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

EDITOR'S COMMENT

CITIZEN GROUPS, GOVERNMENTS, SEEK SCALED BACK FTAA AT MIAMI MINISTERIAL
By Karen Hansen-Kuhn

VICTORY IN MIAMI? FOCUSING GLOBAL JUSTICE EFFORTS BEYOND FTAA
By Mark Engler

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS: TOOLS FOR EFFECTIVE TRADE POLICY IN THE HEMISPHERE
By Kevin P. Gallagher & Hernán Blanco

THE UNITED STATES AND THE FTAA: TIME TO LISTEN
By Kevin P. Gallagher

II. Outside the U.S.

MERCOSUR AND THE FTAA: NEW TENSIONS AND NEW OPTIONS
By Eduardo Gudynas

III. Letters and Comments

UNFOCUSED PROTEST

YOUR WORK WILL BE REMEMBERED

IV. Volunteers

I. Updates and Out-Takes

EDITOR'S COMMENT

This issue of the Progressive Response focuses entirely on the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) negotiations scheduled for later this week in Miami.

We would also like to renew our semi-annual request for funding. Putting out the Progressive Response and other pieces from Foreign Policy in Focus costs money. With the cost of occupation in Iraq still running about $4 billion per month (or $48 billion per year), we'd like to ask the subscribers of the PR to think about contributing $50 per year as a contribution to support the research, analysis, education, outreach, and organizing efforts of Foreign Policy in Focus. The next year will be critical as we launch an active campaign of voter education to highlight the key issues at stake in the 2004 election, an election that clearly offers the choice between empire and democracy. You can contribute online at https://secure.iexposure.com/fpif.org/donate.cfm , call us at 505.388.0208 to make a credit card donation over the phone, or print out our donation form (https://secure.iexposure.com/fpif.org/donate_form.html) and send a contribution by check (please make payable to IRC and note FPIF in the memo section) to: Interhemispheric Resource Center, Box 4506, Albuquerque, NM 87196-4506.

We thank you for your support and as always, we appreciate your feedback, comments, suggestions, and criticisms, which can be sent to the editor at http://www.fpif.org/form_feedback.html .

CITIZEN GROUPS, GOVERNMENTS, SEEK SCALED BACK FTAA AT MIAMI MINISTERIAL
By Karen Hansen-Kuhn

(Editor's Note: The following excerpt from a new policy brief (available in full at http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol8/v8n03miami.html) discusses the background of and prospects for the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) negotiations scheduled for November 20-21 in Miami.)

Trade ministers from the Americas are meeting in Miami November 20-21 to discuss plans to complete--or drastically scale back the scope of--the negotiations of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The FTAA is an ambitious undertaking intended to link every country in the Western Hemisphere (except Cuba) through a free-trade agreement covering a broad array of issues. Proponents claim that the accord would serve to increase trade and economic growth among the participating countries, leading to increased prosperity and strengthened democracy throughout the region. A large and growing number of civil-society organizations and some of the region's governments, on the other hand, are deeply concerned that the proposed accord would have a devastating impact on farmers, working people and the environment, and would consolidate the power of transnational corporations to move in and out of countries at will, with no responsibilities to the communities in which they operate.

The concept of an FTAA was first raised in 1990, when then-President George H. Bush called for a hemispheric accord stretching from "Anchorage to Tierra del Fuego." Formal negotiations for the FTAA began in 1998, with the work divided among nine negotiating groups focused on: agriculture; market access; subsidies and countervailing duties; investment; intellectual-property rights; services; government procurement; competition policy; and dispute resolution. The negotiating groups produced two drafts of the FTAA, published in July 2001 and November 2002. While the publication of those draft texts was groundbreaking, and as a result of demands by civil society, they have been difficult to interpret. Nearly every provision in these texts has been heavily "bracketed", indicating competing proposals on a given issue. Many of the provisions, however, have been lifted nearly verbatim from NAFTA, which is clearly serving as the model for the FTAA. Negotiations are set to conclude in early 2005 so that the resulting agreement could be implemented by the end of that year.

