| |
USA-EU: GOOD COP – BAD COP? – December 3, 2006
* The following essay is an English translation of an article by Ms. MARTA CICHOMSKA, who received an award of excellence in a writing contest organized in April, 2006, by the Center for International Relations in Warsaw, the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and The Portal of Foreign Affairs – an online magazine published by the Institute of Foreign Affairs in Warsaw. Its re-publication has been made possible through the courtesy of these copyright holders.
“America is a danger to global security. Its plans for global hegemony, its self-centered efforts to secure its own interests, and its disregard for the views of other nations, have to be stopped. An anti-American counter-force needs to be created in the shape of a new, European superpower.”
“Europe indulges in its past. It cannot accept its marginalization and the loss of its leading role in the world. Europe is cowardly, internally divided, and hypocritical. Chronically weak herself, she insists that America abandon its leading role in the world.”
”BREZHNEV IS GONE”
The above statements are some of the accusations that Americans and Europeans raise against each other. Politicians, historians, sociologists, political scientists and journalists on both sides of Atlantic have been discussing the state of Western civilization for some time. Debate swirls around the reasons for the misunderstandings and disputes that have troubled transatlantic relations and which have led to the U.S. and Europe distancing themselves from each other. The debate features dire warnings of a final split between Europe and America and the end of the West. These forecasts range from the alarmingly catastrophic to the stoically optimistic, although the latter are mostly heard in America. Transatlantic tensions and their causes have been analyzed in thousands of publications and essays. The reasons most often given include: differing historical experiences, divergent interests, differing visions for the world, and simple ambition. These differences lay hidden when Europe and America were united by a mutual purpose, or rather a mutual enemy – the USSR. As Timothy Garton Ash, one of the advocates of transatlantic friendship puts it: “Unfortunately, Brezhnev is gone.”
Bilateral grievances which were dormant during the Cold War Era, have been re-awakened since1989. The symbolic collapse of the Berlin Wall was accompanied by another ‘constructive catastrophe’ – the collapse of the foundation of the existing transatlantic alliance.
Europe suddenly rediscovered her offended pride, and began to look with bitterness upon the Americans – the very liberators, without whom it would have been impossible to defeat Hitler and rebuild Europe. While Americans for the first time in their history looked on Europe with a feeling of superiority - a new Rome free of her inferiority complex toward the Greeks. Since then not much has been done to remedy the situation. The differences are growing, and every new disagreement, such as the debate over the intervention in Iraq, further accelerates the erosion process. There are people on both sides of the Atlantic who seem satisfied with this situation and do not foresee the danger approaching.
Do these accusations flying across the Atlantic mean that the “Western oasis of peace” is doomed to collapse? Not necessarily. But a debate over EU-US relations is coming. In a way it is a good sign that this debate is such an emotional one. The discussion may be full of mutual grievances and recriminations, but it would be much worse if the debate on the future of the West were merely an academic discourse. That would mean that transatlantic relations no longer matter to ordinary people. On the contrary, troubled relations between the U.S. and EU have been accompanied by an intense exchange of thoughts, ideas and criticism. In both the ‘anti-American’ and ‘imperialistic’ essays in circulation the chief underlying accusation against the other side is a lack of understanding. Americans can’t understand the reasons for growing anti-Americanism in Europe. Americans ask themselves – “Not only are we the only ones taking responsibility for world affairs, but why should we spend our money defending your European homes when we are repaid with ingratitude? Why do you dislike us?” Europeans, on the other hand, can’t believe the increasingly audacious actions of the U.S. The U.S. has taken upon itself the right to intervene militarily in every part of the globe and tries to decide global issues unilaterally. Europeans ask – “Haven’t you learned anything from the tragic wars of the 20th century? Why don’t you understand the need for multi-lateral actions built around international law and international organizations?”
Americans and Europeans both are disappointed that their views are not being understood on the other side of the Atlantic. But despite many significant differences, we are close to each other, closer than “any other cultural combination” in the world, as Wolfgang Schauble notes in his book: Will the West Lose?
