Skip to content

Obama’s latest speech

At the outset of his campaign, I had severe reservations about Barack Obama’s ability to lead on foreign policy. His charisma and ability to transform politics initially drew me to support his candidacy. As one of the very few Americans who base their vote largely on a candidate’s foreign policy, I was concerned about his lack of experience and how this would affect his decision-making. The man, however, has done nothing but exceed my highest expectations. The speech he gave today on the fifth anniversary of his speech opposing the War in Iraq was just the latest example in a long line of outstanding addresses he’s made on foreign policy. From the vision articulates, I am more convinced than ever that he would make an outstanding foreign policy president.

Living in the Middle East and traveling across wide swaths of the Arab-Muslim world has convinced me that people do not reflexively hate America. Wide eyed people frequently implore me to talk about what New York City is like and talk with tremendous admiration of Bill Clinton. When George Bush is brought up, they utter a string of curses so profane that I don’t want to recount them on this blog.

What we need is someone capable of articulating America, showing that the American ideal still lives. People around the world, and particular in the Middle East, still dream of America as an idea. Our biggest problem is the gap between our ideals and our actions. Barack Obama can change this. The man’s picture is everywhere in Kenya, following his visit there last year. Obama can be a truly inspirational and transcendent leader of America abroad. Most importantly, he will be much more effective in uniting the world against the serious problems we face. I would encourage everyone to go to www.barackobama.com and read his speech for yourselves.

Posted 02 October 2007 † Will Dempster § Election 2008 ‡ Comments (0)

Ahmadinejad in America

I have returned to my blog here to discuss the various news items emanating from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s impending visit to the United States to take part in the United Nations General Assembly. Ahmadinejad requested permission to lay a wreath at Ground Zero and has been scheduled to speak at Columbia University this coming Monday. Although I fully understand and appreciate these sentiments, the burden of living in a free society dictates that we must respect speech, no matter how horrible its vehicle.

The NYPD’s decision to bar Ahmadinejad from Ground Zero makes logistical sense if nothing else. As one of the world’s largest hatemongers and as the president of the worst state sponsor of terrorism, Ahmadinejad’s presence at the World Trade Center site could easily provoke a riot and endanger his safety.

The hysteria surrounding Ahmadinejad’s speech at Columbia University is just ridiculous. The man stands for almost everything I am against, but he should be allowed to speak to an informed American audience. The suppression of objectionable speech is wrong – so long as that speech doesn’t incite violence or other critical thresholds. Instead, it should be met with debate. Columbia’s president should be applauded, not slandered, for his insistence that Ahmadinejad split his time evenly between speaking and answering questions. This is precisely the type of freedom we are trying to export around the world; what type of example would we be setting if we did not permit people like Ahmadinejad from speaking.

This whole incident brings up the recent tussle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton about speaking to foreign dictators. Obama has it 100-percent correct – we should not be afraid of losing a so-called propaganda war with a genocidal, Holocaust-denying, freedom suppressing despot from one of the most despicable regimes in the world. The American ideal is a shining example to the world and on our merits, we win against people like Ahmadinejad every time.

America is the greatest country in the world precisely because we allow people like Ahmadinejad to speak, no matter how hard we disagree with him. Now, I only wish I could be there to see it.

Posted 21 September 2007 † Will Dempster § News § Middle East ‡ Comments (3)

New Facts on Israel-Syria standoff

Ok, this is beginning to make a lot more sense. Via Ha’aretz and the Jerusalem Post, CNN is reporting that Israel entered Syrian airspace last week and attacked a convoy of Iranian troops intended to reach Hizballah in Lebanon. The report also indicates that a ground operation may have been involved.

If this is true, the Syrian response – or lack thereof – to the Israeli attack seems more appropriate in the wake of these revelations. If true, it proves that Syria is attempting to funnel weapons to Hizballah in violation of the UN resolution that ended the Second Lebanon War.

The extent of the infiltrations must also be a source of great embarrassment to Syria. From the maps included in the Jerusalem post article show that – according to the Syrian Foreign minister – Israeli aircraft penetrated nearly to the Syrian-Iraqi border, bombed their targets, and were returning home before they were even picked up on radar.

The whole incident seems a lot more explainable now that more facts have come to light.

