2007 Open Letter to Bush, Olmert, US Congress and AIPAC Warning about the Dangers of War with Iran

TRANSCEND MEMBERS, 28 Oct 2024

Diane Perlman, Ph.D. | Political Therapy - TRANSCEND Media Service

From JAIPAC: Jewish Analysts Investigating Peace and Conflict

22 Oct 2024 – Seventeen years ago, a group of terrified activists began meeting regularly at the Busboys and Poet’s Restaurant in Washington DC to brainstorm about preventing the looming threat of an Israeli/US provocation of war with Iran.

That year, 2007, I attended my first AIPAC Annual Congress at the Convention Center in Washington, as press. The dramatic, highly produced, three-day fear-fest featured prominent speakers, including Dick Cheyney, thousands of college students and a Gala dinner attended by about half the members of the US Congress. On stage, marching out to Star Wars-like music and images of terrorism and Israeli flags on fire, speakers beat the drums of war, exaggerated threats, and dehumanized Iran. Like most US media, they excluded all information that did not fit the narrative of an implacable enemy.

Since voices of reason were being accused of anti-Semitism, I felt a need for Jews to speak up, specifically as professionals engaged in the study and practice of conflict analysis and transformation. I coordinated a group I called JAIPAC: Jewish Analysts Investigating Peace and Conflict to collaborate on this letter below “A Respectful Open Letter to President Bush, Prime Minister Olmert, the US Congress, AIPAC, and Others on the Dangers of War with Iran.”

I linked it to my first piece on Huffington Post describing the AIPAC Congress,  Is “Pro Israel” an Oxymoron? Seduction into a Catastrophic War. It begins with:

What if, by attempting to prevent a second Holocaust, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert–in collusion with AIPAC, the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee known as “America’s Israel Lobby”– encourages the Bush administration to launch a catastrophic war against Iran? And how is it that many well-meaning, mostly war-opposing American Jews are being convinced that a war with Iran might be necessary for Israel’s survival?

Preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons was the number one agenda item for AIPAC’s 2007 Annual Policy Convention in Washington last week. Ironically, a Congress mandated to end the war in Iraq is being pressured by the lobby identified with the American religious group most opposed to that war to support actions likely to produce yet another war–predicted to provoke cataclysmic consequences, including the use of nuclear weapons–all for the purpose of preventing the development of nuclear weapons.

It is sobering and shocking to see how little we have learned since 2007. The cherished image of the enemy is robust, despite the fact that Iran just elected a reformist president, Masoud Pezeshkian, who wishes to improve relations with the West. Propaganda and censorship continue to dehumanize and manipulate fear that drives powerful emotions that eclipse observation and rational thought.

Thankfully, outside of Israel there are more voices of reason and more warnings of restraint.  We watch in terror waiting to see whether Netanyahu will take a suicidal/homicidal action that further widens and escalates war and plunges Israel into another layer of self-destruction and the region into another realm of chaos.

According to the law of opposites, the delusional pretext of preventing a nuclear Iran will incentivize Iran to develop their own nuclear weapons to deter attacks. Propaganda ignores the fact that it was the US, under Trump, that sabotaged the successful, intensely negotiated Iran Nuclear Deal that eliminated any nuclear threat form Iran.

Netanyahu has wanted to lure the US into a war with Iran for many years. Israel’s manufactured pretext is retaliation for Iran’s delayed, restrained, highly provoked response to Israel’s assassinations in Tehran and Damascus. These actions were grossly misinterpreted.

Haniyeh and Nasrallah were assassinated while working on a ceasefire deal. These humiliating actions would inevitably demand a response. Iran took time to strategize. Despite Israel’s civilian-killing rampages in Lebanon and Gaza, Iran gave warning, targeted only military installations and avoided civilians. They did not respond in kind, did not massacre civilians (except one Palestinian man killed accidentally by debris) or assassinate. They could have and they can if provoked again. Iran does not want war.

Analyses of objective facts suggest that Iran designed their responses to end the cycle of retaliation by demonstrating some of their military capacities without harming people. They penetrated most of Israel’s defense systems, despite warning time and help from the US and Jordan.

