-
The Cable
Rand Paul: You’re Arming al Qaeda’s Allies
-
War of Ideas
No, 3-D Printing Won’t End Hunger
-
Passport
Why Does the U.S. Get All the Tornadoes?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Thursday, April 2, 2009 - 1:56 PM
Share
A couple of days ago, I posted an entry about the new Kagan/Kristol "Foreign Policy Initiative." After noting that the neoconservative approach to foreign policy had produced a disastrous war in Iraq and undermined America's image around the world, I wrote that "Neoconservatives also helped derail efforts to reach a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, thereby strengthening Hamas, threatening Israel's future, and further damaging America's global position."
Via Christian Brose, I received the following message from Robert Kagan, who writes:
The claim that I worked against a two-state solution in the Middle East is a complete fabrication. I have literally never written or spoken on the subject."
Fair enough. I did not say that Kagan himself opposed a two-state solution, but the juxtaposition was misleading and I'm happy to correct the record.
At the same time, Kagan’s statement raises an obvious question: what are his views on a two-state solution? He has been a prolific commentator on U.S. foreign policy in recent years -- including our Middle East policy -- yet he has apparently remained silent on one of the most important issues that shapes our entire approach to the region. A two-state solution has been the official goal of the past three U.S. Presidents -- Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and now Barack Obama -- and I'd be curious to know if Kagan agrees with them. He and his fellow neoconservatives also favor the vigorous use of American power to achieve stated foreign policy objectives. So here's my question: Does Kagan favor the establishment of a viable Palestinian state, and does he think the United States should use its considerable leverage with both sides to bring that result about?
Who were you referring to then?
Which neoconservatives did oppose a two state solution?
neocons want to manage, not solve, the Israel-Palestine conflict
see, e.g.:
http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/commentary/neocon-assault-baker-hamilton
That is a columnist, who is making the same generalization that Walt did. The only "neo-con" featured in his piece is another columnist - Charles Krauthammer - and what he charged Krauthammer with saying is that he didn't think Iraq and other inter-Arab disputes were linked to the dispute between the Israelis and Palestinians. That is quite different from opposing a two state solution.
So I ask again - Who are the neo-cons who oppose a two state solution?
Walt? Anyone?
who is a neocon anyway? do they carry cards?
get a life dude.
kagan, kristol, and Krauthammer are neocons ok?
stop wasting our time by being disingenuous.
What you showed didn't show anyone opposing a two state solution.
My point (which I have reconsidered after reading your post) about Krauthammer was that, regardless of his political leanings, he's a columnist. My neighbor the neocon might oppose a two state solution, but I really wasn't asking about him. I wanted to know if any major figures in the movement like the Kristols, Kagans and the rest of the think tankers opposed a two state solution. That said, your point is taken, thinking about it I see a columnist can be considered a major figure in a political movement if he is prominent enough.
However, you may be interested in this about Krauthammer, from Wikipedia, citing the fact that he is critical of neoconservatism:
Krauthammer's major monograph on foreign policy, “Democratic Realism: An American Foreign Policy for a Unipolar World,” [11] is critical both of the neoconservative Bush doctrine for being too expansive and utopian, and of foreign policy “realism” for being too narrow and immoral; instead, he proposes an alternative he calls “Democratic Realism.” In a 2005 speech (later published in Commentary Magazine) he called neoconservatism “a governing ideology whose time has come."
Edit: For the record, this from the same article...
Krauthammer supports a two-state solution to the conflict. Contrary to many conservatives, he supported Israel's Gaza withdrawal as a step toward rationalizing the frontiers between Israel and the future Palestinian state. He believes the importance of a security barrier between the two states' final borders will be an important element of any lasting peace.[55]
It appears nobody, including Walt, can come up with a single name to back up Walt's assertion that neocons opposed a two state solution.
Perhaps another mea culpa is in order, Walt, if you are unable to back up your assertions with facts.
Professor, what is this Mate;-> A SuperPower cannot sort out such semi-internal minor problems?!
Don't keep putting this on the Blog as an issue of FP, no!
