Thomas P.M. Barnett has put forward what appear to be some reasonable suggestions as to how to handle North Korea and Taiwan, with emphasis placed on Sino-U.S. ties. Here’s a snippet:
North Korea will be a focus of the second Bush administration–bet on it. But the neocons need to get far more imaginative in their approach–not with North Korea but with China. Rather than having Beijing talk to us about what we need to do to placate that nutcase Kim Jong Il, we need to be talking to Beijing about what they need to okay his takedown–either by an “offer he can’t refuse” or a coup engineered by those around him through the promise of golden parachutes or a quick-strike invasion designed to get the man himself, along with his WMD.
The U.S. needs to stop trying to work this issue through Seoul, which will never get over its fears on the subject, and instead make the deal through Pyongyang’s sole remaining backer–China. We need to figure out their price and display a firm willingness to pay it in spades. The relationship that needs to be built over Kim’s grave is between America and China, with the end result being an East Asia NATO-like entity that locks-in a strategic relationship between us and China at today’s relatively low prices.
I’m a little too sleepy at the moment to really make comment, but I’m awake enough to know it’s a piece worth reading, so do it.
(Hat tip to Budaechigae)
37 Comments
Good points by what appears to be a very impressive, hard-nosed realist. Thanks for the intro.
I wouldn’t know about calling Mr. Barnett a hard-nosed realist, as quite frankly he does qualify as a neo-conservative. However, unlike ersatz-Likudniks such as Krauthammer et all, policy need not be determined solely by the security concerns of Israel.
I took the liberty of reading some of his writings and it appears he is a China optimist so to speak. Naturally that would make him favour rapproachment and diplomacy rather that confrontation in solving the east asian security crisis. On the issue of Taiwan I believe he is almost entirely accurate. The dillemma for China has never been about whether or not it could military recapture Taiwan, but rather more genuinely about maintaing face(yes yes I know I myself have requested time and again not to use this term) and keeping the possibility of reunification in the long term on the table. How long term in the future this will be is subject to interpretation. The issue for Taiwan is much the same, separatism or reunification is a question of domestic politics. Now one may ask, why should the political and democratic aspirations of a free people be subject to the dictatorial whims of tyrants in Beijing? Afterall, the Chinese could simply renounce their claim to Taiwan and then we would have peace. The problem with this myopic and I should add stupid way of thinking is that it is totally unrealistic. Pragmatism is the key here and China is heavily hemmed by many factors that limit its political maneuverability. Simply speaking, 5 decades of communist rhetoric have essentially enshrined the liberation/unification of Taiwan as gospel and any sudden departures here will likely agitate conservative social and political forces in China. This will of course conflict with the more pressing needs of China’s continued economic reform. Despite China’s rapidly growing power and influence, its ability to set its own domestic policy is limited by the baggage of history and ideology. Taiwan on the other hand, being a prosperous stable democracy has much more political options on the table than China does. Taiwan can choose independence, choose reunification, choose status quo, or any number of options in between. Why Chen Shui Bian flags the independence horse is perceived none too kindly in geopolitical terms is readily apparent. It is electoral grandstanding designed to cater to his deep-green constituents and attract votes. Now there is an ideological reason to support Taiwan’s democratic aspirations, but the direction it is being driven in is the metaphorical equivalent of steering the ship of Taiwan into the iceberg that is China. Simply put, confrontation is unneccessary and can be avoided, and what Chen and the DPP is driving Taiwan towards to is needlessly reckless. I think this sentiment is echoed to a degree within some senior quarters in the Bush administration if Powell is any indication. Which is probably why despite the mixed messages China sent out about Bush’s re-election, it is probably beneficial towards peace in the Taiwan strait. Bush, by virtue of being a conservative, much like Nixon, has a much greater degree of political manueverability when dealing with “Red China” that a Democrat like Kerry would not have. Without the fear of facing re-election, Bush on the second term maybe able to broach some sort of understanding that would have been unpalatable or impossible for a Kerry presidency facing a hostile Republican congress.
