The Progressive Response
Volume 8, Number 12
April 20, 2004
Editor: John Gershman, Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC)
| Foreign Policy In Focus | |
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) and co-director of FPIF. He can be contacted at <john@irc-online.org>.
Table of Contents
I. Updates and Out-Takes
OUTSOURCING: A POLICY AGENDA
By Sarah Anderson and John CavanaghOF TESTIMONY AND TERRORISM: 9/11 COMMISSION TESTIMONY REVEALS BUSH ADMINISTRATION LACKED FOCUS ON TERRORISM PRIOR TO ATTACKS
By Melvin A. GoodmanFROM IRAQI OCCUPATION TO ISLAMIC REFORMATION: NEOCONS AIM BEYOND BAGHDAD
By Jim LobeAFGHANISTAN: ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK
By Bushra AsifNUCLEAR DOMINOES: WILL NORTH KOREA FOLLOW LIBYA'S LEAD?
By Mark CaprioLEO STRAUSS AND INTELLIGENCE STRATEGY
By Tom Barry
II. Letters and Comments
SELECTIVE STANDARDS ON INTERNATIONAL LAW?
I. Updates and Out-Takes
OUTSOURCING: A POLICY AGENDA
By Sarah Anderson and John Cavanagh
(Editor’s Note: Excerpted from a new policy brief available in full at http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol9/v9n02outsource.html.)
Don’t worry; they’ll get better jobs in the service sector.” During the last three decades of the 20th century, this was the mantra of most government and business leaders when corporations transferred auto or apparel jobs to Mexico or China. That line doesn’t work anymore, since U.S. companies have started shifting a wide range of service jobs as well--from high-skill computer programming to entry-level call center jobs--to India and other lower-wage nations. This breaching of the final frontier of American jobs has caused understandable anxiety and has become a hot-button issue in the presidential election campaign.
Forrester Research estimates that about 40 percent of Fortune 1,000 firms have already outsourced some work and that at least another 3 million service jobs will leave the United States by 2015, led by information technology work. A study by the University of California, Berkeley estimates that 14 million U.S. jobs (11 percent of the total work force) are vulnerable to being outsourced.
Although the number of jobs lost so far is small relative to the total work force, these layoffs have a huge impact on the affected communities, and the potential for white-collar jobs to be offshored is deeply unsettling for many American workers. In addition to job cuts, service workers must now also contend with the enhanced power of highly mobile, increasingly unregulated global corporations to bargain down U.S. wages and working conditions by threatening to move jobs elsewhere.
The overall goal of U.S. policy on outsourcing should be to attack the factors that make workers--in the U.S. as well as around the world--vulnerable to exploitation by increasingly mobile and unregulated global corporations. The approach needs to recognize that raising standards overseas is vital to retaining stable and substantial jobs at home.
This requires a multifaceted response encompassing changes in domestic tax, procurement and labor laws as well as in multilateral trade, finance and aid policies.
On the domestic side, a first step should be to reform tax and procurement policies at all levels of government to ensure that they support good jobs in the United States. Additional subsidies that enhance the incentives for corporations to shift jobs overseas should also be eliminated. These include risk insurance and loan guarantees provided by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation as well as technical assistance and other supports offered by the U.S. Trade and Development Agency. The domestic policy response should also involve labor law reforms that reduce current obstacles to union organizing and that beef up rules related to laying off workers.
However, domestic measures, while significant, do not address the biggest incentive for outsourcing--extreme wage gaps. Tackling this problem will require a long-term commitment to supporting sustainable economic activity in poor countries and should focus on the factors that make workers around the world vulnerable to exploitation by global companies.
One of these factors is lax enforcement of internationally recognized labor rights, which artificially depresses wages. Any labor rights initiative, however, should be integrated within a broader strategy toward poorer nations.
Other factors that make workers vulnerable are high unemployment and poverty. Although national governments are not without responsibility for these problems, international financial institutions and trade agreements have played an exacerbating role.
