[Peace-discuss] Chomsky on natural law

[E. Wayne Johnson]

I take this to be a quite significant piece.



On 12/11/2009 9:04 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> "...we're talking about the move from 'is' to 'ought'. We will 
> discover what we can about the nature of the world and, among the 
> truths about it, I believe, we will find that part of our genetic 
> capacity, which evolved over millennia, is that certain moral 
> principles are inscribed in it; probably genetically determined. To 
> try to discover them is, of course, a big task. There's some empirical 
> work on the subject. But their existence doesn't seem to me 
> questionable. For reasons, actually, explained by Hume. David Hume was 
> pretty clear about this. He pointed out that we have an almost 
> infinite number of responsibilities and duties; meaning, we know how 
> to behave properly in entirely new situations. And that can be the 
> case only if there are certain principles inscribed in us which come 
> from the original hand of nature -- from our genetic endowment we 
> would say -- that somehow guide our choices and decisions. I think 
> that's not at all implausible, and I cannot think of a coherent 
> alternative that would permit a degree of adaptability to what appears 
> to us as a wide variety of practices..."
>
>
> From Noam Chomsky interviewed by Bedeutung Magazine, December 2009 
> <http://chomsky.info/interviews/200912--.htm>:
>
> Alex Stavrakas: Every society creates its institutions based on needs, 
> values and ideas that are fictitious -- as being based on arbitrary 
> truths. The idea itself, however, that these institutions are a human 
> creation does not exist in every society. Societies, for example, may 
> rely on an external authority in order to legitimize their truths: 
> Gods, gospels, etc. The question is: if American people were fully 
> aware that they themselves are the creators of their own laws, would 
> they respect them?
>
> NC: First of all, the majority of American people today don't accept 
> the assumption that it is they who create their institutions and who 
> run their country. The last time I looked at the polls, about 80% of 
> the population felt that the government is made up of a few big 
> interests looking out for themselves and not for the people. You could 
> see this at the elections. Although I don't have the exact figures at 
> hand, there's a very striking fact: opinions of Congress are extremely 
> low -- in the teens. Nevertheless, probably 98% of incumbents get 
> re-elected. What this tells you is that, essentially, people are aware 
> that they don't have a choice and that they're not taking part in 
> running the country. In fact, you can see this in many other ways: 
> take April 15th, the day when taxes are paid. In a democratic society, 
> where people would feel that they are shaping their own lives, this 
> would be a day of celebration. The spirit would be "We're getting 
> together as a community to put our resources into implementing 
> policies that we have chosen". What could be better than that? Well, 
> that's not the way it is here. Instead, it's a day of mourning when 
> some alien force which has nothing to do with us comes to steal our 
> hard-earned money.
>
> AS: In this sense, then, the institutions to which they refer in order 
> to identify themselves politically, socially ...
>
> NC: ... are not their institutions. In fact, that's why virtually all 
> institutions are held in very low repute. Congress, corporations, just 
> name it.
>
> AS: Would you say that, in this sense, the fears of Tocqueville when 
> he spoke of democratic despotism as a state of becoming so politically 
> apathetic and conformist that one lacks even the desire to resist ...
>
> NC: ... I don't think 'apathetic' is the right word, I'm also not sure 
> 'conformist' is the right word. People feel hopeless. Take the Obama 
> campaign in 2008. Campaigns in the US are run by the Public Relations 
> industry and elections are, basically, bought. The Obama campaign is a 
> case in point. In fact, as you may know, the advertising industry 
> gives an award each year for the best marketing effort of the year. 
> Last year, they gave it to Obama, whose campaign beat Apple Computer 
> in 'Best Marketing of the Year'.
>
> There was really very little talk about issues. Real political issues 
> were off in the side somewhere and, to start with, most people didn't 
> even know what they were. The words that were being repeated over and 
> over again, in typical advertising campaign style, were 'hope' and 
> 'change'. Well, that's meaningless. But it does work, the advertisers 
> understand popular moods. The people wanted 'hope' and 'change' which 
> means that they didn't have hope and they didn't like what existed. 