Despite the harsh words that have been said and which will be heard in the future, Americans and Europeans realize the depth of the bonds connecting them. No matter how much some politicians say that America and Europe can’t walk the same path anymore, the reality is different. In Western civilization Americans and Europeans have the basis for a solid community. It is a community based on shared values, standards and ideals; values and ideals that will endure, as opposed to the ephemeral political scene. Our cultural connections run so deep that they go almost unnoticed in our daily life. Parisians aren’t surprised when they see children playing basketball in New York City, or hear people in the subway telling jokes about Bush. We aren’t astonished, as it is usual and normal behavior in the West. We need to remember that in other parts of the globe such ‘normality’ does not exist, that children’s rights, equal status for women, or freedom of speech are ‘dangerous Western ideas’. We need to remember how much we, the people of the West, are similar to each other. To really understand this we sometimes need a shock. The terrorist attacks of September 11th were such a shock for the Europeans. The editor of the French magazine Le Monde, felt strongly when he wrote: “We all are Americans.”
True, European compassion and solidarity with the U.S. did not last long. No one event, even one so tragic, would be enough to efface the growing tensions between the U.S. and the EU. Nevertheless, September 11th showed that we are not indifferent to each other. On the contrary, Europeans understood at a gut level that the terrorist attacks on New York City were attacks on them. The blow was not aimed merely at the Twin Towers, but at our fundamental values: freedom, democracy and the secularity of the state.
ASIAN SOUP
Before one speculates about transatlantic relations in the 21st century, or tries to solve the problems dividing Europe and America, one needs to admit a basic truth – the West, as a cultural whole, continues to endure. Questions about its condition and future are a separate issue. The West can still be readily distinguished from competing civilizations and cultures. The West, regardless of Dominique Moisi’s views, does not need to be reinvented from scratch. True, the West is beginning to come apart, but there is hope that a general overhaul can still repair the damage. The question is: do we have the appropriate specialists to carry out the repairs?
The fate of the West will be decided in the 21st century. We will find out if Western civilization and its values are still a going proposition for the world or if the West will perish. As Zygmunt Bauman puts it in his book Europe: An Unfinished Adventure: “The West does not seem invincible anymore. Its internal weakness is presently a sort of a public secret. It is not so obvious anymore that its dominance will last in the future, and opposition against the West does not seem so useless.” Whether the West comes out victorious in the confrontation with the Islamic and Asian civilizations, and whether it will face these challenges united or divided, depends on whether we find statesmen on the both sides of Atlantic prepared to rebuild bilateral relations based on genuine partnership. At the moment there are few such leaders. A glance at the domestic political scene in the U.S. and the EU does not give many reasons for optimism. Democracy – the core of Western civilization, is currently in crisis. The future of the West depends on whether we will be able to repair our democracy or not. The impetus for change may come as emerging powers like China and India become increasing threats to our civilization. Will the West be strong enough to impose its standards on these new powers and peacefully engage them in the global political system? We cannot assume that the Asiatic powers will give up their ambitions, and not utilize their growing power to jeopardize the position and prosperity of the West. There is not slightest guarantee that China, seeing the weakness of the West, will accept democracy, with all the restraints connected with it, as the best political system in the world.
If this dark vision is not enough for people to wake up, then only a miracle can save the West we know today. Jared Diamond, in his book Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed formulated an interesting theory of how civilizations commit suicide. Cultures that are unable to foresee approaching dangers and respond in a timely fashion, sooner or later perish. It is a sort of civilizational Darwinism – only those cultures that can promptly adapt to ever-changing circumstances survive. The West can no longer afford to have short-sighted, quarrelsome political elites that allow the transatlantic alliance to further deteriorate.
Alone, Europe would have no chance in a confrontation with Asiatic military might. This confrontation is already in its opening stages. For now, China only challenges us economically, but even this could weaken Europe which has grown used to prosperity. Cut-throat competition with the Chinese can for now be neutralized by imposing trade barriers. But such actions are already becoming ineffective. Chinese products, even after being slapped with tariffs, are far cheaper than domestic European products. A richer, stronger China may soon challenge the West militarily as well. This pessimistic scenario is likely. As Timothy Garton Ash puts it, “Chinese communism in its decadent phase, in order to remain in power, distracts its nation’s focus by evoking nationalism.” Predictions that assumed that China would adopt democracy along with capitalism have not come true. The West’s good intentions to ‘civilize’ China were not enough to achieve results. Now that China is far too strong, we can no longer reprimand her without consequences. Western leaders are reduced to making shy comments about Chinese abuse of human rights, and then only from the pressure of public opinion.
