Article Review : AUTOCRACY IN NORTH KOREA

The supreme leader of north korea Kim Jong il is leading his nation on the same track in which saddam hussain leaded. but breaching the agreement signed between the superpower u.s. and north korea is not a good sign for the citizens of north korea as u.s. has already revealed the Iraq show.

This review is based on the article captioned as “North Korea, the Next Iraq?”

The nuclear threat

Breaking of the agreement signed between united states of America and democratic republic of korea without any conversation or information. In October 2002, while in Pyongyang, Assistant Secretary of State was informed by his North Korean counterparts that North Korea had revived its nuclear weapons program. This resumption of nuclear weapons development was, according to the U.S. State Department, a "material breach" of an agreement forged eight years earlier between the two nations in which North Korea agreed to give up pursuit of nuclear weapons technology in return for a foreign aid package totaling $5 billion. The agreement also included a commitment by the United States to help build light-water reactor power plants in North Korea.

In December 2002, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were expelled from North Korea. North Korean officials also destroyed surveillance cameras and monitoring equipment, and they broke IAEA locks, enabling their entry into nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, where 8,000 nuclear fuel rods have been stored since 1994.

North Korea's nuclear weapons program got under way in the 1980s with the construction of a small nuclear reactor. North Korea then yielded to international pressure and joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1985. Before its recent withdrawal from the treaty, several violations were committed by North Korea, including shutting down a reactor so that fuel rods could be reprocessed for the extraction of plutonium(as in report presented by nuclear control institute 1994).

A nuclear threat initiative group was founded in 2001 by news mogul Ted Turner and former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn. The Nuclear Threat Initiative looks for ways to reduce the global threat posed by nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. An online research library features a wealth of detailed information about North Korea's arsenals of suspected nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Maps of suspected sites are included, along with descriptions and chronologies of activity in various facilities where such weapons are made.

Despite of having considerable number of disputes with international bodies kim jong il continue inceasing and testing his nuclear power .

The underground bomb North Korea detonated was equivalent in strength to those dropped by the United States on the Japanese cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. In response, the U.S. and Japan will likely call for strong sanctions. They are, after all, well positioned to do so: Neither country has a land border with North Korea, so if the North Korean regime of Kim Jong il were to implode as a result of punitive economic penalties, they would suffer no hardships.

So citizens of north korea need think about their personal security cover as the nation is at the verge.

Article Review : SPECIFICATION OF THE DEMOCRACY-AUTOCRACY CONNECTION

It has recently been argued that apparent peace between democracies may be the result of political similarity rather than joint democracy, and that there may exist an "autocratic peace" which is similar to the democratic peace. If political similarity generally is the cause of peace rather than joint democracy specifically, then the democratic peace is merely a statistical artefact that follows from separating out a selected subset of data. In addition, we do not know whether the autocratic peace or democratic peace is stronger, if they both exist. Existing empirical specifications of the connection between joint regime type and international conflict have not been adequate to assess these arguments. I develop a specification of joint regime-type variables that uses continuous measures without arbitrary cut-offs and allows us to assess a larger set of hypothesized regime-type effects. I find that jointly democratic and jointly autocratic pairs of states are both less conflict prone than other pairings, but that political similarity apart from these extremes has a much smaller effect on the risk of conflict. The results suggest that political similarity between coherent regimes (those at extremes of the institutionalized democracy-autocracy scale) encourages dyadic peace. 

BUT ALTHOUGH THERE IS A LOWER RISK OF CONFLICT IN BOTH JOINTLY DEMOCRATIC AND JOINTLY AUTOCRATIC DYADS, I FIND THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PEACE IS CLEARLY STRONGER THAN THE AUTOCRATIC PEACE.

Stable political regimes develop stable systems of rules that are conducive to growth, similar to property rights. New measures of political stability indicate that stable political systems stimulate growth in developing autocratic countries. Contrarily, political instability significantly reduces growth in autocracies, as instability creates a time-consistency problem. In some specifications, an instability measure has significant negative growth effects in democracies, and may be an alternative to measures of property rights. Similarly, ethnic fractionalization reduces growth in autocracies, but not developing democracies. Tests indicate that these results are not sensitive to extreme values in the data.

Article Review : AUTOCRACY IN NEPAL-A CHALLENGE

The series of student demonstrations in Kathmandu and other cities in Nepal which have culminated in the police firing in Hataura and the officially ad-mitted death toll of three have to be seen in the context of the developments over the last three months, specifically since the execution on February 9, 1979, more than two years after they were sentenced to death, of two leaders of the banned Nepali Congress Party. That execution itself had set off, according to a Reuters report, wide-spread student disturbances leading to classes being suspended in most colleges in the Kathmandu valley. The discontent apparently continued to simmer; and the patently organised 'reception' accorded to the ailing Nepali Congress leader, B P Koirala, when he returned to Kathmandu on March 6, to be severely heckled and have his supporters physically assaulted at Kathmandu airport, should have added to popular discontent. Soon, Koirala himself, who had spoken in so glowing a fashion about the sweet reasonableness of King Birendra when he had met him in November last before going abroad once again for medical treatment, was ordered to confine his movements to Kathmandu valley. That was a day before Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was hanged; and that execution in distant Rawalpindi seems to have provided just the needed impetus for the student protests which already had been so forcefully expressed over the execution of Yagya Bahadur Thapa and Shim Narayan Shreshta to be resumed with renewed vigour. The passions evoked by the hanging of Bhutto were closely related to the passions generated by the earlier executions at home; the Bhutto hanging only provided a convenient cover for the renewal of those passions. But the intensity of this opposition, .as well as its organised expression must have surprised the authorities in Kathmandu. A strike lasting for over a fortnight leading to the closure of the premier umivemity in the country, police lobbing tear-gas shells and making cane charges on students, demonstrators burning cars, attacking the police with stones and sticks, seizing of a gun from a security man, attempting to storm the Nepal Bank building in, Hataura, arrests of hundreds of students and extensive injuries to both students and policemen, the reluctant acknowledgement by the authorities that "the involvement of political elements in the student strike cannot be ruled out" -surely, all these are symptoms of scarcely permissible activity in such an ordered Panchayat democracy as that of Nepal. The demands of the striking students have been mainly for educational reforms, but in a polity like that of Nepal, even a demand for educational reforms becomes a political demand, 1t 'is perhaps premature to see in these sporadic outbursts of student unrest the beginnings of a real challenge to autocracy. But the authorities are any-way not treating the outburst lightly, though curiously, the harshest measures seem to have been directed against so loyal an opposition leader as B P Koirala himself who has now been put under house arrest under the public security act.

Article Review : PAKISTAN’S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTOCRACY

       

The time when General Ayub came to power in October 1958, no one had any idea that his actions would create drastic social and economic reforms in the country. The Army, a fairly united instrument, which was basically drawn from the four districts of West Punjab and the two districts of the North-West Frontier, seized power from the shrewd and feuding politicians. The North West Frontier was split up in such a way that neither the Punjabi nor the Bengali politicians were loyal even to their regional factions. General  Ayub did introduce several salutary changes such as  land reforms, restored efficiency in the administrative machine, and took strong measures against evils like corruption, black-marketing, smuggling, etc. He can be credited as one of the very few Muslim leaders of this century who took strong measures to bring about changes in the Muslim matrimonial laws and customs so that polygamy might be checked and women given better protection and rights in the matter of divorce and property. But the martial law did not disturb the social and economic structure of the Pakistani society. Industrialists and traders were called upon to declare their foreign exchange holdings and pay their taxes and there was no confiscation of property. After the land reforms were announce, some of the generals themselves held lands in excess of the ceilings announced in the reforms.

Thus, it can be said that the Army revolution in Pakistan had been brought about by generals with a distinct bias towards the status quo so far as the economic set-up of the country was concerned.

Ever since he seized power, he has consistently argued that parliamentary democracy is not likely to work in Pakistan where literacy is so low and where the people are not informed or mature enough to use their votes to support certain national policies or programmes.  Ayub attributes this failure and lack of character to the sort of education and the atmosphere which prevailed under foreign rule and he has singled out the lawyer-politicians, followed by traders and industrialists, for this serious breach of trust and responsibility. Ayub has repeatedly suggested that he would restore democracy in Pakistan but of a kind which the people could understand and operate.

Ayub has shrewdly used Islam to support the kind of authoritarian sys- tern that he has envisaged for Pakistan. Western democracy believes that policy or decision for the common good emerges from a dialogue or discussion between various groups. Islam believes in a well-knit community of believers from whom clear injunctions have been laid down in the Qur'an. The Commander of the Faithful merely needs an advisory council to assist him in the matter of interpretation of these principles. “For him, the Islamic type of constitution envisages a presidential system under which the President is advised by an Assembly or Parliament whose members expresses their opinions on national problems according to their free judgement and are not influenced by party or group considerations. Thus, in a new constitution (which was brought into being on June 8, i962) the Government of Pakistan has emerged, as Chaudhri Muhammad Ali has described it, as a Government of the President, by the President, and for the President. The President can exercise as effective a control over the Provinces as he does at the Centre.

It is in the field of foreign policy that Ayub has broken new ground. His regime has displayed increasing resentment towards the United States for offering military aid to India against China, on the plea that the Chinese danger was being overrated and that military aid would ultimately be used by India against Pakistan. Ayub's border pact with China, the recent air agreement with the same country, his mild overtures towards the Soviet Union, and his publicly expressed scepticism towards the military alliances with the United States has improved his image among the opposition circles.

WHAT MADE UN TO INTEREFERE IN THE CIVIL WAR OF LIBYA?

What were the factors that influenced the Security Council decisions first, to pass Security Council Resolution 1970 authorizing stringent sanctions, including a referral of Libyan officials to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and then, subsequently, to pass SC Resolution 1973, which authorized a no-fly zone and other military action?

 Ultimately these decisions set the basis for the NATO military alliance to join with the armed insurgency fighting against the government of Libya.

                             How the Issue of Libya was Brought to the Security Council

Looking back at the sequence of events by which the issue of Libya was brought to the Security Council, leads to an important observation. It was not a Security Council member nation which started this process. Nor was it the Arab League. Rather it was a party that one could argue had no legitimate basis to speak at the United Nations, especially not to the Security Council.

            This party, was, by that time, the former Charge de Affaires to the United Nations for the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Ibrahim Dabbashi. Dabbashi had taken the unusual actions of first announcing to the press that he had defected from representing the government of Libya at the UN, and then requesting an emergency meeting of the Security Council about the situation in Libya. His request to the Security Council began a process which, in less than a week, resulted in passing the stringent sanctions against Libya and the referral of its officials to the ICC that are included in SC Resolution 1970. SC Resolution 1970 then set the stage for SC Resolution 1973 passed three weeks later which authorized military action against Libya.

 Then Dabbashi announced his defection from the service of the government of Libya at the United Nations. While an appropriate course for a defecting government official from a country would be to resign his official position as a Deputy Ambassador for Libya at the United Nations, this is not what happened.

           What is significant about Mesmari’s action is that his defection puts Dabbashi’s defection in a broader context. A widely circulated article , an article which has not been refuted or denied, provides this context that  Mesmari left Libya in October 2010 for Paris , four months before the alleged suppression of demonstrations cited as one of the pretexts for the NATO aggression against Libya. Mesmari had been an important Libyan official with vast knowledge of and contact with the foreign service officials of Libya and vast knowledge of Libya’s contacts with government officials in other countries.

Libero reported that after Mesmari went to Paris in October 2010, he was in contact not only with French foreign intelligence officials, but also with elements of the Libyan opposition. His actions help to shed light on the events in Libya. Learning about some of the activities Mesmari was part of between October 2010, and February 2011, several commentators propose that Mesmari, along with other opposition activists, and officials in the French intelligence, helped to foment the uprising in Benghazi that took place in February 2011.

Unlike the Egyptian non violent protests, the uprising in Benghazi very quickly became an armed uprising against the government of Libya. Western media accounts of this rebellion, and Arab news media like Aljazeera, reported a series of unverified allegations by those involved in the rebellion itself, with little or no evidence presented to verify the accuracy of the reports. To this date, there is no evidence for the widely reported “use of mercenaries” or “bombing his own people.”

Mesmari was granted protection by the French government. In his interview with the French publication Liberation about his defection, he accused the Libyan government of genocide. He gave no evidence to support his claim.

Similarly, when Dabbashi held a press conference at the Libyan Mission to the UN on February 21, he claimed that the Libyan government was guilty of genocide. He, too, offered no evidence for his allegations. He called for the overthrow of the Libyan state headed by Muammar Gaddafi. Similarly, the lawyer for the Libyan mission spoke to journalists at the press conference. He indicated to journalists that he was from Benghazi. He, too, called for the overthrow of Gaddafi, the long time king of the Libyan state.

Some content of the letter that Dabbashi, as a defector from the official government of Libya, sent to the Security Council.

  It content is as follows :

“In accordance with rule 3 of the provisional rules of procedure of the Security Council, I have the honour to request an urgent meeting of the Council, to discuss the grave situation in Libya and to take the appropriate actions.”

It is worth noting that Rule 3 of the Security Council’s Provisional Rules of Procedure provides for a member nation of the United Nations to request a meeting. Under Rule 3, Dabbashi, as a defecting Deputy Ambassador of Libya, was not entitled to take part in any Security Council procedures, especially not to request a meeting of the Security Council to take punitive action against the government he has defected from and is seeking to overthrow.

That day was an official UN holiday (Presidents’ Day in the US) and the United Nations was not open. On the next working day at the UN, the Security Council held a closed meeting on the situation in Libya, under the title “Peace and Security in Africa – Libya. Around 15 members of the Security Council, 74 other nations of the UN were present at the closed meeting without any right to vote. So was Dabbashi.

The Libyan Ambassador to the UN, Abdel Rahman Shalgham also attended the Security Council meeting, along with Dabbashi. In informal comments after the meeting, Shalgham indicated that he had been in contact with a relative in Tripoli and was told that the alleged atrocities that the media was claiming had happened in Tripoli were not true. Similarly, speaking to the press, he indicated that he had been in contact with government officials in Tripoli who said that they, too, disputed the claims of atrocities taking place in Tripoli and planned to invite journalists from Al Arabiya and CNN to see for themselves that the allegations were inaccurate.

After he made his presentation to the Security Council, Under Secretary General for Political Affairs, Lynn Pascoe spoke to the press. He was asked if he had any evidence of atrocities in Tripoli. He responded that the UN people on the ground there had no such direct evidence.

Describing the closed meeting of the Security Council,one News Agency said that most of the Libyan delegation had defected. they reported that the Security Council met at the request of Dabbashi, who “was no longer working for the Libyan government”. It would appear to be a serious breach of UN protocol for a defecting official who had formerly been the representative of a nation that is a member of the UN, to be able to request a Security Council meeting and to have the Security Council grant the meeting and allow the defecting official to participate in the meeting. Similarly, to allow the defecting diplomat to make unverified allegations at the meeting against the government of a UN member nation would only compound the serious violation of the UN Charter represented by this abuse of UN processes.

REPORT CONTENT -

– The U.N. Security Council held closed-door discussions on Tuesday on the crisis in Libya, with Western envoys and Libya’s own breakaway delegation calling for action by the 15-nation body…

                   The council met at the request of Libyan Deputy Ambassador Ibrahim Dabbashi, who along with most other staff at Libya’s U.N. mission announced on Monday they were no longer working for leader Muammar Gaddafi and represented the country’s people. They called for Gaddafi’s overthrow.”

           Despite having defected, Dabbashi continued to have access not only to the Security Council processes, but also to official UN press stakeouts to speak to reporters as if officially the representative of a member nation of the UN. At these press stakeouts Dabbashi attacked the Libyan government, accusing it of genocide, without offering any proof for his claims. He also continued to call for the overthrow of the government of Libya.

Then one day the Libyan Ambassador to the UN, Abdel Rahman Shalgham announced his defection and denounced the Libyan government during a Security Council meeting.

The President of the Security Council invited the defecting Ambassador to take part in the meeting.

 “Section X Termination of Service at Permanent/Observer Missions:

     Before relinquishing his/her post, a Permanent Representative should inform the Secretary General in writing and, at the same time, communicate the name of the member of the mission who will act as charge de affaires pending the arrival of the new Permanent Representative. It is of special importance to note that a Charge de Affaires  cannot appoint himself and can hold this function only after being appointed by the Permanent Representative or by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State concerned.”

                  It would appear to be outside the procedure provided for by Security Council rules for a defecting Ambassador to be part of a Security Council meeting as the representative of the government he claims he no longer represents, and denouncing the member nation he has defected from.

                 At the Security Council meeting, UN gen secretary Ban Ki-moon spoke to the Security Council about the situation in Libya. He claimed he was basing his reports on accounts from “the press, human rights groups and civilians on the ground.” He acknowledged that there was no conclusive proof for his allegations, but dismissed this lack of verifiable information by saying that action should be taken along with efforts to get more reliable information. This action is contrary to other situations where the Secretary General recognized the need for an impartial fact finding group and appointed such a group to obtain the needed information to determine what course of action to take to promote a peaceful settlement of the situation.

                                 Libya Prevented from Presenting its Case at the UN

After the Secretary General presented his unverified allegations, the defecting Libyan Ambassador was called on to speak. By then  ,  Shalgham too had defected.

Contrary to an earlier promise to journalists that if he no longer supported the Libyan government, he would resign, Shalgham did not formally resign. Instead, he continued to use Security Council processes to encourage the Security Council to impose sanctions and ICC referrals on the government of Libya.

     In his presentation to the Security Council meeting Shalgham made a virulent denunciation of the Libyan government, complete with analogies to Hitler. Shalgham ignored the conflicting accounts of what was happening in Benghazi and instead painted a picture of peacefully demonstrating civilians unjustly subjected to a massacre. Shalgham presented no proof for his allegations nor was he asked to present any. Instead, he was consoled by the Secretary General and members of the Security Council, with several Security Council members, embracing and comforting him.

After that  Shalgham was reported to have sent a letter to the Security Council to influence the votes of its members.

One journalist got the following as the content of the letter Shalgham sent to the Security Council :

          “With reference to the Draft Resolution on Libya before the Security Council, I have the honour to confirm that the Libyan Delegation to the United Nations supports the measures proposed in the draft resolution to hold to account those responsible for the armed attacks against the Libyan Civilians, including trough the International Criminal Court.”

         Libya is not a member of the treaty creating the ICC. Though the UN Charter provides for the Security Council to create tribunals it has no provision to force a nation not a member of a treaty organization creating a tribunal to be subject to its jurisdiction  . And a provision of the ICC treaty cannot be substituted for some provision of the UN Charter. No provision of the UN Charter has been cited as providing the authority for the Security Council referrals of non treaty members to the jurisdiction of the ICC.

On the same day the Security Council passed Resolution 1970, imposing strong sanctions against Libya and referring Gaddafi and several others to the ICC. No proof of any wrongdoing was presented and no reference was made to any investigation into the allegations.

 Then Dabbashi denounced Gaddafi and thanked the Security Council members for granting his request for harsh measures against Libya and members of its government.

The Secretary-General as the last speaker on the Security Council agenda, spoke about how he welcomed the sanctions and saw them as a means for a new governance in Libya. He said:

“The sanctions that the Council has imposed are a necessary step to speed the transition to a new system of governance that will have the consent and participation of the people.”

This sequence of events can only be seen as a violation of the Security Council’s obligations under the UN charter. The provision of the Security Council rules used to invite the defecting former Libyan government officials into Security Council meetings were provisions providing for officials representing the government of Libya to speak. The defecting officials were now former government officials and as such had no authority to speak for the official government of Libya, and no authority to appear at Security Council meetings as officials of Libya.

The Security Council was providing support and aid to members of a group attempting to carry out a coup against the government of Libya. Such an action is contrary to the obligations of the UN Charter requiring the non-intervention in the affairs of member nations.The Security Council supported these defectors acting to overthrow the government of Libya

No legitimate Libyan government official was invited to take part in Security Council proceedings. When the Libyan government tried to appoint legitimate government officials to replace the defector delegation, the US government would not approve the visa requests for the replacement delegates, in violation of the Host Country obligations of the US. In this way, the US prevented the Libyan government from being able to present its case before the Security Council.

By March, the Spokesman for the Secretary General acknowledged that the Secretary General had received notice from the Libyan government withdrawing the credentials of Dabbashi and Shalgham. Eventually the access of the two diplomats was converted from diplomatic passes into courtesy passes granted at the discretion of the Secretariat so they could continue to have access to the UN, but on a more restricted basis than the official diplomats.

In a letter from govt. of libya explains that what is happening is a confrontation between terrorist groups and the State Authorities.” The letter explains that “Libyan army camps that have been attacked have taken no violent action against the armed attackers until the latter have brandished their weapons.” This is in conformity with Libyan law, the letter notes.

The letter explains that orders to fire may be given in the following circumstances:

“(a) If any member of forces is attacked.

(b) If rebels refuse to restore order, after having been warned and given the opportunity to do so.

(c) If rebels carry out an armed attack against persons or property.”

      The letter says that “what is at issue is not a conflict between two States, as provided for in article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations.” The Council therefore has no authority to adopt resolutions in such cases. The Charter, the letter explained, “provides that States shall refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any State.”

After the March 17 Security Council meeting, the US and then NATO began bombing Libya.

A letter from the government of Libya has been made one of the documents of the Security Council. In this letter the Foreign Minister writes :

                        “the Security Council has paved the way for military aggression against Libyan territory. France and the United States have bombarded several civilian sites, thereby violating all international norms and instruments, most notably the Charter of the United Nations, which provides for non-intervention in the affairs of member states.”

                       Libya asked the Security Council to halt this aggression, the purpose of which is not to protect civilians, as is purported, but rather to strike civilian sites, economic facilities, and sites belonging to the Armed Peoples on Duty. The UN Security Council again denied the Libyan government’s request.

Curtis Doebbler, the American Human Rights lawyer writes in his article that :

“The West focused its propaganda machinery on the UN with a vengeance. And it was not a simple campaign but a matter of history for the upcoming books. First, Libyan diplomats were induced and threatened to step down from their positions and promised that if they supported the opposition they would be ‘taken care of.’ This resulted in the Libyan diplomats at the UN not only resigning, but doing so and still maintaining a type of diplomatic status that allowed them to advocate on behalf of the armed rebels who were challenging the government of Libya for control of their country.”

             “This was accomplished by the spurious actions of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who issued special passes to the former Libyan diplomats after their government had withdrawn their credentials. Bypassing the UN General Assembly’s Credentials Committee and well-established protocol,

the UN secretary-general for the first time in the world body’s history personally favoured one side in what was by now a CIVIL WAR.”

Among Security Council members there have been a number of complaints that the resolution they allowed to pass (1973) did not authorize the kind of NATO bombing of Libya in support of the rebels that has been carried out. Because of the veto power of the US, France and the UK, the Security Council appears to have no means of oversight over NATO to stop what they believe to be an abuse of Security Council processes.

                               NATO  ( NATO< stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization )

, and for those who don’t know ,Libya is neither in the Atlantic Ocean nor it attacked the United States . The original NATO charter was set up as an organization that constitutes a group of member states that agree to collectively defend their countries against an external attack.

 The United States of America is governed by the laws put forth within our Constitution and bill of rights, not by the U.N., NATO, or the E.U. , but its not with the most of the nations of the world.

Why most of the times weaker ones are being interfered in their personal matters from these international supreme powers?

 Most of the times they are being governed by any New World Order or One World Governmental system bent on relegating America to a second-rate country, no matter what the collective failed governments from the rest of the world think. The American military action in the Libyan Civil war is illegal according to both the U.S.  Constitution and the NATO charter.

 NATO refused to reach consensus on the enforcement of the  U.N. authorized no-fly zone, due to Turkey rejecting the idea of waging war against Libya, and France’s reservations on transferring the command of its ongoing operations to NATO. If the Obama wants to try to use the example of NATO being active in the Iraq and Afghanistan WARS as a defence for this ploy that has gotten the U.S.into another war, there is one glaring difference between that and the Libyan Civil war of today: America was attacked on her own soil that dictates the right for America and NATO to stage the counter-offensive against the people behind those attacks.

This war action is a huge step towards a One World Government, as they are now combining Nato, the E.U, and the U.N. into one entity, and using the United States military to lead an attack on another country that has not attacked anyone.

      Now that the dirty work is done and the U.S. can be blamed on the world stage once again for any civilian casualties.




Post published by SURYA PRATAP SINGH.