Atlantic Community:Open Think Tank Article "Unipolarity's Days Are Numbered"

Over the past few decades, regional institutions have become more common. The European Union is proving to be a solid governance model with the African Union and the Union of South American Nations taking shape close behind. The South Americans have formed BancoSur, their alternative to the IMF. Regional trade pacts are flourishing in an alphabet soup of NAFTA, ASEAN, APEC, Mecrosur, and SAARC. The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), led by China and Russia, is a serious alternative to the US security blanket in Central Asia.

Some may praise new regional institutions as a positive step in cooperation. However, the world should equally be cautious of the changing norms. Regional institutions may encourage cooperation among members, but they may concurrently increase competition across institutions or regions. The SCO's denial of the US's request to join as an observer is an example of regional separation instead of global cooperation. Many of the bilateral trade agreements act in the same way. Taken to an extreme, these regional institutions undermine wider global institutions.

Simultaneously, nation-states no longer have a monopoly on violence. From the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City to the small, yet painful bombings in cafes and buses of Kunming, a quiet city in Southwestern China, terrorism is threatening the physical and psychological safety of citizens regardless of national borders or ideology. Financial and political poverty is turning the desperate to strengthen nonstate actors. Moreover, these nonstate actors are waging a war of ideas questioning not only the supposed success of the values promoted by liberal states and their institutions, but also their validity in establishing a peaceful and accommodating world. Non-state actors are threatening not only the stability of nation-states, but also the legitimacy of international organizations.

The international order is heading towards either multipolarity, where many states dominate decision-making, or, as noted by Haas of the Council on Foreign Relations, a state of non-polarity, where power is diffused among numerous state and non-state actors. In any case, global governance following the current trend will be chaotic, if not outright anarchic. To manage the coming challenges, the world must strengthen its only global governance organization-The United Nations.

To strengthen the UN requires leadership from the UN Security Council, particularly the US. While the US's power is declining, it still yields the greatest influence on the international arena. The US must take advantage of this shrinking window of opportunity to strengthen the UN, by transferring the role of the global sheriff to the UN, and, together with the other permanent members of the Security Council, establish and conform to a genuine check and balance governance system. The UN Parliamentary Assembly is one of the many proposed system. The world does not have a lack of proposals, but rather, a lack of leadership.

Beyond the UN, the international community must reform itself financially. Aside from broader capital regulation that will come after the current global financial crisis, the world community should move to a supranational reserve currency, weaning off its dependence on US dollar reserves. The dependence on US dollar reserves overexposes other economies to the US economy. Such a reserve was trumpeted first by Keynes and most recently by Nobel-laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz.

Not only does such a supranational reserve system help with long-term balance of payment challenges, a source of instability in itself, it forces even tighter cooperation due to increased interdependence. By allowing more voices to participate in the governing process and by providing a checks and balances system, the international institutions will be more legitimate.

The various new regional blocs are not acting in purposeful defiance of the UN. Rather, they offer a sobering signal that institutions, where governance is fair, are preferred to anarchy. The leaders of the global governance system, particularly the US, must recognize this signal and take advantage of the current opportunity. Coordination will be more difficult, if not impossible, when power is even more evenly distributed. This is a time when members of the UN Security Council can assume true leadership and provide the platform for long-term stability.

Yam Ki Chan is a Masters student at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. He received his BA in Economics from Carleton College

This article has been shortlisted for the Atlantic Community's "Global Governance in 2020" student competition.

The Atlantic Community's World Economic Forum Focus Week (Jan 22 - Jan 28)
This article is part of the Atlantic Community's World Economic Forum Focus Week in a 5 day run-up to the WEF Davos Conference (conference begins Wed 28 January). We are focusing on two of the most pressing aspects of the conference: the Global Economy and Climate Change.

Other articles in our series on WEF:

From the discussion on the community page we will generate a special Atlantic Memo that will be distributed to WEF organizers and to decision makers worldwide at the start of the conference. Please share your comments on the recommendations and issues raised in this article. We want to know how you think the WEF Davos Conference should approach the long-term questions raised by the global financial situation.

- Is unilateralism on the way out?

- Is the UN in a position to lead the way in global governance?

-Should the WEF advocate a supranational reserve currency?