There is currently very little consensus among the participating countries about either the timing or the scope of the FTAA. The United States, along with 12 other nations (those with which the United States either already has or is negotiating bilateral trade deals), is pushing for the completion of an "ambitious" and far-reaching accord on schedule for implementation by 2005. The countries of the Mercosur, the South American common market led by Brazil and Argentina, on the other hand, are advocating a "possible" FTAA, with drastically scaled-back goals. Venezuela and many Caribbean countries have also expressed misgivings about the timing of the negotiations and their scope.

It is entirely possible that the outcome of the Miami FTAA ministerial meeting will be similar to that of the failed Cancun WTO ministerial, with the participating governments unable to reach a consensus about the direction of the trade talks. Governmental concerns are growing in response to the widespread opposition voiced by citizens' groups throughout the hemisphere. This opposition has intensified since the Quebec Peoples Summit in 2001 (held parallel to the official Summit of the Americas), when the Hemispheric Social Alliance (HSA), a broad coalition of labor, environmental, family-farm, women's and other civil-society organizations, announced an ambitious plan to convene a "peoples' consultation" on the FTAA.

Along with its critiques of the FTAA, the HSA has prepared Alternatives for the Americas, a comprehensive proposal for a different kind of trade agreement. The document includes chapters both on the issues under negotiation in the FTAA, and on other relevant social issues that must be included in any agreement if it is to achieve just and sustainable development. Despite prolonged attempts by the HSA and many other civil-society groups to influence the official negotiations, and despite their success in educating the public and affecting public opinion, none of these proposals are reflected in the FTAA. It is therefore unreasonable to expect to transform the FTAA at this late date. The FTAA negotiations, along with those of CAFTA and other bilateral accords designed along the lines of NAFTA, should be scrapped. Only then could a new process begin, one designed with the active participation of affected sectors to achieve just and sustainable development.

(Karen Hansen-Kuhn <khk@developmentgap.org> is a trade program coordinator with The Development GAP.)

VICTORY IN MIAMI? FOCUSING GLOBAL JUSTICE EFFORTS BEYOND FTAA
By Mark Engler

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new discussion paper on the challenges facing the global justice movement and available in full at http://www.fpif.org/papers/miami2003.html .)

Good news has arrived for people concerned with workers' rights and the state of the environment in the hemisphere: When trade ministers meet in Miami this month to negotiate the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), their talks will probably fail. Most likely, their conference will produce only a symbolic declaration of intent and will make no real progress. For those of us who will be protesting the talks, this will be cause for celebration. However, it will also present an important challenge for the global justice movement.

The type of resistance that has gained widespread public attention since the 1999 Seattle, Wash., protests against the World Trade Organization (WTO) has gone far in wresting legitimacy from the neoliberal economic policies long imposed on the developing world and in publicizing the harmful impacts of trade pacts, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). But the FTAA will fail in Miami less because of such outside opposition than because of resistance from the White House. In the past two years, U.S. President George W. Bush and his administration have been inclined to abandon multilateral approaches to trade and development in favor of a newly unmasked nationalist approach to exercising U.S. power abroad. This approach demands a fresh response from social movements resisting imperialism and corporate globalization.

It is clear, however, that the Bush administration's attitude toward globalization differs substantially from former President Bill Clinton's. In contrast to Clinton's support of multilateral negotiations, Bush's stance is as a nationalist. In a marked shift from the Clinton era, Bush's economic nationalism has put many of the leading institutions of globalization at risk. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, which served as dominant mechanisms for exercising U.S. power through the 1990s, have been sidelined in the new century. As far back as the 2000 presidential election, analyst Walden Bello, director of Bangkok's Focus on the Global South, foresaw that these two leading promoters of the so-called "Washington Consensus" would face an inhospitable four years under Bush. "The Bretton Woods institutions," Bello wrote, "will lose their liberal internationalist protectors like Treasury Secretary Larry Summers who believe in using the Fund and Bank as central instruments to achieve U.S. foreign economic policy objectives."

However, our global justice movement has not widely acknowledged that the administration's fervent unilateral approach extends even into the realm of economic relations.

As the global justice movement prepares for the Miami protests, an appreciation of Washington's new approach to foreign policy need not alter our attitude toward multilateral agreements like the FTAA so much as our priorities and our strategies in challenging the global race to the bottom. Since large-scale international treaties will likely be stalled with or without increased activist pressure, we should use our presence at international gatherings to promote a broader set of goals.

