[Peace-discuss] Just Foreign Policy NewsBrief 06_06_27

[Robert Naiman]

Just Foreign Policy NewsBrief
June 27, 2006

In this issue:
1) Iran's Supreme Leader Sees No Benefit in U.S. Talks
2) Putin Urges Weapons - Treaty Talks With U.S. (excerpt)
3) Iranian Minister: WMD Outlawed in Islam
4) Oil Prices Rise Above $72 a Barrel (excerpt)
5) British Envoy Urges Iranian Leader to Decide Quickly on Nuclear Plan
6) New Iran Foreign Policy Body Set
7) Military Fails Some Widows Over Benefits

Summary:
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said Tuesday that talks
with the U.S. held no benefits for Iran.Washington has offered to join
the EU's direct talks with Iran if Tehran agrees to halt its uranium
enrichment work, the key demand in a package that has the backing of
six world powers. Iran has not yet replied to the offer. "Negotiating
with America does not have any benefit for us and we do not need such
negotiations,'' Khamenei said. "We will not negotiate with anybody our
certain right to reach and use nuclear technology. However, if they
recognize this right for us, we are prepared to talk about
international controls, supervision and guarantees, and the ground for
such negotiations have been prepared.''

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that Russia had
significantly contributed to helping resolve the crisis over Tehran's
nuclear program. ''We will not participate in an ultimatum which would
drive the situation into a dead end,'' he said. Putin said Moscow had
contributed by putting forward plans of building international uranium
enrichment centers, where Iran could have other countries, such as
Russia, enrich uranium on its behalf. Tehran says it is still
considering the offer.

Mohammad Mehdi Zahedi, Iran's minister of science, research and
technology told Indonesia's vice president Tuesday that his country
has no plans to develop nuclear weapons because Islamic law outlaws
the development of weapons of mass destruction.
Zahedi called on Western countries not to try and prevent developing
nations from producing their own nuclear power when it is designed for
peaceful purposes.
''Islamic doctrine does not allow us to produce mass destruction
weapons or nuclear ones and the Iranian state is based on that
principle,'' Zahedi said. He questioned why countries that have
developed or used nuclear weapons continue to oppose Iran's nuclear
research and development.

Oil prices rose above $72 a barrel Tuesday as the suspension of
refinery productions along the U.S. Gulf Coast due to a shipping snag
reignited concerns that gasoline supplies would not be able to meet
demand during the summer driving season. Rising demand from China and
worries about the ongoing tension between Iran and the West have
lifted oil prices in recent weeks, with crude futures now trading
about 19 percent higher than a year ago.

Geoffrey Adams, the new British ambassador to Iran, urged President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Monday to give an "early response" to an
international package of incentives offered to Iran by six nations in
an effort to end a standoff over its nuclear program. The proposals
were presented to Iran on June 6, and Western diplomats said Iran had
only weeks to respond. Mr. Ahmadinejad said last week that Iran would
respond to the package by Aug. 22. Germany's foreign minister said
Monday that it was inconceivable that the six nations would wait
another two months for a response, Reuters reported.  The Tehran daily
newspaper Jomhouri Eslami hinted Sunday that Iran might agree to a
three-month suspension of its enrichment program. The newspaper is
close to the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Iran's supreme leader has created a foreign policy body that includes
former government ministers, a move analysts said indicates disquiet
in the leadership over the country's growing isolation. The committee
will not have executive powers, but analysts said Monday that they
believed it could influence foreign policy, including the dispute over
Iran's nuclear activities, which is handled by the Supreme National
Security Council. The committee includes ministers from the reformist
government of former President Mohammad Khatami, who sought a detente
with the West.

The military has failed some of the widows of U.S. soldiers killed in
Iraq, the New York Times reports. For military widows, the shock of
losing a husband is often followed by the confounding task of
untangling a collection of benefits from assorted bureaucracies.
These widows face lost files, long delays, an avalanche of paperwork,
misinformation and gaps in the patchwork of laws governing survivor
benefits.

1) Iran's Supreme Leader Sees No Benefit in U.S. Talks
REUTERS, June 27, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-iran-usa.html

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said
on Tuesday that talks with the United States held no benefits for the
Islamic Republic.