On the issue of North Korea, the question is somewhat more murky. Depending on who you ask, China’s perceptions of North Korea’s role are drastically different. Essentially there are two inerpretations. The more mainstream and shared by mr. Barnett seems to be that North Korea is a problem, not just for the U.S., Japan, and South Korea, but also for China as well. North Korea has essentially gone rogue and is unpredictable and that it is in China’s interests to see stability and peace on the Korean peninsula just as much as it is for the Americans. This essentially translates to Kim Jung-Il must go. On the flipside, the more hawkish narrative (one I’ve often seen on the Free Republic I might add) is that China is manipulating the North Korea situation to its advantage and deliberately using an unrestrained North Korea to put pressure on the U.S. for whatever reason. This would seem feesible if the Cold War was still raging, or if one didn’t follow too closely the often stormy relationship between the PRC and DPRK(For a brief but enlightening read on Sino-North Korean relations, refer to Chen Jian’s The Limits of the Lips and Teeth Alliance). I tend to think that China’s perception of North Korea tends to mirror that of the United States and give more credit to the first perception. However, I also think that Mr. Barnett maybe being a little overly optimistic at China’s ability to solve the North Korean problem. Unfortunately for the U.S. the PRC has displayed a historical unwillingness to directly interfere with North Korean politics. Despite the CCP having broached by several high-ranking defectors, China has never acted to topple either Kim Il Sung or Kim Jung-il. It is also noted that China’s ability to leverage North Korea, while greatly stronger than anyone elses, is still directly limited by practical considerations. For example, if China stops economic aid to North Korea and the country collapses, it would be counter-productive to the stability that either the U.S., China, or South Korea desires. Also one cannot forget what Barnett may have overlooked, that is the degree with which South Korea can torpedo any such joint Sino-American closure to the North Korea crisis. If the U.S. does accept China’s terms to bring North Korea to heel and pays the price, South Korea may very well protest what such a price would entail. I would presume almost certainly that if Kim Jung-il were toppled, the Chinese would demand nearly overwhelming politican influence in North Korea if not outright administrative authority. While the Americans may consider it no great loss, and indeed may even support it since it spares them from the politically dubious situation of overseeing another occupation, the South Korean political establishment while internally likely giving a sigh of relief, will be hammered by a massive domestic outcry over China having such much control over the new North Korea. For South Korea, the pragmatic resolution to the North Korean issue may very well likely be subsumed by Nationalist sentiments while understandable, are not likely to result in any sort of progress. Thus as I mentioned earlier with China’s problem vis-a-vis Taiwan, South Korea maybe incapable of accepting the Chinese price, which would seem in all likelyhood as perfidious as Shylock’s pound of flesh.
Catching Up…
I’ve finally had a chance to catch up on my favorite blogs and noticed three sites in particular which had some really interesting pieces.
The Marmot has a great analysis (including the comments the post generated) on Thomas P.M. Barnett’s view on…
China is in for an extremely hard crash of its much feared and loathed economy built on sand. In the short term, this will have a very negative effect on Asia which likes to export goods and labor to China, but for the world, in the long run, I really think it will be a positive thing that could ever happen. Not only will the world’s natural resources will sustain less damage, but it will stop our jobs from bleeding out to a country who has no reserves about using prison labor. Also, Asia will benefit with China out of the economic equation in the long run.
The only true worry I have is how will China react with their economic incentives out of their sight. With their despot regime in place, I would imagine the despot regime will try to avert attention away from its domestic problems and they will try to up the agressive foreign policies.
For those who think China will not be agressive because they’re making money and all they’re interested in is doing business, just wait until their economy collapse which will make the Asian Finanical Crisis of 1997 a walk in the park. China has no backup system nor a systematic structure which will allow them to recover. The only hope they will have - will be to replace the Communist autocratic fascist centralized corrupt system they have. And that would take a civil war.
With the collapse of China, how will the Chinese react toward Taiwan, North Korea, even South Korea and Japan? What was the Chinese sub doing in the Japanese water? The signs are not too good.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/FK12Ad05.html
Jing, some points on your comment:
1) Despite limited market reforms China is still communist and doesnt want to see an ideological brother collapse. It would make China’s own communist leadership look bad.
2) The South Koreans would never tolerate China occupying North Korea, even under the pretext of China benevolently rebuilding the country - just like China is “benevolently” building up Xinjiang and Tibet.
3) North Koreans would fight China if China tried taking over; these guys are highly nationalistic remember.
4) Getting bogged down in an unecessary war in North Korea is a bad, bad idea for China. The Sui Dynasty collapsed trying (unsuccessfully) to conquer Koguryo, and the current Communists could go the same way in any such conflict.
5) China probably lost at least 1 million men to ensure the survival of communism in North Korea. Some estimates go as high as 2 million men. China doesnt want to see that sacrifice look meaningless in a North Korean collapse.
I would say, in my humble opinion, that the North Korean nuclear issue is classic Chinese Communist miscalculation - they practically gave North Korea the A-bomb thinking how brilliant it was to threaten Japan and the US by proxy, thinking that North Korea is their running dog. But the unelected Chinese decision-makers live in a fantasy land - they think the Japanese are “decadent” and wont build their own nuclear bombs, they think the US is also stupid and decadent and will not react, they think that at the end of the day they can control looney Kim Jong Il who already sells drugs, prints US money, and illicit missile technology.
