<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<title></title>
<title></title>
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
"...No one in the Administration, <i><b>not even Samantha Power</b></i>,
is pressing Obama to divert major military resources to depose
Qadhafi..."!<br>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject: </th>
<td>JFP 3/10: Obama vows to resist Libya trap; Karzai cousin
killed in night raid</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date: </th>
<td>Thu, 10 Mar 2011 17:58:59 -0500 (EST)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td>Just Foreign Policy <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:naiman@justforeignpolicy.org"><naiman@justforeignpolicy.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE"><br>
</th>
<td><br>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE"><br>
</th>
<td><br>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<title></title>
<title></title>
<title></title>
<!-- TemplateBeginEditable name="content" --><b><br>
</b>Just Foreign Policy News<b><br>
</b>March 10, 2011 <br>
<p>
<b>Just Foreign Policy News on the Web:</b> <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Ce2LvNRdDqIuHR2TwzhtVxQO5osnoCgP">http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/node/843</a><br>
<br>
[To receive just the Summary and a link to the web version, you
can use this webform:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=Ex%2Fd8NT%2B7EUFWJ50jeoBiBQO5osnoCgP">http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/switchdailynews</a>]<br>
<br>
<b>"No-Fly Zone"? Senator Kerry, the UN Charter Is Supreme Law</b>
<br>
It's one thing for Senator McCain to engage in what Defense
Secretary Gates called "loose talk" about U.S. military
intervention in Libya. It's far more damaging for Senator Kerry to
do it. Of course, Kerry voted yes on the Iraq war in 2002, and in
August 2004 said he stood by his vote. Kerry was wrong then and is
wrong now; a no-fly zone in Libya, if it is not authorized by the
UN Security Council, would violate the UN Charter. The framers of
the UN Charter gave this power to the Security Council for a
reason: to ensure that military force would only be authorized
with broad consent. The Security Council should use its leverage
to press for a diplomatic resolution of the conflict that
recognizes the interests of all the stakeholders in Libya. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=GFWkB8Z4eRuvNhORHABpLRQO5osnoCgP">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/no-fly-zone-senator-kerry_b_833060.html</a><br>
<br>
<b>Action: Urge President Obama and Members of Congress to oppose
a unilateral U.S. military intervention in Libya</b> <br>
Unilateral U.S. military action without UN Security Council
authorization would be a grave violation of the UN Charter. As
U.S. military officials have pointed out, the imposition of a
"no-fly zone" would not be "bloodless": it would be preceded by
extensive bombing of Libya's anti-aircraft facilities. Such
bombing would almost certainly cause civilian casualties. As
Defense Secretary Gates has said, the last thing the U.S. needs is
a war in another Muslim country. Urge the White House and your
representatives to oppose a unilateral U.S. military intervention.
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=pqF85vqBd%2FP5VYOKbuSPmxQO5osnoCgP">http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/nobombsforlibya</a><br>
<br>
<b>*Action: Lee bill for military withdrawal from Afghanistan</b>
<br>
"H.R.780 - To provide that funds for operations of the Armed
Forces in Afghanistan shall be obligated and expended only for
purposes of providing for the safe and orderly withdrawal from
Afghanistan of all members of the Armed Forces and Department of
Defense contractor personnel who are in Afghanistan."<br>
Check to see if your Rep. has co-sponsored; ask them to co-sponsor
if they haven't. <br>
<b>You can view the cosponsors here </b><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=7Mzu1TCXtcv%2BSc3DAjDp%2FxQO5osnoCgP">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:HR00780:@@@P</a><br>
<b>You can ask your Rep. to co-sponsor here:</b> <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=qaPxL43BhaOYBvAP80zx5BQO5osnoCgP">http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/hr780</a><br>
<br>
<b>Help Support Our Advocacy for Peace and Diplomacy</b> <br>
The opponents of peace and diplomacy work every day. Help us be an
effective counterweight. <br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=MiZ2UnlFR9BuIpCQz3G3%2BxQO5osnoCgP">http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/donate</a><br>
<br>
<b>Summary:</b><br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="#March1011r1">U.S./Top News</a></b>
<br>
1) Administration sources say President Obama is determined to
resist pressure for military intervention in support of the
uprising against Muammar Qadhafi, even it means being labeled as
weak by Republicans, Politico reports. No one in the
Administration, not even Samantha Power, is pressing Obama to
divert major military resources to depose Qadhafi, Politico says.
The uncertainties on the ground are too numerous, the makeup and
intention of the rebel forces too opaque, the possibility that any
weapons shipped to them will end up in the hands of terrorists is
too great to warrant the immediate shipping of war materiel. White
House officials dismissed as false a Monday report that the U.S.
