Money .... and peace?

Difficult to avoid this particular issue at the moment. And very tempting to begin with a whole load of clichés about the uncertain and challenging times we're in... but I won't!

I'm not sure who it was on the radio this morning... but someone was making the very obvious point that the government's (ours and those of other countries) financial commitment to keeping the banking system afloat necessarily means that there's less money to go around on other things.

And this is really important, I feel. With such obvious constraints, can we hope for hope for a shifting of priorities towards building security along the lines of the sustainable security paradigm outlined in the Oxford Research Group's report? ( Global Responses to Global Threats:Sustainable Security for the 21st Century, Chris Abbott, Paul Rogers and John Sloboda, June 2006)

Mark Lynas, writing in The Guardian today argues that the need to move to a low-carbon energy system is a great business opportunity, as opposed to a distraction from getting the economy back on track. ..."we need to transform completely the energy basis of industrial civilisation", he states, "Anyone thinking of this as a terrible sacrifice is dead wrong; it is an unparallelled business opportunity, which canny companies will use to their great advantage". Both he and the paper's editorial are cautiously optimistic about the commitment of our government to tackling climate change, indicated by the setting up of the new department for energy and climate change.

The other side of the sustainable security coin though, which the ORG report urges we move away from, is what they describe as the 'control paradigm'. A move away from a commitment to renewing UK nuclear weapons would be a very welcome indication of a shift from the one paradigm to another and is essential if we're to make a meaningful and sustainable change towards a more peaceful and secure world.

--

I've noted that this blog doesn't often get a mention in list of Quaker blogs - mostly, I think, because it's more about what's going on the world rather than in my head and my Quaker Meeting. My work, and that of NFPB in general, is of course rooted in our Quakerism. Here's a bit from our Advices and Queries which seems very relevant to these times...

31. We are called to live 'in the virtue of that life and power that takes away the occasion of all wars'. Do you faithfully maintain our testimony that war and the preparation for war are inconsistent with the spirit of Christ? Search out whatever in your own way of life may contain the seeds of war. Stand firm in our testimony, even when others commit or prepare to commit acts of violence, yet always remember that they too are children of God.

41. Try to live simply. A simple lifestyle freely chosen is a source of strength. Do not be persuaded into buying what you do not need or cannot afford. Do you keep yourself informed about the effects your style of living is having on the global economy and environment?

42. We do not own the world, and its riches are not ours to dispose of at will. Show a loving consideration for all creatures, and seek to maintain the beauty and variety of the world. Work to ensure that our increasing power over nature is used responsibly, with reverence for life. Rejoice in the splendour of God's continuing creation.

Inspiration

I've had a busy few weeks and next month is just going to get a lot busier. Whilst trying to keep my head above water and cope with the constant flow of news (most of it bad) I thought I would just give a bit of space on some good and inspiring peace-related things happening...

• Leap Confronting Conflict's work on gangs
  
• Peace Direct's support for the Nepal Rapid Response Fund
• CAAT's campaign for the UK to provide legal assistance to the US' BAE Systems investigation
• The forthcoming (27th October) big blockade taking place at Aldermsaton
• The work at St Ethelburga's centre for Reconciliation and Peace on exploring religious difference

And last, but by no means least, I'm looking forward to the weekend NFPB meeting in Perth where we'll be sharing our new DVD on 'Building Peace: Tackling Racism' , considering priorities for our work on Challenging Militarism, hearing from Kevin Franz of QPSW. And then the next day some of us will go over to Faslane to join with Friends from Glasgow and other parts of West Scotland for a Meeting for Worship outside the base.

Whose agenda?

Behind the frightening escalation of military activity in Georgia there are a number of agendas, contradictions and underlying issues that it's not easy to get to grips with. For example, what role has the US government and the Republican presidential candidate had in stoking the conflict? Read Seamus Milne in The Guardian here and Robert Scheer on truthdig ('drilling beneath the headlines') on this theme. I've put a range of links to background information and analysis on the del.icio.us pages. The whole situation reveals a lot about the state of big-power aspirations, policies and relationship, about their own internal political motivations and about the number of layers of the onion one has to peel back before beginning to find the real facts.