Or change the name of the Blog, call it FP & SIFP (semi-internal-foreing-policy).
You are right Mate, when you wrote:
Neoconservatives also helped derail efforts to reach a two-state solution
You didn't say Kagan, you said neocons. What is he complaining about? Isn't he neocon? Didn't neocons behave like you reported? No! What does it matter if he didn't approve the neocon policy then and now? Once a neocon always neocon unless he declares that "He made a mistake by not resigning from neocons now he does it and he is nomore neocon." Because his saying "Yes I am in favour of two-state" is not going to make him non-neocon and also doesn't mean neocons change their policy regarding two-state solution just because he says so. Maybe it only means that he is going to be kicked out from neocons;->>
Maybe that's what you are after, I don't know;->>
Professor, those people getting through your Universities without knowing that much Logic really beats me Mate. They don't know Logic even as much as Aristotales used to know and they pass as Modern Thinker / Policy Maker?!
what is this joke Mate?!
Tell Kagan "Learn some Logic!" that would help him better.
Grand Sen~or.
One state plus one ghetto solution
What the neocons want fairly well parallels what Bibi Netanyhu wants: not a 2-state solution, but a one-state plus one-ghetto "solution" i.e. complete dominance of the Levant. See:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1067201.html
"Netanyahu has said any Palestinian state must have only limited sovereignty and be demilitarized. "
Whatever -- Good luck with Peace! ha!
I stole your house, now I want to lock you in the basement, take your gun, and gag you. Oh, and please agree to peace...GFY.
"Netanyahu has said any Palestinian state must have only limited sovereignty and be demilitarized. "
He is trying to change the concept "state" one sided;->
Mr Yahu! how about;->
"Palestinian state and Israeli State must have only limited sovereignty and be demilitarized."
Wouldn't that make everyone happy and smiling from ear-to-ear except "state" lovers like Prof. Walt;->>
Grand Sen~or.
Note: Every morning I open this Blog with a determination that I won't post anything here anymore, I had enough!. But when I see such provocative statements, my fingers revolt and ignore my determination and keep punching on the keyboard. I really don't know when they will give up. I can't control my fingers any more. It is something like the Judgement Day for me, my mouth is zipped but mey fingers/hands make the talking.
Robert Kagan, who writes:
The claim that I worked against a two-state solution in the Middle East is a complete fabrication. I have literally never written or spoken on the subject."
That Robert Kagan who as a stalwart neo con would say that he has NEVER spoken on the subject of a two-state solution is UNBELIEVABLE which is consistent with most public statements he has ever made. He does the fabrication bit well. Would you expect otherwise; and "neo-cons" are figments of our imagination. The next statement that Kagan will make might echo Golda Meir, "There was no such thing as a Palestinian," or there is no Palestine.
If he held academic realists, and himsef,l to this standard...
he sure wouldn't be at harvard.
Realism is a degenerate paradigm, has been for years (at least since, say, '89), and the degree to which this is true is evident in Walt's own work.
(at a talk three years ago or so, he preambled the Q&A by stating that he was not interested in questions about how his recent work related to his work on realism. even he knows it's little more than tinker toys. Judging him (or Van Evera, or Schweller, etc., etc.) on his work of the past 10 years, does he merit his status in he field? Clearly not.)
"Realism is a degenerate paradigm"
Care to back that assertion up with an argument of any kind?
Certainly--what significant contribution has realism made to our understanding of international relations since the end of the cold war? What novel facts or new hypotheses have realists discovered? What new methodologies for understanding reality have come from realist theory? Compare this with rational choice and domestic politics theorists, whose work has opened up an obvious field of study for ir scholars ignored by realists for decades--war termination; who have made increasingly clear the importance of commitment problems, and--equally important--the nature of commitment problems; who have effectively applied principal agent theories to a wide range of problems.
At the more fundamental level, a research program is degenerate when it requires additional axioms or assumptions to explain anything at all; this is particularly true when they run counter to the hard core. Realists' (neoclassical, and whatever Walt thinks of himself now, given his focus on interest groups) approaches relying on domestic politics run pretty contrary to the realist hard core.
