DOCSLIB.ORG

RUSSIA: Its Place in the 21St Century and The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
RUSSIA: Its Place in the 21St Century and The RUSSIA: Its Place in the 21st Century and the Implications for the United States The findings of a trilogy of panel studies by recognized experts A Special Report of the U.S.-Russia Relations Study Group June l, 2001 Sponsored by Hudson Institute, Inc. http://wwww.hudson.org A Special Report of the U.S.-Russia Relations Study Group June l, 2001 Sponsored by Hudson Institute, Inc. http://wwww.hudson.org CONTENTS Introduction by Herbert London Study Group Briefing Agenda and Panel Participants Part One - Plenary Session Rapporteur’s Report by Peter Schweizer Part Two - Panel Reports I. Internal Issues Panel Findings, Conclusions or Recommendations Remarks by Panel Chairman, Congressman Curt Weldon Cornerstone Paper by David Satter II. Foreign Policy Panel Findings, Conclusions or Recommendations Remarks by Panel Chairman, Senator Fred Thompson Cornerstone Paper by Dr. Richard Pipes III. Security and Military Issues Panel Findings, Conclusions or Recommendations Remarks by Panel Chairman, Major General William Odom, USA, Ret. Cornerstone Paper by Dr. Keith Payne Part Three - Luncheon Address by The Honorable James Woolsey Further Suggested Reading on Russia and the United States For Additional Information on this Hudson Institute Project and Future Hudson Institute Events, See Contact Information on the Inside Back Cover. A Special Report of the U.S.-Russia Relations Study Group June l, 2001 Sponsored by Hudson Institute, Inc. http://wwww.hudson.org RUSSIA: ITS PLACE IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES A Report of the Hudson Institute Study Group on U.S.-Russia Relations Introduction By Herbert London Ten years ago we watched with near disbelief as the last great predatory empire, the Soviet Union, began to unravel before our eyes - and with scarcely a shot fired. It was a heady time, an event of unprecedented magnitude. For half a century the confrontation between the Soviets and the West had loomed over the entire globe, preoccupied our leaders and dominated our politics, forcing us to spend immense sums on defense, yet still leaving us haunted by the constant possibility of nuclear war. America and the West could take some pride in bringing a victorious end to this long twilight struggle, for it was our free system and our determination to remain free - the “wall of resolve” in the words of Russian patriot Alexander Solzhenitsyn - that finally caused the Soviet Union to collapse of its own internal corruption. When the Russian people threw off the burden of Communism, hopes were high in both Russia and the West that Russia would make the transition to a free, democratic, and stable country. We provided considerable material aid and much moral support to help bring it about. Now, as we all recognize with regret, things did not work out that way. Instead Russia went through a further agonizing economic collapse, accompanied by social and political turmoil. The old Communist nomenklatura, often in the new guise of criminal cartels, fought with reformers not just for the reins of power, but also over what kind of Russia would rise from the wreckage. Corrupt oligarches emerged in leadership positions, no longer claiming the sanction of “scientific” Marxist- Leninism but simply the right of the most unscrupulous to rule. The Russian people sank deeper into poverty and misery. Sadly, many of them came to equate the cynical exploitation of the new class of oligarches with free market reforms. Relations between America and Russia, which held so much promise at the end of the Cold War, soured once again. It would be tempting to dismiss all this as irrelevant. Americans have had a tendency to be complacent since the USSR collapsed. Soviet Communism is defeated and discredited, and Russia seriously weakened. It no longer threatens us, many Americans believe. And yet, while no one wants to revive or perpetuate the Cold War, we cannot afford to ignore the fact that Russia retains 6,000 nuclear warheads, is modernizing its strategic arsenal, and still has considerable conventional military power. We must face the fact that Russia still has the means to undermine the interests of the United States and our allies. Moreover, what happens in Russia may determine its eternal behavior. If Russia is able to surmount its internal problems and transform itself into a free and democratic society, then it most likely will adopt a military posture and foreign policy that does not seek to make trouble for America and the West. On the other hand, if a virulent new form of lawless authoritarianism takes permanent root, Russia is more likely to embark upon irredentist or aggressive policies abroad. A Special Report of the U.S.-Russia Relations Study Group June l, 2001 Sponsored by Hudson Institute, Inc. http://wwww.hudson.org Because we still have a vital stake in what happens in Russia, the Hudson Institute decided to convene a group of experts to study U.S.