Mixed messages

George Monbiot in the Guardian today points to the contradictory messages that our Government has been giving about nuclear weapons in recent years. He reminds us of the NPT commitments that oblige signatories to work towards complete nuclear disarmament, but then draws attention to the information uncovered by CND last week ...

[from the CND press release] Ministry of Defence documents obtained by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament reveal the Government plans to replace Britain's nuclear warheads, despite Ministers repeatedly telling MPs that no decision would be taken until the next Parliament. The shocking revelation came to light in a speech to the arms industry executives by David Gould, then chief operating officer at the Defence Equipment and Support Organisation, now released under the Freedom of Information Act. [See note 3 and below for the documents] Whilst the Commons voted last year to replace the submarines that carry the UK's nuclear warheads on Trident missiles, the White Paper and repeated ministerial statements since then [see note 4] have claimed that no decision would be taken on replacing the explosive warheads themselves until the next Parliament, expected to be 2010 at the earliest. Today's revelation that a senior defence official has been privately telling industry the opposite, suggests that Parliament has been misled.

Monbiot writes: According to a leaked briefing by the US Defence Intelligence Agency, Israel possesses between 60 and 80 nuclear bombs. But none of the countries demanding that Iran scraps the weapons it doesn't yet possess are demanding that Israel destroys the weapons it does possess. and continues further on in his piece: The permanent members of the UN security council draw a distinction between their "responsible" ownership of nuclear weapons and that of the aspirant powers. But over the past six years, the UK, US, France and Russia have all announced that they are prepared to use their nukes pre-emptively against a presumed threat, even from states that do not possess nuclear weapons. In some ways the current nuclear stand-off is more dangerous than the tetchy detente of the cold war.

Those involved in planning the next major action at Britain’s nuclear weapons factory are keen that people make the connections and attend the next Aldermaston Big Blockade on 27th October 2008.

History, journalism, fact and fiction

On Radio 4's 'Today' programme recently, following the arrest in Belgrade of Radovan Karadzic, James Naughtie was heard to declare - as if it were a simple, well-known fact - that the NATO bombing of 1999 had been a success. Bridget Kendall, the Diplomatic Correspondent, responded with a rather more nuanced critique. With the recent declaration of independence in Kosovo, the Albanian population might well feel that it was a success - but at what cost?

Jan Oberg, of the Transnational Foundation wrote earlier this year:
"Did the international community make mistakes? Or did it have a deliberate plan to destroy Yugoslavia? Or was it a mix of this spiced with general conflict illiteracy? The answer is as hugely complex as it is important.
"One mechanism is obvious, however: Having started out with the outdated, two-party conflict paradigm – one all right, the other all wrong - borrowed from the just dissolved Cold War structure, nothing could go right. And since this community by constitution cannot admit that it makes mistakes, it has had to build on blunders, covering them up by continuing its irrational, counter-productive policies. The sum total is a boomeranging make-believe such as independent Kosovo. "

In the year of the bombing itself, Philip Hammond concludes:, in Reporting Kosovo: Journalism vs. Propaganda,
"As the bombs and missiles rained down we were informed by Nato leaders that this was 'not a war', and when it ended every newspaper found the same word to describe the occupation of part of a sovereign country by foreign troops: 'liberation'. This was a fitting climax to a media crusade which had frequently turned reality on its head in an utter dereliction of what journalism is supposed to be. It would seem that one casualty of the Kosovo war was British journalism, although some sources maintain it was already long dead. In its place we have propaganda."

The further away you get from an event, historically, it is harder but still more important to question the history with which we are presented as fact, just as it was and remains important to look beneath the current headlines. The danger in doing so is that the very process of questioning can easily be turned around and used as propaganda by one party or another. But keep questioning we must, and keep looking for nonviolent alternatives to the desperation and destructiveness of military responses.

In 2000, between the Nato action in the Balkans and the beginning of the 'war on terror', Judith Large wrote: "Let us never lose our compassion for suffering and willingness to respond. But let us also cultivate an awareness and sensitivity to signs and signals, and take imaginative and strategica actions to pre-empt collective violence, to protect the vulnerable, to build different futures. It is a longer, slower path than the use of only force, but it will lead to hope and renewal rather than destruction and retribution."
(in 'No Alternative? Nonviolent Responses to Repressive Regimes', edited by John Lampen and published by Sessions of York).