Ok, you've read Lakatos. We get it. But there's now a sizable literature that questions whether Lakatos is really the best way to evaluate a research program.
As for what realists have contributed, you can't have it both ways. When they come up with new hypotheses, you call it "degenerate." But if they continue to rely on traditional realist principles, then they're somehow stale or not contributing anything new. Which one is it?
As for what rat choice theorists have contributed, please. The commitment problem? See Schelling from about forty years ago.
As for realism and post-cold war international relations, how about the widespread realist opposition to the Iraq War? Realists warned of the difficulty that the United States would encounter in Iraq, and the objections were derived from core realist principles.
"Which one is it?"
In the case of the realists, are no new hypotheses. The closest thing that there has been to 'new ideas' are discussions of why stable unipolarity could happen within the framework of realism--something that appeared necessary to them about a decade into unipolarity. (So, rather than admit being wrong, as they were (and did not admit) about the end of the cold war, they went to work making up a new answer.) But of course, post-hoc explanation is not the same as deriving a testable hypothesis. It's a lot easier. The absolute gains/relative gains debate was a joke (inasmuch as the obvious answer, eventually provided via the work of people like Fearon, was 'sometimes'). What's left? Highly subjective debates about whether or not states "bandwagon" or "balance," based not on actual research but, at best, anecdote? Discussions of whether or not "soft balancing" is really balancing? Realism has no new ideas, save the periodic, post-hoc fig leaves tossed out to cover its obvious failings in predicting actual behavior over the past two decades.
What remains are realist scholars who still need to publish. And so they go about systematically violating key realist axioms in their efforts to explain why real states don't act like realists expect them to, often by facilely adapting others' work on interest groups, weapons of the weak, etc.
If you look at sophisticated rational choice work, I think you'll agree that it's not just the possible existence of commitment problems, but rather identifying when they exist, their dynamics, and their effects on behavior. That's not 40 years ago.
"Being right" about iraq doesn't make realist scholars particularly special. If you'd asked, I'm fairly sure that proportionally more constructivists and neoliberals, for instance, opposed the war than realists. And I don't recall any formal models concluding that the war was right.
Kagan's Approach to Negotiations
Robert Kagan is more or less yanking Professor Walt's chain.
Kagan seems to take the Oslo Process seriously, but only if the US supports Israel in everything it wants [1], and in reality neither Arafat [2] nor Abbas/Fatah[3] nor Hamas[4] is an acceptable negotiating partner.
In the Israeli political spectrum, I would put Kagan with Netanyahu -- fake negotiations and effective permanent Apartheid with periodic slaughter of Palestinians.
Here are the articles and interview on which I base my conclusion.
- Green Light for Israel -- Sep 3, 2001, Even pro-US Arabs are bad, and only when Palestinians completely submit to the USA and Israel will negotiations be possible.
- A Realigning Election -- Feb 14, 2005, Arafat had to die for the Oslo negotiation to go forward to a two state solution.
- Democracy and the Middle East -- Jan 27, 2006, Hamas is good because Fatah is corrupt.
- Surrender as 'Realism' -- Dec. 4, 2006, Hama is bad because it won't concede as much as Arafat.
Thanks to Russian Jewish immigration of the early 1990s, Zionist Neocons simply have felt no pressure for a two-state solution even if they have occasionally faked commitment to the Oslo process. Kagan seems to plug right into this mentality. See Stephen Walt: Talking to Hamas?
Rothkopf on Walt more accurate than Walt would ever admit
Further proof that Rothkopf [on Walt] is more accurate than Walt would ever admit:
=====================================
From The Weekly Standard's "The Blog"
April 1, 2009
Unhinged Realists
" . . . The New Yorker's George Packer wrote that FPI was the "ideological descendant" of the Project for the New American Century, which "put the squeeze on Bill Clinton to sign the Iraq Liberation Act, and then provided George Bush with many of his top officials, who ran and wrecked the liberation of Iraq." As former PNAC director Gary Schmitt pointed out in the comments (Schmitt is, apparently, the blog's only commenter), no PNAC official ever worked in the Bush administration (nor did the group "squeeze" the President of the United States). Packer apologized for the error in a subsequent post that contained still more errors (again, see the comment below).