China can’t control KJI, Japan and the US arent decadent, and China’s gonna have big problems now because of the stupidity of its unaccountable leadership. All of China’s neighbors are going to build their own nuclear bombs - starting with countries like Japan, South Korea, possibly Taiwan, but likely including places like Thailand, Vietnam, the Philippines. China’s stupid leaders believe their own propaganda and think everyone else is weak and decadent, but guess what, they can ALL build the bomb if they want - the technology is 60 years old! This is the likliest scenario, and it is very bad for China’s dreams of reinventing itself as the big daddy of Asia surrounded by submissive tributary states.
I think the thing is, China’s price for North Korea is well known: Taiwan.
OT: Does anybody know where I can find that Dick Cheney picture that Andrew Sullivan and others are mentioning?
Jing, I can see now that you were referring to neocon likudniks stealthily serving the interests of Israel in a complimentary way. And that lebensraum funny just really tweaked by big, hooked nose, ha! Nobody, Jing, and I mean nobody, can get enough of Holocaust humor.
We all owe you our thanks for contributing to our, umm, understanding of China. In addition to reassuring us that the Motherland rules over the lesser subject kingdoms on its fringes with a heavenly mandate, you’ve helped us understand why China’s peasants keep driving the Mandarins off at the tips of pitchforks, enlightened us all on the egalitarianism that Marxism has brought, confirmed (through your silence) that prudent Chinese intellectuals have no thoughts whatsoever about Tibet or Tienanmen Square, and most importantly, by using those emoticons like a little girl, you?€™ve confirmed our worst fears about the ravages of that one-child policy. Would Mao ever have imagined that his legacy would be a billion obsessively vain men in chartreuse pants? No? No.). Well, at least we’re reasonably assured that you won’t reproduce.
Final score: Darwin 1, Mao 0.
Yes, we all owe Jing a word of thanks for all he?€™s done for the neoconservative movement, plus an extra word on behalf of the good folks at General Dynamics once the orders from Taipei, Yokohama, and Pusan start pouring in. I mean, Jeez, does the CIA pay you to write that shit? Keep up the great work, pal, and Richard Perle himself might even slip you a few uncut diamonds from his personal neocon stash.
..so this genius Barnett thinks China can be bought off? I agree with the comment above (Mycroft) that IF there is a price, it would be Taiwan. The question I’m asking myself is: Why would it be in China’s long-term interest to lose an ally that serves as a stumbling block to US interests (market penetration, mineral extraction) in China’s own region or “backyard”? And again, the biggest question is: Why wouldn’t KOREANS be consulted or involved in this? Solutions will NEVER be found if Koreans are involved? That’s an old assumption. It sounds like July-August 1945 all over again, when the JCS told a certain Colonel Dean Rusk to go to a basement room of the Pentagon to draw a line on a map of the Korean peninsula. We wouldn’t want to consult any Koreans in any matters CONCERNING KOREA(!); they just get in the way…
Jing, Is the Party molding your soft, little mind with anti-Semitism now? Isn’t it enough that the new China’s state religion is the bastard offspring of Maoist totalitarianism, dynastic imperialism, and capitalist greed at its most corrupt? Can’t Fascist China be satisfied with its mass graves, its forced labor, its (Han) master race, and its concentration camps, or is its Nazi metamorphosis simply not complete without a reading of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
Somehow, I can’t quite picture most Chinese buying into Jew hating when they have China’s new ruling class so close at hand. If you’re typical of it, and I suspect you’re parasitic arrogance personified, then I suspect the peasants are already figuring it’s about time to send a few million of your kind off to the countryside for rehabilitative labor. Not that it would do you any harm.
Ah, but that’s the wonder of free speech–we both share the freedom to criticize the American government. Of course, it’s a much dicier proposition when it comes to speaking ill of Comrade Hu Jin Tao, no? Ah, but China has reformed, you say. Power used to come from the barrel of a gun; now it comes from the tip of a cattle prod. Of course, you could prove me wrong. Can you fill us in on the level of public discourse in China for and against the laogais, for and against the mass arrest and enslavement of migrant workers, for and against the suppression of the Falun Gong, the genocide of Tibet, the 27 million killed in the Great Leap Forward, the 10 or so million victims of the Cultural Revolution, or just how many died on Changan Boulevard in June 1989? Perhaps you can find a way to blame the Jews for all those things as well. Be careful what you say; I’m sure I speak for everyone when I say how inconsolable I’d be if we suddenly stopped hearing from you.
