-Caveat Lector-
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/ForeignPolicy(GLO).htm
A Foreign Policy for America
by Harry Browne
In 1914 Austria was Europe's "superpower." The Austrian Empire
included the territories of present-day Hungary, the Czech Republic,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia, as well as parts of Italy
and Romania.
Serbia, an independent country, wasn't part of the Empire. Many Serbs
(both in Serbia and Bosnia) wanted Serbia to annex Bosnia, but the
Austrian Emperor refused to let Bosnia go.
When the Emperor's heir apparent, Archduke Ferdinand, visited Bosnia,
he was shot and killed by a Bosnian Serb.
The assassination was a crime, of course, but it was committed by
just a handful of men. Since Bosnia was part of Austria, it would
have been a simple matter for Austria to prosecute the assassin and
his collaborators. Bu
t instead the Austrian Emperor accused Serbia's government of arranging the murder,
and Austria mobilized for war against Serbia.
At the time, governments inside and outside of Europe were joined together in a web of
mutual defense treaties, and so a local quarrel became a world war. Britain, France,
Belgium, Romania, Greece, Portugal, Montenegro, R
ussia, and even Japan supported Serbia. On the other side, Germany, Italy, Bulgaria,
and Turkey supported Austria. The awful war quickly consumed most of Europe.
Eventually, 15 million soldiers and civilians would be killed and at least 20 million
wounded � all because one person had been assassinated. What a testament to the
irrationality of war.
Stalemate
After three years of fighting, the two sides were bogged down in a bloody stalemate �
with neither able to gain a decisive advantage.
The armies on both sides were exhausted, and Europeans were ready for an armistice
that would stop the terrible bloodshed. Germany put out feelers to end the conflict.
If that armistice had materialized in 1917, the history of the past 80 years would
have been quite different and much happier. There might still be monarchs in Germany,
Austria, Belgium, and even Russia. That may be dista
steful to some, but it might have saved the lives of tens of millions of people.
With Russia and Germany again at peace, the Germans would have had no reason to help
Lenin take over Russia, and the Soviet Union never would have been born. And with the
German Emperor still on the throne, Adolf Hitler w
ould never have had the opportunity to seize power.
Although no one can say for sure, it seems very unlikely that there would have been a
second World War. And without that war and without a Soviet Union, there would have
been no Cold War, no Korean War, no Vietnam War. Th
e 20th century wouldn't have been an era of perfect peace, but it would have avoided
being history's bloodiest 100 years.
American Intervention Changes History
But such was not to be.
Instead, in 1917, after winning reelection for keeping America out of the war, Woodrow
Wilson pulled America into it � and that intervention changed history irrevocably for
the worse.
Millions of fresh American soldiers streamed into Europe � tipping the balance of
power and overwhelming an enemy exhausted from three years of war. Germany and Austria
surrendered, the German emperor fled to the Netherla
nds, and the Allies imposed devastating conditions upon a defeated Germany.
So, instead of a functioning Germany with Kaiser Wilhelm on the throne, America
produced a prostrate Germany eager for revenge.
The humanitarian spirit that propelled America into a war to "end all wars" laid the
groundwork for two of history's worst murderers � Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler.
Could Woodrow Wilson � or anyone else � have foreseen all this in advance?
No, and that's the point. Once you embark on the use of force � for any purpose � you
have no idea what will fly up out of Pandora's box.
Lessons to Be Learned
At least, one could learn a lesson from the deaths of 15 million people. In fact,
World War I offered two unmistakable lessons:
George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were right to say America would achieve nothing
but ruin by meddling in the ancient quarrels of Europe.
When mutual defense treaties fail to deter wars, as they usually do, they enlarge war
and make it bloodier. A mutual defense treaty easily becomes a mutual suicide pact.
Unfortunately, memories are short, and history seems to be such a dull subject.
So when the politicians tell us we have a chance to bring about world peace if we just
send more of our children to die, or just bomb more innocent civilians overseas, or
just bully a few more smaller countries, many peop
le don't realize they are listening to a story that has been told many times before �
and seldom produced a happy ending.
THE PERMANENT WAR FOOTING
America returned to peace and independent policies after World War I. But after World
War II our government enmeshed itself in mutual defense treaties all over the world,
put us on a permanent war footing, undertook numer
ous military adventures, and took sides in almost everyone's conflicts � much of which
activity had little to do with the Soviet threat.