> Now, that's not apathy, it's a mark of a kind of disintegration of 
> society. I'm old enough to have lived through a real depression, the 
> Great Depression, as a child -- but I remember it. My family were 
> mostly working people, not well-off by any means. But, in a way, it 
> was a less psychologically depressed time. There was a sense of 
> hopefulness; the sense that there is a way out of this, that there are 
> possibilities, things that can be done, like organise the CIO 
> (Committee for Industrial Organisation), get involved in programmes of 
> reform, opportunities to be grasped. There is no such general feeling 
> in the country now -- but it's not apathy. I think what it is, is the 
> success of an incredible propaganda campaign, the scale of which is 
> very little understood although there's good scholarship on it: after 
> the Second World War, there was an enormous campaign by the business 
> classes to drive out of people's heads any conception of democracy, 
> concern for one another, government, feeling able to do anything and 
> so on. And it had its successes.
>
> AS: In an interview you said that, faithful to a community decision, 
> you would stop at a red light at 3 am, while knowing that you could go 
> through it without being caught. You have, also, said that "power 
> doesn't imply justice or even correctness, so that the state may 
> define something as civil disobedience and may be wrong in doing so", 
> invoking the example of de-railing a train that carries ammunition to 
> Vietnam as an act that overrides the rule of law in the name of a 
> higher moral imperative. Is this not, in principle, the same logic 
> that led and justified the use of torture as an interrogation method 
> by the US?
>
> NC: It is, yes, the same principle. But, one could say that when 
> Hitler threw Jews into extermination camps it's the same principle as 
> when Gandhi carried out the Salt March. What I mean to say is that 
> these comparisons don't mean anything.
>
> AS: We seem to be inhabiting a world where political, economic and 
> social phenomena are driven by themselves, governed by a logic that 
> implies -- when it does not explicitly state -- that things are just 
> because they are and it cannot be any other way but how it is. In 
> other words, Capitalism's subjectivity has produced a new kind of 
> objectivity which, having no manifesto, manages to elude criticism. 
> What are your views on this?
>
> NC: That's a concocted image; its basis in reality is extremely 
> slight. First of all, do we have Capitalism? Do we live in a market 
> society? People who write these things, write them on computers and 
> send them by the internet. Where did computers and the internet come 
> from? They came mostly from the kind of place where I am sitting right 
> now: research institutions that in these days were largely funded by 
> the Pentagon. These products (computers, email) are, for the most 
> part, the result of a very dynamic and creative state sector of the 
> economy. Is this Capitalism? Computers and the internet were in the 
> state sector for decades before they were handed over to private 
> enterprises for profit. That's not unusual -- in fact, that's how most 
> of the economy works. It's an economy in which one of the leading 
> principles is that the public pays the costs and takes the risks 
> whereas the profit is privatised. We're seeing this in such a striking 
> way today that it cannot even be concealed. It's the so-called 'too 
> big to fail' principle, by which the Government is bailing out the 
> financial markets that crashed when they tried -- to an extent -- to 
> live up to market principles, leading, as it always happens in such 
> cases, to disaster. Only now they are being bailed out, because 
> they're 'too big to fail'. This means that they're basically public 
> utilities, except with private profit. So, if they get in trouble, the 
> public bails them out. To begin with, then, it's only a partial market 
> system, a limited form of State capitalism. And can it not change? Of 
> course it can change. Just because Margaret Thatcher says "There is no 
> alternative" it doesn't mean we should pay any attention to her. It 
> can change in many ways.
>
> But let's be concrete. Something rather surreal is happening right 
> now, which gives a lot of insight into the American form of State 
> capitalism. The Obama administration is partially dismantling the core 
> of the industrial economy: the automotive industry, steel industry, 
> heavy industry and so on. And that, also, means destroying 
> communities, destroying lives, destroying 'hope' -- quite a long range 
> of consequences. At the very same time, Obama's Secretary of 
> Transportation is travelling around Europe to try to use federal 
> stimulus money (taxpayer money) to get Spain and Germany (maybe other 
> countries too) to provide the United States with infrastructure, 
> technology and equipment for high-speed rail transport, which we 
> desperately need. Why is that happening? Why aren't the American 
> industries and their skilled workforce being reconstructed to produce 
> what the country needs? It certainly isn't impossible; there were much 
> sharper changes instigated by government initiatives during the Second 
> World War. Semi-command economy is highly successful economically; 
> more so than anything in economic history. So, why isn't it happening 
> now? The reason is that it doesn't lead to enough profit on Wall Street.
