-Caveat Lector- ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Thu, 27 May 1999 13:00:53 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Progressive Response <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Turkey, Population, Russia -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Progressive Response 27 May 1999 Vol. 3, No. 19 Editor: Tom Barry -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Progressive Response (PR} is a weekly service of Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF), a joint project of the Interhemispheric Resource Center and the Institute for Policy Studies. We encourage responses to the opinions expressed in PR. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table of Contents I Updates and Out-Takes *** REALPOLITIK IN TURKEY *** *** POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT *** By Robert Engelman, Population Action International II. Comments *** NOT IMPRESSIVE ANALYSIS OF U.S.-SOVIET AFFAIRS *** *** FEFFER RESPONDS *** *** KOSOVO: DON'T BE FOOLED *** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** REALPOLITIK IN TURKEY *** (Ed. Note: Figuring out the various factors that drive U.S. foreign policy is sometimes a perplexin g challenge (the Kosovo bombing, for example), but for the most part the driving forces behind U.S. operations abroad are more readily identified. It's usually a mix of the realpolitik of maintainin g a dominant U.S. geopolitical position and fostering U.S. national interests (usually narrowly def ined as those interests of the leading business sectors). To see how this type of power- and intere st-based politics plays out, one has only to look at the current dynamics shaping U.S.-Turkey relat ions. On the home front are the weapons manufacturers, who have long benefited from a U.S. foreign policy that regards Turkey as a strategic ally and thus deserving of generous military aid and weapons sa les. Human rights advocates have in recent years succeeded in increasing public awareness of the pa ttern of gross abuses of human rights in Turkey. One result of this new concern was a 1997 State De partment agreement to link an export license to human rights improvements. But there are signs that human rights considerations are being pushed aside by wrongheaded interpre tations of U.S. strategic interests, Washington's anxiety about keeping the NATO alliance unified i n the Kosovo bombing campaign, and lobbying by a U.S. weapons industry eager to profit from Turkey' s $30 billion military modernization program over the next eight years. While public pressure is mounting for gun control at home, political pressure is heating up for mor e U.S. weapons sales abroad. Experts on U.S. policy in Turkey and arms exports say that the Clinton administration's commitment to human rights in Turkey may be a casualty of Washington's efforts to secure continued Turkish support for U.S. military activities in the region, including the use of Turkish bases to launch air attacks on Kosovo and to defend the "no fly zone" in northern Iraq. "Turkey has benefited from a U.S. policy that is long on military assistance and short on criticism ," writes Tamar Gabelnick in a new Foreign Policy In Focus brief, Turkey: Arms and Human Rights. Ga belnick, who is acting director of the Federation of Atomic Scientists' Arms Monitoring Project, no tes that while Turkey is actively supporting the NATO campaign against ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, it uses U.S. weapons to support its own war against its Kurdish population. According to Defense News and Turkish press reports, Ankara has recently demanded that Washington l ift all restrictions on weapons transfers, allow a range of new weapons purchases, and cancel its $ 6 billion debt to the United States. Turkey's new demands have received congressional support in th e form of a letter from 37 senators, led by Sen. Jesse Helms, to President Clinton urging he grant Turkey's request to increase its U.S. weapons purchases. Gabelnick asserts, "The senator's claim th at Turkey is a 'reliable ally' is false. Turkey's aggressive posture toward Greece and Cyprus is a destabilizing force in the Aegean region. Any new sales of U.S. arms would not help stabilize the r egion but fuel more conflict, worsen the plight of the Kurds, and bolster Turkey's repressive milit ary apparatus." Gabelnick further observes, "If the Clinton administration yields to this pressure, it will mark a complete reversal of Washington's small but important pledge, made in 1997, to link a possible sale of attack helicopters to Turkey to human rights improvements." "It's hard to understand why our government continues to pour sophisticated weaponry to a military- dominated government that openly stifles dissent and represses large segments of the population," s tates Mike Amitay, director of the Washington Kurdish Institute. "Increased and unrestricted U.S. m ilitary aid and arms sales only encourage continued repression and will not contribute to the devel opment of a stable, democratic ally in this difficult region The following are the recommendations that Gabelnick makes for a more responsible U.S. foreign poli cy in Turkey, with particular focus on this current issue of continued weapons