Here are a few examples:
In the 1980s our government sent military equipment to Iraq's Saddam Hussein to help
him fight the Ayatollah in Iran. Much of the American equipment was used in 1990 to
help Iraq invade Kuwait. So our children were sent t
o Iraq to depose our one-time ally Saddam Hussein � now described by our politicians
as a modern Hitler. However, even after the U.S. killed thousands of civilians and
soldiers, Hussein remained in power.
Our government enlisted Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega in the fight against
communism. But in 1989 the U.S. military invaded Panama, killed a number of people,
kidnapped Noriega, took him to Florida, and imprisoned hi
m � supposedly to stop the use of Panama as a relay station for the drug trade.
Noriega still sits in a U.S. prison, but there's no indication that the drug flow
through Panama has abated. In fact, the drug cartels of Sou
th America move freely into Panama because America destroyed Panama's army in 1989.
American politicians went to the Philippines to monitor elections, pressure the
Philippine people to get rid of Ferdinand Marcos, and end corruption. Marcos lost the
election, but corruption is as rampant in the Philippin
es today as it was then � and the subject no longer seems to interest American
politicians.
Our government bombed Libya in 1986, killing a number of civilians, to force Muammar
Khadaffi to end his support for terrorists. But two years after our government
supposedly taught Khadaffi a lesson, a bomb destroyed a P
an American Airlines flight over Scotland, killing 259 people � and our government
says Khadaffi was responsible.
During the 1980s our government helped the "freedom fighters" take power in
Afghanistan. In 1998 our government bombed those same Afghans, claiming they were now
harboring terrorists.
In Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia � wherever our government has meddled � the only consistent
outcomes have been American deaths, American tax dollars wasted, the sacrifice of
thousands of innocent foreigners, and no lasting sol
ution.
In country after country, American intervention either failed to achieve its objective
or succeeded in making matters worse.
A DANGEROUS WORLD
Because America has taken sides in so many conflicts, because America has armed so
many countries' enemies, because America has imposed so many "solutions" on so many
people, because American troops occupy so many countri
es, the world has become dangerous for America.
Foreigners generally love McDonald's but hate our government. Foreign politicians
exploit that hatred. And now and then foreign terrorists try � or pretend to try � to
change our government's polices by bombing American t
argets here or abroad.
But our policies don't change, because politicians never respond to problems by
letting go of their power. So, instead of doing something to eliminate the motive for
actual or threatened terrorism, our politicians "fight"
it with even more foreign adventures.
And they issue a steady stream of alarms about frightening problems around the world �
all of which supposedly require our immediate attention and intervention.
But why should we have anything to fear? Our country is bounded by two friendly
nations and two oceans that protect us from invasion. We are open only to the sky. Our
first military concern should be to defend ourselves a
gainst missiles launched from overseas.
Weak Defense
And therein lies the rub.
Today we have a very strong national offense, but a very weak national defense.
American taxpayers have coughed up trillions of dollars for the military since World
War II � giving the politicians the power to destroy any country in the world. But we
are still almost completely helpless before any di
ctator who decides to lob a low-budget missile at your city.
The basic technology to defend against incoming missiles has been available for close
to 30 years, and perfecting and implementing it becomes easier every year. But by
leaving us vulnerable, the politicians can justify mo
re power for themselves.
They tell us we must arm ourselves to the teeth with weapons that can threaten any
would-be attacker with annihilation. We must station American troops in nearly a
hundred countries around the world, as though your childr
en were a Roman army of occupation. We must intervene in every foreign dispute to
prevent it from escalating into a wider war. We must react with fright when India or
Pakistan tests a nuclear weapon. We must intimidate ot
her countries and impose our "solutions" upon them. And although the Cold War is over,
we must continue to support a huge, bureaucratic Defense Department and military.
In reality, we need only two things to make you, me, and every American safe from the
world's turmoil: (1) a missile defense that will repel a nuclear attack, and (2) a
border patrol that will protect us from those rampag
ing Canadians when they charge across the border from Ontario.
With a proper defense against incoming missiles, we'd have no need to intimidate the
world with offensive missiles � threatening to kill millions of civilians in an
aggressor country. We'd have no reason to bomb Serbia, I
raq, Afghanistan, the Sudan, or any other country � and then give it billions of
dollars to repair the damage. Instead, we could let others nurse their age-old
grievances they seem to love so much � knowing that their pro
blems can't hurt us.
Mutual Suicide
And even without a missile defense, we have no need to participate in NATO, the United
Nations, or any other foreign agency that wants to bind you and me to its decisions.