Innocent victims

I was deeply saddened to read the report about the 47 people killed at a wedding party by US bombs in Afghanistan recently. Sometimes words and comment not helpful.






















.

Three Lords and a knight on nuclear disarmament

The Times yesterday carried an opinion piece Start worrying and learn to ditch the bomb from four former UK government ministers, which states, in part that ...

"There is a powerful case for a dramatic reduction in the stockpile of nuclear weapons. A new historic initiative is needed but it will only succeed by working collectively and through multilateral institutions. ..... Substantial progress towards a dramatic reduction in the world's nuclear weapons is possible. The ultimate aspiration should be to have a world free of nuclear weapons. [my emphasis] It will take time, but with political will and improvements in monitoring, the goal is achievable. We must act before it is too late, and we can begin by supporting the campaign in America for a non-nuclear weapons world. "

The writers of this forcefully argued piece are George Robertson, Douglas Hurd, Malcolm Rifkind and David Owen (I hope they will excuse my Quakerly non-use of their titles). A statement from BASIC sees this as a real breakthrough, building as it does on a similar call from former members of US governments last year. I've not spotted much response or comment on this from other parts of the press so far. It does seem to provide a very useful tool for engaging again with our elected representatives and current government ministers on this issue, however. It is very welcome that this article has appeared - I look forward to seeing a similar comment from members of a current government before too long.

US/UK - an explosive relationship

A press release just received from the CND (not yet, at time of writing, available on the press release page of their website) reads, in part:

WITHDRAWAL OF US NUKES WELCOMED; BUT CND WARNS AGAINST US MISSILE DEFENCE DEVELOPMENTS

CND today welcomed the news that 110 US tactical nuclear weapons had been withdrawn from Lakenheath airbase in Suffolk . The report by Hans Kristensen, one of the foremost nuclear researchers with the Federation of American Scientists, concludes that there are now no US nuclear weapons in Britain – for the first time since 1954.

However, CND cautioned against the installation at Lakenheath of interceptor missiles as part of the US Missile Defence system, which could potentially replace one historical arms race with another, with Europe again at the centre. Tony Blair asked the US to consider Britain as a possible launching pad for US missile interceptors in February 2007.

This looks like good news: but where are they now keeping the weapons withdrawn from Lakenheath?

Less cheerful news came in an article in The Sunday Times this week, reporting that the UK military is currently using Hellfire missiles in Afghanistan, fired by RAF Reaper unmanned drones, remotely controlled from a US base in Nevada. The missiles have been described as being armed with 'thermobaric' warheads, though the article tells us that the MoD prefers to call them 'enhanced blast weapons'. The Times article describes the effects thus: "[the weapons] create a pressure wave which sucks the air out of victims, shreds their internal organs and crushes their bodies". Concerns have been raised by Human Rights Watch, Nick Harvey of the Lib Dems and others, particularly highlighting the consequences for civilians who happen to be in the vicinity of one of these missile explosions. Anyone remember that old-fashioned idea of an ethical foreign policy?

Arms conversion still envisioned

Steven Schofield has long been advocating arms conversion and has written extensively on the theme. Many of us were disappointed about the Labour government's approach when it came into power in '97. Instead of conversion away from arms production, they set up the Defence Diversification Agency which was as much about 'spin-in' from the non-military sector as diversifying (spin-offs) from arms production. The most recent CAAT newsletter reports that Steven Schofield has just written a new report ' 'Making Arms, Wasting Skills: Alternatives to Militarism and Arms Production'. It doesn't seem to be on their website yet (though keep checking, as I am sure it will be soon).

The printed newsletter quotes parts of the Executive Summary, which advocates deep cuts in defence procurement and cancellation of Trident, amongst other things. And along with this, a 'multi-billion pound investment in renewable energy.... [that would] also generate more jobs than those lost from the restructuring of the arms industry. This way the UK would take a leading role in establishing a new form of international security framework based on disarmament and sustainable economic development.'

Meanwhile, the successor body to at least part of the Defence Diversification Agency, is Ploughshare Innovations which 'manages technology transfer on behalf of Dstl, the Ministry of Defence's Defence Science & Technology Laboratory; an organisation of some 3,500 plus staff devoted to providing the UK Government with independent expertise on defence and security-related issues.'

