Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Economic Sanctions=Act of War

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

So I was having a casual debate with someone recently regarding whether or not sanctions are an act of war. This seems to be an idea that is candidly absurd from my personal perspective but I am willing to be convinced otherwise. It suggests, to me, that if this is an act of aggression then it must have costs to human life that are akin to that of actual military violence, and even then, this would only be applicable in some cases. The way I see it, a sanction is imposing a ban or restriction on trade, certain goods and services, or various conditions of a relationship between two countries as a result of the sanctioned country not meeting the conditions necessary for an unaltered relationship with the imposing country. To suggest that this is an act of war, to me, seems to suggest that these countries have a *right* to these services, trade, or what have you with this other country regardless of what they may be doing, be it dictatorial behavior in their own country, violating UN agreements, or even initiating covert or potentially hostile military actions against the interests or security of the imposing country.

At the same time, I do believe that the vast majority of the time sanctions are counterproductive and actually end up backfiring. That does not suggest, however, that they do not have their place, but rather that they have not had the level of scrutiny necessary before being imposed.

Some say that, whereas earlier nations used to impose blockades and the like, that sanctions are effectively the modern version of the same tactic. To me, this does not hold up. A blockade restricts all trade from that port or location, it does not restrict goods or services from the nation imposing it, but all trade. Further, a blockade is a clearly military action, as it requires military ships, it is a naval blockade. Whereas sanctions are imposed through the diplomatic process via the UN or that specific countries Congress/Presidency.

Withholding a product or service does not violate their rights. It could violate the rights of our citizens, but that's an internal issue.

I also argued that, just because a country see this imposition as an act of war does not make it so. When I think of this I think of the oil embargo on Japan, which, according to various individuals, was the reason they attacked Pearl Harbor. The fact that is often left out however, is they were militarily engaged with China and several other groups that were part of our interests, and there was no reason for us to actively support them with one of the main economic tools for continuous warfare.

Then we have the controversial food sanction on Iraq, that led to many dead, particularly children.

There are times when we impose these sanctions on dictators and they instead have a renewed strength in their governing as they use these sanctions as a way to demonize the country imposing them.

Then there are other instances where I would consider them to have been successful.

Sanctions are usually seen as an alternative to warfare, as a way to peaceful coax one nation into doing something or stopping something.

This person I was debating with also said that the Strait of Hormuz being closed by Iran would be an act of war. Now this I need to think more on before I come to a conclusion, but:

1. Would that be considered a sanction? I don't see it as that way. I see it as a military blockade or what have you (they would use their cruise missiles/ships to close the Strait) on a critical world trade route, this is not a directed and concentrated attack against one nation, and it clearly is not done with the goal of being peaceful.

2. While Iran has domain over the Strait, I do not believe they are considered as owning it, this is not the same as restricting goods and services from a particular country. Is this correct?

3. I do believe that if they closed the Strait, while this would severely hamper many nations around the world by drastically driving up oil prices and the like, this would also have major economic, not to mention political consequences, for their own country. As such, I view this as more of a threat without any backing, and that Iran would likely only do this as a last resort if they felt they were, for instance, under real threat of invasion.

Curious to hear opinions on this, as well as if the comparison to the closing of the Strait was appropriate.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just have to get this out of the way - my initial thought as I started reading this was, "Economic sanctions are just refusing to deal with somebody, this is not a form of force and thus justifies no forceful retaliation. This rings a bell. Where have I heard somebody before confusing somebody exercising their freedom and choosing not to deal with another party with an act of initiation of force? Oh, right, my former boyfriend who thought getting dumped justified suing somebody."

"To suggest that this is an act of war, to me, seems to suggest that these countries have a *right* to these services, trade, or what have you with this other country regardless of what they may be doing . . ."

Yup, that's it exactly. This is probably coming from the same kind of person who thinks if congress declines to raise taxes that this is a revenue loss or expense of some sort to the government. The government already has a right to all of the wealth every citizen has and congress just has to decide how to divvy it up. One person finding a loop hole to avoid some taxes is stealing.