-Russia relations and how America might encourage the emergence of a stable, democratic country. Without casting unduly harsh or premature judgments, the Institute believed nevertheless that American policy had failed to help Russia make the desired transformation. The Institute also anticipated that a new U.S. Administration might assume office in 2001 and a new approach to Russia might ensue. When Russia elected a new President, Vladimir Putin, the time seemed propitious to move forward with this study, “Russia: Its Place in the Twenty-First Century and the Implications for the United States.” The Hudson Institute brought together the most experienced foreign policy analysts and defense specialists available to assess the current state of the relationship and to make policy recommendations for improving it. U.S. policy toward Russia remains the subject of intense debate in Washington, so we expected the discussions to be lively. But when the sessions occurred in the shadow of President Bill Clinton’s historic meeting with President Putin in Moscow, and also the release of the Cox Committee’s Report on the failures of U.S. policy toward Russia, our deliberations took on added meaning. Three panels were created, with special attention to selecting bipartisan participants from a variety of professional backgrounds. Panel members included Members of the House and Senate, former intelligence officials, military officers, journalists, scholars, and businessmen. The first panel addressed Russia’s internal situation, covering corruption, health care, and legal and economic reform. The second panel analyzed Russian foreign policy and how the United States might adopt valid and more effective principles for dealing with Moscow. The third panel examined military questions, including the present and future state of Russia’s armed forces. Once each panel met to discuss its topics in depth, all three were convened in a private plenary session for an overall discussion. Through the plenary session we hoped to find some congruence in all three panels that could form the basis of a consistent policy. The day after this plenary session, a public meeting was held on Capitol Hill to discuss findings and make policy recommendations. More than a hundred people attended the event, including Members of Congress and Staff, journalists, and representatives from “think tanks” and the policy community. The Bush Administration has the opportunity to renew improved ties with Russia. And while America’s ability to affect the internal course of events in Russia is limited, there is still much that we can do to help make our former enemy a friend, as we have with adversaries in the past. We hope the Report you are about to read will help policymakers introduce a greater consistency and soundness of purpose into America’s relations with Russia. The United States needs to pursue a policy that is consistent with American national security interests and that offers the best long-term hope for prosperity and freedom in Russia. Through this exercise and with this Report, we believe we have made an important contribution toward that goal. A Special Report of the U.S.-Russia Relations Study Group June l, 2001 Sponsored by Hudson Institute, Inc. http://wwww.hudson.org Public Briefing of the U.S.-Russia Relations Study Group “Russia: Its Place in the Twenty-First Century and the Implications for the United States” Agenda June 6, 2000 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Hearing Room 342 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Sponsored by The Hudson Institute Welcome and Introduction by Herbert I. London, President, Hudson Institute Panel I. How Will Russia’s Internal Problems Shape Its Sense of Itself and the Role It Wants to Play? Chair, Curt Weldon, U.S. Representative, Pennsylvania Fritz Enmarth, former Chairman, National Intelligence Council Daniel Fine, Research Associate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology David Satter, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute Owen T. Smith, Professor, Long Island University Panel II. What Are Russia’s Foreign Policy Aspirations and How Realistic Are They? Chair, Fred Thompson, U.S. Senator, Tennessee, Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee Constantine Menges, Director of the Program on Transitions to Democracy, The George Washington University Richard Perle, Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute Richard Pipes, Professor of History, Harvard University Roger W. Robinson, Jr., William J. Casey Institute Chair, former Senior Director of International Economic Affairs at the National Security Council Paul Wolfowitz, Dean, Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University A Special Report of the U.S.-Russia Relations Study Group June l, 2001 Sponsored by Hudson Institute, Inc. http://wwww.hudson.org Panel III. Where Does Russia Want to Go as a Military Power and Can They Afford it? Chair, William Odom, Director, National Security Studies, Hudson Institute Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President, Center for Security Policy Robert Joseph, Director, Center for Counterproliferation Research, National Defense University Keith B.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference by Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J
    STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES 11 Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference by Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J. Lamb Center for Strategic Research Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University The Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS) is National Defense University’s (NDU’s) dedicated research arm. INSS includes the Center for Strategic Research, Center for Complex Operations, Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs, Center for Technology and National Security Policy, Center for Transatlantic Security Studies, and Conflict Records Research Center. The military and civilian analysts and staff who comprise INSS and its subcomponents execute their mission by conducting research and analysis, publishing, and participating in conferences, policy support, and outreach. The mission of INSS is to conduct strategic studies for the Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Unified Combatant Commands in support of the academic programs at NDU and to perform outreach to other U.S. Government agencies and the broader national security community. Cover: Kathleen Bailey presents evidence of forgeries to the press corps. Credit: The Washington Times Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference Deception, Disinformation, and Strategic Communications: How One Interagency Group Made a Major Difference By Fletcher Schoen and Christopher J. Lamb Institute for National Strategic Studies Strategic Perspectives, No. 11 Series Editor: Nicholas Rostow National Defense University Press Washington, D.C. June 2012 Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Defense Department or any other agency of the Federal Government.
    [Show full text]
  • Paving the Path for Success: Lenin's Political Theory in Practice, 1902-1917 Kelly Olsen
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2009 Paving the Path for Success: Lenin's Political Theory in Practice, 1902-1917 Kelly Olsen Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES PAVING THE PATH FOR SUCCESS: LENIN’S POLITICAL THEORY IN PRACTICE, 1902-1917 By KELLY OLSEN A Thesis submitted to the Interdisciplinary Program in Russian and East European Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2009 The members of the committee approve the thesis of Kelly Olsen defended on November 3, 2009. ________________________________________ Jonathan Grant Professor Directing Defense ________________________________________ Mark Souva Committee Member ________________________________________ Edward Wynot Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members. ii This Thesis is dedicated to Dr. Art Vanden Houten in an effort to thank him for igniting my passion for political theory and showing me that the influence of a truly great teacher expands much further than the classroom. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to acknowledge Dr. Jonathan Grant for guiding me through the research and writing process and answering all my questions; big and small. I would also like to acknowledge my father, mother, and sister for encouraging me to always strive for success and for listening to me talk about Lenin for countless hours. Thank you. iv ABSTRACT This thesis presents and evaluates a selection of Lenin’s political writings from 1902-1917 in an effort to illustrate the continuity in his political theory.
    [Show full text]
  • FALL 2019 NEWSLETTER from the 2019-20 Department Chair, Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham
    FALL 2019 NEWSLETTER From the 2019-20 Department Chair, Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham The History Department is revving up for department, they contributed greatly to the 2019-2020 academic year. In looking their fields of study, to Harvard, and to the forward to the opening of the semester, we historical profession. In fall 2018, death express excitement about the return of the also took alum Stephen Walsh, who received many faculty members who were on leave his PhD in History in 2014. The faculty last year. We welcome you back! And we voted last spring to honor his memory. One call special attention to Tiya Miles and Derek of the department’s three annual History Penslar, who spent their first year as Prize Instructorships will be called the tenured faculty at Harvard (2018-2019) on Stephen A. Walsh History Prize leave and join us this fall in a full and active Instructorship for the next three years way. Tiya Miles offers courses on African (2019-2022). Americans and Native Americans. She is also attentive to gender as one of her The History Department’s faculty news is course titles reveals—“Native American filled with much to highlight. Kirsten Weld Evelyn Brooks Women: History and Myth.” Derek Penslar was promoted to the rank of full professor Higginbotham offers courses in modern Jewish History. He and Arunabh Ghosh was promoted to Department Chair will teach the Gen Ed course “Is War associate professor. David Howell, Inevitable.” Similarly, Liz Cohen returns to previously an affiliate in the department, Dimiter Angelov the History faculty after her sabbatical, now holds a joint appointment with History Outgoing Director of which followed seven years of stellar and East Asian Languages and Civilizations leadership as the Dean of Radcliffe.
