Moderator: “Today we’re going to
take a look at the first woman Secretary of
State, formerly the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. We’re joined
right now in our Washington studio at Pacifica station WPFW by Mark
Bruzonsky, director of the Committee on the Middle East; he’s a former
Washington representative of the World Jewish Congress, and founder
and
chairperson of the Committee on the Middle East. He’s been a consultant
on Middle East for, among others, the Congressional Quarterly, National
Geographic Society, and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars at the Smithsonian.
We’re also joined by Martha Burke. Martha
Burke is editor of Feminist
Faxnet, and president of the Center for the Advancement of Public Policy.
She
joins us on the telephone. Well, let’s start off with Mark Bruzonsky,
with the
Committee on the Middle East. Mark, can you tell us your response—first
of all, to this latest news about the Dutch prime minister saying that,
in fact, despite the fact that Madeleine Albright suggested
otherwise—that at least Holland has not changed its view—or the
Netherlands has not changed its view—of Iraq, and will not support
a
U.S. attack.”
Bruzonsky: “Well, Good Morning, Amy. You know I’ve been in Washington
almost twenty years--since graduate school. I’ve been to the Middle
East 150 times. The level of misleading statements, the level
of
duplicity, the level of manipulating the American people has never
been
higher. And in a sense, in my view, Madeleine Albright is the perfect
representation of the Clinton administration: she does something very
similar with our foreign policy, in terms of misrepresenting reality,
just like our president misrepresents much reality from the White
House, especially his own. Let me just give you a quote, for instance,
from Madeleine Albright just a week ago when she was in the Arab
world--she actually said this publicly. She said: “Today I can report
to
you that the United States, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia,
Bahrain, and the Palestinian Authority are of one mind on this crisis.”
You don’t even have to be a Middle East expert to know that this quote
makes no sense. She could not even get support for our planes to be
used--from countries that are under our protection--to attack Iraq.
Whether she is a woman or not is not, for me, an important issue. The
issue is that history is being made, that the policies the United States
pursues now will have ramifications into the future, just like our
past
policies have created the situation we’re in today. And, in my
view,
since the subject is the secretary of state, this woman, for the last
four or five years, including when she was at the United Nations, has
been following policies that are designed—quite literally—to torture
Iraq. Five percent of the Iraqi people are dead because of U.S.
sanctions; that’s just in the last seven years. The country has been
totally devastated—it is practically prostrate at the moment. But,
and
here’s something people in Washington just normally don’t say in public:
Middle East policy in the United States, under the Clinton
administration, is largely controlled and manipulated by the Israeli
lobby.”
Bruzonsky (cont.): “I myself represented the World Jewish Congress many
years ago; I am intimately familiar with how these things work. When
I
did represent the World Jewish Congress I arranged meetings on behalf
of
Jewish organizations at the White House. But I have never seen a
Washington where practically every official is linked intimately to
the
Israeli-Jewish lobby. And Madeleine Albright has done something that
nobody in history has ever done: she has taken a former Israeli lobby
official, someone who wasn’t even a United States citizen at the time
that Clinton was elected president, and she has made him her assistant
secretary of state for the Middle East. It’s an unprecedented
situation, it’s a terribly dangerous situation, and--”
Moderator: “Who is that?”
Bruzonsky: “…The person in the White House? Martin Indyk. The person
in
the State Department--excuse me. He used to be in the White House,
where
he was national security adviser. He’s also someone who, at the time
of
the Clinton election, was said to be overheard on a tape—since we’re
into tapes these days, surreptitious tapes—during the first Clinton
campaign. Martin Indyk was named as a Jewish lobby operative who was
in
Little Rock, in the Clinton campaign, and [was purported to have claimed
that] when Clinton became president, Clinton was going to do what the
Israeli-Jewish lobby wanted him to do. Now the person who was heard
on
the tape was not a minor official—he was the president of the
America-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the most important lobbying
organization on behalf of Israel and American Jews—of course, they
say
they represent American Jews--here in Washington. You’ve also got a
man
in the White House who is the president’s right hand man, Rahm Emanuel.
He was a dual citizen until he was eighteen. In 1991, during the Gulf
War, he volunteered for the Israeli Army, and was in Israel working
as
a, at that time, a civilian working with the army. He’s been working
with the Israeli-Jewish lobby all of his adult life, intimately tied
into it.