Washington has offered to join the European Union's direct talks with
Iran if Tehran agrees to halt its uranium enrichment work, the key
demand in a package that has the backing of six world powers. Iran has
so far not replied to that offer.

``Negotiating with America does not have any benefit for us and we do
not need such negotiations,'' Khamenei was quoted as saying by state
television.

On Iran's nuclear dispute with the West, Khamenei said: ``We will not
negotiate with anybody our certain right to reach and use nuclear
technology. However, if they recognize this right for us, we are
prepared to talk about international controls, supervision and
guarantees, and the ground for such negotiations have been prepared.''

In March, it had looked like talks between the two countries could go
ahead after Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National
Security Council, said Iran would talk to the United States to help
resolve problems in Iraq.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has sanctioned such a
meeting but also said talks could only proceed if the United States
stopped its ``bullying attitude.''

But President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in April such talks were not
needed since a permanent Iraqi government was in place.

2) Putin Urges Weapons - Treaty Talks With U.S. (excerpt)
ASSOCIATED PRESS, June 27, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Russia-Putin.html

MOSCOW (AP) --

[…]

Turning to Iran, Putin said Russia had significantly contributed to
helping resolve the crisis over Tehran's nuclear program.

''We will not participate in an ultimatum which would drive the
situation into a dead end,'' he said.

The United States and Europe are pressing Iran to quickly respond to a
package of incentives to give up uranium enrichment and resume
negotiations over its nuclear ambitions.

The West suspects Iran is enriching uranium to create nuclear weapons.
Tehran contends the program is peaceful, intended for the generation
of electricity.

Putin said Moscow had contributed by putting forward plans of building
international uranium enrichment centers, where Iran could have other
countries, such as Russia, enrich uranium on its behalf.

Tehran says it is still considering the offer.

3) Iranian Minister: WMD Outlawed in Islam
ASSOCIATED PRESS, June 27, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Indonesia-Iran.html

JAKARTA, Indonesia (AP) -- An Iranian minister told Indonesia's vice
president Tuesday that his country has no plans to develop nuclear
weapons because Islamic law outlaws the development of weapons of mass
destruction.

Mohammad Mehdi Zahedi, Iran's minister of science, research and
technology said that based on the Islamic principle, Iran must take
advantage of all its potential resources including nuclear technology
for the prosperity of its people.

Zahedi called on Western countries not to try and prevent developing
nations from producing their own nuclear power when it is designed for
peaceful purposes.

''Islamic doctrine does not allow us to produce mass destruction
weapons or nuclear ones and the Iranian state is based on that
principle,'' Zahedi told a news conference after meeting with
Indonesian Vice President Jusuf Kalla.

He questioned why countries that have developed or used nuclear
weapons continue to oppose Iran's nuclear research and development.

He called on developing countries to fight hand in hand against what
he called ''scientific apartheid.''

''I would like to say that the usage of nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes is the right of every nation. And we, as a sovereign nation,
do not allow other nations to interfere our domestic affairs,'' he
said.

The United States and some European countries have accused Iran of
seeking to develop nuclear weapons, and have offered a package of
incentives for Iran to give up uranium enrichment and resume
negotiations over its nuclear ambitions.

4) Oil Prices Rise Above $72 a Barrel (excerpt)
ASSOCIATED PRESS
June 27, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Oil-Prices.html

SINGAPORE (AP) -- Oil prices rose above $72 a barrel Tuesday as the
suspension of refinery productions along the U.S. Gulf Coast due to a
shipping snag reignited concerns that gasoline supplies would not be
able to meet demand during the summer driving season.

Also, rising demand from China -- Asia's largest consumer of fuels --
and worries about the ongoing tension between Iran and the West have
lifted oil prices in recent weeks, with crude futures now trading
about 19 percent higher than a year ago.

[…]

On the Iran front, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday shrugged
off increased international pressure over his nation's disputed
nuclear program, saying it would not cause his country any harm.