>
> Is there an alternative? Sure there is. The industries themselves 
> could be taken over by their stakeholders, workforce and community, 
> and converted to produce what's needed by the society and to produce 
> it with enough profit to satisfy this workforce and community -- if 
> not Wall Street. That's an alternative. But it has to be in people's 
> minds before it begins to be implemented -- and these notions of 
> popular democracy (which is what that would be) have been driven out 
> of people's minds.
>
> AS: You've argued that opportunity confers responsibility. In a sense, 
> you are speaking of a proportional distribution of responsibility. Can 
> you imagine a society in which questions about proportional and 
> absolute responsibility, justice, equality would disappear or be 
> resolved -- or do you consider such scenarios (like Marx's Higher 
> Communism) to be mystifying ideas causing, in the end, worse 
> alienations than they try to avoid?
>
> NC: There is no society (except for cases like Spanish Anarchism) that 
> ever tried to implement anything remotely like the ideas of Marx to 
> which you are referring. This certainly includes from its first moment 
> the Soviet Union, which was very anti-Socialist I should say. To the 
> extent that privilege is distributed, opportunity will be distributed 
> and then responsibility will too. Its not a matter of 0% or 100% but 
> one's position on this spectrum.
>
> AS: Can we go back to Obama's campaign and its buzzwords. It seems 
> like our most advertised values sound vague, if not downright 
> fraudulent: 'safety' and the preservation of 'our way of life'. Yet, 
> at the same time, the constantly repeated dictum of political 
> campaigns such as Obama's ('change') is an equally unqualified 
> proclamation. How do you understand the co-existence of these opposing 
> imperatives? What do you think of a political and cultural discourse 
> that seems to propose progress -- and urgently so at times -- yet 
> functions only to strengthen the existing economical, political and 
> cultural status?
>
> NC: Both rhetorics are, in my opinion, vacuous. And the preservation 
> of privilege and power should be but a cliché. We haven't gotten far 
> beyond what Adam Smith described when, discussing England, he pointed 
> out that the principal architects of policy in England -- namely the 
> merchants and manufacturers -- made sure that their own interests were 
> most peculiarly attended to, however grievous the effect on others, 
> including the people of England (but more so the victims of the 
> so-called savage injustice of the Europeans, referring primarily to 
> India in this case) were. Institutions have changed, a lot has changed 
> since Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations. In essence, however, what he 
> said remains a pretty good approximation to one of the leading 
> operating principles of policy formation. Now, there is a category of 
> people called 'intellectuals' one of whose major task is to suppress 
> all of this, usually in lofty rhetoric, and make it seem as if 
> something obscure and profound is involved. I think it's pretty 
> straightforward.
>
> AS: In our liberal societies we affirm, theoretically at least, the 
> equal rights of all cultures whilst knowing that there are cases of 
> regimes that constantly, systematically and massively violate the 
> principles that we consider as constitutive of a human society. Should 
> we consider these events as some interesting ethnological 
> peculiarities, or do we have a duty to take a stance -- academically 
> and politically -- including the use of force?
>
> NC: It's quite often useful to adopt a principle that is frequently 
> voiced but rarely applied: look in the mirror. Let's look at ourselves 
> first; for the reasons that are brought up repeatedly in the Gospels, 
> for instance. American society was founded as what George Washington 
> called "an infant empire" that was willing to create its territory by 
> what the founding fathers themselves recognised to be extermination 
> (their words). That's one of the original sins of this society and the 
> effects continue to linger. The other is slavery. Lets take a look at 
> slavery, then. We know what slavery was and what its horrors were. 
> After the Civil War it was technically supposed to have ended. 
> However, if you look at the facts, after about twenty years it began 
> to be re-instituted directly in the South -- and with the complicity 
> of the North. What was instituted was, literally, a criminalisation of 
> black life through laws such as 'vagrancy' or 'talking too loud'. This 
> was devised as a means to throw much of the black male population into 
> prison, where they would stay permanently through various other 
> machinations and from which they created the basis of a good part of 
> the modern industrial society: mines, steel mills, cotton and so on. 
> In fact, if you look at the details, it was worse than slavery. Under 
> slavery, the slave-owner owns the slave as capital and so he takes 
> care of him. But in this system there was no sense of responsibility; 
> it was quite horrendous. This continued until the Second World War. 
