-Caveat Lector-
>From TheEconomist
http://www.economist.com/editorial/freeforall/8-5-
99/index_sf5060.html
> SPECIALAt daggers drawn
> First bananas, now beef, soon genetically modified foods. America
> and Europe are at war over trade <Picture: Related articles>
> Free trade in peril
>
> <Picture: Resources>
> Search
> archive
>
>
>
> Links
>
>
>
> <Picture: picture><Picture: picture credit>Moore the merrier
> TRADE relations between America and Europe have rarely been so
> bad. Even as they fight side-by-side against Serbia, they are
> taking aim at each other across the Atlantic. They are embroiled
> in a battle over hormone-treated beef. They are at loggerheads
> over genetically modified crops. They have fallen out over noisy
> aircraft, mobile telephones and data privacy. They are coming to
> blows over aerospace subsidies and champagne. And they have yet
> to patch up their split over bananas.
>
> True, transatlantic trade tiffs are nothing new. Indeed, some
> friction is perhaps inevitable between the world’s top two
> trading entities, which do trade of around $400 billion a year
> with each other. But this is different. The mood in both
> Washington and Brussels is resentful and uncompromising. Events
> could easily get out of hand. The current conflict is about more
> than just hormones in beef or aircraft noise. It is a battle
> about how far countries are willing to accept constraints on
> domestic policy in sensitive areas such as food safety or
> environmental protection for the sake of free trade.
>
> <Picture: picture><Picture: picture credit>Superfluous Supachai
> The battle is putting huge strains on the World Trade
> Organisation. The body that polices world trade cannot function
> properly unless America and Europe accept its writ. But the WTO
> itself is in crisis over its member countries’ inability to agree
> on a new director general. It is now leaderless and fractured;
> supporters of the two rival candidates are engaged in a slanging
> match rather than a search for compromise. The longer this drags
> on, the more its credibility will be undermined.
>
> The timing of the recent clashes is partly chance. Long-standing
> wrangles over bananas and beef have finally worked their way
> through the WTO’s dispute-settlement mechanism. On April 6th the
> WTO ruled for the third time that the European Union must amend
> its banana-import rules, which discriminate unfairly against
> American fruit distributors. On April 19th the WTO gave America
> the go-ahead to slap retaliatory sanctions against $191m of
> European imports—the first time it has sanctioned such a move.
>
> The WTO has also ruled that the EU must lift its ban on
> hormone-treated beef by May 13th, because there is no convincing
> scientific evidence that the hormones are dangerous. America is
> planning to impose sanctions on around $300m of European imports,
> mainly foodstuffs and motorcycles, if the EU shows no signs of
> complying with the WTO’s ruling by then. Last week the EU hit
> back with a new report claiming that the hormones could cause
> cancer. It also raised the stakes after hormones were found in
> imports of supposedly hormone-free American beef. It is
> threatening to ban all American beef on June 15th unless America
> can provide watertight guarantees that it is hormone-free.
> <Picture: picture>
>
> Last week the Europeans also issued new restrictions on noisy
> aeroplanes that will hit American companies particularly hard,
> although the new rules will not take effect until next year.
> America in turn launched two new WTO cases against the EU. One is
> over subsidies to Airbus, Boeing’s rival in aerospace. The other
> is over EU rules on geographical labels, which prevent, for
> instance, Californian fizzy wines being called champagne.
>
> But there is more to this than unfortunate coincidence. These
> bust-ups are a consequence of mercantilist policies exacerbated
> by political weakness and the increasingly legalistic nature of
> the WTO. America and Europe (like most countries) tend to see
> trade as a zero-sum game. They aim to pry open markets for their
> exporters while protecting their domestic industries from import
> competition as far as possible. Access to their markets is
> granted only in exchange for access to others’. Such policies are
> wrong-headed, since a country as a whole gains by opening its
> markets unilaterally. But they are pervasive, since industries
> that fear foreign competitors tend to lobby governments harder
> than the disparate millions of consumers who benefit from cheaper
> imports.
