America’s Role in the World: Morality, Hypocrisy and National Interests

Growing up here in America, the ideas of what America stood for in the world were ideas of greatness, leadership, honor, courage, justice, equality, democracy and freedom for all. I saw America as a light in the darkness, a city on a hill, a beacon of hope. The American dream was the dream of freedom, opportunity and prosperity. I had little reason to doubt this narrative. Everyone I knew believed this, my schooling reinforced what they said, and politicians of both parties appealed to these great “truths.” And judging from talks with friends and family, this vision of America’s role in the world remains strong. Unfortunately the popular notions of what America stands for and the facts of American foreign policy are hardly connected. The rhetoric is almost Orwellian, but the truth is waiting for those of us who have caught a hint of the hypocrisy. However, undertaking a research project and questioning comfortable assumptions are not things most Americans feel inspired to do. The horrors of September 11th 2001 caused many Americans to question why anyone would hate America so much. Unfortunately President Bush painted terrorists as irrational agents of pure evil who hate us for our values and our freedoms. The problem is, that’s just not the case. As Jim Wallis says:

It is impossible to comprehend adequately the terrorist attacks of September 11 without a deeper understanding of the grievances and injustices felt by millions of people around the world. That is a painful subject that the US government mostly refuses to engage, the media avoid, and many Americans are unable to hear when they are feeling such mourning, grief and anger. …But the US policies that most anger people around the world are generally unknown to most Americans... (Wallis 96-7)

Given this, we must ask the question: What are these policies that anger people around the world, and why would the US pursue such policies? In answer, I argue that contrary to popular perception, foreign policy has been driven by a philosophy of “political realism” (a.k.a. power politics) with the aim of achieving so-called “national interests” by whatever means possible while masked in language about democracy, freedom and security. I will explore the examples of Iran from the 1950s to ’79, Colombia from the Cold War to present, and Pakistan as an ally in the “War on Terror.”

Although not totally uniform, political realism can be defined as “a school of thought that explains international relations in terms of power.” (International Relations, 35) Realism emphasizes states as primary actors exercising power for self-interest in an inherently anarchical international community. International law and codes of morality are seen as mostly irrelevant because self-interest is the primary motivator. Realists have tried to understand international relations in terms of the reality that people and thus states act in perceived self interest. On the other side of the spectrum is the idealist or liberal position, which emphasizes states as acting within an international community where law and norms should play a significant role. Realists have “blamed idealists for looking too much at how the world ought to be instead of how it really is.” (International Relations, 36) In reality, American foreign policy has been directed by a mixture of these positions in complex ways but, as I will show, perceived interest has played a decisive role in causing the US to support actions totally opposite of our stated American values. Even when US presidents have been seen as being motivated ideologically rather than through cold calculated interest, this has been the case. The question of whether the Bush or Reagan administrations believed their own rhetoric that they were fighting “evil” and thus could not negotiate with “evil” is beside the point. They both worked with clearly evil regimes to advance “national interests.”

The issue of self-interest when talking about states is problematic. The realist assumption that states are unitary actors is merely an oversimplification. States are made up of many different groups and individuals – interest groups, bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyists and the public in general – who compete to determine which interests will be represented in foreign policy decisions. Issues of group psychology, cultural norms and competing models of decision making, complicate this. However, generally speaking, those with more power and resources at their disposal, i.e. business interests, will inevitably have a louder voice and dominate the agenda. American foreign policy often does not represent what is in my best interest. Human rights usually take a back seat to the material interests of the powerful. George Kennan, the “architect of the US’ cold war grand strategy of containment… summarized the role that the US policy was to play in fashioning a global political economy conducive to US interests in the immediate post-war period. Kennan argued that ‘[The US has] about 50% of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3% of its population … [thus] Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships that will permit us to maintain this position of disparity’.” (Stokes, 371)