was funneling arms to the rebels through Saudi Arabia, and a State
Department spokesman suggested such actions might violate
international agreements.<br>
<br>
2) NATO on Thursday stepped back from any military intervention in
Libya and agreed only to reposition ships in the region and to
continue planning for humanitarian aid, the New York Times
reports. NATO Secretary General Rasmussen made it clear NATO would
not agree to a no-flight zone over Libya without authorization
from the UN. Germany took a strong position against a no-flight
zone over Libya. "We do not want to get sucked into a war in North
Africa," German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said. Defense
Secretary Gates, who represented the US at the NATO meeting,
remained equally resistant to a no-flight zone.<br>
<br>
3) Intervention in Libya has all the makings of another Middle
East quagmire, writes Stephen Kinzer in the Guardian. The no-fly
zone is a seductive option, but only to those who do not reflect
on its complexity. It would require a major commitment of air
power, and since at least some missile launchers will be located
in populated areas, American bombs would almost certainly kill
Libyan civilians. Kinzer suggests that if the U.S. can resist the
temptation to intervene militarily in Libya, it may become easier
to resist this temptation in the future. <br>
<br>
4) India, Brazil, and South Africa - all of whom currently serve
on the UN Security Council - issued a joint statement insisting
that any international intervention in Libya must obey the United
Nations Charter, Inter Press Service reports. <br>
<br>
5) The rebellion in Libya stands out among the recent unrest in
the Middle East for its widespread violence: unlike the protesters
in Tunisia or Egypt, those in Libya quickly gave up pursuing
nonviolent change and became an armed rebellion, writes Erica
Chenoweth in the New York Times. Research shows that nonviolent
resistance is much more likely to produce results, while violent
resistance runs a greater risk of backfiring, she writes. A study
found that nonviolent resistance campaigns to were more likely to
succeed than violent insurgencies. Violent resistance tends to
reinforce the loyalty of regime supporters, while civil resistance
undermines it.<br>
<br>
6) A Rasmussen poll finds that the majority of likely American
voters want all U.S. troops withdrawn from Afghanistan within a
year, the Huffington Post reports. Seventy-three percent of
Democrats favor a one-year timeline. A February USA Today/Gallup
poll found that 72 percent of Americans would support Congress
taking up the issue of a quicker withdrawal from Afghanistan.<br>
<br>
7) The Afghanistan war has grown deadlier for Afghan civilians on
President Obama's watch, writes Dan Froomkin for the Huffington
Post. <br>
<br>
8) A senior U.S. diplomat supervising Japan affairs has been
replaced for allegedly making disparaging comments about
Okinawans, AP reports. Kevin Maher caused an uproar by reportedly
telling a group of American University students in December that
Okinawans were lazy and used their hosting of U.S. bases to extort
benefits from Tokyo. <br>
<b><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="#March1011r2">Libya</a></b> <br>
9) James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, predicted
that "over the longer term, that the regime will prevail" in
Libya's civil war, the New York Times reports. Clapper's
assessment may push both American officials and some allies to the
conclusion that efforts to terminate Col. Qaddafi's rule in Libya
are futile, the Times says. Secretary of State Clinton noted that
past no-flight zones had had mixed results: one imposed in Iraq
"did not prevent Saddam Hussein from slaughtering people on the
ground and it did not get him out of office." <br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="#March1011r3">Afghanistan</a></b>
<br>
10) A first cousin of Afghanistan's president was killed Wednesday
during a night raid by NATO and Afghan forces, the New York Times
reports. The slain man was Yar Mohammed Karzai, 60, a lifelong
resident of a rural village. "We've called for a stop of the night
raids, which often cause a loss of life and are against the
culture and the Islamic values of the Afghan people. They can
always cause unnecessary and irresponsible action such as what
happened last night," said an Afghan government spokesman. A NATO
statement said they had "killed one armed individual." "People are
really angry about his death; he was a very respected man in his
community," said a tribal elder who lives in a neighboring
village.<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="#March1011r4">Iran</a></b> <br>
11) US officials say Iran has not been involved in Bahrain's
unrest and has generally been keeping a low profile towards unrest
in Arab countries, the Washington Post reports. Adm. Mullen said
last week that Persian Gulf states' concerns about Iran's
intentions had not been realized. "We are seeing no indications of
any credible influence from Tehran," Mullen said.<br>
<br>
<b><a moz-do-not-send="true" href="#March1011r5">Colombia</a></b>
<br>
12) Colombia is now the country with the largest population of
internally displaced persons in the world, writes Dan Kovalik in
the Huffington Post. Almost 12% of its population is displaced -
most of them by violence, with a disproportionate number being
Afro-Colombians and indigenous. Many were displaced by a US-funded
"counterinsurgency" campaign. The Colombia FTA would likely
exacerbate this displacement, Kovalik argues. Meanwhile, 51 trade
unionists were killed in 2010, the same number killed in 2008 when
Obama vowed to oppose the Colombia FTA based on concerns about
violence against trade unionists. <br>
<br>
<b>Contents:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" name="March1011r1"></a>U.S./Top News</b>
<br>
1) Obama tries to avoid Libya trap<br>
Glenn Thrush, Politico, March 9, 2011 04:38 AM EST<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=lQYvYst0bNRQXjie5uXsBBQO5osnoCgP">http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/50907.html</a><br>
<br>
The Libya hawks may be circling, but President Barack Obama is
determined to resist pressure for military intervention in support
of the uprising against Muammar Qadhafi, even it means being
labeled as weak by Republicans, according to administration
sources. <br>
<br>
Obama has repeatedly said he won't take any option for Libya off
the table - and he raised the possibility of a "full spectrum"
response, including a NATO-sponsored no-fly zone, in his
discussion with British Prime Minister David Cameron on Tuesday,
according to a read-out of the call. But he doesn't want to fall
into a Libya trap. <br>
<br>
Obama's public call for Qadhafi's departure has been countered in
private by a dour assessment of the likely outcome of even the
most limited intervention. Those concerns were amplified by the
brief detention of a British rescue crew over the weekend in
rebel-controlled eastern Libya, which sent a jolt of anxiety
through U.S. officials, according to administration sources.
