Quietly on Friday 11 September 2009 with the US remembering the fallen at the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon, and the crash of an al Qaeda commanded aeroplane in Pennsylvania, Philip Crowley a spokesman for the department of state, dropped a bombshell. The Obama administragtion was reversing its oars on dealing with the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea aka North Korea]. It waesols now willing to enter bilateral discussions with North Korea, something it has resolutely and steadfastly resisted, especially during the 8 dark years of George Bush's diplomacy. It is a break in the mistaken, bumbling Obama administration's hard line policy towards the DPRK. Guam Diary has repeatedly and incessantly suggested that president Obama [BHO] playing a dangerous gambit by seizing the UN sedcurity council calling for onerous sanctions against Kim Jong il, found that his clever by half ploy had back fired dangerously and badly. Swiftly Pyongyang slammed the door on the six party salks in Beijing to end its nuclear programme; it sent packing IAEA observers and began anew its nuclear plant anend programme; it launched short and medium ranged missiles; and it tore up in a peak of anger theal 1953 Geneva Accords. BHO felt challenged; he strong armed the UN security council into passing punitive sanctions, which Kim Jong il called 'causi belli', acts of war. To signal its displeasure, the DPRK on 26 May set off a powerful underground explosion which nuclear sensors, even the one in the ROC [Republic of Korea aka South Korea] registered no synthetic traces of nuclear matter, even though Washington claimed it was a nuclear test, in violation of UN resolutions. And there the standoff remained.
In June, Kim Jong il in a new approach, called for discussions directly with the US. In the meanwhile two ambitious journalists got caught entering the DPRK without proper documents. Owing to the acrimony on both sides, they were quickly tried and condemned to 12 years at hard labour.
Anxious to seek the rel.enior DPRK diplomats stationed at Nsorth Korea's permanent mission to the UN in New York. And then at the funeral of Nobeclist and former South Korean president Kim Dae Jung in August, Madeleine Albright represented the US where she was bound to run into a very important DPRK delegation to honour the memory of Mr. Kim . She in Octobeer 2000, met with Kim Jong il, and gave an interesting and positive profile of the DPRK leader, which many hhings began loosening up. The DPRK delegates met with South Korea's granite resistant to North Korea, president Lee Myung bak. Then the visit of Mme. Hyun Jeorng un, ceo of the Hyundai group, to the DPRK. She expressing regrets, obtaine release of a Hyundai technician held for 127 on charges of trying to aid and abet the defection of a North Korean woman he had become sweet on. Mme. Hyun thereby set the stage for the reopening at full speed of the industrial park which both Koreas needed and wanted for obvious economic benefits. And then quickly, the borders between the North and the South were open to rail traffic, and the Red Cross of both countries looked to restart visits of families separated by the Korean war more than a half century ago.
Now if these steps did not signal the merry singing of the diplomatic tea kettle, the sudden, fortuitous [sic] appearance of high ranking delegates from the DPRK, the ROC, and US should have alerted even the more dense that something big as going on. And the announcement by Mr. Crowley that the US had set its diplomatic to new winds with DPRK is of the swift series of events since Citizen Bill Clinton's 'mercy mission' to the DPRK.
The regime change Americans had been banging pots and pans to derail this, but to no avail. They're down but won't admit defeat.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
Mad cow hysteria in Malaysia continued...
Selangor authorities arrested 12 Muslims parading a severed cow's head in Shah Alam, to protest the relocation of a 150 year old Hindu temple 200 metres from their neighbourhood.
As Guam Diary reported, the authorities had a found the site for the temple because Malaysian law stipulates that had the demographics of a neighbourhood shifted towards a Malay or Muslim majority, any place of worship other than a mosque would have to be removed and built elsewhere. And such was the case of the Hindu temple in proximity to Shah Alam. [Guam Diary will not comment on intent of the law, which favours, to say the least, segregation of racial groups in Malaysia and upholds the primacy of Islam in all matters.]
Fifty angry demonstrators denigrated the Hindu religion by brandishing the bloody cow's head in front of government offices.
Twelve protestors appeared before a judge magistrate. Five are charged with sedition, 6 others with unlawful assembly, and one might have been dismissed, but that is not certain. No trial date was set; all defendants, released on their own recognisance, The case will be heard again on 21 October 2009.
