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 http://www.fpif.org/, or email <feedback@fpif.org> to share your thoughts with us.

John Gershman, editor of Progressive Response, is a senior analyst with the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) (online at www.irc-online.org). He can be contacted at <john@irc-online.org>.

We Count on Your Support!

Editor: John Gershman (IRC)

Table of Contents

I. Updates and Out-Takes

SOUTH AFRICANS REACT TO GEORGE BUSH'S PETRO-MILITARY-COMMERCE MISSION
By Patrick Bond

ALIENATION AND MILITANCY IN THE NIGER DELTA: A RESPONSE TO CSIS ON PETROLEUM, POLITICS, AND DEMOCRACY IN NIGERIA
By Oronto Douglas, Von Kemedi, Ike Okonta, and Michael Watts

BLAIR AND BUSH FORGE A NEW SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP
By Ian Williams

IMPLICATIONS FOR IRANIAN DEMOCRACY: THE STUDENT MOVEMENT AND SOCIAL CHANGE
By Juliette Niehuss

II. Outside the U.S.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS THREATS ABROAD: BUSH'S FOOTBALL IN DIRTY GAME
By Martin Schwarz

III. Letters and Comments

DON'T BE SO CRITICAL OF OUR GOVERNMENT and Response by John Feffer

MORAL QUESTIONS NEEDING ANSWERS

I. Updates and Out-takes

SOUTH AFRICANS REACT TO GEORGE BUSH'S PETRO-MILITARY-COMMERCE MISSION
By Patrick Bond

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new outside the U.S. commentary available in full at http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2003/0307southafrica.html .)

In addition to the pomp and ceremony associated with the second post-apartheid state visit by a U.S. president, a string of protests greeted George W. Bush when he met South African president Thabo Mbeki in Pretoria on July 9. It was a complicated welcome from many perspectives. South Africa had not joined the "coalition of the willing" against Saddam Hussein, and former president Nelson Mandela remains a staunch opponent of Bush's foreign policy. On the other hand, Pretoria profited nicely from the hostilities, not merely through selling arms but also by taking advantage of Bush's attempt to restore some legitimacy on this trip. Mbeki's muddled reaction to the U.S.-led war on Hussein's Iraq deserves a review, because continuing ambivalence in the political sphere is contradicted by closer U.S.-South African economic relationships that threaten the rest of Africa.

Most constructively, perhaps, a few leaders from the ruling African National Congress (ANC) engaged in occasional anti-war picketing at U.S. consulates in Cape Town, Durban, and Johannesburg during the invasion of Iraq. On July 9, several hundred demonstrators from the ANC and its allies protested U.S. policies in Pretoria. However, this represented a far smaller number than the broader, and more radical Anti-War Coalition, whose gathering of more than 2,000 at the U.S. embassy, and 700 at the ANC office in Johannesburg a few days earlier, sent the explicit message that Bush should leave Africa.

Although South Africa was officially opposed to the war, had Washington's bullying of several Security Council swing votes been successful, Pretoria would have fallen into line. In the days prior to the U.S./UK bombing, Mbeki deployed deputy foreign minister Aziz Pahad and a technical team to assist the UN with inspections for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. None were located.

Mandela offered a tough critique as early as January: "All Bush wants is Iraqi oil... Their friend Israel has got weapons of mass destruction but because it's their ally they won't ask the UN to get rid of it... Bush, who cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust. If there is a country which has committed unspeakable atrocities, it is the United States of America... They don't care for human beings."

In June, Mandela met French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin and condemned Bush again: "Since the creation of the United Nations there has not been a World War. Therefore, for anybody, especially the leader of a superstate, to act outside the United Nations is something that must be condemned by everybody who wants peace. For any country to leave the United Nations and attack an independent country must be condemned in the strongest terms."

