SACW | 24 June, 2003
Harsh Kapoor
aiindex@mnet.fr
Tue, 24 Jun 2003 03:09:37 +0100
South Asia Citizens Wire | 24 June, 2003
#1. Lessons of empire (Amitav Ghosh)
#2. Dying for Dubya: The Illogic of Indian Troops in Iraq (Siddharth
Varadarajan)
#3. India Gate and the road to Iraq (Jawed Naqvi)
#4. American durbar (Mani Shankar Aiyar)
#5. Letter to the Editor (Mukul Dube)
#6. AMAN Peace and Conflict Studies Course (Delhi, September 15 -
October 15, 2003)
#7. The Jihadist Threat to Pakistan (Stephen Cohen)
--------------
#1.
The Hindu
Jun 24, 2003
Lessons of empire
By Amitav Ghosh
India is faced with the prospect of re-enacting one of the ugliest
and most repugnant aspects of its colonial history... India has much
to lose and nothing to gain from this.
THE RECENT war in Iraq has been replete with chilling reminders of
the history of empire. Among the most dismaying of these is the
proposal, now being considered by the Government of India, that
Indian troops be used for the policing of Iraq.
Today, in the 56th year of independence, India is faced with the
prospect of re-enacting one of the ugliest and most repugnant aspects
of its colonial history. During the Raj, Indian soldiers were used
both for the expansion of the empire and for the suppression of
anti-colonial rebellions, at home and abroad. For more than a
century, they battled insurgents in East Africa, Burma, China, Malaya
and of course, Mesopotamia (the present-day Iraq). Independent India
has yet to live down this shameful legacy: in many parts of the world
Indians are still remembered as Imperial mercenaries, as slaves who
allowed themselves to be used without reflection or self-awareness.
The aspect of this that would be most repellent, if it were not so
pathetically poignant, is that many of these soldiers genuinely
believed that their exertions on behalf of the Raj would put them on
an equal footing with their rulers. The discovery that they were no
more and no less than what they appeared to be - tools, instruments -
often came as an almost unsustainable shock, eventually prompting
some to turn against their masters.
A similar dynamic appears to be at work again today: some
policy-makers appear to believe that the rendering of certain
services can gain India entry into the innermost circles of global
power. Our history has truly been suffered in vain if it has failed
to teach us that this is not how the world works.
Let us make no mistake about the role that Indian troops will serve
if they are deployed in Iraq: they will not be `policing' the
country; they will be fighting a war. No matter what the spin, it is
clear that the war in Iraq is far from over; in a sense it has only
just begun. The small group of American and British neo-conservatives
who initiated this war did so in the belief that the situation in the
Middle East could best be resolved through the use of overwhelming
violence. They have succeeded only in transforming great multitudes
of people into instruments of collective resistance. The Anglophone
countries that took the lead in this war - the United States, Britain
and Australia - prevailed easily in the conventional phase of the
war. But they are now faced with the prospect of a protracted
low-intensity conflict. This is exactly the sort of struggle that is
most to their disadvantage, not least because of the four-and
five-year election cycles to which the rhythms of their wars are
typically tuned.
As the Israeli military historian, Martin van Creveld has observed,
it is impossible to indefinitely sustain a war of the mighty against
the weak. With the passage of time, this conflict will become less
and less defensible, politically, morally and militarily, even within
the core constituencies of the belligerents.
As an Indian who has spent a great deal of time in the U.S., I have a
deep, but not unquestioning, attachment to that country. While
welcoming the warmth of India's present relations with the U.S., I
recognise also that this intimacy carries a burden that was absent
from the earlier relationship of guarded distance. Most importantly
it imposes the obligation to think of the long term rather than of
immediate rewards and benefits. This being so, it is incumbent on the
policy-makers of the South Block to think about the likely outcome of
the present U.S. policy in the Middle East.
No matter what the polls may suggest, there is massive and growing
opposition to the policies of the Bush administration: the millions
of Americans who demonstrated against the war in Iraq on February 15
of this year have not disappeared and will soon be heard from again.
The very extremism of the Bush administration's stance, in economics
as in foreign affairs, makes it certain that these policies will, in
time, be forcefully repudiated. It is to that time, which is no more
than six years away, that Indian policy-makers must look. In
identifying themselves too closely with the policies of the current
administration, they may well run the risk of a future
marginalisation.