The example of US’ support for the Shah of Iran is a significant one. In 1951, the Shah Mohammad Reza and The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum) were facing a huge danger in an outbreak of democracy. The British were profiting in a major way from the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company which had sole claim to Iranian oil, giving to Iran only a token amount of profit. After WWII, “a loose coalition…known as the National Front” sought to restrict the monarchy and enact reform. “Most important, the National Front, angered by years of foreign exploitation, wanted to regain control of Iran's natural resources, and, when Mosaddeq became prime minister in 1951, he immediately nationalized the country's oil industry.” (Britannica) Britain naturally opposed this as the major beneficiary of the previous relationship and placed an embargo on Iranian oil with the help of the Americans whose oil companies would later gain a large stake in Iranian oil. In operation Ajax, the CIA staged a coup overthrowing the democratically elected government, and reinstating the Shah as the absolute monarch in 1953. The Shah then proceeded to oppress all opposition to his rule. “All forms of social and political protest, either from the intellectual left or the religious right, were subject to censorship, surveillance, or harassment by SAVAK, and illegal detention and torture were common.” (Britannica) Douglas Little points out the role of the US thus:

…After considerable prodding from Washington, in 1957 the shah created SAVAK, a Farsi acronym standing for the National Intelligence and Security Organization. Headed by Teimur Bakhtiar and trained by the CIA, for two decades the SAVAK relied on Gestapo tactics—arbitrary arrests, torture, and murder—and a huge network of informers to snuff out opposition… A quarter century after Operation Ajax, the shah’s Iran had become an oil-rich police state, thanks in large measure to help and encouragement from U.S. intelligence. (Little 666)

As we can see, behind the history of the US enmity with Iran which lasts till today, the reason for the Iranian uprising in 1979 is the not so oft spoken of subversion of their democratically elected government, CIA training of secret police and use of torture, all in the name of upholding American national interests.

Iran however is not a lone anomaly in the history of US foreign policy. US support of oppressive dictatorships in South and Central America such as Chile under Pinochet, and the training of soldiers in the School of Americas using manuals which “advocated torture, extortion, blackmail and the targeting of civilian populations” (SOA Watch) have a long history. “During the cold war the US intervened in more states in Latin America than on any other continent, with US sponsored counter-insurgency (CI), the primary means of US coercive statecraft.” (Stokes 368) From the Cold War period up to today, Colombia has been among the biggest recipients of US military aid. On the face of it, this policy seems justified. Colombia is a democracy fighting communist guerillas and the drug trade. However, the methods used by the Colombian military and paramilitaries have suppressed democracy for years. An AI report on US military aid to Colombia says “Colombia has been one of the largest recipients of US military aid… Yet torture, massacres, ‘disappearances’ and killings of non-combatants are widespread and collusion between the armed forces and paramilitary groups continues to this day.” (Amnesty)

In Colombia during the Cold War, just as in the war on terror, there was no obvious way to tell an insurgent from anyone else unless they engaged in combat. Thus, labor leaders, human rights activists, dissidents and opposition leaders, educators, and religious leaders who criticize government policies have all been targeted by the military and by paramilitaries. Increased participation in labor unions, student activism, protests, strikes, letter writing to criticize the government and “the appearance of questionable doctrine in the educational system” have all been seen as signs of potential threat. (Stokes 373-374) This policy appears not to have changed. Amnesty International points out that

“The Colombian Commission of Jurists has documented that between July 2002 and June 2005 [paramilitaries] assassinated or forcibly disappeared an average of 1,060 persons each year. Just recently, on January 31, 2007, a human rights defender named Yolanda Izquierdo was killed in the Department of Cordoba by gunmen suspected of being linked to army backed paramilitary groups. …Meanwhile, reports documenting the ongoing direct responsibility of the security forces in human rights violations, including reports issued by the United Nations, are abundant.” (Amnesty)

Human Rights Watch points out that “Colombia has for years had the world’s highest rate of killings of trade unionists. …more than 2600 since 1986… The suspected killers are often members of mafia-like paramilitary groups which have had close ties to military, political and business figures. In 95 percent of cases, the killers have never been caught or prosecuted.” (Roth) Regardless of the justifications of fighting drugs or terror, the policy is totally contrary to American values, yet “despite overwhelming evidence of continued failure to protect human rights the State Department has continued to certify Colombia as fit to receive aid… [continuing] a policy of throwing "fuel on the fire" of already widespread human rights violations, collusion with illegal paramilitary groups and near total impunity.” (Amnesty)

The more we look into the dark history of US foreign policy, we find that the torture, abuses and contempt for international law are not limited to the recent war on terror that President Bush declared after 9-11 but are merely the latest revelations of such action. The policy of support for Colombia in spite of abuses continues today, as does US support for Pakistan as a key ally in the war on terror. Musharraf, the president of Pakistan who took power unconstitutionally was a serious offender of human rights and as of 2006 Human Rights Watch “documented a pattern of ‘disappearances,’ arbitrary detention, and torture by the Pakistani security services in counterterrorism operations across Pakistan.”