Blockades are another animal indeed. Country A sanctions country B just means Country A and maybe any allies that join them won't trade with country B. Any other countries still can. A blockade though means Country A prevents everybody and anybody from trading with Country B whether those other countries like it or not.

Is that straight part of Iran's territory? If so, not an act of war even if it is a nuisance. If it isn't part of their territory, then it's an act of war. The former would be like refusing to let somebody else use your own pool while the latter would be like taking over your neighbor's pool and threatening to shoot them for trying to use their own pool. Clearly the first is not initiating, but the second is. (Though again, this leaves out the issue of government owning property and running it when it should be private.) What is the difference between a country having domain over a place or owning it? Would domain mean it isn't really their pool, but by now the real owners have long since given up on trying to kick them out? Closing the straight is like a sanction if the straight is an official part of Iran. If it is not part of Iran, then it is like a blockade. Sanctions are one or more parties voluntarily refusing to deal with one or more other parties whereas blockades are one or more parties forcing other parties not to deal with those being blockaded either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that sanctions are less hostile than a blockade. Nevertheless, these are not sanctions related to some trade/tariff "war" but are aimed at getting Iran to act in some way quite unrelated to the goods being sanctioned. Sanctions are a hostile act since the government is using force to stop a trade between Iran and some citizen who would otherwise have traded with Iran. I would classify it as one step short of an act of war, but if someone wants to classify it as an act of war that's fine too: its really a continuum.

I don't think classifying it one way or the other has any bearing on what Iran is justified or not justified in doing in return.

The Straits of Hormuz are not owned by Iran. Firstly, they're only on one side of the straits. Even if the UAE -- on the other side of the strait were to join with Iran, that too would not make the straits their shared property. The Saudis, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, etc. have long standing rights to use the straits as a means of accessing their ports. Since the straits should properly be open to international shipping, blockading them would be an act of war against any nations that is refused access.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems the person I was debating with has switched to another perspective, which I find far more tenable, though it is speaking more in the general moral sense than in the reality of today's situation:

This is primarily a discussion of whether or not sanctions are "an act of war". To define, I consider any act of unjustified forceful aggression to be adequate justification for someone to declare that an act of war if it was done against them. To me, this includes sanctions since they aggress against the person and property of both the foreigner and the nonforeigner. This is why I have an issue with Sanctions.

If that doesn't clearly answer the above question, then to be clearer, no It's not necessarily wrong because it is the "imposing of the will" of the government. It is wrong because it is an aggressive, forceful act. To be clear sanctions are always wrong.

To be even clearer, the government does not have the right to break up mutually agreed upon contracts and transactions of its citizens. If this is true, even less so does it have the right to break up a contract or agreement between its citizens and foreigners! Where does the right to do so come from? Nowhere. Does that clarify?

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to post
Share on other sites
To be even clearer, the government does not have the right to break up mutually agreed upon contracts and transactions of its citizens. If this is true, even less so does it have the right to break up a contract or agreement between its citizens and foreigners! Where does the right to do so come from? Nowhere. Does that clarify?
If we concede the point that sanctions are an act of war, then governments most definitely may stop their citizens from trading with the enemy during a war. So, within his context -- i.e. a war is going on -- his assertion is false.

If he believes that a war that can actually stop Iran from developing nukes is illegitimate, then it not surprising that he also thinks sanctions are illegitimate. The starting point -- morally -- is not whether we sanction, or drop three bombs very selectively, or whether we do much more. The key question is: is it moral for the U.S. to take actions that stop the current government of Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Clearly, the answer to that is: yes.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites

"does war need to have officially started before somebody may be charged with treason for providing support to the enemy country which may help them in their hostilities?"

Treason is an outdated concept these days, things are far easier from the governments perspective to just slap on a vague designation. As such, that person could be held indefinitely, without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without legal counsel. For a time, this was only applicable to non-citizens as was decided by the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Boumediene v. Bush then overthrew this ruling but there was a loophole that has now been closed, where there was no legal time limit which would force the government to provide a Combatant Status Review Tribunal hearing. Prisoners were, but are no longer, legally prohibited from petitioning any court for any reason before a CSRT hearing takes place.