The clear message is that if Israel attacks, Iran will give no warning and will hit back harder. People living Israel will then be in danger – caused by their own government.

Iran and other countries will be incentivized, determine that the only way they can prevent attacks is to develop their own nuclear weapons programs which will provoke a new wave of nuclear proliferation.

Still crazy after all these years.

Here is the letter.

A Respectful Open Letter to President Bush, Prime Minister Olmert, the US Congress, AIPAC, and Others on the Dangers of War with Iran

From JAIPAC: Jewish Analysts Investigating Peace and Conflict

Written on March 2007 –Diane Perlman, PhD, coordinator

THE NEW PRO ISRAEL: MUTUALLY ASSURED SURVIVAL

We are writing to you out of our deep concern about catastrophic consequences that would result from an attack on Iran. We are Jewish professionals devoted to developing strategies for reducing tension, preventing violence, and transforming conflict. We work in the areas of political science, international relations, conflict analysis and resolution, psychology, history, Middle East studies, and other relevant fields, and are engaged in observation, research and practice in relevant bodies of knowledge. Many of us have family, friends, and colleagues in Israel. We are all committed to the survival and security of Israel and the elimination of anti-Semitism around the world.

Most of us accurately predicted the consequences of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and warned politicians and the public about predictable, preventable unintended consequences. We are unanimous now in predicting the dangers for Jews, Israel, the U.S., and efforts to reduce global terrorism that would be triggered by any military action against Iran.

Spirals of Violence

We are aware of your deep distrust of the Iranian regime and of the belief that military action will make Israel more secure. Our training and experience inform us that attacking Iran puts Israel and other nations in far greater danger. Short-term thinking, using violence to physically eliminate threats, fails to correct underlying causes of conflict, including unsatisfied human needs and desires for recognition. It creates deeper, wider, more enduring problems that are more difficult to resolve. Fortunately, there exist more mature strategies capable of producing enduring security.

Desires for a success after a failure and memories of past victories can lead to overconfidence about the potential for success and denial of the potential for catastrophe. Decisive actions of the past, such as the destruction of Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, are not replicable in today’s world, and have no chance of making Israel safer. Globalization, media, technology, lethality, non-state actors, environmental risks, and high civilian death tolls, have completely changed the nature of warfare. In the recent Lebanon war, as the Iraq war, the “quick fix” of military action left everyone traumatized, more vulnerable and resentful.

Unintentionally, such tactics too often serve to:

• escalate instability and cycles of violence
• increase the popularity of those attacked
• undermine popular movements for peace, democracy, and acceptance of Israel in the Muslim world
• increase incentives for nuclear weapons development
• increase trauma, fear, humiliation, despair, and rage
• provoke desires for revenge, and the motivation and rationales for increased recruitment and terrorist actions
• alienate Israel from its neighbors and make it more dependent upon the U.S.
• cause irreversible environmental catastrophe and health crises from radiation and oil fires
• desensitize people to the taking of human life on all sides

Most experts predict that an assault on Iran would produce immediate retaliation against U.S. and British troops in the region, attacks on shipping in the Straits of Hormuz, sharp increases in the worldwide prices of oil and gas, and an explosion of violence against Israel, Jews, and United States interests around the globe. Israel could be subject to missile attacks by Iran or Hezbollah, and the war could become regional, spiraling out of control.

The continuing toll of innocent life will play into extremists’ hands, creating another generation of anti-American, anti-Israel terrorists, motivating attacks here and abroad.

If either Israel or the US is reckless enough to use tactical nuclear weapons (bunker busters) in the planned attack, Israel’s might pay a terrible price. If the US does so, it is likely to provoke worldwide outrage and attacks against the US, impeachment proceedings against the President, and charges brought in the Hague against the President for war crimes.

Fear Based Decision-making

Still, some believe that the only way to prevent a nuclear Iran is to attack now, and that not to do so would be more dangerous. As Otto von Bismarck said, however, “Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.” Acting out of fear, we make unintelligent decisions that backfire and play into the hands of extremists.

