Www.maxwell.syr.edu



Global Security and Development Program – Fall, 2019

Syllabus: PAI 715 Section M007

Statecraft and Smart Power in the Digital Era

Shannon N. Green

(202) 213-2152; shgreen79@

Description

This course examines new approaches to the practice of statecraft in an era of rapid global change. The acceleration of technological change and widespread use of digital communication is upsetting the international order and institutions, and changing the pace and intensity of decision-making. Meanwhile, social media has allowed officials – from the President of the United States to non-state actors – to communicate directly with the public. Governments and practitioners of public diplomacy must adjust to this new reality and figure out how to shape public opinion in a far more competitive global marketplace of ideas.  As digital communication brings publics into politics far more than ever before, this course helps participants better understand and prepare for these and other challenges to the exercise of smart power. This course features guided classroom discussion, presentations by officials and outside experts, and in-class exercises and policy simulations. The course's emphasis on policy formulation, interagency decision-making, and the practice of public diplomacy will be particularly relevant to those seeking employment in public service, NGOs, think tanks, and consulting firms.

This course maps to the following MAIR Career Tracks: Governance, Diplomacy & International Organizations; Peace, Security & Conflict; Foreign Policy

Introduction

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and especially since 9/11, dramatic changes have occurred in world affairs and the conduct of statecraft. The United States and other western powers have built a set of interlocking norms, institutions, rules, and alliances – collectively known as the liberal international order – to jointly manage these political transitions, enhance economic cooperation and open markets, and address common threats to peace and security. Over many decades, this order was elaborated through the creation or expansion of regional and international bodies and mechanisms, including the Global Counterterrorism Forum, the Financial Action Task Force, the United Nations Human Rights Council (the successor to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights), the Community of Democracies, among many others. This order maintained a degree of continuity around core foreign policy tenets – the centrality of values in U.S. foreign policy, the importance of non-proliferation, the benefit of international trade agreements – across Republican and Democratic administrations and with U.S. allies.

However, in the past decade, this order has begun to fracture, and consensus around core foreign policy approaches is fragmenting. Challenges to this order have come from without and within. Authoritarian countries, namely Russia and China, have waged an aggressive and sustained campaign to weaken the global web of norms and organizations, military alliances, and trade partnerships that they believe work to their detriment. Instead of seeing order, they interpret developments like democracy promotion and the concept of humanitarian intervention as examples of severe over-reach or globalization gone awry. As such, they have crafted a potent nationalist narrative that seeks to justify all manner of human rights abuses—crackdowns on civil society and the media, assassinations of key opposition figures, and attacks on ethnic, religious, and sexual minorities—on the basis on sovereignty and exceptionalism.[1]

Established democracies have also grown increasingly hostile to the international liberal order they helped construct. Many citizens on both sides of the Atlantic have become disenchanted with global elites and have thrown their support behind candidates who seek to dismantle elements of the order and turn the clock back on globalization. Their disillusionment is rooted in a belief that a cabal of politicians and other global elites have conspired to create national and international institutions and governance arrangements to serve their interests, to the disadvantage of “the people.”[2] The fix, then, is to dismantle these instruments of elite dominance and cast off external restraints to national sovereignty.

Digital communication and social media have played a major role in these convulsions. The democratization of information and ease of communication brought larger numbers of people into the policy arena, without the intermediating role of editors, experts, or foreign policy elites. People have sorted themselves into information silos, where they are spoon-fed news and analysis that confirm their pre-existing biases, while conflicting images, stereotypes, and hardening allegiances have tended to over-simplify and polarize positions and peoples. At the same time, the deliberate use of misinformation has cast doubt on whether facts are reliable and whether there is such a thing as truth.

The advent of digital communications has created significant opportunities and challenges for policymakers operating in this new and rapidly evolving era. Government officials now have powerful new tools to directly engage with a large global audience. Civil society organizations have critical information at their fingertips that can be used to hold governments accountable and expose corruption and malfeasance. Social media platforms have also given such associations a powerful tool to organize their advocacy and outreach efforts. At the same time, the expansion of social media has created new challenges. Message discipline is much more difficult when the President can use his megaphone to communicate policy priorities and positions without the traditional filter of the White House spokesperson or official press releases. After a few years of being on their back heels, authoritarian governments have also caught up with the social media revolution and are now using these tools to discredit civil society organizations, sow discord and confusion in other countries, and even meddle in the electoral processes of democracies. Finally, violent extremist organizations have learned how to use digital technologies and platforms to spread their propaganda to a global audience and inspire and recruit tens of thousands of followers, as we have seen ISIS do to devastating effect.