As far as citizens, the NDAA, as I understand it, has concretized the ability to allow for indefinite detention of American citizens without legal recourse. At the same time, the Obama administration has dropped the enemy combatant designation, but I do believe there are other vague designations, I believe in the NDAA its called "associated forces" that allows for the same. Congress approved the indefinite detention of persons who "substantially supported...associated forces."

As far as the wartime issue, the Constitution states

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

As far as I am aware, this can be applied, if not normally then through legal tricks, to apply to those both in war time as well as potentially out of war time if the nation clearly has had hostile intentions or the individual is clearly attempting to undermine US national security for the purposes of another government.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's related to something I was wondering. If one country is known to be hostile to another, does war need to have officially started before somebody may be charged with treason for providing support to the enemy country which may help them in their hostilities?
If the law is objective, and if such law wishes to stop people from doing something with country A that would be perfectly legal to do with most other countries, then the law ought to make it clear by naming country A, or by specifying a clear and objective criteria by which country A can be identified (e.g. "any country that has declared war against us").

I don't think a war needs to have started.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to post
Share on other sites
To be even clearer, the government does not have the right to break up mutually agreed upon contracts and transactions of its citizens.

You should ask this guy to stop listing what the government doesn't have the right to do, and instead define what "government rights" are. After all, that would obviously be the shorter list, and the logical way to go about it. I'm curious if he could come up with an objective definition (one that doesn't discriminate between people or methods based on arbitrary or subjective criteria), that wouldn't allow for sanctions in some situations.

IMHO, the government has the right to use an appropriate level of force to protect its citizens. That is the one right it has, actually.

In this case, sanctions are more than appropriate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's related to something I was wondering. If one country is known to be hostile to another, does war need to have officially started before somebody may be charged with treason for providing support to the enemy country which may help them in their hostilities?

I don't think your definition qualifies as treason (as I understand it), because of that "may" at the end. Treason is actual participation in harming one's side (group, country, etc.).

But the government does have the right to impose sanctions, or pass laws prohibiting certain types of interactions with hostile or enemy countries. They should call the act of violating those laws something other than treason, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't still be a crime to violate them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Straits of Hormuz are not owned by Iran. Firstly, they're only on one side of the straits. Even if the UAE -- on the other side of the strait were to join with Iran, that too would not make the straits their shared property. The Saudis, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, etc. have long standing rights to use the straits as a means of accessing their ports. Since the straits should properly be open to international shipping, blockading them would be an act of war against any nations that is refused access.

I've been through the Straits of Hormuz and back again, if anyone has questions about that aspect of the thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am reminded of the fact that many people will try to argue that the US was the aggressor against Japan in WWII on account of the economic sanctions we put on them (in response to their depradations elsewhere in Asia). To the best of my knowledge this was not an outright blockade. So the answer to this question has bearing on those allegations (by Chomskyite and Rothbardian (Ron Paul) types who look for excuses to blame the US for absolutely everything--though to my knowledge they've not tried to blame the US for the collapse of the Roman empire, yet) as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The context was that Japan had initiated the second Sino-Japanese war, attacked an American gunboat in China, joined the Axis, and committed the Rape of Nanking which was in the news. Meantime, Congress kept passing one Neutrality act after another attempting to restrain FDR from any intervention while Europe was going up in flames. That was the context when an oil embargo was imposed on Japan - that was on August 1st, 1941. Remember that this was an American embargo - Americans were prohibited from selling to Japan, but it was not a blockade - the Japanese were free to buy from others.

I think the standard accusations can be summed up in this blog post: http://www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html

Edited by Mikee
Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words what we did to Japan corresponded to "trade sanctions" today. And therefore IMHO we did not commit an act of war on Japan and therefore there is no basis for a claim that we were the aggressor.