Debt cancellation is one topic that could move to the fore of our attention. Success in the past decade at highlighting the devastating impact of developing countries' loan obligations has created a promising climate for forcing real change. With the Bush administration promoting debt forgiveness in Iraq, the United States is poorly positioned to fight against such demands. Further analysis of the developments in the global economy that have influenced Bush's economic nationalism will allow us to put the international debt crisis in a context of larger change and to identify other priority issues.

Moving beyond Miami, we need to prevent the Bush administration from framing its nationalist turn as a program to benefit U.S. workers. Today, globalization is increasingly leading to the loss not only of manufacturing work, but also of white-collar jobs in the United States, in the process dubbed "off-shoring."

Bush may attempt to co-opt this issue in the upcoming election--to convert anti-corporate resentment into the type of nationalism witnessed in the era of former President Ronald Reagan, when protests against U.S. factory downsizing were channeled into Japan-bashing. Progressives must show that the neo-conservative empire-building favored by the White House is as detrimental to labor rights and living wages worldwide as the administration's domestic policy of weakening unions and giving tax cuts to the rich is to the great majority of U.S. citizens. Devoting energy to the issue of jobs will be an important means for U.S. activists to ground our movement in the economic realities faced by working people.

Part of our challenge in rejecting the pejorative label of "anti-globalization" is to promote our own multilateral agenda--a brand of globalization based on international solidarity and just exchange or fair trade. This internationalism should affect not only the solutions we promote for job creation, but also our views of trade policy. While opposing coercive arrangements that maximize wealthy countries' ability to leverage concessions from the South, we should highlight poorer countries' efforts to promote inter-regional commerce and to cooperatively develop their internal markets.

An overemphasis on responding to large, multilateral agreements like the WTO and the FTAA as the leading mechanisms of globalization limits our flexibility in rising to the challenge of changing political and economic conditions. With or without the FTAA, the United States will attempt to expand its power abroad. With or without the FTAA, we need to challenge arrangements that place the drive for corporate profit ahead of local protections for workers and the environment. We need to demand an end to forced privatization and to IMF-imposed cuts in social services. And we need to connect the plight of working people in wealthy countries to the struggles of the world's poor. If we continue to be taken by surprise by the Bush administration's economic nationalism, we will lose important opportunities to advance this agenda.

(Mark Engler, a writer and activist based in New York City, is a commentator for Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org). He can be reached via the web site http://www.DemocracyUprising.com. Research assistance for this paper was provided by Jason Rowe.)

SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS: TOOLS FOR EFFECTIVE TRADE POLICY IN THE HEMISPHERE
By Kevin P. Gallagher & Hernán Blanco

(Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from a new policy report available in full at http://www.fpif.org/papers/tools-for-trade2003.html .)

Sustainability Assessments (SAs) of trade agreements are underutilized tools that could add substantial value to discussions about the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Defined as analyses of the potential social and environmental benefits and costs of proposed trade agreements, SAs are gaining widespread use by governmental and nongovernmental organizations alike.

At this writing, however, the FTAA negotiations are lacking serious discussion of the potential social and environmental implications of the agreement. An official effort to incorporate SAs into the FTAA process, before the negotiations are completed, is urgently needed. Neither the peoples of the Americas nor their governments should be expected to support an FTAA without a full prior assessment of the potential environmental and social consequences of such an agreement.

A number of actors in the hemisphere have begun to conduct SAs of trade agreements in order to gain a fuller understanding of the integration process. According to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), SAs are underway under the auspices of the Chilean, Canadian, and U.S. governments, the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation (NACEC), nongovernmental organizations such as the World Wildlife Federation (WWF), and several academic institutions across the hemisphere. In the United States and Canada (as well as in the European Union), SAs of one form or another are now mandated as a prerequisite for most Free Trade Agreements (FTAs). Civil society organizations such as WWF and others have pursued SAs of their own accord.

