[Peace-discuss] How Propaganda Conquers Democracy

[David Johnson]

How Propaganda Conquers Democracy

January 19, 2015

In recent decades, the U.S. propaganda system has grown more and more
sophisticated in the art of "
<https://consortiumnews.com/2014/12/28/the-victory-of-perception-management/
> perception management," now enlisting not only government PR specialists
but careerist journalists and aspiring bloggers to push deceptions on the
public, a crisis in democracy that Nicolas J S Davies explores.

By Nicolas J S Davies

Do we live in a country where citizens are critically informed on the issues
of the day by media that operate independently of the government? Or do our
political leaders deliberately plant a false view of events and issues in
the mind of the public that complicit media then broadcast and amplify to
generate public consent for government policy?

This is a basic test of democracy for the citizens of any country. But the
very nature of modern propaganda systems is that they masquerade as
independent while functioning as the opposite, so the question is not as
straightforward as it seems.

 
<https://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/obama-russia.jpg?9286
7d> Description: President Barack Obama delivers a statement on the
situation in Ukraine, on the South Lawn of the White House, July 29, 2014.
(Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

President Barack Obama delivers a statement on the situation in Ukraine, on
the South Lawn of the White House, July 29, 2014. (Official White House
Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

In  <http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9175.html> Democracy Incorporated;
Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism, political
scientist  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheldon_Wolin> Sheldon Wolin
examined how America's "managed democracy" has devolved into "inverted
totalitarianism," concentrating power and wealth in the hands of a small
ruling class more efficiently and sustainably than 20th Century "classical
totalitarianism" ever succeeded in doing.

Instead of sweeping away the structures of constitutional government like
the Fascists, Nazis or Soviets, this "political coming-of-age of corporate
power" has more cleverly preserved and co-opted nominally democratic
institutions and adapted them to its own purposes.

Self-serving politicians and parties compete for funding in election
campaigns run by the advertising industry, to give political investors the
most corrupt President, administration and Congress that money can buy,
while courts uphold new corporate and plutocratic political rights to ward
off challenges to the closed circle of wealth and political power.

Oligarchic corporate control of the media is a critical element in this
dystopian system. Under the genius of inverted totalitarianism, a confluence
of corrupt interests has built a more effective and durable propaganda
system than direct government control has ever achieved.

The editor or media executive who amplifies government and corporate
propaganda and suppresses alternative narratives is not generally doing so
on orders from the government, but in the interest of his own career, his
company's success in the corporate oligarchy or "marketplace," and his
responsibility not to provide a platform for radical or "irrelevant" ideas.

In this context, a common pattern in five recent cases illustrates how the
U.S. government and media systematically deceive the public on critical
foreign policy issues, to generate public hostility toward foreign
governments and to suppress domestic opposition to economic sanctions and to
the threat and use of military force.

1. Non-Existent WMDs in Iraq. This is the case we all know about. U.S.
officials made claims they knew were false when they made them, and the
media faithfully and uncritically amplified them to make the case for war.
The result was the destruction of Iraq in a war based on lies. At meetings
in 2001, according to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, CIA Director George
Tenet consistently told the National Security Council (NSC) that that the
CIA had no " <http://www.nlpwessex.org/docs/suskind.htm> confirming
intelligence" that Iraq possessed nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

When Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld laid out the Pentagon's plans to
invade Iraq, Tenet reiterated that it was still only speculation that Iraq
possessed weapons of mass destruction. Eying the junior staffers in the
room,
<https://books.google.com/books?id=rM5lrsvXwakC&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=I%27m+
not+sure+everyone+here+has+clearance+to+hear+this&source=bl&ots=16mxHEaB9n&s
ig=m00OqJ8bleooTgn2Sk3wP7x7dO8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-DKsVP6HBYScgwSY0YLQCA&ved=0CBc
Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=I%27m%20not%20sure%20everyone%20here%20has%20clearance%2
0to%20hear%20this&f=false> Rumsfeld replied, "I'm not sure everyone here has
clearance to hear this."