To enhance this new and broader strategy toward poorer nations, the U.S. government should advocate for stronger international mechanisms to transfer resources from richer to poorer countries. Where appropriate, this would include debt reduction or cancellation. Washington could also promote the adoption of international taxes on both foreign exchange transactions and arms sales to generate revenues for development purposes. The U.S. must also revamp its development aid policies to emphasize anti-poverty measures, healthy communities and a clean environment rather than handouts to U.S. corporations like Halliburton and Bechtel.
In short, a comprehensive response to corporate outsourcing requires a sea change in the outlook of both the U.S. public and its politicians toward America’s role in the world. Just as Americans are less secure when much of the world is plagued by extreme poverty, inequality and instability, worker exploitation overseas translates into exploited workers and less secure jobs at home. The electoral debate over outsourcing offers an opportunity to create a new policy approach that combines solidarity with self-interest in a whole-scale effort to benefit the entire world.
(Sarah Anderson is the Director of in the Global Economy Program at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) and John Cavanagh is the Director of IPS (www.ips-dc.org).)
OF TESTIMONY AND TERRORISM: 9/11 COMMISSION TESTIMONY REVEALS BUSH ADMINISTRATION LACKED FOCUS ON TERRORISM PRIOR TO ATTACKS
By Melvin A. Goodman
(Editor’s Note: Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary available in full at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0404testimony.html.)
Condoleezza Rice’s testimony to the 9/11 commission supports Richard Clarke’s charges to the commission that the Bush administration reduced the urgency of the problem of counter-terrorism--and that the invasion of Iraq marked a major diversion from the “war against terrorism.” Rice has opened a new line of questioning for the commissioners with her false claim that the Bush administration is responsible for the “greatest reorganization of government” since President Harry Truman’s National Security Act of 1947.
Rice’s testimony confirms that there were 33 meetings of high-level members of the Bush administration in 2001 before there was any meeting on the problem of counter-terrorism. She noted that Vice President Cheney was told in May 2001 to supervise the role of domestic agencies in the campaign against terrorism but Cheney formed no task force and held no meetings. Rice claimed that the FBI, the FAA, and the Department of Transportation were given explicit orders in the summer of 2001 to step up security activities in their respective areas, but the directors of these agencies recall no communication from Rice regarding an increased security threat. This fact is particularly important because the national security adviser is charged not only with making sure that all policy-relevant information is put in front of the president, but monitoring the performance of all security agencies in carrying orders from the White House.
This information is supported by testimony from key government officials who have told the commission in private that the Bush administration seemed to give a lower priority to counter-terrorism than the Clinton administration. The deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the undersecretary of state have made similar claims to the commission. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, moreover, did not appoint an assistant secretary for counter-terrorism until after the attacks on 9/11.
Rice unwittingly confirmed that the war in Iraq will undermine key elements of the war against terrorism. She proclaimed to the commission that the Clinton administration lacked a strategic policy toward terrorism. “ America’s al Qaeda policy wasn’t working because our Afghanistan policy wasn’t working. And our Afghanistan policy wasn’t working because our Pakistan policy wasn’t working.” In the wake of the invasion of Iraq, al Qaeda forces are returning to Afghanistan and taking up positions in Iraq; Taliban forces are returning to Afghanistan in large numbers; Pakistan is providing less support to U.S. forces in Pakistan because of U.S. bombing of key Shiite cities, even mosques, in Iraq.
(Melvin A. Goodman is senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and co-author of Bush League Diplomacy: How the Neoconservatives are Putting the World at Risk (Prometheus Books, March 2004). He is a regular commentator for Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org).)
FROM IRAQI OCCUPATION TO ISLAMIC REFORMATION: NEOCONS AIM BEYOND BAGHDAD
By Jim Lobe
(Editor’s Note: Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary available in full at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0404neocons.html.)
No one ever said that U.S. neoconservatives lack ambition.
