The New American Century represents the beginning of ...



Setting a Poor Example

The New American Century, the Bush Administration, and the Drastic Change in America’s Nuclear Strategy

Garrett Johnston

Friday, December 5, 2003

EDGE

Prof. Bruce Lusignan

The following report examines U.S. nuclear policy beginning with the ideas of the New American Century in 1997, and ending with a brief list of countries providing the largest threat to U.S. security. It attempts to explain the ideas behind the drastic change in U.S. foreign policy during the Bush Administration, and point out many of the irrationalities as well as violations within these policies. The reader should understand there were an unfortunate number of events that have allowed these policies to gain recognition, and hopefully soon Americans will understand Bush’s unilateral, pro-nuclear, aggressive approach could have devastating consequences for United States security.

The New American Century

The New American Century represents the beginning of conservative foreign policy for and the organization of the current administration post-George W. Bush. In a statement of principles dated June 3, 1997 the organization writes:

American foreign policy and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration… But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of American’s role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.[1]

Its statement of principles, which strongly alludes to the Reagan Administration’s success, promotes a United States with a ready and capable military, a strong foreign policy, and a bold leadership. The organization intends to remind Americans of global responsibilities requiring intensive defense spending, of the need to strengthen democratic ties and challenge hostile regimes, of promoting political and economic freedoms abroad, and to accept a unilateral role in preserving international order while remaining conscientious of our values.

At the time of this statement these principles were absurd, and quite irrelevant to United States foreign policy. A more moderate Bill Clinton presided over the nation pouring himself into a domestic agenda, and, relatively speaking, rarely creating a stir in the foreign policy arena. But considering the list of names following the aforementioned statement, a fortuneteller would have been exceedingly disturbed. Dick Cheney, the current Vice-President, Donald Rumsfield, the Secretary of Defense, and Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, all signed their names to these principles. Also other notables such as Jeb Bush, governor of Florida (a strange coincidence considering the election) and brother of the President, and Steve Forbes, an investment icon and previous presidential candidate, supported this proposal. So right from the beginning the New American Century built a strong list of supporters for their cause, and winning the presidency in 2000 provided the boost needed to bring their agenda into the American reality.

The New American Century had already been busy researching their ideas for foreign policy and planning an agenda for their coming rise. In 2000 it released Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, a report proceeding “from the belief that America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces.”[2] This report argues that perhaps no area of U.S. military force is in need of reevaluation more than in nuclear weapons. It maintains that it is unclear whether reducing the nuclear arsenal is the best strategic choice, especially in light of concern over threats in both large countries such as Russia and China, as well as smaller countries like South Korea and Pakistan. Rebuilding America’s Defense strongly criticizes the Clinton administration’s policies of discontinuing nuclear research and advocates the development of an arsenal to meet its needs in the “post-Soviet world.”

Obviously, the New American Century remains powerful within the current administration’s foreign policy. Searching through their website one can find many of the reports predicting the policies of the Bush administration, and it would be safe to say the New American Century is an excellent predictor of its next political moves. As far back as early 1998 they were sending letters to President Clinton as well as Newt Gingrich and Trent Lott concerning the United States lack of interest in the Iraqi situation and suggesting the use of military force in areas not under Saddam Hussein’s control.[3] And if this organization is clearly so powerful, then the ideas expressed in Rebuilding America’s Defenses are sure to become reality regardless of violating treaties or setting a poor example for the rest of the world.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)

In 1968 the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons was established requiring those who joined to either agree not to acquire nuclear weapons if they were not nuclear capable, or to cooperate with non-nuclear countries in the peaceful use of nuclear energy if they were at the time.[4] Additionally, the treaty established an inspection system under the authority of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Today 187 countries have joined this treaty including the five currently known major nuclear weapon states- France, Russia, United Kingdom, China, and the United States. From the 21st of April to the 19th of May the 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons met in New York for their sixth review. The main points of this conference include:

• The delegations of China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, on the occasion of the sixth Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), formally reiterate the strong and continuing support of our countries for this Treaty, the cornerstone of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime and the essential foundation for nuclear disarmament. We remain unequivocally committed to fulfilling all of our obligations under the Treaty.