The problem is, that it is precisely this history of hypocrisy which has caused untold grievances, not only in the Muslim world but on nearly every continent, that has sparked the anger and hatred of those who oppose US hegemony. US officials spout beautiful rhetoric about promoting freedom and respect for human rights and then turn around and promote so-called national interests at the cost of all that our great nation supposedly stands for. Clearly this pursuit of hegemonic power to dominate the international system has worked against us. We’ve sold our souls for wealth and are paying the price. Nevertheless, I believe our nation can be great, as a leader in democracy, freedom, and the pursuit of peace around the world. This will take a true commitment to place human rights at the top of our agenda. This can be accomplished only when we as Americans get informed and practice true democracy by demanding that our leaders refuse to pursue narrow and shortsighted interests and be true to our great ideals.

Sources:
Wallis, Jim: God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It. Harper Collins, New York. 2005.

Goldstein, Joshua S. & Pevehouse, Jon C. International Relations – Brief Fourth Edition. Pearson Longman, New York. 2008.

Stokes, Doug. ‘Iron Fists in Iron Gloves’: The Political Economy of US Terrorocracy Promotion in Colombia. British Journal of Politics and International Relations: 2006 Vol. 8 pp. 368-387.

"Iran." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica 2007 Ultimate Reference Suite . Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2008.

Little, Douglas. Mission Impossible: The CIA and the Cult of Covert Action in the Middle East. Diplomatic History Nov2004, Vol. 28 Issue 5, p663-701.

School of Americas Watch (SOA Watch): SOA Manuals Index; Accessed March 6th 2008
http://www.soaw.org/article.php?id=98

Amnesty International. US Military Aid To Colombia. Accessed December 1st 2008
www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/colombia/us-military-aid-to-colombia/page.do?id=1101863

Roth, Kenneth. Delay Consideration of Colombia Trade Deal. Human Rights Watch. Nov. 14 2008. Accessed Nov. 30, 2008. www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/11/14/delay-consideration-colombia-trade-deal

Pakistan: Torture in Counterterrorism Should Top Blair Agenda. Nov. 16, 2006. Accessed Nov. 30, 2008. www.hrw.org/en/news/2006/11/16/pakistan-torture-counterterrorism-should-top-blair-agenda

The Problem with Politics

Religion and politics are two of the biggest things that divide our world today.

Unfortunately Dana and I also happen to think that both religion/spirituality and politics are pretty important. And because of this, we've very often ignored the perfectly good advice that these subjects should never be brought up so as not to offend anyone. To make matters even worse, not only have we gone around talking about politics and religion to people in real life but also here on this blog (as I'm sure anyone who's bothered to check out our favorite links or past posts have noticed). The problem with the blog is that because we're not talking to you in real life, then we can't see if you might have a problem with anything we have to say, or if we might need to clarify what we mean, or whatever (like we said in our post on Facial Expressions).

Of course, everyone who reads this blog will have some sort of position on religion and politics. And this is not bad. Both religion as man's reach for God, and politics which is necessary for an orderly and just society, are very good things. Yet there are so many problems too, and I was just struck by this problem - the fact that the lines between people especially on issues of politics and religion cause division and then that division can turn into fear and mistrust and misunderstanding.