> During WWII, when labour was needed (industrial labour), there was a 
> kind of opening for black males that lasted through the following 
> several decades during which there was a very rapid and highly 
> egalitarian growth, the so-called 'Golden Age' of Capitalism. Now, in 
> the 1970s, the financialisation of the economy began and this window 
> of opportunity was closed. Since about 1980, the incarceration rate 
> has shot way up, reaching higher levels than in any other industrial 
> society. I think England is second, far behind the US, and others are 
> even farther behind. This phenomenon has no relation to crime, and it 
> concerns, to a substantial extent, black males. That's reinstituting 
> slavery; prison slavery, in fact, since these inmates work as prison 
> labour. So, if you look at the whole history, from the beginning of 
> the slave trade until today, slavery has barely ended. Sure enough, 
> it's taken somewhat different forms, it's not as rigorous today as it 
> was after Reconstruction -- but it's there and it has tremendous 
> effect on the society. Well, is that a property that meets the 
> condition that you described? Should we invade ourselves by force to 
> overcome it? And that's not the only example.
>
> AS: On the same theme of the United States and its relation to the 
> rest of the world, what are your views on China and Russia? They may 
> be able to live in a peaceful coexistence with the U.S., but they will 
> never accept American tutelage and the assumption that they can be 
> conscripted into service in a campaign to convert the world to 
> American-style democracy is, to say the least, unfounded.
>
> NC: There's a presupposition in the question which I cannot accept. Do 
> we want to convert the world to a world in which 80% of the population 
> think that their government is run by a few big interests looking 
> after themselves? A world in which citizens regard themselves as 
> helpless to influence governmental policies? Do we want a world -- to 
> take a case in point -- where 85% of the population believe that their 
> government should adopt the policies of every other government and 
> negotiate drug prices to cut them down from their exorbitant level and 
> their government doesn't even put it on the agenda, doesn't even 
> discuss it? Is that the kind of world we want to convert people to? 
> People talk about the model of American democracy and the American way 
> of life, but they do it in abstraction from reality. It actually 
> reminds me of what was written by a leading figure and one of the 
> founders of the realist school of international affairs, Hans 
> Morgenthau. He once wrote an interesting book which had a lot of truth 
> in it -- more than he thought, I think. The book was called 'The 
> Purpose of American Politics'. In this book, he claims that the United 
> States is unique in the world and has a transcendent purpose, unlike 
> any other country. This transcendent purpose is to bring about 
> freedom. But Morgenthau, being a good scholar and going through 
> history, observed that we have not lived up to this transcendent 
> purpose. Case after case, this purpose has, in fact, been radically 
> violated. But, he said, we should think of what actually happened as 
> just the 'abusive' history. The 'real' history is how what happened is 
> reflected in our minds. He then went on to point out -- correctly -- 
> that (he wasn't being ironic unfortunately) to deny historical reality 
> on the basis of the abusive history -- namely, what happened -- is 
> like the error of atheism that questions the magnificence of God in 
> the same way. Unfortunately, he was not trying to write a satire. He 
> was describing actual intellectual life -- except describing it 
> honestly. Well, that's the story. I cannot accept the presupposition 
> of the question so therefore I cannot respond to it. It's like asking 
> me 'Have you stopped beating your wife?'. Russia and China have 
> enormous problems; maybe much worse than ours. But I don't think we're 
> the ones to teach them lessons. We can start by teaching ourselves 
> some lessons.
>
> AS: In your answer you put rhetorically the question 'Do we want to 
> convert the world?'. So, taking, say, the second Gulf War, were there 
> traces of this extravagant idea of exporting freedom and democracy in 
> the minds of the American government and, more importantly, the 
> American people?
>
> NC: Well, here's an example of the amazing achievements of 
> intellectual servants of power: to have even made that a conceivable 
> question. We know what happened. When the United States went to war it 
> had war aims. They were stated by Bush, by Blair, Powel, Rice, and 
> others. The war aims were what Bush and Blair called 'a single 
> question': will Sadam Hussein give up his WMD? The American people 
> went to war because -- and we know this from polls -- they thought 
> they were in danger. I forget the numbers, but America was the only 
> country in the world that was actually frightened by Sadam Hussein. 