• We reiterate our unequivocal commitment to the ultimate goals of a complete elimination of nuclear weapons and a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

• We are determined to take a forward-looking approach to nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. The NPT provides an indispensable framework for future efforts against nuclear proliferation and towards nuclear disarmament. We fully acknowledge our particular responsibility and key role in ensuring continued progress in the implementation of the NPT.[5]

Clearly as of May 2000 the United States remained committed to the eventual eradication of all nuclear weapons as well as the strict following of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The five nuclear weapons states listed above indefinitely renewed their contract with the world to continue their positive role in disarmament, while other non-nuclear states agreed to cooperate and remain transparent.

September 11, 2001

In the widely disputed Presidential election of 2000 Republican George W. Bush defeated Democrat Al Gore by an unusually small margin of disputed votes in Florida, and thus began the new conservative foreign policy proposed by the New American Century. Although it still highly debated whether Al Gore lost due to his ideas, his campaign, or his strategic distancing from the Clinton Administration, it is for certain that part of America was searching for a new conservative movement. George W., the privileged son of George H.W. Bush, was the smiling, born-again Christian, who might not speak correctly, but could certainly relate with those in Middle America. His religious beliefs were undoubtedly reflected in his policy, and he chose to surround himself with well-known intelligent individuals who very much shared in his ideology. And although Bush would soon be faced with an economic recession in the domestic arena, the new Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield would certainly be waiting for their chance to express the ideas of the New American Century in Bush’s foreign policy.

On September 11, 2001 perhaps the greatest American tragedy occurred when terrorists crashed two planes into the World Trade Center in New York City killing thousands of Americans. This event made two things remarkably apparent. The American people now realized a group of terrorists of people in the world did not agree with American values, and were so immensely opposed they would be willing to sacrifice their lives and commit a tremendous atrocity. And secondly, George W. Bush would now have almost complete permission from the American people to hunt down the group responsible for this act as well as anyone connected. This became the perfect opportunity for a new foreign policy, and the New American Century was not far behind.

When it became evident the terrorists connected with 9/11 were part of the following of Osama Bin Laden the Bush administration thought it had a perfect target. Not only was Bin Laden a follower of Islam, but also he was a widely known figure in the Muslim world with ties all over the Middle East. And Afghanistan, then controlled by the Bin Laden-connected Taliban, would make an excellent project for the United States. The New American Century now had a real-world application for its theories on political and economic freedoms, and a chance to build a democracy from the ground up. But not only was Bin-Laden the perfect target for these reasons, but it was also widely rumored he maintained connections with Bush’s hated enemy Saddam Hussein. Iraq was a potential target for the New American Century, and it was also speculated Hussein was guilty of attempting to create nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass-destruction.

Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)

In January of 2002 the Defense Department performed a review to establish the direction for American nuclear forces over the next five to ten years. The Nuclear Posture Review intended to bring the United States out of the Cold War with various improvements referred to in what is deemed the New Triad. This is composed of offensive strike systems (both nuclear and non-nuclear), defenses (both active and passive), and a revitalized defense infrastructure.[6] This report takes special notice of the new threat of both terrorists and rogue states, and their ability to use weapons of mass destruction. Built on the changes suggested in Bush’s Quadrennial Defense Review put together within weeks of September 11, the Nuclear Posture Review Report makes numerous controversial suggestions on redefining the labels given to nuclear weapons under agreements, on specific countries seen as potential threats and on the use of earth penetrating nuclear weapons.

