http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/12/what-susan-rice-has-meant-for-us-policy-in-sub-saharan-africa/265833/

 

What Susan Rice Has Meant for U.S. Policy in Sub-Saharan Africa

in

ShareDEC 3 2012, 12:26 PM ET 1

How the possible-next Secretary of State helped the U.S. continue a Cold War-style approach to the continent -- and aided a new generation of dictators in the process.

Rice, then the assistant secretary of state for African affairs, walks through a market in southern Sudan (now the independent state of South Sudan) on November 19th, 2000. (Boris Grdanoski/AP Photo)

There is another way to think about the prospective nomination of Susan Rice for secretary of state.

It is one that is immeasurably more consequential than the Washington-centered and highly politicized controversy over her role in explaining the September 11 attack on the American diplomatic facility in Benghazi.

It is a way of thinking that looks at what kind of power the United States has been over the last 20 years, and it asks probingly about what kind of role it will play in the thick of this present century.

In any discussion of Susan Rice's career, there is no escaping Africa. It is the place where she cut her teeth and built her essential record as a diplomat and national security official. Although there has been nary a hint of this in the fuss about Benghazi, I would go further still and say that one would be hard pressed to find anyone in American government who has played a larger and more sustained role in shaping Washington's diplomacy toward that continent over the last two decades.

If Rice survives the current controversy over Libya and is nominated to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, understanding the details of her past work in Africa, and drawing her out about Washington's approach toward the continent in the future, should be a matter of serious national concern.

MORE ON SUSAN RICE
	Susan Rice's Controversial Record in Africa

Right now, Africa is changing with extraordinary speed and in surprising ways, but American policy there remains stale and stuck in the past: unambitious, underinvested and conceptually outdated.

This holds true at a time when the continent is growing demographically and urbanizing faster than any place before in history. Africa is booming economically as well, with an overall growth rate faster than Asia, and an emerging middle class larger than India's.

China, the United States' preeminent global rival, clearly gets this, and treats Africa not just as a place from which to extract mineral wealth -- which of course it does -- but also as a vital source of growth for the world economy going forward. China also views Africa as a geopolitical space of rapidly developing markets and huge business opportunities, including a nearly endless supply of new and underserved consumers.

China is not alone, either. Brazil, India, Turkey and Vietnam, to name just a few of the other fast-growing players, see Africa in much the same way, and are racing to establish a new, mature style of relations with the continent -- one driven by promise, and not by the pity and strong paternalism that have characterized so much Western engagement for so long.

The United States, meanwhile, remains mired in an approach whose foundation dates to the Cold War, when we cherry-picked strongmen among Africa's leaders, autocrats we could "work with," according to the old diplomatic cliché.

These were men like Zaire's late dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko, whose anti-democratic politics, systematic human rights violations, and high tolerance for corruption we were willing to overlook so long as they stayed on our side in the great strategic struggles of the day. We counted on them to hold down the fort in their respective countries and regions, and in so doing, as the thinking went, to protect U.S. interests.

The binary jousting of the Cold War that seemed to justify this strategy is long gone, along with our old adversary, the Soviet Union. But the American approach to Africa remains strangely stuck in that mold even now, and this fact owes far more than the public recognizes to the diplomacy of Susan Rice.

When I first encountered Rice in Mali, during a visit there by then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher in 1996, she was a well-connected and high-achieving senior NSC staffer in her early thirties. She was possessed of a quick step and a look of complete self-confidence.

Most unusually for someone her age, she already had a career-defining crisis behind her, one in which she has played an important role: the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

According to Samantha Power, Rice's advice to the Clinton White House in the critical early phases of the killing there was to avoid any public recognition that actual genocide was being committed, because to do so would legally require the United States to take action, and this (echoes of Benghazi?) might affect upcoming congressional elections.

Former senior State Department officials who knew Rice in her next job, as assistant secretary for African affairs, give her great credit for not giving up on Africa. Stephen Morrison, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a policy planning official at the State Department during this period, told me that Rice's predecessor, George Moose, had been told by higher-ups to "keep Africa off the screen, because it doesn't matter."

"Well, she took a different approach, and said it does matter, and we're not doing enough in Africa," Morrison said. "And she got the president to make two trips to the continent, and deserves some credit for that."