It's worth remembering at this point another group which incorporates the imagery of swords into plougshares in its name, Trident Ploughshares whose activists have pledged to disarm the UK Trident nuclear weapons system in a non-violent, open, peaceful, safe and fully accountable manner. Their next major initiative to this end is Aldermaston Big Blockade on 27th October. Perhaps Ploughshare Innovations hope to disarm the potency of ploughshare actions of this nature by adopting the name.... Now, how about a joint project in which the disarmers do their bit and the technological innovators do theirs, as Steve Schofield has suggested. That would be some interesting joined-up ploughshare thinking, even though there may be a bit of culture clash to work through in the first instance....

Food security, climate change and conflict

This issue is deeply worrying. It's only become apparent to many of us these past few months. Here's a recent piece from a blog that is dedicated to the food crisis:

Dominique Strauss-Kahn said last Saturday that if the spike in food prices continued, “thousands, hundreds of thousands of people will be starving. Children will be suffering from malnutrition, with consequences for all their lives. As we know, learning from the past, those kinds of questions sometimes end in war.”

Meanwhile, the wider context is addressed in an interesting blog 'New Security Beat'
One of their recent pieces... U.S. Army War College Report Says We Ignore Climate Change Security Risks “At Our Peril”
The article concludes: '[Carolyn] Pumphrey - [editor of the War College report] calls for a three-pronged strategy that includes “better intelligence, better science, and better understanding of the relationships between such things as violence, society, and climate change.” She maintains that we must slow the rate of climate change and prepare for unavoidable changes, take action to alleviate international social distress, and prepare to address potential conflicts. And, she notes, this is “a job for everyone,” not just the military.'

City of Sanctuary

Good to see a report in the Guardian today about the City of Sanctuary project, holding their first national conference in Sheffield as I write.

From the article: 'Craig Barnett, the voluntary organisation's national coordinator, says the project aims to dispel misconceptions and build a culture of hospitality. "It is about offering a positive vision of our city as a place of sanctuary," he says.

I look forward to hearing from Bolton Friends who are attending the conference.

More hope for nuclear disarmament?

Paul Ingram, director of BASIC, the British American Security Information Council, writes in a recent press advisory...
"This is the clearest indication yet that nuclear disarmament has now achieved the mainstream - and it is now out of touch to oppose it. This is a speech that represents a clear departure not only from the current Administration..."

And the big surprise is that he's writing about the Republican Candidate for the US Presidency, John McCain. He is qu0ted as saying in said speech:
"The truth is we will only address the terrible prospect of the worldwide spread of nuclear arms if we transcend our partisan differences, combine our energies, learn from our past mistakes, and seek practical and effective solutions."

Coverage of the other candidates views on nuclear weapons and other foreign policy issues can be found on the Council for a Livable World's website.

And the recent 'Prep Comm', preparing for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2010 is reported on in depth by Rebecca Johnson on the Acronym website and by Reaching Critical Will. The latter reported that:
"Over the course of this PrepCom session, several delegations made substantial, concrete proposals on specific issues related to strengthening and implementing the Treaty. Some of these proposals have generated broad interest, momentum, and/ or convergence, suggesting they are or could be ripe for action by the 2010 Review Conference."

Reasons to be cheerful? Certainly a little less despondent, perhaps...

Meanwhile, coming soon to a nuclear submarine base near you (if you live in the west of Scotland), and to remind our own politicians of the public's continuing unhappiness at UK nuclear weapons policy...

Peace Chain Around Faslane Saturday 14th June 2008
The Peace Chain date marks several important anniversaries:
* One year ago, 14 June 2007, the Scottish Parliament voted against the UK Government’s plan for a new nuclear weapon system.
* The day of the Peace Chain also sees the celebration of the 26th birthday of Faslane Peace Camp.
* 40 years ago, 14 June 1968, the first British nuclear patrol – HMS Resolution – sailed from Faslane.
* This year is also the 50th birthday of CND and its struggle against nuclear weapons.
In SCND’s history never before has there been such concerted and widespread opinion against nuclear weapons in Scotland – both amongst elected officials and the general public – and so with this Peace Chain we intend to mark not only anniversaries of past events but a real hope for the future.