The reason this is on my mind is because I can see how it works in me. Of course, as I said before, Dana and I have a bit of a passion for political issues. We see that these issues really make a difference on how we all live our lives and the way our societies function. We've seen the impact that corruption can have on a society and so we want to have a voice in these areas too. But of course not everyone agrees with our ideas. And here's where the problem is. We may believe passionately in something and then when someone disagrees there can be a tendency to make the issues so important that they overshadow the relationship. I've seen this in myself. And I've had to fight this, because I firmly believe that the person and the relationship is far more important than opinions or the things we believe. I've seen how making our opposing opinions too important can overshadow a relationship. I do not want this to happen, and that's why I'm writing this. I want to apologise for all the times that I've failed in this way, and express what I see as the answer - the answer I'm working towards.


So here's the problem - we all think that our ideas are the right ideas (or else we wouldn't believe them ourselves), and we're usually pretty convinced that if someone else disagrees with our ideas, well, then they must be wrong! Of course this attitude can be dangerous, because we all know that everyone (even me) has been wrong at some point.
We're all just limited human beings who can and do get things wrong.
At the same time this doesn't mean that we're necessarily wrong - just that we should consider the idea. But I want to be clear that we can have strong convictions about what we believe and still remain humble and open to other people - knowing that we don't and can't have all the answers. You can know what you believe and why, and still be open to hearing from and learning from people who have different beliefs because there very well may be aspects that you or I have no idea about at all, or perhaps we may not have really understood the other. That's really the point I want to make. The problem isn't with knowing what we believe and why, but learning to also try to understand people who we disagree with.

So the problem that I want to focus on comes in when we group ourselves into camps of 'Us' vs. 'Them'. We naturally tend to hang around people who agree with us, and the talk can easily turn to how right 'we' are and where exactly 'they' are wrong. And because we've stopped communicating with 'them', all kinds of misunderstandings arise. From that inability to understand 'them' and how 'they' could possibly believe what they do or do the things they do, we stop being able to identify with 'them' as fellow human beings and we begin to see 'them' as our enemies.
It can so easily turn into a huge downward spiral.


So now, here is a solution that I'm trying to work towards in my own life.

Humility, Empathy, and Respect are the keys.
First of all, we start by recognizing that we don't have all the answers - we begin with humility seeing that we are limited, and that although we have reasons behind our beliefs and actions, we don't have all the answers. Then I think it's important to try to put ourselves into the shoes of the people we disagree with. When we try to understand them and really try to empathize with them, when we assume that they're like us and that they must have reasons for why they believe and act the way they do, then we can begin to respectfully communicate and truly understand them.

The amazing thing that we've been learning by trying to put this into practice and communicate with people who we disagree with, in a spirit of humility, empathy, and respect, is that it has broken down the barriers which separate 'us' from 'them'. People who on the surface seemed so incomprehensibly different or who were hardened against us at the beginning, have - when we tried to communicate respectfully, showing that we honestly wanted to learn from them - they have opened up to what we've had to say. In the process not only have we learned so much about them but also about ourselves.
Of course, this doesn't mean that we agree with everyone or that they will eventually agree with us. But understanding has been reached and we've found that by working together with people, so much more is possible.

Of course it's not easy. It can be quite hard to try to understand people who are so different from us - especially when the things we disagree about are important to us. But it's worth it.

It may be that no matter how respectful and open you are, there might still be people who will never be willing to respond, to make peace and try to bridge the divide. This can be difficult. Divisions may be terribly hard to overcome, but that problem certainly can't be solved by never trying to build the bridges in the first place. Trying to understand our 'enemies' may be difficult but the other option is to continue to live with the divisions and hatred which causes so much conflict.

In the end, in religion as well as politics, we have a choice to try to work together or work against each other. We've all seen what working against each other has done for our world. It's brought division, hatred, pride, and oppression and so on.
The choice to try to understand others and put ourselves into their shoes can be difficult - especially when they are our enemies. It goes against our every natural urge. But of course, we know that many times the hard thing is also the right thing.

Think about it. Who are some of the people we don't understand and whom we are divided against? Who are our enemies? Terrorists, Republicans, Democrats, pro-life, pro-choice, Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, 'hawks', 'doves', Atheists, fundamentalists, liberals, conservatives, soldiers, anti-war activists, patriots and nationalists, universalists, realists, idealists…?

Whatever the divisions are, aren't we all first human beings loved by God and worthy of respect regardless of our associations?