An enormous part of why it mattered, however, was bound up in America's failure to stop the genocide in Rwanda. And it is Rice's takeaway from that tragedy, and from her role in it -- arguably more visceral, personal and emotional than rational -- that shaped her approach to the continent ever since.

Rice's public response to the genocide was to issue a number of powerfully worded statements with the air of mea culpa about them. They have amounted to a paraphrasing and elaboration on the famous post-Holocaust oath of "Never again."

Put to the hard test of African realities, however, this pledge quickly shrunk and withered into something far more narrow and selective. Indeed, it failed its first test, in Congo, right next door to Rwanda. Since Rice's famous expressions of contrition began, more than five times as many people have died in a series of wars in Congo than were killed in the Rwandan genocide.

Most pertinent to this discussion, as the United Nations and reports by a variety of international human rights organizations have exhaustively documented, a great many of these people were killed in wars of targeted ethnic extermination, implicating the U.S.-supported post-genocide Rwandan armed forces and a number of surrogates, who have invaded the vastly larger and richer Congo repeatedly. Even in times of relative peace, they have sought to control large swaths of the country's territory.

"[Rice] venerates the 'new leaders,' who over the years have come to be repressive autocrats and despots."

What this leaves us with, in effect, is a policy stripped of any real moral force. Never again, in effect, has come to mean never let down Rwanda's post-genocide regime and its leader, Paul Kagame.

On a broader level, the old paradigm of Cold War policy, with its momentous ideological competition, has been repurposed to work for something far more inchoate and hollow: the War on Terror. Accordingly, the United States has persisted in its embrace of leaders who align with Washington on that basis in places like Sudan and Somalia, mirroring the style of cherry-picking allies during the struggle against communism.

Susan Rice isn't by any means the sole person responsible for this approach. She was, however, present at its creation, when the Clinton administration began to elevate a group of youngish autocrats who all came to power by the gun (and who have clung determinedly to personalized power ever since), as Africa's new generation of so-called "renaissance leaders." And although this phraseology has been dropped, ever since two of the countries, Ethiopia and Eritrea, fought a calamitous war with each other in the late 1990s, Rice has clung enthusiastically to most of these loyalties ever since.

"Susan venerates the 'new leaders,' who over the years have come to be repressive autocrats and despots who feel like they can manipulate the outside world to give them lots of space," said Morrison of CSIS. "It has been an enduring attachment that hasn't softened over time."

Two recent episodes provide compelling evidence of this. As the United States' representative to the United Nations, Rice worked hard last year to block the release of a U.N. experts report detailing Rwandan atrocities in the Congo, reportedly drawing pushback over this even within the State Department.

When blocking the report proved impossible, diplomats and human rights experts who were involved in this struggle say that she sought to have it sanitized. In the end, it was leaked, which amounted to an end-run around Rice and assured its publication.

"It ultimately comes down to why would the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. not want things that are true [about that part of the world] to be reported," said Laura Seay, an assistant professor of political science at Morehouse College. "It is really not clear why it was worth it."

In September, Rice paid fervent and emotional tribute at the funeral of the late Ethiopian dictator, Meles Zenawi, praising him unreservedly as "uncommonly wise, able to see the big picture and the long game".

Zenawi's Ethiopia was a country where journalists and dissidents regularly disappeared and imprisoned.

Asked about Washington's enduring fondness for the people it had once dubbed Africa's renaissance figures, people like Meles Zenawi, Paul Kagame of Rwanda, and Yoweri Musveni of Uganda, John Shattuck, a former Clinton Administration assistant secretary of state, who is now president of the Central European University in Budapest said: "These were authoritarian leaders from the beginning and over time they all became worse. I think Africa has become very poorly served by this kind of rule, and that's very clear. This has been true for most of the past 20 years."

Some have argued that steadfast American support for a circle of autocrats is justified by their reputation for strong public administration or fast economic growth, but this has always been a specious justification. If the United States says it favors countries with booming economies no matter how undemocratic or repressive their leaders are, then we have curiously embraced a position not unlike that of China, which has always said it is not its business how other countries conduct their internal affairs. Besides, there is simply no lack of fast-growing economies in Africa now.

