[Peace-discussion] "In a word, dictatorship."

Thu, 31 May 2007 18:51:41 -0700

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C7A3B4.BB494350
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

US Defense Secretary warns new naval officers on civilian control of
military

By Bill Van Auken
31 May 2007

 <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/gate-m31_prn.shtml> Use this
version to print | Send this link by
<http://www.wsws.org/cgi-bin/birdcast.cgi>  email | Email
<https://secure.wsws.org/phpform/use/comments/form1.html>  the author

In a speech before the US Naval Academy's graduating class May 25, Defense
Secretary Robert Gates issued pointed advice to the newly minted officers
that they must respect the Constitution and not view the Congress and the
media as their enemies.

The remarks were widely reported as part of the round-up of Memorial Day
weekend exercises in flag-waving hoopla and the hypocritical tributes of
politicians to the American troops whose lives have been sacrificed in the
criminal war of aggression in Iraq.

Gates's speech in Annapolis, however, deserves more serious consideration.
That an American secretary of defense feels obliged to make such a pitch to
the latest crop of professional naval officers has serious political
implications.

The defense secretary began by reminding the graduating midshipmen that to
receive their commissions as Navy ensigns or Marine Corps second lieutenants
they must swear an oath "to protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States."

"Today, I want to encourage you always to remember the importance of two
pillars of our freedom under the Constitution-the Congress and the press,"
Gates continued. "Both surely try our patience from time to time, but they
are the surest guarantees of the liberty of the American people."

He described Congress as "a co-equal branch of government that under the
Constitution raises armies and provides for navies," while insisting that
"the American military must be non-political and recognize the obligation we
owe the Congress to be honest and true in our reporting to them. Especially
when it involves admitting mistakes or problems."

Turning to the media, Gates cited the recent exposure of the abominable
conditions facing maimed veterans of the Iraq war at Walter Reed army
hospital. "The press is not the enemy," he said, "and to treat it as such is
self-defeating."

Gates summed up: "As the Founding Fathers wisely understood, the Congress
and a free press, as with a non-political military, assure a free country. A
point underscored by a French observer writing about George Washington in
1782. He wrote: 'This is the seventh year that he has commanded the army and
that he has obeyed the Congress; more need not be said.'"

The constitutional issues that Gates touched upon in his commencement
remarks are profound and their political evolution over a protracted period
in American political life deeply troubling.

The Declaration of Independence includes as one of its charges against the
British monarch was that "He affected to render the Military independent of
and superior to the Civil power."

The Constitution placed all of the powers of war in the hands of Congress
while giving it the responsibility for organizing and regulating the armed
forces, as well as determining their funding and rules of conduct. The
decision to wage war, how that war is conducted and when to call a halt to
it were all envisioned as the province of the Congress.

The president was declared to be the commander in chief of the army and
navy, a title that the framers of the Constitution saw as assuring civilian
control of the military, not as elevating the president above the state and
the people as the sole wartime decision-maker.

Subordination of the military to civilian control, the maintenance of an
apolitical officer corps and the effective power of Congress over war making
have all been under sustained attack for an entire historical period. The
growth of US militarism and the malignant power that it exerts over every
facet of American life has been widely recognized since the only military
commander to become president in the 20th century, Dwight D. Eisenhower,
warned against the threat to American democracy posed by the growth of a
"military industrial complex."

The growth of that complex has gone far beyond anything that Eisenhower
could have imagined, with the US militarism-counting the Pentagon budget,
"emergency funding" for the Iraq war, the Department of Energy's spending on
nuclear weapons and other military related allocations-easily consuming
close to a trillion dollars annually.

Moreover, the officer corps of the all-volunteer military has become
increasingly politicized, heavily Republican and drawn from the most
conservative layers of the American population. This politicization within
the commissioned ranks bubbled to the surface repeatedly under the Clinton
administration, with open denunciations of the president by senior officers
and a wholesale rebellion over its attempts to drop the reactionary ban on
gays in the military.