To make a desolation and call it peace has ever been the chosen
method of empires. It is not difficult to imagine a time in the near
future when the U.S. and Britain will extricate themselves from Iraq
after declaring a victory. Indeed the embroilment of India, Poland
and so on, is clearly a step along that path. But the doors that
permit the exit of the major powers will not be open to India. The
countries of the Arab world are our neighbours and will remain so
forever. Great numbers of Indians live and work there and will do so
into the foreseeable future.
There is a sense in which the Indian Government's responsibilities do
not end at the borders of India. The historic circumstances under
which Indians came to be dispersed around the world, has given it an
obligation to consider also the well-being of the Indian diaspora.
The Indians of the Middle East have long played a vital part in
shoring up India's foreign exchange reserves: it is imperative that
the Indian Government take their interests into account in deciding
on the deployment of its troops.
Suppose there were a circumstance in which Indian troops had to open
fire on an Iraqi crowd, killing a number of civilians. It is quite
likely that every Indian in the Arab world would feel the
repercussions. This is surely one of the most elementary lessons of
our sad history of military deployments abroad. There is the example
of the uprising of 1930 in Burma. Led by Saya San, this movement was,
in its origins, directed against British rule. The British suppressed
it with great brutality, using Indian troops, and the rumours
generated by the campaign led to savage reprisals against Indian
civilians, of whom there were then more than a million in Burma. This
in turn, resulted in a situation that allowed the British to present
the uprising as being directed against Indians, rather than against
the Empire itself. This was one of the more remarkable achievements
of the accomplished tradition of spin-doctoring to which Tony Blair
is heir.
It is in the light of experiences such as this (there are many
others) that we should consider what may result from the presence of
Indian troops in Iraq. Were these soldiers to find themselves in a
situation where they had to use lethal force there would be no lack
of spin-doctors to cast their actions in the worst possible light.
Given the context of communal violence in India, there is no story
that would not be believed.
And to take the scenario further: what if the violence were to occur
in An-Najaf or Karbala, places that are revered by great numbers of
Indians? The potential for harm is almost beyond computation.
As a nation that treasures its hard-won independence and democracy,
India's deepest commitment must be to the rule of law, at home and in
the world. The present situation in Iraq has its origins in an action
that was clearly in breach of international legal conventions. To
send troops to Iraq now would be a step towards the retrospective
normalisation of this situation. India has much to lose and nothing
to gain from this.
The United Nations and the conventions that govern it are far from
perfect. But these conventions were brought into being in the wake of
decolonisation, and they represent a genuine and serious attempt to
imagine an alternative to a global system of empires.
India, of all countries, cannot assent to the undermining of this
body of law and convention: it would be a repudiation of the lessons
of our history and a betrayal of the ideals of our independence.
____
#2.
The Times of India
JUNE 24, 2003
Dying for Dubya: The Illogic of Indian Troops in Iraq
SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN
I wonder if L K Advani and others in the Vajpayee government who are
so anxious to send soldiers to Iraq have ever heard of Lance Naik
Anthony, III F.13, of the Bullock Corps? Or perhaps of Barkat Ali the
Sapper, N Swamy the Bullock Driver, or Kannikar, Birsa, Copalan and
Bhima B of the Indian Labour Corps?
I encountered their unremembered names at the Basra War Cemetery
during a visit in 1998, on fading, chipped tombstones and the dusty,
yellowing pages of Part XIII of The Basra War Memorial, Iraq,
published by the Imperial War Graves Commission, 1931, and lovingly
protected in a large sack by the cemetery's caretaker. They, along
with thousands of Indian soldiers, perished on the battlefields of
Iraq during and after World War I, fighting a war of conquest and
pacification against a fraternal people for the greater profit and
glory of the British Empire.
Since their names were not individually recorded, separate plaques at
the cemetery for the mostly anonymous 'Mohammedan', Hindu and Sikh
soldiers announce that the brave Indians had "sacrificed their lives
in the Great War for their King and their Country". Underfed and
poorly equipped, the Indian troops had been little more than cannon
fodder for the British. The king they died for was George V, and one
wonders what kind of=C2 epitaph will be penned for the Indian soldiers
who will lay down their lives helping the US occupiers in Iraq if Mr
Advani has his way. 'For the brave Indians who sacrificed their lives
for King George Bush II and his viceroy, L Paul Bremmer III'?