"History has shown that when you rush into these things, you get
it wrong. We're not going to rush no matter what anyone says," one
administration official told POLITICO. <br>
<br>
For all his caution, Obama's attitude could instantly change if
clear evidence emerges that Qadhafi is massacring his own
civilians. <br>
<br>
At the moment, however, there is little appetite among Obama's
circle of foreign policy and national security advisers for any
action that could draw the U.S. into a protracted conflict, so
powerful are the ghosts of Iraq and the dawning reality that
Qadhafi has, thus far, teetered but managed to hold onto power. <br>
<br>
Even as NATO debates the no-fly zone, Obama's team - led by
National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and Defense Secretary Robert
Gates - is not enthusiastic about the option, despite the
conditional backing of Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman
(I-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.). <br>
<br>
Their argument: Pro-Qadhafi forces are counterattacking with
artillery, small arms and helicopters, which can be better
countered by a ground presence, not aerial patrols. And putting
troops on the ground is a nonstarter. <br>
<br>
But a chorus of hawks, some of whom were present at the inception
of President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq eight years
ago, are pressing for a more forceful response. And they say Obama
has talked loudly while carrying a Popsicle stick, calling for
Qadhafi's ouster while doing nothing to make it happen. <br>
<br>
"If you simply sit back, as the White House has done, and said
'Qadhafi's got to go,' and then you don't do anything about it,
you have the worst of all worlds," said John Bolton, Bush's
ambassador to the United Nations. "If you want to talk the talk,
you've got to walk the walk. ... American prestige is at stake
here."<br>
[...]<br>
But no one in Obama's orbit is seriously considering that advice,
even though military planners are gaming out all contingencies. At
the moment, they are more sanguine about less radical options:
ratcheting up sanctions; sizing up the rebels to see what military
assistance, if any, is warranted; forward-positioning U.S. assets
for humanitarian missions; even jamming Libyan military
communications and radar to discourage attacks by jets and
helicopters.<br>
[...]<br>
Michael McFaul, the National Security Council staffer tasked with
examining the paths autocracies take to democratic reform, has
emphasized the need for a forceful response, as has Samantha
Power, an NSC aide who won a Pulitzer Prize for her book about
U.S. responses to genocide. <br>
<br>
But no one, not even Power, is pressing Obama to divert major
military resources to depose Qadhafi. The uncertainties on the
ground are too numerous, the makeup and intention of the rebel
forces too opaque, the possibility that any weapons shipped to
them will end up in the hands of terrorists is too great to
warrant the immediate shipping of guns and war materiel.<br>
<br>
"It isn't even clear the insurgents want us there at all," said
Anthony Cordesman, a former military intelligence officer now with
the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a
Washington-based think tank. "If you had large numbers of people
in the street calling for action, I'd understand the impulse to
intervene, but we are not seeing that. You can say [Obama] is
getting a little too cautious, but reality-based decision-making,
to me, is a positive." <br>
<br>
White House officials dismissed as false a Monday report that the
U.S. was funneling arms to the rebels through Saudi Arabia, and a
State Department spokesman suggested such actions might violate
international agreements.<br>
[...]<br>
<br>
2) NATO Steps Back From Military Intervention in Libya<br>
Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times, March 10, 2011<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=FcwxZgwiJ%2BGkEytiPSWYNBQO5osnoCgP">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/world/africa/11nato.html</a><br>
<br>
Brussels - As Libyan rebels came under airstrikes and heavy
assault by forces loyal to Col. Muammer el-Qaddafi, NATO on
Thursday stepped back from any military intervention in Libya and
agreed only to reposition ships in the region and to continue
planning for humanitarian aid.<br>
<br>
Although the NATO Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said
after a two-hour meeting of defense ministers that "time is of the
essence," the tepid response reflected disagreement within the
military alliance about what, if anything, should be done.<br>
<br>
Mr. Rasmussen, who described Colonel Qaddafi's "outrageous and
systemic violence against the civilian people," made it clear that
NATO would not agree to a no-flight zone over Libya without
authorization from the United Nations. "We considered initial
options regarding a no-fly zone in case NATO were to receive a
clear U.N. mandate," he said at a news conference after the
meeting.<br>
<br>
He also said that any move by NATO would be governed by three
principles: a demonstrable need, "a clear legal basis," and strong
support in the region.<br>
<br>
There was confusion among the major European allies. Although
France moved ahead of the rest of the military alliance on
Thursday morning and became the first country to recognize the
Libya's rebel leadership in the eastern city of Benghazi, Germany
took a strong position against a no-flight zone over Libya. "We do
not want to get sucked into a war in North Africa," the German
foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, said Thursday at the European
Union.<br>
<br>
But his government did join the United States, Switzerland and
other countries in freezing Libyan government assets. Germany's
finance minister, Rainer Brüderle, said the move would affect 193
accounts at 14 financial institutions in Germany, and the ministry
said the amount was in the "billions."<br>
<br>
"The measures taken are a clear reaction to developments in
Libya," according to a statement from the Finance Ministry. "The
brutal oppression of Libyans' right to freedom can no longer be
financed with money that has been placed in German banks."<br>
<br>
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who represented the Obama
administration at the meeting, remained equally resistant to a
no-flight zone. Despite the worsening situation for the rebels,
his aides said his position had not changed from the strong case
he made against intervention last week before Congress, where he
warned that the first step would be an attack on Colonel Qaddafi's
air defenses.<br>
[...]<br>
<br>
3) Why the US must not intervene in Libya<br>
Americans are hardwired to expect their military to fix foreign
crises, but we should resist the calls of DC's armchair generals<br>
Stephen Kinzer, Guardian, Wednesday 9 March 2011 23.34 GMT <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=fQlMAZsJgTdvgWGadw5KUxQO5osnoCgP">http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/mar/09/libya-usforeignpolicy</a><br>
<br>
The urge to intervene around the world may truly have become
hardwired into the American psyche. How else to explain the
seriousness with which some in Washington are suggesting that the
United States take sides in the unfolding civil war in Libya?<br>
<br>
The US is fighting two wars in Muslim countries. Since the results
have included thousands of dead Americans, a near-bankrupt
treasury and a surge in anti-Americanism in the world's most
volatile region, launching a third war might seem unwise.