Likewise, Stephen Walt wrote on the launch of FPI:
The platform of the new organization is a watered-down version of the bellicose neoconservative program that worked so well over the past decade, producing a disastrous war in Iraq and a deteriorating situation in Central Asia and bringing America's image around the world to new lows. Neoconservatives also helped derail efforts to reach a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, thereby strengthening Hamas, threatening Israel's future, and further damaging America's global position.
Of course Walt believes that (Jewish) neoconservatives are to blame for all the world's problems, but only one of these charges contains anything more than opinion -- that neoconservatives "helped derail efforts to reach a two-state solution." No one associated with FPI or PNAC ever worked against a two-state solution. This is pure fantasy. In just the last three months THE WEEKLY STANDARD has published two cover stories that envision a two-state solution (including this week's cover story by Gershom Gorenberg). Since Walt is a "scholar," perhaps he has some other evidence to back up his charge, but he fails to provide it.
As for the rest of Walt's rant, one would be on far sturdier ground laying the blame for these failures at the feet of the Bush administration's "realists," who were determined not to do the hard work of state-building in the first place. The good folks at PNAC were calling for more troops from day one, and for Rumsfeld's resignation before the war even started. But none of this much matters, since only Sy Hersh will be able to blame the neocons if this new administration fails to deliver peace in the Middle East -- or will George Packer blame FPI for "putting the squeeze" on another Democratic president?
--Posted by Michael Goldfarb on April 1, 2009
© Copyright 2008, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/04/unhinged_realists.asp
==========================================
"Freeman, I can forgive. He had every reason to be angry. Walt, not now, not ever, because whatever the pale intellectual merits of his hackneyed argument may be, he and Mearsheimer know full well that their prominence on this issue has come not because they have had a single new insight but rather because they were willing and one can only believe inclined to play to a crowd whose "views" were fueled by prejudice and worse. They may not be anti-Semites themselves but they made a cynical decision to cash in on anti-Semitism by offering to dress up old hatreds in the dowdy Brooks Brothers suits of the Kennedy School and the University of Chicago. They did what the most desperate members of academia do, they signed up to be rent-a-validators, akin to expert witnesses who support the defense of felons with specious theories served up on fancy diplomas. They would argue that they were daring to speak truth to power. In reality they were giving one crowd in particular precisely what it wanted to hear." . . .
http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/03/12/why_freeman_himself_was_wrong_about_what_his_defeat_signified
Freeman, I can forgive. He had every reason to be angry. Walt, not now, not ever,
Freeman is a Patriot who expressed the reality. Who cares if you forgive him or appreciate him, you are deaf and blind to reality.
Professor, this Guy is running short of clients and trying to steal your Blog space Mate;->Ignore him!
"I can forgive Freeman"?!!
Do you also dare to say this when you are face to face with him?!
Something like this;-> "Freeman! I forgive you Mate! (Pat, pat! on his back)";->>
What a joke;->>
Grand Sen~or.
Note: Excuse my fingers again;->>
In what way is quoting from a Michael Goldfarb piece from the leading neo-con rag "proof" of anything regarding Steve Walt? It's opinion. Just like Walt's. It's also finely parsed opinions. No PNAC "official" ever "worked" in the Bush administration. Fine. How about signatories to PNAC's various statements? You betcha.
Let's get away from opinion, though. How about some facts:
The neo-cons thought that the US would be greeted with flowers and chocolates in Iraq. Not quite.
The neo-cons thought that "bringing democracy" to Iraq would lead to peace throughout the Middle East, including the Arab-Israeli dispute. Not quite.
It's funny how neo-cons were front-and-center in the early days of the Bush administration, but now they want to disclaim any role in the foreign policy of that era. Success has many fathers; failure is an orphan. . .