The call for troops from India is an act of desperation by the Bush
administration which is hoping others will dig it out of a hole that
is deepening by the day. With the body bag count slowly mounting, the
US wants to cut its 150,000 soldier-strong=C2 presence to about
30,000, replacing the conquering heroes with dupes from around the
world whose leaders aspire to nothing more noble than a chance to
wait on the high table.
UN Security Council resolution 1483 lifted sanctions on Iraq,
recognised the reality of the US occupation and =E2=A4" regrettably =E2=A4"
allowed the invaders to decide how Iraqi oil revenues would be spent.
However, the UN did not mandate a peace-keeping force of any sort,
let alone the peace-making forces of the kind it deployed in Somalia
(Unosom II) or the former Yugoslavia. It merely welcomes the
"willingness of member-states to contribute to stability and security
in Iraq by contributing personnel, equipment and other resources
under the Authority" (emphasis added), i.e. the occupying powers.
So far, the debate in India has revolved around the question of
whether it is acceptable for Indian soldiers to take orders from US
commanders. Indian troops have functioned before under the command of
foreign generals, but always within the context of a formally
mandated UN force. In Somalia, so long as the US led its own
peace-keeping force (Unitaf) =E2=A4" which quickly degenerated into a
deadly manhunt for Gen Aidid, endangering Somali civilians and
peacekeepers alike =E2=A4" India refrained from joining.
As in Somalia, this is the key reason why it would be disastrous for
Indian soldiers to work under US command in Iraq. The US aim is not
to restore stability =E2=A4" it has=C2 not even managed to restore
electricity and water =E2=A4" but to impose political arrangements aimed
at protecting its own interests. If that means aggressively wading
into=C2 civilian areas (as in Fallujah, Tikrit and=C2 elsewhere) and
making mass arrests, or closing down a TV station (as in Mosul), it
is the Indian soldiers and other peace-keepers who will have to deal
with the fall-out. What makes the venture all the more foolhardy is
the mounting US pressure on Iraq's neighbour, Iran. Indian troops
deployed in the 'trouble-free' southern and northern areas of Iraq
could willy-nilly get drawn into US machinations aimed at weakening
Iranian and Shi'ite influence.
In India today, those=C2 favouring the sending of troops naively
assume that the US will assist us against Pakistan over Kashmir=C2
(although what happens once Islamabad sends troops to Iraq is
anybody's guess). There is also a myopic and defeatist opportunism:
"Let's face facts, the US rules the world, we better join it in the
hope that we might be able to influence them", a retired Indian
general with experience in peace-keeping (and US perfidy therein)
declared on TV recently. Well, if Britain, America's closest ally, is
not able to influence US policy on most=C2 issues =E2=A4" especially on
giving the UN the decisive role in Iraq =E2=A4" fat chance of India=C2
doing so.
Above all, the Vajpayee government must respect the Parliament
resolution condemning the aggression against Iraq and calling for the
immediate withdrawal of US forces. That resolution recognised both
the will of the Indian people and the fact that the=C2 violation of
international law and the destabilising of Asia are not in India's
national=C2 interest. To send troops to enforce an occupation
explicitly condemned by Parliament would make a mockery of our
democracy.
Another fiction being peddled by Mr Advani is that "if the Iraqis
favour it", India would send its troops. The Iraqis today are under
an illegal, colonial occupation,=C2 and it is Viceroy Bremmer who
takes all decisions. The day the Iraqis wrest back control of their
country would also be the day the US occupiers would have to leave.
Any call for Indian troops by Iraqis before that time would not be
worth a piastre.
_____
#3.
Dawn (Pakistan)
23 June 2003
India Gate and the road to Iraq
By Jawed Naqvi
Hindu revivalists described the Babri Masjid as a symbol of slavery
foisted by the Mughals. That was one of the reasons they cited for
its demolition. That is how its rubble became a symbol of their
so-called national awakening, a phrase used by Prime Minister
Vajpayee, no less. Similarly, many people see the Taj Mahal not as a
symbol of love as commonly perceived but as a monument to slave
labour, not too different in this respect from the great Pyramids of
Egypt.