According to local officials, all but one protestor lived in Shah Alam. Eleven came from elsewhere, who taken by the power of their own oratory, waxed in fiery fury to denounce the relocation of the Hindu temple, thereby with intent inciting the Muslims of Shah Alam towards insurrection against State authorities.
Now in the charge of sedition is a serious office, and one not proferred lightly in Malaysia. Yet, it does seem strange that the court did not see fit to impose heavy bail or remand the 5 men charged to gaol until the court reheard arguments in late October.
Where the shoe on the other foot say, the perpetrators would be under lock and key, were it an offense against Islam. Bloody rioting and yes lynching if not murder would have ensued. Charges of blasphemy, sedition would ring from the highest rafter, it is safe to say. But sedition in this case, is as lightly worn as gossamer wings.
It is more likely than not, the charge of sedition will be dropped in October, the case treated with a lax hand, and the firebrands released to engage in mayhem and mischief once again.
It is not difficult to document the case that Malaysia sets double weights and double weights for non Muslims; that a mild form of racial and religious apartheid obtains; and that civil justice in Malaysia is skewered and discriminatory.
As Guam Diary reported, the authorities had a found the site for the temple because Malaysian law stipulates that had the demographics of a neighbourhood shifted towards a Malay or Muslim majority, any place of worship other than a mosque would have to be removed and built elsewhere. And such was the case of the Hindu temple in proximity to Shah Alam. [Guam Diary will not comment on intent of the law, which favours, to say the least, segregation of racial groups in Malaysia and upholds the primacy of Islam in all matters.]
Fifty angry demonstrators denigrated the Hindu religion by brandishing the bloody cow's head in front of government offices.
Twelve protestors appeared before a judge magistrate. Five are charged with sedition, 6 others with unlawful assembly, and one might have been dismissed, but that is not certain. No trial date was set; all defendants, released on their own recognisance, The case will be heard again on 21 October 2009.
According to local officials, all but one protestor lived in Shah Alam. Eleven came from elsewhere, who taken by the power of their own oratory, waxed in fiery fury to denounce the relocation of the Hindu temple, thereby with intent inciting the Muslims of Shah Alam towards insurrection against State authorities.
Now in the charge of sedition is a serious office, and one not proferred lightly in Malaysia. Yet, it does seem strange that the court did not see fit to impose heavy bail or remand the 5 men charged to gaol until the court reheard arguments in late October.
Where the shoe on the other foot say, the perpetrators would be under lock and key, were it an offense against Islam. Bloody rioting and yes lynching if not murder would have ensued. Charges of blasphemy, sedition would ring from the highest rafter, it is safe to say. But sedition in this case, is as lightly worn as gossamer wings.
It is more likely than not, the charge of sedition will be dropped in October, the case treated with a lax hand, and the firebrands released to engage in mayhem and mischief once again.
It is not difficult to document the case that Malaysia sets double weights and double weights for non Muslims; that a mild form of racial and religious apartheid obtains; and that civil justice in Malaysia is skewered and discriminatory.
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
China kicks old friends in the pants
In the 'New York Times Online' [2 September 2009] appears 'Filmmakers barred from China Festival'.
In an effort to put a bright smile on a lamentable situation, the Chinese authorities have banned the showing of 'China's unnatural disaster: the tears of Sichuan province' at this year's Beijing International Festival. Filmed by the award winning documentary filmmaker Jon Alpert and Matthew O'Neill, it captures the anger and sadness of loss of parents whose children died in the collapse of shoddily built schools during a strong earthquake in 2008.
The Chinese Communist Party [CCP] has treated with a rough and steel hand the families who called for redress and the pursuit of corrupt officials and builders, the more especially government buildings withstood the violent shocks of the quake but not the shabby schools.
Alpert and O'Neill along with a co producer Dr. Peter Kwong, chairman of Asian Studies at New York's Hunter College had visa applications rejected. As such, they and their documentary are barred from the festival in Beijing, which is not surprising as the CCP is going to celebrate the 60 anniversary of its seizure of power in 1949.
For Dr. Kwong a reconstructed Maoist, and drum beat for Beijing, this must come as a loss of face.