In light of these seismic shifts, policymakers and analysts are grappling with how to manage foreign relations and conduct statecraft in such a dynamic environment. The world arena is changing at a faster pace than even Joseph Nye, the grandfather of soft power, predicted. “Contextual intelligence, the ability to understand an evolving environment and capitalize on trends, will become a crucial skill in enabling leaders to convert power resources into successful strategies” (p. xvii, The Future of Power). Nye describes the complex task confronting statecraft: only through understanding the many elements of this changing world—particularly the public dimension—can leaders, stakeholders, and publics make choices that will sustain peace and promote prosperity.

Three principles of legitimacy, sustainability, and well-being will frame our discussion of 21st century statecraft. The challenge for students and practitioners of statecraft will be to devise strategies that will be broadly legitimate, sustainable, and contribute to global well-being.

Goals

Participants should be better able to:

• Strengthen your understanding of contemporary national security/foreign policy decision making and nation-state behavior;

• Improve your understanding of major global communications trends and their implications for international and transnational affairs and decision-making;

• Deepen your understanding of the public dimension of world affairs;

• Broaden your awareness and knowledge of the evolving role and influence of non-state actors, including major NGOs and companies in national and international affairs; and

• Gain skills in national security/foreign policy strategic planning, including knowledge of procedures, institutional roles, and government-NGO relations.

Format

The course will mix brief introductory lectures with discussion, breakout groups, and classroom exercises. Officials, experts, and practitioners will participate in many sessions to ground-truth readings and lectures. Professor Green will make a special effort to explore your career opportunities.

Readings

We follow a two-tiered approach: a few key readings or information sources will be assigned in advance for each class session, accompanied by a longer list of optional recommended readings. Most assignments will be from easily retrieved online sources.

Assignments

Individual Assignment

For this assignment, you will assume the role of a senior leader in the White House, National Security Council, or Department of State. You will choose a major policy that needs to be rolled out and explained to the American people, international constituencies, and other stakeholders. Examples include a new international trade agreement, a nuclear deal with North Korea, sanctions against Russia for election manipulation, etc. Your task will be to identify the public dimension of this policy, understand different perspectives and potential reactions, and map out the strategy for effectively rolling out the policy and convincing key stakeholders of its merits. The output will be a detailed memo, written to your supervisor, that lays out the strategy, potential risks, and ways of mitigating those risks.

Group Assignment

For this assignment, you will work in teams representing different part of the interagency. You will choose a relationship or alliance that needs to be rebuilt or developed as a result of deteriorating views and trust in the United States. Examples include needing to reassure NATO and NATO member states of the Unites States’ continued commitment to the alliance, an effort to improve Mexican citizens’ and the Mexican government’s perception of the United States after major public relations blunders, or an imperative to keep China on-side despite an escalating trade war. Your task as a group will be to map key stakeholders that need to be engaged; understand their perspectives, motivations, and own domestic pressures; articulate why it is in the United States’ interest to improve relations with this country/alliance/constituency; develop a strategy to rebuild trust and confidence with this entity; and navigate inconsistencies in US policy and public pronouncements. The output will be a group presentation, as if you are recommending a course of action to your supervisor, that lays out a detailed strategy, perceived benefits, potential risks, and ways of mitigating those risks.

Instructions and a template will be provided for each assignment.

Grading:

Submissions or presentations should be:

Current – your submissions are up to date, accurate, and as far as possible, clearly related to the current state of play of an issue.

Clearly sourced – where needed, you draw on and cite sources of fact and views.

Concise – you state the issue briefly yet thoroughly within the context of a short memo or briefing. Busy leaders need you to get to the point quickly, yet reflect awareness of the nuance and the bureaucratic or political curveballs coming their way.

Creative – you go beyond conventional wisdom and propose approaches that may be new or different.

Cogent – at the same time, your analysis recommendations should make sense, even if you offer novel solutions.

Individual Assignment 30% due October 3

Group Presentation 30% due December 5 or 12

Class Participation 40% ongoing engagement in discussion

Attendance

Participation in seminar discussions is important. If you need to miss a class, please let me know as soon as you can. All submissions are due on the dates indicated; please let me know if you cannot meet the deadline.

Evaluation

At the end of the semester I will re-consider the semester and seek suggestions for future refinements of the seminar and the program. Your feedback and recommendations are welcomed throughout the semester.

Academic Integrity Policy

Please quote or attribute any writings or ideas of other sources not your own.

The Syracuse University Academic Integrity Policy, “holds students accountable for the integrity of the work they submit. Students should be familiar with the Policy and know that it is their responsibility to learn about instructor and general academic expectations with regard to proper citation of sources in written work. The policy also governs the integrity of work submitted in exams and assignments as well as the veracity of signatures on attendance sheets and other verifications of participation in class activities. Serious sanctions can result from academic dishonesty of any sort. For more information and the complete policy, see .”

Disability Related Accommodations

We will try to help all students who wish to participate in the seminar to do so. If you have any special needs or concerns, please let me know in advance so that we can talk with CSIS staff and university officials.

According to Syracuse University: “Students who are in need of disability-related accommodations must register with the Office of Disability Services (ODS), 304 University Avenue, Room 309, 315-443-4498. Students with authorized disability-related accommodations should provide a current Accommodation Authorization Letter from ODS to the instructor and review those accommodations with the instructor. Accommodations, such as exam administration, are not provided retroactively; therefore, planning for accommodations as early as possible is necessary. The Office of Disability Services facilitates disability related support services and accommodations for students studying abroad. While support services and accommodations are intended to provide equal access, the accessibility of facilities in other countries [and in Washington, D.C.] may be limited and support services may be provided in a manner that differs from the delivery of services on the Syracuse University campus. Students are advised to discuss the availability of accommodations at various international study abroad sites [and in Washington, D.C.] with SU Abroad and ODS staff.”

Statecraft and Smart Power in the Digital Era – Schedule

[N.B.: some adjustments in the topics might be made after initial consultation with the class, in view of class interests and career aspirations.]

Session Topics

**Note: We will not have a class on August 29. We will make up this class the week of Thanksgiving.**

1) September 5: What is Smart Power and Statecraft?

Topics: introductions; review of the syllabus and course; definitions of hard power, soft power, and smart power; differences between Cold War and digital era statecraft; the public dimension of statecraft

Key Questions

• What have been the “classic” and 20th century definitions and views of statecraft?

• How is “soft power” defined, and what is its relation to “hard power”? How does the concept of smart power seek to combine the characteristics of both?

• What is the “public dimension” of statecraft? What kind of global challenges do the U.S. and other nations face today, in contrast with a decade ago, or two?

• How relevant is the concept of smart power to the Trump administration? How does the Trump administration view the public dimensions of statecraft?

Mandatory Readings

Joseph Nye, The Future of Soft Power Chapter 4, “Soft Power” pp 81-109, or Soft Power – the Means to Success in World Politics, Chapter 1, “the Changing Nature of Power,” pp 1-31.

Joseph Nye “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power” The ANNALS 616: 94-109 (2008) 

William Burns, “What Should be the Purpose of American Power,” The National Interest, Op-Ed, August 24, 2015

Sarah Aloui, “Tired Narratives, Weary Publics: Public Diplomacy’s Role in the Struggle for Influence in the Middle East,” Center for American Progress (2018),

Additional Readings

U.S. Amb (ret) Chas. W. Freeman, Jr., Arts of Power – Statecraft and Diplomacy. (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 2007)

Dennis Ross, preface, pp ix – xx, and “The Bush Foreign Policy and the Need for Statecraft,” pp 21 -28, Statecraft and How to Restore America’s Standing in the World. New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 2007

Leslie H. Gelb, Power Rules. (New York: HarperCollins, 2009) See in particular comments on domestic politics and power (chapter 7.)

2) September 12: What is Public Diplomacy and How Does it Factor into Interagency Decision Making?

Topics: definition of public diplomacy; the NSC and inter-agency policy process and how the public dimension factors into decision-making

Key Questions

• How does the world look from the vantage of the White House/NSC? How do domestic political concerns as well as national security challenges influence the perceptions of officials?

• How does the inter-agency consider domestic and foreign public opinion and other elements of the public dimension of issues in policy formulation and implementation?

• How was the policy formulation and implementation process organized and managed under the Obama administration? How is it functioning in the Trump administration?

• How does the disconnect between the President’s pronouncements and the administration’s policy affect perceptions of the US and policy implementation?

Class Exercise - Breakout groups will develop a notional list of major global issues to inform individual and group assignment selection.

Mandatory Readings

Vivian Walker, Benghazi: Manage the Message, 2015. (1).pdf

Please look over the Trump Administration’s National Security Strategy, issued in 2017. Pay particular attention to the framing of major challenges, . Also see commentaries on it, especially . If you have time, compare and contrast the framing with the Obama Administration’s final National Security Strategy, .

CPD Advisory Board, Making the Case for Public Diplomacy,



Additional Readings

Josh Rogin, Trump’s Foreign Policy Doctrine: Escalate to De-escalate,

Marc Landler, There’s Trump’s Foreign Policy and Then There’s His Administration’s,

Matthew Kroenig, The Case for Trump’s Foreign Policy: The Right People, the Right Positions, Foreign Affairs (May/June 2017).

3) September 19: What are the Tools of Public Diplomacy? International Broadcasting and Digital Communications

Topics: practitioners’ use of social media and digital communications; evolution of communications tools and practices

Key Questions

• How do public diplomacy practitioners use social media and digital tools to communicate with foreign publics? How have these tools and practices evolved?

• How effective is the US government in communicating with and influencing foreign publics? What are the challenges and competitors?

• How do public diplomacy practitioners cut through the noise and overcome perceptions of the US shaped by other factors, e.g., the President’s Twitter feed, US foreign policy, warfare, etc.

Mandatory Readings

Katherine A. Brown, Shannon N. Green, and Jian “Jay” Wang, “Public Diplomacy and National Security in 2017: Building Alliances, Fighting Extremism, and Dispelling Disinformation,”

Department of State, 2018 Comprehensive Annual Report on Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting,

David Ensor, Exporting the First Amendment: Strengthening U.S. Soft Power Through Journalism, Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School, Pgs. 4-26 (2015)  

Familiarize yourself with the U.S. Agency for Global Media,

Additional Readings

Cornelius Bjola, Digital Diplomacy Myths,

4) September 26: What are the Tools of Public Diplomacy? Education and Cultural Exchanges

Topics: foreign policy and academic and civic exchanges, the role of the arts and humanities, USG relations with NGOs in the management of exchanges

Key Questions

• How do educational, civic and cultural exchanges contribute to U.S. interests in key relationships? Are exchanges best employed in support of immediate policy objectives or longer-term goals?

• What are the keys to successful planning and assessment of exchanges?

• How can government and NGOs establish fruitful collaboration, mindful of overlapping interests and yet differences?

• Does the USG have a responsibility to fund programs that help Americans better understand other nations and cultures?

Mandatory Readings

Familiarize yourself with the website of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, U.S. Department of State and the programs sponsored by the Bureau.

Familiarize yourself with any of the following websites of NGOs involved in civic affairs, democratic development and international exchanges:

• Institute for International Education –

• AMIDEAST –

• IREX –

• Cultural Vistas --

• Global Ties U.S. –

Video:

“Exercising American Soft Power through International Education Exchange”



Additional Readings

Various essays on IIE blog,

Cultural Exchange and the Cold War: How the West Won," Parts I and II, by ret. FSO Yale Richmond, in December 3 and 10, 2009 "Whirled View" Blog of ret. FSO, Patricia Kushlis, , and

5) October 3: What are the Tools of Public Diplomacy? Crisis Communications

Topics: interagency reactions to major crises; risk and opportunities in crisis moments

Key Questions

• How does the US government develop and manage communications during major international crises or incidents?

• What opportunities and risk are present during these moments?

• What are examples of when the US government has gotten it right? What are examples of when official reactions and communications have made the situation worse?

Mandatory Readings

John Gershman and R.S. Zaharna, The Unintended Consequences of Crisis Public Diplomacy: American Public Diplomancy and the Arab World,



Additional Readings

TBD

6) October 10: Who are the Players? Role of Civil Society and Corporations

Topics: Role of civil society and corporations in exerting influence and shaping global perceptions; current threats to civil society

Key Questions:

• Do governments still have dominance in shaping world events and reactions to them? Are non-state actors more influential? Is this phenomenon a temporary blip or start of a period of significant deterioration of governmental influence?

• What is the role of civil society and non-profit organizations in shaping world affairs? How do non-governmental organizations work with the U.S. government to foster connections between Americans and current and emerging leaders from other countries?

• How have global corporations – like Google and Facebook – influenced public opinion and preferences? What are their responsibilities to their users/customers/citizens versus to their shareholders?

Mandatory Readings

Hans Kundnani, “What Is the Liberal International Order?,” Policy Brief, German Marshall Fund, May 3, 2017.

Virginia Harper Ho, China’s Soft Power in Africa or Real Corporate Accountability?,

Karen Kornbluh, The Internet’s Lost Promise,

Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2019, Democracy in Retreat,

October 17: NO CLASS

7) October 24: What are the Contemporary Challenges to the Exercise of Smart Power? Conflict, Instability, and Fragile States

8) October 31: What are the Contemporary Challenges to the Exercise of Smart Power? Erosion of Trust in Media and Formal Institutions

Topics: erosion of trust in democratic institutions, including media, in the US and globally; role of the media in fueling that mistrust; consequences for US foreign policy and influence; recommendations

Key Questions:

• Has there been a decline in Americans’ confidence in democratic institutions, especially the media? Does this trend hold around the world? What is the evidence for “truth decay”?

• What are the drivers for decreasing trust in formal institutions in democratic societies? What are the consequences for US foreign policy and influence?

• How can confidence in democratic institutions and the media be restored?

Mandatory Readings

Katie Simmons, Laura Silver, Courtney Johnson, Kyle Taylor, and Richard Wike, Populist groups across the ideological spectrum have low trust in institutions,



Pew Research, State of the News Media,

Uri Friedman, Trust Is Collapsing in America,

9) November 7: What are the Contemporary Challenges to the Exercise of Smart Power? Violent Extremist Narratives

Topics: Ideological underpinnings of extremist groups; communication techniques and technologies, particularly used by ISIS and AQAP; governmental and NGO efforts to shape alternative narratives

Key Questions:

• How did ISIS use social media and digital communications in its global efforts to recruit and radicalize followers? How has that changed given the military defeat of the group in Syria/Iraq, i.e., what is the relationship between what happens online and on the battlefield?

• How have governments, social media companies, and civil society responded to violent extremists’ innovative use of the internet? How effective have those counter-offensives been in deterring recruitment?

• How are affected communities in the US and abroad seeking to deter radicalization and recruitment?

Mandatory Readings

Shannon N. Green and Keith Proctor, “Turning Point: A New Comprehensive Strategy for Countering Violent Extremism,”

Matthew Levitt, ed. Defeating Ideologically Inspired Violent Extremism: A Strategy to Build Strong Communities and Protect the U.S. Homeland

Leanne Erdberg and Maria J. Stephan, To Defeat Terrorism, Use People Power,

Additional Readings

Also, familiarize yourself with The Global Engagement Center website:

Farah Pandith, "How We Win: How Cutting-Edge Entrepreneurs, Political Visionaries, Enlightened Business Leaders, and Social Media Mavens Can Defeat the Extremist Threat," Harper Collins, 2019. 

10) November 14: What are the Contemporary Challenges to the Exercise of Smart Power? Ideological Competition and China’s Soft Power

Topics: China’s expansion of exchanges and global influence; investment in Africa, Latin America and Asia; military expansion in neighboring seas

Key Questions

• How does China view its role in the world?

• How does China call upon soft power tools (economic investment and coercion, infrastructure development, educational and cultural diplomacy, etc.) to project its presence abroad and shape global governance to suit its preferences?

• What are the accomplishments and shortcomings of China’s approaches in recent years, particularly in its development strategies in Africa?

• How does China’s more militant posture regarding nearby East Asia affect its legitimacy and the sustainability of its soft power posture?