The popular Urdu poet Sahir Ludhianavi used his poetic licence to
scoff at the Taj Mahal, which he likened to a wayward ruler's method
of belittling the poor man's less ornate gesture to his ladylove.
Sahir, in a beautifully argued poem, even urged his beloved never to
meet him in the precincts of the fabled monument.
Going by these arguments Delhi's India Gate, as no other monument in
British India, should attract our patriotic bulldozers. It is after
all the ultimate symbol of our slavery, even if Mrs Indira Gandhi had
sought to convert it into a symbol of valour, a monument to the
fallen soldiers after the 1971 war.
India Gate is a majestic structure, 42 metres high, set at the end of
today's Rajpath, perhaps the most beautiful area of New Delhi, with
plush green lawns in the backdrop. This is where the Republic Day
military parade is held annually on January 26. It is a popular
picnic spot in winter and equally popular as a relaxation area during
summer evenings.
Designed and built by Edward Lutyens, it was originally called the
All India War Memorial in memory of the 90,000 Indian soldiers who
died in the campaigns of World War I, the north west frontier
operations of the period, including the 1919 Afghan fiasco.
On the walls of the structure are inscribed the names of all the
Indian soldiers in the British army who perished. An eternal flame,
called Amar Jawan Jyoti, that runs on gas was lit in 1971 to honour
the more recent memories of the Bangladesh campaign. During the
night, it is intensely floodlit and the fountains nearby are lit up
with coloured lights. Close by is the canopy which once became
controversial and under whose red sandstone roof was the marble
statue of King George V which has been shifted from there. The canopy
was also designed and built by Lutyens.
King George's statue was removed by someone in authority decades ago
because it reminded them of our colonial past. Now if one were an
Indian of a nationalist zealot hue, one should be saying demolish the
whole wretched structure, for the entire monument after all
celebrates the hapless veritable slaves who fought someone else's
war. Fortunately, there are no takers for such a rush of silly
patriotism. And yet we Indians are a maudlin lot when it comes to our
faith in the nation, sovereignty, patriotism, etc. We also suffer
from selective amnesia in defining the contours of our national
fervour.
Would it be an act of patriotism or betrayal of national interests to
send troops to Iraq? Foreign Minister Yahswant Sinha says the best
national interest would govern a decision. The opposition is
suspicious, fearing that the government has already taken a decision
to send troops under American pressure. Even that ultimate repository
of nationalism, the rightwing Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh, which
initially stoutly opposed Indian troops for Iraq, has published
arguments in its latest news journal about the likely benefits of
such a move. The Congress as usual sits on the fence, leaving poor
Mani Shankar Aiyer to publicly oppose the dispatch of troops, but
only in his personal capacity and not as a Congressman.
Indian troops or Pakistani troops, they would not be going to Iraq
with flowers. They would be carrying their killing machines with
them. And once you are involved in a war zone, be it on a
peacekeeping mission or as a quaintly described stabilizing force,
there is no guarantee that things will not go wrong, for the Iraqis
and for the foreign soldiers. As indeed did happen in the Black
September episode in Jordan in 1970 when Pakistan's Zia ul Haq got
his troops involved in a bloodbath of Palestinians. One India Gate is
enough of a bad memory from colonial days for both India and
Pakistan. It is prudent to avoid the prospect of another one looming
nigh.
_____
#4.
The Indian Express, June 24 2003
American durbar
Indian troops in Iraq would signal the beginning of a subsidiary alliance
Mani Shankar Aiyar
http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=3D26338
_____
23 June 2003
Sir or Madam,
Whom does Mr. George Fernandes, Defence Minister, expect to fool
with his absurd statement that Indian troops will be sent to Iraq
only after the Iraqi people have been consulted? Iraq is occupied
by the US. An outsider can consult only those Iraqis whom the
occupying forces permit him to meet. Does Mr. Fernandes plan to
go behind the backs of the Yankees, the prospective employers of
the Indian State's mercenaries?
Yours truly,
Mukul Dube
_____
#6.