I like this Article! What's this?

Comments

January 22, 2009

Marie Grunert, intern at SWP, Silver Contributor (59)

I like this comment! What's this?

The author is indeed raising a couple of interesting points. The current financial chaos has once again only confirmed that with the world as today, standing alone is simply not an option. Global challenges require global responses and thus, little by little the world is adapting itself to new times. We are witnessing a parallel tendency of concession of power up (supranational institutions) and down (rising regionalism) and the Nation-State as intended in Westphalian terms is gradually declining.
Now this granted I don’t think that the United Nations, at least in its current form is ready for taking the role of world government. The idea is good but a couple of changes ought to be made. Two I perceive as particularly important:

To start with, the Security Council "execuitve body" as constituted today still reflects the post World War II world order. The so called five policemen possess the incredibly important right of veto and thus can block decisions from being taken. This would require a first transformation to extend other countries such as Germany and/or rising global powers like India or Brazil at an equal level. Whereas the General Assembly where every state is represented can make recommendations but not adopt binding rules

Second, one of the principal characteristic of a Nation State is the monopoly of the use of force in order to have the capacity to protect and defend its citizens. As it looks today it is very doubtful whether the UN possesses this capacity. Fair enough, on paper the Security Council is the only body which can decide and use force but only in - and rightly so to reduce the resort to force to the absolute minimum - very particular circumstances (art 41 &42). However this only limitedly grants states with the adequate protection and fulfilling this function is still very important. Despite originally planned, equipping the UN with a permanent army was never translated into facts. What is more, it is still quite arbitrary (partly still linked to the previously mentioned veto question) in what situations to intervene. As for art 51,allowing for collective and indicidual self defence it also poses some problems as it has sometimes been extensively interpreted leading to preventive and or preemptive self defense.

Globalization should not and cannot be stopped, however, a form of control ought to be set up to make it more fair, manageable and avoid i.e. excessive deregulation of financial markets to result in the current global economic turmoil. Institutions provide norms and rules and play a very important role as such. The United Nations, inclusive organization with participation of quasi every state is the most advanced example of “world government” and a good starting point for setting up a new world order.

January 25, 2009

Member deleted

I like this comment! What's this?

Russian potential to bring economic balance.
Ancient Slavic farming cultures led to one of the first delineations of economic and social structures. The family was designated as the first (lowest) level economic unit. A neighborhood (community) was the first level social organization, and the second (slightly higher) level economic unit. Community ownership was also introduced for water, forests, and hayfields. Tribal principalities developed into third (higher) level economic units and second higher level social or political unit. A town or castle was located at the center. Read more about ancient Slavic culture at this link.
http://russia.rin.ru/guides_e/6478.html

Economic Clarity
Russian president Dmitri Medvedev in his address to the Tenth St Petersburg International Economic Forum works to clarify that we enjoy both the benefits and drawbacks of Global Economics. In enlightened Slavic fashion he states “One of the distinguishing features of globalization is that it usually leads to a voluntary harmonization of various standards and regulations.” May I point out the word “Voluntary” as a key word here, being important because if half the world is following the regulations and being honest economic partners and the other half is not playing fair so to speak, then there is a disruption to the harmony.

”Relative Advantage” is another key subject in President Medvedev’s speech, indicating that various countries have unique talents. As an example I would point out China as a production machine, India as kind of a think tank with lots of theorists and Sweden as a science fiction style research country. In a way we are all trying to find our niche individually and collectively. We all want to fit in locally and globally, with our contribution. After all, What is the purpose of life? Contribute to improve the collective in some way, enjoy the path and attain enlightenment along the way, and Darwin’s help the human race survive long term? http://www.medvedev2008.ru/english_2006_06_13.htm

Enlightened Leaders.
Just the fact that we are having global economic forums is an indication that the world is becoming enlightened. At least we are working on a plan to bring balance and harmony both locally and globally. Obviously there will be ongoing planning and adapting, and a few rogues that will try to thwart the plan and still other mad scientist types’ claiming theirs is the only Real plan to be followed. The nice thing about enlightened leaders is they start to see through the Pseudo-Realities projected by some groups which are then forced to be an overlay on reality which will cloud the vision of others. Vision is a key word here because 70% of global CEOs believe having a vision for the group is a prime factor of success.

