts occurred. Torture is a crime subject to universal jurisdiction. The principle of universal jurisdiction is based on the notion that certain crimes are so harmful to international interests that states are entitled--and even obliged--to bring proceedings against the perpetrator, regardless of the location of the crime or the nationality of the perpetrator or the victim. Human rights abuses widely considered to be subject to universal jurisdiction include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and torture. The U.S. government accepted this international obligation when it ratified the Convention against Torture. Despite this clear mandate, perpetrators of this crime continue to enter and reside in the United States with impunity.

The contrast between the dispatch with which the Bush administration detained roughly 1,200 individuals following the attacks of September 11th--most of whom have only been charged with visa violations--and its failure to prosecute or extradite torturers living in the U.S. indicates the extent to which respect for international law is honored more in rhetoric than in practice.

(John Gershman <john@irc-online.org> is a senior analyst at the Interhemispheric Resource Center (online at www.irc-online.org).)

For more information:

Amnesty International, United States of America: A Safe Haven for Torturers
http://www.amnestyusa.org/stoptorture/safehaven.pdf

Human Rights Watch
http://www.hrw.org/un/cat1102.htm

World Organization Against Torture
http://www.omct.org/

Association for the Prevention of Torture
http://www.apt.ch/

Princeton Principles on Universal Jurisdiction
http://www.princeton.edu/~lapa/unive_jur.pdf

SPACE INDUSTRY: SUPPORTING U.S. SUPREMACY
By Loring Wirbel

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new FPIF policy brief, available in its entirety online at: http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol7/v7n13space.html .)

The U.S. government is committed to achieving military supremacy in space and maintaining dominant market share in the satellite industry for U.S. corporations. The mission of space supremacy did not suddenly appear when President Bush took office in 2001. It evolved from infrastructures that were borrowed from intelligence and weapons networks and were developed over forty years as part of the cold war. After the cold war ended, the U.S. sought a space-based, 24-hour reconnaissance network and the construction of a national missile defense (NMD) system to extend its economic might. Although the aerospace industry is not powerful enough to set the agenda for U.S.-based transnationals at large, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has consistently stressed that the implementation of global free markets serving large corporations would not be possible without the "hidden iron fist" of the military, which is led by the aerospace sector.

As an indication of the central role space dominance continues to play--and the intimate connection between commerce and the military--consider the many hats worn by Peter Teets, former chief operating officer at Lockheed-Martin. Teets now serves as the director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), undersecretary of the Air Force, and chief procurement officer for all of military space, controlling a budget in excess of $65 billion, a figure that includes $8 billion a year for missile defense and $7 billion annually for NRO spying. Teets is a firm believer in the conclusions of the Rumsfeld Commission's January 2001 report on the military in space, which warns of a "space Pearl Harbor" if the U.S. does not thoroughly dominate all aspects of space. In addition, key lobbyists for Lockheed-Martin, Bruce Jackson and Stephen Hadley, played central roles in developing space policy, and Hadley later took a post within the Pentagon.

To underpin NMD and space supremacy, the U.S. uses multiple space systems, and the Pentagon is spending billions to update each of these. Space-based intelligence collection is dominated by gargantuan geosynchronous satellite networks that represent windfall profits for prime contractors and have generated significant cost overruns. These systems range from satellite launchers to different tiers of satellites circling the earth.

From its inception in 1998, the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) was designed to reduce the cost to the U.S. government of imaging and signals-intelligence satellite launches. Large rockets like Titan-4 cost more than a billion dollars each, but the Atlas-5 and Delta-IV EELVs use streamlined designs and cheaper components to reduce launch costs by as much as 80%. Although the NRO heavily promoted the commercial spin-off possibilities of EELVs, the commercial prospects for the new launchers now appear minimal. Contractors see it as a potential bailout program for their cost overruns. The public may never learn how much the government has spent on EELVs. The NRO worked with contractors to insure that most information remains "vendor proprietary"--even if the information is declassified, it can remain secret to meet the wishes of the vendor. To date, it is believed that the NRO has provided slightly more than $500 million each to Lockheed Martin and Boeing, but even Defense Department inspector general auditor studies on EELV expenditures are classified.

The Global Positioning System (GPS) can provide precision targeting for military missions, while civilian customers use less accurate frequencies as navigational aids. Newer military enhancements to the GPS provide support for what the Pentagon calls "Navwar." Warning of impending missile launches has been the domain of an aging infrared satellite system called Defense Support Program (DSP). A critical part of the missile defense program involves the replacement of DSP satellites with a two-tiered network of satellites called the Space-Based Infrared System, deployed in two portions called SBIRS-High and SBIRS-Low. SBIRS-Low is still in its early phases, but SBIRS-High, managed by Lockheed-Martin, is facing a congressional review due to cost overruns exceeding $4 billion.