There are two obvious ways for the United States to help Africa consolidate its recent gains and move forward into an era of greater prosperity and representative government. This, at the same time, would position Washington to advance its interests and preserve its influence and prestige on this continent in the decades ahead.

The first involves engaging much more strongly in the Congo crisis, helping one of the continent's biggest countries to finally establish control over all of its territory and begin delivering services to its people for the first time in history.

The other requires treating African democracies as our real friends, matching our diplomacy for once with our rhetoric and values. What is less clear, given her record, is whether Susan Rice is the right person to accomplish this.

How Rice dialed down the pressure on Rwanda - FP

How Rice dialed down the pressure on Rwanda

Posted By Colum Lynch  Monday, December 3, 2012 - 4:24 PM   Share

On October 1, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador and the president's presumptive nominee to be the next U.S. secretary of state, met at the French mission here in New York with top diplomats from Britain and France, where they discussed the crisis in eastern Congo, a sliver of territory along the Rwandan border, where mutineers were preparing a final offensive to seize the regional capital of Goma.

France's U.N. ambassador, Gerard Araud, pressed Rice and Britain's U.N. envoy, Mark Lyall Grant, to apply greater political pressure on the mutineers' chief sponsor, Rwanda, a close American ally, that stands accused by a U.N. panel of sponsoring, arming, and commanding the insurgent M23 forces. The French argued that threats of sanctions were needed urgently to pressure Kigali to halt its support for the M23 and prevent them from gobbling up more Congolese territory.

But Rice pushed back, reasoning that any move to sanction Rwandan leader Paul Kagame would backfire, and it would be better to work with him to find a long-term solution to the region's troubles than punish him. "Gerard, it's eastern Congo. If it were not the M23 killing people it would be some other armed groups," she said, according to one of three U.N.-based sources who detailed the exchange. The U.S. mission declined to comment on the meeting, which was confidential.

The tense exchange reflected the role the United States has played in minimizing Rwanda's exposure to a more punitive approach by the Security Council. Since last summer, the United States has used its influence at the United Nations to delay the publication of a report denouncing Rwanda's support for the M23, to buy time for a Security Council resolution condemning foreign support for the rebellion, and opposing any direct references to Rwanda in U.N statements and resolutions on the crisis.

U.S. officials say they have delivered stern messages to top Rwandan officials in private to halt their support for the M23, and last summer they have frozen some military aid to the Rwandan army, citing the government's support for the mutineers. Rice, they say, is deeply conscious of the horrors wrought by the M23, but that she and other top American officials are pursuing a strategy in New York aimed at minimizing the chances of undercutting regional efforts, involving President Kagame, Uganda President Yoweri Musevini, and Congolese President Joseph Kabila, to bring about a durable peace.

"We want to see an end to the current military offensive. We want to see an end to the occupation of Goma," U.S. assistant secretary of state for African affairs, Johnnie Carson told reporters in Washington last week, before the rebels began a partial retreat from Goma. "We want to see the three presidents working together to deal with the most immediate crisis and to develop and put in place architecture that will deal ... with the long term issues that affect the region."

Carson also challenged suggestions that Rice, a long time friend of President Kagame, was freelancing on Rwanda. "I too have known President Kagame for many years," he said. "There is not a shadow of a distance between myself and Ambassador Rice on the issues related to the Great Lakes crisis. We are all engaged in delicate diplomacy to get this done, but that diplomacy is carried out in close harmony and in unison."

In the end, American diplomacy did little to stop the M23's war aims. On November 17, the M23 mutineers, allegedly backed by Rwanda and Uganda, launched a major offensive against the Congolese army in eastern Congo. Within three days, the M23 had vanquished the ragged Congolese army, whose forces fled, and marched on the regional capital of Goma, triggering limited resistance from the U.N. peacekeeping forces, which initially clashed with the rebels before announcing it had no mandate to continue the fight if the Congolese army refused to resist the rebellion.

With M23 in control of Goma, the 15-nation Security Council on November 20 adopted a resolution that "strongly" condemned the M23's conduct -- including summary executions, sexual- and gender-based violence, and large-scale recruitment of child soldiers -- and voiced "deep concern" at reports of external support for the mutineers. But at the insistence of the United States, the resolution stopped short of naming Rwanda.

