[governance] Tangential (On Exceptionalism Wikileaks) America's vassal acts decisively and illegally
Fahd A. Batayneh
fahd.batayneh at gmail.com
Sat Aug 18 14:50:35 EDT 2012
Thanks Salanieta.
This is the same article that was circulated by Ginger in an earlier e-mail.
Fahd
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro <
salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is an interesting article on the matter in one of the blogs by Jovan
> Kurbalija, see:
> http://deepdip.wordpress.com/2012/08/18/the-assange-asylum-case-five-possible-solutions-and-many-probable-consequences/
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Fahd A. Batayneh <fahd.batayneh at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> The Assange debate reminds me of JFK when he was murdered for all the
>> wrong reasons.
>>
>> In Jordan, when a new government is installed, the prime minister is
>> given a couple of weeks to assemble his cabinet before they are given the
>> vote of confidence from the house of parliament. In Jordan's history, only
>> one government was not given the vote of confidence. The reason is because
>> that prime minister used the slogan of "Cracking Down Corruption". Corrupt
>> politicians do not want to be pointed at.
>>
>> I can see from the Assange case that one of the main reasons the world is
>> on their knees wanting him is - maybe - because corrupt politicians do not
>> want to get exposed.
>>
>> Fahd
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Ginger Paque <ginger at paque.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The Assange case is a very interesting mix of politics, diplomacy and
>>> legal details.
>>>
>>> It would seem that the UK can in fact sever diplomatic relations, close
>>> Ecuadorian embassy and process Assange who, unlike Ecuadorian diplomats,
>>> does not have diplomatic immunity. My question is: are political issues
>>> more important than diplomatic and legal issues? Can Assange be
>>> investigated on possible criminal actions, but still protected from
>>> political harassment? I am finding it hard to find an assessment of the
>>> rape charges, which I find to be very worrisome if they are true. I can
>>> support Assanges' political situation and Wikileaks activities and still
>>> want to see him held accountable/investigated for sexual misconduct if that
>>> is a well-founded allegation.
>>>
>>> There is a summary and discussion 'The Assange asylum case: possible
>>> solutions and probable consequences' (from a diplomatic viewpoint)
>>> going on at:
>>> http://www.diplomacy.edu/blog/assange-asylum-case-possible-solutions-and-probable-consequences
>>>
>>> I would like read a discussion of a possibility to investigate the
>>> sexual misconduct charges, while guaranteeing that this will not lead to /
>>> or be mixed with the Wikileaks situation. What are feminists saying?
>>>
>>> Cheers, Ginger
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 August 2012 08:05, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Riaz for keeping us informed about this.
>>>>
>>>> Mawaki
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > America's vassal acts decisively and illegally
>>>> >
>>>> > Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He
>>>> was
>>>> > British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and
>>>> Rector
>>>> > of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/08/americas-vassal-acts-decisively-and-illegally/
>>>> >
>>>> > I returned to the UK today to be astonished by private confirmation
>>>> from
>>>> > within the FCO that the UK government has indeed decided – after
>>>> immense
>>>> > pressure from the Obama administration – to enter the Ecuadorean
>>>> Embassy and
>>>> > seize Julian Assange.
>>>> >
>>>> > This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna
>>>> Convention
>>>> > of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which
>>>> encodes
>>>> > the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled
>>>> > diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most
>>>> > subscribed single international treaty in the world.
>>>> >
>>>> > The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic
>>>> premises
>>>> > are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no
>>>> modification or
>>>> > qualification elsewhere in the treaty.
>>>> >
>>>> > Article 22
>>>> >
>>>> > 1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the
>>>> > receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the
>>>> head of
>>>> > the mission.
>>>> > 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate
>>>> steps
>>>> > to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or
>>>> damage and
>>>> > to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment
>>>> of its
>>>> > dignity.
>>>> > 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property
>>>> thereon
>>>> > and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search,
>>>> > requisition, attachment or execution.
>>>> >
>>>> > Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to
>>>> arrest the
>>>> > Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold
>>>> War,
>>>> > defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies.
>>>> > Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British
>>>> Embassy to
>>>> > help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will
>>>> result
>>>> > in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide.
>>>> >
>>>> > The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a
>>>> strong
>>>> > enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of
>>>> the
>>>> > “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of
>>>> the
>>>> > neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international
>>>> law.
>>>> >
>>>> > The British Government bases its argument on domestic British
>>>> legislation.
>>>> > But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its
>>>> obligations in
>>>> > international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the
>>>> > government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by
>>>> the
>>>> > Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would
>>>> leave
>>>> > British diplomats with no protection worldwide.