Notwithstanding the Security Council's laudable opposition to the invasion itself, the merits of the UN as a site for adjudicating U.S. power were thrown into serious question after Saddam's regime collapsed and reconstruction control was debated. A commentator in the Jordan Times, Hasan Abu Nimah, explained: "The latest Security Council resolution on Iraq, 1483, has been a flagrant betrayal of the UN Charter, a scandalous resultant of power politics and opportunistic superpower compromises, and a dangerous submission to the fait accompli of war and aggression, at the expense of principle and international legality. Earlier, in the weeks leading to the war, the council had stood firm in the face of immense American and British pressure, boldly refusing to prematurely undercut the arms inspection program in favor of a resolution providing legal international cover for the military action against Iraq which was already planned by the U.S. and Britain... It is amazing how, on May 22, the council dramatically abandoned its steadfast position by suddenly legitimizing aggression, endorsing devastation of an innocent country and its weary people, and by licensing their indefinite, unwarranted occupation."

Thus Pretoria's official opposition to U.S. militarism is not taken terribly seriously in South Africa, as reflected in tensions with the independent-left activists. Leadership of the anti-war movement was initially claimed by the ANC, SA Communist Party, Congress of SA Trade Unions, and SA Council of Churches, which convened a "Stop the War Campaign" just before the war began. One of the coordinators, ANC policy director Michael Sachs, rightly argued the need for "uniting around the broadest possible alliance in opposition to war and imperialism... George W. Bush has drawn a line in the sand, and we must all decide on which side we stand."

However, South Africa's new left--a coalition of independent community and solidarity groups--quickly formed the Anti-War Coalition and won the endorsements of 300 organizations. The left did far more mobilizing for demonstrations and regularly pulled many thousands into the streets in the largest cities. Sachs told a February meeting aiming to reconcile the two groups that ANC leaders were uncomfortable with the more vigorously anti-imperialist language of the Anti-War Coalition. Then, once Sachs claimed credit for the February 15 protest in the media, the Coalition drew its own line in the sand, refusing to allow ANC speakers on the stage at the Johannesburg rally of 15,000.

The line was so stark because Pretoria had so obviously decided to stand on the side of war profits, ignoring Anti-War Coalition calls to withdraw permission for three Iraq-bound warships to dock and refuel in Durban, and to halt sales of sophisticated armaments to the U.S./UK regimes. Pretoria's state-owned arms manufacturer Denel often stated its vision of being "an acknowledged global player." In the months before the war, it contracted to deliver $29 million in ammunition shell-casing, $169 million in artillery propellants, and 326 hand-held laser range finders to the British army. Denel also sold the U.S. Marines 125 laser-guidance sights.

(Patrick Bond <pbond@sn.apc.org> is a professor at the University of the Witwatersrand and an associate of the Center for Economic Justice.)

ALIENATION AND MILITANCY IN THE NIGER DELTA: A RESPONSE TO CSIS ON PETROLEUM, POLITICS, AND DEMOCRACY IN NIGERIA
By Oronto Douglas, Von Kemedi, Ike Okonta, and Michael Watts

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new special report available in full at http://www.fpif.org/papers/nigeria2003.html .)

In the wake of the September 11th attack and the Iraq war, Nigeria's geopolitical significance to the U.S. has come into sharper relief. In March and April 2003, militancy across the Niger Delta radically disrupted oil production in this major oil supplier nation. News of these actions, following conflict-ridden national elections, has reinforced the notion that Nigeria and the new West African "gulf states" in general are matters of U.S. national security.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) weighed in on these events in the May 2003 edition of its publication CSIS Africa Notes. Since it is one of the most influential Washington think tanks, CSIS analysis matters in the formation of U.S. foreign policy. The brief article "Alienation and Militancy in Nigeria's Niger Delta" by Esther Cesarz, Steve Morrison, and Jennifer Cooke will command attention and this merits a serious response.

As the authors properly say, the recent oil crisis highlights "more profound national challenges" now facing the reelected President Obasanjo and his government. In their view, the recent conflicts in the Niger Delta mark a watershed, distinguished in particular by the prospects of "an upward spiral of violence." The new levels of weaponry and criminal activity on the part of a "frustrated and angry youth" suggest "new ambitions and capacities" among the Ijaw, who have taken on the characteristics of an armed militia. The authors see the specter of Colombia now haunting Nigeria. U.S. companies, they believe, will become targets of terrorist activity, and Nigeria's national stability and cohesion will be threatened.