transfers. They are excerpted from Turkey: Arms and Human Rights, a new FPIF policy brief that is posted in its entiret y at http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/briefs/vol4/v4n16turk.html) Toward a New Foreign Policy in Turkey By Tamar Gabelnick, Federation of American Scientists Vague U.S. law gives the Clinton administration a great deal of discretion over arms export approva ls. When a sale to a close ally like Turkey is at stake, the immediate financial and political grat ification of an arms sale is almost always favored over the longer-term benefits of restraint. For this reason, U.S. arms export law should be amended to include more precise eligibility criteria. L egislation introduced in the past three Congresses--the Arms Transfers Code of Conduct--would preve nt arms sales to states that are undemocratic, abuse their citizens' human rights, are engaged in a cts of armed aggression, or do not fully participate in the UN Register of Conventional Weapons, un less the President issues a national security waiver. Unlike present law, these disqualifying categ ories are fully defined so that decisions can be made according to clear, consistent criteria. If a code of conduct were in place, Turkey would not qualify for arms sales until it ended the war with the PKK, guaranteed the rights of all Turkish citizens, and ended its aggressive posturing tow ard Greece. Although the Clinton administration would probably take advantage of the code's nationa l security waiver, the process of denying eligibility and then justifying the sale on national secu rity grounds would add a degree of scrutiny that might cause both the buyer and the seller to recon sider. In the meantime, the U.S. State Department should honor its pledge to withhold an export license fo r attack helicopters until Turkey takes serious steps to meet agreed-upon human rights conditions. In a March 1999 meeting between nongovernmental groups and Assistant Secretaries of State Grossman and Koh, the U.S. officials appeared optimistic that significant improvements could be achieved bef ore Turkey makes its arms purchasing decision, expected in the next six to eight months. Yet the st rong showing for both the nationalist DSP and the extreme-right National Action Party (MHP) in rece nt elections does not bode well for a positive policy shift in the near future. The U.S. State Department must not accept promises in exchange for real change; past pledges to ref orm human rights laws and practices have not translated into actual reforms. Moreover, until the Tu rkish government rescinds the state of emergency in the Southeast and allows U.S. government offici als access to the region, Washington will be unable either to verify official claims of improvement s or to ensure that future arms shipments are not used in human rights abuses. Rather than trusting the Turkish government to use U.S. arms appropriately, America should refrain from selling arms un til independent verification is possible. The attack helicopter sale provides a good test case for the new U.S. policy with its due emphasis on human rights, but it should not be a unique occurrence. By adopting a consistent set of firm cri teria, such as the Arms Transfers Code of Conduct, the U.S. government would affirm that short-term goals--in this case logistical support for U.S. policy toward Iraq--do not outweigh longer-term go als, such as a democratic and stable Turkey. U.S. interests in the Aegean region go far beyond cont aining Saddam Hussein, and a free-flowing arms sales policy undercuts other strategic, political, a nd economic objectives. Moreover, the U.S. policy of maintaining a no-fly-zone in northern Iraq is absurdly illogical. U.S. jets based at Incirlik, Turkey, patrol Iraqi airspace--and have recently bombed air-defense system s--in order to protect the Kurdish population from military attacks. Yet in regular sorties north o f the Iraqi border, Turkey simultaneously uses U.S.-exported jets and attack helicopters--and U.S.- supplied intelligence--to target the same Kurdish population in Turkey. Washington must issue a strong statement of concern over human rights and democratic practices and back it with an arms embargo--as several European states have done--for Turkey to take U.S. concern s seriously. State Department officials assert that they use bilateral discussions to push for demo cratic and human rights reforms. Given the dismal failure of these efforts, either arms sales have not provided the U.S. with enough influence, or U.S. officials have not cared to exercise their sup posed clout to defend these foreign policy goals. Withholding arms to Turkey can help achieve such goals by denying the physical and political support the Turkish military needs to continue its civi l conflict with the PKK, its stranglehold on Turkish politics, and its maintenance of a political s ystem based on exclusion and repression. (Tamar Gabelnick ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) is Acting Director of the Arms Sales Monitoring Project of the Fe deration of American of Scientists.) Sources for More Information Amnesty International Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.amnesty-usa.org/ Contact: Maureen Greenwood Federation