>>>> >
>>>> > I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US
>>>> > administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the
>>>> > concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing
>>>> the move
>>>> > against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been
>>>> taken in
>>>> > Number 10.
>>>> >
>>>> > There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal
>>>> Democrats.
>>>> > That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact
>>>> now in
>>>> > any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government
>>>> salaries and
>>>> > privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any
>>>> belief to
>>>> > these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party
>>>> for
>>>> > over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had
>>>> principles.
>>>> >
>>>> > ***
>>>> >
>>>> > Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com)
>>>> >
>>>> > The Geopolitics of Asylum
>>>> >
>>>> > Tom Hayden | August 16, 2012
>>>> >
>>>> > The British a “huge mistake” in threatening to extract Julian Assange
>>>> from
>>>> > Ecuador’s London embassy after the Latin American country granted
>>>> political
>>>> > asylum to the WikiLeaks foundaer yesterday, says international human
>>>> rights
>>>> > lawyer Michael Ratner. “They overstepped, looked like bullies, and
>>>> made it
>>>> > into a big-power versus small-power conflict,” said Ratner, president
>>>> of the
>>>> > Center for Constitutional Rights, in an interview with The Nation
>>>> today.
>>>> > Ratner is a consultant to Assange’s legal team and recently spent a
>>>> week in
>>>> > Ecuador for discussions of the case.
>>>> >
>>>> > The diplomatic standoff will have to be settled through negotiations
>>>> or by
>>>> > the International Court of Justice at The Hague, Ratner said. “In my
>>>> memory,
>>>> > no state has ever invaded another country’s embassy to seize someone
>>>> who has
>>>> > been granted asylum,” he said, adding that there would be no logic in
>>>> > returning an individual to a power seeking to charge him for political
>>>> > reasons.
>>>> >
>>>> > Since Assange entered the Ecuadorian embassy seven weeks ago,
>>>> Ecuadorian
>>>> > diplomats have sought the assurance through private talks with the
>>>> British
>>>> > and Swedes that Assange will be protected from extradition to the
>>>> United
>>>> > States, where he could face charges under the US Espionage Act. Such
>>>> > guarantees were refused, according to Ecuador’s foreign minister,
>>>> Ricardo
>>>> > Patiño, who said in Quito that the British made an “explicit threat”
>>>> to
>>>> > “assault our embassy” to take Assange. “We are not a British colony,”
>>>> Patiño
>>>> > added.
>>>> >
>>>> > British Foreign Secretary William Hague said yesterday that his
>>>> government
>>>> > will not permit safe passage for Assange, setting the stage for what
>>>> may be
>>>> > a prolonged showdown.
>>>> >
>>>> > The United States has been silent on whether it plans to indict
>>>> Assange and
>>>> > ultimately seek his extradition. Important lawmakers, like Senator
>>>> Diane
>>>> > Feinstein, a chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, have called
>>>> for
>>>> > Assange’s indictment in recent weeks. But faced with strong
>>>> objections from
>>>> > civil liberties and human rights advocates, the White House may
>>>> prefer to
>>>> > avoid direct confrontation, leaving Assange entangled in disputes
>>>> with the
>>>> > UK and Sweden over embarrassing charges of sexual misconduct in
>>>> Sweden.
>>>> >
>>>> > Any policy of isolating Assange may have failed now, as the conflict
>>>> becomes
>>>> > one in which Ecuador—and a newly independent Latin America—stand off
>>>> against
>>>> > the US and UK. Ecuador’s president Rafael Correa represents the wave
>>>> of new
>>>> > nationalist leaders on the continent who have challenged the
>>>> traditional US
>>>> > dominance over trade, security and regional decision-making. Correa
>>>> joined
>>>> > the Venezuelan-founded Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas in
>>>> June 2009,
>>>> > and closed the US military base in Ecuador in September 2009. His
>>>> government
>>>> > fined Chevron for $8.6 billion for damages to the Amazon rainforest,
>>>> in a
>>>> > case which Correa called “the most important in the history of the
>>>> country.”
>>>> > He survived a coup attempt in 2010.
>>>> >
>>>> > It is very unlikely that Correa would make his asylum decision without
>>>> > consulting other governments in Latin America. An aggressive reaction
>>>> by the
>>>> > British, carrying echoes of the colonial past, is likely to solidify
>>>> Latin
>>>> > American ranks behind Quito, making Assange another irritant in
>>>> relations
>>>> > with the United States.
>>>> >
>>>> > Earlier this year, many Central and Latin American leaders rebuked
>>>> the Obama
>>>> > administration for its drug war policies and vowed not to participate
>>>> in
>>>> > another Organization of American States meeting that excluded Cuba.
