1
   

Cri du coeur: Kerry's disastrous foreign policy alternative

 
 
nimh
 
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 03:42 pm
Participation: Liberals, Conservatives
Format: Freestyle

MSNBC reported John Kerry's latest foreign policy speech. I am shocked by how misguided it seems, imho; hence the cri de coeur below. Discussion about it should totally blur the normal liberal/conservative good/bad lines drawn here, since what I consider so deeply misguided about Kerry's speech is normally more associated with the 'realpolitik' POVs of American conservatives (or at least used to be); hence posting it in the debate room.

First - the report:

Quote:
Kerry says he'd stress domestic security
Candidate says he would put less emphasis on democracy abroad


By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post
May 30, 2004

WASHINGTON - Sen. John F. Kerry indicated that as president he would play down the promotion of democracy as a leading goal in dealing with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China and Russia, instead focusing on other objectives that he said are more central to the United States' security. [..]

In many ways, Kerry laid out a foreign policy agenda that appeared less idealistic about U.S. aims than those of President Bush or even fellow Democrat Bill Clinton. Although Kerry said it is important to sell democracy and "market it" around the world, he demurred when questioned about a number of important countries that suppress human rights and freedoms. He said securing all nuclear materials in Russia, integrating China in the world economy, achieving greater controls over Pakistan's nuclear weapons or winning greater cooperation on terrorist financing in Saudi Arabia trumped human rights concerns in those nations. [..]

During the interview, he eschewed the soaring rhetoric on freedom and democracy that are commonplace in Bush's speeches and news conferences. [..] Of promoting democracy overseas, Kerry said: "How fast you can do that and how rapidly others can embrace it and what can be expected over a period of time varies from place to place." [..]

On Egypt, Kerry said that he would not tie foreign aid to greater openness and reform. "I would first want to link it to the warmth of the relationship with Israel and the effort to secure general stability in Middle East," he said. "You have to put your priorities first."

Kerry said that China, tightly ruled by the Communist Party, could be the "principal partner" in his anti-proliferation effort and that it is essential to build a partnership that recognizes "the unbelievable economic power and clout" the nation will acquire in the coming years. "China is moving" on democracy on its own accord, he said [..]

Kerry said Pakistan is a "critical relationship," and he said he would not immediately pressure President Pervez Musharraf to loosen the reins of power.

"Is he a strongman to a degree? Did he promise elections that have not occurred and all the rest? Yeah," Kerry said. "I don't see that as the first thing that is going to happen in our priority of making America safer. It is a long-term goal. It is a goal that I will keep on the table. But it is not the first thing that has to happen." [..]

<angry>

OK, here's my cri de coeur:

Does the above strike anyone else as an extraordinarily stupid idea?

The lesson here (about Bush's "Iraq" fiasco, I mean) should be that you can't impose a democracy by military force - not that you should give up on wresting it altogether.

Not even "for now". In fact, especially not "for now".

If you want to fight dictatorial state terror but you dont want to resort to full-scale, military war and invasion, you should be all the more vigilant and strict about using every single diplomatic, strategic and economic means of pressure - not shut your eyes on it altogether! The answer to not doing an "Iraq" on Saddam-like regimes is not just letting them get away with it - in fact, if you don't want to end up having to do an "Iraq", you have to all the more crack down on generals and authoritarian leaders in Pakistan, China, Russia or whereever by every other means you got.

Same when you're talking about insurgents flocking to extremist, even terrorist groups. One of the main conclusions gotten to in, for example, this interesting Roundtable thread (somewhere from here onwards) or this thread ILZ and I were using for this debate (see here onwards) is that dictatorship fosters violent, unpredictably channelled rebellion - and that a state that represses all freedom of civic opposition is most likely to chase its disgruntled, frustrated masses towards extremist, terrorist groups. Ergo, it is unsafe - for the "security" of the US itself, too - to let dictators get away with stuff ... because it'll bite you in the back later!

You gotta give it to them - the neo-cons got that part right at least. To truly make the world safer, you need to export, foster, strengthen, and push for democracy and human rights everywhere, in a way previous generations of conservatives refused to (if it didnt concern commie states). What the Bush people got wrong was they thought they could have their army impose democracy through invasion - without provoking an at least commensurate backlash. That was a bad move even if just because to pull off that one invasion, you need to make friends with every other dictatorship in the region to ensure their support or non-interference (Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Saudi-Arabia, etc) - and thats where you'll then have the same problem popping up five years on. You cant force your mould of democracy onto some foreign country by arms without provoking more harm than good. But what you can do, is at least stop propping up dictators! Kerry, it seems, now proposes just throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

What is it with Americans, anyway - why the bipolar disorder? Switching to and from a militant "democratic imperialism" (we've got the superiorest system in the world and we're going to force it on you by military force) and a cynical, 'realpolitik' isolationism (dictatorship or democracy - as long as you're our friend we won't push the issue all too much). Anyone heard of "soft power"? The European Parliament, Council of Europe and OSCE are at least doing their best to force Russia to adhere to some human rights, in Chechnya too, through all the diplomatic and economic sticks and carrots they can muster. Why should the US, if it turns out democracy cant be imposed by arms, give up on agressively pushing for it altogether?