We believe that this account is wrong-headed on a number of accounts. It misdiagnoses the nature of the political crisis in the Niger Delta, fails to understand the political dynamics of the Ijaw and minority politics in general, and makes unsubstantiated comparisons with the likes of Aceh and Colombia. Rather astonishingly, it also ignores the role of some key actors, the oil companies foremost among them. And it downplays a number of fundamental political problems that need to be faced.

The article does mention several of the key issues in passing, including federalism, resource allocation, and minority rights. But it gives these issues short shrift, while inflating the threat of a new terrorist menace. It thereby potentially helps to set the stage for an excessive military response or even a new round of ethnic cleansing. An adequate response to Nigeria's problems requires a serious analysis of the country's historical and political context, which we will try to provide below.

The geopolitical significance of Nigerian oil to the U.S., particularly against the global backdrop of rising prices, tight markets, and political instability in the Persian Gulf, Indonesia, and parts of Latin America, is widely understood. Even before the September 11th attacks, the Petroleum Finance Company (PFC), testifying in Congress before the International Relations Subcommittee on Africa, reported on the strategic and growing security significance of West African oil. In the view of the PFC, West Africa's high-quality reserves and low-cost output, coupled with massive new deep-water discoveries, required serious attention and substantial foreign investment. In the wake of the Al-Qaeda attacks and the Gulf War, Nigeria and West African producers have emerged as "the new Gulf oil states." By January 2002 the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies provided a forum for the Bush administration to declare that African oil is "a priority for U.S. national security." In the last year, the ugly footprint of Africa's black gold in Gabon, São Tomé, Angola, and Equatorial Guinea has rarely been off the front pages. It is also haunted by the specter of terror; the "nightmare" as the New York Times noted of "sympathizers of Osama bin Laden sink[ing] three oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz."

The mythos of oil wealth has been central to the history of modern industrial capitalism. But in Nigeria, as elsewhere, the discovery of oil, and annual oil revenues of $40 billion currently, has ushered in a miserable, undisciplined, decrepit, and corrupt form of "petro-capitalism." After a half century of oil production, almost $300 billion in oil revenues has flowed directly into the federal exchequer (and perhaps $50 billion promptly flowed out, only to disappear overseas). Yet Nigerian per capita income stands at $290 per year. For the majority of Nigerians, living standards are no better now than at independence in 1960. A repugnant culture of excessive venality and profiteering among the political class--the Department of State has an entire website devoted to fraud cases--has won for Nigeria the dubious honor of #1 in Transparency International's ranking of most corrupt states.

Paradoxically, the oil-producing states within federated Nigeria have benefited the least from oil wealth. Devastated by the ecological costs of oil spillage and the highest gas flaring rates in the world, the Niger Delta is a political tinderbox. A generation of militant restive youth, deep political frustrations among oil-producing communities, and pre-electoral thuggery all prosper in the rich soil of political marginalization. Massive election rigging across the Niger Delta in the April 2003 elections simply confirmed the worst for the millions of Nigerians who have suffered from decades of neglect. It was the great Polish journalist, Kapucinski, who noted in his meditation on oil-rich Iran: "Oil creates the illusion of a completely changed life, life without work, life for free.... The concept of oil expresses perfectly the eternal human dream of wealth achieved through lucky accident...In this sense oil is a fairy tale and, like every fairy tale, a bit of a lie." It is this lie that currently confronts West African oil producers and the Niger Delta in particular.

The annals of oil extraction are an uninterrupted chronicle of naked aggression, exploitation, and the violent mores of the corporate frontier. Iraq was born from this vile trinity. The current spectacle of oil men parading through the corridors of the White House, the rise of militant Islam across the Q'uran belt, and the carnage on the road to Baghdad all bear the continuing dreadful dialectics of blood and oil. Nigeria suffers all the hallmarks of such petro-violence. Breaking with this bloody history will require a major political commitment on both sides of the Atlantic.