Intelligence distribution is a function of the Global Broadcast System (GBS). During the war in Afghanistan, the GBS provided "instant situational awareness" to troops and pilots by integrating intelligence from satellites, unmanned aerial vehicle flights, and ground signals intelligence stations. Imaging satellites will be replaced by Boeing's 8X Future Imagery Architecture, a satellite project with total procurement costs in the tens of billions of dollars. The signals-intelligence equivalent is the Intruder, a program that has amassed significant cost overruns.

Legal challenges to the USA Patriot Act and related Justice Department executive orders should specify limits on aerospace corporations that ply their wares for domestic surveillance. Boeing and Raytheon, for example, have developed analytical tools for the space intelligence community that will be applied to new airport security and border security systems. Oracle, a private software company tightly linked to the CIA and NSA, is working with top defense contractors on unified databases for civilian profiling. Although groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) quickly grasped the dangers of the USA Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Department, few civil libertarians realize that many of the tools of domestic repression were perfected when the intelligence systems developed for the cold war were retargeted in the mid-1990s.

A technology base involving several national governments and corporations of various sizes, divorced from U.S. military interests, may take five years or more to emerge. Relying on a unilateralist and empire-building U.S. military as a transitional source of funds for commercial ventures in space, however, may place space proponents in the Faustian position of supporting preemptive warfare technologies.

The overwhelming role played by large U.S. corporations in building space systems that only the U.S. government is permitted to use represents the backbone of U.S. unilateralism in space. Though it is true that European defense contractors can't keep up with Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman/TRW, and Raytheon, U.S. transnationals are not providing the impetus. Instead, the supremacist tail of unilateral policy is wagging the globalist corporate dog.

(Loring Wirbel <LWirbel@aol.com> is editorial director at CMP Media LLC, a member of the board of directors of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, and a member of Colorado Springs-based Citizens for Peace in Space.)

STUMBLING BLINDLY INTO WAR
By Frida Berrigan

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new Global Affairs commentary, available in its entirety online at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0211iraq.html .)

Is the President turning "new age"? Not only has he massaged the United Nations Security Council into a unanimous vote demanding that Iraq accept weapons inspections, but he seems to have embraced guided meditation practices. In his November 7th press conference at the Executive Office Building, President George W. Bush led the audience through a visualization exercise. "Imagine Saddam Hussein with a nuclear weapon," he said, "Imagine how the Israeli citizens would feel. Imagine how the citizens of Saudi Arabia would feel. Imagine how the world would change, how he could alter diplomacy by the very presence of a nuclear weapons."

Bush raised the issue of Hussein's nuclear weapons at least three times in his 47-minute session with the press, saying at one point that the world community doesn't "like the idea of Saddam Hussein having a nuclear weapon." Despite the emotional resonance of this exercise, Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program appears to be little more than an idea. Reports from the Central Intelligence Agency, the International Atomic Energy Association, and other expert groups seem to confirm that Saddam Hussein does not have nuclear weapons, and could not easily build them for years.

The Central Intelligence Agency, in a report released in October, concluded, "Saddam Hussein probably doesn't have sufficient material to make any [nuclear weapons]" although "he remains intent on acquiring them." The report concluded, "Iraq is unlikely to produce indigenously enough weapons-grade material for a deliverable nuclear weapon until the last half of this decade. Baghdad could produce a nuclear weapon within a year if it were able to procure weapons-grade fissile material abroad." But that is a big if.

Reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN agency responsible for inspections and disarmament of Iraq's nuclear programs from 1991 to 1998, indicate that the facilities that housed Iraq's nuclear weapons program were either destroyed during the 1991 Gulf War or in subsequent IAEA raids.

The IAEA withdrew from Iraq when the Clinton administration's bombing campaign made it impossible to continue work, but their conclusions up until then support the CIA's findings. The IAEA states that "nothing indicated that Iraq had produced more than a few grams of weapons-grade nuclear material through its indigenous enrichment processes, or that Iraq had secretly acquired weapons-usable material from external sources."

One reporter asked the President to comment on CIA Director George Tenet's statement that Saddam Hussein, "now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks against the United States." But if the U.S. attacked, he would "probably become much less constrained." Bush failed to respond to the question, but Tenet's statement raises concerns about Washington provoking Saddam Hussein to a higher level of aggression. The approach Washington is taking with North Korea's nuclear program--working with regional partners, offering incentives for abandoning the nuclear program--appears to be working and could serve as an example.