Senior officials knew their case for war was weak and unsubstantiated, but
they treated the weakness of their case as a closely guarded state secret to
be kept from the public, up to and including staffers at NSC meetings. They
set up the
<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Office_of_Special_Plans> Office
of Special Plans at the Pentagon to "stovepipe" unvetted intelligence
directly to senior officials to bolster the case for war, bypassing the
review process that is supposed to filter intelligence for accuracy and
reliability.

As  <http://downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html> the head of MI6 told the
British cabinet in July 2002, "the intelligence and the facts were being
fixed around the policy." Chief UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter revealed
how
<http://www.democracynow.org/2003/12/30/scott_ritter_how_the_british_spy>
MI6 planted unsubstantiated stories in newspapers around the world to make
the case for war. In June 2002, the CIA-backed Iraqi National Congress
revealed that its "
<http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2004/05/15/16633_list-of-articles-cited-by-the.h
tml?rh=1> Information Collection Program" was the primary source for 108
media reports on Iraq's WMDs and links to terrorism over the past eight
months.

In July 2002,
<http://www.cnn.com/search/?text=2002+Scott+Ritter+facts+needed+before+Iraq+
attack> Ritter told CNN, "No one has substantiated the allegations that Iraq
possesses weapons of mass destruction," but CNN enthusiastically - and
profitably - joined the rush to war.

When Congress debated the 2002 Iraq war resolution, the administration gave
members a 25-page document it advertised as a summary of a new National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq.
<https://books.google.com/books?id=HI1zkhz9H9kC&pg=PA180#v=onepage&q&f=false
> The document was pure propaganda, produced months before the NIE, and
included false claims that were nowhere to be found in the NIE, such as that
the CIA knew the location of 550 sites in Iraq where chemical and biological
agents were stored.

Sen. Bob Graham, D-Florida, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee,
begged his colleagues to instead read the classified NIE, dramatically
warning them, "Blood is going to be on your hands."
<http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/28/clinton.iraq/index.html?eref=onion>
Only six Senators and a handful of Representatives did so, but the media
clung to the propaganda narrative that the White House and Congress
<http://mediamatters.org/research/2005/11/08/conservatives-falsely-claimed-w
hite-house-and-c/134180> had seen "the same intelligence."

In his
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/bushtext_012803
.html> 2003 State of the Union speech, President George W. Bush cited gaps
in Iraq's accounting for weapons it destroyed in 1991 as a continuing
threat, from 25,000 liters of anthrax to 500 tons of Sarin, VX nerve agent
and mustard gas. Of all these, only mustard gas would have
<http://www.alternet.org/story/15854/lies_about_iraq%26%23146%3Bs_weapons_ar
e_past_expiration_date> still been potent 12 years later - if it had
existed.

Bush pretended that 81-mm aluminum rocket casings were tubes for
centrifuges, a claim
<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/10/international/middleeast/10ALUM.html>
already dismissed by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and that Iraq
was buying uranium in Niger
<http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/forging-the-case-for-war/>
based on a forgery that the IAEA spotted within hours. But Bush's deceptive
fear-mongering was uncritically
<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/29/world/state-of-the-union-news-analysis-bu
sh-s-twin-challenges.html> embraced and amplified by the U.S. media.

Secretary of State Colin
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/transcripts/powelltext_020503.h
tml> Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council in February 2003
contained at least a dozen categorical but false statements about Iraqi
weapons, based on recordings and photographs deliberately misinterpreted by
the Iraqi National Congress and CIA agents. Security Council members were
unconvinced, but the U.S. media uniformly and
<http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/world/threats-responses-security-council-
powell-un-speech-presents-case-show-iraq-has.html> enthusiastically endorsed
Powell's
<http://townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/2003/02/06/colin_powells_slam_dunk
> "slam-dunk" case for war.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) found that U.S. media coverage was
<http://fair.org/article/in-iraq-crisis-networks-are-megaphones-for-official
-views/> unashamedly pro-war during the critical weeks leading up to the
invasion, with only three anti-war voices among 393 "expert" interviews on
major TV networks. A total of 76 percent of interviewees were present or
former government officials, of whom only 6 percent were critical of the
case for war, even as a CBS poll found that 61 percent of the public wanted
to "wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time."