>
> America’s mercantilist urges were once tempered by cold war
> considerations and the liberal convictions of presidents and
> other senior politicians. But cold war reflexes are now all but
> dead and, hemmed in by an increasingly protectionist Congress,
> Bill Clinton’s administration (with the exception of Robert
> Rubin, the Treasury secretary) does not have the stomach or the
> inclination to make a stand for liberal policies. As Sylvia Ostry
> of the University of Toronto puts it: “America doesn’t have a
> trade policy. It has clients.”
>
> As for the EU, it has never been particularly keen on free trade.
> Over half its budget goes on the explicitly protectionist Common
> Agricultural Policy (CAP). Trade barriers between EU member
> states have been removed less out of a liberal belief in free
> trade than with the aim of creating a large, protected market for
> European firms. Under American prodding, the EU has grudgingly
> agreed to liberalise over the years. But now that American policy
> is essentially mercantilist, the EU is comfortable playing the
> same game.
>
> When trade is viewed as a zero-sum game, one side is perforce a
> loser. Yet, when both sides are of roughly equal strength,
> neither feels compelled to back down. Europe’s economic clout now
> matches America’s, so the United States can no longer rely on
> having its own way. And now that the EU has its own currency, the
> euro, to match the dollar, it has become even more reluctant to
> yield to American pressure.
>
> Political weakness is part of the problem too. America is gearing
> up for the presidential election next year. Its ballooning trade
> deficit, a record $262 billion in the year to February, has made
> trade a sensitive political issue. Charlene Barshefsky, America’s
> trade supremo, says it has reached “red-alert” level; even Mr
> Rubin says it is “economically and politically unsustainable”.
> The concern is largely misplaced, since the soaring deficit is
> caused not by foreign wickedness but by rapid economic growth in
> America combined with sluggish growth elsewhere. Yet Congress is
> up in arms; and since the administration cannot do anything to
> curb the deficit’s rise, it must act tough in other ways. Europe
> is an obvious target: it has a hefty (and rising) surplus and it
> has done little to stimulate its economy at a time when
> recession-hit emerging economies urgently need to export more to
> rich countries. <Picture: picture>
>
> European politicians are hamstrung as well. Economic growth is
> sluggish, unemployment remains high. The European Commission,
> which handles trade policy for the 15 EU states, is mired in
> scandal; big decisions are on hold until a new set of
> commissioners is appointed some time later this year. Sir Leon
> Brittan, the EU’s liberal-minded trade commissioner, does not
> have as much clout as he once did: he was already due to leave at
> the end of the year. EU trade policy is in any case highly
> inflexible. In principle, it is decided by a qualified majority
> vote of member states, but in practice decisions are usually
> reached by consensus. If a country fears it will be outvoted on a
> trade issue, it usually threatens to block a decision that
> requires unanimity, according to Patrick Messerlin of the
> Institut d’Etudes Politiques in Paris. EU governments are often
> “conscious that reform is needed but are unable to deliver,” he
> says. In the banana case, for example, France and Spain have
> successfully blocked German attempts to compromise with America.
>
>
>
> The increasing legalisation of the WTO is making matters worse.
> True, the WTO’s dispute-settlement mechanism often helps to
> resolve trade quarrels, since countries commit themselves to
> comply with the rulings of its impartial panels. America, for
> instance, lifted its restrictions on imports of Costa Rican
> underwear after the WTO ruled the restrictions were illegal. But,
> when governments lack the political will to comply and are too
> big to be bullied into doing so, the mechanism can be
> counterproductive. Assigning blame to one side reinforces
> mercantilist thinking and can make it harder to reach a
> face-saving political compromise.
>
> One reason why the banana case has proved so difficult to resolve
> is that the EU has been reluctant to accept publicly that it has
> lost. It has so far put off complying by using legal delaying
> tactics that the WTO’s ambiguous rules make possible. And it has
> tried to muddy the waters by launching two WTO cases of its own
> against America, over its premature and excessive retaliation
> against European imports on March 3rd, and over its Section 301
> law, which sets a unilateral timetable for American retaliation
> that may pre-empt the WTO’s. America too has dug its heels in. It
> will not settle for anything less than the full victory the WTO
> has awarded it, even though the dispute is damaging relations
> with the EU and undermining the WTO. Its sanctions against
> European imports are also hurting American consumers, who are now
> paying twice as much as they once did for Louis Vuitton handbags
> and German coffee-making machines.