AMAN Peace and Conflict Studies Course
Delhi, September 15 - October 15, 2003
Overview
This course on peace and conflict, organised by the AMAN Trust, aims
at developing and widening intellectual discourse on the subject
among individuals working in NGOs, teachers, journalists, students
and other concerned citizens. The course will make Indian and South
Asian reality a starting point for an investigation of conflict,
violence and its many ramifications.
AMAN believes in the need for an integrated and multi-disciplinary
approach to conflict in this region. Given the rapidly changing
geo-political environment, critical scholars have asked how far the
contours and mechanisms of the global system are responsible for
generating conflict. This question requires us to explore the
inter-connections between ethnic, caste, class, and communal issues
in the origins and nature of conflict. Aman will develop conceptual
approaches that connect, rather than compartmentalize themes relevant
to violence and conflict. We also believe that philosophical and
ethical inquiry is a necessary element in such a study. Our lectures
and seminars shall examine the relationship between local and global
issues, competing histories and antagonistic polities; and the
functions that link ethnic identity, gender, and symbols to political
and economic structures.
Time, Costs and Requirements
The course will be conducted from 15th September to 15th October. It
will be interactive and residential, with five to six hours of
lectures and/ or discussions per day. Packets of reading materials
will be made available; certain written work will be expected from
participants, and they will be awarded a certificate of completion
based upon this and their contribution to the interactive sessions
and seminars.
Aman will charge a minimum fee of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand) per
individual participant inclusive of stay; but not including travel.
Organisations that support participants will be requested to
contribute an amount closer to our actual costs. Prospective
participants need to submit the following on or before July 15, 2003:
a. A personal resume, including the name of any organisation that you work w=
ith
b. The names and contact details of two referees
c. A one-page document on why you are interested in the course
Course Structure
The course will consist of the following six rubrics, whose contents
will be supplied in greater detail to participants later in the year:
Rubric 1: Ethical and Philosophical Perspectives on Violence
Lead Instructor: Purushottam Agrawal
The aim of this course will be to develop informed ethical
perspectives on violence and conflict. Themes to be covered will
include ideas of Justice and Compassion; the concept of Evil; the
idea of the fundamental schism; in-groups and out-groups; love and
hatred; violence in nature and culture; how various religious
traditions relate with this issue; pagan and monotheistic religions;
and psychoanalytical theories of violence. There will be commentaries
on scriptures, their interpretation and relation to everyday
practices; literary creativity and issues of violence/non-violence;
and analyses of specific texts such as the Shrimadbhagvadgita.
Rubric 2: Aspects of twentieth century world history
Lead Instructor: Dilip Simeon
This survey course aims to provide participants with knowledge about
the formative political crises of the 20th century, with a focus on
basic facts as well as perspective. The analytical interests will
include:- a) the Great War, the world order of nation-states
envisaged in the post-1919 era, the tensions within empire, the
challenge to this order posed by the rise of nationalism and
Bolshevism; b) the crisis of the 1930's, the emergence and
significance of fascism; the Second World War and its long-term
effects on global politics; c) the origins of the Cold War, the
Vietnam war, the nuclear arms build-up; d) the history of
international peace movements; e) the implosion of the USSR and its
aftermath; f) Imperial interventions in West Asia with a focus on
Palestine. Guest lectures and seminars will be held on certain major
historical episodes.
Rubric 3: Conflict Issues in the Womens Movement
Lead Instructors: Urvashi Butalia and Kavita Panjabi
This module will focus on collective issues. Women's interests are at
the heart of conflicts over natural resources, conflicts arising out
of privatization and the threat to livelihoods, struggles for
self-determination and political power. Given the continuum between
domestic and public conflicts, the ongoing conflicts in India and
South Asia have affected the lives of women and children both within
and outside the home. Our course will track women's involvement in
conflict and the gendering of violent conflict and nationalisms. It
will draw attention to new forms of resistance, as well as new and
resurgent patriarchies. It will examine the responses of women
activists to conflict situations, as well as the usefulness of
national and international law and covenants. Issues to be addressed
will include the Mathura Rape case, the Shah Bano case and the civil
code debate, violence against women in Gujarat, Bombay, Kashmir and
the North East, and the role of women in South Asian conflicts. The
latter will include the MQM in Pakistan, the Chittagong Hill Tracts,
and the LTTE and TULF in Sri Lanka.