Negotiations for economic integration now encompass a wide array of issues in addition to trade, such as investment, government procurement, intellectual property rights, and subsidies. Therefore, SAs often rely on a variety of approaches to ensure that they are of maximum use to policymakers. These approaches fall in two categories: ex-post analyses that examine past experiences with economic integration to draw out lessons for future policy; and ex-ante analyses that use a proposed policy as their starting point. Ex-post studies often draw from a number of quantitative and qualitative methods such as econometric analysis, survey methods, and case studies. Ex-ante studies usually rely on modeling techniques, such as computable general equilibrium analysis. Although ex-ante assessments are often criticized as being highly speculative, they can serve as useful supplements to ex-post analyses.

Under the United States Trade Act of 2002, the U.S. is now required to conduct an assessment of the environmental impacts of proposed trade agreements. The U.S. conducted assessments of the bilateral FTAs with Chile and Singapore, and is planning to do assessments for the FTAA and the new round of global trade negotiations. The U.S. approach to the FTAA assessment has been widely criticized for being overly narrow. In addition to relying on controversial ex-ante modeling approaches, the U.S. plan is too narrowly focused on the environmental effects of trade in goods and services, and virtually ignores the possible effects of changes in other areas such as investment, property rights, competition, and subsidies policies.

The Canadian government tends to draw on a variety of approaches. Canada has conducted an ex-post analysis of the Uruguay Round to draw out lessons for the next round of global trade negotiations. Canada plans to complement that effort with an ex-ante modeling exercise as well. Canada also plans to conduct an evaluation for the FTAA. However, like the U.S., Canada will only be looking at environmental effects.

In Latin American countries, unlike the U.S. and Canada, there has been no concerted initiative to carry out an assessment of the FTAA to date. Such an endeavor should be pursued before the negotiations are completed to assess its overall impact and decide whether such an agreement serves sustainable development goals or to identify and implement preventive measures.

The FTAA conveners should conduct official and publicly released SAs of the potential environmental and social effects of the proposed FTAA before completing negotiations. In addition, any agreement that is reached on the nature of economic integration for the Western Hemisphere should include continuous monitoring of the sustainability impacts of the agreement's subsequent implementation.

A call for bringing SAs into the official FTAA process was made by an array of civil society organizations during the VII Ministerial Conference of the FTAA, held in Quito in October of 2002. This call reiterated similar recommendations made by civil society groups at the 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec. Such calls continue to go unheeded.

A comprehensive set of SAs for the FTAA could help the negotiation process in at least three ways. First, gaining knowledge about the potential social and environmental benefits of various policy options can help policymakers target such benefits. Similarly, gaining knowledge of the potential costs of trade policies can help policymakers ensure that costly policies are avoided or that they are coupled with mitigating strategies. Second, SAs can contribute to identifying "winners" and "losers" of proposed trade policies and thus reveal important asymmetries and serve as a platform for dialogue, mutual education and negotiation, and possible mitigation measures. Finally, SAs can lead to greater social legitimacy for the integration process if they truly involve civil society and promote transparency in their decisionmaking processes.

A comprehensive SA process for the Americas should include five elements. Hemispheric-wide SAs should:

• Take a broad view when analyzing the social and environmental impacts of economic integration, assessing the impacts of regimes such as investment, subsidies, and intellectual property rights as well as changes in market access.
• Be open and transparent, involving stakeholders in an ongoing process that continues if the agreement is implemented.
• Evaluate the environmental and social impacts of the hemispheric experiments with trade reform in the 1990s to draw out lessons for the proposed agreement.
• Provide concrete policy recommendations that can serve as mitigation options or alternatives to proposed FTAA rules.
• Aim at strengthening the institutional capacities of the countries of the hemisphere for assessing the impacts of trade policies.

(Kevin P. Gallagher is with the Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University (USA) and writes regularly for the IRC Americas Program; Hernán Blanco is with Research and Resources for Sustainable Development in Santiago, Chile.)

THE UNITED STATES AND THE FTAA: TIME TO LISTEN
By Kevin P. Gallagher

(Editor's Note: Excerpted from a new commentary provided from the IRC Americas Program and available in full online at http://www.americaspolicy.org/commentary/2003/03111ftaa-commentary.html .)

The eyes of the globalization world will be watching Miami next week when Western Hemisphere trade ministers revisit negotiations for what could be the largest regional trading bloc in the world: the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The big question is whether Miami will be a repeat of recent world trade talks in Cancun. For U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, this is no small concern, as twelve of the 21 developing countries that opposed U.S. trade policy in Cancun are part of the FTAA negotiations. If the U.S. wants to see progress on trade, they will have to listen to the concerns of its southern neighbors.