How would the U.S. fare alone in competition with China? After the Cold War the U.S. remains the only global superpower. The world has in general benefited. But that does not mean that American dominance is assured. The U.S. itself seems to reject such warnings; Americans often invoke some reassuring statistics. It is serenely noted that U.S. spends more on defense annually than the next fifteen richest countries in the world put together. In other words, as optimistic Americans would put it – “The U.S. is the unquestioned superpower.”
But the competition has not been sleeping. For now the U.S. has an enormous military advantage over every real or potential enemy. The U.S. will remain number one militarily for the next several decades. But we can already see the first fractures in the foundation of American might. In just a few years the U.S. became the world’s biggest world debtor. Its debts now equal 28% of its GNP, and the half of them are incurred abroad. Ominously, the biggest creditors the U.S. has are Japan and China. As A. Smolar remarks in his essay: What is the Empire Allowed?, the financial stability of the most powerful empire in the world depends, to a great extent, on decisions made in the Chinese Politbureau.
Economic potential reflects military capabilities. For now the U.S. can afford to allocate $440 billion for military spending in 2007. But how long will the U.S. be able to afford such spending? What will happen if China replaces the U.S. as the number one economy in the world? For now China stands fourth in rank and is growing fast. Moreover, the Western economies can only dream about the growth rate that China has had for many years. In the long term it will be extremely hard for 300 million Americans to economically prevail over 1.3 billion Chinese.
These numbers show the absurdity of acting alone. The U.S., Europe, and all other countries part of Western civilization need to act in concert if they do not want to be crushed by the rising Chinese giant. This does not mean that we should create another enemy in the shape of China, India or the Muslim countries. But it is time to realize that the West as a civilization has one purpose – to survive and shape the world in accordance with its values. This will be never achieved if America and Europe cannot agree on major issues and conduct uncoordinated and even contradictory foreign policies. We weaken each other instead of supporting each other, while focusing on short term interests and neglecting our ultimate goals. Only united and in solidarity will we be able to impose our terms on other civilizations. The Chinese economy is heavily dependent on exports to the West. The West should take advantage of this by insisting that China democratize and abide by human rights standards.
AN ‘ANTI-COWBOY’ AND OTHER ILLUSIONS
Evidence of the split between Europe and America can be seen in the stereotypes and prejudices increasingly in circulation on both sides of the Atlantic. One hears nasty comments about ‘the cousins on the other side of the ocean.’ Most such opinions are not based on fact. How is it that ‘lazy and spoiled Europeans’ have created such a strong, growing economy, comparable to that of the U.S.? How is it that ‘vacuous and arrogant Americans’ possess the best academic centers in the world? Similar paradoxes could be endlessly cited. The truth is that anti-Americanism fuels and encourages anti-Europeanism. It would do well to put aside these prejudices and start debating on a higher level. Transatlantic debate is all too often superficial and lacking in thorough analysis. Garton Ash calls those who traffic in such superficial views “horrible simplifiers”. Their stereotyped views impede mutual understanding and harshen the tone of debate. The ‘horrible simplifiers’ prize ‘sophisticated’ analogies and humorous metaphors rather than fact and balanced arguments. As a result a cursory reader might gain the disconcerting impression that the debate about the future of transatlantic relations centers around whether dishwashing is better than cooking or what planet sheriffs, bartenders and cowboys are from.
The ‘horrible simplifiers’ matter because many such ‘experts’ are heard and followed by the present leadership in power. American foreign policy is strongly influenced by those calling on the U.S. to disregard Europe and take up “the white man’s burden” on its own. Robert Kagan, one of the main architects of the theory of “kind hegemony” by the U.S., argues: “The main threat facing the U.S. today is its reluctance to undertake global leadership.” But the ‘simplifiers’ among the European elite see the main threat in America. For them America is a depraved sheriff, who, not having a major enemy, is terrorizing the whole town. This vision may be silly; but America has been led astray by the illusion of its unlimited might. If America truly wants the world, or at least the West, to recognize its leadership, the U.S. should show more good will. Instead America tries to avoid ratifying multilateral treaties and conventions. Some examples of these mistaken policies include:
– Backing out of the Kyoto Protocol.