>>>> Shortly
>>>> > after, President Obama acted to remove his Latin American policy
>>>> chief, Dan
>>>> > Restrepo, according to a source with close ties to the Obama
>>>> administration.
>>>> > Now the Assange affair threatens more turmoil between the United
>>>> States and
>>>> > the region.
>>>> >
>>>> > ***
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2012/08/196589.htm
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Victoria Nuland
>>>> >
>>>> > Spokesperson
>>>> >
>>>> > Daily Press Briefing
>>>> >
>>>> > Washington, DC
>>>> >
>>>> > August 16, 2012
>>>> >
>>>> > TRANSCRIPT:
>>>> >
>>>> > 12:44 p.m. EDT
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: Happy Thursday, everybody. Let’s start with whatever’s on
>>>> your
>>>> > minds.
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: Do you have any thoughts at all on the decision by Ecuador to grant
>>>> > diplomatic asylum to Mr. Assange?
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: This is an issue between the Ecuadorans, the Brits, the
>>>> Swedes.
>>>> > I don't have anything particular to add.
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: You don't have any interest at all in this case other than as of a
>>>> > completely neutral, independent observer of it?
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: Well, certainly with regard to this particular issue, it
>>>> is an
>>>> > issue among the countries involved and we're not planning to interject
>>>> > ourselves.
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: Have you not interjected yourself at all?
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: Not with regard to the issue of his current location or
>>>> where he
>>>> > may end up going, no.
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: Well, there has been some suggestion that the U.S. is pushing the
>>>> Brits
>>>> > to go into the Ecuadorian embassy and remove him.
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: I have no information to indicate that there is any truth
>>>> to
>>>> > that at all.
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: Do -- and the Brits -- Former Secretary Hague said that the Brits
>>>> do not
>>>> > recognize diplomatic asylum. I'm wondering if the United States
>>>> recognizes
>>>> > diplomatic asylum, given that it is a signatory to this 1954 OAS
>>>> treaty
>>>> > which grants -- or which recognizes diplomatic asylum, but only,
>>>> presumably,
>>>> > within the membership of the OAS. But more broadly, does the U.S.
>>>> recognize
>>>> > diplomatic asylum as a legal thing under international law?
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: Well, if you're asking for -- me for a global legal
>>>> answer to
>>>> > the question, I'll have to take it and consult 4,000 lawyers.
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: Contrasting it with political asylum. This is different, diplomatic
>>>> > asylum.
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: With regard to the decision that the Brits are making or
>>>> the
>>>> > statement that they made, our understanding was that they were
>>>> leaning on
>>>> > British law in the assertions that they made with regard to future
>>>> plans,
>>>> > not on international law. But if you're asking me to check what our
>>>> legal
>>>> > position is on this term of art, I'll have to take it, Matt, and get
>>>> back to
>>>> > you.
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: Yeah, just whether you do recognize it outside of the confines of
>>>> the --
>>>> > of the OAS and those signatories.
>>>> >
>>>> > And then when you said that you don't have any information to suggest
>>>> that
>>>> > you have weighed in with the Brits about whether to have Mr. Assange
>>>> removed
>>>> > from the embassy, does that mean that there hasn't been any, or just
>>>> that
>>>> > you're not aware of it?
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: My information is that we have not involved ourselves in
>>>> this.
>>>> > If that is not correct, we'll get back to you.
>>>> >
>>>> > [...]
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: All right. And then just back to the Assange thing, the reason
>>>> that the
>>>> > Ecuadorians gave -- have given him asylum is because they say that --
>>>> they
>>>> > agree with his claim that he would be -- could face persecution --
>>>> > government persecution if for any reason he was to come to the United
>>>> States
>>>> > under whatever circumstances. Do you -- do you find that that's a
>>>> credible
>>>> > argument? Does anyone face unwarranted or illegal government
>>>> persecution in
>>>> > the United States?
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: No.
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: No?
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: No.
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: And so you think that the grounds that -- in this specific case,
>>>> the
>>>> > grounds for him receiving asylum from any country -- or any country
>>>> > guaranteeing asylum to anyone on the basis that if they happen to
>>>> show up in
>>>> > the United States they might be subject to government persecution,
>>>> you don't
>>>> > view that as --
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm not -- I'm not going to comment on the Ecuadoran
>>>> thought
>>>> > process here. If you're asking me whether there was any intention to
>>>> > persecute rather than prosecute, the answer is no.
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: OK.
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: OK?
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: Well -- wait, hold on a second -- so you're saying that he would
>>>> face
>>>> > prosecution?
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I'm not -- we were in a situation where he was not
>>>> headed
>>>> > to the United States. He was headed elsewhere. So I'm not going to
>>>> get into
>>>> > all of the legal ins and outs about what may or may not have been in
>>>> his
>>>> > future before he chose to take refuge in the Ecuadoran mission.