Many politicians assume they must “leave the military option on the table.” Threatening war to prevent war is likely to provoke war. Actions taken out of existential fear, “in self-defense” trigger existential fear in those threatened, creating a self-fulfilling paranoia. Actors are most dangerous when afraid and most violent when attacked, humiliated, and despairing. Paradoxically, the way to be more secure is to make your enemy more secure. We have such strategies for accomplishing this in our tool kits.

Exaggerated Enemy Images

People are motivated to make war by enemy images that are exaggerated, simplified, one-sided and distorted in predictable ways. Notwithstanding President Ahmadinejad’s provocative statements about Israel and the Holocaust, he is portrayed as far more dangerous than he actually is. He has offended many Iranians, suffered a significant defeat in the last election, and may well be removed from office — unless, of course, we unite his people behind him by attacking their homeland.

Few Americans realize that one million Iranians held a candlelight vigil in Teheran in support of the United States on September 12, 2001. Iran’s leaders subsequently helped us by providing intelligence about Al Qaeda, and in 2003, they approached the U.S. with an offer to improve relations, recognize Israel and the two-state solution, to demilitarize Hezbollah, and to discourage violence against Israel. The offer was ignored. Still, Ahmadinejad offered peace talks with the US, and Iran’s deputy Oil Minister, Iran’s OPEC representative, offered one billion barrels of oil after Katrina. The US administration’s consistently negative responses have been perceived as demonization, humiliation, and refusal, and thus have been counterproductive.

Paradigm Shift

What possibilities exist for resolving this conflict? According to old thinking we have three limiting options; 1- coercive diplomacy (an oxymoron) -that seeks to control by threats, ultimata, sanctions, carrots and sticks, and which is often humiliating, provocative, and likely (or intended) to backfire, 2 – negotiation and diplomacy- which are considered impossible with a dehumanized enemy, or 3 – military action, considered a last resort, unleashes catastrophic consequences. In this paradigm, beliefs, premises and assumptions often drive parties towards violence.

Fortunately, there is another category of responses, which is just now becoming known outside of academia. It is based on a different set of premises, which have been tested extensively through research and practice. Rather than focusing on controlling symptoms and behavior, the new paradigm employs techniques that address root causes, underlying vital needs and fears, and thereby transforms the nature of the relationship to create a new reality. The old coercive paradigm, in efforts to eliminate enemies, in fact creates more.

The new paradigm is designed to eliminate enmity. These methods may seem counterintuitive, or impossible, but they have been demonstrated to offer a way out of cycles of violence.

Some Principles for Reversing Cycles of Violence

Psychological Intelligence for Intended Consequences – Violence escalates through “natural” automatic processes. Political and military blunders occur when actors are gripped by emotions, fear, anger, and indignation. People feel compelled respond with violence, as if it is an absolute requirement. Such reactions unleash unintended consequences that are predictable and preventable. To reverse cycles of violence, it is necessary to restrain these natural instincts and use higher-level strategies. Reversing spirals of violence is more challenging, requiring more effort, intelligence, maturity, a long-term view, and conscious intention to create a best-case scenario.

The Law of Opposites – It is obvious that many of our policies have the effect opposite of that intended, like escalating violence, hatred, recruitment, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation. Carl Jung observed that an extreme one-sided position creates and provokes its opposite. By avoiding one-sidedness, taking on the perspective of the Other, one can transcend destructive tendencies and arrive at more creative solutions.

Terror Reduction – Terrorism cannot be “defeated.” In the years of the “war on terrorism,” with all the money and human effort poured into counterterrorism, incidents of terrorism have multiplied six-fold. Focusing on the symptom to eliminate “bad guys” is an irrational, failing policy that most people seem to believe in. The good news, however is that terrorism can be drastically reduced by reducing the desire of actors to take revenge on us.

If we understand the knowable forces that drive extremism, we can mitigate them by reducing tension, addressing and correcting root causes, vital human needs, just grievances, and other strategies that have been demonstrated to be effective. It is far less expensive and more effective to address the “demand side” of terrorism than “the supply side.”

Learning from History and Experience – Gripped by emotions, actors do not rely on higher level intellectual functions, including learning from the history of previous wars, insurgencies, and occupations. We can also learn from historical examples of successful nonviolent strategies, such as those documented in A Force More Powerful, and other places. Policies fail because history is ignored. For example, there is a body of literature on the ineffectiveness of sanctions, yet politicians continue to employ destructive policies.