>
> A big beef There is a bigger reason, however, why America and
> Europe cannot agree on trade. They are fighting a new kind of
> trade dispute about sensitive policy issues, such as food safety
> and environmental protection, that were once exclusively
> domestic. Such quarrels have come to the fore because countries’
> economies are now so closely intertwined through trade and
> investment that almost any government policy can have a
> discriminatory impact on foreign companies. They are particularly
> tricky, not least because governments are reluctant to compromise
> their ability to pursue other aims as well as free trade.
>
> Consider the difference between a traditional trade quarrel, such
> as a dispute over restrictions on steel imports, and the battle
> over hormone-treated beef. Traditional disputes are rather
> simple. They are usually about explicitly protectionist measures,
> such as import tariffs or quotas, that keep out foreign goods at
> the border. The costs of such measures (higher prices and less
> choice for consumers) are reasonably easy to quantify; they
> typically outweigh the benefits (fatter company profits and
> tariff revenues for governments). Even mercantilist governments
> should be able to resolve such narrowly economic disputes. One
> way is to buy off steel companies and unions with economic
> goodies. Another is to exchange access to domestic markets for
> access to foreign ones.
>
> The new trade disputes are rather more complicated. They are
> about more than economics: typically they are about social issues
> too. They are usually about domestic regulations that have
> international effects rather than about border controls: Europe
> has banned all hormone-treated beef, not just America’s. Such
> regulations are not wholly protectionist. Although Europe’s ban
> does keep out American imports and is partly motivated by a
> desire to protect inefficient European farmers, it is also a
> response to public fears about food safety.
>
> The costs of the ban (higher beef prices, less choice) are quite
> easy to establish. But the benefits are not: the value of safer
> food is hard to quantify and reasonable people may put widely
> different prices on it. Indeed some of the new actors in such
> disputes, such as consumer-rights activists and environmental
> groups, may not be susceptible to economic reasoning. So even
> liberal governments may have trouble resolving such quarrels.
> They may be particularly wary of setting precedents that they may
> later regret: the beef war is widely seen as a forerunner for a
> larger battle about genetically modified crops. Indeed, many may
> feel that such disputes intrude too far on national sovereignty,
> and thus refuse to accept that international trade rules should
> trump domestic political considerations.
>
> The multilateral trading system recognises that governments have
> legitimate aims other than free trade. It was founded in 1948,
> when memories of the 1930s were still fresh. Governments were
> keen to liberalise international trade, but were wary of giving
> up policy tools that might help them prevent another slump. So a
> delicate compromise was struck. Governments agreed to be bound by
> multilateral rules in order to free trade internationally, but
> retained the right to set their own policies domestically.
>
> In the 1950s and 1960s, the compromise worked well. Countries
> agreed to lower their most blatant barriers to trade, such as
> import tariffs or quotas imposed at the border, while intervening
> at will, with taxes, subsidies and regulations, in their domestic
> economies. But by the 1970s, problems began to emerge. As border
> barriers fell, it became clear that domestic regulations were
> also a big impediment to trade: a subsidy or a discriminatory
> rule could shut out imports just as effectively as a tariff.
> Moreover, governments began to abuse these loopholes for
> protectionist ends: anti-dumping cases and import-restricting
> regulations proliferated. So the focus of trade policy turned to
> limiting such abuses.
>
> Twenty years on, the compromise is in tatters. The problem is how
> to craft a new compromise that secures the huge benefits of free
> trade while respecting countries’ rights to pursue other aims. It
> is a delicate balancing act. Trample too much on domestic
> sovereignty and popular support for free trade will evaporate.
> Tread too lightly and it will be open season for protectionism.
> Broadly, the solution is for governments to pursue their
> political aims in ways that harm the rest of the world as little
> as possible. But that is often tough to achieve in practice.
>
> Struggling to cope The rows between America and Europe are taking
> their toll on the WTO. The banana case has exposed flaws in its
> dispute-settlement rules, which do not specify what countries
> must do to comply with its rulings. This ambiguity allows
> recalcitrant losers to drag out cases almost at will. The EU is
> exploiting this legal wiggle-room in the beef case too. It is
> refusing simply to lift its ban. Instead it proposes to do one of
> three things: to allow in hormone-treated beef as long as it is
> labelled as such; to offer America temporary compensation while
> further research on the potential risks of hormones is conducted;
> or to impose a temporary ban on the grounds that there is not yet
> sufficient scientific evidence to show that hormones are safe.