The escalation of militarism and the open challenge to constitutional
principles of congressional and civilian control have reached an
unprecedented and explosive level, however, in the context of the Bush
administration's "global war on terrorism."

Indeed, given the present toxic political environment in Washington and the
record of the Bush administration over the past six years, it is hard to
review the transcript of Gates's remarks at Annapolis without hearing an
implicit indictment of the current "commander-in-chief."

Bush has transformed this title from a guarantee of civilian control over
the military into an instrument for claiming unfettered and near-dictatorial
powers for himself, based upon his supposed association with the military.

This has included the power to order the military into illegal wars of
aggression, the power to detain so-called "enemy combatants" in military
prisons like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib without charges or trials and the
power to order military interrogators to carry out acts of torture.

The entire one-sided battle over the Iraq war funding legislation-ending in
the inevitable Democratic capitulation last week-was waged by the Bush
administration based on the argument that Congress has no business sticking
its nose into questions of war, which are best left to the "professionals,"
the military commanders.

Thus, speaking before an audience of construction contractors early this
month, Bush denounced the Democrats in Congress for daring to propose a
timetable for even a partial withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. "The
question is, who ought to make that decision?" he asked. "The Congress or
the commanders?" He went on to declare, idiotically: "I'm the commander
guy."

Similarly, in a May 24 press conference called after the Democrats had
formally agreed to grant Bush all the money he asked for to continue and
escalate the Iraq war, with no strings attached, Bush answered a question
about Congressional criticism of his policies. "Look you want politicians
making those decisions, or do you want commanders on the ground making the
decisions? My point is, is that I would trust [General] David Petraeus to
make an assessment and a recommendation a lot better than people in the
United States Congress. And that's precisely the difference."

Of course this claim of unwavering trust in the "commanders on the ground"
is all nonsense. The administration had to sack those who were in charge of
the Iraq war-Generals John Abizaid, the head of Central Command, and George
Casey, the commander of forces in Iraq-and find senior officers who did not
oppose the White House proposal for a "surge" of tens of thousands more
troops into the war.

The real relations between the White House and the civilian leadership in
the Pentagon, on the one hand, and the armed forces general staff, on the
other, have never been more acrimonious than during the tenure of Bush's
previous Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Nonetheless, even rhetorically endowing uniformed commanders with a
supposedly unquestionable authority to determine how a war is conducted and
whether or not it should be ended represents a direct assault on the
principle of civilian control of the military.

Before replacing Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, Gates-a former CIA director
implicated in bloody covert US operations from Afghanistan to Nicaragua-was
a member of the Iraq Study Group, which proposed a tactical shift aimed at
salvaging something from the catastrophe that US imperialism has created in
Iraq. This included proposals for scaling down and reconfiguring American
occupation forces and seeking diplomatic openings to Iran and Syria.

Also included in the ISG report was a pointed recommendation that, with
Rumsfeld's ouster, "the new Secretary of Defense should make every effort to
build healthy civil-military relations..."

Gates's advice to the graduating midshipmen appears to be part of an attempt
to fulfill this mandate. It also may well reflect growing concern within
sections of the American ruling elite that the Bush administration's
unrestrained embrace of global militarism, its promotion of lawlessness by
the military and its insistence that it is the commanders-not the elected
members of Congress-who should determine the course of the Iraq war pose
real dangers to the political and social order in the US itself.

To the extent that the principle of civilian control of the military is
denigrated and undermined, the threat of its opposite grows, i.e., military
control over the civilian population, in a word, dictatorship

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C7A3B4.BB494350
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" =
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:st1=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"State"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"City"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";
	color:black;}
h2
	{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
	margin-right:0in;
	mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
	margin-left:0in;
	font-size:18.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";
	font-weight:bold;}
h5
	{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
	margin-right:0in;
	mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
	margin-left:0in;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";
	font-weight:bold;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
p
	{mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
	margin-right:0in;
	mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
	margin-left:0in;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
span.EmailStyle17
	{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
	font-family:Arial;
	color:navy;}
@page Section1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapelayout v:ext=3D"edit">
  <o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit" data=3D"1" />
 </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>