So, the reason I’m mentioning this is not because of my Jewish
background. The reason I’m mentioning it is because it is important
for
the American people to understand that the foreign policy being pursued
by the United States—Bill Clinton’s no Middle East expert, and neither
was Madeleine Albright—is being pursued because of the very close
Israeli-American connection. And Israel’s influence on this country
has
never been greater, and also the United States is essentially pursuing
Israel’s policy toward Iraq: let’s not forget that it was the Israelis
that first bombed Iraq in 1981, to condemnation from throughout the
world. And they have lobbied for these policies strenuously year-in
and
year-out, and now they’ve brought them about.”
Amy (?): “Bombed them in 1981, why? Bombed Iraq?”
Bruzonsky: “The Iraqis had a French nuclear reactor, Ozirak, and the
Israelis bombed it. Of course, the only country in the Middle East
that
has weapons of mass destruction is Israel itself. And another of
the
great ironies of the moment, while we--”
Moderator: “--Well, has nuclear weapons, you’re saying?”
Bruzonsky: “Yes, nuclear weapons. One of the great historic ironies,
as
far as I’m concerned, is here the United States is saying to the Arab
world, more than twenty countries in the Arab world, ‘You may not have
even the potential to develop weapons of mass destruction--any of you.
But we and our ally Israel, will send Patriot missiles to protect
Israel’s weapons of mass destruction.’ And last week, without too much
fanfare, large numbers of Patriot missiles were sent to the Israeli
south, about 43 miles from (D.?), Israel’s once-secret nuclear reactor.
The Israeli army, in fact, eight times stronger-- according to Jane’s
Military Review--than all the Arab armies combined. So what you’re
really witnessing in the Middle East is American hegemony, American
imperialism… America pretty much saying to the region, ‘We rule here.
We
tell people what to do. We and our ally will decide the economic and
the
military policies of this region.’ And of course, even with Arab client
regimes, even our regimes, client regimes in Saudi Arabia, in Jordan,
in
Egypt, these regimes won’t even publicly back our policies. They’re
too
scared to do so, they’re too weak to do so.
I’m afraid this historic moment has the potential for—well, I won’t
go
as far as Boris Yeltsin. I don’t think we’re on the verge of World
War
III; I don’t think that there’s anybody in the world who has military
power that can oppose us if we decide to go ahead with the bombing
campaign. But we will be setting forces alive. We will be unleashing
forces, we will be fueling fundamentalism; and the ramifications of
that
for the future, I think, are very grave.”
Moderator: “Well, Mark Bruzonsky, again, director of the Jewish
Committee on the Middle East, former Washington representative of the
World Jewish Congress. As I said earlier we’re also joined by Martha
Burke, editor of Feminist Faxnet, president of the Center for the
Advancement of Public Policy. I know that you have a very different
view
of the U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright.”
Burke: “Well, it’s interesting. Mark’s views sound a lot like a ‘vast
Jewish conspiracy’ is not only controlling the Middle East, but our
foreign policy in general, and the probably world in particular. But
since the subject of the interview is not the Middle East policy but
the
secretary of state herself, I would like to pick up on a couple of
statements he made about her.”
Burke (cont.): “First, he said the fact that she is a woman is not
important, and that the policy that she makes and represents now has
ramifications for the future. He’s absolutely right about the
ramifications for the future, and he’s absolutely wrong that the fact
that she is a woman does not make any difference. This Secretary of
State has been the most outspoken Secretary of State on the global
rights of women that we have ever had. She has done things that I know
no male Secretary of State would have done, or they would have done
it;
and one example I will give you is we are the only industrialized nation
in the world that has failed to sign the convention on the elimination
of all forms of discrimination against women, the so-called “CEDAW”
treaty. It’s been sitting in the Senate for over eighteen years. Several
secretaries of state, of course, during that time have had opportunities
that they did not take advantage of to try to move it out of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee. One of the first things Albright did was
make a public statement directly to [Senate Foreign Relations Committee
chairman] Jesse Helms, when the two of them were together, that said,
‘Get off the dime, here. Get this treaty out; it’s an embarrassment
to
the United States, and an affront to women all over the world.’ That’s
one example; I can give you others. She confronted the ministers if
the
Middle East at a meeting, personally and individually, and asked them
to
tell her why there were no women in their Cabinets. I submit to you
that
a male Secretary have done this. She has spoken out on many other
things, including the treatment of women by the Taliban in Afghanistan;
and, in general, she is quite a good advocate for the Beijing platform,
on the global human rights of women. So, whatever Mark thinks about
her
policies and actions regarding the Middle East, the fact is that she
is
an effective Secretary of State for half the world’s population, and
her
actions do matter now for the future. And the fact that she is a woman
is very important.”