In an effort to put a bright smile on a lamentable situation, the Chinese authorities have banned the showing of 'China's unnatural disaster: the tears of Sichuan province' at this year's Beijing International Festival. Filmed by the award winning documentary filmmaker Jon Alpert and Matthew O'Neill, it captures the anger and sadness of loss of parents whose children died in the collapse of shoddily built schools during a strong earthquake in 2008.
The Chinese Communist Party [CCP] has treated with a rough and steel hand the families who called for redress and the pursuit of corrupt officials and builders, the more especially government buildings withstood the violent shocks of the quake but not the shabby schools.
Alpert and O'Neill along with a co producer Dr. Peter Kwong, chairman of Asian Studies at New York's Hunter College had visa applications rejected. As such, they and their documentary are barred from the festival in Beijing, which is not surprising as the CCP is going to celebrate the 60 anniversary of its seizure of power in 1949.
For Dr. Kwong a reconstructed Maoist, and drum beat for Beijing, this must come as a loss of face.
Lisa Ling and Euna Lee speak up without remorse
Citizen Bill Clinton's mission of mercy to the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea aka North Korea] had the ostensible purpose of bring two American journalists sentenced to 12 years each of hard labour, back safe and sound to the US. Their release snowballed into a relaxation of tensions first between Washington and Pyongyang, and then Pyongyang and Seoul. The thaw in relations is warming up to a degree that as Guam Diary had 'called for a conference in Geneva', lto resolve outstanding matters lingering from the war in Korea [1950-1953], not the least the signing of a peace treaty.
Lisa Ling and Euna Lee are finally terlling us their story almost two months after arrfiving back on American soil. It has come in the form of an op ed piece in the 'Los Angeles Times' [2 September 2009]. As good journalist, they went the extra mile for their story: North Korean defectors or refugees who fled to China for food and work. Mostly living in the shadows, among the Sino Korean population, the women were forced into sex slavery or marriage. The men too began slaves in sweat shops or restaurants or menial jobs, lest they be denounced and sent back to harsh punishment in North Korea.
Ling and Lee are no novices in reporting. Swept along with even interviewing border guardson the Chinese DPRK border, on the dawn of 17 March 2009, they crossed the border at the shallow Tumen river. They had asked their guide, a Sino Korean who had worked with other foreign or western journalist, to arrange a meeting with friendly border guards. He tried to set it up on his cell phone but was unable. Ling and Lee threw caution to the wind, by going with man in the hopes that his signals would end in their much sought interview with North Korean border guards who accept bribes from the refugees, thereby allowing them safe passage into China.
It had the wrong, desired outcome. Two guards emerged from the woods, in hot pursuit of the two women who ran for safety in China. The guide and their camera crew, all male, ran as did the two women. The men escaped, but Ling and Lee got nabbed for entering the DPRK illegally.
They pleaded guilty at their show trial, and later willingly apologises for violating North Korean law by trespassing. Owing to US president Obama's [BHO] hard line policy towards Pyongyang for not desisting in the launch of a satellite on a long range rocket, fueled by Washington's seizure of the UN security council on questionable grounds, which resulted in sanctions, Kim Jong il escalated his response by slamming the door on the six party talks in Beijing, sent packing IAEA observers, started up its nuclear programme, exploded a powerful non nuclear device [see Clery's article in 'Science'], and shredded the 1953 Armistice Accords. And the poisonous atmosphere gathered more and more lethal until the Ling and Lee in a call to their families in San Francisco that the Kim regime after US secretary of state proffered an apology, would welcome the visit of Citizen Bill Clinton, to lance the boil of discontent between Washington and Pyongyang. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Still the fallout of Ling and Lee's arrest has had dire consequences for ROC [Republic of Korea aka South Korea] citizen rescue efforts, mainly by evangelising Christian pastors who came not only to bring aid and succor to the North Korean refugees, but also convert them to their brand of Christianity, and in the hope that they could spirit them to South Korea. North Korean authorities confiscated the two reporters notebooks, and possibly filmed interviews, thereby compromising rescue efforts. Articles have appeared in the South Korean press denouncing the irresponsibility of Ling and Lee for being zealously blind to the consequences of their actions at the DPRK border crossing.
Ling and Lee are back home safe, but nowhere in their joint op ed 'Los Angeles Times' is there a feeling of remorse for the North Korean refugees whose life they rendered less secure and even put at risk by being sent back to the DPRK.