Posted 11 September 2007 † Will Dempster § Middle East ‡ Comments (0)

Drum is wrong on “Chaos Hawks”

Kevin Drum, in his column in Washington Monthly, dismisses “chaos hawks” – those who advocate remaining in Iraq to avoid potentially catastrophic consequences in the wake of our withdrawal. The essential thesis of his article is:

Having admitted, however, that the odds of a military success in Iraq are almost impossibly long, Chaos Hawks nonetheless insist that the U.S. military needs to stay in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Why? Because if we leave the entire Middle East will become a bloodbath. Sunni and Shiite will engage in mutual genocide, oil fields will go up in flames, fundamentalist parties will take over, and al-Qaeda will have a safe haven bigger than the entire continent of Europe.

Needless to say, this is nonsense. Israel has fought war after war in the Middle East. Result: no regional conflagration. Iran and Iraq fought one of the bloodiest wars of the second half the 20th century. Result: no regional conflagration. The Soviets fought in Afghanistan and then withdrew. No regional conflagration. The U.S. fought the Gulf War and then left. No regional conflagration. Algeria fought an internal civil war for a decade. No regional conflagration.

Drum’s analysis neglects to talk about three major regional phenomena, all of which could destabilize the region: Turkey’s fear of the Kurds, the impact of the refugee situation in Jordan and the awakening of the “Shi’a Crescent” in Sunni-ruled Gulf Arab states. Further, these concerns should not be marginalized just because they’re being articulated by Bush hacks.

Turkey will not permit the emergence of an independent Kurdish entity in Northern Iraq and it is questionable whether they will even tolerate an autonomous Kurdish principality there. The existence of such an entity, Turkey fears, could embolden their own Kurdish minority to align with their Iraqi brethren and destabilize the eastern region of the country. Turkey currently has a lot of troops massed on the border and has already chased Kurdish terrorists into Iraq. Were we to leave, it is certainly possible that Turkey would take matters into its own hands.

Jordan is already dealing with a massive influx of Iraqi refugees. A nation whose population is about 80 percent Palestinian refugees, a further influx of refugees could destabilize the fragile stability of an important US ally. A stable Jordan is important for Israel as well and could force them to intervene – just as they did in the face of a Syrian invasion supporting Palestinian guerrillas in 1970 to save the Hashemite Kingdom.

Even before the War in Iraq, states such as Sunni-ruled Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman feared a political awakening among their significant Shi’a populations. The War in Iraq empowered Shi’a Arabs for the first time. The Iraqi Shi’a rightfully see Persian Shi’a as allies. This political empowerment could really do some damage in our traditional allies and upend regional security.

The examples Drum uses to say that there was no “regional conflagration” are just so ridiculous. Most of Israel’s wars have been against a coalition of Arab states in what I would certainly termed “regional confrontations.” The Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan created a civil war, empowered the Taliban and allowed al-Qaeda to grow.

The Bush Administration’s Iraq policy is really awful, but instead of just withdrawing, we need to ensure that when we do leave, things are at least reasonably better than they are now. Biden and Obama’s plans for a “diplomatic surge” could help accomplish this. A precipitous US withdrawal will have real, serious consequences that should not be dismissed because they are being articulated by the Bush administration cronies we’ve come to ignore.

Posted 10 September 2007 † Will Dempster § Middle East ‡ Comments (0)

Syria and Israel’s dangerous game

I spent yesterday at the NJ State Democratic Conference so I wasn’t able to blog about the dangerous and complicated situation involving an alleged Israeli Air Force incursion into Syrian airspace. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the situation, Syrian news outlets reported on Thursday that and IAF jet breached its airspace, dumped its fuel tanks to maneuver and sped out. Israel, for its part, has largely been quiet and the United States has not really commented on the situation either. At the moment, Syria is contemplating its response. The extent of this response could result in an incredibly dangerous situation in the Middle East.

Israel’s silence and overall failure to comment on the situation should be taken as a de facto admission of guilt in this matter. Over the past few months, both Israel and Syria have gone to great pains to downplay their overall military buildups along their common border. Because there has been talk of impending war almost since the Second Lebanon War ended, the timing of this incursion is very curious. It is just too fantastic to believe that given the heightened tensions, Israel would carelessly enter Syrian airspace. It is simply an invasion of sovereignty that Bashar al-Assad could not ignore.