> Everybody hated him, but this was the country where people were afraid 
> of him. Condoleezza Rice famously said that the next time we hear of 
> him it will be a mushroom cloud over New York. So, that's why people 
> went to war and that's what Bush and Blair, who toddled along behind 
> them, gave as the single question. Of course, there was the usual 
> blither played about democracy; but that was in the background, like 
> it always is. They didn't find weapons of mass destruction. So, they 
> needed a new pretext for having gone to war. All of a sudden, then, it 
> turned out that the reason for war was our love of democracy. I think 
> it was November 2003 when, long after they had failed to find WMD, 
> George Bush put up a great fanfare and gave a speech in which he said 
> that our noble effort was to bring democracy. Everybody immediately 
> jumped on the bandwagon and fell in. This is an example of servility 
> to power that would be shocking in a totalitarian state; even more so 
> in a democratic society, where you have the facts in front of you.
>
> AS: What about the 'symbolic', if you like, dimension of 9/11? There 
> have been those, like DeLillo, who advocated that the attacks on 9/11 
> were not targeted against the West, but specifically against America. 
> On the other hand, there's been countries, like France, who insisted 
> they were attacked together with the United States -- Nous Sommes Tous 
> Des Americaines, Le Monde headlined.
>
> NC: Any serious specialist, whether its Michael Scheuer, the chief CIA 
> analyst who was following Sadam Hussein, or academic specialists and 
> others, knows perfectly well that the 9/11 attacks were directed 
> against United States policy. Of course it was an attack on the West, 
> since the West supports US policy -- US policy in the Middle East, 
> that is. You may say that it was a monstrous terrorist attack and 
> claim that they were mistaken about American policy, but there is very 
> little doubt that people who follow seriously Al-Qaeda say "They mean 
> what they say". And what they say to us is: "You're attacking Islam 
> and we are going to defend ourselves". Incidentally, that's another 
> good example of propaganda. What I'm going to say is almost 
> unintelligible in the West, but let me say it anyway. 9/11 was a 
> horrible atrocity. But it could have been worse; let me give you an 
> example. Suppose that Al-Qaeda had bombed the White House, killed the 
> President, established a military dictatorship, tortured several 
> hundred thousand people, set up a major international terrorist centre 
> that was overthrowing governments and killing people all over the 
> world, brought in a bunch of crazed economists who drove economy into 
> its worst recession in decades. Suppose that had happened. Wouldn't 
> that be a lot worse than September 11th, 2001? Well, it did happen: on 
> September 11th, 1973 -- the only thing I did was change the numbers to 
> per capita equivalents, which is a proper measure. This is what 
> happened on what is sometimes called 'the first 9/11' in South 
> America: the overthrow of the government of Chile, backed by the 
> United States. Why wasn't that an atrocity? Why didn't that change the 
> world? In terms of the societal effects, its much greater than what we 
> call 9/11. But that was our terror, our violence, so it doesn't count. 
> And that's only one of innumerable examples. We have to learn to look 
> at ourselves if we want to talk seriously about the world.
>
> AS: Europe has been compared to Hamlet and the US to Fortinbras, the 
> implication being that Europe is a doubter and brooder that fails to 
> act, whereas the US, not tainted by the 'pallor of thought', acts 
> forcefully and swiftly convinced that perhaps not the law, but 
> certainly the law of the strongest will be on its side. Do you see any 
> accuracy in this claim?
>
> NC: I definitely think that that's the case for Europe and the United 
> States. In fact, it may be one of the few principles of history that 
> has real substance. It was said very well by Thucidides: 'the strong 
> do what they want and the weak suffer as they must'. Surely, that's 
> European history, overwhelmingly. And Europe tags along with the US in 
> this regard.
>
> AS: One other thing that is different between the US and Europe is the 
> place religion has. In fact, judged by almost any standard, the US is 
> a less secular country than Turkey. In no other highly industrialized 
> country is there widespread belief in Satan or an official movement 
> contesting Darwinian theory. In 2002, a poll in America revealed that 
> a quarter of Americans believed that the events of 9/11 were predicted 
> in the Bible. Where should we look for the origins of this phenomenon 
> and what tools does it provide for the understanding of American society?