One of my very strongest political beliefs is that democracy and human rights should be central to foreign policy. If the above really is going to be Kerry's take on it, I'm honestly not sure anymore which of the two candidates is worse. Bush's shortsighted bluster might be counterproductive - but Kerry sounds like he's not even going to try.

Your response?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 5,191 • Replies: 24
No top replies

 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 04:18 pm
I am forced to agree with you,to a point.
Based on the article,it does sound like Kerry is just saying that we dont care what happens in the world.
But,to say that democracy cannot be imposed by military force is also wrong.Both Germany and Japan after WW2 became democracies,thanx to US military force,where either was before.
I agree that using force should be a last resort,but it should be an option.Even if its just the threat of force.
This part really bothers me..."On Egypt, Kerry said that he would not tie foreign aid to greater openness and reform. "I would first want to link it to the warmth of the relationship with Israel and the effort to secure general stability in Middle East," he said. "You have to put your priorities first."
Egypt does have a decent,but not great,relationship with Israel,and to say that Egypt must help "secure general stabiity" is a huge mistake.
By saying that,Kerry is saying Egypt is free to do whatever they want to its own citizens,as long as they keep it in their own yard.That doest make any sense,and will be a HUGE mistake.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 04:30 pm
I hate to come in second with an expected agreement.

When I heard Kerry's remarks, it did sound as though he wanted to close borders, in a manner of speaking--'focus on domestic safety'? As if we can't do that and the other? As if we even have a choice!

I brought an article to a rather frightening story of recent events in Uzbekistan (sp), and the resulting wavery US/Uzbek relationship, with the possible instabilty/vaccuum leaving a stronghold for Islamic militants.

This is no time for a President to go home and ride out world events.

I have seen several pundits discussing Kerry's need to distinguish himself from Bush. They reasoned he wasn't moving forward in the polls, because there was no real distinction between he and Bush on foreign policy. This may be your motive behind the seeming bi-polar d/o.

Thinking of Bush and Kerry as two men, devoid of political affiliation--it appears that the challenger is trying to carve out his own territory--while not really considering the application of the policy.

Additionally, he aims to draw the US back together with Europe and the UN. He may see his policy as a 'fresh beginning' in diplomatic circles.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 04:35 pm
Election talk. Kerry's true agenda will not be know unless he gets elected. Right now he is trying to be tough to the tough, tender to the tender, just like Bush.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 04:44 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
Election talk. Kerry's true agenda will not be know unless he gets elected. Right now he is trying to be tough to the tough, tender to the tender, just like Bush.


Would it not be better for him to say what he truly believes?
I am not a Kerry supporter,but it seems to me that the message of this interview will do nothing but hurt him.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 04:46 pm
Would it not be better for Bush to be honest, also?
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 04:50 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
Would it not be better for Bush to be honest, also?



YES,it would.But,we arent talking about Bush here,this is a Kerry interview
being reported.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 05:30 pm
Sofia wrote:
I brought an article to a rather frightening story of recent events in Uzbekistan (sp), and the resulting wavery US/Uzbek relationship, with the possible instabilty/vaccuum leaving a stronghold for Islamic militants.


Uzbekistan and its dictatorship (which I'm convinced is creating what will be one of the biggest militant, muslim backlashes in the region yet) is something I can get enormously worked up about. The total irresponsibility. I posted a lot of info on a thread I opened about it a while ago: Terror or insurgency in Uzbekistan, US Ally?

(Mind you, the "US Ally" bit was mostly to ensure it got more than 10 views ...)

Sofia wrote:
I have seen several pundits discussing Kerry's need to distinguish himself from Bush. They reasoned he wasn't moving forward in the polls, because there was no real distinction between he and Bush on foreign policy. This may be your motive behind the seeming bi-polar d/o.

Thinking of Bush and Kerry as two men, devoid of political affiliation--it appears that the challenger is trying to carve out his own territory--while not really considering the application of the policy.