Prof Walt,
don't bother with the neocon label -- in the end they can always say they were never neocons. as far as i know there is no neocon identifying feature (eg. a grotesque tumor on the side of their head....).
if their policy didn't work out, they are retroactively not neocons. any longer. according to themselves.
whatever.
check it out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/03/world/middleeast/03mideast.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
The Turks are very vary of accepting Mr. 'Fog-of-War', the Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who contrary to common Anglosaxon practise, for snobbish reasons insists on using his middle name (in order to distinguish himself from the thousands of other 'Rasmussens' in Denmark).
One has to respect the Turks for showing this level of integrity. It is similar to the stance its President displayed in Davos earlier this year, when Turkey was the only country that publicly distanced itself from Israel over this (colony)s behaviour in its occupied territories.
And the Turks never forget the behaviour of this opportunistic and stubborn individual. He refused in October 2005, to even meet the representatives of the eleven countries that have embassies in Copenhagen, after the socalled 'Mohammed Cartoon Crisis'
Thank you Turkey for being the only one to show this level of integrity. We will never forget it. And typically of Mr. Rasmussen he have now declared publicly that he is a candidate, and in this way he is trying to apply pressure on the Turks - but I trust that the Turks just will dismiss this f***ing bastard, as indeed he deserves. He opportunisticly supported Bush disastrous invasion of Iraq, but whereas Bush, Blair and Howard all are gone, this despicable individual are the only one left.
Stephen Walt should not waste his time being "fair" to scum like Kagan whose destruction of Iraq is but one of the accomplishments lined up to assure his place in Hell.
Readers who wish a quick review of the last man you would want to have dinner with can refer to the brief but enlightening Salon article: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/11/kagan/
Is Kagan another dual national? That's what I would ask.
Walt, Neocons, Palestinian statehood
Walt’s failure to answer David’s question: “Which neocons did oppose a two-state solution?” indicates that Walt’s assertion (Neocons derailed a two state solution) is valid only in his own mind.
Here’s another issue. Considering that Palestinians have repeatedly rejected statehood, and that Palestinian statehood would require accepting Israel as a state, which Palestinians have indicated, with words and deeds, that they won’t accept, what is the evidence (not theory, evidence) that Palestinians want statehood?
Our “Entire Approach to the Region”? (By Eric Trager)
From Commentary Magazine's "Contentions" Weblog:
April 3, 2009
Our “Entire Approach to the Region”?
By Eric Trager
Over on his Foreign Policy blog, Stephen Walt corrects his own previous assertion that Robert Kagan “helped derail efforts to reach a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” Apparently, Kagan not only didn’t work against Israeli-Palestinian peace — he’s actually never written or spoken about the subject at all! Naturally, the notion that a renowned “neocon” has steered clear of the conflict is jarring to Walt’s narrow it’s-always-about-Israel-for-them worldview. And so the face-saving proceeds:
"Kagan’s statement raises an obvious question: what are his views on a two-state solution? He has been a prolific commentator on U.S. foreign policy in recent years — including our Middle East policy — yet he has apparently remained silent on one of the most important issues that shapes our entire approach to the region."
Of course, Walt has it all wrong. The two-state solution doesn’t shape our “entire approach to the region.” Rather, the main U.S. goals in the Middle East are promoting stability to ensure the free flow of oil, as well as containing - if not defeating - radical leaders and movements that threaten our national security. Indeed, the various efforts comprising our current policy in the region are all geared towards these ends: preventing Iran from achieving nuclear capabilities; ensuring the rise of a stable democracy in Iraq; supporting Israel to the extent that its neighbors are deterred from fighting it; backing Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority against Hamas; and maintaining strong alliances with Gulf Arab regimes.
In turn, promoting a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is only relevant to U.S. foreign policy interests insofar as the creation of a Palestinian state is a force for regional stability - and not a platform for radicalism. This is particularly true if you’re a realist - as Walt claims to be - and thereby prefer a foreign policy that places core national interests above moralistic motivations, such as securing Palestinians’ national rights.
--posted by Eric Trager, April 3, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Copyright © 1997-2009 Commentary Magazine
All Rights Reserved
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/trager/61181
Some information on ET's qualifications as a political analyst: Antiwar Group Exposes Undercover Activist.