Intervening in Libya would require the US to take sides in a
highly obscure conflict. Any group the US helps bring to power
would be heavily tainted, and Americans would have to defend it in
an explosive environment.<br>
<br>
And few people in the Middle East, or anywhere else, would believe
that the US had intervened in an oil-rich Arab state without being
interested in securing its oil.<br>
<br>
Intervention in Libya has all the makings of another Middle East
quagmire. The urge to intervene there, however, is not driven
solely by factors related to Libya. Sure, there is genuine outrage
at the brutality Muammar Gaddafi is inflicting on his people. No
doubt, some American strategists have their eyes on Libyan oil,
and others are looking for a new platform for US power in the
Middle East. But beneath it all is the deep belief that when there
is trouble in Libya - or Liberia or Lesotho or Laos or Lithuania -
the United States needs to take a decisive stand and push to
impose the solution it finds best.<br>
<br>
The reasoning is simple, and deeply rooted in American history.
The world is a dangerous place, it needs to be managed, and the
United States is called to do the managing.<br>
<br>
This is the view that led Theodore Roosevelt to assert that
submitting to America's will was "the prerequisite condition to
the moral and material advance of the people who dwell in the
darker corners of the earth". It convinced Woodrow Wilson that the
US needed to dominate Latin Americans so it could "teach them to
elect good men". It propelled Dwight Eisenhower to overthrow
democratic governments in Iran and Guatemala, ultimately plunging
both countries into brutal dictatorship. More recently, it pulled
Jimmy Carter into Afghanistan and George W Bush into Iraq, with
devastating consequences for American power and security.<br>
<br>
The effect of these operations on America's fiscal health has been
equally cataclysmic. Costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have
reached one trillion dollars. That is two thirds of America's
current budget deficit.<br>
<br>
Despite all of this, there are still interventionists who insist
that this time, the US can get it right. "It's hard to imagine any
new government growing out of this opposition that is worse than
Gaddafi," Senator Joseph Lieberman has blithely asserted. Millions
of Iranians thought the same thing when they overthrew the Shah in
1979. They have learned a painful historical lesson: no matter how
bad a regime is, there can always be a worse one. Gaddafi
controlled every inch of Libyan territory, deftly balanced tribal
and sectarian interests, and administered a reasonably effective
state. Whether a new regime would be able to do any of those
things is far from certain. Would the US stepping in to "help", do
so?<br>
<br>
Senator John Kerry has suggested that American warplanes "crater
the airports" in Tripoli and other government-held cities - a nice
way of saying that the US should bomb Libya: an act of war.
Senator John McCain observed that decreeing a no-fly zone over
Libya would be a good way to "send a signal to Gaddafi". Perhaps
it would be as effective as the signal the US sent Saddam Hussein,
who survived in office for 12 years after the Americans imposed
two no-fly zones over his country.<br>
<br>
The no-fly zone is a seductive option, but only to those who do
not reflect on its complexity. It would require a major commitment
of air power, and since at least some missile launchers will be
located in populated areas, American bombs would almost certainly
kill Libyan civilians. And given the balance of power in Libya,
where ragtag rebels are outgunned by the regime's better organised
troops and mercenaries, even sustained bombardment might not
dislodge the tyrant. What would the US do then? Escalate until he
is forced to flee, using ground troops if necessary?<br>
<br>
Perhaps the appeal of the no-fly option is that it would give
testosterone-driven politicians in Washington a way to pretend
they are doing something meaningful to defend heroic rebels far
away. Yet, the only real way to defeat Gaddafi quickly is by a
land invasion, and even today's interventionists are unwilling -
yet - to call for such madness. Invasion would resolve a
short-term problem, but Libyans would presumably rebel against
American occupation, just as Iraqis and Afghans have. The presence
of American troops in Libya would be a magnet for every jihadist
fighter in the world. An invasion might prevent or head off a
civil war, but probably trap American forces into fighting another
long-term insurgency.<br>
<br>
Foreign interventions always end badly. They can sometimes be
justified on the grounds that not intervening would produce even
worse results, but such cases are rare. Libya is not one of them.
No vital American interest is at stake there. In fact, as past
interventions have shown, the outcome is likely to undermine the
global stability on which the US depends.<br>
<br>
When Hamlet tries to persuade his mother not to return to his
uncle's bed, he appeals to her: "Refrain tonight, and that shall
lend a kind of easiness to the next abstinence." Americans would
be wise to heed this counsel as they contemplate the possibility
of intervention in Libya. Resist this temptation, and resisting
the next one may be easier. That might ultimately lead the US to
abandon what Henry Cabot Lodge, a century ago, called "the large
policy", and adopt prudent restraint in its place.<br>
<br>
4) Libya: IBSA Together in Resisting No-Fly Zone<br>
Ranjit Devraj, Inter Press Service, 9 March 2011<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=XULuuen5apbNBBILpGNBIBQO5osnoCgP">http://allafrica.com/stories/201103100082.html</a><br>
<br>
New Delhi - India has found backing at this week's
India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) ministers meeting for its stance
that a no-fly zone over Libya must follow multilateral
consultations.<br>
<br>
India is aware that it has little freedom of action either at the
United Nations General Assembly or in the U.N. Security Council,
of which it is currently a member, Prof. Pushpesh Pant who teaches
diplomacy at the Centre for International Politics, Organisation
and Disarmament at the Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi
told IPS.<br>
<br>
"India is acutely sensitive to the kind of action that the U.S.