<body bgcolor=3Dwhite lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dblue>

<div class=3DSection1>

<h2><st1:country-region w:st=3D"on"><st1:place w:st=3D"on"><b><font =
size=3D5
  face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:18.0pt'>US</span></font></b></st1:place></st1:country-=
region>
Defense Secretary warns new naval officers on civilian control of =
military<o:p></o:p></h2>

<h5><b><font size=3D2 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt'>By
Bill Van Auken<br>
31 May 2007<o:p></o:p></span></font></b></h5>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'><a
href=3D"http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/may2007/gate-m31_prn.shtml"><b>=
<font
size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:
bold'>Use this version to =
print</span></font></b></a></span></font><b><font
size=3D2 face=3DArial><span =
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;font-weight:
bold'> | <a href=3D"http://www.wsws.org/cgi-bin/birdcast.cgi">Send this =
link by
email</a> | <a =
href=3D"https://secure.wsws.org/phpform/use/comments/form1.html">Email
the author</a></span></font></b><o:p></o:p></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>In a
speech before the US Naval Academy&#8217;s graduating class May 25, =
Defense
Secretary Robert Gates issued pointed advice to the newly minted =
officers that
they must respect the Constitution and not view the Congress and the =
media as
their enemies.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>The
remarks were widely reported as part of the round-up of Memorial Day =
weekend
exercises in flag-waving hoopla and the hypocritical tributes of =
politicians to
the American troops whose lives have been sacrificed in the criminal war =
of
aggression in <st1:country-region w:st=3D"on"><st1:place =
w:st=3D"on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>.<o:p></o:p></span></fon=
t></p>

Gates&#8217;s
speech in <st1:City w:st=3D"on"><st1:place =
w:st=3D"on">Annapolis</st1:place></st1:City>,
however, deserves more serious consideration. That an American secretary =
of
defense feels obliged to make such a pitch to the latest crop of =
professional
naval officers has serious political =
implications.<o:p></o:p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>The defense
secretary began by reminding the graduating midshipmen that to receive =
their
commissions as Navy ensigns or Marine Corps second lieutenants they must =
swear
an oath &#8220;to protect and defend the Constitution of the =
<st1:country-region
w:st=3D"on"><st1:place w:st=3D"on">United =
States</st1:place></st1:country-region>.&#8221;<o:p></o:p></span></font><=
/p>

&#8220;Today,
I want to encourage you always to remember the importance of two pillars =
of our
freedom under the Constitution&#8212;the Congress and the press,&#8221; =
Gates
continued. &#8220;Both surely try our patience from time to time, but =
they are
the surest guarantees of the liberty of the American =
people.&#8221;<o:p></o:p>

He
described Congress as &#8220;a co-equal branch of government that under =
the
Constitution raises armies and provides for navies,&#8221; while =
insisting that
&#8220;the American military must be non-political and recognize the =
obligation
we owe the Congress to be honest and true in our reporting to them. =
Especially
when it involves admitting mistakes or =
problems.&#8221;<o:p></o:p>

Turning
to the media, Gates cited the recent exposure of the abominable =
conditions
facing maimed veterans of the <st1:country-region w:st=3D"on"><st1:place =
w:st=3D"on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>
war at Walter Reed army hospital. &#8220;The press is not the =
enemy,&#8221; he
said, &#8220;and to treat it as such is =
self-defeating.&#8221;<o:p></o:p>

Gates
summed up: &#8220;As the Founding Fathers wisely understood, the =
Congress and a
free press, as with a non-political military, assure a free country. A =
point
underscored by a French observer writing about George Washington in =
1782. He
wrote: &#8216;This is the seventh year that he has commanded the army =
and that
he has obeyed the Congress; more need not be =
said.&#8217;&#8221;<o:p></o:p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>The
constitutional issues that Gates touched upon in his commencement =
remarks are
profound and their political evolution over a protracted period in =
American
political life deeply troubling.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>The
Declaration of Independence includes as one of its charges against the =
British
monarch was that &#8220;He affected to render the Military independent =
of and
superior to the Civil power.&#8221;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