And there is no reason to risk disaster with mutu
al defense treaties. (Or do you really believe Turkey and Italy will rush to help us
if we're attacked?)
Our federal government was formed to protect Americans, not foreigners.
If we're responsible for the defense of Europe, what are the Europeans responsible for
� the defense of Asia?
POLITICIANS & DEATH
War is justified by blurring the distinction between foreign rulers and their
subjects. Our politicians cite the sins of foreign rulers, and then ask us to join in
killing their downtrodden subjects.
The politicians want us to forget that wars and "police actions" kill innocent people.
They talk about teaching a foreign dictator a lesson, but the dictator never gets
hurt. Instead, American bombs kill thousands of inno
cent civilians who may hate the dictator even more than our politicians claim to.
For example, since the Gulf War in 1991, our government has brow-beaten other
governments to ban trade with Iraq � in order to force Saddam Hussein from power. In
the eight years of trade sanctions through 1999, it is est
imated that at least 1,700,000 Iraqi civilians have died for lack of imported foreign
food and medicine.
And, although it doesn't seem to make the newspapers very often, from time to time
American planes continue to drop bombs on innocent Iraqi civilians.
Politicians call the deaths of the innocent "collateral damage." And President Clinton
and the Republican Congress have steadfastly supported the policy of starving and
bombing, even though it has achieved nothing but dea
th and disease.
And after ten years of delivering death by air freight, the U.S. has left Saddam
Hussein still firmly entrenched in power. But American politicians never admit the
failure or cruelty of their policies � or even discuss th
e matter.
The war against Serbia in 1999 was little different. When it ended, the hated Slobodan
Milosevic was still ruling the country. And it became apparent that American bombing
had done little to cripple Serbia's military. But
hundreds, and maybe thousands, of civilians died � including many of the Albanian
civilians who supposedly were the objects of our government's "humanitarian" mission.
Isn't there a better way?
SOLUTIONS
Yes, there is.
Like the Founding Fathers, Libertarians know that war is the first resort of political
scoundrels, but the last resort of a free people. Libertarians know that government's
role isn't to police the world � or even to win
wars. Government's role is to keep us out of wars � and to protect us from foreign
enemies, not create them.
How would a Libertarian government assure our safety?
Our foreign policy would be simple:
We are always ready to defend ourselves, but we threaten no one.
America's foreign policy should rest on four principles.
1. Non-Interference
Our government should express good will and a desire for peace toward all �
threatening no foreign country, interfering in no other countries' disputes, arming or
aiding no foreign governments, and giving terrorists no mo
tivation to influence our government.
Any American who wants to volunteer to a foreign government to fight in its war, to
negotiate its peace, or to send money to help defend it should be free to do so with
no interference from the U.S. government.
But no American should be forced to participate in or pay for such activities. And our
politicians should quit committing Americans to these futile attempts to settle other
people's problems.
When the politicians drag us off to someone else's war, they always offer plenty of
reasons � too many, in fact, to be taken seriously. The typical menu of justifications
for a single intervention might be: We must interf
ere to keep the conflict from spreading, to head off the emergence of a new Hitler, to
protect our allies, to do the moral thing, and to end violations of human rights.
But how can our politicians protect human rights in other countries? They don't even
respect our rights. They try to disarm you, they allow the police to invade your life
and property, they use the insane War on Drugs to
impose police-state surveillance on all of us, and they try to censor the Internet. So
how can they claim to care about human rights in other nations?
2. No Foreign Aid or Military Assistance
The Constitution grants our government no authority to take your money to support
foreign governments.
Not only is it unconstitutional, it is unfair by almost any standard. Little of the
money reaches the average citizen in the target country. Most of it enriches the
rulers � and it helps them stay in power and continue th
e policies that keep their countries poor.
As Fred L. Smith pointed out, foreign aid taxes poor people in rich countries for the
benefit of rich people in poor countries.
Foreign aid originally was justified as a way of arming countries against Communist
encroachment. But Cuba, China, and Vietnam all fell to the Communists after receiving
massive amounts of American money and weapons. In f
act, much of the military equipment given to fight the Communists eventually fell into
their hands.
So the politicians no longer bother trying to justify giving your money to foreign
governments. They just do it. And, not surprisingly, most of the money has strings
attached � requiring that it be spent with politically
connected industries in the U.S.
Much foreign aid is spent to fix problems that might not exist but for our government.