and its allies took in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Pant who, as
course director for entrants into India's diplomatic service, is
mentor to many of India's top diplomats.<br>
<br>
A joint communiqué issued Tuesday at the end of the two-day
seventh trilateral commission declared that a "no-fly zone zone on
the Libyan air space or any coercive measures additional to those
foreseen in Resolution 1970 can only legitimately be contemplated
in full compliance with the U.N. Charter and with the Security
Council of the United Nations."<br>
[...]<br>
<br>
5) Give Peaceful Resistance a Chance<br>
Erica Chenoweth, New York Times, March 9, 2011<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=iCEtR0m0memm2WmdGHxmWxQO5osnoCgP">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/10/opinion/10chenoweth.html</a><br>
<br>
[Chenoweth, professor of government at Wesleyan, is co-author of
the forthcoming "Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic
of Nonviolent Conflict."]<br>
<br>
Middletown, Conn. - The rebellion in Libya stands out among the
recent unrest in the Middle East for its widespread violence:
unlike the protesters in Tunisia or Egypt, those in Libya quickly
gave up pursuing nonviolent change and became an armed rebellion.<br>
<br>
And while the fighting in Libya is far from over, it's not too
early to ask a critical question: which is more effective as a
force for change, violent or nonviolent resistance? Unfortunately
for the Libyan rebels, research shows that nonviolent resistance
is much more likely to produce results, while violent resistance
runs a greater risk of backfiring.<br>
<br>
Consider the Philippines. Although insurgencies attempted to
overthrow Ferdinand Marcos during the 1970s and 1980s, they failed
to attract broad support. When the regime did fall in 1986, it was
at the hands of the People Power movement, a nonviolent
pro-democracy campaign that boasted more than two million
followers, including laborers, youth activists and Catholic
clergy.<br>
<br>
Indeed, a study I recently conducted with Maria J. Stephan, now a
strategic planner at the State Department, compared the outcomes
of hundreds of violent insurgencies with those of major nonviolent
resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006; we found that over 50
percent of the nonviolent movements succeeded, compared with about
25 percent of the violent insurgencies.<br>
<br>
Why? For one thing, people don't have to give up their jobs, leave
their families or agree to kill anyone to participate in a
nonviolent campaign. That means such movements tend to draw a
wider range of participants, which gives them more access to
members of the regime, including security forces and economic
elites, who often sympathize with or are even relatives of
protesters.<br>
<br>
What's more, oppressive regimes need the loyalty of their
personnel to carry out their orders. Violent resistance tends to
reinforce that loyalty, while civil resistance undermines it. When
security forces refuse orders to, say, fire on peaceful
protesters, regimes must accommodate the opposition or give up
power - precisely what happened in Egypt.<br>
<br>
This is why the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, took such great
pains to use armed thugs to try to provoke the Egyptian
demonstrators into using violence, after which he could have
rallied the military behind him.<br>
<br>
But where Mr. Mubarak failed, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi succeeded:
what began as peaceful movement became, after a few days of brutal
crackdown by his corps of foreign militiamen, an armed but
disorganized rebel fighting force. A widely supported popular
revolution has been reduced to a smaller group of armed rebels
attempting to overthrow a brutal dictator. These rebels are at a
major disadvantage, and are unlikely to succeed without direct
foreign intervention.<br>
<br>
If the other uprisings across the Middle East remain nonviolent,
however, we should be optimistic about the prospects for democracy
there. That's because, with a few exceptions - most notably Iran -
nonviolent revolutions tend to lead to democracy.<br>
<br>
Although the change is not immediate, our data show that from 1900
to 2006, 35 percent to 40 percent of authoritarian regimes that
faced major nonviolent uprisings had become democracies five years
after the campaign ended, even if the campaigns failed to cause
immediate regime change. For the nonviolent campaigns that
succeeded, the figure increases to well over 50 percent.<br>
<br>
The good guys don't always win, but their chances increase greatly
when they play their cards well. Nonviolent resistance is about
finding and exploiting points of leverage in one's own society.
Every dictatorship has vulnerabilities, and every society can find
them.<br>
<br>
6) Rasmussen Poll: Majority Want U.S. Troops Out Of Afghanistan
Within A Year<br>
Amanda Terkel, Huffington Post, 3/ 7/11 09:30 PM<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=5Ne%2BLtWU6FWPkNDif60Pv6Jeo2O%2BDLCu">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/07/rasmussen-poll-afghanistan_n_832675.html</a><br>
<br>
Washington - On the same day that Defense Secretary Robert Gates
said that America would continue to have a military presence in
Afghanistan beyond 2014, a new poll finds that the majority of
Americans want all U.S. troops withdrawn within one year.<br>
<br>
The polling firm Rasmussen, whose surveys are often accused of
having a decidedly conservative tilt, finds that for the first
time, a majority of likely voters want the U.S. government to set
a timetable to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan within
one year. Within that group, 31 percent want troops to come home
immediately. In September 2010, just 43 percent of likely voters
wanted a one-year timeline.<br>
<br>
This time frame is considerably more accelerated than the one set
forth by President Obama. The current plan is for the U.S.
military to begin withdrawing troops in July 2011 and then end
combat operations in 2014. But on Monday, Gates said that both the
U.S. and Afghan governments agree U.S. forces should remain in
Afghanistan even after that date.<br>
<br>
"Obviously it would be a small fraction of the presence that we
have today, but I think we're willing to do that," Gates said. "My
sense is, they are interested in having us do that."<br>
<br>
Seventy-three percent of Democrats favor a one-year timeline,
compared to 37 percent of Republicans. But there has been an
erosion of support in both parties, with 24 percent of Republicans
six months ago favoring bringing the troops home within a year.<br>
[...]<br>
A USA Today/Gallup poll from February also found that 72 percent
of Americans would support Congress taking up the issue of a
quicker withdrawal from Afghanistan.<br>
[...]<br>
<br>
7) Obama's Afghan Legacy: More Civilian Deaths<br>
Dan Froomkin, Huffington Post, 03/10/11 02:01 PM<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=2tFaXAY9efncQodDxHmtWxQO5osnoCgP">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/10/obamas-afghan-legacy-more_n_833915.html</a><br>
<br>
Washington - There is no consensus about what good has been
achieved in the two-plus years that President Barack Obama has
waged war in Afghanistan. But one negative result is indisputable:
the war has grown deadlier for Afghan civilians.<br>
<br>
Newly released data on civilian casualties compiled by the
U.S.-led NATO forces confirm what the United Nations reported on
Wednesday: That even as Obama has doubled the number of U.S.