Rwanda has been a close ally of the United States since 1994, when extremist forces linked to the country's then French-backed, ethnic Hutu-dominated government carried out the genocide of more than 800,000 moderate Hutu and ethnic Tutsi Rwandans.

A Tutsi-dominated insurgency, led by then-General Paul Kagame, restored stability to the country, making it a model of economic prosperity and forging a reputation for the rebuilt country as a regional peacekeeper, sending Rwandan blue helmets to Sudan to protect civilians. But his government has also been the subject of U.N. investigations charging it with carrying out large-scale reprisal killings in eastern Congo and Rwanda in the 1990s, and backing a succession of armed groups in eastern Congo.

Both Republican and Democratic administrations have vigorously backed the government in Kigali. In September 2007, the Bush administration supported the appointment of an alleged Rwandan war criminal as the deputy commander of the U.N. mission in Darfur, even though the appointment may have violated a U.S. law prohibiting funding for peacekeeping operations that employee rights abusers.

The latest conflict in eastern Congo began in April 2012, when Bosco Ntaganda, a former Congolese militia leader who stands accused of war crimes by the International Criminal Court, began an armed mutiny against government forces in eastern Congo. Ntaganda, once fought along the Rwanda Patriotic Front -- which toppled a pro-French government in Kigali and drove government forces responsible for genocide into eastern Congo, then known as Zaire.

An independent U.N. Security Council panel, known as the Group of Experts, claims that Rwanda military leadership, including Defense Minister James Kaberebe, have armed, trained and commanded the mutineers under Ntaganda, who goes by the grim nickname, The Terminator. In a letter to the U.N. Security Council, the Group of Experts coordinator, Steve Hege, accused Rwanda of leading the overthrow of Goma.

"The Group has repeatedly concluded that the government of Rwanda (GoR), with the support of allies within the government of Uganda, has created, equipped, trained, advised, reinforced and directly commanded the M23 rebellion," Hege wrote in a November 26 letter, posted by the New York Times, to the U.N. committee overseeing sanctions in Congo. "The information initially gathered by the group regarding the recent offensive and seizure of the North Kivu Provincial town of Goma strongly upholds this conclusion."

Rwandan officials have repeatedly denied allegations that the government is supporting the M23, saying the experts are politically biased against Rwanda and that they have furnished sufficient documentary evidence to prove their case. But the Security Council's key Western governments, including the United States, Britain, and France have largely backed the Group of Experts panel in the face of Rwandan criticism.

Philippe Bolopion, Human Rights Watch's U.N. representative said that Washington should publicly acknowledge Rwanda's support for the M23 and ratchet up pressure on the government to rein them in. "The U.S. premise that private engagement is the best way to restrain Rwanda has been shown to be false, with tragic consequences," he said.

"It's puzzling that the United States continues to remain silent while Rwanda is putting weapons in the hand of notorious M23 abusers, who are using them to kill civilians, rape and recruit children. It's even more inexplicable since the M23 is attacking U.N. peacekeepers that the United States has supported and financed to protect civilians."

The United States, however, maintains that that is exactly what it is trying to do.

In Rice's public remarks, she has singled out the M23, for instance, posting a tweet condemning the actions of the M23 and "those who support them."

"Working with colleagues on the Security Council, the United States helped craft the resolution to reinforce the delicate diplomatic effort underway at the moment in Kampala to end the rebellion in eastern Congo," said Payton Knopf, a spokesman for Rice.

"The Security Council's strong resolution, which the U.S. cosponsored, condemned the M23's military campaign, demanded that the M23 withdraw immediately from Goma and permanently disband and lay down its arms, and threatened swift sanctions against M23 leaders as well as their external supporters."

But while some of Washington's counterparts in the council feel the United States is protecting Kigali, Rwandan officials say they are not convinced, citing American support for last month's resolution denouncing foreign support to the M23, a thinly veiled swipe at Rwanda.

"It's impossible to say Rwanda will be in safe hands with the United States on the DRC issue," said Olivier Nduhungirehe, a U.N.-based Rwandan diplomat. "Rwanda will be on our own. 