The election of President Barack Obama was a chance for the U.S. to make a
clean break from the destructive and deceptive policies of the Bush
administration. But the U.S. propaganda system has instead evolved to
embrace even more sophisticated techniques of branding and image-making, not
least to build a deep sense of trust into the iconic image of a hip
celebrity-in-chief with roots in African-American and modern urban culture.

The contrast between image and reality, so essential to Obama's role,
represents a new achievement in managed democracy, enabling him to maintain
and expand policies that are the polar opposite of the change his supporters
thought they were voting for.

2. Non-Existent WMDs in Iran. Incredibly, after their exposure and
embarrassment over Iraq, the U.S. government and media didn't skip a beat
but immediately recycled their WMD narrative to justify a similar campaign
of sanctions and threats against Iran.

We are finally on a more promising diplomatic trajectory, but it is still
taboo for U.S. politicians or media to admit that Iran has almost certainly
never had a nuclear weapons program, and the U.S. propaganda narrative still
insists that a decade of brutal economic warfare has played a constructive
role to "bring Iran to the table." Nothing could be farther from the truth.

A 2012 study by the
<http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/middle-east-north-africa/iraq-iran-gu
lf/iran/116-in-heavy-waters-irans-nuclear-program-the-risk-of-war-and-lesson
s-from-turkey.aspx> International Crisis Group found that ever-tightening
sanctions had "almost no chance of producing an Iranian climb-down any time
soon," and could end up leading to war, not offering an alternative to it -
just as in Iraq.

As Iranian Foreign Minister  <https://euobserver.com/foreign/126660>
Mohammad Zarif remarked in November 2014, "The effect of sanctions can be
seen in how many centrifuges are spinning in Iran. When we began the
sanctions process, Iran had less than 200 centrifuges. Today it has over
20,000." Zarif also reiterated Iran's long-standing position that, "Nuclear
weapons don't serve our strategic interests and are against the core
principles of our faith."

Trita Parsi (president of the National Iranian American Council), Mohammed
ElBaradei (former IAEA director-general), and Gareth Porter (an
award-winning investigative reporter/historian) have each written
enlightening books that demolish critical elements of the U.S. propaganda
campaign against Iran:

In  <http://www.amazon.com/Single-Roll-Dice-Obamas-Diplomacy/dp/0300192363>
A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran, Trita Parsi
explained that Obama's "dual-track approach", combining negotiations with
sanctions, was a political compromise to appease doves and hawks in
Washington. But this was a prescription for failure in the real world,
because the two tracks were incompatible and the sanctions track gave the
hardliners on both sides the upper hand.

After Brazil and Turkey persuaded Iran to agree to a comprehensive proposal
offered by the U.S. only months earlier, the U.S. rejected its own plan
because it would undermine its efforts to pass new sanctions in the UN
Security Council. A senior State Department official told Parsi that the
main obstacle to resolving the crisis was the U.S. inability to take "Yes"
for an answer.

In
<http://www.amazon.com/Age-Deception-Nuclear-Diplomacy-Treacherous/dp/B006LW
E2X2> The Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times,
ElBaradei recounted how the CIA and other Western intelligence agencies kept
providing the IAEA with supposed "evidence" of an Iranian nuclear weapons
program, but, just as in Iraq, there was nothing there to find.

Despite the
<http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/compendium/Chapter_VIII.pdf>
"Key Lessons" of UNMOVIC's final report on Iraq that UN inspection agencies
should not be used "to support other agendas or to keep the inspected party
in a permanent state of weakness," nor be given the impossible political
task of "proving the negative," ElBaradei found himself back in exactly that
position, even as the IAEA was already fulfilling its legitimate task of
monitoring all Iran's nuclear material and facilities.