For example, many Americans understandably worry about Israel's security, fearing that
without American aid Israel will be overrun by
its neighbors. But the most effective thing our government could do to help Israel
would be to stop arming Israel's enemies.
Our government's eagerness to take sides in Middle East disputes has put billions of
dollars of weapons in the hands of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Small wonder
that it seems necessary to rush to Israel's defense
when hostile governments can use American weapons to intimidate Israel.
Every American should be free to send money or weapons to Israel or any other
government in the world. But our government has no business taxing you for the benefit
of any foreign government.
3. Security against Attack
Are there bad people in the world who would conquer America if they could?
Most likely, there are. But how would they do it?
They would have to pulverize American cities to the point that we submit to an
invasion and occupation. Or they would have to threaten to pulverize us and be
believed.
In other words, all we have to fear are incoming missiles.
In 1983 Ronald Reagan made the most sensible military suggestion of the past 50 years
� that America should have protection against missile attacks. Unfortunately, he
assigned the job to the Department of Defense, and now
� 17 years later � we are no closer to being protected than we were then.
The Constitution asks the federal government to defend the nation. But we should rely
as little as possible on the political and bureaucratic worlds if we want to achieve
anything useful. Instead, we should look to those
who know how to solve problems and can be motivated to do so by the lure of big
profits.
The government should simply post a reward � say, $25 billion � to be given to the
first private company that can produce a working, functioning, fool-proof missile
defense. Not a prototype, not a plan, not a cost-plus co
ntract � but a demonstration of the actual system successfully bringing down missiles.
If such an offer were made, we probably would have a missile defense within five years.
Remember all the reasons given in 1997 that the Y2K computer problem couldn't possibly
be solved by 2000? Even many computer experts said there wasn't enough time, there
weren't enough programmers, and there were too many
lines of computer code to be examined, altered, and tested. But somehow, people in
search of profits found ways to overcome all the barriers and reduce the problem to a
minor inconvenience.
In the same way, private firms competing to win a huge reward will achieve missile-
defense goals that bureaucrats (and even scientists) working for the government might
consider impossible.
Even the companies that don't win the race can profit if they find the answers
eventually � by selling them to other governments that want protection from terrorist
missiles.
What if the missile-defense technology fell into the hands of a savage dictator? That
would pose no threat to us. We shouldn't be afraid of any country's ability to defend
itself � only afraid of our inability to defend A
merica.
When India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapons, there was nothing the U.S. could
realistically do about it, short of bombing or invading them. None of our government's
admonitions could change anything, so our politicians
should have kept their mouths shut.
If we had a missile defense, such nuclear tests wouldn't frighten us. We can't prevent
other nations from fighting each other or developing weapons of mass destruction, but
we can make sure their disputes and their deadly
arms don't reach us.
Will a missile defense make us perfectly secure? Of course not. But neither will any
other policy.
What a missile defense will do is make us far safer than we are today, eliminate the
excuses for meddling in other countries' affairs, and remove one big reason for taxing
us so heavily.
4. Target the Aggressors, Not the Innocent
Suppose that, even with a missile defense, America truly were threatened by a foreign
ruler.
A Libertarian President would target the ruler himself. He wouldn't order bombers to
kill the ruler's innocent subjects.
A Libertarian President would warn the ruler that any actual attack would be met by
the offer of a mega-reward to anyone who could kill the ruler. Everyone would be
eligible to collect the reward, including the ruler's gu
ards and wives. And the reward would be very big � perhaps $100 million or more.
Would this prompt the foreign ruler to respond by putting a price on the head of the
Libertarian President? Possibly.
But anything the U.S. President does to interfere with the ruler's plans could provoke
an assassination attempt. Posting a reward for the dictator's death wouldn't add to
the risk.
In addition to sparing innocent people in foreign countries, the assassination
response would spare innocent Americans. Only those who want to try for the reward
would be at risk. Americans wouldn't be drafted to fight an
d die invading a foreign country. And Americans wouldn't be taxed to pay for
volunteers.
Please understand the limits of this proposal. It isn't a way to force dictators to
change their spots or accommodate the U.S. It is only a means to prevent a direct
attack on America. If the dictator withdraws his threat
, the U.S. would withdraw the reward.
If our government followed a libertarian foreign policy, it's unlikely that any
foreign ruler would want to threaten us. So it's unlikely that any such reward would
ever be posted. But if a foreign ruler were tempted to t
hreaten us, the fear of assassination would be more likely to deter him than the fear
of losing some of his civilian subjects to U.S. bombs.