Conclusion
Why is the global economic forum important? Because individual enlightenment creates clarity, understanding and ideas. Collective enlightenment changes the world and transports us into a new era.

January 25, 2009

Colette Grace Mazzucelli, Hofstra University / New York University, Platinum Contributor (333)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Yam Ki Chan,

Thank you for your insightful article. My sense is that one of the challenges today is that instead of relying on global or regional organizations to address problems of collective insecurity, either financial or political, states are falling back on the habit of forming select groupings based on their willingness to address the most urgent difficulties.

Global governance risks becoming an object of great power coordination in the years to come with shifting coalitions if rising powers presently excluded from the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) can edge their way into the various games at hand.

Even if the United States decides to lead by example under the Obama Presidency, with tremendous effort placed on diplomacy - bilateral and multilateral, revisionist powers, particularly Russia, Venezuela, Iran, will seek ways to augment their influence and minimize adherence to the norms of the United Nations and other international organizations unless these organizations are perceived to act in their respective interests.

I question the extent to which United Nations reform can be achieved. Eeven if this were the case, would this reform make a difference in today's world? Despite globalization, the world seems headed, as you suggest, back to a multipolar, not a multilateral, era.

I am less inclined to agree with the non-polarity thesis because even non-state actors rely on their presence within key states, which are, at times, responsible for supporting the presence of non-state actors as proxies in the conflicts we witness today.

The state/non-state actor interconnections are complicated and sometimes more difficult to discern in the short-term. Witness the Khan network's Pakistani-Swiss connections. This does not negate their existence because the leadership of non-state actors can usually be traced back to education and training in key states, whose territories provide an area of refuge for their criminal activities.

I accept the thesis that there must be closer global cooperation among states on matters of internal security. Even if states are losing their monopoly on the legitimate use of force, their leaders can still act in concert to protect their populations from the indiscriminate acts, which must be prosecuted on the basis of the common threat they pose to humanity. The jurisdiction to prosecute is also likely to be national. It is my sense that the threats posed by non-state actors, although universal in nature and intent, aim to destablize those states that are believed to be most important to the functioning of the global system as a whole.

I appreciate your comments. Greetings from New York, Colette Mazzucelli

January 27, 2009

James Joiner

I like this comment! What's this?

Unipolarity is an absolute necessity if we are to successfully move into the future!

All Nobel prize winners must come together and speak loud and eloquently not just on the planet but on what is happening today, why, and what is going to happen if this is allowed to happen.

Al Gore was being overly optimistic saying experts say we have ten years to act and some as little as two. It is worse than that and he and everyone else should know why.The Nobel prize winners must come together and bring to the forefront around the world the dire danger to us and the planet if we continue down the road of an unsurvivable world war! We must somehow convey to them that are respected around the world that the time is now and immediate.

We should be using our militaries for the sole purpose of helping and ensuring honesty among the Nations of the world. There can be no action taken without the knowledge and complicity of all Nations that have the future of man and the planet as their goal. We should be using our militaries not to wage war but to wage peace. Our military efforts after the tsunami were a shining example of the way our militaries should be used in the future. The world as a whole must be made to realize the fragility of our situation.

We can make this work despite the tenuous situation we have put ourselves in. With that said we must proceed and work as a world unit.
It will not work as separate competitive entities as we have done in the past. We must Proceed into the future as one. We must proceed into the future with the future life of man and the planet as our only goal.
Nothing less than the survival of man and the planet are at stake.
Shortly the planets life sustaining ecosystems will no longer have the ability to sustain the current population of man.

We can not afford to destroy them altogether. That complete destruction and no less is what we have facing us right now.

January 27, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Collette,

I think a major reason that the UN has become ghettoized (in a sense) is as a result of the widening fissure in the Atlantic Alliance between the US and the continental EU countries.

I think that if one looks back to 30 or 40 years ago you see a reasonably coherent Atlantic Alliance comprising most of the then EU, the US, UK, and Canada. There were some exceptions (such as DeGaulle's France), but I think the similarities of interests were stronger than the differences even there. This group mostly controlled the UN and associated bodies (insofar as such bodies can be controlled).