Bush admitted that in his speech, saying, "by the way, we don't know how close he is to a nuclear weapon right now. We know he wants one. But we don't know. We know he was close to one at one point in time. We have no idea today."

It's one thing to argue that we need to vigilant in our efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, given the flaws in U.S. intelligence gathering. It's quite another to go to war on the grounds that "we don't know" how close a country is to acquiring them. If nuclear weapons are really the President's concern, he should give UN inspectors the time they need to find out what Iraq's capabilities are, and to eliminate them. And he should commit the United States to a concrete timetable for eliminating its own massive nuclear arsenal, along with a policy of neither using nor threatening to use nuclear weapons first in any conflict. Instead, his administration seems intent on using the first glitch in UN inspections, however minor, as a trigger for war, whether or not other UN Security Council members agree. That would be a terrible mistake, and a terrible precedent. Might makes right is a recipe for war without end, not the peace that President Bush claims to be seeking.

(Frida Berrigan <BerrigaF@newschool.edu> writes for Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org) on weapons issues. She is a Senior Research Associate with the Arms Trade Resource Center, a project of the World Policy Institute.)

OTHER NEW FPIF ANALYSIS

The U.S. Power Complex: What's New
By Tom Barry (November 2002)
America is suffering from a power complex that is distorting national priorities. So wrapped up in its conviction of supremacy, the U.S. government forges ahead with its new foreign policy directions while ignoring the mounting global outrage, blowback, and impact of its aggressive unilateralism.

Let's Join, Not Fight, the Global Coalition Against War in Iraq
By Jeremy Brecher (November 5, 2002)
Americans owe a debt of gratitude to the coalition of people and countries around the world that is trying to save us from a catastrophic war in Iraq.

The World Turns Right
By Muqtedar Khan (November 19, 2002)
The ideological orientation of the world is undergoing a slow but definite shift to the right.

Remaking Policy in Asia?
By John Gershman (November 2002)
The war on terrorism has enabled the Bush administration to transform the U.S. presence in the region in ways that would have been virtually unthinkable prior to the September 11th terrorist attacks.

CALL FOR VOLUNTEER RESEARCHERS

The Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) needs good people interested in volunteering their time to help us increase our outreach through the Internet and our listservs. Our two programs--Americas Program and Global Affairs/Foreign Policy In Focus--produce top-notch policy analysis that is making a difference. To increase our impact, we need to increase our outreach capacity. Volunteers will be asked to undertake focused research to find contact information for organizations, activists, experts, and government officials interested in the issues we address. We also need volunteer researchers for our new RightGuard project investigating the most prominent rightist foundations, think tanks, ideologues, and government officials, as well as research support for various other projects. Please note that this is not an on-site internship program. Research assistance will be done long-distance using the Internet, and work communication will occur primarily via email. If you would like to become part of the IRC's "think tank without walls" in a part-time, volunteer capacity, email us at <volunteer@irc-online.org>.

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. If you're interested in submitting commentaries for our use, please send your solicitation to John Gershman at <john@irc-online.org>.)

HOUSE OF CARDS
By Michael Dahan

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new Outside the U.S. commentary, posted in its entirety online at: http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2002/0211resign.html .)

The recent dissolution of the National Unity Government in Israel should not come as a surprise to anyone closely following the Israeli political scene. The reason the unity government lasted so long was that it was comfortable for all parties involved. By keeping his opposing political party under his government umbrella Prime Minister Sharon was granted a much-needed degree of legitimacy in both internal and external politics. On the other hand, Labor party cabinet members found political relevance in their participation in Sharon's government where, otherwise, their lack of ability to provide Israelis with an alternate national strategy would have consumed their few remaining political credits among Israeli voters. Israeli democracy will be sorely tested in the weeks to come, and to pass this test a bold, peace-oriented leadership must step forward.

The resignation of Binyamin Ben Eliezer, head of the Labor party and the former Defense Minister, had nothing to do with the budget or the funding of the settlements. During the course of the coalition Labor ministers did not lift a finger against the funding and expansion of the settlements, which took place at an alarming rate. Ben Eliezer, as Defense Minister, did absolutely nothing to stop the violent actions of the settlers preventing Palestinians from harvesting their olives (a crucial source of income for entire villages, especially in light of the horrid economic conditions within the Occupied Territories), or settlers' fatal attacks against Palestinian farmers. Even the widely reported removal of one of the illegal outposts (a strange choice of words, considering the fact that all of the settlements are illegal) was more of a public relations stunt than anything substantial, meant to toss sand into the eyes of the Israeli public and the world.