    [Show full text]
  • Editorial Page
    A12 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2017 ••• RICHMOND TIMES-DISPATCH EDITORIAL PAGE HEALTH CARE Contraction? Over the course of Virginia’s protracted dispute about expanding Medicaid, Republican opponents repeatedly have warned about getting stuck with a big bill the state cannot afford to pay. Looks like they could be right. Under the Affordable Care Act, states could expand Medicaid coverage at nearly no direct cost to them: After picking up the full tab initially, Washington would gradually lower its funding support, but only to 90 percent. Even after the full phase-in, every state dollar spent on expansion would bring a $9 return. Seemed like a sweet deal. Thirty-one states took it. Virginia didn’t, thanks to GOP opposition. Democrats have made much of all the supposedly free money the state has left on the table, but of course the money isn’t free: It comes from the taxpayers. What’s more, there is no giant pot of dedicated federal expansion money that Washington divides among however many states expanded Medicaid. Virginia’s decision not to expand Med- icaid does not mean Virginia’s share of the pie goes to other states. It means the money the commonwealth would have received sim- ply goes unspent. With a Republican — at least a nominal one — in the White House and majorities in Congress, the GOP is now considering various ways to unwind the Affordable Care Act. A few concrete proposals have surfaced, but a consensus has yet to coalesce. One bone of contention concerns Medicaid. Some Republicans LETTERS TO THE EDITOR in Washington want to roll back Medicaid expansion.
    [Show full text]
  • Wolfgram Memorial Library Mcnaughton Collection
    Wolfgram Memorial Library McNaughton Collection March 2020 - New Arrivals NOTES: Our McNaughton Collection delivers New York Times bestsellers to our patrons on or before street date, and are shelved by the author’s last name. Fictitious characters, series, or club names are in “quotes” for easy identification. Author - Title – Subject - Synopsis Cummins, Jeanine – American Dirt – “Oprah’s Book Club 2020,” Mexico Organized Crime Fiction, Mexico-U.S. Border Immigrants Fiction - Lydia Perez's life is not extraordinary; she is a bookstore owner with a husband and eight-year-old son, Luca, in Acapulco. When cartel jefe Javier Fuentes has her entire extended family killed while Lydia and Luca are fortuitously hiding in a bathroom, Lydia realizes they must leave Mexico immediately or be killed when Javier finds out she is still alive. Luca, confused but trusting in his mother, embarks with her on an odyssey to the north, joining other migrants trying to make it to the U.S. border. What they see along the way will bring readers both heartbreak and hope, pain and promise. While Cummins alternates points of view, Luca's voice in particular sings with innocent optimism in the face of a series of near misses. The journey towards the prospect of safety is not only that of Luca and Lydia but of many other migrants, and complex secondary characters serve as both warnings and signs of possibility. Beautiful, straightforward language drives home the point that migration to safer places is not a political issue but a human one. With a story line sure to be much discussed this election year-- plus a film in the works--American Dirt may be the don't-miss book of 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Mohammed Al Amoudi Response to Schweizer 'Clinton Cash'
    www.sheikhmohammedalamoudi.info SHEIKH MOHAMMED The Global Office of Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Al Amoudi HUSSEIN AL AMOUDI 16 June 2015 official website FACT SHEET Sheikh Mohammed Al Amoudi’s Response to ‘Clinton Cash’ On May 5, 2015, HarperCollins published a book by Peter Schweizer (Clinton Cash) which made a number of inaccurate, incomplete and/or false statements about Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Al Amoudi. The following details the corrections related to the section on Sheikh Al Amoudi, which are found on pages 128-134 in Chapter 8 of Clinton Cash. 1. Amount of Donation to the Clinton Foundation Mr. Schweizer states that Sheikh Al Amoudi made a $20 million commitment to the Clinton Foundation in 2007. While it is true that Sheikh Al Amoudi committed to that sum in principle, he in fact only donated $6 million to the Clinton Foundation. He then provided a further $16 million for a separate event - the Sixteenth International Conference on AIDS and STI in Africa (ICASA 2011). Interested parties are referred to the Sheikh's personal website - www.sheikhmohammedalamoudi.info - for more information on his philanthropy and on his longstanding interest in African healthcare issues as well as the facts on the Clinton Foundation donation and ICASA 2011. All of this is explained on the Sheikh's website. 