Gareth Porter has maybe done more than anyone to expose the bankruptcy of
the U.S. propaganda narrative on Iran. In
<http://www.amazon.com/Manufactured-Crisis-Untold-Story-Nuclear/dp/193598233
8> Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, he
explained how this entire campaign has been based on falsehoods and
fabrications for two decades.

There is no real evidence that Iran has ever taken the first step toward
weaponizing its civilian nuclear program, and each suggestion that it has is
based on sloppy analysis poisoned by mistrust and false assumptions, or in
some cases on evidence actually fabricated by Iran's enemies, like the
infamous "laptop documents" that were most likely supplied by the
Mujahedeen-e-Kalq (MEK).

And yet mainstream media reports in the U.S. still parrot the false premises
of an unjust campaign of economic warfare that has
<http://www.iar-gwu.org/node/428> devastated Iran's economy and the lives of
its people, to say nothing of
<http://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/> cyber-warfare,
the  <http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2104372,00.html>
assassinations of four innocent Iranian scientists, and
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg> threats of war.

In the U.S. media narrative, we are still the "good guys," and the Iranians
are still the "bad guys" who can't be trusted. But, of course, that's the
whole point. The underlying purpose of campaigns like this is to frame U.S.
disputes with other countries in Manichean terms to justify brutally unfair
and dangerous policies.

3. Sarin Attack at Ghouta in Syria. Hundreds of Syrian civilians were killed
by a missile filled with about 60 kg of the nerve agent Sarin on Aug. 21,
2013. U.S. officials immediately blamed the Syrian Army and President Bashar
Al-Assad.  President Obama was soon ready to launch a massive assault on
Syria's air defenses and other targets, a major escalation of the covert,
proxy war he had been
<http://www.alternet.org/world/america-has-fueled-bloody-civil-war-syria>
waging since 2011.

Three weeks after the Sarin attack, Obama declared in a
<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/10/remarks-president-add
ress-nation-syria> televised speech, "Assad's government gassed to death
over a thousand people. we know the Assad regime was responsible." Following
reports by UN investigators and investigative journalists with good access
to U.S. military and intelligence sources, it now seems almost certain that
the chemical attack was conducted by Jabhat Al-Nusra (al-Qaeda's affiliate
in Syria) or other rebel forces, with help from either Turkish or Qatari
military intelligence.

The missile was fired from a rebel-held area 2 km from its point of impact,
only a fraction of the distance to the Syrian military base from where U.S.
officials claimed it was fired, and the chemical impurities in the Sarin
suggest that it was improvised, not military-grade.

The question of motive suggests that this was a rebel "false-flag" attack
that almost succeeded in drawing the U.S. deeper into the war, acting as the
air force of Al-Nusra and its allies. On the other side, there is no
plausible reason why the Syrian government could have expected to gain by
conducting such an attack (especially since UN inspectors had just arrived
in Damascus to begin a study of another chemical attack that had been blamed
on the rebels).

The " <http://whoghouta.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-conclusion.html> Who
Attacked Ghouta?" web site is a good effort to bring together and analyze
all the evidence, and both
<http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line>
Seymour Hersh and
<https://consortiumnews.com/2014/04/07/the-collapsing-syria-sarin-case/>
Robert Parry have written good articles based on U.S. intelligence sources.
But
<http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-syrian-chemical-weapons-destroyed-but-con
cerns-continue/> U.S. officials and
<http://www.mercurynews.com/opinion/ci_25661941/trudy-rubin-assad-is-gassing
-children-again> media pundits still talk as if their dangerous and
irresponsible charges are beyond question.

Their assertions are so
<http://www.businessinsider.com/how-assad-benefited-from-ghouta-2014-8> well
established in the U.S. media that they have effectively become part of
American popular culture. When Americans think of President Assad, they
think "gassed his own people."