If you don't believe that's true, if you think assassination isn't nice, what is the
alternative? Is it to kill thousands of innocent foreigners and to assure the deaths
of innocent Americans?
That to me is the cruelest, most reckless approach.
DO WE TRUST GOVERNMENT TO MAKE US SAFE?
Those who tell us America can bring peace and democracy to the world don't seem to
recognize that they're talking about the same American government that can't keep the
streets safe in Washington, D.C. It's the same gover
nment that bleeds us with taxes, pits group against group in battles over quotas and
privileges, and has devastated our cities with a futile War on Drugs.
If it fails to achieve any of its domestic goals, if it imposes alien values on its
own people, why should you expect it to attain lofty goals overseas?
Politics Is Usual
And don't forget: we're talking about the government, after all.
Military decisions are made politically � just as new pork-barrel projects are chosen
politically. The government's foreign policy is determined with reference to polls,
voting blocs, rewards, and punishment. For example,
Bill Clinton sent troops to Haiti in 1994, killing people along the way, just to gain
the support of the Congressional Black Caucus for his domestic political agenda.
It's easy to imagine how our government could intervene to bring peace to some foreign
region or to support "American interests" overseas. But the actual policy will never
be the one you imagine, implemented in the way yo
u envision. Instead, the politicians will define those interests by relying for
"counsel" on those who have the most political influence.
To expect foreign policy decisions somehow to be separated from politics is as
unrealistic as to expect politicians to refrain from buying votes with your tax money.
In short, foreign policy is as much a political boondoggle as any other government
project. So be careful what you urge the politicians to do.
PEACE FOR ALL TIME
When America can defend itself against missile attack, the politicians will lose their
best excuse for butting into the affairs of other countries and making demands upon
you. That's probably why so little has been done t
o construct such a defense.
But it should be the first priority of anyone who pledges to support and defend the
Constitution and the American people.
And when our government no longer interferes in other countries with military
adventures and foreign aid, foreign terrorists will have little reason to threaten
your city.
If in spite of these policies, some foreign leader still tries to make trouble for
America, we should target the foreign leader for assassination, not target innocent
civilians for bombing. But I doubt that an American go
vernment that minds its own business and provides a secure defense will ever have to
resort to assassination.
These policies don't appeal to Democratic and Republican politicians, who see foreign
crises as opportunities for greater power and more government spending, who
demonstrate their courage by sacrificing the lives of other
s, and who see clearly what we too easily forget � that "war" is just another word for
"big government," a way to make politicians more important.
The policies I've outlined should make it possible to defend this country successfully
for no more than $50 billion a year � contrasted with our current vulnerability, which
costs nearly $300 billion a year. In 1952, at t
he height of the Cold War and the Korean War, the federal government spent less than
$50 billion a year on the military.
But, more important than the savings in taxes, you will know that your children will
never fight and die in a foreign war � and terrorists will never target your city.
Finally, we will have a strong national defense, instead of a strong national offense.
ENFORCING PEACE
The U.S. Constitution was the best attempt ever made to limit the power of government.
But because it wasn't self-enforcing, the politicians eventually found that they could
ignore it with impunity.
I believe we need a new Constitutional amendment to restrain the politicians' ability
to draw us into war. Here is my proposal:
Section 1. The United States shall be at war only after a declaration, naming the
specific enemy nations, is approved by the President and by a two-thirds vote in both
houses of Congress.
Section 2. The United States shall enter into no treaty with any nation or
organization obliging the United States to be at war.
Section 3. Except in time of war, as specified in Section 1, the United States will
deploy no military personnel or weapons outside the boundaries of the United States,
will provide no weapons or other resources to foreig
n governments, and will engage in no military action outside the borders of the United
States.
Section 4. Upon any violation of this article by the President, Congress shall
institute impeachment proceedings within 14 days.
Section 3 doesn't preclude a missile defense or any other kind of defense of this
nation. It only requires the President to wait before attacking a foreign nation until
a declaration of war has been issued. Even if some i
ncapacity prevents Congress from making a declaration quickly, America could still
defend itself. It just couldn't attack anyone else.
This amendment is, I believe, an important first step in finding a
way to keep politicians away from loaded weapons forever. That's the
one kind of gun control that really will save lives.
(Adapted from "Freedom from War," in The Great Libertarian Offer by
Harry Browne. Copies available for purchase online at
www.liamworks.com/tglo/tgloindex.html.)
Back to Home Page
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