of American Scientists Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/turkey.htm Contact: Tamar Gabelnick Human Rights Watch Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.hrw.org/ Contact: Betsy Anderson Lawyers Committee on Human Rights Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.lchr.org/ Contact: Jerry Fowler Washington Kurdish Institute Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.clark.net/kurd/ Contact: Mike Amitay World Policy Institute Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact: Bill Hartung Kurdish Worldwide Resources http://www.kurdish.com/ State Dept. Turkey Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1998 http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/1998_hrp_report/turkey.html U.S Military Equipment And Human Rights Violations http://www.fas.org/asmp/library/state/turkey_dos_USweapons.htm Violations of Free Expression in Turkey http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/turkey/index.htm -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** POPULATION AND ENVIRONMENT *** By Robert Engelman, Population Action International (The full text of this new FPIF policy brief is posted at http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/brie fs/vol4/v4n14pop.html) The long debate over the impact of population growth on the environment is gradually converging on a middle ground where most scientists can agree. The need now is to prod U.S. policymakers--distrac ted by political battles over abortion--to a consensus on which they can act. Sound population poli cies can brighten environmental prospects while improving life for women and children, enhancing ec onomic development, and contributing to a more secure world. Changes in population size, age, and distribution affect issues ranging from food security to clima te change. Population variables interact with consumption patterns, technologies, and political and economic structures to influence environmental change. This interaction helps explain why environm ental conditions can deteriorate even as the growth of population slows. Despite slowing growth, world population still gains nearly 80 million people each year, parceling land, fresh water, and other finite resources among more people. A new Germany is added annually, a new Los Angeles monthly. How this increase in population size affects specific environmental probl ems is impossible to say precisely. Too many factors interact, and much depends on the time frame u nder consideration. Obviously, trends such as the loss of half of the planet's forests, the depleti on of most of its major fisheries, and the alteration of its atmosphere and climate are closely rel ated to the fact that human population expanded from mere millions in prehistoric times to nearly 6 billion today. No policy can change the past. But addressing current population needs would head off the regrets t hat future generations will otherwise have about the failure of today's generation to act. Equally importantly, the policies that address demographic trends have immediate and beneficial impacts on the lives of women and their families. It is this "win-win" strategy--slowing population growth by attending to the needs for health care, schooling, and economic opportunities--that should encourag e policymakers to consider population-related policies when addressing environmental risks. Future population trends will influence the abundance and quality of such critical renewable natura l resources as fresh water, fisheries, forests, cropland, and the atmosphere. An international scie ntific panel, for example, noted recently that Israel, Jordan, the West Bank, and Gaza are home to 12 million people and yet receive only as much rainfall as Phoenix, Arizona. Sponsored by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and counterpart institutions in the region, the panel identified rapid population growth as a major concern for the region's critically stretched supplies of renewable f resh water. Stabilizing world population tomorrow won't by itself solve natural resource crises and other environmental problems. But without a leveling off of population, eventually environmental c hallenges press more urgently no matter what other measures are taken. Policymakers tend not to add ress The requirement that environmental conditions be maintained in ways that sustain human life does no t imply a need for population "control." Governments cannot control population any more than they c an control people themselves. Lasting demographic trends respond to the childbearing choices people make themselves, not to those others would impose. The decline in family size that has occurred ov er the past 35 years--from six to three children per woman worldwide--has resulted from changing at titudes about childbearing and improved access to family planning services. Nonetheless, with two i n five pregnancies worldwide still unintended, U.S. foreign policy should maintain and strengthen i ts historic efforts to improve access to family planning and related services where this access is now poor or nonexistent. (Unintended pregnancy stems from more than lack of access to contraceptive s, b The generation now moving into its childbearing years is the