Radical Empathy and The Mirror Image of the Enemy – In a conflict, each side claims the same positive things about themselves, and the same negative things about the Other. According to “the mirror image of the enemy,” each side sees themselves as noble, just and true, and sees the Other as innately hostile, evil and aggressive. We explain our own behavior as being caused by their actions. We explain our enemies’ behavior as due to the inherent genetic factors. They are dangerous because of who they are. We don’t want to fight, but we have to because they are so evil and dangerous, that the only way we can protect ourselves is to kill them first. Radical empathy (not sympathy) requires trying to understand them by mentally putting ourselves in their position, including their history, culture, and past trauma, and designing strategies in ways that can reduce enmity.

Tension reduction is a basic organizing principle. Threats, hostile rhetoric, coercion, humiliation, and violence increase tension, while recognition, communication, security assurances, unilateral moves to avoid violence reduce tension. Tension reduction reduces volatility in the system and allows for healthier interactions and more creative strategies. Rhetoric and behavior that increase tension increase volatility in the system and potential for violence.

Political Heisenberg Principle – Our behavior creates relationship dynamics that affect those engaged with us. We cannot judge our adversary’s behavior independently from our effect on them. With asymmetrical power, the dominant party is in a position to change the dynamics for better or worse. When parties lose perspective, trained facilitators can be helpful. If we view adversaries as inherently, unchangeably evil (which is how they may also see us) and if we treat them with threats, rejection, and humiliation, we can provoke violence in a self-fulfilling prophecy. In contrast, when we give assurances of security, recognition, and satisfaction of vital human needs, we reduce fear and make it safe for others to be less violent. We have seen evidence of Iranians’ desire to improve our relationship. As the more powerful partner, we have the ability to transform our relationship.

Need Theory – People would prefer to get their vital human needs, including identity, dignity, and sovereignty, met by using decent means. When these means are ignored or refused, or worse met with rejection and humiliation, people tend to resort to more devious means. Once hostile processes develop, it is felt that meeting vital human needs at this point would be rewarding violence. This creates a “double-bind,” meaning damned if you do and damned if you don’t, a lose-lose situation. Parties can get locked in a power struggle, which makes conflicts seem intractable. Trained facilitators can be helpful in such situations.

Axis of Possibility – Conflicts are usually framed in terms of right/wrong, us/them, right/left, good/evil. Each party in the conflict gets to be right and good, but conflicts will be virtually impossible to solve and violence may seem justified. It is more productive to frame language, behavior, policies and strategies in terms of whether they will increase or decrease fear, tension, violence, pain and suffering, or whether it can produce possibilities for healing and enduring security.

Second Order Change and Conflict Transformation – In general systems theory, first order change techniques are superficial, attempting to change the symptoms, or make changes within a system. Second order change involves changing the nature of the relationship system itself. Conflict transformation, as opposed to conflict management or conflict resolution, involves creating new realities.

21st Century Security – The nature of warfare has changed so dramatically that war has become obsolete, although we don’t realize it yet. To paraphrase Einstein, 9/11 has changed everything except the way we think. When recent wars fail, some, feeling the need for victory, war planners may feel a need to escalate until they win. Even if a victory could be achieved, it would be destabilizing and quickly lead to asymmetrical responses, including terrorism. Winning has lost its meaning. There is no endgame to war and nuclear proliferation, and we are threatened by increasing lethality. We need to shift to a survivable paradigm, and we have the tools to replace war with nonviolent strategies.

Mutually Assured Survival – Effective measures aimed at satisfying the Iranian people’s needs for identity, dignity, security, autonomy, and development will remove the fundamental causes of Iranian hostility toward Israel and the West and can initiate a new era of peaceful cooperation. Either everybody wins or everybody loses. Win-win strategies replace zero sum approaches.

Some Conflict Transformation Strategies

What are some measures we can use now to avert a catastrophe? Many can be imagined, but they may include the following:

The US, as the most powerful actor, is in the best position to create an atmosphere for success by taking the initiative to reduce tension quickly by offering security assurances that we will not attack and initiating a series of de-escalatory, confidence-building measures designed to create an atmosphere conducive to further dialogue.