troops in the country, the insurgency has only gotten more brutal
and life for ordinary Afghans has become more perilous.<br>
<br>
Published for the first time on Thursday by Science magazine, data
from the military's "CIVCAS" database show a 19 percent increase
in the number of civilians killed last year, compared to the
previous year.<br>
<br>
That's more or less in line with the U.N. data, which showed a 15
percent increase during that same period - after a 14 percent
increase between 2008 and 2009.<br>
[...]<br>
<br>
8) Senior US diplomat replaced over Okinawa uproar<br>
Eric Talmadge, Associated Press, Thursday, March 10, 2011; 1:37 AM
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=F3cE2oPJm9mc2CS7yZOjShQO5osnoCgP">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/09/AR2011030905536.html</a><br>
<br>
Tokyo - A senior U.S. diplomat supervising Japan affairs has been
replaced for allegedly making disparaging comments about the
inhabitants of a southern Japanese island where U.S. troops are
based, the U.S. Embassy and an assistant secretary of state said
Thursday.<br>
<br>
Kevin Maher caused an uproar by reportedly telling a group of
American University students in December that Okinawans were lazy
and used their hosting of U.S. bases to extort benefits from
Tokyo.<br>
<br>
The comments have been widely reported in the Japanese media, and
Japan's foreign minister called them hurtful and deeply
regrettable.<br>
<br>
Maher has been replaced by Rust Deming, the deputy chief of
mission in Tokyo, as director of the State Department's Office of
Japan Affairs, the U.S. Embassy said in a statement. Maher will
continue to work for the State Department.<br>
<br>
Visiting Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell refused to say whether
the State Department had confirmed what Maher said. But he said
the decision to replace him was made for the sake of the overall
bilateral relationship.<br>
<br>
Okinawa hosts tens of thousands of U.S. Marines and other troops,
more than any other part of Japan. Okinawans have often complained
that they bear too much of the burden for Japan's security
alliance with Washington.<br>
<br>
The issue is particularly sensitive now because Tokyo and
Washington are negotiating a plan to move about 8,000 Marines off
Okinawa to the U.S. territory of Guam. To do so, they plan to
relocate a Marine base on Okinawa to a less crowded part of the
island, but many Okinawans oppose that option and want the base
closed down.<br>
[...]<br>
Under their mutual security pact, about 50,000 U.S. troops are
stationed in Japan.<br>
<b><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" name="March1011r2"></a>Libya</b> <br>
9) U.S. Intelligence Chief Says Qaddafi Has Edge in Conflict<br>
Mark Mazzetti and David E. Sanger, New York Times, March 10, 2011<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=B92Vs7CZltGdjWnT06mVRxQO5osnoCgP">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/world/africa/11clapper.html</a><br>
<br>
Washington - One week after President Obama demanded that Col.
Muammar el-Qaddafi cede power in Libya, the president's top
intelligence official predicted on Thursday, "over the longer
term, that the regime will prevail" in Libya's civil war, an
assessment that cast significant doubt on efforts so far by the
NATO allies to drive him from power.<br>
<br>
James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, told members
of the Senate Armed Services Committee that Colonel Qaddafi has a
potentially decisive advantage in arms and equipment that would
make itself felt as the conflict wore on.<br>
<br>
The statements by Mr. Clapper, a retired Air Force general who
oversees America's 16 intelligence services, could limit the Obama
administration's options. So far, only France has recognized the
provisional government set up by the rebels, called the Libyan
National Council. Mr. Clapper's assessment that the Libyan leader
is unlikely to be dislodged by the rebels - which presumably
reflects the briefings Mr. Obama and his top national security
advisers have been receiving in recent days - would appear to
diminish the chances that that the United States and other NATO
allies would follow suit.<br>
<br>
While Mr. Obama and his aides have spoken of military options,
including imposing a no-flight zone over Libya, they have so far
limited their concrete actions to imposing new sanctions, freezing
assets and monitoring Libyan military communications traffic. They
have stopped short of direct military action, even the jamming of
communications lines, and Mr. Clapper's assessment may push both
American officials and some allies to the conclusion that efforts
to terminate Col. Qaddafi's 41-year rule in Libya are futile.<br>
<br>
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did say on Thursday that
she would planned to meet with Libyan rebel leaders, perhaps
during her travel to Tunisia and Egypt next week to press for
democratic changes in those countries, or perhaps in Paris or back
in Washington.<br>
<br>
But Mrs. Clinton, in testimony to a subcommittee of the House
Appropriations Committee, appeared far more cautious about
military intervention than she was a week ago, aligning herself
more closely with the warnings offered by Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates. She wrapped her warnings in calls for international
authority to impose a no-flight zone, presumably from the United
Nations Security Council, which seems unlikely to act soon, if at
all.<br>
<br>
"Absent international authorization, the United States acting
alone would be stepping into a situation the consequences of which
would be unforeseeable," Mrs. Clinton told a House Appropriations
subcommittee.<br>
<br>
Past no-flight zones had had mixed results, she said. One imposed
over Iraq in the 1990's, she noted, "did not prevent Saddam
Hussein from slaughtering people on the ground and it did not get
him out of office," she said, according to news agencies. Nor did
a no-flight zone in Bosnia drive the Serbian leader, Slobodan
Milosovic, from power "until we had troops on the ground," she
added.<br>
<br>
In his testimony, Mr. Clapper said that the rebel groups were "in
for a tough row, because a very important consideration here for
the regime is that, by design, Qaddafi intentionally designed the
military so that those select units loyal to him are the most
luxuriously equipped and the best-trained." Dismissing the idea
that the Libyan leader would step down the way the leaders of
Egypt and Tunisia did, he added: "We believe that Qaddafi is in
this for the long haul. He appears to be hunkering down for the
duration."<br>
[...]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" name="March1011r3"></a><b>Afghanistan</b>
<br>
10) Cousin of Afghan President Is Killed in NATO Raid<br>