Foreign Affairs

Further evidence for the necessity for the US to pull out of Iraq comes in an article in the latest eddition of Foreign Affairs, the most prestigious periodical in the USA on international relations. The author Bruce Riedel clearly states that "Al Qaeda is a more dangerous enemy today than it has ever been before ... thanks largely to Washington's eagerness to go into Iraq" and further recomends that "Rather than reinforce its failures, the United States should disengage from the civil war in Iraq, with a complete, orderly, and phased troop withdrawal".

An Ethical Way to End the War in Iraq?

Thousands have died and their families torn apart on all sides in the course of this war in Iraq. The devastation and suffering are powerful reasons to take the debate about the future of US and coalition troops with a deadly seriousness. Should we 'stay the course,' as we are responsible for the situation in Iraq, or should we set a timeline for a pullout? As a democracy, it is we who decide. Should we stay or should we go?!

Below, we've given some of the reasons why we (personally) have concluded that we (the US and coalition forces) should go. But even more importantly, how to go.

Out of a belief in the sacredness of life which calls us to respect the lives of all people, regardless of who they are (even those people we may know as enemies);
Out of a belief that violence very naturally instigates a cycle of escalating counter violence;
Out of a belief that the path of violence should only ever be taken as an absolute last resort when there is a great and immediate threat, and then restrained as much (and as quickly) as possible;
Out of the belief that when a wrong has been done, the best option is to admit it and change accordingly;

Out of these beliefs we want to publicly support this proposal for an ethical way to end the war in Iraq.

In short, the proposal calls for:
-The withdrawal of US & UK Troops from Iraq.
-For the US government to admit wrongdoing in invading Iraq.
-For an international peace keeping force from both Muslim and non-Muslim nations to replace the US and UK troops in Iraq to prevent further violence.
-And for the US to commit to provide billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq in the style of the Marshall Plan (the plan for rebuilding Europe after WWII) - money otherwise used to fund the war.

The Proposal has been signed by leaders of several faiths, is written from a Judeo-Christian standpoint and highlights the fact that Jesus called his followers to LOVE their ENEMIES - an incredibly absurd idea which if actually followed would save us so much pain and save so many others from hell on earth.

But even for those who reject the ideal of love for enemies, the idea of ending the war is not so absurd. A better way to maintain security in this world is to stop attacking those we see as our enemies (and all those hundreds of thousands of other people who just happen to live in the same neighborhoods) which only escalates the violence. Instead, let's choose a higher way. One which will avoid the unnecessary death and destruction of war.

Please read the proposal - it's only one page and is covered in large print.

"...this entire society has mistakenly adhered to the view that safety and security can be achieved through domination or control of others...

...a better path to safety and security is to treat others with generosity, kindness and genuine concern for their well being."

...and for those of us (Americans especially) who read this and think this sounds impossible - remember that we have the power. As a democracy, we have the right and the responsibility to ask our leaders to change course.
Now, to the signing...


If you agree, please sign the proposal:
http://www.reachandteach.com/rtsurvey/public/survey.php?name=iraq_sign
(if you disagree please read below)


For More Information:
Read: The Cost of War - How the war affects Iraqis (two easy to read pages)
Watch: EYES WIDE OPEN - a 3 minute video


Below are links which give reason and evidence to our belief that, regardless of whether the war was wrong from the beginning, our soldiers' presence in Iraq is doing more harm than good for the people of Iraq by fuelling the cycle of hatred and violence which calls more and more into the insurgency and terror groups.


Check the Facts:
-A US Army Brief from 18 Apr. 07 shows that more than 1/3 of all US soldiers believe torture is OK. Further, only 1/3 said that all non-combatants should be treated with respect and almost 1 out of every 5 said all civilians should be treated as insurgents. In the anonymous survey 1 out of every 14 marines and almost 1 out of every 25 soldiers admitted to having physically abused civilians unnecessarily.
-The Washington Post article from Jan. 14 2005 about the CIA report (below) which named Iraq as a 'training ground' for 'Professionalized' Terrorists.
-The CIA report by the National Intelligence Council (CIA think tank) from Dec. 2004 (PDF file - see pages 93 & 94)