The
Constitution placed all of the powers of war in the hands of Congress =
while
giving it the responsibility for organizing and regulating the armed =
forces, as
well as determining their funding and rules of conduct. The decision to =
wage
war, how that war is conducted and when to call a halt to it were all
envisioned as the province of the Congress.<o:p></o:p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>The
president was declared to be the commander in chief of the army and =
navy, a
title that the framers of the Constitution saw as assuring civilian =
control of
the military, not as elevating the president above the state and the =
people as
the sole wartime decision-maker.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

Subordination
of the military to civilian control, the maintenance of an apolitical =
officer
corps and the effective power of Congress over war making have all been =
under
sustained attack for an entire historical period. The growth of US =
militarism
and the malignant power that it exerts over every facet of American life =
has
been widely recognized since the only military commander to become =
president in
the 20th century, Dwight D. Eisenhower, warned against the threat to =
American
democracy posed by the growth of a &#8220;military industrial =
complex.&#8221;<o:p></o:p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>The
growth of that complex has gone far beyond anything that Eisenhower =
could have
imagined, with the <st1:country-region =
w:st=3D"on">US</st1:country-region>
militarism&#8212;counting the Pentagon budget, &#8220;emergency =
funding&#8221;
for the <st1:country-region w:st=3D"on"><st1:place =
w:st=3D"on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>
war, the Department of Energy&#8217;s spending on nuclear weapons and =
other
military related allocations&#8212;easily consuming close to a trillion =
dollars
annually.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

Moreover,
the officer corps of the all-volunteer military has become increasingly
politicized, heavily Republican and drawn from the most conservative =
layers of
the American population. This politicization within the commissioned =
ranks bubbled
to the surface repeatedly under the <st1:City w:st=3D"on"><st1:place =
w:st=3D"on">Clinton</st1:place></st1:City>
administration, with open denunciations of the president by senior =
officers and
a wholesale rebellion over its attempts to drop the reactionary ban on =
gays in
the military.<o:p></o:p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>The
escalation of militarism and the open challenge to constitutional =
principles of
congressional and civilian control have reached an unprecedented and =
explosive
level, however, in the context of the Bush administration&#8217;s =
&#8220;global
war on terrorism.&#8221;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Indeed,
given the present toxic political environment in <st1:State =
w:st=3D"on">Washington</st1:State>
and the record of the Bush administration over the past six years, it is =
hard
to review the transcript of Gates&#8217;s remarks at <st1:City =
w:st=3D"on"><st1:place
 w:st=3D"on">Annapolis</st1:place></st1:City> without hearing an =
implicit
indictment of the current =
&#8220;commander-in-chief.&#8221;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Bush has
transformed this title from a guarantee of civilian control over the =
military
into an instrument for claiming unfettered and near-dictatorial powers =
for
himself, based upon his supposed association with the =
military.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>This has
included the power to order the military into illegal wars of =
aggression, the
power to detain so-called &#8220;enemy combatants&#8221; in military =
prisons
like <st1:City w:st=3D"on"><st1:place =
w:st=3D"on">Guantanamo</st1:place></st1:City>
and Abu Ghraib without charges or trials and the power to order military
interrogators to carry out acts of torture.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>The
entire one-sided battle over the <st1:country-region =
w:st=3D"on"><st1:place
 w:st=3D"on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> war funding
legislation&#8212;ending in the inevitable Democratic capitulation last
week&#8212;was waged by the Bush administration based on the argument =
that
Congress has no business sticking its nose into questions of war, which =
are
best left to the &#8220;professionals,&#8221; the military =
commanders.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