Alissa J. Rubin and James Risen, New York Times, March 10, 2011<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=k9h%2BYvlgt7pE5fl%2FB00avBQO5osnoCgP">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/world/asia/11karzai.html</a><br>
<br>
Kabul, Afghanistan - A first cousin of Afghanistan's president was
killed Wednesday during a night raid by NATO and Afghan forces in
which they detained the man's son as a suspected Taliban
commander, as well as several of the family's bodyguards.<br>
<br>
The case brought the sensitive issue of civilian casualties into
the presidential palace and added to the already tense
relationship between the Afghans and the Americans.<br>
<br>
The raid occurred in the southern province of Kandahar, in the
rural village of Karz, the Karzai clan's ancestral home. The slain
man was Yar Mohammed Karzai, 60, a lifelong resident of the
village.<br>
<br>
On Thursday evening, a NATO spokesman said the force was "aware of
conflicting reports about the identities of those involved and has
initiated an inquiry to determine the facts."<br>
<br>
The death was confirmed by the president's half-brother, Ahmed
Wali Karzai, the chairman of Kandahar Province's provincial
council, who said the killing was a mistake.<br>
<br>
He said the raid was a joint operation by the NATO force - the
International Security Assistance Force - and the Afghan National
Army that had gone awry. "The prime target was not actually him,"
he said, "It was somebody else. But mistakenly he was killed, and
ISAF apologized for that."<br>
<br>
President Hamid Karzai was informed of his cousin's death this
morning, said Waheed Omar, the presidential spokesman. "This was
the result of an irresponsible night raid and like any other case
of civilian casualties, the president was very sorry to hear about
it," Mr. Omar said.<br>
<br>
"We've called for a stop of the night raids, which often cause a
loss of life and are against the culture and the Islamic values of
the Afghan people. They can always cause unnecessary and
irresponsible action such as what happened last night."<br>
<br>
This is the third serious case of civilian casualties in three
weeks. Last week, NATO forces mistakenly killed nine boys
gathering firewood in Kunar Province.<br>
<br>
Gen. David H. Petraeus apologized to President Karzai in person
for the deaths, but Mr. Karzai called his statement
"insufficient." He did accept an apology from the American defense
secretary, Robert M. Gates, a day later.<br>
<br>
A routine NATO statement on the events sent to reporters Thursday
morning said that NATO troops and Afghan security forces "had
captured a Taliban leader, killed one armed individual and
detained several suspected insurgents during security operations
in Kandahar City, Kandahar province, yesterday."<br>
<br>
The targeted Taliban leader, the statement said, was responsible
for distributing car bombs to fighters in the greater Kandahar
area and coordinated arms shipments to the Taliban.<br>
<br>
"Security forces advanced to the targeted compound where they
called for all occupants to exit the building peacefully before
conducting searches," the statement said. "A member observed an
armed individual with an AK-47 in an adjacent building within the
same compound. The security force assessed the male as an
immediate threat to the security force, and engaged him. The
individual killed was the father of the targeted individual."<br>
<br>
Interviews with witnesses of the Karz raid offered a different
perspective.<br>
<br>
According to Mohammed Karzai, a cousin who lives in Maryland and
heard accounts from relatives who were in nearby houses at the
time, "the armed individual" was Yar Mohammed. Two of the other
"suspected insurgents" were the family's bodyguards, assigned by
Ahmed Wali Karzai to protect the family after one of Yar
Mohammed's sons was murdered. A member of another branch of the
family was suspected in the killing.<br>
[...]<br>
The elder Karzai was "shot in the head" said Hajji Fazal Mohammad
Khan, a tribal elder who lives in a neighboring village, Moshan.
"His son, three bodyguards and two neighbors were detained, but
later his son was set free and the five others are in ISAF
detention," Mr. Khan said.<br>
<br>
"We don't know why he was raided," he added. "That area is free of
Taliban and he was not involved in any activity. He was 60 years
old. People are really angry about his death; he was a very
respected man in his community."<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" name="March1011r4"></a><b>Iran</b> <br>
11) Iran's response to Middle East protests is muted<br>
Joby Warrick, Washington Post, Wednesday, March 9, 2011; 12:14 PM
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=KBfHtW1fMLdYEv8MO0xjGhQO5osnoCgP">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/09/AR2011030902480.html</a><br>
<br>
When Shiite protesters took to the streets of Bahrain three weeks
ago, U.S. and Middle Eastern officials watched anxiously to see
how Iran, the kingdom's notoriously meddlesome neighbor, would
intervene. What happened - or didn't happen - surprised them.<br>
<br>
No Shiite clerics from Iran visited Bahrain to denounce its Sunni
rulers. There were no provocateurs whipping up anti-government
fervor in Shiite neighborhoods. Even popular Shiite Web sites
controlled by Iranian clerics were unusually subdued.<br>
<br>
The muted response fits a pattern observed by intelligence
analysts and experts since the wave of Middle East unrest began in
December. Iran, which so often has sought to assert its influence
in neighboring countries, is sitting this one out - apparently
having concluded that it wins by simply doing nothing.<br>
<br>
"Iran sees that everything is already going its way," said a
former U.S. intelligence official who consults with Arab
governments on internal security. From the Persian Gulf states to
Lebanon, "they have decided to hold back."<br>
<br>
Current and former intelligence officials and diplomats said in
interviews that Iran's restraint reflects its growing confidence
in the region.<br>
<br>
Since January, the Islamic republic has seen its largest regional
rival - the government of former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak
- toppled by protesters, while the Iranian-backed Hezbollah party
has strengthened its grip on Lebanon. Saudi Arabia, another
regional bulwark against Iranian expansion, is distracted by
uprisings on its borders, particularly in Yemen, Oman and Bahrain.<br>
<br>
Meanwhile, U.S. influence in the region has plummeted with the
loss of allies and prestige. Intelligence officials and diplomats
predict that, even under their rosiest scenarios for a more
democratic Middle East, the region's emerging governments will be
less supportive of U.S. efforts to isolate Iran politically.