Moderator: “I’m going to break in here to allow stations to ID
themselves. We’re talking to Martha Burke, editor of the Feminist Faxnet
and president of the Center for the Advancement of Public Policy. Our
guest in the studio in Washington is Mark Bruzonsky, director of the
Committee on the Middle East. You’re listening to Pacifica Radio’s
‘Democracy Now,’ and we’ll be back with them in a minute.”
(Program Break for News.)
________________
(Intro.)
Moderator: “This is Pacifica Radio’s ‘Democracy Now: the exception to
the rulers.’ I’m Amy Goodman. As we take a look at the policies of
Madeleine Albright, the secretary of state, former U.N. ambassador,
U.S.
ambassador to the United Nations, we’re joined by Martha Burke, she
is
editor of Feminist Faxnet, president of the Center for the Advancement
of Public Policy;…”
Moderator (cont.): “…Mike Bruzonsky, who is director of the Committee
on
the Middle East; and we’ve just been joined by Addite Akwe, who is
director of Amnesty International for Africa. Now, most people may
not
associate Madeleine Albright with African policy; but, of course she,
as
secretary of state, deals with all foreign policy. And, in fact, she
did
recently just return from a trip through southern Africa; and President
Clinton will be following in her footsteps in just a few weeks. Addite
Akwe, what is your assessment of Madeleine Albright and Africa?”
Akwe: “Well, the trip generated a lot of controversy: on the one hand,
it was incredibly very welcome, and a great step forward that she
actually met her commitment to visit Africa in the first year of her
term as Secretary of State. And also part of the message that was
conveyed: acknowledgment and acceptance for disruptive, destructive
U.S.
policies in the past; and acceptance of the U.S. lack of response or
the
failure of the U.S. to respond to the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 were
all very welcome. But the negative part of the trip, I think, has been
her policies regarding democracy and human rights. When she visited
Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, Angola, and Zimbabwe, as you mentioned, as
well as South Africa, the issues of democracy and human rights were
very
much subtext. They were left to private conversations; and for many
of
us that represented a step backwards from what we had hoped would be
not
only a strong message in support of reform, but also a support of civil
society in Africa.”
Moderator: “Addite Akwe, will you assess Madeleine Albright as simply
a
very good carrier-out of foreign policy set, for example, by the White
House, or that she is an architect of that foreign policy in Africa?”
Akwe: “Well, she certainly pulled together a very impressive team. The
new assistant secretary of state is Susan Reiss; they’ve got new people
in the NSC department. But—“
Moderator: “--The National Security Council.”
Akwe: “Exactly. But, for the most part, democracy and human rights
policy has been the thing that’s been lacking. As you may be aware,
there is actually some economic policy-- they’re trying to drive
investment interest and move the continent away from its dependency
on
foreign aid. In some cases that’s going to have negative affects, but
at
least they are paying attention to the economic issues. The question
is
whether she is going to put her stamp on the democracy issues and human
rights, ‘cause we believe that those are the fundamental ones that
are
going to either consolidate economic gains or at least help the
continent move forward. And so far we have not seen that, so I think,
unfortunately, I’d have to say that she’s more a carrier-out of the
policy, which, unfortunately, is not very well articulated and is not
being very well implemented.”
Moderator: “Explain the policy she promoted in Rwanda, when she was
the
U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.”
Akwe: “Well, when she was there, reports of the genocide—or plans of
the
genocide—reached the U.N. in March. Secret government documents
revealing the detailed plans of what was going to be the genocide got
to
U.N. headquarters, and the Security Council refused to acknowledge
that
genocide was actually happening once the killings began. At the same
time, the United States was among those countries that voted to
withdraw, to scale-down the peace-keeping force that was there, that
was
comprised primarily of Belgian troops. So there was a critical mistake
made there, and a critical lack of acceptance of responsibility to
respond to this United Nations challenge. Then, what happened afterwards
was when they finally said that acts of genocidal intent were taking
place--this was in May. At that point, there were delays and haggling
over how much the peacekeeping force was going to be charged for using
U.S. equipment. All of that served to delay the deployment of the
troops, and of course contributed to the one million people being
killed.”