You might well be right. That might be the very slightest of reassuring in a way, like how edgar's post is - as in, perhaps he's just frontin'. Wouldnt be the first time. But it sends a very wrong message out to Democrats "in the street" - God knows the "retreat at all costs" crowd is growing already - and might complicate implementing a more proactive policy once (if) he gets in.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 05:38 pm
I thought the speech just proved what many people outside of the U.S. already feel, that the Democrats and the Republicans are really the same party. It's just a matter of who you want as the figurehead.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 05:46 pm
Tweedle Dee got to match up to Tweedle Dum.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 05:51 pm
mysteryman wrote:
This part really bothers me..."On Egypt, Kerry said that he would not tie foreign aid to greater openness and reform. "I would first want to link it to the warmth of the relationship with Israel and the effort to secure general stability in Middle East," he said. "You have to put your priorities first."
Egypt does have a decent,but not great,relationship with Israel,and to say that Egypt must help "secure general stabiity" is a huge mistake.
By saying that,Kerry is saying Egypt is free to do whatever they want to its own citizens,as long as they keep it in their own yard.That doest make any sense,and will be a HUGE mistake.

I totally agree - its one of the bits that made all my alarm bells go off.

Egypt is a much more fragile state than it might seem. Relations are tense, especially upstream. If Egypt isn't pushed to "greater openness and reform" (for example by us tying aid and support to concrete measures of progress), then ever more Egyptians will join the Muslim Brothers, who are reaching out with active neighbourhood work and community services to all those who are frustrated in their dreams and ambitions by the lack of freedom, the nepotism, corruption and authoritarian bureaucracy.

And you can only guess how Egypt's role vis-a-vis Israel and "general stability" would be after a Muslim Bothers insurgency ...
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 06:03 pm
Well, yes. Foreign aid and cordial diplomatic relations represent our foreign relations "carrot". The "stick", of course, has grown quite unpopular.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 07:08 pm
There's more sticks than full-scale war and invasion. I dont get the all-or-nothing thing.
0 Replies
 
JoanneDorel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2004 08:56 pm
Nimh I agree with you the Bush administration has circled the wagons and is just not understanding what they have done nor are they taking responsibility for their aggression.

During his commencement address at Concordia College Bush blames individual soldiers for the mishaps at the prison. What is the nobility in that?


http://wfrv.com/topstories/local_story_135182145.html
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2004 04:59 am
Joanne, actually this thread was more about Kerry. We (leftists/liberals) know (or at least agree more or less) about what the Bush admin is responsible for. But Kerry seems to be drawing all the wrong lessons from that.

Of course its early still, just posted this thread here yesterday, and its a long-ass post. But I do hope some American progressives will chime in with their opinion as well, after edgar. Or is everybody now "circling the wagons"?

<also edited thread title to correct embarassing spelling mistake>
0 Replies
 
JoanneDorel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2004 07:22 am
Sorry nimh about not posting on topic.

I never saw the spelling errors and would not know they existed untles you said they did. I will go back and re-read you orignal topic again.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2004 07:44 pm
'K...

There was a sort of an interesting article in the NYT the other day -- it won't seem pertinent, but bear with me a minute:

Quote:
"There aren't that many polarizing issues among the Bush voters. Bush reminds me of pizza: variations on a theme. Someone who will eat one kind of frozen pizza will eat most other kinds."

Shopping for a President: II

To locate Mr. Kerry in Dr. Moskowitz's supermarket, you have to leave the frozen-foods aisle.

"When you analyze the Kerry voters, you see something like the flavor polarization you find in pickle consumers," Dr. Moskowitz explained. "Some people like high-impact sour and garlic pickles; others hate them and like a pickle with a mild crunch. You can't please people by giving everyone a middle-of-the-road pickle."

Dr. Moskowitz found that Mr. Kerry's overall support was about equal to Mr. Bush's, but that the voters who could be swayed to vote Democratic fall into three radically disparate groups.

Some are Improvement Seekers, whose priorities are education reform and new energy policies. Others are Idealists, who can be wooed with promises to fight discrimination against women and minorities, improve health care, protect abortion rights and defend workers against corporations.

And then there are the Issue Averse, who are so strongly predisposed to vote for Mr. Kerry that none of his campaign promises will strengthen their loyalty. In fact, specifics are liable to drive them away, because they are turned off by some promises, like protecting abortion rights, fighting discrimination and reforming education.

"This group isn't so much pro-Kerry as anti-Bush," Dr. Moskowitz said. "The more Kerry promises the other groups, the more chance he has of offending the Issue Averse voters. It's a tough challenge for him to figure out a coherent strategy that straddles the needs of very different people. Bush has to harness a group of dogs basically pulling in the same direction. Kerry's got to harness a group of cats."