Rubric 4: The world order and concepts of conflict
Lead Instructor: Jairus Banaji
This rubric will engage with conflict issues through a series of
seminal texts. These are:
1)Karl Marx's Capital
2)Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason
3)Duncan Kennedy's Critique of Adjudication
4)Arthur Rosenberg's Fascism as a mass movement
5)Steinfeld's Coercion, Contract and Free Labor
The instructor will also examine markets, regulation and the
architecture of the world financial system. The themes will include
US hegemony and the dominance of the dollar; the control of oil; the
post-war internationalisation of capital; mergers & acquisitions;
Anglo-American capitalism vs the bank-based systems; European
economic integration and other responses to American dominance;
competition and 'restructuring' in the 1990s and the meanings of
'globalisation'. There may also be a seminar on the WTO.
Rubric 5 : Contemporary Indian History
Lead Instructor: Arun Kumar
This course attempts to cover the conceptual making of 20th century
India, a brief history of the processes involved in nation-building,
and what unfolded as Independent Indian society and polity.
Anti-colonial movements in the 20th century; the political-economy of
=46reedom in relation to the labouring poor; and the political use of
caste and religion constitute the basic framework. Bhoodan, Naxalite
movements, Dalit politics, the rise of the intermediate castes,
communalism, and the ongoing conflicts in Kashmir and the North East
will be examined. Changing notions of the individual, identity and
citizenship will be discussed with regard to the crises of
nationalism in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh & Sri Lanka.
Rubric 6: Law, Conflict and Peace Processes
Lead Instructor: Vrinda Grover
Recent Indian experience will be used to introduce the history and
practice of law as a conflict resolution mechanism. The following
themes will be covered: a) Security laws: their impact on social
peace, fundamental freedoms, civil liberties and constitutional
rights; the international context post 9/11, laws in the US and UK.
The national context, definition of 'terrorist', the history of TADA,
its relation to globalisation and peoples struggles. Understanding
POTA, the Parliament attack case, implicit concepts of the nation; b)
Women and Violence: evaluation of legal interventions, the womens'
movement, anti-dowry legislation, rape laws, sexual harassment
guidelines, civil remedies for domestic violence. Judicial
interpretation of cruelty, patriarchal interpretation and redressal
of violence against women; c) Communal carnage and the law: critique
of the criminal justice system, commissions of inquiry - Delhi in
1984, Gujarat in 2002, Maliana-Hashimpura in 1987, Oinam in 1988;
socio-political impact of dysfunctional justice; d) International
Human Rights: brief history, the Bill of Rights, first, second and
third generation rights; the Indian Constitution, Fundamental Rights
and Directive Principles; e) Labour laws in relation to conflict.
There will also be case studies of law as a means of reconciliation,
eg., the experience of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation
Commission.
About Aman: The Aman Public Charitable Trust was established in 2001
to render humanitarian assistance and training to vulnerable sections
of Indian society, regardless of caste or creed, in particular those
rendered invisible by conflict. The ongoing spiral of tension in
South Asia has bred fear and distrust, and undermined democratic
institutions. Aman believes that society's neglect of people
marginalised by violent conflict will have unhealthy long-term
consequences. We envisage a pro-active role for civil society in
reducing conflict and mitigating its effects. In keeping with these
aims, we have started a programme for comprehending and reducing
conflict in India. Our sensitisation and legal-aid programmes aim at
strengthening social institutions and resources for non-violent
conflict resolution. Our educational work (of which this course is a
part), is intended to develop and disseminate inter-disciplinary
approaches to conflict.
Please ask for a detailed blurb on Aman, or more information on the
Peace Course from our office, via e-mail, or ordinary mail. Address
correspondence to
Rishi Iyengar, c/o The Aman Trust
D- 504, Nagarjuna Apartments,
Noida Road,
New Delhi - 110096
E-mail: <rishi_amn@yahoo.co.in>
Tel: 011 22713509
You may copy your mail to Susan Abraham at <susan@amanpanchayat.org>
____
#7.
The Washington Quarterly
(Summer 2003)
"The Jihadist Threat to Pakistan"
by Stephen Cohen
http://www.twq.com/03summer/docs/03summer_cohen.pdf
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (www.mnet.fr/aiindex).
The complete SACW archive is available at: http://sacw.insaf.net
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.