Moderator: “And what was Madeleine Albright’s role in all of that?”
Akwe: “She was basically the key person who articulated those U.S.
positions in the United Nations Security Council. The question is
whether she fought an unsuccessful battle with the Administration
to
try and get them to change their policy; and unfortunately we don’t
have
any sign of that.”
Bruzonsky: “Amy, if I may, I would add that while she was at the United
Nations--”
Moderator: “--Mark Bruzonsky.”
Bruzonsky: “—while she was at the United Nations, she was also the
primary person who covered-up the Israeli Qana massacre, the first
time
in Middle East history when civilians under U.N. protection were
attacked and massacred; this was in April of 1996.
Literally, screaming and threatening—“
Moderator: “--in southern Lebanon.”
Bruzonsky: “In southern Lebanon. Literally, and I mean literally,
screaming and hollering privately at [then-United Nations Secretary
General Boutros] Boutros-Ghali that he better not release the U.N.
report which proved that Israel had done so purposefully, rather
than
by mistake, and threatening Boutros-Ghali that he wouldn’t be supported
by the United Nations to stay on for a second term [as Secretary
General.] Now we have a lot of information at our web site, which is
at
‘middleeast.org,’ on these matters.”
Burke: “Amy, I would like to jump—“
Moderator: “—Martha Burke.”
Burke (cont.): “—jump in and ask Addite, because I know that his
organization has a human rights campaign, vis a vis the oppression
of
the women by the Taliban government in Afghanistan; and Albright has
been quite outspoken on that issue. I think she has been instrumental
in
preventing the United States from recognizing the Taliban as the
official government over there. And when he says that she has not come
through on human rights, I think that he is, perhaps, ignoring or
forgetting about the human rights of women.
Moderator: “Addite Akwe?”
Akwe: “Yes. No, I would certainly agree with you that she has definitely
kept what has been an incredible eagerness to jump in and support the
Taliban; but at the same time, it took concerted pressure to get the
United States to have the War Crimes Tribunal in Rwanda—and, for that
matter, in Bosnia—recognize and prosecute the issue of rape—which was--“
Burke: “”Mmm hmm.”
Akwe: “--a major tool that was used by the Hutu-based government that
committed the genocide. So, yes she has, I think, she is to be commended
for her work in opposing recognition of the Taliban, but she could
go
much further. And, you know, I guess we have to see what happens now.”
Bruzonsky: “Yes. Amy—“
Burke: “She also has been outspoken, though, on the issue of rape as
a
war crime.”
Bruzonsky: “If I may, Amy, before we, before this comes to an end,--“
Moderator: “—Mark Bruzonsky.”
Bruzonsky: “Martha made some comments earlier about myself. First of
all, I think Martha’s basic problem is that she thinks that Madeleine
Albright is the secretary for women of the United States. Madeleine
Albright is the secretary of state of the United States. My comments—“
Burke: “And you think she is secretary for the Middle East.” (Laughs.)
Bruzonsky: “My…my comments would be the same about the policies she’s
pursuing whether she were a man, whether she were a woman. She’s not
the
secretary of state for women;--“
Burke: “--Nor for the Middle East alone.”
Bruzonsky: “--She’s the secretary of state for all of us. Now, if Martha
feels that the most important about a person is that they’re a woman,
well, you know, she’s entitled to her opinion. She also terribly
misrepresented me by using the word ‘Jewish conspiracy.’ First of all,
I
represented the World Jewish Congress in Washington; I was Phil
Klutznik’s assistant for ten years; I have been to the Middle East
many,
many, many times. I gave specific facts, specific names, specific
evidence about how Israel has immense influence—and, I believe, an
influence we should not accept—over our foreign policy, especially
in
the Middle East, since the Middle East is in the news today. My
colleague in the studio--who I haven’t met yet--is shaking his head
in
agreement. (Giggles.) So, you know, I’ve never met Martha before, but
I
think she might want to actually focus on real policies rather than
the
fact that this person happens to be a woman.”
Burke (sarcastically): “And of course policies that affect women
globally are not real policies. I think we’ve just put our finger on
what the problem is with my colleague in the studio.”
Moderator: “Explain, Martha Burke.”
Burke: “Well, he’s obviously denigrating anything she does--vis a vis
the human rights and global rights of women--as not very important.