>
> America would probably settle for a labelling scheme, as long as
> it does not imply that its beef is unsafe. But the labelling
> option looks like a non-starter now that the EU alleges the
> hormones cause cancer. America may also accept compensation,
> though the EU has yet to make any firm offer. But a temporary ban
> would invite American retaliation, since the beef case has been
> dragging on for more than ten years, and there is still no
> convincing evidence that hormones in beef are unsafe.
>
> At a practical level too, the WTO is struggling to cope. It has a
> small staff and a budget of only $80m, the equivalent of the
> IMF’s travel budget. The twists and turns of the banana and beef
> cases have overstretched it and hampered preparations for the big
> WTO summit in Seattle in late November. The summit will set the
> political blueprint for a new round of trade-liberalisation
> negotiations that kicks off in Geneva next January. Among the
> items on the agenda are agriculture, services and industrial
> tariffs, although the EU would like to broaden the talks to cover
> issues such as investment and competition policy.
>
> Prospects for the new round look bleak in any case. Many
> developing countries feel short-changed by previous negotiations.
> Bruised by financial turmoil, they are far from keen on further
> liberalisation. The main problem on the European side is
> agriculture. The timid Berlin summit deal on CAP reform last
> month highlighted the EU’s reluctance to open up its heavily
> protected farming sector, a key demand by America and many
> developing countries. But the biggest problem is that America,
> which has driven all previous efforts at multilateral
> liberalisation, is now a laggard not a leader. Congress has
> repeatedly denied President Clinton “fast-track” negotiating
> authority: the power to strike trade deals that Congress cannot
> subsequently amend. Without it, the administration cannot
> negotiate credibly, because any deals it strikes with other
> countries may subsequently be unpicked on Capitol Hill. Worse,
> America is insisting that any WTO deal must include provisions on
> enforceable labour and environmental standards, which are
> anathema to most countries.
>
> But the WTO now has a more pressing problem. It is leaderless.
> Its members cannot agree on a successor to Renato Ruggiero, the
> mercurial Italian whose term as head of the WTO ended on April
> 30th. In front is Mike Moore, who was briefly New Zealand’s prime
> minister in 1990 and, as trade minister in the 1980s, transformed
> his country from a protectionist backwater to a paragon of free
> trade. He has strong support from both America and France, an
> unlikely combination. Many other European countries and Latin
> America are also behind him. The other candidate is Supachai
> Panitchpakdi. He is a Thai deputy prime minister and a former
> banker. His support comes from Japan, Asia and Mexico. Africa and
> the Caribbean are almost evenly split.
>
> Talks have broken down in acrimony. Some developing countries,
> which feel that the new WTO’s director general should come from a
> poor country for once, are stubbornly blocking the appointment of
> Mr Moore, who now leads Mr Supachai by a margin of over two to
> one. Thailand insists that Mr Supachai will not pull out and
> angrily protests that America has conspired to block his
> candidacy. Tempers are running high: the Zimbabwean ambassador
> said the Americans were lobbing “Scud missiles” at the Third
> World; and the WTO’s press corps has been gagged at Mexico’s
> insistence. Unless this dispute is resolved quickly, the WTO’s
> reputation will be dealt a hammer-blow.
>
> The four-year old WTO is at a crossroads. It has become a
> quasi-judicial body, an embryo world government whose rulings on
> world trade are supposed to be binding even on America and the
> EU. Yet it is now being asked to arbitrate on matters which are
> intensely political. It lacks the legitimacy to do so. The world
> needs the WTO, without which a catastrophic retreat into
> protectionism is all too likely. But the WTO cannot be expected
> to set the world to rights without the political support of
> America and Europe.
>
>
> LINKS Documents relating to the US/EU banana dispute are
> available from the World Trade Organisation. Online biographies
> of the two candidates for the position of director-general can
> also be found at the WTO’s site. The case for the European
> position in the banana and beef disputes is put forward by the
> European Commission. The US government’s response to the WTO’s
> judgement in the banana dispute is available from the US Trade
> Representative. Top of page
>From www.security-policy.org/papers/1999/99-C-75.html
> Publications of the Casey Institute
> of the Center for Security Policy
> No. 99-C 75
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>
>
>
> PERSPECTIVE
> 2 July 1999
>
>
> A Job for C.F.I.U.S.: Proposed Chinese Buy of U.S.