– Refusing to ratify the Convention on Anti-Personnel Mines.
– Questioning the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal.
These actions do not bring glory to the U.S. They lend support to claims that Americans are not guided by higher values or moral standards, but simply take care of their own interests. Such actions by the U.S. also give ammunition to European ‘simplifiers’ who seek an end to U.S. hegemony and want to see the EU become the true defender of world peace. This vision is becoming more attractive. As the EU grows it needs a new common identity. The unwise temptation to define Europeanism as the simple negation of Americanism is very strong. Europe has a long history, and a rich tradition and culture on which to build a positive common identity. Those who think that Europe can be united solely by anti-Americanism are wrong. This can be seen by the Letter of Eight of 2003, which showed a serious division within Europe about its approach toward the U.S. The Letter also jeopardized ambitious plans for turning Europe into a kind of Anti-America. Small wonder, that Jacques Chirac, the chief supporter of these plans, could not curb his emotions and lashed out at Eastern European nations supporting the intervention in Iraq, saying that they “had lost their chance to remain silent.”
The idea of turning Europe into an ‘anti-cowboy’ has so far been unsuccessful, and future attempts will also fail. Europe and America are not two separate civilizations. Creating two rival superpowers within Western civilization would be artificial and destructive. If we are united by the same values and have a common goal – to save the West from marginalization – we should not argue over petty matters but overcome our differences and reach an acceptable compromise.
THE WEAK POWER, OR THE POWER OR WEAKNESS?
European and American aims are the same, but their methods in achieving them differ. These differences have been underscored recently and tend to overshadow the fundamental identity binding the two continents together. As the result the ‘simplifiers’, who loudly proclaiming the end of the West, have gained in popularity. As Robert Kagan puts it: “It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world.” European and American methods for shaping the world order do differ; but such pessimistic conclusions are not justified. Consensus can still be reached.
What are these differences? Robert Kagan argues that the problem is in differing approaches to the fundamental issue of power.
“Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws, rules, transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Kant’s ‘Perpetual Peace’. The United States, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might” – Robert Kagan, Power and Weakness.
Kagan’s observations are partially true; but he doesn’t try to understand and analyze these differences. He ends up building his analysis of the transatlantic divide on false reasoning. He lacks a ‘sympathetic objectivity’ toward the Old World. For him, Europe does not want to be powerful and therefore will fall further and further behind America. Negotiations, diplomacy, and persuasion, are, in his opinion, typical signs of a European ‘language of weakness’. His argument resembles a primitive version of Nietzsche – seeing international law as something invented by the weak in order to restrain and subordinate the strong. Thus the Nietzschean Super-America has the right to reject all rules and laws restraining her. This school of thought is met with apprehension, and not only in Europe. This kind of thinking is at odds with the American tradition of limited government. It was Americans, trying to avoid European mistakes, who invented the constitutional doctrine of check and balances, a system which still provides the best means for limiting abuse of power. The Founding Fathers were not enshrining the reign of brute force. They constructed a political system that safeguards against the misuse of power. One of the basic principles of American government is the rule of law, where societies are governed not by people, but by laws.
How can this tradition of limited government, so deeply rooted in the American consciousness, jibe with Kagan’s theses, treat international law as an invention of the weaker nations? They are not consistent with each other. Proof of this can be seen in the growing opposition in the U.S. to unilateral actions and rejection of international obligations. America pays a huge price for being the world’s leader; not only financially but in a growing anti-Americanism, which strengthens fundamentalists and terrorists worldwide. Many ordinary Americans believe that increased U.S. military involvement around the globe is pointless – not only are American soldiers dying, but these interventions may make America more vulnerable.
Kagan rashly assumes that Europe’s conciliatory approach stems from her weakness. There are some facts to support his thesis. The European Union is heterogeneous, and especially now, after its recent growth, is beset with domestic problems. Thus Europeans currently concentrate on internal issues rather than on global security. Europeans prefer to put their tax euros into costly social security benefits rather than create a powerful army, especially since they can live under the U.S. military protection. But when it comes to a crisis, Europe is unable to solve even its own domestic problems, as was seen in the war in the former Yugoslavia. Europe is still a military dwarf. This disqualifies her as an equal partner with the U.S.