Thus,
speaking before an audience of construction contractors early this =
month, Bush
denounced the Democrats in Congress for daring to propose a timetable =
for even
a partial withdrawal of US troops from <st1:country-region =
w:st=3D"on"><st1:place
 w:st=3D"on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>. &#8220;The question =
is, who
ought to make that decision?&#8221; he asked. &#8220;The Congress or the
commanders?&#8221; He went on to declare, idiotically: &#8220;I&#8217;m =
the
commander guy.&#8221;<o:p></o:p>

Similarly,
in a May 24 press conference called after the Democrats had formally =
agreed to
grant Bush all the money he asked for to continue and escalate the =
<st1:country-region
w:st=3D"on"><st1:place w:st=3D"on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region> =
war, with
no strings attached, Bush answered a question about Congressional =
criticism of
his policies. &#8220;Look you want politicians making those decisions, =
or do
you want commanders on the ground making the decisions? My point is, is =
that I
would trust [General] David Petraeus to make an assessment and a =
recommendation
a lot better than people in the United States Congress. And that&#8217;s
precisely the difference.&#8221;<o:p></o:p>

Of course
this claim of unwavering trust in the &#8220;commanders on the =
ground&#8221; is
all nonsense. The administration had to sack those who were in charge of =
the
Iraq war&#8212;Generals John Abizaid, the head of Central Command, and =
George
Casey, the commander of forces in Iraq&#8212;and find senior officers =
who did
not oppose the White House proposal for a &#8220;surge&#8221; of tens of
thousands more troops into the war.<o:p></o:p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>The real
relations between the White House and the civilian leadership in the =
Pentagon,
on the one hand, and the armed forces general staff, on the other, have =
never
been more acrimonious than during the tenure of Bush&#8217;s previous =
Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Nonetheless,
even rhetorically endowing uniformed commanders with a supposedly
unquestionable authority to determine how a war is conducted and whether =
or not
it should be ended represents a direct assault on the principle of =
civilian
control of the military.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

Before
replacing Rumsfeld at the Pentagon, Gates&#8212;a former CIA director
implicated in bloody covert <st1:country-region =
w:st=3D"on">US</st1:country-region>
operations from <st1:country-region =
w:st=3D"on">Afghanistan</st1:country-region> to
<st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">Nicaragua</st1:country-region>&#8212;was =
a member
of the Iraq Study Group, which proposed a tactical shift aimed at =
salvaging
something from the catastrophe that <st1:country-region =
w:st=3D"on">US</st1:country-region>
imperialism has created in <st1:country-region w:st=3D"on"><st1:place =
w:st=3D"on">Iraq</st1:place></st1:country-region>.
This included proposals for scaling down and reconfiguring American =
occupation
forces and seeking diplomatic openings to <st1:country-region =
w:st=3D"on">Iran</st1:country-region>
and <st1:country-region w:st=3D"on"><st1:place =
w:st=3D"on">Syria</st1:place></st1:country-region>.<o:p></o:p></fo=
nt>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Also
included in the ISG report was a pointed recommendation that, with
Rumsfeld&#8217;s ouster, &#8220;the new Secretary of Defense should make =
every
effort to build healthy civil-military =
relations...&#8221;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

Gates&#8217;s
advice to the graduating midshipmen appears to be part of an attempt to =
fulfill
this mandate. It also may well reflect growing concern within sections =
of the
American ruling elite that the Bush administration&#8217;s unrestrained =
embrace
of global militarism, its promotion of lawlessness by the military and =
its
insistence that it is the commanders&#8212;not the elected members of
Congress&#8212;who should determine the course of the Iraq war pose real
dangers to the political and social order in the US =
itself.<o:p></o:p>

<p><font size=3D3 face=3D"Times New Roman"><span =
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>To the
extent that the principle of civilian control of the military is =
denigrated and
undermined, the threat of its opposite grows, i.e., military control =
over the
civilian population, in a word, =
dictatorship<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoNormal><font size=3D3 color=3Dblack face=3D"Times New =
Roman"><span
style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01C7A3B4.BB494350--