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/30/politics/campaign/30POIN.html?pagewanted=2

OK, so on to why I think that is pertinent:

For sure, Kerry has a bunch of bees toiling away trying to figure out how to swing swing voters. They just plain don't care about the ABB's. The ABB's are ABB's. Some of them might go off and vote for Nader, to be sure. But say 250,000 voters go off and vote for Nader or don't vote at all and 1,000,000 are successfully swung -- that's still a net gain.

They don't care in the least about people who mumble and grumble and hold their noses but nonetheless vote Kerry.

But he has this pickle-y audience that is going to be turned off by some things no matter what he says, as soon as he takes a stand. But, he has to take a stand -- not-taking-a-stand is problematic, itself.

What I think that what those bees are finding is that the swingiest swing voters -- the ones they have the best chance at -- are being drawn to Bush on issues like strength. They don't want America to be weak, they don't want them terrorists to think they can do what they want wherever they want to. That some pacifist is going to take over the White House and will just roll over for them terrorists.

I think human rights is seen as one of those wishy-washy things. Oooh, have to be all careful when you question possible terrorists, don't want to offend 'em with the profiling. Oooh, have to protect those bad Iraqi's rights. If we're gonna be taken seriously we have to... you get the idea.

I think the good part about this is that he's trying to hone and present a soundbite message. Make America Safer. It's not bad as soundbite messages go. Bush hasn't been doing so great, and I agree that it's something that will appeal to swing voters.

Bottom line:

1.) Kerry wants to get elected.

2.) To do so, he has to get swing voters.

3.) To get swing voters, he has to
a) Identify what matters to them
b) Craft a nice, soundbitey message and hit it again and again. I think we'll be seeing a lot of Make America Safer. I'm not sure I object.

Which is a long-winded way of saying I agree with Edgar, basically. I think that Kerry is smart enough and has good enough advisers that he won't do dumb things once he is in office. I think this is all about getting there.

Make America Safer.
0 Replies
 
JamesMorrison
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2004 07:46 pm
Kerry's stated preference for a less messianic pursuit of global democracy has been voiced previously. However, these opinions have been traditionally voiced by the "conservative wing" of the Republican Party. You know, the people that George Bush considers his political base. The Neoconservatives turned the tables on this conservative base with their Wilsonian pursuit of world democracy. Ironic this certainly is. Now we see Kerry taking the stand of old time conservative Republicans, he probably wants to bring down the federal deficit too!

The latest events reported to us Americans have lowered Bush's job approval ratings to barely above 40%. Sixty five percent of Americans feel that Bush and his administration are taking us in the wrong direction. Surely this is good news for Kerry supporters, but alas, such is not the case. When the elephantine question in the room gathers its answer, Kerry and Bush demonstrate a dead heat regarding their performance in the polls.

Kerry is struggling for identity. However, at every turn he is perceived as positioning himself as the Anti-Bush. Many have looked to Kerry as an alternative to Bush but find instead merely a work continually in progress striving to constantly redefine himself in relation to the prevailing political winds. These are not the actions of one perceived as a leader.

The economy is steadily improving, so the long and short of it is that performance in Iraq will determine the outcome in the November elections. So what will determine the outcome in Iraq? "Events, my dear boy, events."

Off topic, a few words regarding mysteryman's comment:
Quote:
"democracy cannot be imposed by military force is also wrong"

This quote is notably taken out of context and in the related text in which it is embedded mysterman makes a valid point. Those who argue that military action is futile in the pursuit of democracy damn all those so striving to failure when trying to obtain self determination. The Neo cons had the right idea but the concept must be applied sparingly. Iraq was a good choice for this procedure but ran headfirst into Defense Secretary D. Rumsfeld's new concept of doing more with less. The result was an inadequate number of troops to establish "Law and Order", security has suffered ever since. The real question is why this administration could not recognize early on, with the anarchy of looting and such, that the course might have to be altered somewhat and greater numbers of personnel and vocations might be warranted to win the peace. This U.S. administration's Achilles heel seems its aversion to any flexibility that might possibly be interpreted as some sort of error recognition on its part. However, it would seem that the Neo con force, at this point, is spent.

JM
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2004 08:23 pm
Sofia wrote:
Additionally, he aims to draw the US back together with Europe and the UN. He may see his policy as a 'fresh beginning' in diplomatic circles.


I agree with this... I went looking on his website, and he has a lot of stuff (in a speech called "Making America Secure Again: Setting the Right Course for Foreign Policy", by the way... I like "Make America Safer" better) (or would that be "more safe?" hmmm) anyway he has a lot of stuff about the UN and international community in it. Like:

Quote:
I will carry that message to the world myself in my first hundred days in office. I will go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations. I will make it clear that when the Secretary of State speaks, he or she speaks for America - not for the losing cause of internationalism inside an Administration obsessed with its own hubris and swagger.