Some have hypothesized that Israel undertook the action to goad the Syrians into a war. It is no secret that IDF commanders have been itching to reestablish the prestige it lost in last summer’s war against Hizballah. It is not altogether clear what the objectives of such a war would be. Israel can’t honestly think that toppling Assad by marching into Damascus is either feasible or wise. Given that Israel initiated the first act-of-war, it would have zero legitimacy in its effort.

This theory really only makes sense if Israel was going to use a war with Syria as a cover for a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. This would be possible, because it is highly likely that Iran would join Syria in a war against Israel. This would almost certainly draw the US into the conflict as well. Overall, it would just be a huge nightmare – for me included, because I could easily be in Jerusalem when this mayhem finally breaks out.
The consequences of this conflict would be disastrous. While Israel and the United States would most likely destroy all of Syria, Iran would likely launch its Shehab-3 missiles on major population centers in Israel and cause a significant loss of life. Israel and the United States would probably attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in the operation as well.

If such a war were to break out, the hostilities could spread to Iraq. Turkey, a close military ally of both Israel and the United States, could be drawn in. Both Israel and the United States would need Turkish airspace and facilities to attack Iran. The price could be selling out our Kurdish allies in Iraq to a Turkish assault. Jordan would also likely be drawn in as it lies in the flight path to Iran.

Although at least marginally feasible, such a scenario is not likely to happen. Syria is not entirely stupid. They know that even if they exact damages on Israel, they would lose the war and the vast majority of their country would be destroyed. My guess is that Syria will respond either by having Hizballah launch Katyusha rockets on northern Israel or shelling Israeli positions on the Golan Heights. They could also direct terrorism in the Golan.

The fragility of this situation only underscores the need to try to reinvigorate the peace process between Israel and Syria. Under such an agreement – perhaps for a generous American military aid package, the return of the Golan Heights, international legitimacy and the probable disbandment of the Hariri Commission – Syria would cut ties with Iran, banish Palestinian terror groups from Damascus and sign a peace treaty with Israel. Syria does not have deep ties to Iran and could be cleaved from their sphere of influence. This would be crucial for American strategic interests in the region and most likely improve Israel’s security as well.

I am hopeful and relatively confident that both Israel and Syria will recognize the catastrophic consequences of a war between their two countries. But make no mistake, a war between Israel and Syria will escalate into a dangerous and costly regional war. We’re now just waiting for Syria’s move.

Posted 08 September 2007 † Will Dempster § Middle East § Israel/Palestine ‡ Comments (0)

Mearshimer and Walt: Hacks

Two years ago, Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearshimer published a paper in the London Review of Books about the disproportionate influence of the “Israel Lobby” on US Foreign Policy. Mearshimer and Walt recently published a book-length version of this essay as The Israel Lobby.

William Grimes published a review of the book in the New York Times Book Review today.

Although I’ve had my disagreements with AIPAC over the years, they are not a nefarious group plotting the advancement of Israel at the expense of American interests. For the record, I disagree with AIPAC explicitly on many issues, but they are not bad people out to control the United States, I assure you.

A certain amount of debate about our relationship with Israel is healthy, but Mearshimer and Walt emphasize oversimplifications of the regional political climate at the expense of legitimate arguments more rooted in reality. Recent Israeli governments should shoulder the greatest proportion of responsibility for the failure in creating a Palestinian state. Israel also treats Palestinian civilians in a despicable manner – trust me, I’ve seen it first hand. This being said, the creation of a Palestinian state will not assuage the Islamists and end their jihad against America and the West. The Islamists will always hate Israel and the United States, no matter how we orient our foreign policy or how Israel treats the Palestinians. Instead of trying to placate the extremists, we should be working to lessen the appeal of their message by providing jobs and non-military aid to Muslim countries while simultaneously waging war against the physical manifestations of their hatred.

Further, despite paying lip service to Palestinian statehood, the broader Arab world uses the Palestinians as a political tool in their broader propaganda effort. Focusing the passions of their disaffected populations on Israel tidily draws attention away from their inability to provide jobs and opportunity to their own population. The removal of the Palestinian issue from the arena would only turn their ire inward and create a whole host of new problems. Islamists hate secular Arab countries almost as much as they hate the United States.