Follow me on Twitter @columlynch

 
 http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/12/03/susan_rice_dialed_down_the_pressure_on_rwanda

Umuvugizi wa FDLR, Laforge Fils Bazeye yaganiriye na Radio Ijwi rya Rubanda (Audio)

Umuvugizi wa FDLR, Laforge Fils Bazeye yaganiriye na Radio Ijwi rya Rubanda (Audio)

http://www.therwandan.com/ki/umuvugizi-wa-fdlr-laforge-fils-bazeye-yaganiriye-na-radio-ijwi-rya-rubanda-audio/

Kagame said ‘not scared about critics without guns’

http://www.rnanews.com/ele-2010/4133-kagame-says-not-scared-about-critics-without-guns

Kagame says 'not scared about critics without guns'

Monday, 06 September 2010 14:43 by Fred Mwasa

Kigali: For the bitter critics outside the country, President-elect Paul Kagame is not bothered unless they start fighting him with guns. In a firry 27-minute speech which he delivered first in English, then summarized in Kinyarwanda, the President accused the foreign governments of supporting his vocal opponents whom he described as "adventurers".

"Habitual critics of Rwanda may say what they want, but they will never dictate the direction we take as a nation, nor will they make a dent on our quest for self determination," said Kagame (Photo: Leon Nzabandora)

"What we reject are those lessons we constantly receive, [and] the daily lies leveled against us…we defeated those with arms, we cannot be defeated by those with nothing but just hands," said Kagame, as the stadium erupted in wild cheering.

He said in the "months and weeks preceding our elections there [was] an onslaught of bad press reports" from western press and right organizations. These news reports, the President said, "deliberately misrepresented the situation in Rwanda."

"[They] sought to give the impression that there was something terribly wrong going on in our country…so to speak, as if the country was really falling apart. This made some to expect an eruption of violence in line with the prejudice in which African affairs are viewed," said the president-elect.

He said Rwandans cannot listen to those he called "habitual critics of Rwanda" as the Rwandan people have "redefined themselves and are determined to forge ahead".

"They made their point defiantly by campaigning emphatically and enthusiastically, and voting in big [number]," said Kagame amid applause.

No contradiction in Rwanda

The President then turned his fire on the criticism which has mainly come from donors and rights groups, whom he said have repeatedly said there is a "contradiction" in Rwanda because there is development but no democracy.

"In fact, we hold the view that you cannot have sustainable development without corresponding growth in democratic governance," he said.

For the President, "political rights without the matching reduction of poverty and improved quality of life, would be meaningless."

According to the new President, who now starts a seven-year term, the biggest problem Africa faces is "not the lack of democracy but poverty and the dependence which comes with under development".

For Kagame, when the west sees that the notion of democracy does not fit their understanding, "they shift the goal posts" – claiming the government is becoming repressive.

Nobody will dictate direction for Rwanda

Moving into the achievements of his previous government including reconciliation, Kagame said all would "not have been possible without a political system where power is shared to united rather than divide".

"Given this background, it is difficult to comprehend those who want to give us lessons of inclusion, tolerance and human rights," said Kagame amid more applause, but mainly from the elite who understood the English.

"Habitual critics of Rwanda may say what they want, but they will never dictate the direction we take as a nation, nor will they make a dent on our quest for self determination," he added.

In what seemed like a response from him personally to the leaked UN report accusing Rwandan forces of massacring Hutus over a 10 year period in DR Congo, President Kagame was stern is just a sentence.

"And we therefore categorically reject all their accusations," he said, and some point said the foreign critics will not force opposition groups he called "adventurers" on the country. The President did not elaborate on who the adventurers are.

In Kinyarwanda

For Rwandans, he said that he takes the "solemn pledge" to build a country where everybody "exercises their responsibility and have equal opportunities."

After completing his 20-minute address, he asked the massive crowd whether they had understood – to which some could be heard responding "NO!" – marked with loud chanting and applause. The President then spent the next seven minutes summarizing the speech in Kinyarwanda.

Referring to western critics and donors, he told the crowd amid chanting that there are those who have given themselves the responsibility to monitor what others do.

"They condemn the good things we do and instead recommend for us the bad ones they do," said Kagame amid more prolonged applause, before adding that the voters showed during the elections that they understand the origin, current situation and the future.