It is doubtful that they've absorbed the full import of their rash decision to interview venal North Korean border guards.
Lisa Ling and Euna Lee are finally terlling us their story almost two months after arrfiving back on American soil. It has come in the form of an op ed piece in the 'Los Angeles Times' [2 September 2009]. As good journalist, they went the extra mile for their story: North Korean defectors or refugees who fled to China for food and work. Mostly living in the shadows, among the Sino Korean population, the women were forced into sex slavery or marriage. The men too began slaves in sweat shops or restaurants or menial jobs, lest they be denounced and sent back to harsh punishment in North Korea.
Ling and Lee are no novices in reporting. Swept along with even interviewing border guardson the Chinese DPRK border, on the dawn of 17 March 2009, they crossed the border at the shallow Tumen river. They had asked their guide, a Sino Korean who had worked with other foreign or western journalist, to arrange a meeting with friendly border guards. He tried to set it up on his cell phone but was unable. Ling and Lee threw caution to the wind, by going with man in the hopes that his signals would end in their much sought interview with North Korean border guards who accept bribes from the refugees, thereby allowing them safe passage into China.
It had the wrong, desired outcome. Two guards emerged from the woods, in hot pursuit of the two women who ran for safety in China. The guide and their camera crew, all male, ran as did the two women. The men escaped, but Ling and Lee got nabbed for entering the DPRK illegally.
They pleaded guilty at their show trial, and later willingly apologises for violating North Korean law by trespassing. Owing to US president Obama's [BHO] hard line policy towards Pyongyang for not desisting in the launch of a satellite on a long range rocket, fueled by Washington's seizure of the UN security council on questionable grounds, which resulted in sanctions, Kim Jong il escalated his response by slamming the door on the six party talks in Beijing, sent packing IAEA observers, started up its nuclear programme, exploded a powerful non nuclear device [see Clery's article in 'Science'], and shredded the 1953 Armistice Accords. And the poisonous atmosphere gathered more and more lethal until the Ling and Lee in a call to their families in San Francisco that the Kim regime after US secretary of state proffered an apology, would welcome the visit of Citizen Bill Clinton, to lance the boil of discontent between Washington and Pyongyang. And the rest, as they say, is history.
Still the fallout of Ling and Lee's arrest has had dire consequences for ROC [Republic of Korea aka South Korea] citizen rescue efforts, mainly by evangelising Christian pastors who came not only to bring aid and succor to the North Korean refugees, but also convert them to their brand of Christianity, and in the hope that they could spirit them to South Korea. North Korean authorities confiscated the two reporters notebooks, and possibly filmed interviews, thereby compromising rescue efforts. Articles have appeared in the South Korean press denouncing the irresponsibility of Ling and Lee for being zealously blind to the consequences of their actions at the DPRK border crossing.
Ling and Lee are back home safe, but nowhere in their joint op ed 'Los Angeles Times' is there a feeling of remorse for the North Korean refugees whose life they rendered less secure and even put at risk by being sent back to the DPRK.
It is doubtful that they've absorbed the full import of their rash decision to interview venal North Korean border guards.
Monday, August 31, 2009
UAE confiscates consignment of North Korean weapons destined for Iran
A month or more after the UAE seized the cargo of the 'ANL Australia', flying the flag of the Bahamas, the story found its way into the global press. The vessel had in its hold weapons destined for Iran, and North Korean in origin. Yet, the lading of the grenade launchers and other materiel came from an Italian shipper with an office in Shanghai. As Guam Dairy previously reported, armed with UN resolution 1874 which allows the seizure of North Korean vessels and cargo, we wonder whether the removal of the arms bought and paid for by Iran ['The Financial Times of London's' article which first alerted us to this story, spoke of a UN diplomat whose country sits on the sanctions committee who alleges that the TSS or Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps had ordered the seized shipment. Iran, too, falls under UN sanctions. So, here, we find a double whammy, a 'coup de theatre' which thwarted Pyongyang's commerce, and stymies additions to Iran's arsenals.]
And yet the leaked story, which could not but have a US source, has hardly raised a hue and a cry from the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea aka North Korea].