When George W. Bush was still a presidential candidate, he dismissed the nation-building efforts of the Clinton administration as trivial to the national security interests of the United States. But many neoconservatives both inside and outside the Bush administration have their eyes set on something far greater than “mere” nation-building exercises in Iraq. They see Islam itself as ripe for a U.S.-led reconstruction effort.
“We need an Islamic reformation,” Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz confided on the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq last year, “and I think there is real hope for one.” Echoing those views one year later, another prominent neoconservative, Daniel Pipes of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum (MEF), recently declared that the “ultimate goal” of the war on terrorism had to be Islam’s modernization, or, as he put it, “religion-building.”
Such an effort needs to be waged not only in the Islamic world, geographically speaking, added Pipes, who last year was appointed by President George W. Bush to the board of directors of the U.S. Institute for Peace (USIP), but also among Muslims in the West, where, in his view, they are too often represented by “Islamist (or militant Islamic)” organizations.
Pipes is currently seeking funding for a new organization, tentatively named the “Islamic Progress Institute” (IPI), which “can articulate a moderate, modern and pro-American viewpoint” on behalf of U.S. Muslims and that, according to a grant proposal by Pipes and two New York-based foundations, can “go head-to-head with the established Islamist institutions.”
“Through adroit media activity and political efforts,” says the proposal, “advocates for a supremacist and totalitarian form of Islam in the United States--such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA)--have effectively established themselves as the spokesmen for all Muslims in the country.”
“This situation is fraught with dangers for moderate Muslims as well as for non-Muslims,” the proposal continues, adding, “Islam in America must be American Islam or it will not be integrated; there can be no place for an Islam in America that functions as a seditious conspiracy aimed at wiping out American values, undermining American inter-faith civility, and, in effect, dictating the form of Islam that will be followed in America.”
Leaders of the three groups named by Pipes strongly deny his characterizations of their views, and stress that they, like Catholic, Protestant and Jewish groups in the United States that promote the interests of their members are neither more nor less radical or chauvinistic in their political or theological views than their non-Muslim counterparts.
(Jim Lobe is a political analyst with Foreign Policy in Focus (online at www.fpif.org). He also writes regularly for Inter Press Service.)
AFGHANISTAN: ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK
By Bushra Asif
(Editor’s Note: Excerpted from a new global affairs commentary available in full at http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2004/0404afghanistan.html.)
As donors met in Berlin last week to review Afghanistan’s progress and reaffirm their commitment to its reconstruction, the Afghan National army was swiftly moving into the northern province of Herat. Its mission was to quell an upsurge in factional fighting, following the murder of Mirwais Sadeq, the Afghan aviation minister and son of the powerful warlord and governor Ismail Khan. Although the army may have prevented the escalation of violence, the episode highlights the weakness of the central government and the fragility of security in the country. Almost two years after the fall of the Taliban, peace and security in Afghanistan still remains elusive.
The establishment of Hamid Karzai’s interim Afghan government and the presence of U.S. forces had temporarily curbed factional infighting between warring ethnic militias, but did little to reduce the influence of regional warlords or improve security beyond Kabul. In the absence of effective central authority, different parts of Afghanistan continue to suffer from chronic insecurity and violence. More than 220 Afghan officials, civilians, and aid workers were killed in 36 separate armed attacks in and outside Kabul in August 2003 alone. 2004 was not much better. January was marked by a series of suicide bombings and ambushes, particularly in the Pashtun-populated east and south, where Taliban insurgents are staging a come back.
The pace of reconstruction in Afghanistan too has been exceedingly slow. Inadequate funds, lack of coordination among international aid agencies, and increasing insecurity outside Kabul have hampered reconstruction efforts. Not only were initial disbursements, following the Tokyo 2002 donor conference, insufficient to meet Afghanistan’s developmental needs, delivery was often slow and a disproportionate amount of the allocated resources was spent on short-term, humanitarian emergency relief rather than reconstruction. According to CARE International, a British nongovernmental organization, the amount per person per year pledged to Afghanistan was no more than a quarter than the amount actually spent on post-conflict recovery in Rawanda, Kosovo, Cambodia, and East Timor. Only 16% of this aid was channeled through the Afghan central government.