The above arguments have some truth to them. Europeans need to seriously consider the problems created by its eurocentrism and military inefficiency. But military weakness is not overall weakness. Europe has not created an army comparable to that of the United States because it can’t build one, but because the current political philosophy reigning there denies the need for such an option. One may say that to maintain a large army a country needs a strong revenue base, but Europe already has enough money to create a powerful military if it wanted to. Europeans aren’t likely to abandon their social security benefits in order to build up military might. But Europe’s peaceful ideology and military weakness is a voluntary choice. It was a reaction to the shocking experiences of World War II. In order to rebuild Europe it was necessary to reject force, violence and military pressure in international relations. Rejection of military force has become one of the foremost principles of European diplomacy. Europeans have been sobered by the totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century. Abandoning militaristic policies has been a form of atonement for the war crimes of the still recent past. World War II and its horrors did not happen that long ago, and Europe has not yet fully dealt with its past. For this reason the pacifist ideology current in the Old World should not strike anyone as strange. This pacifism may be naive at times, but it should not be scorned by more military minded Americans.
Europe tries to influence the world through economic power, rather than the size of its army, or the number of missiles it has ready. The EU has specialized in so-called ‘soft power’. By establishing economic ties, assisting the poorer regions of the world, and by admitting new member states the EU has scored significant, though not always spectacular successes. Let’s take a closer look at EU’s strategy of enlargement, which Robert Cooper calls the “allure of membership”. To be able to join the EU is a powerful motivation for candidate countries. The best example is Turkey. Guided by the European model, it has conducted important reforms to meet European standards. We see similar motives at work in the ‘Orange Revolution’ in the Ukraine. Even in Belarus, protestors in the demonstrations after the last presidential elections were holding EU flags and banners.
Many experts, impressed by this ‘soft power’, consider the EU to be a regional superpower. The term of ‘global superpower’ they reserve for the U.S. The EU cannot abandon its role as regional leader, but for the West’s benefit Europe should unburden the U.S. and assume more responsibility for global security. Europe can no longer limit merely to sit back and criticize U.S. actions in the Middle East and then try to conduct its own independent policy in the region. It is Europe which should be more concerned about peace in the Middle East than the U.S.. For it is Europe that contains a considerable Muslim minority.
GOOD COP – BAD COP?
Europe and America can cooperate as partners in building world peace. Both parties need to accept their own differences: Europeans need to accept aggressive American military action while Americans need to understand Europe’s penchant for boring diplomacy. But these practices will not work alone. Military domination, even when it is successful, creates a lack of legitimacy. It was easy to overthrow Saddam Hussein. To restore peace and calm has been more difficult. American efforts to do so meet with reluctance and opposition from Iraqi society.
A strategy of negotiation and persuasion without being backed by the threat of military force is also usually ineffective. Neither American nor European tactics alone are sufficient. But a combination of them in the form of coordinated action could bring surprising results.
We could have the ‘good cop - bad cop’ model of transatlantic relations. In movies, one policeman sometimes plays the good cop while the other comes off as the bad cop. The role of ‘good cop’ could be fulfilled by Europe; while the U.S. could play the bad cop. Europe could calmly urge a felon to start cooperating and not anger the trigger-happy Americans. If such tactics do not succeed, then the U.S. could intervene militarily.
This strategy resembles the situation we already see today. Europe still focuses on negotiations. When they do not bring positive results, the U.S. decides to use military force. The difficulties are in the details. Europe and the U.S. don’t coordinate their policies. Each acts according to their own agenda. The results are not impressive. Transatlantic cooperation requires coordinated action. There is no place for separate decisions and actions when the consequences will be borne by the whole of the West.
The partners have to support each other. Having Europe play the good cop and the U.S. play the bad cop is not saying that Europeans are good and Americans are evil. Europeans will be happy to play the good cop, since Europeans have more experience in conducting negotiations and achieving compromises. It does not mean that Europe deems its methods morally superior to the use of force. Without the threat of military force negotiations would not succeed. On the other hand, America by virtue of its military might, is perfect to cast in the bad cop role. The U.S. should refrain from using its military while there is still hope that European diplomacy can solve the problem peacefully.