Mandatory Readings

Eleanor Albert, China’s Big Bet on Soft Power, .

Nadège Rolland, China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Five Years Later,   (testimony)

Peter Harrell, Elizabeth Rosenberg, and Edoardo Saravalle, China’s Use of Coercive Economic Measures,

Anne-Marie Brady, Magic Weapons: China's political influence activities under Xi Jinping,

 (pages 1-11)

Check Institute for International Education (IIE) Open Doors Report and Data to see how China -- and other countries – compare when it comes to sending and receiving international students.

Visit leading government news agency Xinhua to see how news is framed and what they topics they focus on.

Additional Readings

Evan Osnos, Age of Ambition: Chasing Fortune, Truth, and Faith in the New China,

David Shambaugh, China Goes Global: The Partial Power,

11) November 18: What are the Contemporary Challenges to the Exercise of Smart Power? Influence Operations and Information Warfare (MAKE UP CLASS)

Topics: Putin’s adaptation of classic Soviet approaches in support of Russian geostrategic goals; U.S. responses; role of social media

Key Questions

• How are Russia and other countries conducting information warfare – what tools are they using, online and offline, and to what end?

• How have social media companies responded? Has that response been adequate, why or why not?

• How has the US government reacted? What more can be done to combat information warfare and authoritarian influence in democracies?

Mandatory Readings

Jamie Fly, Laura Rosenberger, and David Salvo, The ASD Policy Blueprint for Countering Authoritarian Interference in Democracies,

PW Singer and Emerson Brooking, “What Clausewitz Can Teach Us About War on Social Media: Military Tactics in the Age of Facebook,” Foreign Affairs, October 2018

Robert Chesney and Danielle Citron, “Deepfakes and the New Disinformation  War,” (Links to an external site.) Foreign Affairs, January/February 2019, 147-155.  

[Introduction, Ch. 1, Ch. 4] National Endowment for Democracy, "Sharp Power: Rising Authoritarian Influence," December 2017, 

Nathan Freier and Jonathan Dagle, The Weaponization of Everything,

Additional Readings

Heather Conley, The Kremlin Playbook: The Kremlin Playbook: Understanding Russian Influence in Central and Eastern Europe,

November 21: NO CLASS

12) November 28: Who are the Players? Militarization of Foreign Policy

Topics: role of State Department in crafting and executing foreign policy vis-à-vis the White House, Department of Defense, intelligence community, etc.; the balance and interaction of traditional diplomacy with security and defense imperatives

Key Questions

• What is the State Department’s role formulating and conducting U.S. foreign policy in the Trump administration?

• What role does DOD play in interagency decision-making? How has its influence evolved over time? What is nature of its influence in Trump Administration?

• What is the impact of DOD’s oversized role in foreign policy on foreign perceptions of the US and actual actions that are being taken?

Mandatory Readings

Fareed Zakaria, The Decline of US Influence is the Great Global Story of Our Age,

Steven Stashwick, The Militarization of Foreign Policy, ; ;

Michael Fuchs, 3 Ways Trump is Militarizing Foreign Policy,

Additional Readings

Ronan Farrow, War on Peace: The End of Diplomacy and the Decline of American Influence, W. W. Norton & Company; 1 edition (April 24, 2018)

Pew Research, Public Uncertain, Divided Over America’s Place in the World,

13) December 5: Group Presentations

14) December 12: Group Presentations and Wrap-Up

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

[1] According to Olga Oliker, “Russia's evolving self-definition…draws on a juxtaposition to the West. Appeals to ‘conservative values’ are explicitly presented as an alternative to Europe's liberalism, particularly when it comes to the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) people, religious minorities, women and other historically disadvantaged groups. Russia is presented as a bulwark against the threat to traditional families and societies posed by European liberalism, often as part of a civilizational stand-off with the West.” Olga Oliker, “Is Putinism a Thing?: Putinism, Populism and the Defence of Liberal Democracy,” Survival: Global Politics and Strategy, (59:1), 2017, .

[2] See Jeff D. Colgan and Robert O. Keohane, “The Liberal Order Is Rigged,” Foreign Affairs, May/June 2017, .

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

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

Google Online Preview   Download