Mearshimer and Walt are essentially opportunist hacks. Their extremist arguments only lessen the available area for Jewish critics of Israel – like myself – to operate safely. While we point to similar problems in Israeli behavior, their extreme conclusions only allow right-wing thinkers to dismiss the legitimate concerns of more reasonable critics of Israel. In effect, they do more damage to the cause they purport to follow than they do good.

Posted 06 September 2007 † Will Dempster § News § Middle East § Israel/Palestine ‡ Comments (0)

Obama v. Clinton on foreign policy

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal published a fascinating article about the foreign policy teams of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The essential thesis of the article Obama is putting together an army of advisors in an effort to articulate a grand strategy while Clinton is relying on a small group of advisors to advance her incrementalist approach to foreign policy.

Some highlights from the article in The Wall Street Journal:

What Democratic Sen. Barack Obama may lack in foreign-policy experience, he is trying to make up for in sheer numbers of advisers — enough, says one of the team, for “his own virtual State Department.”

Since launching his presidential bid in February, the freshman senator from Illinois has used the burgeoning brain trust — now over 150 advisers and counting — to help flesh out an almost wonkishly detailed set of statements, on the Iraq war, on Iran, U.S. counterterrorism strategy, the future of the U.S. military, even Cuba. Coming up next, his advisers say, will be more on China, U.S. energy security, the plight of Iraqi refugees, and how much to reduce the U.S. nuclear stockpile.

But the makeup of Mr. Obama’s team — heavy on onetime aides to President Clinton — also speaks to an internecine feud between Mr. Obama and his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, over which of them represents the future of their party.

. . .

Even if there is a tussle, so far it hasn’t taken the form of substantial policy differences. Both candidates support a gradual withdrawal of U.S. forces in Iraq and the need to turn security over to Iraqi forces. Both favor a more robust emphasis on diplomacy and multilateral engagement, even with archfoes such as Iran. Both say they are willing to use force unilaterally, if need be, to protect U.S. interests.

Instead, the big difference between the two is mainly in style and tone.

. . .

While Mrs. Clinton’s team emphasizes tactical edge over sweeping solutions, Mr. Obama’s camp is consciously in search of big concepts and grand strategies.

Mr. Lake, an academic and former diplomat, has been working alongside Mr. Obama off and on since 2003. He says he shares the senator’s view that the U.S. needs to engage in a sweeping reassessment of its stance in the world — “a grand strategy,” as Mr. Obama put it in his recent book, “The Audacity of Hope.”

“We’re at a point in the history of our foreign policy where we need to step back and think things through to figure out what fits and doesn’t fit with the world today,” Mr. Lake says.

For the purposes of full disclosure, I was recently added to Obama’s foreign policy specialist network and will be collaborating on policy with a number of other people over the course of the campaign. That said, I really think that for better or worse, he is leading the foreign policy debate during the campaign. No other candidate is talking at all about these issues, outside of Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Iran. I wonder if this is a concerted effort to try to assuage the public at large about his ability to conduct foreign policy as president. Fighting on your weakest point is a very interesting campaign strategy.

Although the quality of his policy is very good, he is fighting against a foreign policy establishment he has largely tried to discredit as conventional. Given the prevalence of such thinkers within the punditry, he is fighting a difficult battle to win positive press coverage. So far, he’s been losing. A prime example was with his War on Terror speech. The establishment misrepresented his policy on Pakistan, which Clinton used to brand him as naïve. This is sure to be a difficult battle for the remainder of the campaign.

To discuss the merits of this peace further, developing a grand strategy to deal with the world is a much better option than using piecemeal approach to policymaking. Too often, we have lost track of the residual consequences from our various foreign policy decisions. The most prominent example is our backing Islamist fighters battling the Soviets in Afghanistan who eventually morphed into al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

Forging a grand strategy allows us to conduct policy based on a holistic approach to advancing American interests throughout the world. The grand strategy paradigm also minimizes the residual consequences of our foreign policy by ensuring that a number of factors are considered during policy formulation.