’EUROPE’S TELEPHONE’
What has to happen for transatlantic cooperation to be effective? Importance needs to be given to good communication between the partners. This comes down to telephones. As Henry Kissinger puts it: “If I want to speak to Europe, whom should I call?”
Europe lacks the internal integration for the U.S. to treat it as an equal partner. The U.S. needs a strong, integrated Europe, with one common foreign policy. The European Union has an ambitious plan on the table – to manage the current crisis and continue the gradual integration between its member states. In this context, every new expansion of the EU should be considered carefully – too swift an expansion could make further integration difficult and undermine European institutions. On the other hand delaying membership for too long would deprive Europe of the advantage of using admission to the EU to influence possible candidates.
The present deadlock in writing the proposed European Constitution makes the ‘good cop - bad cop’ partnership model of transatlantic relations less viable. Europeans have serious objections to vesting foreign policy in the hands of EU officials. It is absolutely necessary to create a Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the EU, to coordinate the foreign policies of all EU members and represent the EU to the outside world. The rejection of the European Constitution by the French and the Dutch means that there will be no one ‘European telephone’ for years. In the meantime the EU will have to weigh how to truly integrate the member states. A common EU foreign policy is also a dream of European ‘horrible simplifiers’, who need such a policy to create a counterweight to American global influence. The French ‘No’ to the European Constitution has been a great blow to visionaries of an imperial Europe. It is all the more painful for them because the French are known for their anti-Americanism. For this reason we should consider this deadlock a good thing and make sure that the next attempt to adopt necessary reforms does not have anti-American tones.
The U.S. should look upon the European reforms with honest goodwill. Americans need to understand that they will be unable to deal alone with the challenges of the contemporary world and will need a true ally to do so. The U.S. can find such an ally in Europe; but Europe still needs time to grow. The Old World needs to find a successful means for carrying out appropriate internal reforms, while the U.S. cannot disturb the process.
If the U.S. utilizes the short-sighted Roman strategy of divide et impera in its relations with Europe, it will be like cutting off a branch on which they are sitting. The best example of what the U.S. should not do is given by [former] Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who divided Europe into an anti-American ‘Old Europe’ and a pro-American ‘New Europe’. This strategy has only deepened misunderstandings between Washington and Brussels. It has caused conflicts within the EU and has delayed the realization of the ‘good cop - bad cop’ strategy.
AN ENVOY FOR THE WEST:
The continued strategic partnership between Europe and the U.S. requires a basic re-orientation of policies on both sides of the Atlantic. Can the effort to restore the greatness of the West succeed? Perhaps. Nowhere has it been said that the dominance of Western civilization will be eternal. Timothy Garton Ash warns: “If the West will continue to play Hamlet, then Asia, like Fortinbras, will inherit the kingdom.” The West is not doomed to decline. We may come to realize at the last minute, that there is no longer time to fight with each other and that we must cooperate.
Transatlantic cooperation based on ‘good cop - bad cop’ tactics has a number of advantages. The parties can use methods consistent with their own beliefs. The U.S. would not have to abandon using military force, while Europe would not have to adopt a militaristic approach. Europe and America would be full partners. It might not be a completely equal relationship; but the combination of each partner’s differing strengths would make for a powerful alliance. Europe, despite considerable military weakness, would not have an inferiority complex toward the U.S. Its position in the partnership would be based on its recognition on the international scene, not on military force. The U.S. would not be alone in its global leadership role, and despite its overwhelming military capabilities, would recognize its interdependence with Europe.
Transatlantic cooperation would be much easier if all Europeans and Americans took seriously the words of Timothy Garton Ash in his book Free World: America, Europe, and the Surprising Future of the West: “We, the people of the West, belong to the same group of free, considerably affluent inhabitants of the democratic countries, which have the capability of influencing the reality surrounding them”. And we should find the courage to do so.
By: Marta Cichomska
------------------------
The author of the article is a JD candidate at Warsaw University School of Law in Poland.
------------------------ |
|