(Oronto Douglas is associated with Environmental Rights Action in Port Harcourt, Nigeria; Ike Okonta and Michael Watts <mwatts@socrates.berkeley.edu> are respectively a Ciriacy-Wantrup fellow and the director of the Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley; Von Kemedt is the director of the community group Our Niger Delta in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. They wrote this for Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org).)

BLAIR AND BUSH FORGE A NEW SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP
By Ian Williams

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary available in full at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0307blair.html .)

Maybe the relationship is more special than we cynics have given credit. Events in Britain seem to be seriously affecting American politics. Americans are promiscuous with their applause. Broadway audiences clap when curtains open, when the set changes, and when the star comes on stage. To give him his due, Tony Blair did refer to the somewhat different reception he could expect back home, when he performed for George W. Bush at the joint session of Congress. One wonders whether the champion of the Third Way noticed that he had fewer allies in the Democratic benches than among the Republicans.

When Congress applauded Winston Churchill, he performed his British Bulldog act, and when Margaret Thatcher came, she did good imitations of another gender of dog entirely. In contrast, as Congresspersons repeatedly stood up and applauded Tony Blair, one was forced to ask, not whether he has now totally mutated into Bush's poodle, but just how many hoops he is prepared to jump through, and indeed whether he is prepared to go the whole hog and play dead for his new master. He certainly seems to be doing so, politically.

To be fair, while Blair conceded to Bush on all the major issues, he has had some minor successes with the president. His insistence on a continuing and expanding role for the United Nations, and for some reconciliation with the Europeans has helped the sane wing in the administration. Bush himself shows signs of perennial puzzlement about how much importance other people give the United Nations--but that means he may be equally perplexed with the anti-UN monomania of Under Secretary of State John Bolton and other Jesse Helms protégés--so he has been prepared to seize the pragmatic opportunities that Blair has pointed out to him. Equally, while Bush seems to have told Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas that God was responsible for telling him to work on the Road Map, British diplomats tend to suggest that Tony Blair was the Lord's messenger in this case. So it is perhaps fitting that Blair should appear to be setting himself up for martyrdom for the president.

The Prime Minister's insistence that British intelligence had independent sources for the allegations of Iraqi attempts to get uranium is looking more and more like a desperate attempt to cover the president's rear in the face of increasing Democrat demands for details about how the famous 16 words in the State of Union of the Union address about African uranium appeared. Although both Bush and Blair tried to brush off the issue as a mere technicality in face of the moral triumph of overthrowing Saddam Hussein, that does not seem to be the way it is going down with the electorates on either side of the pond. To give him his due, not even Tony Blair believed any of the White House assertions of an Iraqi link to September 11, but polls showed that many Americans were quite prepared to believe that they existed and that it justified the war on Iraq. However, as the congressional Democrats are at last showing, while Americans may accept thin excuses for a successful and popular war, they are much less forgiving about being suckered into an unpopular and unsuccessful occupation.

In contrast, for the British the trigger for war was always whether or not Saddam Hussein was defying UN resolutions to disarm. British perceptions of American incompetence are entirely justified perceptions, since most of what is happening in Iraq was not only predictable, but predicted. The message is that Tony Blair is risking the lives of British troops, and the reputation of the country, by acting as minion of an unbalanced Superpower. The continuing failure of American inspectors to find any weapons suggests that at the very least Blair was mistaken in the excuses he used to get Britain in the war. But the uranium issue takes it farther and implies that he was deliberately misleading the British public. Indeed, now there is growing suspicion that he is maintaining his defense of unnamed British intelligence sources simply to give Bush cover.

In effect, Blair has put his own credibility on the line to defend a man who has considerable difficulty recognizing reality in any form we can recognize. (Reportedly, the President told Kofi Annan on his July 14th visit to the White House, that the invasion was because Saddam refused to allow in the inspectors, which is not quite how the rest of the world remembers it.)

(Ian Williams <uswarreport@igc.org> contributes frequently to Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org) on UN and international affairs.)