But of course that conclusion rests on my answer to the question being asked in this thread, so if you fall on the other side of the question, logically you'd disagree with me.

Anyhow, the real topic was to ask whether sanctions were an act of war... I wanted to point out the question applied to past controversies, and I think I've done that. So with that, I'll hand the pistol to the pilot and the hijacking ends.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words what we did to Japan corresponded to "trade sanctions" today. And therefore IMHO we did not commit an act of war on Japan and therefore there is no basis for a claim that we were the aggressor.

But of course that conclusion rests on my answer to the question being asked in this thread, so if you fall on the other side of the question, logically you'd disagree with me.

Anyhow, the real topic was to ask whether sanctions were an act of war... I wanted to point out the question applied to past controversies, and I think I've done that. So with that, I'll hand the pistol to the pilot and the hijacking ends.

Not so fast. I'll take that gun for a second, thank you.

The reason for the US war with Japan is neither Pearl Harbor, nor the US sanctions. The underlying reason is the incompatibility of the two political systems. A free country cannot peacefully coexist with an expansionist dictatorship, on the same planet. Eventually, they are going to clash, and the party responsible for this is clearly the latter.

In hind sight, Japan's early acts of expansion should've prompted a more forceful response than the sanctions, not a lesser one. The only people who make that claim are the proponents of the most obviously stupid ideology in history: pacifism, the idea that we should ignore evil and it will somehow go away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough... Pearl Harbor was the immediate cause of WWII but if the Japanese hadn't done that, something else would have happened eventually. Maybe not something as clear cut and nakedly aggressive, but they would eventually have trod on our toes in some other way that even blockheaded appeaser pacifists couldn't ignore because of the nature of their regime. Or we would have had to come to the defense of some place a lot more important to us than China. Perhaps the Japanese wanted to conquer a lot more territory than they had at the time, before trying to take us on, but they were being squeezed by the sanctions. Well, good. That would mean that ultimately, rather than "causing" the war, they helped make it shorter when it did happen because Japan had to attack us while they were in a weaker state than they would have liked.

Japan was already the aggressor in the region, but since they just hadn't directly attacked us yet, the most response we could summon the will to make was those sanctions. It is certainly NOT the case that accomodation would have totally averted war. (Well, I suppose we could have just surrendered without even being attacked, but that would have been far worse than the war! Not that that statement would make any impression on the pacifists.)

A lot of people will try to characterize your stance as "the Pacific wasn't big enough for the two of them, so of course they had to fight some day." Don't let them get away with it; it's an attempt to neutralize the moral distinction between the two powers. A civil society "isn't big enough" for me and a mass murderer either, that doesn't make me a bully who needs to be the one removed from society, much less as evil as the mass murderer.

Ok, Nicky now give the gun to the nice man in the uniform sitting behind the funny steering wheel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been somewhat recently enamored of the Rothbardian perspective. I would like some clarification, and will also offer an argument which I hope to see discussed.

It seems to me that Objectivist literature offers somewhat little explanation for the 'why' of a person's or nation's base epistemology. Jared Diamond, or Karl Marx, at least had this materialistic world view in which natural conditions provoke ideological responses from the people affected by them.

It often seems that Objectivists assume that a person's philosophy is a given; perhaps some evolution of thought in their education brought them to this point, but there is no explicit correlation between their held philosophy and the conditions that provided it to them. Once a person possesses a given philosophy, they are then thought to inevitably act one way or another. This can be extrapolated out to explain the behavior of nations. (Some pseudo-objectivists trot around the 'free will' Platonic argument that our 'self-evident' free will is what determines whether we choose to think or not, and some have 'better' free wills than others)

When two philosophies oppose, the parties holding them engage in a brute force battle of ideological conquest - winner takes all. There is no other recourse. The only option for an individual possessing objective morality is to wait out the mutual self-destruction of peoples possessing false ideologies.