The US can dramatically reduce tension by recalling the carrier groups recently dispatched to the Persian Gulf. To reciprocate, Iran can redeploy its missiles and weapons now positioned to threaten warships and shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. This would initiate a cycle of reciprocated de-escalation.

Influential members of the U.S. and Iranian communities enter into confidential “track two” dialogues, assisted by nonpartisan facilitators to define the major underlying issues alienating our nations and to envision methods of solving those problems. This is neither a threatening “negotiation from strength,” which inflames deep-rooted conflicts, nor a naive idealistic “let’s be friends” procedure. This type of process has helped resolve or prevent violent conflicts in dozens of locales since 1960, including Northern Ireland, South Africa, Macedonia, Mozambique, Indonesia, Peru, etc.

Citizens of both nations can work to transform U.S.-Iranian relations and to reconcile two nations alienated by recent and historical wounds. We can establish people-to-people and group-to-group connections between American and Iranian citizen and institutions, and can use popular media to show peacemaking images, such as the million Iranian 9/12/01 vigil.

Concerned states can convene a series of regional conferences to discuss outstanding current issues affecting the relations between Persian Gulf/Middle East nations and the industrialized nations. The nations of the region may decide to form a multi-state association, like the European Union, to represent their collective interests. Conferences can explore the guarantee of local ownership and control of regional oil resources while recognizing the industrialized states’ need for access to oil on reasonable terms, the recognition of the State of Israel and normalization of relations, and the issue of nuclear proliferation in a regional context.

Academics of concerned nations can convene a series of conferences involving American, European, Israeli, Arab and Persian scholars to discuss historical issues affecting the relations between the nations of the region. Conferences might deal with the effects of colonization on the region; the historicity and effects of the European Holocaust; and measures needed to heal the wounds caused by the historic clash between Palestinian nationalism and Zionism.

Once the war trend is reversed, there will be many opportunities to restore strained or severed relations. Traditional inter-state negotiation is better than war — but to make peace between seriously estranged nations, more imaginative and transformative processes are needed. The technology of peacemaking exists. It is up to us to employ it.

The New Pro Israel: Mutually Assured Survival

“For more than half a century, AIPAC has worked to help make Israel more secure by ensuring that American support remains strong.” (AIPAC website.) In light of 21st century warfare and new security realities, we must rethink the deepest meaning of “unwavering support” for Israel. Collaboration between the US and Israel against Iran, encouraging, enabling, and even using Israel to engage in military ventures is the greatest existential threat to Israel – physically, morally and spiritually. War is no longer a “last resort.” It is an unnecessary resort, and in today’s world it is the “worst resort.” It would invite retaliation, increase global anti-Semitism and threaten American security. Israel and the US would be the world’s pariah states, living in infamy.

As Americans, Jews, and conflict analysts, we are appealing to you to think through the catastrophic consequences and consider the potential for effective strategies to dramatically improve Israel’s short and long-term security, role, and image in the region and the world. Surely, we can draw upon our collective intelligence, resources, and tradition of social justice to turn this around.

The “New Pro Israel” requires helping Israel find ways to live cooperatively and productively within a Middle East Community. It can only be based on a policy of Mutually Assured Survival, which is in everyone’s best interest. This approach reflects our Jewish prophetic moral vision.

We would be happy to dialogue with members of AIPAC, policy advisors, or others interested in further exploring the application of principles of this paradigm to the current conflicts than endanger Israel, the US and other countries. We offer our knowledge, insights, and experience regarding more effective strategies that can help produce conditions that will reduce tension, prevent violence, and create a new reality so that Israel can live in peace, stability and prosperous cooperation with its neighbors.