IMPLICATIONS FOR IRANIAN DEMOCRACY: THE STUDENT MOVEMENT AND SOCIAL CHANGE
By Juliette Niehuss

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary available in full at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0307iranstudents.html .)

After September 11, Iranians set aside their differences with America and expressed public support for our loss in a candlelight vigil held in "Azadi" (freedom) Square in Tehran. Now, almost two years later, the U.S. may have lost a window of opportunity to improve relations with Iran, and currently faces resentment throughout the Islamic world. By proclaiming Iran as part of an "axis of evil," continuing to implicate it in state-sponsored terrorism and nuclear weapons production, and threatening regime change, the U.S. has alienated a key regional player.

But the chance to reclaim the sympathy that followed 9/11, and to bridge a thirty-year enmity between the two nations, lies in the youth of Iran, disillusioned by a Revolution they barely remember. In a country of over 70 million, 70% of Iran's population is under 25; if the recent protests are any indication, their frustration is mounting. What started last month as a small disturbance over university privatization soon became one of the largest public demonstrations against both the Islamic regime and, surprisingly, the reform-minded President Mohammad Khatami. Students turned their outrage over increased tuition fees into a demonstration against the Iranian regime's restrictions on political and social freedoms; they also expressed their dissatisfaction with Iran's sliding economy, where youth unemployment has reached nearly 50%; and with the sluggish pace at which government reformers have pushed for social change. Ordinary Iranians sympathetic to the students have joined in, offering refuge from security forces and vigilante groups eager to suppress dissent.

The regime's repression of student protest was justified as an attempt to avoid the violence that erupted during the 1999 "18th of Tir" protests, which began over the closing of a left-leaning newspaper. Then, violence escalated after one student was killed and several others wounded in a raid on university dorms. But the regime's reaction may have backfired. Students are hailing the protests and the resulting crackdown as evidence that the regime's legitimacy is faltering. They stress that lies about the numbers of arrested and detained, and disingenuous promises to punish the vigilantes for attacking and injuring over 50 students, are causing increased agitation among Iranians of all stripes. While both MPs and hard-line clerics have declared the vigilantes no better than "organized" crime, they have cautioned that increased force and security measures will be taken against future pro-reform demonstrations. Not only will this deepen students' determination, it will most likely make their efforts more violent.

(Juliette Niehuss <juliette@ips-dc.org> is a project assistant and student outreach coordinator with Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org) at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, DC.)

II. Outside the U.S.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS THREATS ABROAD: BUSH'S FOOTBALL IN DIRTY GAME
By Martin Schwarz

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new Outside the U.S. commentary available in full at http://www.fpif.org/outside/commentary/2003/0307nuclear.html .)

U.S. President George W. Bush's administration is using the issue of nuclear weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as a political and economic football, fabricating non-existent threats while turning a blind eye to real ones. That could have severe negative consequences for the longstanding global effort to promote non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Although the Bush administration is well aware of the fact that Iraq never posed a nuclear threat to the United States, Washington stands by its claim that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's arsenal justified the U.S.-UK invasion of his country. What's more, the administration is rewarding those who produce phony evidence of nuclear threats and refusing to support investigation of possible substantive WMD proliferation. British Prime Minister Tony Blair's administration and U.S. media are playing along in this dangerous game.

Former UN weapons inspector David Kay's appointment a few weeks ago as an adviser for CIA Director George Tenet on WMD issues is a shining example of how the game is being played. Kay is now benefiting from his successful efforts to help the Bush administration justify the Iraq war. He was the one who told the government that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna produced a report in 1991, which indicated that Iraq was at the time just six months away from having the bomb. Bush and Blair held a news conference in Crawford, Texas, back in September, touting Kay's claim, and the U.S. media published it prominently. The media did not verify the allegation by talking to representatives of the IAEA, which would have been worth the investment of a few minutes' time, since such a report by the IAEA simply doesn't exist.