Posted 06 September 2007 † Will Dempster § News § Election 2008 ‡ Comments (0)

Israel Court ruling on the Wall

I apologize for my weekend-long absence. A perfect storm of two papers being due and two weddings kept me from my blog. Rest assured, with today’s posts I am back again.

A fairly significant ruling today from the Israeli Supreme Court stipulated that Israel must re-route a portion of the Wall/Fence/Barrier in the village of Bil’in. You may have heard of Bil’in because for the past few years it has been the scene of a number of lively protests by Palestinians and some Westerners against the Wall itself.

From Ha’aretz, Court orders fence re-routed:

The existing fence route is built around a part of the Matitiyahu East neighborhood of Modi’in Illit settlement. The government had argued that the route was necessary to protect residents of Modi’in Illit, and completed the section of fence that cut through Bil’in despite the protests.

The three-judge panel, headed by Chief Justice Dorit Beinish, unanimously accepted an appeal petition by the head of the Bil’in local council against the route of the fence and its presence on land belonging to the village. They ordered defense planners to change the barrier’s route so it causes less harm to the village’s residents

. . .

Rejecting the government’s argument, Beinish wrote in her decision that “We were not convinced that it is necessary for security-military reasons to retain the current route that passes on Bil’in’s lands.”

Although I welcome this decision wholeheartedly, I have mixed feelings about the Wall. As a Jerusalem resident, I am keenly aware of the threat of being blown up while on the bus. The construction of the wall has decreased the number of actual bombings in comparison to the number of attempted bombings by nearly 100 percent. I cannot recall the actual number, but upwards of 90 would-be suicide bombers were caught attempting to cross into Israel last year. This, no doubt had to do with the fact that potential bombers were funneled to official crossings since the fence prevented their infiltration in remote areas. Living with the decreased specter of a bombing is a luxury I enjoy a great deal.

Security considerations aside, I am appalled at the route of the fence. Under the guise of security considerations, the Wall has been routed to encompass Israeli settlements at varying depths within the West Bank. Were the Wall placed on the Green Line, I would have absolutely no moral qualms about it. Although a small victory, hopefully this ruling will serve as a precedent to move the Wall closer to the Green Line.

Posted 04 September 2007 † Will Dempster § Middle East § Israel/Palestine ‡ Comments (0)

Abbas appoints new J’lem adviser

The Jerusalem Post’s Khaled Abut Toameh, by far the best writer on Palestinian affairs among any Israeli newspaper, has a very interesting article in today’s online edition about The reopening of a diplomatic process on the status of Jerusalem. PA President Mahmoud Abbas has appointed Adnan Husseini – former head of the Islamic Waqf – as his adviser on Jerusalem affairs.

In an interview with the Post, Husseini discusses his desire to reopen the closed Palestinian institutions in the city. He specifically discusses the Orient House, the unofficial PLO headquarters in Jerusalem.

From the Jerusalem Post, Abbas wants Orient House reopened:

Orient House, served as the unofficial headquarters of the PLO in Jerusalem. Orient House enjoyed the status of an unofficial diplomatic mission - a fact that angered many in Israel, especially as some foreign ministers insisted on holding talks there with leading Palestinian figures.

Israel had argued that the presence of Orient House and other PLO-linked institutions in the city were in violation of the Oslo Accords, which banned the Palestinians from conducting such activities in Israel. The closure of Orient House was followed by similar moves against at least a dozen PLO-affiliated institutions.

Husseini also stresses that Israel cannot ignore Jerusalem during its negotiations with the PA:

Husseini appealed to Israel not to waste time with regards to discussing the issue of Jerusalem.

“We believe that we can reach a solution to the issue of Jerusalem,” he said. “We hope the Israelis will wake up and realize the importance of the city to the Palestinians. Israel must accept the fact that we will never give up our claim to Jerusalem.”

Husseini said Israel must also realize that peace can’t be achieved without a solution to the issue of Jerusalem.

“There will be no Palestinian state without Jerusalem as its capital,” he said. “This is a holy city and we want Israel to acknowledge this fact. Israel is mistaken if it thinks that the policy of driving the Palestinians out of the city can lead to peace. Peace can’t be achieved by denying the rights of others. Disrespect for others is a sign of weakness, not strength.”

Predictably, the story points to negative Israeli reaction to any proposed division of Jerusalem.