Washington has warned Iran that it could face political and economic
sanctions before the U.N. Security Council if it doesn't stop its
nuclear activities, which the United States and its European allies
say is an attempt to produce nuclear weapons. Tehran says the uranium
will be used only for a peaceful energy program.

Oil traders are watching how the developments might affect Iran's oil exports.

Ahmadinejad has said Tehran is studying a list of Western incentives
for Iran to stop its program, and said he will reply by mid-August.
European and U.S. officials have called for an answer in mid-July.

5) British Envoy Urges Iranian Leader to Decide Quickly on Nuclear Plan
NAZILA FATHI, New York Times, June 27, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/world/middleeast/27iran.html

TEHRAN, June 26 — The new British ambassador here urged President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Monday to give an "early response" to an
international package of incentives offered to Iran by six nations in
an effort to end a standoff over its nuclear program.

"We believe that our relationship should be based on mutual respect
and principles of international law," Geoffrey Adams, the ambassador,
told Mr. Ahmadinejad during a ceremony at which Mr. Adams presented
his credentials, a statement on the British Embassy's Web site said.

"We hope that Iran will play a full role in regional and international
affairs," the ambassador said. "In that context, we believe that the
recent proposals" presented by Javier Solana, the European Union's
foreign policy chief, "constitute a sound basis for the resolution of
the nuclear issue; and we look forward to the Iranian government's
early response." The Web site said the ambassador spoke in Persian.

The proposals were presented to Iran on June 6, and Western diplomats
said Iran had only weeks to respond. The package was drafted by
Germany and the five permanent members of the United Nations Security
Council, the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia. It
offered Iran incentives to suspend its enrichment program.

Mr. Ahmadinejad said last week that Iran would respond to the package
by Aug. 22.

Germany's foreign minister said Monday that it was inconceivable that
the six nations would wait another two months for a response, Reuters
reported. "They have had the offer for two weeks already," Foreign
Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier was quoted as saying. "I hope a
decision will be made soon in Tehran. I can't imagine we would wait
until Aug. 22."

Messages have been conveyed to Iran through friendly countries, urging
it to give a favorable answer. Among those urging Iran to find a
diplomatic solution have been Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Prince
Saud al-Faisal; Abdul Aziz Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council
for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a powerful faction in its new
government; and the Turkish foreign minister, Abdullah Gul.

Mr. Gul said during a news conference in Tehran on Sunday that he had
brought a message for Iran but refused to elaborate.

"All countries are trying to help resolve Iran's nuclear issue
peacefully, and diplomatic efforts can certainly create a positive
environment and can be helpful," he said, the ISNA news agency
reported.

The Tehran daily newspaper Jomhouri Eslami hinted Sunday that Iran
might agree to a three-month suspension of its enrichment program. The
newspaper is close to the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, who has the final word on state matters.
"Some reports have quoted informed sources, without naming them, that
Iran is preparing a response to the package and will agree to a
three-month suspension," the newspaper said.

But it added that it was unlikely that suspension would take place,
because senior officials have stressed that Iran will not give up its
activities relating to uranium enrichment.

6) New Iran Foreign Policy Body Set
Reuters/Los Angeles Times
June 27, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran27jun27,1,5224815.story

The supreme leader's creation reflects unease over the country's
isolation, analysts say.

TEHRAN — Iran's supreme leader has created a foreign policy body that
includes former government ministers, a move analysts said indicates
disquiet in the leadership over the country's growing isolation.

The committee will not have executive powers, but analysts said Monday
that they believed it could influence foreign policy, including the
dispute over Iran's nuclear activities, which is handled by the
Supreme National Security Council.

The committee includes former Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi and
other ministers from the reformist government of former President
Mohammad Khatami, who sought a detente with the West and what he
called "dialogue among civilizations."

Since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in 2005, ties with the
West have deteriorated, largely because of the nuclear debate and
statements by the president that include a call for Israel's
destruction.

"This council should be formed to help make major decisions and search
for new horizons in Iran's foreign affairs," supreme leader Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei was quoted as saying in a decree published by the
newspaper Shargh.

The paper did not describe the body's exact role.

"The nuclear crisis and Ahmadinejad's radical foreign policy have
pushed the leader to form this committee," analyst Mohammed Atrianfar
said.