Perhaps the most controversial subject of the report due to the United States commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the new definitions of nuclear weapons allow the Bush administration to secure a fairly consistent nuclear arsenal while appearing to decrease its size.[7] The new definitions of this contract allow the United States to reach its goal of 1,700 to 2,200 “operationally deployed warheads” by 2012, however this number will not account for the thousands of “responsive force warheads” in the arsenal. This category of warhead may take only days or weeks for return to deployed status, however it will not be accounted for when estimating the number of active warheads in the U.S. arsenal. It is an accounting strategy in direct violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty as this method of counting does not contribute to an actual decrease in the arsenal, and it certainly does not represent an effort to completely eliminate nuclear weapons.

The Nuclear Posture Review also names, in particular, certain nations posing a questionable threat to the United States. North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Lybia are all named as countries “involved in immediate, potential, or unexpected contingencies,” and coincidentally, the New American Century often mentions North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and Syria as well. The most notable of these countries, North Korea and Iraq, were labeled “chronic military concerns,” and the NPR claims that all “sponsor or harbor terrorists, and all have active WMD (weapons of mass destruction) and missile programs.” But perhaps the most striking claims of the NPR come with respect to both China and Russia. The NPR states, “Due to the combination of China’s still developing strategic objectives and its ongoing modernization of its nuclear and non-nuclear forces, China is a country that could be involved in an immediate potential contingency.” And although an attack on the United States by China is doubtful, the Bush administration and the New American Century seem deeply concerned that with enough ballistic missiles China might overtake Taiwan before the U.S. could properly intervene. Following the Cold War, it is surprising the NPR also takes note of a Russian threat. Although over the years Russia’s nuclear arsenal has certainly become sub-standard in comparison to the U.S., it still remains the most formidable power according to the NPR. And even though the U.S. is now seeking to cooperate with Russia, the NPR states, “a [nuclear strike] contingency involving Russia, while plausible, is not expected.” Considering the United States, China, and Russia renewed their agreement in 2000 to achieving non-proliferation and eventually eradicating nuclear weapons, this type of language is also in direct violation of the NPT.

According to the NPT concern over the growing number of underground military facilities calls for an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon. Although a current model exists, the B61 Mod 11 gravity bomb cannot penetrate certain types of terrain, and therefore the Defense Department wants more research in this area. But researching a new type of nuclear weapon would hardly be promoting the language of the NPT, especially when one considers the consequences of such a weapon. And in a recent article by the President of the Center for Defense Information, Bruce Blair suggests an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon powerful enough to destroy a deep target would not penetrate far enough to avoid spewing radioactive material.[8] If strategists have North Korea in mind, this means after the use of this weapon a battlefield would be contaminated and only complicates the victory, which could have been won using conventional means. Dr. Blair believes these weapons might potentially be developed for countries like Russia or China with underground missile silos and leadership bunkers, but even then they would need to be “10 to 100 times more destructive than the bombs dropped on Japan in 1945.” For Dr. Blair it seems the national laboratories doing research on these and other types of new nuclear weapons are only making efforts to continue funding for their research. But the development of new types of nuclear weapons is certainly not the practice of non-proliferation, especially when other countries might perceive U.S. research as threatening to their security. The NPR discusses at length earth-penetrating nuclear weapons as well as many other forms of new technology, but this does not follow the agreement of the NPT and only threatens U.S. security.

Moscow Treaty

In May of 2002 Presidents Bush and Vladmir Putin met to establish a new U.S.-Russian policy Bush declared would “liquidate the legacy of the Cold War.”[9] Although barely a page in length, the treaty suggests remaining faithful to past agreements between the U.S. and Russia while each decreases its arsenal of strategic nuclear weapons to between 1,700 to 2,200. The Moscow Treaty begins:

The United States of America and the Russian Federation, hereinafter referred to as the Parties,

Embarking upon the path of new relations for a new century and committed to the goal of strengthening their relationship through cooperation and friendship,

Believing that new global challenges and threats require the building of a qualitatively new foundation for strategic relations between the Parties,

Desiring to establish a genuine partnership based on the principles of mutual security, cooperation, trust, openness, and predictability,

Committed to implementing significant reductions in strategic offensive arms…

And most interestingly states:

Mindful of their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of July 1, 1968…

While Article I reads:

Each Party shall reduce and limit strategic nuclear warheads, as stated by the President of the United States of America on November 13, 2001 and as stated by the President of the Russian Federation on November 13, 2001 and December 13, 2001 respectively, so that by December 31, 2012 the aggregate number of such warheads does not exceed 1700-2200 for each Party. Each Party shall determine for itself the composition and structure of its strategic offensive arms, based on the established aggregate limit for the number of such warheads.[10]

These are bold statements from an administration earlier discussing the potential threat of Russia in the Nuclear Posture Review as well as one making a habit of deviating from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Although this treaty calls for both cooperation and nuclear arsenal reduction over the next 10 years, it outlines no guiding path along the way. There are no yearly requirements or specific details on how each country intends to implement the treaty. The only goal maintained is a reduction in each nuclear arsenal by 2012, and even this remains a controversial goal.

According to the National Resources Defense Council and the administration’s own “article-by-article analysis” the only constraint in this treaty requires a reduction in operationally deployed strategic weapons to within 1,700 to 2,200 by December 31, 2012.[11] However, the treaty also expires on December 31, 2012, so neither Russia or the United States would be required to maintain that amount for an extended length of time. And even if the U.S. and Russia comply, the new definition of strategic warheads does not account for weapons in overhaul or active warheads not on deployed systems.

What the Moscow Treaty also does not mention is a reduction in the number of nuclear missile silos, submarines, missiles, warheads, bombers, or bombs. Unlimited production and research of both tactical and strategic nuclear can simply continue under this agreement. It is not “mindful” of their obligations under the NPT to encourage non-proliferation, and especially to work towards a complete nuclear disarmament.

President Bush and Putin’s treaty was a waste of time for the Senate to ratify, and the Presidents to create. It represents a complete cover for the Bush administration to place over their current nuclear plans. In reality this treaty makes minimal effort to comply with the NPT, while using subjective language and unclear rhetoric. The Moscow Treaty remains a “diplomatic illusion” as called by the Natural Resources Defense Council and provides a useless agreement contradicting plans already laid out in the Nuclear Posture Review.

2004 Defense Authorization Bill

In 2003 the controversy surrounding nuclear weapons continued with an addition to the 2004 Defense Authorization Bill prompted by Donald Rumsfield. His addendum adds $15 million for research and development of earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, repeals the Spratt-Furse Amendment prohibiting research on low-yield nuclear weapons, authorizes $6 million to research advanced nuclear concepts and $25 million to resume the nuclear weapons program if necessary, and it lessens the time needed to prepare to conduct a nuclear weapons test from three years to 18 months.[12] Although Senators Dianne Feinstein and Ted Kennedy proposed an amendment to keep the ban on low-yield nuclear weapons in place, the Republican-dominated Senate defeated the amendment and on November 26 President Bush signed the bill into law.

Conservatives argue that nations like Iran and North Korea will not forego nuclear ambitions, even if the United States chooses not to pursue low-yield nuclear weapons.[13] But as discussed before, the effects of this type of nuclear weapon would still be devastating. In a speech delivered to the Center for Defense Information by Dianne Feinstein she cites Stanford physicist Sidney Drell. Drell believes a target 1,000 feet in rock would require a nuclear weapon 10 times the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.[14] And although conservatives also argue hitting a bunker with a conventional weapon might release anthrax spores or chemical compounds that could be destroyed by gamma rays from a nuclear weapon, they are clearly not abiding by the terms agreed upon in the NPT, nor the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty signed in 1996 by President Clinton. A nuclear test has not been conducted in the United States since 1992, and the 2004 Defense Authorization Act will represent a dramatic deviation for nuclear foreign policy in the United States.

Threats?

As of 2003 about 30,000 intact nuclear warheads exist throughout the world. It is estimated that 28,800 currently reside in Russia and the United States. For the last 50 years Russia and the former USSR remained the United States most formidable enemy in terms of potential. But through agreements like the Moscow Treaty and the NPT, nuclear warfare with Russia remains highly unlikely. The end of the Cold War and the beginning of the 21st century brought new threats to the United States. Although only a small percentage of weapons lie elsewhere, various other countries still pose as potential threats to the U.S. With China rapidly modernizing and the development of a nuclear arsenal, it could become a threat to American assets in Taiwan. And since the withdrawal of North Korea from the NPT and its refusal to allow International Atomic Agency Inspectors inside, the United States looks for a growing threat from the North Koreans. In the Middle East it has recently become evident that Iran has secretly been developing technology for the creation of highly enriched uranium and plutonium. And although an attack by either North Korea or Iran on American soil is unlikely, the possibility of terrorists gaining access to nuclear material through these countries is entirely feasible. This is indefinitely a modified list of current nuclear powers or potential powers, however for various reasons these four seem to represent the most direct threats to U.S. security. Following are short case studies connecting each with the intentions of the New American Century and the Bush Administration while commenting on their potential threat.

Russia

Although an all out nuclear war with Russia seems far-fetched after both the START treaties in the 1990s and the Moscow Treaty in 2002, the economic collapse of the Soviet Union and the degradation of Russia’s nuclear infrastructure remains a growing concern. It has been reported by the CIA that the Russian nuclear weapons command has frequent malfunctions, and oftentimes switches to combat mode for no apparent reason.[15] Since the United States and Russia have maintained their nuclear defense systems after the Cold War, this could pose a problem in the event of an accidental misfiring due to technical or human error. Another disastrous scenario possibly resulting from Russia’s deterioration is the prospect of fissile materials or warheads being stolen from Russia and used by other states or terrorist organizations. In 1991 the United States began a program to assist Russia in accounting for downsizing its massive nuclear arsenal. While this program has been quite successful, many weapons still exist and are often poorly secured by the government.

China

The recent development of the Chinese economy has lead China to pursue a more aggressive nuclear arsenal including more weapons, more accurate weapons, and mobile missile systems.[16] But considering China has had the ability to target West Coast cities for years, its threat arises in two other arenas. Like Russia, China has the potential to be a supplier of a huge amount of fissile material. It possesses tons of this material, and under domestic or international pressure might one day choose to use it as leverage. Secondly, with an increasing nuclear arsenal China may choose to challenge the U.S. over Taiwan. This would be difficult for the United States due to the distance, as well as the need to avoid a nuclear escalation.

North Korea

Possibly the most publicized threat of the Bush Administration, North Korea admitted to having a uranium program for nuclear weapons in October of 2002. Shortly after in December of 2003 it announced its plans to restart plutonium production and eject International Atomic Energy Inspectors, a move they blamed on the United States and its increasing pressure. But the North Korean threat is probably less real than most think as relations between North and South Korea are improving, the North Korean economy is too weak to pay for a weapons build-up, and many think North Korea will soon fail and simply join the South.[17] Especially if the North Korean economy continues to decline, nuclear powers can easily pressure North Korea into stopping nuclear production. But with the New American Century and the Bush Administration refusing to negotiate with “rogue” states, North Korea will probably remain a much-debated topic for sometime.

Iran

During the Iraqi war, there was a considerable amount of speculation as to whether Iran is the next target of the Bush Administration. Perhaps the most developed of the Middle Eastern countries, it was recently found that Iran had developed technology to produce highly enriched uranium and plutonium. On November 10, 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a 30-page report on Iranian nuclear activities stating that Iran has been secretly trying to produce enriched nuclear material for 18 years. But the report also concluded that no evidence exists of a current weapons program in Iran.[18] Since Iran has also been tied to numerous terrorist organizations, Iran still remains a threat to security if they have fissile material. Considering they are one of the few countries in the area moving towards democratization and a modernized middle class, hopefully their threat will diminish.

Are they really threats?

The above-mentioned countries have on some level or another attempted to produce nuclear weapons, and at some time or another U.S. relations with them have been rocky. But the U.S. is now friends with Russia, Putin and Bush seem to get along fine, and there even seems to be cooperation between the two. Although China continues to grow, it is highly unlikely they will choose a nuclear war against the United States. North Korea continues to decline under the dictatorship of Kim Chong-il, and it is doubtful they will ever possess the ability to reach the U.S. with a nuclear weapons. And it seems the Iranian effort has subsided due to their recent exposure. So what does remain a threat is the fissile material these countries have developed. The Russian economy cannot afford to safeguard their enormous arsenal, the Chinese have a vast nuclear network, the North Koreans can’t seem to be trusted, and the Iranians have ties to terrorism. So should the New American Century and the Bush Administration be promoting new types of nuclear weapons and deviating from the NPT?

It is obvious that policies promoting the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the United States will set a negative example for both nations as well as terrorist groups. The current administration simply cannot understand the linkage between increasing the amount of nuclear weapons in the world, and increasing the threat to U.S. security. Its broken promises and treaty violations may soon result in devastating consequences. One can only hope the U.S. realizes it is setting a poor example for the rest of the world, and holding back peaceful nuclear non-proliferation for years to come.

-----------------------

[1] Project for the New American Century, “Statement of Principles,” June 3, 1997, (December 2, 2003)

[2] Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century, Project for the New American Century, September 2000, (December 2, 2003)

[3]“Letter to President Clinton on Iraq,” Project for the New American Century, January 26, 1998, (December 2, 2003)

“Letter to Gingrich and Lott on Iraq,” Project for the New American Century, May 29, 1998, (December 2, 2003)

[4] Amy F. Woolf, Arms Control and Nonproliferation: Issues and Analyses, “Arms Control and Nonproliferation Activities: A Listing of Events,” ed. Leon T. Carter (NY: Nova Science Publishers, Inc. 2000), 67.

[5] U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs, “Five Nuclear Powers Express Strong Support for NPT,” May 1, 2000, (December 2, 2003)

[6] , Nuclear Posture Review [Excerpts], January 8, 2002, (December 2, 2003)

[7] Natural Resources Defense Council, “Faking Nuclear Restraint: The Bush Administration’s Secret Plan For Strengthening U.S. Nuclear Forces,” Feb 2002, (December 2, 2003)

[8] Center for Defense Information, Bruce Blair’s Nuclear Column, “We Keep Building Nukes For All the Wrong Reasons,” May 2003, (December 2, 2003)

[9] Natural Resources Defense Council, “The Bush-Putin Treaty,” May 2002, (December 2, 2002)

[10] The White House, “The President’s Trip to Europe and Russia,” May 24, 2002, (December 2, 2003)

[11] Natural Resources Defense Council, “The Moscow Treaty’s Hidden Flaws,” February 3, 2003, (December 2, 2003)

[12] Dianne Feinstein, Center for Defense Information, “The Danger of U.S. Nuclear Development,” May 14, 2003

[13] Daniel McKivergan, “The No-Nukes Party,” The Weekly Standard, 2 June 2003.

[14] Dianne Feinstein, Center for Defense Information, “The Danger of U.S. Nuclear Development,” May 14, 2003

[15] Bernard I. Finel, Brian D. Finlay, and Janne E. Nolan, Grave New World, “The Perils of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons,” ed. Michael E. Brown (Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 46

[16] Bernard I. Finel, Brian D. Finlay, and Janne E. Nolan, Grave New World, “The Perils of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons,” ed. Michael E. Brown (Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 47, quoted in David Shambaugh, “Sino-American Strategic Relations: From Partner to Competitors,” Survival 42 (spring 2000), 104-7

[17] Bernard I. Finel, Brian D. Finlay, and Janne E. Nolan, Grave New World, “The Perils of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons,” ed. Michael E. Brown (Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2003), 51

[18] Natural Resources Defense Council, “Iran Develops Nuclear Technologies in Secret for 18 Years,” November 12, 2003, (December 2, 2003)

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download