Is
this because this is not ‘guy stuff,’ and we’ve always had ‘guy stuff’
in the—“
Bruzonsky: “Martha,--“
Burke: “—in the State Department?”
Bruzonsky: “Martha, it’s too ridiculous—“
Burke: “Well, you can say it’s ridiculous—“
Bruzonsky: “What you’re suggesting, Martha, is too ridiculous for me
to
comment on.”
Burke: “Well, alright. If it’s too ridiculous for you to comment on,
I’ll comment on it. You’re suggesting that anything she [Madeleine
Albright] does in this area, that I am concerned about, is not
important, while everything she does--“
Bruzonsky: “No. I’m suggesting…I’m suggesting—“
Moderator: “Let…Let Martha Burke finish, Mark”
Burke: “ --everything she does in the area you’re concerned about, which
is the Middle East, is very important. I think you made your own point.”
She is the secretary of state, and must address many, many areas of
global
policy: the Middle East is one, human rights for women is another.
And
for you to say that this is trivial and what [Bruzonsky prefers] to
talk about
is really the real stuff, I think, shows a bias that is pretty obvious.
And, in
terms of your remarks about the Jews and what I called a ‘Jewish
conspiracy,’ I think that came straight out of your remarks. If you
take an
unbiased look at how you sound and obviously feel about this, it does—“
Bruzonsky: “Martha, you give the impression—“
Burke: “—sound like you believe there is a conspiracy.” (Laughs.)
Bruzonsky: “Martha, you give the impression that you know very little
about the Middle East, so it’s not something you should really discuss.
As for women’s issues, if the secretary of state is doing good things
on
women’s issues--I don’t know if the former secretary of state did.
It is
not my field; I said that in the beginning. However, the fact--“
Burke: “--That’s right, and I think the [radio] program is about—“
Bruzonsky: “--the fact that you believe—“
Burke: “—Madeleine Albright--”
Bruzonsky: “--the fact that you—“
Burke: “—and not the Middle East.”
Bruzonsky: “ The fact that you believe that simply because she’s a
woman, and standing up for human rights issues that women are facing
(which, frankly, I and most of my colleagues and friends do), is really
amazing at a time when our foreign policy is, for the first time in
history, about to pulverize an Arab state in the Middle East, creating
huge historic waves that are going to impact on us for a great time
to
come.”
Moderator: “We’re talking to Mark Bruzonsky, director of the Jewish
Committee on the Middle East, based in Washington, D.C.; Addite Akwe,
director of Amnesty International for Africa, in Washington; and Martha
Burke, editor of Feminist Faxnet and president of the Center for the
Advancement of Public Policy. I wanted to ask Martha Burke about the
issue of the embargo against Iraq; not the details of it, but the
protests around it are that we’re talking about upwards of, I think,
a
million children who have died in Iraq because of the embargo. Now,
Madeleine Albright has been a very strong defender of this embargo—both
as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and as the secretary of
state.”
Moderator (cont.): “And, I’m just wondering what your feeling is about
that. I know tomorrow Bishop Gumbleton of Detroit will be in Washington,
D.C.. He and fifty-three other bishops sent a letter to President
Clinton decrying the embargo, saying that it was immoral. Ironically,
they sent it on the day that the Monica Lewinsky story broke, and so
it
didn’t get attention, but there they were sending a letter to President
Clinton saying [that] he was immoral for pushing this embargo. And
tomorrow Bishop Gumbleton will be in front of the White House, involved
with a protest—he’s been on a hunger strike against the embargo now
for
two weeks. But what is your—what are your thoughts on Madeleine
Albright and the embargo against Iraq?”
Burke: “Well I think Addite was right when he says basically she has
been a bringer of the message of the administration. She has
clearly
shown a strong backing of Bill Clinton in a number of areas including
the Lewinsky thing. I think you may remember that when they came
out of
the first cabinet meeting that it was she and Donna Shalala who were
put
front and center to basically stand up for, stand by their man.”
Moderator: “ What did you think of that?”
Burke: “I thought that it was a pretty clever ploy on the part of the
White House and the administration. I was disappointed to have
to
recognize it. It was in their view necessary. I want to
acknowledge
that Mark is correct. I am not an expert on the Middle East nor have
I
presented myself to be one. But I believe the topic today is
Madeleine
Albright herself and her job overall. So having said that what
I know
as a citizen reading the newspapers like everyone else vis a vis the
embargo. It hasn’t been very effective. It has hurt a lot
of children
and other people who personally have nothing to do with this conflict
and in that sense I would much like to see some other tactics solve
this
problem because this one clearly is not working and it’s hurting people
that don’t need to be hurt.”