Iran has been referred to the United Nations Security Council for
possible sanctions over fears that it is building nuclear arms. It
denies the charge, saying its goal is peaceful generation of
electricity.

"It means that the core of the system is not satisfied with the
function of its foreign policy apparatus and that it intends to
reconstruct itself as quickly as possible," analyst Mashallah
Shamsolvaezin said.

Six world powers have offered Iran a package of incentives to halt
sensitive nuclear work. Tehran has yet to respond.

7) Military Fails Some Widows Over Benefits
Lizette Alvarez
New York Times
June 27, 2006

As Holly Wren coped with her 6-month-old son and the sorrow of losing
her husband in Iraq last November, she assumed that the military's
sense of structure and order would apply in death as it had in life.
Instead she encountered numerous hurdles in trying to collect survivor
benefits. She received only half the amount owed her for housing
because her husband, one of the highest ranking soldiers to die in
Iraq, was listed as single, childless and living in Florida — wrong on
every count. Lt. Col. Thomas Wren was married, with five children, and
living in Northern Virginia.

She waited months for her husband's retirement money and more than two
weeks for his death benefit, meant to arrive within days. And then
Mrs. Wren went to court to become her son's legal guardian because no
one had told her husband that a minor cannot be a beneficiary. "You
are a number, and your husband is a number" said Mrs. Wren, who
ultimately asked her congressman for help. "They need to understand
that we are more than that."

For military widows, many of them young, stay-at-home mothers, the
shock of losing a husband is often followed by the confounding task of
untangling a collection of benefits from assorted bureaucracies.

While the process runs smoothly for many widows, for others it is
characterized by lost files, long delays, an avalanche of paperwork,
misinformation and gaps in the patchwork of laws governing survivor
benefits.

Sometimes it is simply the Pentagon's massive bureaucracy that poses
the problem. In other cases, laws exclude widows whose husbands died
too early in the war or were killed in training rather than in combat.
The result is that scores of families — it is impossible to know how
many — lose out on money and benefits that they expected to receive or
believed they were owed, say widows, advocates and legislators.

"Why do we want to draw arbitrary and capricious lines that exclude
widows?" asked Senator Mike DeWine, an Ohio Republican, who has
sponsored legislation to close some of the legal loopholes that
penalize widows. "It seems to me we ought to err on the side of
compassion for families."

Mr. DeWine said Congress sometimes passes these loopholes without
considering the ramifications. But money also plays a large factor,
and Congress is sometimes compelled to keep down costs associated with
the war. "That's what you hear behind the scenes," Senator DeWine
said.

The Army is also trying to address the problem, for example, with new
call centers intended to help survivors navigate the bewildering
bureaucracy. "As we always have, we constantly re-evaluate how we
conduct our business to see if we can improve," said Col. Mary
Torgersen, director of the Army casualty affairs operations center.

But legislators and advocates working with widows say the problems are
often systemic, involving payouts by the mammoth Department of Defense
accounting office and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

A few widows simply fall through the cracks altogether. The
consequences are hard felt: they run up credit card bills, move in
with relatives to save money, pull their children from private
schools, spend money on lawyers or dedicate countless frustrating
hours to unraveling the mix-ups.

"We have had more of these cases than I wish to know," said Ann G.
Knowles, president of the National Association of County Veterans
Service Officers, which helps veterans and widows with their claims.

The Department of Defense offers widows a range of benefits, including
retirement security money, health care, life insurance payouts and a
$100,000 death gratuity. The Department of Veterans Affairs allocates
a minimum $1,033 monthly stipend and temporary transition assistance,
among other things. Widows also receive money from the Social Security
Administration.

But a benefit is only as valuable as a widow's ability to claim it.
Just days after her husband was killed in Iraq by a roadside bomb,
Laura Youngblood, who was pregnant with their second child, got
another piece of sobering news from the Navy: Her mother-in-law, who
had been estranged from the family for several years, would be
receiving half of her husband's $400,000 life insurance payment.