Likud MK Yuval Steinitz on Wednesday said Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had proven his hypocrisy by negotiating Jerusalem’s future with Abbas. He recalled campaigning for the Knesset with Olmert, who told people to vote for him because he left the Jerusalem mayoralty to defend Jerusalem from a position of power against those who wanted to divide it.

“Olmert is a prime minister with zero public support, waiting for a verdict from the police and the Winograd Commission, who is ready to divide Jerusalem and allow it to be destroyed to save his skin,” Steinitz said.

I don’t think that this news is a coincidence. Abbas would not have appointed someone with Husseini’s pedigree to such a position unless he felt there was a potential for some sort of breakthrough on Jerusalem. This comes on the heels of the news that Olmert and Abbas discussed the status of Jerusalem during their meeting on Tuesday. Perhaps Olmert, who once served as the mayor of Jerusalem, has finally internalized the need for a division of Jerusalem. In addition, the mere appearance that Abbas may force a compromise would buoy his standing among Palestinians.

Posted 30 August 2007 † Will Dempster § Middle East § Israel/Palestine ‡ Comments (0)

China, Russia and the US

Ian Bremmer over at Slate.com has a very interesting article up today about how the recently warming Sino-Russian ties do not represent a strategic threat to the United States. Essentially, the article argues that Russian-Chinese interests diverge to a much greater extent than they converge in the long term.

The articles conclusion is right on the mark. From slate.com No need to worry about Sino-Russian Axis:

First, Russia is one of the world’s leading exporters of oil and gas. China’s demand for both has grown enormously in recent years—and will continue to rise as its economy expands. The two countries are building a solid buyer-seller energy relationship.

But the differences in their foreign-policy goals emerge when we remember that Russia needs high energy prices, while China would like to see them fall. So many international conflicts today have potential implications for energy prices that Russia and China will frequently find themselves on different sides of key issues.

. . .

Today, trade with Russia, estimated at around $40 billion, accounts for just 2 percent of China’s trade total. According to Chinese customs data, U.S.-Chinese trade reached $262 billion in 2006. Trade with the European Union came in at around $272 billion. Given the importance of trade for the Chinese leadership’s vision of China’s future, these numbers reveal that Beijing’s interest in any anti-Western alliance will remain limited.

. . .

Russia and China will continue to find tactical advantage in working together on specific foreign-policy issues. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is, in part, a tool designed for that purpose. Some of that coordination is bound to come at the West’s expense. But the two countries’ foreign policies will continue to diverge, limiting the likelihood of any anti-Western alliance.

Time Magazine’s China Blog recently released part one of its interview with Thomas P.M. Barnett, one of my personal favorite foreign policy thinkers and author of The Pentagon’s New Map. There, he discussed his opionion that the United States should forge a military alliance with China because we are much more alike than we are different.

From China Blog, Why the US and China are destined to be allies:

TIME: In your last book, you call for a US-China military alliance. How do you think that goes over in Tokyo?

Barnett: (chuckles a bit): “They’d (the Japanese) have a hard time with it, I understand that. But from our perspective it would be putting China’s rise to use, helping integrate them into the global system not just economically, but in a security sense too. We’d be playing the same role that Britain did at the end of the 19th century and in the 20th, during a previous era of globalization. It’s actually an easy choice for us, if we think strategically. But yes, it would mean a diminution of [Japan’s] status vis a vis us. Look, they are wedded to their choices, and in most of the post war period they’ve been unwilling to be what I call a frontier integrating power [a country willing to actively try to bring countries outside the core into the club of rich nations that play by an established set of fairly transparent rules). They haven’t had the ambition or the purpose to do that. And it’s understandable. This is not a criticism. Their experience in the middle of the 20th century was so negative that it shaped their present in profound ways; they became a more passive power, for understandable reasons.

I think Barnett’s point jives very well with Bremmer’s article. China can be expected to act reasonably responsibly in the international system because the regime’s very existence requires it provide economic opportunities for its population. Working to forge an alliance with China, as Barnett argues, could aid us in our quest to make them what he terms as a ‘frontier integrative power’ when their rise to world prominence is complete.

Posted 29 August 2007 † Will Dempster § Asia ‡ Comments (0)