Moderator: “ Let me give everyone a chance for final comments beginning
with Mark Bruzonsky of the Jewish Committee on the Middle East.”
Bruzonsky: “ Just quickly I will have to be consistent I am afraid and
disagree with Martha again. This woman who is secretary of state
is not
simply a bringer of Clinton’s message. She is a primary policy
formulator who has tremendous influence. I’d say she is probably
the
most influential person on our foreign policy right now. Let
me give
you another quote of hers. This comes from an interview with
Lesley
Stahl on ’60 Minutes.’ Lesley Stahl asked her a pros pros to
your last
question. Lesley Stahl: ‘ We have heard that a half a million
children
died, I mean that’s more children than died at Hiroshima, and, you
know,
is the price worth it?’ Answer from Madeleine Albright: ‘ I think
this
is a very hard choice but the price, we think, the price is worth it.’
Well, from the point of view of the Middle East five per cent of Iraq’s
people literally having died because of our policies in the last seven
years and many many more to die in the policies that we’re pursuing
at
the moment. I think that it is very important for people to realize
that Madeleine Albright plays a central role in this and is very much
responsible for this and I hope they will check out our own web site
where we have a lot of information at Middle East.org.”
Moderator: “ And Addite Akwe Madeleine Albright’s policy on Africa just
summarizing and her overall as a secretary of state and I should
say
that I think one of the reasons that Middle East is a focal point right
now of course is because of the crisis we are in right now with the
US
about to attack Iraq.”
Akwe: “ Yes. No, that is easily understandable and it is also
understandable because Africa is usually not even on the radar
screen
here in terms of policy makers here in Washington. And I think
in that
sense Mark might be correct and, or, in some ways there is actually
a
common area in what my two colleagues have said on the Africa policy:
a.) she’s not an architect because she’s not initiating a new
outreach;
b.) she is basically carrying-out what the administration’s policy
is,
which is more rhetoric than actual policy. So, I think I would just
end
by saying that, you know, there was [an] incredible sense of promise
and
hope when she came in to being secretary of state. And, unfortunately,
we’ve not seen that yet; and if we’re not very careful, the United
States is going to step back from playing a key role in promoting
democracy and human rights in Africa, and we’re going to basically
see
the continent lose yet another generation to basically repressive
governments.”
Moderator: “And today, by the way, President Clinton is expected to
announce which countries he will visit in his
March trip to Africa.
Martha Burke, I give you the final word.”
Burke: “Oh, thank you very much. I’m going to astound Mark and tell
him
that I do agree with him at least on one fine point, and that is that
I
am disappointed—as I’ve said previously—about her position—which I
think
is the administration’s position—vis a vis the embargo and the so-called
collateral damage, which is real people. I also agree with Addite in
that there is great promise and hope--was, and is, I would add—for
her
administration as secretary of state. I think she’s already fulfilled
some of that promise, vis a vis women, and we can only hope that she
will become a stronger advocate in the future for policies that we
all
as a people can agree with.”
Moderator: “Martha Burke you’re editor of Feminist Faxnet. Can you let
us know how people can get this weekly news report that comes out of
Washington around not only women’s issues, but a feminist spin on U.S.
foreign policy?”
Burke: “Yes, they can look on the web—if they’re on the web—at
‘feminist.com’—‘www.feminist.com,’ and we are under ‘activism.’ Or
those
who are unwired—and I think that’s most of the world—can give us a
call
at 202-797-0606.”
Moderator: “That’s 202-797-0606.”
Burke: “Right.”
Moderator: “Mark Bruzonsky, you’ve already told us that the Jewish
Committee on the Middle East can be found at ‘WWW.MiddleEast.Org.’
That’s ‘WWW.MiddleEast.Org.’ And Addite Akwe, Amnesty International?”
Bruzonsky: “—And, Amy, if I may add the phone number—“
Moderator: “Yes.”
Bruzonsky: “—for people who aren’t wired--on that matter we are in
agreement; there are a lot of people--it’s 202-362-5266.”
Akwe: “The Amnesty web address is ‘www.Amnesty.org,’ and the telephone
number is 202-544-0200.”
Moderator: “That’s 202-544-0200.”
(End.)