When we examine the words and actions of President Obama, Secretary Kerry
and other U.S. officials, only one thing is certain: that their expressions
of certainty regarding responsibility for the chemical attack were false,
both then and now. Like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell, they simply lied
when they told the world that the intelligence pointed only in one
direction.

As in other cases, this was a deliberate propaganda strategy to so strongly
establish a false narrative in the mind of the public that it would be hard
to dislodge, even once evidence emerged that it was probably just plain
wrong.

As we watch this strategy play out in each of these cases, we can see that
Iraq was the exception that proved the rule, the case where U.S.
propagandists were caught out and embarrassed before the American public and
the whole world. But this has not stopped them or their successors from
doubling down on the same propaganda strategy, nor has its exposure in Iraq
rendered it ineffective as a means of misleading the public in other cases.

4. Who shot down Malaysian Airlines MH17? President Vladimir Putin is the
latest foreign leader to be targeted by a classic U.S. vilification
campaign.

Since the State Department and CIA engineered a
<https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/06/nyt-still-pretends-no-coup-in-ukraine
/> violent coup in Ukraine that literally tore that country apart, U.S.
politicians and media have marched in lockstep to pretend that the crisis
was caused, not by the U.S.-backed overthrow of the elected government, but
by Russia's subsequent reintegration of the Crimea based on a popular
referendum.

Almost 5,000 people (with some estimates even higher) have been killed as
the Western-backed government that seized power in Kiev has dispatched its
Army and new National Guard units to attack cities in Eastern Ukraine. It
recruited some of them, like the
<https://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/15/ukraines-romantic-nazi-storm-troopers
/> Azov Brigade, from the neo-Nazi
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_%28political_party%29> Svoboda and
<http://www.alternet.org/world/fiery-chaos-odessa-42-perish-after-ukrainians
-launch-waco-assault> Right Sektor militias who provided the muscle for the
coup in February.

The Russian-speaking people in the eastern Ukraine expect no mercy or
justice from these anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalists, so they fight on
despite heavy losses and dire conditions, with limited support from Russia.
Like the chemical weapons attack in Syria,
<http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/07/18/332496334/malaysia-airlines-
flight-mh17-plane-crash-what-we-know> U.S. officials and media immediately
blamed the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines MH-17 on U.S. enemies and claimed
once again that the evidence pointed only in one direction. But once again,
the only thing that is sure is that
<https://consortiumnews.com/2014/07/20/what-did-us-spy-satellites-see-in-ukr
aine/> they can't be sure of that.

A Dutch team is leading an investigation, as each side accuses the other of
responsibility. Concerns about the impartiality of the investigation have
led to calls for a fully independent investigation, including a public
<http://diy.rootsaction.org/petitions/call-for-independent-inquiry-of-the-ai
rplane-crash-in-ukraine-and-its-catastrophic-aftermath> online petition.
<http://www.businessinsider.com/horror-over-treatment-of-victims-bodies-from
-malaysia-airlines-flight-2014-7> U.S. officials and media claim that the
airliner was shot down by a Russian surface-to-air missile fired by
Ukrainian rebels.

An alternative narrative is that it was shot down by one of
<http://rt.com/news/205339-mh17-air-plane-malaysian/> two Ukrainian fighter
planes that were reported to be tailing it. The cockpit appears to be
<http://www.anderweltonline.com/wissenschaft-und-technik/luftfahrt-2014/shoc
king-analysis-of-the-shooting-down-of-malaysian-mh17/> riddled with
bullet-holes, but these might have been caused by shrapnel from an exploding
missile.  But the only forces known to have deployed such missiles in the
area were Ukrainian government forces, so the Western narrative remains
doubtful at best.