>
> NC: It's a very important question -- and, definitely, too complex for 
> me to answer it briefly. To begin with, we should look back to the 
> early colonists who came from England. They came from a 
> providentialist culture, namely, a culture immersed in the conception 
> that providence has laid out a plan for history and we are carrying 
> out God's will. For example, when the first colonists came to New 
> England in the 1629s and King Charles II gave the Charter to the 
> Massachusetts Bay Colony, this Charter said something along the lines 
> of "The purpose for this plantation is to save the natives from their 
> Pagan misery". When John Winthrop gave his famous sermon in which he 
> said that "We are the city on the hill", he was using the framework of 
> what is now called 'the responsibility to protect' or 'humanitarian 
> intervention', the notion that we are coming to save you. In fact, the 
> great seal of the colony of Massachusetts has on it a picture of an 
> Indian with a scroll coming out of his mouth saying "Come over and 
> help us". So, this is a perfect example of humanitarian intervention 
> in the name of the Lord. And that runs through a good part of American 
> history. It's a long stream of providentialism that has never ended 
> and which has repeated revivals, like in the 1950s. So, in a word, 
> yes, it's a deep feature of the culture and it goes way back to the 
> origins. What influences us on policy, however, is debatable, since 
> we're also a very secular society. Freedom is, actually, guaranteed to 
> an extent that is probably unique in the world -- except in England 
> maybe. But, still, there's nothing in the United States comparable to 
> Britain's outrageous libel laws. That would be inconceivable here.
>
> AS: Let's extend this idea of belief further. Religion, for example, 
> answers to universal human needs and only a credulous philosopher 
> would believe that showing religion is an illusion would make it 
> disappear. In this sense, your work also attempts to reveal the 
> illusions, hypocrisies, frauds that reside in the way our modern world 
> works. Does this really have any emancipatory potential?
>
> NC: I'm in the mainstream of science. In this respect, as far as I can 
> say, what we try to do is find the truth as best as we can, knowing 
> that there are all kind of limits, cognitive limits, limits of 
> understanding. But we keep trying to find the truth about the world 
> and part of this truth is what you just said. Many people -- in fact, 
> probably, a large majority -- find it a significant personal value to 
> be part of a religious community. That's also true of people who have 
> no religious beliefs at all. A great many of the people who are part 
> of religious communities, are part of them because that gives them a 
> sense of community, a structure to their lives -- holidays in which 
> you meet your family and the like. Rituals bring up memories and so on 
> and so forth. That can, also, coincide with no faith at all; in fact, 
> I know this from my own background. But for many it does involve 
> irrational faith. I'm not in a position to go to a grieving mother who 
> believes that some days she'll see her dying child again and give her 
> lectures on epistemology.
>
> AS: But you have spoken about human nature. Not only that, but you 
> have ascribed a certain normative function to it, a morality, universals.
>
> NC: I don't see how that's even debatable.
>
> AS: Well, Darwinism taken to its conceptual end takes us safely to the 
> conclusion that life is ruled by chance and necessity and that there 
> are just regularities, not prescriptions for good life.
>
> NC: Here we're talking about the move from 'is' to 'ought'. We will 
> discover what we can about the nature of the world and, among the 
> truths about it, I believe, we will find that part of our genetic 
> capacity, which evolved over millennia, is that certain moral 
> principles are inscribed in it; probably genetically determined. To 
> try to discover them is, of course, a big task. There's some empirical 
> work on the subject. But their existence doesn't seem to me 
> questionable. For reasons, actually, explained by Hume. David Hume was 
> pretty clear about this. He pointed out that we have an almost 
> infinite number of responsibilities and duties; meaning, we know how 
> to behave properly in entirely new situations. And that can be the 
> case only if there are certain principles inscribed in us which come 
> from the original hand of nature -- from our genetic endowment we 
> would say -- that somehow guide our choices and decisions. I think 
> that's not at all implausible, and I cannot think of a coherent 
> alternative that would permit a degree of adaptability to what appears 
> to us as a wide variety of practices. It might not appear like a wide 
> variety to some Martian looking at us from a different perspective. In 
> that respect, it's a bit like language. From our perspective as 
> humans, it looks as if language is arbitrarily varied. On the other 
> hand, as soon as you learn anything about languages, you discover that 
> they are pretty narrowly constrained. What applies to language will be 
> true in the inquiry about tomorrow's systems; if it can ever become 
> sufficiently advanced.
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>