largest in human experience. Respondin g to this generation's aspirations for later childbearing and smaller families will expand everyone 's opportunities. It will also make the 21st century's environmental challenges easier to manage. Policymakers rarely contemplate long time periods and connections between disparate sets of issues, especially controversial ones. Nonetheless, at the dawn of the new century the world faces a host of environmental and security risks strongly connected to the growing size of human population and the increasing affluence of some, but not all, of that population. Among the greatest policy challe nges is that there is no framework for dealing with these issues on anything but a makeshift, stop- gap basis, addressing each environmental problem only when it becomes so acute that doing nothing i s no longer politically viable. The organization of both congressional committees and executive dep artments by topical sectors makes it difficult to address interconnections such as those that link environmental and population change. Although the global rate of population growth peaked 30 years ago, human population has grown by ne arly two thirds since then. The ratios of people to fresh water, forests, cropland, fish, and the a tmosphere have grown in tandem. According to accepted hydrological benchmarks, fewer than 4 million people lived in countries experiencing chronic scarcities of renewable fresh water in 1955, despit e the rapid population growth of the time. Less than half a century later, despite slower growth, t he population of people living in water-scarce countries has grown to more than 165 million, a figu re that could grow to between 1 billion and 2.2 billion, depending on future rates of population gr owth, in the next 50 years. Recommendations for a New Population Policy Sound population policies focus not so much on discouraging reproduction but rather on access to cr itical services that make reproduction healthy, safe, and intentional for all people. This requires universal access both to information and to a range of choices and means for planning pregnancy, s upplemented by a broad range of services related to reproductive and sexual health and rights. (Con trary to some claims, this does not include U.S. funding for abortions overseas, which has been pro hibited by law since 1973.) The education of girls through secondary school and improvements in economic opportunities for wome n are also potential components of population policy. Policies with these objectives aid developmen t by bringing women more fully into the mainstream of national and community life. The impact on de mographic trends is substantial, because women who have completed high school tend to have fewer ch ildren and to give birth later in life than women who have not. Both effects reduce birthrates, imp rove maternal and child survival, and slow the growth of population. The best population policies, and the ones the United States should pursue, are modeled after the P rogram of Action agreed to by representatives of all the world's governments at Cairo in 1994 at th e International Conference on Population and Development. This agreement was remarkable among inter national accords for its consensus on goals and strategies related to population and development. I t is appropriate for governments to be concerned about the stabilization of population, the represe ntatives agreed, but not to require or induce their own citizens to make reproductive decisions bas ed on this concern. The Cairo conference reaffirmed the previously established human right that dec isions about the number, timing, and spacing of children belong exclusively to couples and individu als. All people should have both the information and the means they need to make reproductive decis ions Demographic research overwhelmingly demonstrates that social policies advancing this right produce multiple bonuses beyond the health and related benefits they confer on mothers and their families. By allowing for the safe and effective prevention of pregnancies, these investments reduce reliance on abortion--a goal shared by both sides in the battle over abortion rights. And by giving couples and individuals--especially women--control over the timing of childbirth, such investments act pow erfully to slow population growth. The reality is that women in all parts of the world, in developing countries as well as industriali zed ones, are participating in a demographic revolution. They seek to have fewer children, and to h ave them later in life, than ever before in human history. Men, too, are joining women in this aspi ration. But perhaps because men do not bear children themselves and are less active in caring for t hem on average, in much of the world they lag behind in this shift. Part of the emphasis in populat ion policy is in finding new ways of attending to the reproductive needs of boys and men, which inc ludes improving their understanding of the needs of girls and women. Already, globally, women have half the number of children--roughly three over their lifetimes--that they had in 1960. This average fertility would be lower still if not for the fact that an estimate d 38 percent of pregnancies worldwide are not