2. False Claims Derived from Suspect Online Letter Mr. Schweizer relied for some of his 'facts' on a purported 2009 letter from an otherwise unknown "Ethiopian human rights organization" (Ethiopian Americans for Justice). The allegations raised in the letter were highly unreliable. In particular, the letter, without any factual support or basis, claimed that the donation to the Clinton Foundation was made at the behest of the Ethiopian Government and that the Sheikh 'is not known for much philanthropy.' This purported organization has no website and no mailing address.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinton Cash Peter Schweizer
    Clinton Cash By Peter Schweizer Summarized by cleangov [If we lived in a country with an ethical government, the Justice Department would have long since put a stop to activities like those described in this book. Bill and Hillary Clinton and many of their close associates, and many of the wealthy people who donated money to various Clinton causes, would be serving long prison sentences. The actions and policies of our government would be saner and would be productive of improved conditions at home and abroad. The US taxpayer would have kept more money in his pocket, to spend on projects he thought were worthwhile. But, that’s not the case. We do not have an ethical government, so books like this are needed, so that the electorate, or at least enough of them, can wise up to the huge crimes being committed by people in positions of trust, and can rise up and vote the rascals out. This summary is an effort to present in a succinct form many of the fascinating facts connected with the Clintons and their solicitation of huge payments of money to their Clinton Foundation and other organizations of benefit to the Clintons, (or huge speaking fees paid to Bill Clinton by wealthy individuals, corporations, and foreign individuals or countries), in apparent exchange for favorable laws or rulings or policy decisions made by Hillary, or greatly influenced by Hillary, (or favorable introductions of Bill’s business pals), when she was Senator from New York, and then Secretary of State. As Peter Schweizer says in a couple places in his book, given that he is only an investigative journalist, with very limited investigatory powers, the data presented here is not (usually) sufficient to convict anyone of a crime in a court of law.
    [Show full text]
  • 16044390532.Pdf
    BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION American Democracy Legal Fund 455 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001 fi-:' s.t» Complainant,. V :51 • • V. •- <-} Senator Rand Paul to' P,0. Box 77681 Washington, DC 20013 4 Rand Paul for President, Inc. P.O. Box 77681 Washington, DC 20013 MUR # Treasurer of Rand Paul for President, Inc. P.O. Box 77681 Washington, DC 20013 Peter Schweizer 195 Broadway New York, NY 10007 HarperCollins Publishers 195 Broadway New York, NY 10007 Respondents. COMPLAINT Complainant files this complaint under 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(1) against (i) Senator Rand Paul, (ii) Rand Paul for President, Inc., Senator Paul's authorized campaign committee, (iii) the treasurer of Rand Paul for President, Inc., in his. or her official capacity, (iv) Peter Schweizer, and (v) HaiperCollins Publishers for violating the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended ("the Act") and Federal Election Commission regulations, as described below. LEGAL12581S031.1 A. FACTS Senator Rand Paul is a United States Senator from Kentucky seeking the Republican nomination for President of the United States.' Recently, Senator Paul received an exclusive briefing on an upcoming book, Clinton Cash, by the book's author, Peter Schweizer.^ Clinton Cash, which is being published by HarperCollins Publishers and scheduled to be released on May S, 2015, investigates foreign donations made to the Clinton Foundation, a foundation formed by former President Clinton and his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.^ Secretary Clinton is currently seeking the Democratic nomination for President of the United 1 States and thus, is a potential opponent for Senator Paul in the general election on November 8, 2016." ^ Throughout his presidential campaign.