During the 1990s, virtually every nation in Latin America and the Caribbean listened to the United States. In response to major Latin American economic crises in the 1980s, a "Washington Consensus" preached rapid trade and investment liberalization, mass privatization of state-owned enterprises, and a general reduction of the role of the state in economic affairs. Latin America and the Caribbean dutifully followed the advice.

According to a definitive assessment of the 1990s reforms conducted by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, (ECLAC) only two countries had a faster economic growth rates in the 1990s, than between the years 1950 and 1980--Argentina and Chile. At this writing Chile is the last standing. For the rest of the hemisphere, exports increased significantly, but since imports grew faster many nations have more worrisome trade deficits. Also, investment and productivity recovered relative to the 1980s, but no large gains occurred, and new employment opportunities were few, while the quality of the jobs that were created presents "serious problems." Finally, inequality and poverty increased throughout the region.

The gridlock in Cancun showed that when push came to shove, developing countries were ready. Now, many South American countries--and their civil societies--are ready to go head-to-head again in Miami. Building on the momentum gained at Cancun, South American nations have decided to negotiate a merger between the Mercosur and Andean Pact trading blocs to form a united South America market that will encourage intra-South American trade, and square off against the U.S. in the FTAA negotiations. As for civil society, many South American groups have held plebiscites on the FTAA, and are going to Miami in full force.

All of the most contentious issues that plagued the Cancun talks are on the FTAA table--agriculture, investment, government procurement, competition policy, and subsidies. As in Cancun, our southern neighbors will come with an agenda that demand reductions in agricultural support in the U.S., and an insistence that any new trade rules give nations in the hemisphere the space to install national policies to spur development.

The rest of the hemisphere listened to the U.S. during the 1990s. It is now time for the U.S. to listen to the hemisphere.

(Kevin P. Gallagher is a research associate at the Global Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, USA and an analyst for the IRC Americas Program (online at www.irc-online.org). His most recent book is International Trade and Sustainable Development (co-edited with Jacob Werksman).)

II. Outside the U.S.

MERCOSUR AND THE FTAA: NEW TENSIONS AND NEW OPTIONS
By Eduardo Gudynas

(Editor's Note: The following excerpt is from a new commentary provided by the IRC Americas Program and available in full at http://www.americaspolicy.org/columns/gudynas/2003/0311mercosur.html .)

Integration processes in Latin America have highlighted new topics and new challenges for the Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR). The trade bloc, formally created in 1991 (one year before NAFTA), comprises Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay as full members, and Chile and Bolivia joined as associate members several years later.

MERCOSUR has adopted a series of economic and political objectives that have taken it beyond being merely a free trade agreement, to something resembling an imperfect customs union. Approximately 200 million persons live in the MERCOSUR area, making it the world's third-most-important trade bloc, after NAFTA and the European Union.

Following several years of growth marked by a dizzying expansion of regional trade, MERCOSUR was hit hard, first by devaluation in Brazil, and more recently by the Argentine crisis. Despite these setbacks, the bloc continues to move forward, especially in the political sphere, where it faces crucial tests in connection with the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) negotiations.

Both at the FTAA and in global negotiations, Brazil has sought to use MERCOSUR to leverage its negotiating power and project itself as a regional leader. This stance was first assumed by the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso and has been reinforced by the current administration of Luiz Inacio "Lula" da Silva.

Under Lula, this position has been strengthened and more assertively defined. Brazil's current government has made it clear that the emphasis is no longer on Latin America as a whole but on South America. Lula recently said, "South America is my home," adding: "Mexico and Central America now have other interests; I think South America is closer to making the dream of integration a reality."

Hence, the search for new partners focuses on the Andean countries. Another important change is that there is now less insistence on the Southern Market reaching an agreement with the Andean Community of Nations and more on "expanding" MERCOSUR to include new Andean members. Though not expressed explicitly, there are insinuations that the Andean Community has failed to mature into an integrated bloc whereas MERCOSUR has succeeded.

An expanded MERCOSUR would have greater negotiating leverage vis-à-vis the FTAA, thereby increasing Brazil's importance. Some contested issues with the United States, such as agricultural protectionism or anti-dumping measures, could be more effectively dealt with by a larger MERCOSUR.

Many analysts and officials feel that the growth of MERCOSUR is precisely what worries Washington the most. Each time a step is taken in that direction, the United States counters with opposing measures. In the best-known case, just as Chile was going to join MERCOSUR as a full member, it received an invitation from the Clinton administration to begin negotiating a free trade agreement with the United States. This precedent is important to bear in mind, since it indicates that expanding free trade through new "associated" countries does not necessarily strengthen MERCOSUR.

It is with these strengths and weaknesses that MERCOSUR will come to the FTAA Ministerial Meeting in Miami. The events of recent weeks have turned Brazil into the reverse image of the United States in these trade negotiations, both due to Brazil's own interests and due to the alignment of other important nations--including Mexico, Chile, and Colombia--with Washington.

Without additional support for its demands for U.S. concessions on hemispheric trade, MERCOSUR risks becoming isolated in those complex discussions. In fact, Brazil faces possible isolation both in the FTAA and within MERCOSUR. The negotiations in Miami will, then, have repercussions not only at the hemispheric level but also for the future of integration in the Southern Cone. MERCOSUR's future largely depends on the FTAA: If MERCOSUR remains confined to a free trade agreement while a hemispheric free trade agreement is simultaneously approved, MERCOSUR will lose its very purpose. Therefore, the solution for MERCOSUR is to further strengthen regional integration.

(Eduardo Gudynas is an information analyst at D3E (Desarrollo, Economía, Ecología y Equidad en América Latina; www.globalization.org). He is a regular columnist for the IRC Americas Program (online at www.americaspolicy.org).)

III. Letters and Comments

UNFOCUSED PROTEST

Re: Free Trade Area of the Americas (http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol8/v8n03miami.html and http://www.fpif.org/papers/miami2003.html)

The protest in Miami is not very focused. I am afraid many young people are going to be hurt in this one. We get letters telling us it is going to be "violent and militant," which means that the points you want to make are going to be lost in the scramble. Many who are attending do not take an interest in local politics nor do they vote.

The only place that these issues can really be fought is within our own government. All the money and time being spent on a protest most will ignore, as if swatting away gnats, could be used to actually change policy, and to really educate people, in a clear way, as to what is going on. Instead of coming at this from a point of "we are victims" it would be so nice to see real change initiated from a place of peace.

I shudder at this one, I tell ya.

- Glenna Mayer <NoRealHat@aol.com>

YOUR WORK WILL BE REMEMBERED

Re: The Syrian Accountability Act and the Triumph of Hegemony

I had to invest much time to reading it, but it is surely worth it. Though I knew much of the material, it was much better organized and detailed in the article than in my mind. After reading it, I feel I am a more informed person in this subject. It was a teaching article in many aspects. One of the best ones I have ever read. Thanks to you Stephen Zunes for the effort, and all the FPIF team. Your work will be remembered by many.

- Saieb Khalil <saieb@iraqcd.com>

IV. Volunteers

The Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) is a progressive think tank in Silver City, NM. We have three initiatives, Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org), the Americas Program (www.americaspolicy.org), and our new Right Web project (to be launched on December 1st at: rightweb.irc-online.org). IRC websites receive an average of 16,000 visitors per day.

We are looking for volunteers to become members of our international team of researchers. If you are passionate about foreign policy issues, U.S.-Latin America relations, or the role of the right wing, and have some Internet research skills, we need your help.

We are looking for volunteers because we have more work to do than money to pay for it--and because we, like you, are part of a national and progressive movement that is determined to increase our advocacy and activism in the one year we have before the next general election.

In exactly one year, we will have the opportunity to stop our government from pursuing its unilateral, militarist agenda. To see what kinds of volunteer tasks we've asked to be completed in the past, visit the archive of our volunteer listserv at http://www.topica.com/lists/IRCnet/read . If you're interested in helping, please email Siri at: siri@irc-online.org.

Thank you.

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 Tuesday, November 18, 2003 5:14 PM
Contact the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2001 IRC and IPS. All rights reserved.