Is a story that will make long fire, the more especially since the charm offensives initiated by the US, the DPRK, and the ROC [Republic of Korea aka South Korea] are on the upswing? Or, as certain hard line circles ardently desire in Washington, will the UAE confiscation of the 'ANL Australia' derail the ongoing relaxation of tensions among the 3 countries?
Curiously, Guam Diary raises the question of legality. Since the exporter is an Italian national,it would seem that the sanctions nor the seizure apply, theoretically. But the destination is Iran so they would, but oddly enough UAE now holds the weapons of North Korean manufacture, but it does not know what to do with them. It has appealed to the UN sanctions committee for advice and further action. The ship has gone on its way.
Furthermore, the origin of the transaction occurred before Citizen Clinton's mission of mercy to the DPRK, so the leak has had to come from the intelligence community, mostly likely from American sources; South Korea shouldn't be ruled out. So the story told has many loose ends. Let's see if the incident is but a hiccup, or it has a longer tale.
And yet the leaked story, which could not but have a US source, has hardly raised a hue and a cry from the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea aka North Korea].
Is a story that will make long fire, the more especially since the charm offensives initiated by the US, the DPRK, and the ROC [Republic of Korea aka South Korea] are on the upswing? Or, as certain hard line circles ardently desire in Washington, will the UAE confiscation of the 'ANL Australia' derail the ongoing relaxation of tensions among the 3 countries?
Curiously, Guam Diary raises the question of legality. Since the exporter is an Italian national,it would seem that the sanctions nor the seizure apply, theoretically. But the destination is Iran so they would, but oddly enough UAE now holds the weapons of North Korean manufacture, but it does not know what to do with them. It has appealed to the UN sanctions committee for advice and further action. The ship has gone on its way.
Furthermore, the origin of the transaction occurred before Citizen Clinton's mission of mercy to the DPRK, so the leak has had to come from the intelligence community, mostly likely from American sources; South Korea shouldn't be ruled out. So the story told has many loose ends. Let's see if the incident is but a hiccup, or it has a longer tale.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Mad cow hysteria in Malayasia
The latest outbreak of religious madness in Malayasia occurred when Malay residents protested the relocaation of Hindu temple in their neighbourhood even though it is 200 metres from anyone's house. To pour oil on the fires of racial and religious intolerance, they brought a cow head to trample outside the temple. No Malayasian leader nor prominent citizen or religious figure protested nor criticised the trampling of an animal which is sacred to Hinduism, thereby allowing these zealots much leave to commit more mayhem and rioting.
Malayasia allows a neighbourhood when it has a Malay [read Muslim] majority, any other religious institutions in its geographical boundaries, has to move elsewhere. Over the years, churches and Hindu temples or pagodas had to be rebuilt elsewhere since the custom and law forced them to remove to other neighbourhoods.
The irony in the case above, is that the temple moved to this new location for that very reason.
Recently the religious extremist's hand had to be stayed. It had sentenced a young Malay woman to be whipped for drinking beer. The ulemas forbade Malays from going to the Black Eyed Peas concert in Kuala Lumpur, not for woman bearing more flesh than these pious men would deem permissible but for who was sponsoring the musicale soiree. Guiness the Anglo Irish beer conglomerate!
Malayasia practises apartheid. It is based on race and religion. Malays have full rights, Chinese and Indians and Eurasians have little, and suffer from economic and social inequalities.
Malayasia is a showcase of zealotry over the years. Its roots can be traced to the student movement that the now reformer Anwar Ibrahim encouraged more than a generation ago, and to the xenophobic tack that long ruling prime minister Mahatir Mohammed inspired. The roots go even further, the Malay led riots against the Chinese in 1969, and before that the cynical use of racial division by the British colonial rulers. \
Malayasia allows a neighbourhood when it has a Malay [read Muslim] majority, any other religious institutions in its geographical boundaries, has to move elsewhere. Over the years, churches and Hindu temples or pagodas had to be rebuilt elsewhere since the custom and law forced them to remove to other neighbourhoods.
The irony in the case above, is that the temple moved to this new location for that very reason.
Recently the religious extremist's hand had to be stayed. It had sentenced a young Malay woman to be whipped for drinking beer. The ulemas forbade Malays from going to the Black Eyed Peas concert in Kuala Lumpur, not for woman bearing more flesh than these pious men would deem permissible but for who was sponsoring the musicale soiree. Guiness the Anglo Irish beer conglomerate!