Nearly a year later, Mrs. Youngblood, 27, is still trying to persuade
the Navy that the military's accounting department lost her husband's
2004 insurance form naming her and her son as co-beneficiaries, along
with the rest of his pre-deployment paperwork. The only forms the Navy
can find are from 2003, listing an old address for her husband,
Travis, an incorrect rank and no dependents.

The military paperwork was in such disarray, Mrs. Youngblood said,
that her husband went months without combat pay and family separation
pay because the defense accounting service did not realize he was in
Iraq, where he was detached to a Marine Corps unit.

When the Navy said there was nothing it could do, the Marine Inspector
General's office stepped in to investigate, forwarding findings to the
Navy Inspector General's office. "These were my husband's dying
wishes: to take care of his children," said Mrs. Youngblood, who has
hired a lawyer to help her. "You honor his wishes. That's his blood
money."

Congress has won plaudits in the past two years for increasing the
payment after a soldier's death from $12,420 to $100,000 and upping
the life insurance payout from $250,000 to $400,000. It made available
to some recent widows a retirement income benefit for free. Congress
has also paved the way for more generous health and housing benefits.
Adding to that, numerous states have recently introduced free college
tuition and property tax savings.

"Since 9/11, the demands on survivors are greater and they are getting
much more in benefits," said Brad Snyder, the president of Armed
Forces Services Corporation, which helps survivors with benefits. "The
expectations of what we had in Vietnam were much lower."

But to the widows, some of whom adapted their lives to conform to the
military, following their husbands from place to place, the
complications can sting. Jennifer McCollum, 32, who was raised on
bases and whose husband, Capt. Dan McCollum, a Marine Corps pilot,
died in 2002 when his plane crashed in Pakistan, has been busy
lobbying Congress to reverse gaps in the law that penalize some widows
financially simply because of when their husbands died.

"The president, whom I support, said in the State of the Union address
that he would not forget the families of the fallen," she said. "Why
have I had to go to D.C. five times this year?"

Gaps in the Laws

Hundreds of widows are denied thousands of dollars in benefits because
of arbitrary cut-off dates in the law. The family of a soldier who was
killed in October 2003 receives less money than the family of a
soldier who was killed in October 2005. "It is shameful that the
government and Congress do not deliver the survivor benefits equally
to all our widows with the same compassion and precision the military
presents the folded flag at the grave," said Edie Smith, a leader of
the Gold Star Wives of America, a group of 10,000 military widows that
lobbies Congress and the Pentagon.

Shauna Moore was tending to her newborn, Hannah, on Feb. 21, 2003,
when she learned that her husband, Sgt. Benjamin Moore, 25, had been
shot during a rifle training exercise at Fort Hood, Tex. Months later,
after her grief began to subside, she noticed that she was not
entitled to the same retirement benefits as more recent widows with
children.

Congress allowed certain widows to sign over to their children their
husband's retirement benefit, sidestepping a steep so-called military
widow's tax. But the law applies only to the widows of service members
who died after Nov. 23, 2003. Mrs. Moore is one of an estimated 430
spouses with children who are ineligible.

If that option were available to Mrs. Moore, she would collect an
extra $10,000 a year until Hannah became an adult.

"It makes a difference, if you are a single mom," she said.

Last week, the Senate approved Senator DeWine's measure that would
extend the benefit to widows whose husbands died as far back as Oct.
7, 2001, the start of the war in Afghanistan. The House did not
approve a similar measure, which is tucked into the Senate Defense
Authorization bill, so now the issue must be resolved in negotiations.

Hundreds of widows also fail to qualify for a monthly payment of $250
in transition assistance, from the Department of Veterans Affairs,
paid to help children for two years after their father's death. It
applies only to those spouses whose husbands died after Feb. 1, 2005.
Those who lost husbands before February 2003 received nothing because
their transition is presumably over, and those who were widowed from
2003 to 2005 received a smaller amount.

Congress has closed some glaring gaps in laws, including one that
excluded many families from the $100,000 death benefit and the
$400,000 insurance payout because the soldiers' deaths were not
combat-related. The outcry forced Congress last year to include all
active-duty deaths since Oct. 7, 2001, in those benefits.