The split really began to be visible in the 70's with the delpoyment of new weapons into Europe and continued to widen under Reagan. In the 90's we saw what I call 'treaty entrepeneurialism' - international treaties written under a mostly European adgenda (with the help of a small minority of Americans (Leahy for the Land Mnes Convention, Gore for Kyoto). These treaties were written without taking account of the physical realities which faced the US and it's soldiers (ICC, Land Mines treaty), or were subtley slanted to put the US at a disadvantage economically or to 'socially re-engineer' the American way of life into modes more European. The treaties were not actually negociated between the US and Europe but rather between groups of like-minded activists with a common vision of the future, a vision not shared by a majority of their citizenry. Kyoto was clearly slanted against US consumers and industry compared to their counterparts in Germany, for example, and particularly against rising competitors in China and India.

One of the tragedies of Al Gore is that he failed to realize that his political adgenda was in many ways a dagger aimed at the heart of blue-collar America, the very constituency once at the heart of the New deal coalition. Gore's main themes (Kyoto, anti-sprawl legislation) threatened white collar and blue-collar jobs and limited their ability to fulfill the American Dream by raising housing prices, while his plans to subsidize college tuition for the well off did not materially help the struggling middle classes.

The tragedy of Gore is that he simply didn't understand these classes and therefor lost them (and the 2000 election) for that reson. The Democrats do produce politicians who understood this class, notably Bill Clinton and Rich Gebhart, possibly Obama, but Gore's sliver-spoon boyhood raised in a Washington hotel deprived him of such understanding.

I think the problem is that reform cannot be imposed from without by fiat of international treaty, A core principal of negociation is that one MUST actually negociate with the other side. Nice meetings between people who are all agreed on what the US ought to be forced into becoming cannot actually produce agreement among the sweaty classes whom all present in rarified venues (such as Davos this week) agree ought to be reformed - you must actually persuade the sweats themselves or it will never work!

The ironic thing is that the 'enlightened' elites understand this principal VERY well, when it comes to dealing with adversaries like Putin and China. But they cannot extend this understanding to allies like the US. And so the fissure continues to widen......

January 27, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I like this comment! What's this?

I think that most people following this board agree that the UN needs a kind of reform to make it more effective. Most Europeans and some Americans appear to believe that if the US can be compelled to support the UN as it exists today - all will be well.

Others (like myself) beg to disagree. In times past a coalition of Europe and the US exercised a strong, even controlling influence over the UN, but there has been a clear policy exercised by the European members to attenuate the US influence and push the US almost completely out of the 'insider' group at the US. Leaving the Europeans alone in control, but only for a time.

To give an example: I read somewhere that the European bloc enjoyed about 75% support in the UN between 1997 and 2004, but that level of support has dropped to about 45% in recent years. The causes of that drop may be seen in two lights:

1) Increased support from countries supporting the Defenestration of the US (from the UN Human Rights Commission and other such bodies), but whose long-term interests aren't necessarily congruent with those of the EU (examples: Russia, China, Iran, and others).

2) Reduced levels of support from the US for the EU agenda in the UN. Having been defenstered, the US is naturally far less to do it's business at the UN subject to the french veto, and has in fact taken it's major diplomatic dealings into bilateral and regional cooperatives far, far from Turtle Bay.

The Obama administration may be somewhat more 'UN-friendly', but only in a marginal sense. I think he is unlikely to pursue Asian, African, and Latin American diplomatic initiatives at the UN. Given that the UN is now a European enclave it makes sense doing European diplomacy there but it makes little sense to allow potential French vetos to complicate a deal with India, for example.

I see the crisis of the UN democratic bloc as basically a crisis of it's European masters; having worked steadily (with huge success) to marginalize the US as a power in the UN, to save the liberal democratic mission in the UN they must now seek to radically widen the corridors of power, to bring not only the US but also other liberal democracies (India, Brazil, Japan, South Korea, Canada, South Africa, perhaps also Taiwan, Mexico, Chile, and even Iraq) into the very center of the democratic coalition whose concerns and issues are legitimately as important to the whole as those of the European members. Fully equal partners, not clients of Europe.

European control will suffer, but the UN will be strengthened by such a move. Europe is simply not enough for the UN to thrive going forward.

Absent a change of vision of this magnitude, the UN is doomed to become the Holy Roman Empire of the 21st century; a once vitally important body doomed to creeping irrelevence.

January 28, 2009

Yam Ki Chan, Columbia University-School of International and Public Affairs, Bronze Contributor (12)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Colette Mazzucelli,

Thank you for your comments. As I mentioned in my article, I am not sure if the world is heading multipolar or non-polar. It will be something that many of us will debate about over the years to come. The issue is that in either situation, the stability of interstate relations is in question. Given the coming instability, I believe that a global governance system (i.e. the UN), is the best way to manage the transformation because it is the only system we have and one that is adaptable, should its members allow it.

I do agree with you that there are many challenges to reforming the UN. Yet, I believe that the challenge lies in leadership and mainly with the United States. State actors understand that the alternative to to global governance can be costly. Concurrently, they all understand the potential benefits of a global governance system. Therefore, in concept and values, there is a common ground. From there the brightest minds from all parties should be able to come together and propose how we can modify the existing system incrementally. The more powerful nations will need to show restraint and all nations will need to compromise. The US, as the most powerful nation still, must take the first step by restraining itself to be bound by the rule of the UN and in exchange, it can have a stronger voice in how to reform the UN system. Such leadership will be recognized by other states, who can see a transparent process to modifying the UN governance system.

The issue of non-state actors is interesting. From the perspective of inter-state relations it does seem that they exist to destabilize the states most important to the global system as a whole. Yet, I would posit that they do more than that. They exist to change the balance of power anywhere, regardless of which state is most important. There are many non-state actors causing havoc within failed states, many of whom are have little impact on the functioning of the global system. The problem is that with globalization, non-state actors can link up with other non-state actors to destabilize the existing structure, regardless of ideology. On the other hand, state governance is stuck in a pre-globalization world. They haven't "linked up" with one another to combat or deter non-state actors. Therefore, I believe that states need "link up." They need to build global institutions to maintain stability.

January 28, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Yam Ki Chan,

You make the interesting assertion that the US must 'lead' the UN. One often hears this, but when one studies the details of the proposed 'leadership' it usually appears that the US is to 'lead' cosmetically, but the actual agenda the US is to lead the world toward bears a little label "Made in Bruxelles. 0% US content".

This is not leadership it all of course, but in effect amounts to a demand that the US throw it's global weight behind the continental European agenda with little if any action taken to address the interests of the US.

I think the biggest problem for the UN today is that the dominant power base within the UN (the EU countries) is far too narrow a base of support to be able to drive the organisation in a positive direction. So it drifts and becomes less relevant politically in a changing planet. I think Europe needs to open the doors again and allow non-European democracies back into the core of the decision-making. Not only the US, which has been deliberately marginalized over thre past 30 years, but rising free market democracies like Japan, India, Brazil, South Africa, and many others in Asia and Lain America.

If they don't I fear the UN is doomed to become even more of a combination anarchy and 'little EU' ghetto than it is already,

January 31, 2009

Colette Grace Mazzucelli, Hofstra University / New York University, Platinum Contributor (333)

I like this comment! What's this?

Dear Donald, Dear Yam Ki Chan,

Thank you for your messages. I am slowly catching up on my Atlantic-Community.org correspondences. I believe that the US would have to be willing to be a lynchpin of a reformed United Nations system economically and in the sense of its willingness to lead by example and adherence to the norms of the UN Charter in a spirit of multilateralism.

Economically, my sense is that funds should be directed towards the agencies that really make a difference in the field, like UNDP in development, because poverty is, as Gandhi knew, the worst form of violence. By rejecting 'The Clash of Civilizations' thesis in practice, UN work can support the real desire for peoples in countries like Afghanistan to move away from violence and toward justice.

Clearly it is up to the leaders of these countries to govern by establishing a culture of legitimacy. Good global governance starts with rooting out corruption at the national level. All the good intentions of UN reform cannot change the realities on the ground in many countries whose leaders accept vast amounts of economic aid and technical assistance from UN programs and continue to plunder their own peoples.

The role of the Europeans at the UN is, in my understanding, a test for their own aspirations as a community. As long as Britain and France insist on their permanent seats on the Security Council, Germany and Italy will do so as well. I believe that one seat for the EU would have to reflect a genuine ability to speak with one voice. The Europeans are some distance from a single voice even if there is increasing agreement in certain policy areas that has become more pronounced in voting patterns in the General Assembly, for example. The Austrian Paul Luif has done a great deal of research on the ways in which voting patterns among the EU member states have converged over time in the General Assembly.

We know that the Security Council remains the prerogative of those states that aspire to great power influence. The use of the veto is the embodiment of that prerogative in the classical sense. France is one example because 'rang' matters very much to French elites. The UNSC cannot meet the challenges of today's world unless its permanent member state composition changes dramatically.

The implications for US diplomacy are evident in that choices must be made about where to allocate limited resources to prevent failed and failing states from being the primary targets of non-state actors, whose agendas are furthered by the perpetration of criminal activities on the territories of these states. Pakistan is just one example.

I agree that states need to "link up" to take responsibility for global stability. The UNSC in its present configuration is not up to the task of maintaining that stability. As you underline, the Security Council leaves out those countries that represent a greater portion of the world's population and growth. These same countries have a significant stake in the 21st century system and should contribute in a major way to global coordination.

'Obstinate or obsolete?' is Hoffmann's title for an article published in the mid-1960s that discusses the fate of the nation-state. Obstinate and obsolete is the fate of the UN today if changes are not made by the P5 states who maintain the system in their own narrow interests.

All the best and greetings from New York, Colette Mazzucelli

February 1, 2009

Donald Stadler, Self-employed, Diamond Contributor (1052)

I like this comment! What's this?

As Yam Ki Chan points out "the days of unipolarity' are over. Another way of phrasing this is that US 'hegenomy' is dead. The 'New World Order is dead, Long live the Newer World Order'!

The question which faces us now is what. if anything, will replace it?

To make an educated guess as to what kind of governance might replace I think one must first look at whom 'killed' the king. There were a number of factors, but the one obvious cause was the refusal of most of the EU to support the US, even in Afghanistan. Germany and France finished off US hegenomy, so they might be considered the leading candidates to become the new hegemon.

I think this is seen as a non-starter even by the putative hegemons, perhaps rejected more sharply in Germany than in France.

Another form of the 'EU hegemon' idea posits a sort of bastard child of the EU and the US; the EU makes policy and the command decisions while the US provides foot soldiers for such actions which the EU countries deem necessary. A division of labor in which the EU makes the decisions and the US does the scutwork (and serves time for war-crimes as deemed by the EUquisition) bears many advantages for the bosses of the Newer World Order, with perhaps fewer accruing to the US. This in some form seems to be the favored solution of many Europeans.

The problem with this latter solution in all it's forms is that it makes no effort to solve the problems which killed US hegenomy, save that the EU bosses make the policy. But the US still pays the cost in money and blood. Barack Obama still dons the SS uniform and a toothbrush mustache (in effigy) for German parades as George Bush did.

From the POV of the US a far more satisfactory solution would be to completely abdicate the throne and allow King Anarchy to take over until Europe decides to build up it's forces in response. Which may take a while. This at least would have the advantage of allowing President Obama to control the wardrobe of his public personae somewhat better, and keep the public image of the US smelling sweeter.

China? China is not a possible hegemon now. China's economy is 25% the size of the US or EU economies. India is smaller yet. Russia is no longer even a fraction as powerful as the old USSR, No, with the US out of the picture the choices are the EU as hegemon, or no hegemon.

September 12, 2009

Morrison

I like this comment! What's this?

Hi all. Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist. Help me! Help to find sites on the: Like commission development, a inventory will sell itself against short economies that are in first platforms or gifts.. I found only this - [URL=http://www.fh-krems.ac.at/Members/Sales/pepsiamericas-description-of-sales-force]pepsiamericas description of sales force[/URL]. The entertainment producing classification is very a program of pain bit and key best practices force. some companies appear level advantages that say information into a important product memory of activities and sales. Thanks for the help :eek:, Morrison from Salvador.

Commenting has been deactivated in the archive. We appreciate your comments on our more recent articles at atlantic-community.org

RSS

Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

January 22, 2009 | 11 comments | Print Your Opinion

Unipolarity's Days Are Numbered

Community