Even if the rebels captured and fired a Ukrainian missile, there is
<https://consortiumnews.com/2014/10/20/germans-clear-russia-in-mh-17-case/>
no evidence of Russian involvement. Yet the U.S. used Russia's presumed
guilt to trigger new U.S. and European Union sanctions against Russia,
taking the world ever closer to the
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mikhail-gorbachev/my-appeal-to-our-leaders-_1
_b_6126590.html> "new Cold War" that Mikhail Gorbachev warned of recently in
Berlin.

The petition for an independent inquiry reads, "With the U.S. and Russia in
possession of 15,000 of the world's 16,400 nuclear weapons, humanity can
ill-afford to stand by and permit these conflicting views of history and
opposing assessments of the facts on the ground to lead to a 21st century
military confrontation between the great powers and their allies."

But by engineering a coup in Ukraine and rejecting reasonable
<http://newsru.com/pict/big/1638517.html> Russian proposals to resolve the
crisis, U.S. leaders have deliberately provoked such a confrontation. The
U.S. media have provided political cover, blaming everything on Russia and
President Putin, to give U.S. leaders the political space to play the most
dangerous game known to mankind: nuclear brinksmanship.

5. North Korea vs. Sony? Now the U.S. is imposing
<http://time.com/3652479/sony-hack-north-korea-the-interview-obama-sanctions
/> new sanctions on North Korea based on claims that it is behind a
cyber-attack on the Sony Corporation. Once again, U.S. officials claim to be
sure of their accusations. And once again, the only sure thing is that
they're only pretending to be sure, in this case risking a new conflict with
a government whose actions they've consistently failed to accurately predict
or understand for decades.

Cyber-security experts are already challenging the U.S. narrative.
<http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/24/no-north-korea-didn-t-hack
-sony.html> Marc Rogers of Cloudflare, who manages cyber-security at hacker
conferences, thinks the attack on Sony was probably the work of a vengeful
ex-employee. He wrote in an article for Daily Beast, "I am no fan of the
North Korean regime. However I believe that calling out a foreign nation
over a cyber-crime of this magnitude should never have been undertaken on
such weak evidence."

But calling out foreign nations on weak evidence is an essential core
element of U.S. propaganda strategy. U.S. officials quickly and loudly
establish the narrative they want the public to believe, and leave it to the
echo chamber of the complicit U.S. media system to do the rest. The media's
roles are then to "work the story" through rote repetition and supporting
analysis, and to suppress and ridicule alternative narratives.

U.S. officials believe they can win a global propaganda war, much as they
think they won the Cold War. But they seem to be losing the global struggle
for hearts and minds. The Obama charm offensive is
<http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/93-countries-where-obamas-neocon-
policies-have-killed-hopes-he-raised> wearing thin and worldwide opinion
polls consistently identify the U.S. as the
<http://www.wingia.com/en/services/about_the_end_of_year_survey/global_resul
ts/7/33/> greatest threat to peace.

On the domestic front, as the lies that clothe our emperor and our empire
become ever more transparent, Americans are inevitably growing more
skeptical than ever of politicians and the media. Skepticism in the face of
propaganda is vital, but the post-WW II
<http://time.com/3576090/midterm-elections-turnout-world-war-two/> record
low turnout in the November 2014 election (36.4 percent) suggests that more
Americans are reacting to the corruption of our political and media
environment with disengagement than with the kind of activism that could
awaken the sleeping giant of democracy.

But this is only one stage of a long and complex history. Growing democratic
activism and independent media are the green shoots of a grassroots renewal
of democratic politics that offers real solutions to our country's problems,
not least to rein in its dangerous and destabilizing foreign policy and the
web of lies that sustains it.

One thing we can do, in the words of
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvr72uTd7kc> Bob Dylan, is to let the
masters of war and their media hacks know we can see through their masks.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: The American
Invasion and Destruction of Iraq. Davies also wrote the chapter on "Obama At
War" for the book, Grading the 44th President: A Report Card on Barack
Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20151129/c36a8bdb/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14991 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20151129/c36a8bdb/attachment-0001.jpg>