> Telecommunications Assets Needs National Security Scrub
>
> (Washington, D.C.): On 23 June, Hutchison USA announced its
> investment of $957 million into the combined telecommunications
> company of Voicestream Wireless and Omnipoint. Hutchison is
> already the largest shareholder in Voicestream, owning 24% of the
> company and its latest investment will increase its ownership to
> 30% of the newly merged conglomerate. Normally, such an
> announcement would not receive a second glance in the morning
> edition. Since, on closer inspection, Hutchinson is not a run-of
> -the-mill American corporation, this transaction demands a
> careful review by national security-minded agencies of the U.S.
> government and, most especially, by the Committee on Foreign
> Investment in the United States (CFIUS).
>
> What Exactly Is Hutchinson?
>
> Hutchison USA is a division of the large Hong Kong business
> conglomerate, Hutchison Whampoa, whose business ventures include
> real estate, port ownership in Asia, Europe and Panama, retail
> and manufacturing, and telecommunications and energy projects.
> Owned largely by billionaire Li Ka-shing, the company has
> recently initiated an extensive overseas acquisition strategy.
>
> Among other companies, Li is also the principal owner of the
> Panama Ports Company and China Resources Enterprise which
> collectively control four major ports at the eastern and western
> entry points to the Panama Canal. In a recent hearing before the
> Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on U.S. interests in the
> Panama Canal, a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
> Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Thomas H. Moorer (USN, Ret.)
> raised an alarm over Hutchison's role -- and that of the Chinese
> government -- in Panama. As Adm. Moorer put it:
>
>
>
> ...There's far more going on [in Panama] then meets the eye. A
> company called Panama Ports Company, S.A., affiliated with
> Hutchinson Whampoa, Ltd. through its owner, Mr. Li Ka-Shing,
> currently maintains control of four of the Panama Canal's major
> ports. Now, Panama Port Company is 10 percent owned by China
> Resources Enterprise, the commercial arm of China's Ministry of
> Trade and Economic Cooperation.
>
>
>
> Adm. Moorer added:
>
>
>
>
>
> Hutchison-Whampoa controls countless ports around the world. My
> specific concern is that this company is controlled by the
> Communist Chinese. And they have virtually accomplished, without
> a single shot being fired, a stronghold on the Panama Canal,
> something which took our country so many years to accomplish --
> [that is] the building and control of the Panama Canal -- along
> with military and commercial access in our own hemisphere."
>
>
>
> Just What Is China Resources Enterprise?
>
>
>
> On 16 July 1997, Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) was quoted by the
> South China Morning Post as saying that China Resources
> Enterprise acts as "an agent of espionage -- economic, military,
> and political -- for China." He also has observed that CRE has
> "geopolitical purposes. Kind of like a smiling tiger; it might
> look friendly, but it's very dangerous."
>
> In their best-selling book, Year of the Rat, Edward Timperlake
> and William C. Triplett III claimed that China Resources "had
> previously been identified as an associate of Chinese military
> intelligence." The authors also identified ties between Li
> Ka-shing and known arms-smuggler Wang Jun, head of
> Polytechnologies, an enterprise closely associated with the
> People's Liberation Army.