Already, the Obama administration is having to rethink an Iran
strategy that relied on Middle Eastern allies to counterbalance
Tehran's conventional forces and prevent cheating on economic
sanctions, the officials said.<br>
<br>
"Iran has risen by default," said Robert Baer, a former CIA case
officer in the Middle East and the author of "The Devil We Know,"
a 2008 book about Iran's ascendancy as a regional power. "Iran
sees the influence of the United States waning in the Middle East,
and they know that our allies are on wobbly legs and possibly
going down."<br>
<br>
Iran maintains deep cultural and religious ties to other Shiite
populations in the region, including in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and
Iraq. In the past, it has also sought to directly influence the
internal politics of Iraq and Afghanistan, promoting pro-Iranian
policies and politicians.<br>
<br>
Several Middle Eastern governments hit by unrest were initially
convinced that Iran was behind the disturbances, a conviction
based on decades of experience. Officials in Bahrain have
repeatedly complained of past interference by Iran, which
maintains close ethnic and religious ties to some members of the
country's majority Shiite population.<br>
[However, US officials have often been skeptical of such claims of
interference, a fact that this article should have noted - JFP.]<br>
<br>
Not so this time. The striking lack of Iranian involvement in
Bahrain's current unrest has been confirmed by senior Obama
administration officials as well as intelligence operatives based
in the region. Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, said last week that the Persian Gulf states' deep
concerns about Iran's intentions had not been realized. "We are
seeing no indications of any credible influence from Tehran,"
Mullen said, speaking to reporters after a visit to the region.<br>
[...]<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" name="March1011r5"></a><b>Colombia</b> <br>
12) Colombia Slips Into the Abyss as FTA Threatens Further Havoc<br>
Dan Kovalik, Huffington Post, March 9, 2011 05:16 PM<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=KTroPjyN%2FK4LbrhuqV6LkxQO5osnoCgP">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-kovalik/colombia-slips-into-the-a_b_833086.html</a><br>
<br>
While little attention has been paid by the press, Colombia just
reached an ignominious benchmark - it is now the country with the
largest population of internally displaced persons in the world,
surpassing Sudan which had held this position for the past several
years. Colombia, with a population of around 44 million, now has
5.2 million internally displaced persons, meaning that almost 12%
of its population is displaced - most of them by violence, and a
disproportionate number being Afro-Colombians and indigenous.<br>
<br>
As a report by the Colombian human rights group CODHES notes, half
of the 5.2 internally displaced were displaced during the
presidential term of Alvaro Uribe and as a direct consequence of
his "counterinsurgency program" - a program funded in large
measure by the U.S. As CODHES noted, in a significant proportion
of the municipalities impacted by this program, there has been
large-scale mining and cultivation of oil palm and biofuel. CODHES
is clear that this production is directly responsible for the
violent displacement of persons from their land Indeed, it appears
that the "counterinsurgency program" has in fact largely been
intended to make Colombia safe for multi-national exploitation of
the land at the very expense of the people the program has claimed
to be helping.<br>
<br>
The proposed Colombia FTA is also intended to do the very same -
to protect the rights of multi-national corporations over the
basic human rights of the Colombian people. For example, the
Colombia FTA would privilege the very palm oil production which is
leading to the mass displacement of people. Even more frightening,
as The Nation Magazine explained in a detailed article, around
half of the palm oil companies are actually owned and controlled
by paramilitary groups, meaning that the FTA will directly aid
these groups by incentivizing their crops.<br>
<br>
As the Washington Office on Latin America recently noted, the
FTA's agricultural provisions will also undermine the livelihood
of Colombia's rural inhabitants who will not be able to compete
with the subsidized, cheap food stuffs which will be able to flood
the Colombian markets duty-free under the FTA. Indeed, we have
seen this before in Mexico where NAFTA led to the impoverishment
and displacement of 1.3 million small farmers, and in Haiti which
lost its ability to feed its own people with its rice production
after Clinton's free trade policies with that country.<br>
[...]<br>
Meanwhile, the labor rights situation in Colombia remains dismal.
Thus, according to the Escuela Nacional Sindical (ENS), fifty-one
(51) trade unionists were killed in 2010, and 4 unionists
(including 3 teachers) have already been killed this year. The 51
unionists killed in 2010 matches precisely the number of unionists
killed in 2008 when President Obama vowed to oppose the Colombia
FTA based upon his concern that unionists face unprecedented
violence in that country.<br>
[...]<br>
- <br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=jv0xcB1sE9scpD1ezxZQhxQO5osnoCgP">Just
Foreign Policy</a> is a membership organization devoted to
reforming US foreign policy so it reflects the values and
interests of the majority of Americans. The archive of the Just
Foreign Policy News is <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=rMv%2FfYnA1BEX7zRae6o0IqJeo2O%2BDLCu">here</a>:
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=FCnvKDGiAzjPvDyVsnHsChQO5osnoCgP"><br>
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/blog/dailynews</a><br>
</p>
<!-- TemplateEndEditable -->
<p><br>
------------</p>
<p><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=ppx9iIJUHhZ%2F7BD87vdukRQO5osnoCgP">Click
here to unsubscribe</a></p>
<div style="text-align: center;"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.salsalabs.com/?email"><img
moz-do-not-send="true" alt="empowered by Salsa"
src="https://www.salsalabs.com/salsa/images/empowered-by-salsa.gif"
border="0"></a></div>
<img moz-do-not-send="true"
src="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/dia/TrackImage?key=1737309521"
height="1" width="1"><diaemailid='1737309521' thread="9096">
</diaemailid='1737309521'>
</body>
</html>