Kagan and the two state solution
With the current Israeli government having discarded most of the almost progressive philosophies of previous 'reasonable' regimes, as well as the oft-stated understandings of the last three US Presidents, it would be a good guess that Kagan has towed the new party line of the warlike drum-thumpers in Israel spewing anti-Arab vitriol at every opportunity.
The Lieberman-Netanyahu combination is displaying the same fervour as Hitler did in the 1930's.
With someone of the stature of Professor Walt even bothering to address a message from Kagan gives Kagan much more credibility than he deserves.
Kagan and Kristol are the people that in earlier days would have been pilloried in a public place, not for having opinions contrary to the norm, but for the fact that their activities are un-American and not having the best interests of the country as their goal.....and they don't. The Iraq war and recent history has shown that very clearly without any fear of contradiction. All this at a time when there was a weak President who the neocons were able to lead by the nose, and did.
The Iraq war should hang over their heads forever; how one can live with that I will never understand. 4,000 dead Americans. What an achievement. Certainly, they didn't send them there but their philosophies and influence with the malleable (weak) Senators and Representatives contributed more than anything else to the US embarking on such a disastrous adventure. As for the Presidential advisers, the less said about them the better.
They are the very worst type of commentators; arms length and safe from anything that can be sheeted home to them directly with absolutely no responsibility while heavily promoting lobbies that were undisputedly anti-American and certainly not in any way democratic.
If I had lost a son in Iraq I know where I would point my finger.
So Stephen Walt and others, who in a quiet way, against decidedly insidious opposition at times, are rationally showing the people the errors of past directions and America should thank them for their efforts. While the neocon lobby exists there will always be a need to acquaint the people of the evils of their teachings and their well-heeled lobby groups until they are seen for what they are, decidedly un-American.
.
Kagan and his thinking on the two-state solution is really immaterial because the US will establish a relationship with Iran and the Arab states. Together they will work to gain fairness and equity in the Middle East, at the same time overcoming the objections of the Israeli cabal and thereby giving the peoples of that region the peace they rightly deserve after all this time. At that time and not before, Israel will become a legal state but right now it is hated for its deliberate ethnic cleansing and apartheid.
Iran and the US will achieve this even against the counter-productive and devious efforts of the Kagans and Kristols of this world.
Neocons and the 2-state solution
To suggest that the neocons as commonly classified support a good-faith, equitable 2-state solution is ludicrous, regardless of whether individual neocons may have paid lip service to the idea.
For an indication of where neocons really stand regarding this issue, a good place to start is the Clean Break report. This report, in some ways a Rosetta Stone to understand the neocon philosophy and objectives, suggests the following:
"Israel’s efforts to secure its streets may require hot pursuit into Palestinian-controlled areas."
The mindset of the authors, classic neocons like Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, is clear: not only do they not include a Palestinian state in their strategy, but they suggest that the Palestinians should have so little autonomy over their "areas," that they should be subject to "hot pursuit." This mindset is in direct contrast to an equitable 2-state solution, and it's written in black and white, not just in a random op-ed, or a response piece, but in a formal neocon strategic report.
Anticipating the argument that this report may perhaps be no longer current, and that this mindset no longer reflects the views of its authors, I propose that if that is the case, then the onus is on the authors to clarify their revised thinking. Unless they repudiate or otherwise clarify their earlier positions, it's entirely logical to conclude that the neocon position regarding Israel / Palestine is one in line with the thinking in the Clean Break report, and which clearly does not include 2 states in the recommended strategy.
"Hot pursuit" may have been germane in 1996 when the report was written, but isn't so much today.
1) The Palestinians are firing rockets into Israeli population centers and Israel is striking those that are doing it in Palestinian territory. The situation we see today transcends the notion of "hot pursuit" and is more akin to warfare.
2) The security barrier basically moots the need for hot pursuit, as does the almost total Palestinian reliance on the tactic of suicide bombing or attacks from their own territory (ie, the rocket attacks).
What it comes down to is whether the Palestinian government starts working to stop the attacks rather than supporting and participating in them.
It is a quite a stretch to equate this one line from a 1996 report with opposing a two state solution.
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(30)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE