Saudi Arabia 1AC



Saudi Arabia 1ACBy: Dustin Rimmey, Topeka High School, KansasResolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and/or Foreign Military Sales of arms from the United States.Summary: Since 2014-2015 the middle eastern nation of Yemen has actively been engaged in a civil war due to a disputed transition from one leader to another. This civil war is also a proxy conflict between gigantic forces in the middle east with the Saudi-coalition supporting the government and Iran supporting the Houthi rebels.The United States has taken an active role in this war as well by increasing arms sales with both Saudi Arabia and the UAE in addition to technical and logistical support that comes with the sales. Ending sales to Saudi Arabia would bring the war in Yemen to an abrupt end saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians and allowing humanitarian organizations to bring one of the greatest humanitarian crises facing the globe to an end.Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Introduction PAGEREF _Toc16516934 \h 2Observation 1: Inherency and Harms PAGEREF _Toc16516935 \h 3Plan PAGEREF _Toc16516936 \h 4Observation 2: Solvency PAGEREF _Toc16516937 \h 5Advantage 1—Yemeni War PAGEREF _Toc16516938 \h 7Advantage 2—Terrorism PAGEREF _Toc16516939 \h 10IntroductionThe Humanitarian Crisis in Yemen is worsened everyday due to the air-to-ground military campaigns sponsored by United States weapons sold to Saudi Arabia. The instability caused by these military campaigns effect national security and regional stability which are reasons to vote affirmative today. Which brings us to…Observation 1: Inherency and HarmsFirst, despite Congressional resolutions to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia, the Trump Administration has declared a state of emergency to allow continued arms sales to the Saudi-Lead coalitionJennifer Spindel, an assistant professor of international security at the University of Oklahoma and the associate director of the Cyber Governance and Policy Center, 5-30-2019, "Analysis," Washington Post, Trump administration announced last week that it will declare an emergency to allow U.S. companies to sell arms to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. That emergency circumvents Congress and the usual bureaucratic process for approving U.S. arms sales. By selling about $8 billion worth of precision-guided munitions and combat aircraft, President Trump advances his view of Saudi Arabia as a “great ally” of the United States. Trump’s move is legal. Under the 1976 Arms Export Control Act, the State Department authorizes arms sales (or doesn’t). As I explain below, Congress usually allows decisions to be implemented without objection. But this time, the administration has invoked the act’s provision that allows presidents to sidestep congressional review if they believe a national security emergency requires the arms to be sold. In doing so, it is ignoring the bipartisan resolution Congress passed in April to halt U.S. military support for the Saudi war in Yemen.Second, United States arms sales are the only thing that fuels air strikes in Yemen, more than a thousand children have been killed or injured in these strikes. At least one child per day will continue to die until they stop.Assandra Bain, 8-07-2019, "'Almost one child a day has been killed': Australia urged to halt arms sales to countries involved in Yemen war," SBS News, one year after a United States-supplied bomb killed 40 boys on a bus in Yemen, the death toll of children in the war-torn country continues to rise. Since the deadly airstrike attack in Sa'ada on 8 August, more than 335 children have died in the fighting and almost 600 have been injured, according to new figures by the United Nations. Humanitarian agencies said international arms sales are fuelling the conflict and have urged Australia and US governments to immediately halt weapons exports to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Oxfam’s Yemen Country Director Muhsin Siddiquey said the amount of children killed in the past year is equivalent to another eight buses being hit. “The world was rightly appalled by an attack that took the lives of so many young, innocent school children. Yet almost one child a day has been killed in the year since and violence remains a daily threat for Yemenis, alongside the struggle against hunger and disease,” he said. “All parties to the conflict and those with influence over them should do all in their power to end this deadly war now.” Since the latest figures were gathered, even more children have been killed or injured. PlanThe United States federal government should eliminate all Foreign Direct Sales and Direct Commercial sales of arms to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.Observation 2: SolvencyFirst, an arms embargo against Saudi Arabia sends the signal that the US no longer endorses Saudi actions. These are key to communicating international political preferencesJennifer Spindel, assistant professor of international security at the University of Oklahoma, and the Associate Director of the Cyber Governance and Policy Center, 5-14-2019, "The Case for Suspending American Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia," War on the Rocks, embargos are often dismissed as symbolic, and therefore ineffective. But just because something is symbolic, doesn’t mean that it won’t have an effect. A U.S. arms embargo against Saudi Arabia would be a clear signal of American disproval of Saudi actions in Yemen, and would be an equally important signal to Washington’s allies, who are left wondering if the United States is ambivalent or uninterested in the growing Yemeni humanitarian catastrophe. By continuing to provide weapons, President Donald Trump tacitly endorses Saudi policies. This signal is strengthened by Trump’s recent veto of the resolution that called for an end to U.S. support for the war in Yemen. While Trump justified the veto by saying that the resolution was a “dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities,” statements from Congressional representatives show they are aware of the powerful signals sent by arms sales. Sen. Tim Kaine said that the veto “shows the world [Trump] is determined to keep aiding a Saudi-backed war that has killed thousands of civilians and pushed millions more to the brink of starvation.” An arms embargo against Saudi Arabia would be a signal both to leaders of that country, and other states, that the United States does not endorse Saudi actions. Those arguing against a ban are correct on one point: Embargos as blunt force instruments of coercion are rarely effective. But arms embargos are effective as signals of political dissatisfaction, and serve an important communication role in international politics.Second, an arms embargo would be an effective signal to end the war in Yemen. Even if embargoes aren’t fully effective, the announcement will force Saudi Arabia to change.Jennifer Spindel, assistant professor of international security at the University of Oklahoma, and the Associate Director of the Cyber Governance and Policy Center, 5-14-2019, "The Case for Suspending American Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia," War on the Rocks, and scholars agree that arms embargoes are not effective “sticks” in international politics. Rarely do states cave when faced with punishment in the form of an embargo. But even if an arms embargo isn’t a direct tool of coercion, an embargo would be an important political signal. There are at least two reasons for the United States to seriously consider an arms embargo against Saudi Arabia. First, arms sales are signals that cut through the noise of the international system. Cutting off arms transfers is a common way that states express their dissatisfaction with others and try to influence behavior. As Lawrence Freedman observed in 1978, “refusing to sell arms is a major political act. It appears as a calculated insult, reflecting on the stability, trust, and credit-worthiness, or technical competence of the would-be recipient.” Yet this crucial point seems to have been lost in the current policy debate about whether or not the United States should continue selling arms to Saudi Arabia. My research shows that stopping arms transfers or denying requests is an effective way to signal dissatisfaction and causes the would-be recipient to re-think their behavior. Take, for example, the U.S. relationship with Israel in the 1960s. The United States sold Israel Hawk surface-to-surface missiles in 1962, M-48 Patton tanks in 1964 and 1965, and A-4E Skyhawk bombers in 1966. Israeli leaders understood that these transfers signaled a close U.S.-Israeli relationship. As diplomat Abba Eban wrote, the arms transfers were “a development of tremendous political value.” Even against this backdrop of close ties and significant arms sales, Israeli leaders were extremely sensitive to arms transfer denials. In April and May 1967, the United States denied Israeli requests for armored personnel carriers and fighter jets. Approving the transfers would have signaled support, and likely emboldened Israel, as tensions were growing in the region. Israeli leaders believed these transfer denials overruled prior signals and demonstrated that the United States was not willing to be a close political ally for Israel. Eban described Israel as “isolated,” and the head of Israel’s intelligence service said that the arms transfer denials made it clear that “in Israel, there existed certain misperceptions [about the United States].” If arms transfer denials could have such a significant effect on Israeli thinking — keeping in mind that there was a close and significant political relationship between the US and Israel — imagine what a transfer denial would mean for U.S.-Saudi relations. Like Israel, Saudi Arabia would have to re-think its impression that it has political support and approval from the United States. We can, and should, ask whether or not withdrawal of U.S. support would affect Saudi behavior, but it’s important that this question not get overlooked in the current debate. Because arms transfers (and denials) are powerful signals, they can have an effect even before a transfer is actually completed. This suggests that even the announcement of an embargo against Saudi Arabia could have an effect. Take, for example, Taiwan’s recent request for a fleet of new fighter jets. As reports mounted that Trump had given “tacit approval” to a deal for F-16 jets, China’s protests increased. The United States has not sold advanced fighter jets to Taiwan since 1992, partially out of fear of angering China, which views Taiwan as a renegade province. Even if the deal for F-16s is formally approved, Taiwan is unlikely to see the jets until at least 2021, and the balance of power between China and Taiwan would not change. As one researcher observed, the sale would be a “huge shock” for Beijing, “But it would be more of a political shock than a military shock. It would be, ‘Oh, the U.S. doesn’t care how we feel.’ It would be more of a symbolic or emotional issue.” Yet China’s immediate, negative reaction to even the announcement of a potential deal shows how powerful arms transfer signals can be. If this same logic is applied to an arms embargo against Saudi Arabia, an arms embargo would signal that Saudi Arabia does not have the support of the United States. This signal would be an important first step in changing Saudi behavior because it would override other statements and actions the United States has sent that indicate support. And Trump has given Saudi Arabia a number of positive signals: He called Saudi Arabia a “great ally” and dismissed reports that that the Saudi government was involved in the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. He has expressed interested in selling nuclear power plants and technology to Saudi Arabia. And he has repeatedly claimed that he has made a $110 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia (he hasn’t). With these clear signals of support, why should Saudi Arabia alter its behavior based on resolutions that come out of the House or Senate, which are likely to be vetoed by Trump, anyway? An arms embargo would be a clear and unambiguous signal that the United States disproves of Saudi actions in Yemen.Advantage 1—Yemeni WarFirst, the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen uses American arms sales to carry out non-military air strikes. Engagement has not corrected their behavior and has increased civilian death.Marcia Robiou, Abrams Journalism Fellow, FRONTLINE/Columbia Journalism School Fellowship, 7-16-2019, "What You Need to Know About Trump's $8 Billion Saudi Arms Deal," FRONTLINE, believe that the weapons are likely to be diverted to the frontlines in Yemen, where a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia has raged for nearly five years. In April, the House voted to end American involvement in the war in Yemen, sending a stinging rebuke to the Trump administration’s support for the military campaign led by Saudi Arabia in the war-battered country. “There’s sort of an implication that the Saudi-led coalition have used up their weaponry and are in desperate need of a resupply,” said Jeff Abramson, senior fellow at the Arms Control Association. “There are probably targets left which they have yet to hit, in which case you could expect these weapons to be used in those cases.” Since 2015, the Saudi-led coalition has carried out nearly 20,000 airstrikes, according to the Yemen Data Project. Over 6,000 of those have been non-military air raids, with close to 7,000 more strikes of unknown nature. American-made warplanes and bombs have played a central role in the coalition’s extensive air campaign. The Trump administration maintains that direct engagement with Saudi Arabia can improve their ability to discriminate between civilian and military targets. Under President Barack Obama, there was a sense that U.S. efforts to improve Saudi targeting capabilities were working until 2016, when the coalition bombed a crowded funeral home. The attack killed at least 155 people and wounded about 600, including the mayor of the capital city, who had been playing a significant role in negotiating a peaceful end to the war. Discomfort over U.S. involvement in Yemen grew after the incident, and Obama blocked sales of precision-guided munitions to the coalition after the high-profile incident. “We tried engagement, and their behavior didn’t improve,” Abramson said. “The track record shows that it is more by showing the Saudis that we are willing to criticize them and walk away that they get the message that they need to improve their behavior.” However, a State Department official told FRONTLINE that U.S. engagement with the Saudi-led coalition has contributed to a decrease in civilian casualties. “We remain committed to working with Saudi Arabia to improve processes which mitigate the risk of civilian harm during combat operations,” the official said. “Sustained engagement with the Coalition is the best way to do this.” Kori Schake, a top national security official in the George W. Bush administration, said that without U.S. assistance and support, the Saudis are likely to be even less capable of achieving a military objective without causing exorbitant civilian damage. The conflict’s total death toll is fast approaching the 100,000 mark, according to the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project. The U.N. attributes 65 percent of civilian deaths in Yemen to coalition airstrikes. “Even if tomorrow the Saudis were to improve their targeting practice, people would continue to die at an unacceptably high rate,” said Scott Paul, Senior Humanitarian Policy Advisor at Oxfam. Yemen is currently experiencing the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. In March, the U.N. declared that 10 million Yemenis are “one step away from famine.”Second, the war in Yemen destroys infrastructure and creates a health and humanitarian disasterAlex Kane, a New York-based journalist who focuses on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East., 5-20-2019, "Here’s Exactly Who’s Profiting from the War on Yemen," No Publication, President Barack Obama’s administration and, now, President Donald Trump’s, the United States has put its military might behind the Saudi-led coalition, waging a war without congressional authorization. That war has devastated Yemen’s infrastructure, destroyed or damaged more than half of Yemen’s health facilities, killed more than 8,350 civilians, injured another 9,500 civilians, displaced 3.3 million people, and created a humanitarian disaster that threatens the lives of millions as cholera and famine spread through the country.Thirdly, continuing these strikes will rise the annual death toll to at least 233,000 people. One child dies every 12 minutes we refuse to act.Mohamad Bazzi, a journalism professor at New York University, is a former Middle East bureau chief at Newsday. He is writing a book on the proxy wars between Saudi Arabia and Iran, 6-8-2019, "Trump wants to sell more weapons to Saudi Arabia. Congress must stop him," Guardian, the Friday before Memorial Day, when few Americans were paying attention, the Trump administration announced that it would circumvent Congress and sell $8bn in new weapons to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. It was Donald Trump’s latest attempt to give a blank check to two US allies leading a disastrous war in Yemen. If Trump succeeds in getting around Congress, these weapons sales will prolong suffering in Yemen and eliminate one of the last levers that allowed the US to exert influence over Saudi and Emirati actions: the threat of Congress blocking arms deals. On 5 June, a bipartisan group of senators said they would try to block the administration from going ahead with the sales by introducing 22 “resolutions of disapproval” – one for each of the deals cleared by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The effort is led by two unlikely allies: Bob Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey and frequent Trump critic, and Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina who is one of Trump’s biggest supporters. The two senators agree on one thing: that Saudi Arabia should face more scrutiny of its actions in Yemen after Saudi agents murdered the journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in October. Since then, members of Congress have tried to force the Trump administration to reexamine its alliance with the kingdom – especially its relationship with Mohammed bin Salman, the brash and ruthless crown prince often considered an architect of the Yemen war. But Trump and his senior aides have made clear that they still support the prince and won’t try to isolate him, despite a CIA assessment that concluded, with “high confidence”, that Prince Mohammed ordered the killing of Khashoggi. The senators’ effort, which includes seven co-sponsors, is yet another example of Congress trying to claw back its constitutional responsibilities. On 24 May, when Pompeo notified Congress that the administration would move ahead with the $8bn deals without congressional approval, he cited a rarely used provision of the Arms Export Control Act which allows the president to bypass Congress if he determines there is an emergency that impacts national security. Pompeo invoked the Trump administration’s favored bogeyman: an increased threat of “Iranian aggression”. But over the past month the administration has inflatedthe threat posed by Iran to US troops and allies in the Middle East and several hawkish Trump aides, especially national security adviser John Bolton, have pushed for a new confrontation with Tehran. At Bolton’s request, the Pentagon updated plans to send as many as 120,000 troops to the Middle East. The administration is using similar scare tactics to justify its end-run around Congress to sell more weapons to Saudi Arabia and the UAE. As Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut and one of the earliest critics of US support for the Saudi-led war in Yemen, wrote on Twitter: “To state the obvious, there is no new emergency reason to sell bombs to Saudi Arabia to drop in Yemen. The Saudis [have] been dropping the bombs on civilians, so if there is an emergency, it’s a humanitarian emergency caused by the bombs we sell the Saudis.” Trump’s supposed desire to end US involvement in foreign wars – in Syria and Afghanistan – clearly hasn’t superseded his wish to keep Saudi Arabia and the UAE happy and continuing to purchase American weapons. This willingness to prolong the suffering of millions of Yemenis also underlines the administration’s single-minded obsession with countering Iran. Trump and his advisers repeatedly try to justify a prolonged war in Yemen by blaming Iran and its support for the rebel Houthi militia. This narrative ignores the fact that the Houthis did not receive significant help from Iranbefore Saudi Arabia intervened in March 2015. With the administration firmly behind its Saudi and Emirati allies, Congress offers the best hope to end the American role in a war that has triggered one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. In early April, the House voted to cease military support for the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, finally approving a bill to restrain presidential war powers that has taken years to pass both chambers of Congress. On 16 April, Trump vetoed the bill. Two weeks later, the bill’s supporters in the Senate tried to override the veto but fell short, 53-45. (It takes two-thirds of the Senate, or 67 votes, to override a presidential veto.) But the measure was still a turning point because it focused attention on the extent and unpopularity of military support for Saudi Arabia and its allies. As the political jockeying unfolded in Washington, the United Nations Development Programme issued a report underscoring the extent of the humanitarian disaster being fueled by US weapons and logistical support. The report warned that the death toll in Yemen could rise to 233,000 by the end of 2019 – far higher than previous estimates. (The projection includes an estimate of 102,000 deaths from combat and 131,000 indirect deaths due to the lack of food, health crises like a cholera epidemic and damage to Yemen’s infrastructure.) “The current conflict in Yemen is one of the greatest preventable disasters facing humanity,” the report said, adding that the conflict has turned into a “war on children”, with a Yemeni child dying every 12 minutes. The report estimated that 140,000 of those killed by the end of 2019 would be children under the age of five. Despite a majority of Congress voting to end support, American assistance to the Saudi-led war persists, thanks to Trump’s veto. In their latest effort to stop the weapons sales, congressional critics of the war will likely need to secure a veto-proof majority. It is a matter of moral and political urgency.Fourth, the war in Yemen justifies torture, supplies of weapons to Al-Qaeda, and explodes the refugee crisis. The US is complicit in the war crimes occurring in YemenMackenzie Lemunyan, an Advocacy Intern with ADHRB, 8-6-2019, "Continued Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia and UAE Undermine Congressional Authority," Americans for Democracy & Human Rights in Bahrain, Arabia and the UAE have actively worked to suppress human rights in the region. In 2011, Saudi Arabia and the UAE assisted in violently squashing the pro-democracy protest movement in Bahrain. In 2015, Saudi Arabia and the UAE led a coalition intervention in Yemen, where the coalition forces have targeted civilians with its airstrikes. During their participation in the war, the UAE has utilized torture against detainees, supplied US weapons to known Al-Qaeda affiliates, and used US weapons to buy the support of militias known to be committing gross violations of human rights. The Saudi-led coalition announced it would launch airstrikes against targets in Yemen in 2015. Since then it has been estimated that over 19,000 airstrikes have been launched, resulting in 10,471 casualties, including women and children. Some of these airstrikes have been traced back to US arms, and have become a daily occurrence for millions of vulnerable Yemini citizens. Daily sorties have devastated critical infrastructure, escalating the urgency of basic food, housing, and healthcare assistance that nearly three-quarters of Yemen’s population requires. In total, the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data project has estimated that the war has resulted in nearly 100,000 casualties thus far, and has forced more than 570,000 people to flee their homes. Due to the civilian cost of the war, the UN has named the Yemen war the largest humanitarian crisis in the world, with over 22.2 million people in need of basic assistance to survive. While much of the attention on the conflict in Yemen has previously been focused on the Saudi-led air war, the UAE is also responsible for major human rights violations. A report by the United Nations-appointed Group of Eminent Experts found the UAE was guilty of war crimes, including enforced disappearances, rape, torture, and the use of child soldiers. Many of these violations have taken place in a secret network of Yemeni prisons where civilians are held in unsanitary conditions, and security officials sexually, physically, and psychologically torture detainees through sleep deprivation, electrocution of the genitals, beatings with wooden bats, and rape.Finally, ending arms sales to Saudi Arabia would end all air support for the war in Yemen.Alex Kane, a New York-based journalist who focuses on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East., 5-20-2019, "Here’s Exactly Who’s Profiting from the War on Yemen," No Publication, Arabia’s precision-guided munitions are responsible for the vast majority of deaths documented by human rights groups. In These Times found that, since 2009, Saudi Arabia has ordered more than 27,000 missiles worth at least $1.8 billion from Raytheon alone, plus 6,000 guided bombs from Boeing (worth about $332 million) and 1,300 cluster munitions from Rhode Island-based Textron (worth about $641 million). About $650 million of those Raytheon orders and an estimated $103 million of the Boeing orders came after the Saudi war in Yemen began. Without these ongoing American-origin weapons transfers, the Saudi coalition’s ability to prosecute its war would wither. “We can stop providing munitions, and they could run out of munitions, and then it would be impossible to keep the war going,” says Jonathan Caverley, associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College and a research scientist at M.I.T. The warplanes the United States delivers also need steady upkeep. Since the war began, the Saudis have struck deals worth $5.5 billion with war contractors for weapons maintenance, support and training. “The Saudi military has a very sophisticated, high-tech, capital-intensive military that requires almost constant customer service,” Caverley says. “And so most of the planes would be grounded if Lockheed Martin or Boeing turn off the help line.”Advantage 2—TerrorismFirst, arms sales to Saudi Arabia puts weapons in the hands of AQAPNima Elbagir, Salma Abdelaziz, Mohamed Abo El Gheit and Laura Smith-Spark, 2019, "US arms sold to Saudi Arabia and UAE end up in wrong hands," No Publication, the intellectual heart of the country, Taiz is now a tinder box that set off a war within a war last year, when the various militias backed by the Saudi-led coalition turned their guns on each other. Amid the chaos of the broader war, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) made its way to the frontlines in Taiz in 2015, forging advantageous alliances with the pro-Saudi militias they fought alongside. One of those militias linked to AQAP, the Abu Abbas brigade, now possesses US-made Oshkosh armored vehicles, paraded in a 2015 show of force through the city. Abu Abbas, the founder, was declared a terrorist by the US in 2017, but the group still enjoys support from the Saudi coalition and was absorbed into the coalition-supported 35th Brigade of the Yemeni army.Second, as the war in Yemen continues, the risk of AQAP conducting a 9/11 style attack on the United States or Europe continues to grow exponentiallyBonnie Kristian, a fellow at Defense Priorities and weekend editor at The Week. Her writing has also appeared at Time Magazine, CNN, Politico, USA Today, the Los Angeles Times, Relevant Magazine, The Hill, and The American Conservative, among other outlets., 10-19-2018, "It's time to re-examine Saudi ties — Defense Priorities," Defense Priorities, strategic disadvantage of Washington’s role in Yemen is glaring, too. This is primarily a local conflict, unconnected to U.S. security. Protected by the globe’s most powerful military, largest moat, and friendliest neighbors, Americans will not be significantly affected by who comes to power in this small, poor, distant nation. We could, however, face a threat from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP. The Gulf branch of the terrorist organization has used the distraction furnished by U.S.-Saudi intervention to flourish. And unlike the Houthi rebels the Saudi coalition fights, AQAP is interested in 9/11-style attacks in Europe and the United States. Washington’s counterproductive intervention in Yemen has thus managed to make America less secure. “One can understand that the practice of geopolitics means that you don’t always get to choose your allies,” writes Michael Brendan Dougherty at National Review. “And a superpower cannot conduct its business by dealing only with nations like Switzerland and Liechtenstein.” Saudi Arabia has provided real benefits to the United States, he argues, yet still “America really must come to grips with the costs” of this relationship. The costs are too high for things to remain as they are. Washington’s ties to Riyadh are actively harming U.S. security in Yemen and contributing to the most acute humanitarian crisis on the planet. If Khashoggi did indeed die in that embassy—as all appearances presently suggest—this relationship will also strain our connection to Turkey, a NATO ally, and further link us to the very sort of abuses whose condemnation is enshrined in our Bill of Rights. ................
................

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

Google Online Preview   Download