Is this an extreme mischaracterization? I note that The Objective Standard recently (as has been the position of ARI for some time) called for the elimination of the Iranian and Saudi regimes based on the notion that both possess ideological constructs which support and encourage islamic terrorism. As if ideology and flawed epistemological constructs are the sole source of the violent behavior, and eliminating the intellectual sources will make the ultimate difference - regardless of the broader consequences.

Which leads me to argue that ideology is in fact much more a product of material and social conditions than a historical starting point. I don't suppose I can offer a specific reference for 'my point of view', so I will have to define it, and broadly. I do think that most human behavior is in fact genetic, and as a consequence social. People are first motivated to trigger phisiological reward mechanisms in the brain, and then more outwardly be appealing to the opposite sex via a competitive standing in the social hierarchy. Like I said, most human behavior, I think, is governed by these simple mechanisms. However, that behavior alone leaves man with little more than a hunting-gathering lifestyle can provide. Even then, his developed capacity for reason does require a basic set of conceptual tools to even survive. Ayn Rand goes on to make the next argument better than I ever could.

Where I perhaps disagree is that I think that humans engage in an incessant rationalization of their genetic and animalistic impulses, integrating these behaviors into their broader conceptual understanding of the universe. Emotion, I think, is a concept that fits this category very well.

With that qualification I can explain how I think humans can live as rational beings according to a conceptual framework, who are also primarily irrational regarding the majority of their behavior.

This speaks to the importance of any given ideology - not as a pure epistemological guideline - but instead as means of qualifying man's inherent rationalization of his irrational behavior.

I think that any man - across human history - is ultimately equal to any other in that all ultimately rely on rational thought to make gains, and all ultimately rely on non-rational genetic programming for basic behaviors and values. What does vary is: the social and material environment, and consequently the nature of the rationalization of reason vs. instinct.

So what am I really saying?

In the context of this thread, I'm saying that Imperial Japan and the US weren't in a situation where conflict was 'definitely inevitable' nor in one in which unconditional surrender was a necessary outcome. Instead of reviewing an endless list of historical counter-factuals, I'll just rely on two related examples.

The first is that of WWI. This was a war, not so much about democracy or European bragging rights, but about Empire. Fundamentally, it was motivated not by ideology, but by the nature of the State. These entities had grown to exist for their own sake. They were concentrations of power against power, and their purpose was to accumulate more of it. It was much more of an organic political development than any response to the ideology of the people. The only consideration of the individual person was perhaps that of fear. Fear of attack from whomever might be the enemy State.

Given the conditions of an individual European's life: the minimal influence he might have on political outcomes, the role of history in shaping territories and tongues, the leverage his rational pursuits had on real improvement in his life within the context of his local environment, the ease with which large groups of people can organize if they rely on shared basic instincts such as tribalism, and so forth, what could the European hope for with war except that it might one day exhaust the capacity of the nations to war, and that he would still be alive? It's not as if his personal, or even national, ideology had any bearing - in a conceptual sense - on the outcome of geopolitics. People rationally rallied around: all for the State. And the State was the only share ideology.

One of the most important, but least recognized, resources in economics and social organization is information. It's extremely costly, and enormously valuable. The cost of information is why it's cheaper to respond to a disaster than to prepare for one.

Consider, then, Iran. Although the youth have been raised on a radical ideology, just a generation ago the people of that country were not nearly as radical. It is easy to envision a near future where these youth grow tired of the failed promises of a false ideology. This happens all the time. In order for there to be a sustained commitment to a mad ideology, there must be some rational motivator that leads a person to continue to accept a poor rationalization of lunacy.

America overthrew Iran's government in 1953, ostensibly to fight Communism, but nevertheless scored incredible oil contracts out of the coup. When the soviet's counter-coup failed a decade or two later, it was because the Iranian people - tired of foreign interference in their national politics - were willing to accept a mad ideology. I think there is a very good argument that a radical Shia cleric is more predictable and rational of a choice, from the Iranian perspective, than any number of constantly changing imposed foreign figureheads.

In response the US overthrew Iraq's government, put Saddam in power, encouraged a devastating war in which chemical weapons were employed (and in some cases supplied by the US), only to later overthrow Saddam after sanctions which resulted in tens of thousands dead.