The Long Wait

Even good intentions demand patience. A much-upgraded health care
benefit to help the children of service members who died on active
duty has yet to be implemented after 18 months because the new
regulations have not been written.

Because Champus/Tricare, the federal insurer for military families,
does not recognize the law, widows are still paying out more money for
health care, which some can ill afford.

The January 2005 law will greatly improve health care for all
children. But Nichole Haycock's severely disabled son, Colten, 13, may
not be among them.

Her husband, Sgt. First Class Jeffrey Haycock, 38, died in April 2002
after a run; Army doctors had failed to tell him about a heart
condition they had discovered two months before. But because her
husband did not die in a combat-related situation, her son was denied
admission to a program for the disabled.

As she teeters on the brink of exhaustion, her two other children get
short shrift.

"It's been very difficult to care for a child that is this severe by
myself," Mrs. Haycock said. "I would love to see my daughter and son
in school events. But I can't do those things."

Tricare officials cannot say for sure whether her son will be covered
by the 2005 law when the regulations are written. Francine Forestell,
the chief of its customer communications division, said federal
regulators plan to interpret it as broadly as possible, "but we can't
promise anything," she said.

A Lost Life but No Insurance

Few cases are as heartbreaking as the widow who winds up with little
or no life insurance money after her husband's death. In many
instances, the husband simply neglected to change the beneficiary.
Little, if anything, can be done to recoup the money in such a case
after it has been paid out, and advocates emphasize that couples must
do a better job of educating themselves about benefits at
pre-deployment family meetings.

But in some cases, widows said that they had done their jobs, had
double-checked the paperwork and something still went wrong.

Staff Sgt. Dexter Kimble, 30, a marine, was killed Jan. 26, 2005, when
his chopper crashed in an Iraqi sandstorm. It was his third
deployment. Before he left, he redid all his deployment paperwork,
after consulting with his wife, Dawanna. She noticed that the life
insurance form on file still had designated his mother as a
co-beneficiary.

"I said, 'What is this? Because I just had baby number four,' " Mrs.
Kimble said. "He had not added baby number four to the paperwork,
either. He said, 'Don't worry. I'm switching that and making you the
sole beneficiary.' "

After his funeral, Mrs. Kimble said her casualty assistance officer
informed her that her husband's paperwork had not been filed on time.
The system had processed the 2001 form, and her mother-in-law had
received half the $400,000. Her casualty officer offered to call her
mother-in-law and explain what had happened.

"I assumed it wouldn't be a question of if," Mrs. Kimble said about
the money, "but when."

Mrs. Kimble, who lives in Southern California, did not get any money
from her mother-in-law. She received $300,000 — the death benefit and
half of the insurance money — but used a chunk to help pay her
extended family's way to the burial and to pay off the car and other
debts. Maj. Jason Johnston, a public affairs officer for the Marine
Corps Air Station Miramar, said the corps processed what it had. "I'm
not saying the system is infallible," he said. "Anything is possible.

"If the Marine tells the spouse one thing and does another," he added,
"that is very unfortunate. But we have to go by what the marine puts
in the system."

Mrs. Kimble has taken a dead-end job in San Diego and is worried about
the future. To get to work, she gets up at 4 a.m. She pulled one child
out of private school. She left her home and is living with her
children in a friend's empty house. She is also paying for child care
for four children.

Lawrence Kelly, a lawyer who is representing Mrs. Youngblood and Mrs.
Kimble, said the problem is not unlike that confronted by thousands of
soldiers who have recently faced mistakes in their pay made by the
military's mammoth accounting office. "Same system, same bureaucracy,
same results," he said.

Responding to concerns from widows, Congress last year passed a law
stating that if there is a change in the beneficiary or in the amount
of the insurance, a spouse must be notified. But the law left a major
loophole: If a service member makes no change in his beneficiary after
he marries — if his mother or father were originally named and he did
not change it — his wife does not have to be notified.

"It has left me frustrated and very bitter," Mrs. Kimble said. "We
have already sacrificed our husbands. Our children are fatherless. For
them to struggle financially is another blow."


--
Robert Naiman
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org