    [Show full text]
  • Soviet Foreign Behaviour in the ’80S
    Wilfrid Laurier University Scholars Commons @ Laurier Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive) 1980 Maintenance of an Empire: Soviet Foreign Behaviour in the ’80s Pierre Eugene LaCompte Wilfrid Laurier University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd Part of the International Relations Commons Recommended Citation LaCompte, Pierre Eugene, "Maintenance of an Empire: Soviet Foreign Behaviour in the ’80s" (1980). Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive). 1526. https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd/1526 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive) by an authorized administrator of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maintenance of an Empire: Soviet Foreign Behaviour in the '80s By Pierre Eugene LaCompte B.A. Wilfrid Laurier University, 1978 Thesis Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree Wilfrid Laurier University 1980 1 UMI Number: EC56502 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI EC56502 Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States
    [Show full text]
  • Did the ABM Treaty of 1972 Remain in Force After the USSR Ceased To
    American University International Law Review Volume 17 | Issue 2 Article 1 2002 Did the ABM Treaty of 1972 Remain in Force After the USSR Ceased to Exist in December 1991 and Did it Become a Treaty Between the United States and the Russian Federation? George Miron Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/auilr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Miron, George. "Did the ABM Treaty of 1972 Remain in Force After the USSR Ceased to Exist in December 1991 and Did it Become a Treaty Between the United States and the Russian Federation?" American University International Law Review 17, no. 2 (2002): 189-342. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University International Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MEMORANDUM OF LAW DID THE ABM TREATY OF 1972 REMAIN IN FORCE AFTER THE USSR CEASED TO EXIST IN DECEMBER 1991 AND DID IT BECOME A TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION?* GEORGE MIRON "° I. QUESTIONS ADDRESSED BY THE MEMORANDUM ... 195 II. BACKGROUND ............................................ 195 A. THE THESIS THAT UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW THE ABM TREATY OF 1972 WITH THE USSR BECAME A TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE RUSSIAN * On December 13, 2001, President George W. Bush notified Russia that the United States is withdrawing from the ABM Treaty.
    [Show full text]
  • University Microfilms International 300 N
    INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy.
    [Show full text]
  • Exorcising the Russian Revolution
    soC!: No. 647 ~X-523 7June 1996 exico: Fight Austeritv­ Mobilize Workers Power! m U> 1J III S ()o Hundreds of thousands of workers by striking teachers, seriously injuring marched through the streets of Mexico at least 40. And earlier in the month, City with trade-union and leftist ban­ Javier Elorriaga and Sebastian Entzin ners on May Day last month, filling the were given prison sentences of 13 years city's huge central plaza, the Z6calo, to and six years respectively for alleged ties overflowing. The mammoth turnout, a to the EZLN. half million or more, was a sharp Washington's hand is clearly visible challenge to the Institutional Revolu­ in the current wave of repression coming tionary Party (PRI) government of Pres­ down on Mexico's working people. The ident Ernesto Zedillo and the hidebound Mexican army's bloody massacres in corporatist Confederation of Mexican Chiapas were carried out with weapons Workers (CTM) which serves its inter­ supplied by the U.S., and recently the ests. For the second year in a row, CTM PRI government agreed to an unprece­ head Fidel Velazquez, the 96-year-old­ dented pact to have Mexican soldiers charro (bureaucrat) who has run the fed­ trained at American military bases, as eration with an iron hand for more than part of a scheme for joint policing of the 50 years, had not only canceled the tra­ border. Meanwhile, the Clinton admin­ ditional official unio.n rally but had istration has militarized large parts of called for a ban on any labor demonstra­ the border and drastically stepped up its tions marking May Day, the international racist deportations of Latin American workers holiday.
    [Show full text]