Quote:
An international effort in Iraq is indispensable, but only the start of the new era of alliances in which the United States must lead and re-engage the world.

The war on terrorism is not just an American cause; it is a global conflict against a hidden and deadly enemy with many faces in many places. No matter how much power we have, we cannot prevail single-handedly. We must work with the international community to define a global strategy that is inclusive not exclusive, collective and not imperial.

As President, I will work aggressively to rebuild the relationships frayed and shredded by the Bush Administration, particularly with our NATO allies. I will immediately convene a summit with European and world leaders to discuss a common anti-terrorism agenda, including a collective security framework and a long-term strategy to build bridges to the Islamic world.

I will treat the United Nations as a full partner - not only in the war on terror, but in combating other common enemies like AIDS and global poverty. We must seek not only to renew the mandate of the UN, but to reform its operations and revitalize its capacity. If I am President, the United Nations will be seen as the asset it is, not a liability to a safer America.


Quote:
All this and more - including economic and social progress in the poorest countries so we can drain the swamps where terrorists breed - cannot be achieved if the United States goes it alone, alienates the world, and simply seeks to impose its will. The new era of alliances I propose will take different forms to deal with different and urgent challenges. But the overriding imperative is the same - to replace unilateral action with collective security. So far, the failure to do so means that we are less safe today than we were three years ago.


I see two main notes being sounded; a) we can't spread ourselves so thin that we are not protecting America sufficiently. ehBeth recently had some posts on how ridiculously porous the border is even now (Make America Safer), and b), America needs to shake off this whole rogue cop thing and take its place within the world. I agree with those, pretty much.

Meanwhile, this sounds pretty proactive in the Middle East, anyway:

Quote:
In the first days of a Kerry Administration, I will appoint a Presidential Ambassador to the Peace Process who will report directly to me and the Secretary of State - and who will work day-to-day to move that process forward. There are a number of uniquely qualified Americans who I would consider appointing, including: President Carter, former Secretary of State James Baker, or, as I suggested almost two years ago, President Clinton.

Over the longer term, to prevail in the war on terror we must build new bridges to the Islamic world. In recent years, our capacity to communicate and persuade has constricted even as the need has mounted because our diplomatic presence abroad has been squeezed by tight budgets and our diplomats have been forced to withdraw behind concrete barriers in the face of terrorist threats. Our annual budget for international affairs - what we spend on the war of ideas - is a fraction of what we spend to prepare for war on the battlefield. Yet, as we have learned through painful experience, we cannot afford to win one war and lose the other.

As President, I will fight for the funding to expand our diplomatic presence - and I will direct America's representatives overseas to reach out to populations, not just governments - to religious and cultural leaders and to a new generation growing up in this age of mass communication. We invented it; we should be using it. And this kind of public diplomacy cannot be an afterthought; it must be at the core of our efforts. We must speak and we must listen. I will also appoint a Presidential Envoy for the Islamic world who will seek to strengthen moderate Islam and find new ways to isolate the terrorists - and who will make the case for progress, mutual respect - and yes, our conviction that Israel and the Arab world can and should live together in a secure and lasting peace.


http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1203.html

Huh, that speech is from nearly 6 months ago already. This "Make America Safer" thing isn't new. Hmm.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2004 08:28 pm
Along the same lines---


Kerry says Go....Stay....Go....Stay. What day is it again?


The main point seems to be:

Berger said, "John Kerry has been amazingly consistent from the beginning on Iraq and he has been consistently right on the need for troops" and other issues.

But in the past eight months, Kerry has reversed his position on sending more American troops to Iraq.

In an April 30 Fulton, Mo., speech Kerry said that if U.S. commanders in Iraq need more troops then "they should get them."

Yet last September in a debate with other Democratic contenders in Albuquerque, N.M, Kerry emphatically opposed sending more American troops to Iraq. "We should not send more American troops," he said on Sept 4. "That would be the worst thing. We do not want to have more Americanization, we do not want a greater sense of American occupation."

In his speech Thursday, Kerry said, "On my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: This commander-in-chief will ensure that you are the best-led, best-equipped and most respected fighting force in the world. ... But you will never be sent into harm's way without enough troops for the task," a reference to U.S. troops levels in Iraq.
---------
I am not worried, then, about Kerry's first day in office--but an increasing number of Kerry watchers ARE quite concerned about the day after that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Cri du coeur: Kerry's disastrous foreign policy alternative
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/23/2021 at 09:16:17