"[The elections] made clear to them that we reject disrespect," added the President, also saying that Rwandan "lost value because of [outsiders], and we will never go back".

In a hint at African solidarity, President Kagame offered to cooperate with other countries to collaborate in tackling the problems on the continent.

Kagame won with 93.08% of the vote the August 09 presidential election which was Rwanda's second democratic polls since 1994 Genocide. About 16 African presidents and senior government officials graced the inauguration.

There was massive chanting as the inaugural president arrived at 10:22am local time, followed by the national anthem as he headed to take oath from the Chief Justice.

Dressed elegantly in navy blue suite, Kagame took oath to protect the Rwandan Constitution and the sovereignty of the country from all sorts of aggression either internal or external.

Response to Pr. Jendayi Frazer: US President should not shake bloody hands of dictators

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: David O'Brian <afro@afroamerica.net>
To: yveslualaba@afroamerica.net
Sent: Sunday, December 2, 2012 11:16 PM
Subject: *DHR* On Dr. Jendayi Frazer's Four Ways to Help Africa.

 

Ways to Help Africa: Clear From Dictators

by AFROAMERICA NETWORK on  AUGUST 26, 2009

Response to Pr. Jendayi Frazer:  US President should not shake bloody hands of dictators

Jendayi E. Frazer, former US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs proposed  ways to help Africa in the article titled ?Four Ways to Help Africa?, published in the Wall Street Journal on August 25, 2009.  One of the four ways proposed by Dr. Jendayi Frazer is to ?Hold a summit at the White House with the presidents of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and Uganda. Mr. Obama needs to spend more time meeting and engaging African leaders to address the continent?s challenges.?

The idea of the summit with the dictators who lead Rwanda and Uganda to solve the conflict in the DRC appears flawed and not consistent with Dr. Jendayi Frazer?s past advocacy...

For more: 

http://www.afroamerica.net/AfricaGL/2009/08/26/ways-to-help-africa-clear-from-dictators/

http://survivorsnetworks.blogspot.com/2009/08/by-felicien-kanyamibwa-phd-idea-of.html 

http://hungryoftruth.blogspot.com/search?q=US+President+should+not+shake+bloody+hands+of+dictators

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574372711948607526.html#articleTabs%3Dcomments

 

__._,_.___

RÚpondre Ó expÚditeur | RÚpondre Ó groupe | RÚpondre en mode Web | Nouvelle discussion

Toute la discussion (1)

ActivitÚs rÚcentes:

• Nouveaux membres 2

Aller sur votre groupe

http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/Democracy_Human_Rights

Ma¯tre Innocent  TWAGIRAMUNGU
DHR FOUNDER&OWNER
TÚl.mobile: 0032- 495 48 29 21


UT UNUM SINT

"L'extrÚmisme dans la dÚfense de la libertÚ n'est pas un vice; La modÚration dans la poursuite de la justice n'est pas une vertu".

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." (USA,Republican Convention 1964,Barry Morris Goldwater (1909-1998)).

"Le monde ne sera pas dÚtruit par ceux qui font le mal mais par ceux qui regardent et refusent d'agir", Albert EINSTEIN.

Les messages publiÚs sur DHR n'engagent que la responsabilitÚ de leurs auteurs.

CONSIDERATION, TOLERANCE, PATIENCE AND MUTUAL RESPECT towards the reinforcement of GOOD GOVERNANCE,DEMOCRACY and HUMAN RIGHTS in our states.

Liability and Responsibility: You are legally responsible, and solely responsible, for any content that you post to DHR. You may only post materials that you have the right or permission to distribute electronically. The owner of DHR cannot and does not guarantee the accuracy of any statements made in or materials posted to the group by participants.

" BE NICE TO PEOPLE ON YOUR WAY UP, BECAUSE YOU MIGHT MEET THEM ON YOUR WAY DOWN." Jimmy DURANTE.

COMBATTONS la haine SANS complaisance, PARTOUT et avec Toute ENERGIE!!!!!!
Let's  rather prefer Peace, Love , Hope and Life, and get together as one!!! Inno TWAGIRA

Passer ├á: Texte seulement, R├®sum├® du jour • DÚsinscription • Conditions dÆutilisation

.

__,_._,___