With Saddam and Qaddafi dead, and Egypt overrun by radicals, what rational evidence is there - from the perspective of an informed and perhaps liberal minded Iranian - that the US wouldn't do the same thing in Iran? It's not so much that he favors the clerics, but the fate imposed by US action on Iran would be entirely unpredictable. As we see in Iraq and Afghanistan, the most direct of interventions have resulted in no clear or predictable futures.

My overall point is that the actions of the Iranian regime, and the interplay between that regime, the people, and the ideological rationalizations employed by all, are in fact governed by an over-arching rationality more so than irrationality. If you include the concept of information scarcity into any hypothetical rational calculation of a typical Iranian, you find that their 'irrationality' is in fact a comparatively rational response to decades of American foreign policy.

And that is why I have come to favor the Rothbardian perspective. I think ideology responds to acts of agression - favoring the irrational as a defensive reaction. I think the lack of aggression can in fact encourage the rational.

When it comes to aggressive actors - if you can personally deter them from harming you, and proportionally respond to their aggression so as to disincentivize it, then they will direct their aggression elsewhere. Their aggression is the result of an inconsistency in their ideology - a 'kink' in their social and cultural rules. Inevitably, their aggression will wear them out. You can only steal from someone once. At this moment of desperation, an olive branch from a rational, trading, society is much more likely than stern counter-aggression to inspire ideological shifts in the majority of people invovled.

I find it inaccurate and also foolish to see the world as a cut-throat battle between all-or-nothing ideology. This is the influence of Platonism that has crept into modern Objectivism - I perceive (I intend not to accuse, but to debate). I see Rothbard as influenced much more by economic thought - observation and conclusion - than ideology. Whereas modern Objectivism feels somewhat scholastic. The basic conclusion of Objectivism - morally and politically - is that reason should govern interactions within a society. When one interacts with a force of individuals acting according to non or irrational impulses, strict violent defeat is not the immediate rational conclusion. The rational conclusion is: "whatever preserves our liberty while most probably inspiring and rewarding rational thought on the other side." That can be violence, but not always.

Sanctions are not equal to an act of war in a legal sense, but they probably shouldn't be included in a rational foreign policy that aims to avoid war. So sanctions=war in a causal sense, which makes the statement essentially true. If you engage in sanctions, you must be willing to possibly go to war. And that's the difference between sanctions and any generic act of diplomacy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It often seems that Objectivists assume that a person's philosophy is a given; perhaps some evolution of thought in their education brought them to this point, but there is no explicit correlation between their held philosophy and the conditions that provided it to them. Once a person possesses a given philosophy, they are then thought to inevitably act one way or another. This can be extrapolated out to explain the behavior of nations.

I haven't read past this, because this is a straw man and I am assuming the rest of your post is there to prove it wrong.

Objectivism doesn't hold that one will inevitably act one way or another, based on their philosophy. And it certainly doesn't apply anything like that to the behavior of nations.

It is of course true that our habits define our character (I think I'm paraphrasing Aristotle on that), but there is no inevitability about repeating the same errors over and over again. Justice is not the assumption that someone who is a criminal will always be a criminal. Justice is the acknowledgment of the fact that a single criminal act has consequences, which are the moral responsibility of the criminal.

Civilization is the recognition of the fact that in a society without government criminal activity and its consequences are so harmful to individuals' survival and prosperity, that justice must be brought under the objective control of a government. That we must organize to minimize the consequences of crimes on non-criminals, by holding criminals directly responsible for their actions in a way that has the minimal negative effect on innocent bystanders.

A war against an uncivilized, or a less civilized nation is the appropriate response to the threat they pose to our civilization. Once again, it is meant to minimize the effects of the crimes being committed outside our society, on the people organized under the banner of a civilized nation, by holding the criminals, and the nation which allows them to thrive, responsible for their crimes. Not any future crimes that we deduce they will inevitably commit, but for the crimes that were actually committed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...