The real reason for the resignation (and the removal of a few illegal outposts in the Occupied Territories) is to be found in the internal party politics of the Labor party, and forthcoming Labor party primaries. Ben Eliezer felt that by resigning, he would stand a better chance of being re-elected to head the party. On November 19, party members rejected Eliezer and chose instead a former general who called for immediately opening peace talks with the Palestinians and withdrawing troops and settlers from the Gaza Strip. The winner, Amram Mitzna, campaigned as an outsider not compromised and sullied by any participation in the 19-month unity government of Prime Minister Sharon.

In the days and months ahead, the Labor party and the Israeli Left are at what could be an historical crossroad. The real question is whether the Labor party is able to and capable of taking advantage of the changes, rising above petty internal politics and presenting an alternate leadership to the Israeli people--a leadership dedicated to moving forward in an attempt to reach a political solution to the problems at hand, and to finally end the brutal and illegal Occupation. If they fail to do so, they will cease to be relevant to the Israeli political system.

(Dr. Michael Dahan <mdahan@attglobal.net> is an Israeli-American political scientist living in Jerusalem.)

III. Letters and Comments

NGOS ACCOUNTABILITY IN AFGHANISTAN

Re: Afghanistan: It Is Time for a Change in the Nation-Building Strategy

I agree with your analysis on the need to direct U.S. foreign policy toward more funding of groups that empower the local Shura. Funding for the Shura, a traditional Afghan council, is necessary for Afghanistan to have a broad-based, inclusive structure of governance that can be instrumental in identifying community needs, planning development programs, and implementing them across ethnic lines.

The way the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Community Based Organizations (CBOs) are being funded must be closely monitored if we are to continuously help the Afghans achieve self-sustainability; meaning to provide funds that will be directly given to the Representatives of Afghanistan. The funds allocated to any NGO or CBO have to be spent entirely in Afghanistan if there is to be any hope of the Afghan Nation to rebuild. NGOs and CBOs must buy Afghan-made products if possible at all times, purchase supplies that originate in Afghanistan; or seek services found in Afghanistan. It must be imperative for any NGO or CBO wanting funding to incorporate into their policy guidelines that they will pass on information about its program. Individual NGOs and CBOs must acquire the administrative budget from funds other then funds earmarked for the total development of the infrastructure inside Afghanistan. I believe the above statements are critical if NGOs and CBOs are to have success in their field of making Afghanistan a nation again ruled by the people, free, loving, and in peace with it s neighbors, and the world.

- Inayet Hadi <hadi@mscd.edu>

TROUBLES COMMENTARY VERY TROUBLING

Re: The "Troubles" are Back

I have enjoyed reading much that appears on your website, but I have just been absolutely appalled to read the above piece regarding the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is riddled throughout with half-truths, distortions, and omissions of facts that are inconvenient to the author's case. It is not "analysis" by any reasonable measure; it is either the product of a complete lack of knowledge or propaganda pure and simple. Its submission to any refereed academic journal would have seen it filed in the rubbish bin. The author rails against action taken against Sinn Fein, citing Loyalist actions. He is either unaware of, or simply ignores, the fact that none of the Unionist parties active in the assembly are linked to terrorist groups (though I personally would be quite happy to see Ian Paisley fall under a bus. But that's another story...). To therefore demand action against the Ulster Unionists on the basis of loyalist terror is a canard. It is like comparing apples and oranges. He neglects to mention the fact that the SDLP (in fact they are among the many relevant things that get no mention--we are led to believe that Sinn Fein heroically represents ALL Catholics against the Imperialist oppressor), the main Catholic Party not affiliated with a terror group, and the non-sectarian Alliance Party both support the British government, as does the government of the Irish Republic. He waxes lyrical about the Finucane case, which is a nasty business by any reckoning, but which has no direct bearing on the current state of affairs (though he has omitted to mention much that does) while neglecting to mention that the longest jail terms in British legal history have gone to Loyalist terrorists. He neglects to mention the continuing violence perpetrated by the IRA on the streets of Belfast. He neglects to mention the emergence of recently compiled IRA death lists. He neglects to mention the hijinks involving representatives of Sinn Fein in Columbia. He neglects... well I could go on. I am not in any way trying to deny the problems that have afflicted northern Ireland's Catholic community--it has suffered appallingly in the past and in some ways continues to do so. But the article in question is an appalling, one-sided polemic, which is frankly disgusting.

Let me sum up--the article in question would not seem out of place in a Noraid pamphlet or in the pages of the Irish People. No serious foreign policy publication would touch it with a bargepole. If you seek to be an outlet for serious policy content, this is not the way to go about it.

- Anthony Cormack <top_cat1980@hotmail.com>

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.

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, November 22, 2002 6:51 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.