sought or desired. Among the goals of population poli cies are: to reduce the percent of unintended pregnancies as much as possible; to improve the condi tions under which women experience pregnancy, childbirth, and the post-natal care of their children ; and to advance the opportunities for women to take on challenges other than motherhood. There is no need to specify that population policies should actually reduce population growth; overwhelmingl y, the right policies will achieve this as a demographic bonus to their primary objectives. These o bjectives are radical, for they amount to making women full partners in economic, social, and polit ical In Cairo, the world's governments devised a spending formula for achieving universal access to crit ical reproductive health services by early in the next century. Achieving this goal--worthy on its own terms and essential for a stabilized world population--would cost roughly $17 billion per year in current dollars, with developing countries contributing about two thirds of that amount, industr ialized countries one third. Based on the size of its economy, the United States should be contribu ting about $1.9 billion to this effort; instead, it has reduced its support from about $667 million annually in 1996 to around $400 million in the current fiscal year. (Robert Engelman directs the Population and Environment Program at Population Action International in Washington, D.C.) Sources for More Information on Population Policy: Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.agi-usa.org National Audubon Society Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.audubon.org National Wildlife Federation Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.nwf.org Population Action International Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.populationaction.org Population Reference Bureau Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.prb.org Sierra Club Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.sierraclub.org Zero Population Growth Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website: http://www.zpg.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Comments *** NOT IMPRESSIVE ANALYSIS OF U.S.-SOVIET AFFAIRS *** I just had to say that John Feffer is not a very impressive analyst of U.S.- Soviet affairs. Most o f his article is just a spouting of the mainstream rhetoric one can hear on CNN or NBC. For example , his statement that the U.S. needed to curb Soviet expansion throughout the world is just one of t he many simplifications and exaggerations believed by those who have not looked beyond the popular view of the U.S. media. Most objective reports now demonstrate that the threat from the USSR was bo gus (except for Afghanistan). Compare the USSR with what the U.S. has done in just the past fifty y ears. We are everywhere. Where we cannot buy influence via IMF, World Bank etc, we take it by force . Mr. Feffer would benefit from a critical analysis of the threat of U.S. foreign policy relative t o other threats. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** FEFFER RESPONDS *** Thank you for your comments on my piece. I must say, however, that I was mystified by your reaction . First of all, the essay was on U.S.-Russian relations, not U.S.-Soviet relations. Second, I never wrote that "the U.S. needed to curb Soviet expansion throughout the world." The only comment I mad e on U.S. strategy was the following: "Whether in confrontation or detente mode, however, successiv e U.S. administrations sought (often unsuccessfully) to limit Soviet influence in the world and blu nt the impact of communism." This is, by the way, a descriptive sentence, not a prescriptive senten ce. It speaks of "influence" not "expansion." In terms of the larger question that was not addressed in my essay--was the Soviet Union a threat?- -I would agree that the Soviet threat was overrated, especially with regard to the U.S. Nevertheles s, the Soviet Union was an aggressor not only in Afghanistan. You are forgetting Eastern Europe, pa rticularly Budapest '56 and Prague '68. As we criticize U.S. foreign policy--and my essay is devoted to nothing less--we should not downpla y the aggressions of other countries, even if those aggressions are of a lesser magnitude than the U.S. government's. John Feffer [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** KOSOVO: DON'T BE FOOLED *** Re: Kosovo. The current bombing of yet another sovereign country by U.S.