Malayasia practises apartheid. It is based on race and religion. Malays have full rights, Chinese and Indians and Eurasians have little, and suffer from economic and social inequalities.
Malayasia is a showcase of zealotry over the years. Its roots can be traced to the student movement that the now reformer Anwar Ibrahim encouraged more than a generation ago, and to the xenophobic tack that long ruling prime minister Mahatir Mohammed inspired. The roots go even further, the Malay led riots against the Chinese in 1969, and before that the cynical use of racial division by the British colonial rulers. \
Saturday, August 29, 2009
UN resolution 1874, sanctions, North Korea, & the United Arab Emirates
The United Arab Emirate [UAE] has seized, the BBC announced, a ship carrying 10 containers of weapons and related items, including rocket launchers, grenades, and ammunition that the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea aka North Korea] was sending to the Islamic Republic of Iran.Unlike the Bush administration's seizure of Scud missiles destined for Yemen in 1992, the US government had to send the ship on its way to Aden. The reason is simple enough, under the Law of the Seas, president George Bush had no binding international right under law, to confiscate the missiles, since Yemen had bought the missiles and expected contractually their dockside delivery. The UAE was armed with UN resolution 1874, which gave it the right to seize through international authority the DPRK arms which Iran had duly paid for. Guam Diary has yet to discover under which flag the vessel was sailing, nor the exact spot at which the UAE authorities boarded it, assuming that it was in UAE territorial waters. And for that matter who alerted them that the ship had weapons and the like. The Emirates authority clothed in the provisions of UN resolution 1874, took appropriate steps. UAE is at that point in which can and does keep track of shipments to and from Iran. The US has kept the pressure on the emirates to monitor and keep track of Iran's foreign trade and by extension the value of provisions declared for Iranian ports as well as the value of goods shipped from Iran abroad.
In spite of the softening of tensions between Washington and Pyongyang, the Obama [BHO] administration has shown no willingness to show a similar policy towards Tehran. How the confiscation of 10 containers of weaponry will play in BHO's new tack towards Kim Jong il, only time will tell. The US sanctions enforcer the State Department's Philip Goldberg is spreading his wings in Asia to pressure reluctant government to enforce the UN resolution on sanctions. Guam Diary knows of only two cases: one, India's seizure of 16,500 ton[n]es of sugar destined for the Persian Gulf, on the DPRK vessel 'MV Mu San' and the other, the UAE weapons haul.
Sanctions have a limited appeal since in trade, two or more parties are involved. And it is worth the risk to defy sanctions as they inhibit commerce and the ebb and flow of capital and profits.
Some countries like Singapore simply turn a blind eye. And the city state is not alone.
The UAE tour de force will add another layer of complexity to the shadow play of DPRK and US talks. Washington, lest we forget, is not always playing with a strong hand, and as the record clearly shows, that even when it does, it is less than a skillful player. Is the seizure of a shipment of weapons from the DPRK to Iran a Pyrrhic victory?
In spite of the softening of tensions between Washington and Pyongyang, the Obama [BHO] administration has shown no willingness to show a similar policy towards Tehran. How the confiscation of 10 containers of weaponry will play in BHO's new tack towards Kim Jong il, only time will tell. The US sanctions enforcer the State Department's Philip Goldberg is spreading his wings in Asia to pressure reluctant government to enforce the UN resolution on sanctions. Guam Diary knows of only two cases: one, India's seizure of 16,500 ton[n]es of sugar destined for the Persian Gulf, on the DPRK vessel 'MV Mu San' and the other, the UAE weapons haul.
Sanctions have a limited appeal since in trade, two or more parties are involved. And it is worth the risk to defy sanctions as they inhibit commerce and the ebb and flow of capital and profits.
Some countries like Singapore simply turn a blind eye. And the city state is not alone.
The UAE tour de force will add another layer of complexity to the shadow play of DPRK and US talks. Washington, lest we forget, is not always playing with a strong hand, and as the record clearly shows, that even when it does, it is less than a skillful player. Is the seizure of a shipment of weapons from the DPRK to Iran a Pyrrhic victory?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)