Peace Tax, conscience and all that

I enjoyed the company of Robin, of the Peace Tax Seven, at Britain Yearly Meeting (Quaker annual conference in Britain) last weekend, as we shared a display table in the small groups' area. They're joining with conscience: the peace tax campaign in hosting the 12th International Conference on War Tax Resistance and Peace Tax Campaigns, from Friday 5th to Sunday 7th September in Manchester this year.

Manchester was also the location for a ceremony on 18th May, marking the Right to Refuse to Kill. These ceremonies started off in London and are now spreading across the country. Here's a photo from the Manchester event.

UK to stop using cluster munitions

Congratulations are due to the British government for its decision to cease using cluster bombs. The Guardian reports that:
"The government is preparing to scrap Britain's entire arsenal of cluster bombs in the face of a growing clamour against weapons that have killed and maimed hundreds of innocent civilians.
Officials are paving the way for the unexpected and radical step at talks in Dublin on an international treaty aimed at a worldwide ban on the bombs.
Well-placed sources made clear yesterday that despite opposition from the military, the government is prepared to get rid of the cluster munitions in Britain's armoury."

Another report comes from Ekklesia

We produced a leaflet about this problem some years ago but have not been actively working on it since then. The national and international campaigns that have been working strenuously over recent years have almost certainly contributed to this change in government policy. Find out more about them and the process (known as the Oslo Process) that has led to this point:

• Product Recall: The UK campaign to ban cluster munitions
• Cluster Munition Coalition

Now, if governments can be persuaded that landmines and cluster bombs are wrong for the indiscriminate harm they cause civilian, could they be helped to see that the same logic and compassion should be applied to nuclear weapons? Thankfully, they have not yet been used in anger, but are continually deployed around the world. The International Campaign Against Nuclear Weapons - ICAN - aims to abolish all nuclear weapons via education, empowerment and via a Nuclear Weapons Convention.

More on BAE fraud investigation

News via the Ekklesia website:

High Court re-opens Saudi arms corruption investigation
By agency reporter
24 Apr 2008

The High Court today formally quashed the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) decision to drop its corruption investigation into arms deals between BAE Systems and Saudi Arabia. The decision is a huge success for the campaign groups that brought the case.

The decision follows the Court's ruling on 10 April 2008 that the SFO, acting on government advice, acted unlawfully in stopping its investigation in December 2006 following a threat from Saudi Arabia.

[and it continues with additional background and information]

Conscientious Objection - remembering and looking forward

Just got in the post today a leaflet for the Conscientious Objectors Day ceremony taking place in Manchester (Peace Gardens, St Peter's Sq, 1.00-2.00, with Bruce Kent at the keynote speaker. Actually, CO day is 15th May and the Manchester event is the following Sunday, 18th May. Just hope they can cope with the challenges of the Great Manchester Run happening all around them at the same time!

Whilst some sort of progress has been made recently in relations between Greece, Turkey and Cyprus, it is in that part of the world when Conscientious Objection is still a big issue. A group of human rights and CO groups was in Athens last week and issued a .... Call for Greece, Cyprus and Turkey to recognise international standards on the right to conscientious objection

Greek Section of Amnesty International
Association of Greek Conscientious Objectors
Initiative for Conscientious Objection in Cyprus (north)
European Bureau for Conscientious Objection
War Resisters' International

To the

Embassy of Turkish Republic, Athens
Embassy of the Republic of Cyprus, Athens
Prime Minister of Greece, Athens

Athens, 11 April 2008
Greece, Cyprus and Turkey to recognise international standards on the right to conscientious objection

Representatives of conscientious objection and human rights organisations from several European countries, meeting in Athens over the weekend, call for Greece, Cyprus and Turkey to recognise the right to conscientious objection according to European and international standards.