-led forces is being justif ied on humanitarian grounds, but are the claims of Serbian atrocities historically accurate? Everyo ne alludes to them, but what do we really know for sure? Let's start with the claim of "genocide." During the period of active civil war in Kosovo, from Feb ruary 1998 to March 1999 when the NATO bombing started, at most 2000 people were killed, on all sid es, including about 100 Albanian Kosovars killed by the KLA for "collaborating" with the Yugoslavia n authorities. (These are NATO's own figures.) In the first 8 months of 1998 alone, the KLA initiat ed over 1100 armed attacks on Serbian police (and even Serb civilians in Kosovo) and the casualty f igures are about what you would expect as a result of over a thousand firefights. This leaves no ro om for genocide and, in fact, nothing resembling genocide was going on before the NATO bombing star ted. The impression to the contrary is being foisted upon the American public by the State Dept. an d unquestioningly repeated by the mainstream media as if it were fact instead of the war propaganda tha How about ethnic cleansing? In this regard, it is important to distinguish between the period befor e the NATO attacks and after. Before the NATO bombs started falling there were a couple hundred tho usand people who were displaced during the civil war in Kosovo. But according to the UN High Commis sion on Refugees, these people were not being driven out of Kosovo, since only 16,000 refugees ente red Albania and about the same number entered Macedonia (the two most likely places of refuge) duri ng all of 1998. After the NATO bombing, of course, hundreds of thousands of people did flee Kosovo, but you can't justify U.S. policy based on what happened after the U.S. intervened, right? The Kos ovars who were internally displaced during the civil war phase were not being ethnically cleansed o ut of Kosovo but were made homeless by the fighting in a given region. This was because the modus o pera How about mass murders? There were several well-publicized "massacres" such as the one at Racak, me ntioned by Clinton in justifying US intervention. NATO's account of Racak, however, has been disput ed by Le Monde and Le Figaro, among other European media. This was because The Helsinki Institute a nd several other forensic teams who examined the scene there concluded that there was no proof that the 40-some bodies in the ditch at Racak were not KLA fighters who had died in the previous days' fighting and had been planted there to make it look like a massacre. If you remember the market bom bing in Sarajevo that was supposed to have been from Serb artillery but was later found to have mor e likely been a bomb that the Bosnian Muslims planted themselves, you'll get the idea. Likewise for totally unproven claims of mass graves, with "before" and "after" satellite photos but never a "du ring The arguments presented here are supported by internal documents from Germany's Foreign Office publ ished in Junge Welt on 4/24/99 and reprinted on ZNet at www.lbbs.org. For example, these documents state, "the actions of security forces (were) not directed against the Kosovo-Albanians as an ethni cally defined group, but against the military opponent and its actual or alleged supporters." Or ag ain, "What was involved in the Yugoslav violent actions and excesses since February 1998 was a sele ctive forcible action against the military underground movement (especially the KLA) and people in immediate contact with its areas of operation. . .A state program or persecution aimed at the whole ethnic group of Albanians exists neither now nor earlier (written in January, 1999)." Like Lucy snatching the football away from Charlie Brown over and over, the U.S. State Dept./Pentag on/mainstream media gang would like us to believe that this time is different, that we are the good guys now. Don't be fooled--the U.S. in this instance, as always, acts in its own geopolitical self -interest, period. Chuck Sher [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Progressive Response aims to provide timely analysis and opinion about U.S. foreign policy issu es. The content does not necessarily reflect the institutional positions of either the Interhemisph eric 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 doi ng, via email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please put "Progressive Response" in the subject line. Please feel free to cross-post The Progressive Response elsewhere. We apologize for any duplicate c opies you may receive. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe to the Progressive Response, go to: http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/progresp/progresp.html and follow the instructions. For those readers without access to the www send an email message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words "join newusfp" in the body of the message. To unsubscribe, send an email message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the words "leave newusfp" in the body of the message. Visit the Foreign Policy In Focus website, http://www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/iflist.html, for a complete listing of In Focus briefs and text versions of the briefs. To order policy briefs, our bo ok Global Focus: A New Foreign Policy Agenda 1997-98, or for more information contact the Interhemi spheric Resource Center or the Institute for Policy Studies. IRC Tom Barry Co-director, Foreign Policy Project Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC) Box 2178 Silver City, NM 88062-2178 Voice: (505) 388-0208 Fax: (505) 388-0619 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] IPS Martha Honey Co-director, Foreign Policy Project Director, Peace and Security 733 15th Street NW, Suite 1020 Washington, DC 20005 Voice: (202) 234-9382 Fax: (202) 387-7915 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] A<>E<>R ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller, German Writer (1759-1805) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