Lack of security also continues to be a major hurdle. Mounting attacks on aid personnel have all but stalled reconstruction in most of the countryside. Over the past two months more than 11 aid workers have been slain. Large areas have been declared “medium to high risk” by NGOs. According to the UN, one third of the country, including 60% of the south and 20% of the south-east, is off-limits to its staff. The need for foreign troops to address these threats is acute.
(Bushra Asif is a visiting researcher at the South Asia Program of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), in Washington, DC. She wrote this for Foreign Policy in Focus (www.fpif.org).)
NUCLEAR DOMINOES: WILL NORTH KOREA FOLLOW LIBYA'S LEAD?
By Mark Caprio
(Editor’s Note: Excerpted from a new policy report available in full at http://www.fpif.org/papers/2004nuke.html.)
The Libyan Foreign Ministry's December 19, 2003 "Statement" outlining its plan to "get rid of [weapons of mass destruction] materials, equipment and programs, and to become totally free of internationally banned weapons" prompted some to ponder whether North Korea might be next. Will the Northeast Asian "rogue state" join the Middle East "rogue state" in renouncing its nuclear weapons programs? The Japanese weekly magazine Aera questioned whether Kim Jong Il would follow the cooperative path of Muammar Kaddafi, or continue along the confrontational, and ultimately self-destructive, path that Saddam Hussein trod. In an interview with the Nikkei Press, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage held out this offer: if they chose to voluntarily end their weapons programs like Libya, North Korea "would very rapidly find herself integrated into the vibrant community of East Asia." Neither of these two statements, however, address the central fact that the capacity to produce nuclear weapons, or the threat of their production, is the lone asset that the North Korean government under U.S. threat has as a bargaining chip in its effort to survive. Like other states, North Korea and Libya respond to international developments not as part of a "rogue alliance" but on the basis of analysis of their specific interests and needs.
Assumptions that Libya's decision to eliminate these weapons programs was influenced by what Armitage called "muscular multilateralism"--the United States allying itself with friends and arming itself with sanctions to prod wayward states to move in a desired direction--merits scrutiny. Many hold that the U.S.-Great Britain invasion and overthrow of the Hussein regime, and the eventual capture of its leader, cowed Kaddafi into what William Safire has called "pre-emptive surrender." The United States seeks a similar capitulation from North Korea to be achieved, if possible, through six-party negotiations.
The present Bush regime claims that the defeat of Iraq, and capture of its leader, is the felled domino that toppled one despot, and will humble other totalitarian regimes. There is, however, little reason to believe that the apparent Bush administration victory in Libya will lead other states, in particular North Korea, to halt nuclear development programs or discard their nuclear weapons. It remains necessary to subject the conditions of each state to close examination within a framework of understanding regional and global power relations.
Lacking a commodity in demand, such as oil or diamonds, North Korea possesses little of value to offer the international community to barter its cooperation, and much to lose by giving up its nuclear card, unless it is confident that this concession would strengthen its national security. The United States would also lose a number of its cards by North Korean disclosure and disarmament of its weapons programs, which might explain its reluctance to engage the state in negotiation. The loss of this threat would bring into question the necessity of its continuing to maintain 100,000 troops in the Northeast Asian region; it might cause its allies in the region to reconsider their pledges to deploy the missile defense system that the U.S. has been pressuring them to accept. A diminished U.S. regional influence could encourage closer regional economic and security ties, rather than the regional arms race that many argue a U.S. military withdrawal would provoke. The potential loss of this influence would severely compromise U.S. economic and security interests in the Northeast Asian region.
Maintaining the status quo--using the North Korean threat to maintain dependency relations with Japan and South Korea--sustains super-charged regional relations with high potential for war. The United States, as North Korea's primary threat, must take the initiative to create the conciliatory atmosphere needed to nurture peaceful change. Rather than projecting engagement with North Korea as "rewarding bad behavior" or "succumbing to nuclear blackmail," the Bush administration should acknowledge the progress that tit-for-tat diplomacy has made in the past, and its necessity for nurturing the conciliatory atmosphere that two states harboring a profound mistrust toward each other require to peacefully resolve their differences. Rather than anticipation of it following in a fellow "rogue" state's footsteps, a plan that addresses the needs and interests of the North Korean state and by extension the peace and security of Northeast Asia, offers a better chance of securing North Korean cooperation in disclosure and disarmament of its nuclear arms programs, if, in fact, these weapons do indeed exist.
(Mark Caprio, a specialist on Japan-Korea Relations, teaches at Rikkyo University. This is reprinted by Foreign Policy in Focus (www.fpif.org) with permission from Japan Focus (www.japanfocus.org).)
LEO STRAUSS AND INTELLIGENCE STRATEGY
By Tom Barry
(Editor’s Note: Excerpted from a new commentary produced by IRC’s Right Web project available in full at http://rightweb.irc-online.org/analysis/2004/0402nsai.php.)
Abram Shulsky and Gary Schmitt credit the teachings of Leo Strauss, a German Jewish émigré philosopher, with helping them conceptualize their understanding of good intelligence. Shulsky received his doctorate from the University of Chicago studying under Strauss, who attracted a cult following of neocons with his theories about politics and human nature. Shadia Drury, author of several books on Straussian political philosophy, said that Leo Strauss believed that “truth is not salutary, but dangerous, and even destructive to society--any society.”
In their joint 1999 essay, “Leo Strauss and the World of Intelligence,” Shulsky and Schmitt observed that CIA analysts “were generally reluctant throughout the cold war to believe that they could be deceived about any critical questions by the Soviet Union or other Communist states.” But “history has shown this view to be extremely naïve.” Unlike the Soviet Union , which operated with Machiavellian sophistication, according to Shulsky and Schmitt, the U.S. government was constrained by its democratic and moral principles during the cold war.
A political philosophy more closely hewed to the classic philosophers, particularly Plato, and the realist philosophers, such as Strauss, could provide an “antidote” to the CIA's failings, the authors claimed. Such a philosophy of intelligence would help the U.S. government understand Islamic leaders “whose intellectual world was so different from our own.” To truly grasp a given situation, contend Shulsky and Schmitt, it is necessary to penetrate the surface of information to uncover what Strauss called “the hidden meaning” in political dealings. Such a perspective, they said, “alerts one to the possibility that political life may be closely linked to deception. Indeed, it suggests that deception is the norm in political life, and the hope, to say nothing of the expectation, of establishing a politics that can dispense with it is the exception.”
According to Shulsky and Schmitt, for the United States to operate with good intelligence, it should stop being a naïve player in a very cruel world. Given that adversaries aim to deceive, these two Straussian intelligence analysts warned that astute intelligence experts “can rarely be confident of the solidity of the foundations on which they are building; they must be open to the possibility that their evidence is misleading.” Hence, effective intelligence should rely more on analysis of the intentions of adversaries rather than on details and uncertainties.
In her book Leo Strauss and the American Right, Shadia Drury elaborates on Strauss' view that a political aristocracy must necessarily manipulate the masses for their own good. The Straussian worldview, according to Drury, contends that “perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them.”
(Tom Barry is the policy director at the Interhemispheric Resource Center (www.irc-online.org).)
II. Letters and Comments
Re: U.S. Defense of Israeli Assassinations Is Counterproductive
What can we expect from the media if a professor [Stephen Zunes] writes something like this. In what follows I present quotes from the piece followed by my critique:
1. "Furthermore, even if Ahmed Yassin was complicit in earlier acts of terrorism, the elderly, quadriplegic sheik would still be considered a 'protected person.'" Yassin personally gave orders to attack civilians, his conditions weren’t a problem to order acts of terror.
2. "Yassin was a spiritual leader, not a military leader." Joseph Goebbels was a spiritual leader and he never "personally" killed anyone--does that mean he could not be targeted? Hitler, who never was in a good health after World War I did not "personally" kill anyone--is that supposed to give him immunity? That’s ridiculous.
3. "In more recent, years Sheik Yassin had been considered a relatively moderate voice." This is an insult to any mentally normal person’s intelligence. If Yassin was a moderate who is an extremist?
4. At least try to be honest: "...in the late 1980s, the Israelis closed down the Palestinian Center for the Study of Nonviolence (PCSNV) while allowing Hamas to operate openly." Until 1984 Hamas was a religious welfare organization and did not participate in acts of terror, while at the same time the PLO was a neck deep in terror.
5. I have to apologize for my English, it is not my native language--but there are no apologies for your extreme anti-Israeli bias. It is a horror that you are actually teaching. Now I understand why there is such a violent anti-Israeli bias in some American colleges and universities.
- Albert Epshteyn <asrs6319@estart.com>
Let me respond point by point:
1. A "protected person," according to the Fourth Geneva Conventions, is defined as someone “taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces … placed hors de combat [out of combat] by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause.” Despite his advocacy of terrorism, Yassin would fall under that category.
2. Goebels was not a religious figure like Yassin. Both Goebbels and Hitler were actively involved in managing the daily operations of the Nazi regime. And Hamas' crimes pale compared to the Nazis.
3. I said he was a "relatively moderate voice" within Hamas, which I consider an extremist organization. Within Hamas, his successor, Abdel Aziz Rantisi, is even more extreme, as I described in the article.
4. The Israeli closure of the Palestinian Center for the Study of Nonviolence and the expulsion of Mubarak Awad took place in 1988, long after Sheik Yassin's violent anti-Israel ideology was well-known and the PLO's terrorist operations had largely been suspended by 1988. In any case, Awad and the PCSNV had no affiliation with the PLO.
5. Opposing particular policies of the Sharon government is no more "anti-Israel" than opposing particular policies of the Bush administration is "anti-American." I unconditionally support Israel's right to exist in peace and security and I unconditionally oppose terrorism. Therefore, I cannot imagine how any of my students would develop a "violent anti-Israeli bias" as a result of my teaching. More importantly, while I freely express my own views in my analyses for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project, I try to be balanced and objective in the classroom.
SELECTIVE STANDARDS ON INTERNATIONAL LAW?
Re: U.S. Defense of Israeli Assassinations Is Counterproductive
Sheik Yassin was a quadraplegic since he was a little boy, but he still managed to be responsible for hundreds of Jewish deaths. Also, yes, Israel is a country bound by international laws, but why does your organization completely ignore the international laws broken by the Palestinian Authority, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad? Isn't this a little selective?
- Brett Freeman <bf8571a@yahoo.com>
That Sheik Yassin was a quadriplegic was not what made him a non-combatant, according to the Fourth Geneva Conventions. It was the fact that he was not actively engaged in military operations, as were the six able-bodied persons who were killed along with him.
Targeting civilians by the military wings of Hamas and Islamic Jihad is clearly illegal, according to international law. Since my article focused upon U.S. policy, however, and since the United States already condemns the policies of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, I chose to focus on a case where the U.S. still supports illegal actions, such as the policies of the rightist government of Israel.
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.
Published by Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF), a joint project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org) and the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS, online at www.ips-dc.org). ©2004. All rights reserved.
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.orgSimply 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 US 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, April 20, 2004 3:02 PM
Contact
the IRC's webmaster with inquiries regarding
the functionality of this website.
Copyright © 2004 IRC
and IPS. All rights reserved.