-Brookings' Iraq assessment - An independent, non-partisan assessment (and poll) "based primarily on U.S. government information" from Apr. 30 2007 shows that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis (78%) "oppose the presence of coalition forces" and support a time line for US troop withdrawal. (PDF file - see pages 47 & 57)
-A World Public Opinion poll from Jan. 31 2006 of Iraqis shows that at that time 70% of Iraqis favored a timeline for withdrawal of US troops. Two reasons cited most were "the feeling... that it is offensive for their country to be occupied." and secondly that "US forces attract more attacks and make the violence worse." (Pg. 5 of the report)

-Iraq Body Count - a website which reports total numbers of reported deaths in Iraq, based on Media reports.
"It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war."-IBC
-CNN - 'War blamed for 655,000 Iraqi deaths'
-A Johns Hopkins University website article outlining the findings of the study (link below) which found that an excess of 600,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war in Iraq beyond the number that would have died under prewar conditions.
-655,000 Dead - Johns Hopkins - The Human Cost of the War in Iraq - Mortality Study 2002-2006 (PDF file)
-The 2004 Johns Hopkins Mortality study published Nov.04 which set the number of deaths related to the war at 100,000 mostly due to violence. "...air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths."
-New York Times article on the John Hopkins 2004 mortality study

-Wikipedia - Johns Hopkins Mortality Study
-Wikipedia - Just War - when is war just?

BBC - Iraq Summit Mid-East journalists believe efforts to achieve stability will fail "without a frank admission by the US of its failures"

An Eye Opening Perspective

Read This Powerful Article by Martin Accad, accademic dean of the Arab Baptist Theological Seminary.
He wrote this while stranded in the US because of Israel's invasion of his home: Lebanon.

----------------------------------------------------

"If we have the courage to honestly look at ourselves through the eyes of others who are strange and foreign to us or who have been injured and ignored by us, then I believe our hearts will open and the whispering of God’s still, small voice will begin to ring loud and clear in our ears."

-How Does God Speak in a Pluralistic Society?

Wage Peace!

Jesus Said:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also..."

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you..."


Why is it that we don't take these words seriously?

It is impossible to overcome evil with more evil, violence with violence, Hatred with Hatred.

What is happening now in the 'War on Terror', the War in Iraq, and most recently in Israel, Gaza, and Lebanon, these are examples of the social law of Reciprocity on a massive scale. That is: What you did to me, I am obligated to repay. If you bless me, I bless you. If you curse me, I curse you.

Terror must be confronted. Evil must be resisted. What was done on September 11th (among thousands of other terror attacks) was evil and cannot be justified.
But the problem is that by striking back, by attacking with military might, we are only drawing ourselves into a cycle of Hatred, violence, and bloodshed. More and more people, by the social law of Reciprocity, are obligated to hate, to strike back, and to even give their own lives to kill others.

Jesus calls us to a higher way. He asks us not to step into that cycle of violence and death. He calls us to act in the opposite spirit, to expose injustice and evil for what it is and let the Truth prevail.

We must send this message to our political leaders. The United States will NEVER prevail in the ‘War on Terror’ as long as we continue to use violence to fight it. It is not cowardly to step away from a fight which benefits no one. But this does not mean abandoning the people which we aim to help.

There is another way: Quit the War. It is far to costly with little benefit to anyone. Take the money which is now spent for military purposes (destruction and death), and give those billions towards rebuilding Iraq, Afghanistan and other war torn countries, as well as towards debt relief and to build infrastructure across the Third World where daily people die of hunger and diseases - all easily treatable given access to food, hospitals, and medicine.

Not only will this have the direct effect of rebuilding and saving lives, but it will also cut away the platform of hatred on which Terror organizations thrive, robbing them of their support and their reasons for vengance.

Send this message: ‘We seek to rebuild and to save, not to kill and destroy. We seek your good just as if it’s our own, because it is.’


Watch this short but powerful film: Wage Peace


"An Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
-Gandhi

"Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; Ten Thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day - and have died every single day since Sept. 11 - of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep Sept. 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand deaths daily are preventable"

-Jeffrey Sachs, excerpted from his excelent book: 'The End Of Poverty'