>>>> >
>>>> > But with regard to the charge that the U.S. was intent on persecuting
>>>> him, I
>>>> > reject that completely.
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: OK, fair enough. But I mean, unfortunately, this is -- this case
>>>> does
>>>> > rest entirely on legal niceties. Pretty much all of it is on the legal
>>>> > niceties, maybe not entirely. So are you -- when you said that the
>>>> intention
>>>> > was to prosecute, not persecute, are you saying that he does face
>>>> > prosecution in the United States?
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I don't -- that was not the course of action that
>>>> we were
>>>> > all on. But let me get back to you on -- there was -- I don't think
>>>> that
>>>> > when he decided to take refuge, that was where he was headed, right?
>>>> > Obviously, we have --
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: No, I mean, he was headed to Sweden.
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: Right, but obviously, we have our own legal case. I'm
>>>> going to
>>>> > send you Justice on what the exact status of that was, OK?
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: OK, there is -- so you're saying that there is a legal case
>>>> against him.
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm saying that the Justice Department was very much
>>>> involved
>>>> > with broken U.S. law, et cetera. But I don't have any specifics here
>>>> on what
>>>> > their intention would have been vis-a-vis him. So I'm not going to
>>>> wade into
>>>> > it any deeper than I already have, which was too far, all right?
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: (Chuckles.) OK, well, wait, wait, I just have one more, and it
>>>> doesn't
>>>> > involve the -- it involves the whole inviability (sic) of embassies
>>>> and that
>>>> > kind of thing.
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: Right.
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: You said that -- at the beginning that you have not involved
>>>> yourselves
>>>> > at all. But surely if there -- if you were aware that a country was
>>>> going to
>>>> > raid or enter a diplomatic compound of any country, of any other
>>>> country,
>>>> > you would find that to be unacceptable, correct?
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: As I said --
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: I mean, if the Chinese had gone in after -- into the embassy in
>>>> Beijing
>>>> > to pull out the -- your -- the blind lawyer, you would have objected
>>>> to
>>>> > that, correct?
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: As I said at the beginning, the -- our British allies
>>>> have cited
>>>> > British law with regard to the statements they've made about potential
>>>> > future action. I'm not in a position here to evaluate British law,
>>>> > international -- as compared to international law.
>>>> >
>>>> > So I can't -- if you're asking me to wade into the question of
>>>> whether they
>>>> > have the right to do what they're proposing to do or may do under
>>>> British
>>>> > law, I'm going to send you to them.
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: Right, but there's -- but it goes beyond British law. I mean,
>>>> there is
>>>> > international law here too, and presumably the United State would
>>>> oppose or
>>>> > would condemn or at least express concerns about any government
>>>> entering or
>>>> > violating the sovereignty of a diplomatic compound anywhere in the
>>>> world,
>>>> > no?
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: Again, I can't speak to what it is that they are standing
>>>> on
>>>> > vis-a-vis Vienna Convention or anything else. I also can't speak to
>>>> what the
>>>> > status of the particular building that he happens to be in at the
>>>> moment is.
>>>> > So I'm going to send you to the Brits on all of that. You know where
>>>> we are
>>>> > on the Vienna Convention in general, and that is unchanged. OK?
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: OK. Well, when the Iranians stormed the embassy in Teheran, back
>>>> in 1979,
>>>> > presumably you thought that was a bad thing, right?
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: That was a Vienna-Convention-covered facility and a
>>>> > Vienna-Convention-covered moment. I cannot speak to any of the rest
>>>> of this
>>>> > on British soil. I'm going to send you to Brits. OK?
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: A very quick follow-up. You said there is a case against him by the
>>>> > Justice Department. Does that include --
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: I did not say that. I said that the Justice Department is
>>>> > working on the entire WikiLeaks issue. So I can't -- I can't speak to
>>>> what
>>>> > Justice may or may not have. I'm going to send you to Justice.
>>>> >
>>>> > Q: Is there a U.S. case against him?
>>>> >
>>>> > MS. NULAND: I'm going to send you to Justice, because I really don't
>>>> have
>>>> > the details. OK? Thanks, guys.
>>>> >
>>>> > (The briefing was concluded at 1:19 p.m.)
>>>> >
>>>> > DPB #146
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> > governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> > To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>> >
>>>> > For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> > http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> > To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> > http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>> >
>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>> To be removed from the list, visit:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>> For all other list information and functions, see:
>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
> P.O. Box 17862
> Suva
> Fiji
>
> Twitter: @SalanietaT
> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20120818/b1a6b9a9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list