**

JAIPAC – Jewish Analysts Investigating Peace and Conflict:

Diane Perlman, PhD. JAIPAC Coordinator, Transcend US, Convener, Co-Chair, Working group on Global Violence and Security, Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, & Violence, Division 48 of the American Psychological Association

Richard E. Rubenstein, Professor of Conflict Resolution and Public Affairs, Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University, TRANSCEND

Morton Deutsch, PhD.  E.L. Thorndike Professor Emeritus and Director Emeritus, International Center of Cooperation and Conflict Resolution, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Marc Pilisuk, PhD Professor Emeritus, University of California, Faculty, Saybrook Graduate School and research Center, Author of International Conflcit and Social Policy, The Healing Web: Social Networks and Human Survival, Past President of the Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict and Violence, Division 48 of the American Psychological Association

Professor Ian Lustick, PhD, Chair, Political Science, University of Pennsylvania, Author, Trapped in the War on Terror, Associate Director, Asch Center for the Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict

Rona M. Fields, Ph.D. Author, journalist, President, DC Psychological Association (former) Senior Research Fellow, Institute for Cyber-Security Policy, George Washington University

Jessica Benjamin, PhD, Author, psychoanalyst, Co-Founder, Psychotherapists for Social Responsibility

Alan E. Gross, Ph.D. social psychologist, mediator, conflict resolution trainer

James M. Statman, Ph.D. Political psychologist, international development and conflict mitigation practitioner

Professor Andrew Samuels, University of Essex, England; Psychoanalyst; Political Consultant Co-Founder, Jews for Justice for Palestinians, and Independent Jewish Voices in the UK

Louis Kriesberg, Professor Emeritus of Social Conflict Studies, Syracuse University

Professor Barbara J. Wien, Editor, Peace and World Order Studies:  A Curriculum Guide, Former Program Officer, The U.S. Institute of Peace, Professor, The Catholic University of America, Peace Studies Program, Co-Director, Peace Brigades International-USA

Neil Wollman; Ph. D.; Senior Fellow, Peace Studies Institute; Professor of Psychology; Manchester College

Ethel Tobach, PhD, Past President, Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, & Violence, Division 48 of the American Psychological Association

Marc Howard Ross, PhD, Department of Political Science, Bryn Mawr College

Simona Sharoni, PhD, conflict transformation and gender studies, St. Martin’s University

Julie Oxenberg, Ph.D., clinical psychologist; Director, Tikkun Institute; co-founder, Psychology of Peace program, Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology

Milton Schwebel, PhD, Emeritus Dean, Graduate School of Education, Emeritus Professor, Graduate School of Applied & Professional Psychology, Rutgers University, Past President, Psychologists for Social Responsibility, Former Editor, Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

Steve Bhaerman, author and comedian Swami Beyondananda, former history teacher and political scientist

Robert A. Rubinstein, Ph.D., Ms.P.H.  Professor of Anthropology and International Relations The Maxwell School of Syracuse University

Dr. Joyce Neu, Executive Director, Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice, University of San Diego, http://peace.sandiego.edu, 2006-7 Jennings Randolph Senior Fellow U.S. Institute of Peace

Non-Jewish Colleagues Supporting JAIPAC:

Paul Kimmel, PhD, Past President, Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, & Violence, Division 48 of the American Psychological Association

Frank J. Ostrowski, Ph.D.  Representative to the United Nations for the international Fellowship  of Reconciliation

Anne Anderson, LICSW Social Worker and former Coordinator of Psychologists for Social Responsibility   Washington, DC

Dennis J.D. Sandole, Ph.D. Professor of Conflict Resolution and International Relations Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (ICAR), George Mason University

Richard V. Wagner, PhD, President, Psychologists for Social Responsibility; Editor, Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology; Professor Emeritus of Psychology, Bates College, Lewiston, Maine.

_____________________________________________

Diane Perlman, PhD is a clinical and political psychologist, devoted to applying knowledge from psychology, conflict studies and social sciences to designing strategies and policies to reverse nuclear proliferation, to drastically reduce terrorism, reduce enmity, and to raise consciousness about nonviolent strategies for tension reduction and conflict transformation. She is a visiting scholar at the School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, is active in Psychologists for Social Responsibility, the TRANSCEND Network for Peace Development Environment, and on the Global Council of Abolition 2000. Some of her writings can be found on www.consciouspolitics.org and www.SanityandSurvival.com. Email: dianeperlman@gmail.com

Go to Original – coronawise.substack.com

Share this article: email mastodon facebook 🔗 copy link

DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

There are no comments so far.