>
> Troubling 'Connections'
>
> According to [an investigative report entitled "The Panama Canal
> in Transition" which was published by the American Foreign Policy
> Council on 23 June 1999], Li Ka-shing's connections to Chinese
> government and government-connected entities are extensive -- and
> worrisome:
>
>
>
> The Senate [Government Reform] Committee...revealed that
> Hutchison Whampoa's subsidiary, HIT, has business ventures with
> the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO), which is owned by the
> People's Liberation Army. COSCO has been criticized for shipping
> Chinese missiles, missile components, jet fighters and other
> weapons technologies to nations such as Libya, Iraq, Iran and
> Pakistan. In 1996, the U.S. Customs Service seized a shipment of
> 2,000 automatic weapons aboard a COSCO ship at the port of
> Oakland, California. The man identified as the arms dealer, Wang
> Jun, is the head of China's Polytechnologies Company, the
> international outlet for Chinese weapons sales.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jun also sits on the Board of the China International Trust and
> Investment Corporation (CITIC),(1) the chief investment arm of
> the Chinese central government. It is also the bank of the
> People's Liberation Army, providing financing for Chinese Army
> weapons sales and for the purchase of Western technology. Jun's
> fellow CITIC Board member is Mr. Li Ka-shing, chairman of
> Hutchison Whampoa Ltd.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Li Ka-shing has profound ties to the Beijing regime. Li has
> invested more than a billion dollars in China and owns most of
> the dock space in Hong Kong. In an exclusive deal with the
> People's Republic of China's communist government, Li has the
> right of first-refusal over all PRC ports south of the Yangtze
> river, which involves a close working relationship with the
> Chinese military and businesses controlled by the People's
> Liberation Army.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Li has served as a middle man for PLA business dealings with the
> West. For example, Li financed several satellite deals between
> the U.S. Hughes Corporation and China Hong Kong Satellite
> [CHINASAT], a company owned by the People's Liberation Army. In
> 1997, Li Ka-shing and the Chinese Navy nearly obtained four huge
> roll-on/roll-off container ships -- which can be used for
> transporting military cargo -- in a deal that would have been
> financed by U.S. taxpayers.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> A June 1997 Rand report, "Chinese Military Commerce and U.S.
> National Security," stated, "Hutchison Whampoa of Hong Kong,
> controlled by Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing, is also
> negotiating for PLA wireless system contracts, which would build
> upon his equity interest in Poly-owned Yangpu Land Development
> Company, which is building infrastructure on China's Hainan
> Island." In 1998, Li Ka-shing attempted to issue $2 billion in
> bonds, through his Hutchison company, in the United States.
> According to the Dow Jones Newswire, Hutchison revealed that 50
> percent of the bonds would be used through a subsidiary known as
> Chung Kiu Communications Ltd., which had signed agreements to
> provide cellular services and equipment to joint ventures between
> the People's Liberation Army and the Chinese Ministry of Posts
> and Telecommunications. (Emphasis added.)
>
>
>
> The Bottom Line
>
>
>
> The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS) is
> responsible for analyzing the national security implications, if
> any, of prospective mergers and acquisitions which involve the
> purchase of American companies by international investors. When
> concerns are expressed about such implications, CFIUS has a
> 90-day period to examine the national security ramifications of
> such transactions. If necessary, it can extend its review in
> order to undertake a more lengthy and thorough investigation of
> these implications. It is required to submit a report and
> recommendations to the President based on its findings. If the
> President deems the prospective merger or acquisition to be a
> threat to U.S. national security, he may restrict or bar the
> foreign investment.
>
> The possibility that harm to American security interests could
> arise from the Hutchison purchase of a large stake in Voicestream
> Wireless and Omnipoint makes this transaction a candidate for a
> CFIUS review, even though it is nominally a U.S. entity. To do
> otherwise may set the precedent that by merely incorporating a
> subsidiary in the U.S., any foreign owned and operated company
> would be eligible to acquire -- or merge with -- U.S.
> security-sensitive firms without CFIUS review. If the Clinton
> Administration -- which has shown itself astoundingly indifferent
> to the dangers posed by China's penetration of the U.S. nuclear
> weapons complex, political system and economy -- proves reluctant
> to commission such a study, it should be mandated by the
> Congress.
>
> - 30 -
>
> 1. For more on CITIC, see Casey Perspectives entitled Hedging
> Financial Bets In China: Will 'ITIC's' And Other Entities With
> P.L.A. Connections Be Bailed Out By Beijing? (No.98-C 182, 12
> November 1998); and Market Confidence In 'China Inc.'
> Appropriately Shaken -- G.I.T.I.C. Bond Default A Taste Of What
> Is To Come (No. 98-C 177, 29 October 1998).
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>
>
> NOTE: The Center's publications are intended to invigorate and
> enrich the debate on foreign policy and defense issues. The views
> expressed do not necessarily reflect those of all members of the
> Center's Board of Advisors.
>
> Top of Page© 1988-1999, Center for Security Policy
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
A<>E<>R
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
