>Dragan,
>
>>>Oh, so they want to do a little investigation in a foreign country? Maybe that's what was actually refused, eh?
>
>Not sure how you made that leap of logic!
>
>My point was (for the purpose of argument) that if the US is concerned that its $ will be channelled into pet activist projects that have little to do with the intended purpose, stipulating that the $ may not be used for that purpose seems a reasonable response. Refusal to accept the $ does tend to imply that the intention was indeed there. In which case this is not a story about US bullying at all.
>


When I implied this possibility I was largely "ignored". But I'm glad you stated it in such an elegant manner.

Thanks.