When Blair visited Washington a few days ago, he experienced the so-called Gorbachev effect, that of being hated at home but lauded abroad--in this case by the White House. Referring to allegations that his government was the source of faked documents concerning a deal for Iraq to buy uranium from Niger, Blair said, "We're standing by our claim." There are obviously no reasons to do so: The documents Downing Street No. 10 provided to the IAEA are all forged and so far the British government has been reluctant to accept the IAEA's unofficial requests for more documents. It took only "a few hours of Web research," according to IAEA sources, to find out that all the documents on the Iraq-Niger deal delivered by Great Britain are falsified. But U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld stood by the claims, remarking that "no one has said" that the documents on that deal are "not authentic." To that, one IAEA official responded: "He's not telling the truth." Maybe Rumsfeld wants the public to forget that IAEA chief Mohamed El-Baradei talked of falsifications in his report to the UN Security Council on March 7.

While insisting on these nuclear-threat confabulations, the U.S. government has at the same time rendered the IAEA clueless as to the disappearance of radioactive material that could eventually be used in clandestine bomb-making. In June the IAEA inspected the looted Al-Tuwaitha nuclear facility in Iraq and has now presented its findings: Twenty-two kilograms of low-grade uranium are lost, but of more importance, the IAEA team was not allowed by the U.S. authorities to inspect other locations in Al-Tuwaitha, where highly radioactive cesium-137 and cobalt-160 may have been looted.

Thus ignored and restrained, the IAEA has the impression that the current administration is downplaying certain nuclear threats and overestimating others for political reasons. The benefits to the administration of overestimating are clear. Building up the specter of the foreign enemy focuses attention abroad, diminishing domestic rivalry. Convincing foreign partners they share a common threat embroils their leadership in a never-ending war on terrorism.

(Martin Schwarz <martin_schwarz@stories-texte.tk> is author of the forthcoming book (in German) Saddams blutiges Erbe:- Der wirkliche Krieg steht uns noch bevor on the consequences of the Iraq war (http://irak.go.cc/) and the Editor of Das Info-Portal zu den Brennpunkten der Welt (online at http://www.news-network.tk/). He is a regular contributor to Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org).)

III. Letters and Comments

DON'T BE SO CRITICAL OF OUR GOVERNMENT

Re: Fearful Symmetry: Washington and Pyongyang

I guess you haven't figured it out yet, Mr. Feffer. I served in the U.S. Army for 22 years and spent over 4 of those years were in South Korea. It is probably true, that the North Korea Army is not what it was back in the 70s. But, if war breaks out there, the North Korean soldier will fight even harder for something, even the North Korean government cannot instill in him....he knows hunger. Try to enjoy life, and don't be so critical of our government.

It's obvious to me you haven't spent too much time in a uniform lately, if ever at all. You've got to know right know that Kim Jung Il is blaming every country around him for that, and that is the only thing he can feed his troops right now. Too bad this country has done away with the draft, as I believe it would have done your education a lot of good.

- SSG Theodore S. Rasgitis (Kim Tae Lee), U.S. Army / Retired <ktfeed@train.missouri.org>

Response by John Feffer

Thank you for your comments. I couldn't agree more: if challenged, North Korean soldiers will certainly fight hard regardless of their equipment and nutritional state. Any attempt to invade the country will come up against this resolve. Does the North Korean army represent a viable offensive force and therefore a credible threat to surrounding countries? That is a different matter. I don't believe that a malnourished, poorly equipped army poses such a threat in East Asia. As for your lifestyle recommendation, I both enjoy life and, when necessary, criticize my government. Surely this is as good a definition of democracy as you will find.

MORAL QUESTIONS NEEDING ANSWERS

Re: Liberia

The articles show how U.S. foreign policy can go to unfortunate extremes. The Reagan administration strongly erred in its initial support of the Doe administration, and Bush continues with his version of benign neglect with Taylor. Liberians and Africans need a democracy and benefactor that does not cater to the prosperous few over the restless many. The $500 million given by the Reagan administration continues similar trends in Latin America that did not serve the interests of the American people nor the hosts of the region. Liberia offers moral questions that need answers.

- Bill Weightman <BillWeightman@juno.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.

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.

This page was last modified on Monday, July 28, 2003 3:21 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.