The representatives remind the governments of Greece, Cyprus and Turkey that the right to conscientious objection has been recognised by several international institutions, among others the United Nations[1] and the Council of Europe[2]. More specifically, in a decision on two individual complaints from South Korea, the United Nations Human Rights Committee ruled in 2007 that not to provide for the right to conscientious objection is a violation of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

(More information about the situation in these countries on the page link here)

Missile Defence/ Defense

The spelling depends on whether you see this from a US or UK perspective. A comprehensive analysis of the state of play on this is provided in the latest issue of Disarmamanet Diplomacy, with Nicola Butler and Martin Butcher concluding their long and fascinating piece with the conclusion:

"... it will be important for any new [US] administration to take more account of Allied opinion, giving Europeans a way to avoid a potential new confrontation with Russia and reason not to rush agreement on deploying an unproven system. Canada, for example, has negotiated a way through its similar dilemma by allowing the US to use NORAD facilities for BMD purposes, while refusing to participate themselves - both on cost grounds but also because Ottawa fears an arms race in space.[67] The UK and Czech Republic may come to regret having dashed to support Bush administration policies, while Polish leaders may well look the shrewder for having waited."

The same issue of the journal contains an equally detailed analysis of the future of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Editor Rebecca Johnson looks beyond non-proliferation towards making the use of nuclear weapons illegal as a starting point for a real turning away from the development and deployment of these dangerous tools of insecurity:

"A more effective deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons is to make it a crime against humanity. Even despots fear being held personally accountable and subjected to public trial and punishment.
Many have already achieved the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. To move towards accomplishing the reality of that world, we now need to outlaw the use of nuclear weapons for all."

60 years on

A good number of church leaders (particularly from the UK, it seems) are adding their names to a declaration on the occasion of Israel's 60th Anniversary, which concludes:

To acknowledge and respect these dual histories is not, by itself, sufficient, but does offer a paradigm for building a peaceful future. Many lives have been lost, and there has been much suffering. The weak are exploited by the strong, while fear and bitterness stunt the imagination and cripple the capacity for forgiveness.

We therefore urge all those working for peace and justice in Israel/Palestine to consider that any lasting solution must be built on the foundation of justice, which is rooted in the very character of God. After all, it is justice that “will produce lasting peace and security” (Isaiah 32:17). Let us commit ourselves in prophetic word and practical deed to a courageous settlement whose details will honour both peoples’ shared love for the land, and protect the individual and collective rights of Jews and Palestinians in the Holy Land.

“Everyone will sit under their own vine and under their own fig tree, and no one will make them afraid” (Micah 4:4)

Food security

This is an issue that is only now getting into the headlines and one that we are probably all going to have to become more familiar with, with pressures on land coming from the growth of bio-fuels and climate uncertainty also adversly affecting harvests around the world. The article - The price of food: ingredients of global crisis
by Heidi Fritschel - in Open Democracy today, concludes thus:
"A new agriculture, food, and nutrition governance architecture is needed. With so much at stake - the world's food supply, environmental threats to agriculture, and unacceptably high rates of hunger and poverty - a fresh response is needed. We cannot afford to be complacent."

BAE investigation should not have been stopped

Very interesting and encouraging news just through regarding the government's decision (through the Serious Fraud Office) to stop its investigation into BAE corruption...

Court rules Government's termination of BAE investigation unlawful

The High Court this morning ruled that the Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) acted unlawfully when he stopped a corruption investigation into BAE Systems' arms deals with Saudi Arabia.

The judgment was handed down by Lord Justice Moses and Mr Justice Sullivan in response to a judicial review brought by Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and The Corner House.

In the light of this judgment, the Serious Fraud Office must reopen the BAE-Saudi corruption investigation immediately. Both groups are calling upon the SFO to work jointly with US and Swiss investigators in doing so. [and there's a lot more background information in the press release]

On the last point they make, there seems to be some ambiguity, however, with the BBC saying "The judges in London did not rule that the case would be reopened, but have said they would listen to further arguments. "

No doubt this will be clarified soon. Congratulations of CAAT and Cornerhouse and to all their supporters for peristing with this.

It is also important to note at this point the following, released by CAAT and The Conerhouse just last week:

"As The Corner House and Campaign Against Arms Trade await judgment on their landmark judicial review of the decision by the Serious Fraud Office to halt its BAE-Saudi Arabia corruption investigation,[1] the Government has introduced draft legislation that would prevent such a judicial review in future.

Clauses 12-14 of the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill [2] propose to create a new power for the Attorney General – a political appointee and member of the Government – to stop a criminal investigation or prosecution on the grounds of 'national security'. This new power allows for extremely limited oversight by
Parliament and prevents and future review by the judiciary of such a decision. "

.... and, again, it continues with a lot of additional background to this.