Wonsanghetto, I’m not going to even bother with civility. Where the hell did I even mention Jews at all you dumb ass?
As for Tron, you are right, China in all likelyhood did supply nuclear know-how to Pakistan. Does that mean they proliferated such knowledge to North Korea? No. What happened was that a few Pakistani nuclear scientists got a bit greedy and started proliferating know-how to others. I suppose this is a perfect example of the rule of unintended consequences and it is yolk on China’s face. As for the rest of your little spiel, there are so many factual mistakes I wouldn’t even know where to begin. Suffice it to say, I’m tired of having to repeat myself and am not even going to bother correcting your errors and will leave other people to read what they will. If they are stupid enough to believe your crap, then so be it.
No, by giving away nuclear tech to Pakistan, China is also indirectly responsible for giving away technlogy to North Korea. That is what we call proliferation. China is responsible for nuclear proliferation. Look at any of the nuclear big powers like US, Britain, France, India. Have they given away any nuclear technology to anybody, especially to Third World despots? Nope. China has that distinct honor. Even if China was not directly responsible for North Korea obtaining the bomb, we know which side China is on when it continued to support and allie itself with North Korea. Bush was wrong when he named the three axis of evil. He should have said four axis of evil, and he left out China.
You’ve finally scored a point there Kimbob. Though you have amusingly enough left out Russia. Also it should be noted that France was quite active in some nuclear proliferation programs(such as pre-democratic Taiwan for one) though none of them came to any fruition unlike China-Pakistan. Also Israel’s nuclear capabilities almost certainly came from the United States, whether they were tacitly given by the Pentagon or stolen by mossad is unknown.(Oh no! I’m being anti-semitic again!)
Of course, none of this excuses China and China did indeed proliferate nuclear materials to Pakistan possibly in the late 80’s early 90’s and missile technology very recently. Fortunately China has power and can avoid any serious international reprecussions. Not fair? Allow me a moment of triumphalist vanity to say boo-hoo whatcha gonna do about it?
Jing - A guy who writes that Koreans will allow China to walk into North Korea, without any resistance(!), in order to rehabilitate the country is calling my comment “crap” ?
Kimbob, though you make think him crazy, actually represents quite well what most Koreans think when they hear China talking about claims on Korean land. Multiply kimbob’s reaction to your ideas of benevolent Chinese rule of North Korea by 75 million and that can tell you how Korea would react to the ridiculous idea of China reconquering the place. You are a looney toon if you really believe that scenario. Or maybe you are a Chinese general. Same thing.
People actually take David Frum’s ‘axis of evil’ thing seriously? That bit of spin justifying and ‘branding’ the neocon project to remake the middle east in America’s crusade against evil (with NK thrown in at the last second to make it seem less anti-Islam)? Amusing.
I suppose ‘Axis of Evil’ is catchier than ‘Axis of Countries We Hate and Who Hate Us’, which would be the more honest title; but spin is never about honesty, is it?
Perhaps you should have read what I wrote a bit more closely. The South Koreans would resist and protest. The North, simply wouldn’t have much of a choice. I have never insisted that China “benevolently” rule North Korea. I’m not quite that patronizing nor paternalistic. What I originally wrote was that if the U.S. expects China to do something drastic over North Korea, you can possibly expect the Chinese to exert a strong political influence over the new government or even administer North Korea directly. I was being facetious and merely tweaking some noses with the Lebensraum comment. The smilies should have given it away.
I see Jing. Perhaps China should have included more smiles and winky-faces in its public statements claiming Koguryeo belongs to China so everyone would understand China is really just kidding around. I heard the Tibetans are slow to grasp the humor of this common Chinese joke…
But you’re still nuts if you think a totally militarized country like North Korea with a 1-million man standing army is powerless to resist almighty China. Vietnam beat China after being bombed into dirt by the USA - how much more would North Korea resist. Dont believe your crazy government’s propoganda Jing.
Let’s take your defense of PRC in question.
Let’s say you are even half right.
Then which one of the three countries, Taiwan, Israel, and North Korea, is a Third World despotic regime? Only a despotic regime would support another despotic regime with nuclear weapons, wouldn’t it figure?
That’s right, China can end North Korea overnight by cutting off all oil and food. That would be the end of North Korea. But that won’t happen why not?
Let me help you, if you have a problem with this. It’s not Taiwan, and it’s not Israel.
You know what, fuck you WonsanGhetto. If you want to think I’m some sort of anti-semitic fascist racial supremacist. Go right on ahead. Maybe from now on I should simply refer to you as Hymie Kimstein and make things easier for you. For anyone else who wants to have an actual discussion that doesn’t involve flying accusations and childish non-sequiturs then proceed.
Some interesting arguments being made here, although I would caution people again leveling what appear to be quite baseless accusations of anti-Semitism at Jing, even if, I would grant, one might have a problem with a man with the last name of “Koehler” defining what is or isn’t anti-Semitism.
Jing: “Ahh the covetous shylock on the attack.”
You’re right. I must have imagined it. Just like the other commenters on the thread who inexplicably reached the same conclusion.
Marmot, if “likudniks,” “Hymie Kimstein,” and “covetous shylock” aren’t Jew-baiting, you really aren’t the one to define what anti-Semitism is. Sheesh. Read your own site.
WonsanGhetto — Likudnik is hardly an anti-Semitic term, unless you want to call Mickey Kaus at Slate an anti-Semite, too:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2078333
Or, for that matter, unless you’re willing to call the 19 Labor Party reps in the Knesset — along with other non-Likud seats — anti-Semites, too. I happened to like Likud (not a huge fan of Ariel Sharon, although I probably would have voted for him I’d been Israeli), but I don’t connect attacks on Likud and Likud supporters in the U.S. with anti-Semitism.
Hymie Kimstein is patently anti-Semitic, but look at the contect in which it was used here. Ditto the lebensraum comment.
As for “covetous shylock,” well, an unfortunate choice of literary references, to be sure, but one poor comment in bad taste does not a commentor make. In fact, I don’t even know why the topic of anti-Semitism was brought up in the thread. The closest Jing came to bringing up Jews here was to assert that neo-cons align themselves too closely with Israel’s security concerns, which is a criticism widely made even outside the “Jews control America” crowd, which really is anti-Semitic.
Barnett to Bush: get real on N.Korea policy
Thomas P. Barnett, author of an excellent book, The Pentagon’s New Map, asks on his blog: “Why do we let Pyongyang and Taipei run America’s relationship with China?” Good question. On North Korea he writes: North Korea will be a…
I think that Jing is more guilty of insensitivity than Antisemitism.
Jing, your posts are usually intelligent and thought-provoking, and they’d be even better if you’d avoid using language that you can only regret after cooling down.
Jeffery Hodges
Marmot:
“In fact, I don?€™t even know why the topic of anti-Semitism was brought up in the thread.”
_____________________
Well, at the time, Jing seemed to be working the same territory as Alseyn and Big Dragon (who were probably the same person). I wouldn’t put Jing in their category now, but at the time the difference was hardly clear. Consider Jing’s “covetous shylock” comment in the context of examples such as these:
(Big Dragon)
“I take it that you are a Zionist given your typical defensive chultzpah outburst. The fact is that the U.S. is controlled by the Zionist through the media, elected politicians, and the Zionist religious institutions. Everyone knows it.”
and
“Please kindly define what is the meaning of the word ?€œanti-Semetism.?€? (By the way, learn to spell, you Zionist.)”
Now how often these days is “Zionist” used as a code word for “Jew?” And given the rest of BD’s posts how likely was it that he wasn’t using it that way here?
Oh, and then he says (of course):
“I have no hatred of Semitic people like Palestinians, Arabs, and Jews.”
Nearly every bigot who wants, for whatever reason, to make the fact of his bigotry less clear says something like this. David Duke has been using versions of it for years. “I don’t hate Jews, just Zionists.” This phrase has been used to lie so much, and for so long, it’s hardly unreasonable to be suspicious of it.
Then there’s this:
(Jing)
“Got a problem with that Jewgar of Jewlingrad?”
By now we’re familiar with Jing’s sense of humor. It wasn’t so clear then.
By the way Robert, I thought I saw Ahn Chi-hwan burning you in effigy over in front of Seoul Station last Saturday.
BTW, here’s this (maybe someone else already posted it?)
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/.....71,00.html
Going back on topic, all this talk about China’s “imminent” economic collapse is hogwash. It’s like a marxist economist looking at the South Korean economy in 1980 and proclaiming, “there is over investment in the real estate sector creating a balloon. Soon the South Korean bubble will pop when the South East asian nations devalue their currency causing a cascade forcing South Korean people to live under bridges and eat barley gruel.” First problem of prophesyzing on the supposed economic collapses is that we can never know WHEN it will collapse. Secondly, despite China’s fundamental problems, there have been REAL progress in lifting out many people from poverty. I mean, I can also make a prediction: The U.S. economy will face another economic depression. I don’t know when, but it will happen. Who cares? Also when you start out from almost nil capital development, you are going to have some real growth.
China has been going in the right general direction since Deng Xiao Ping: the real question is can they do more?
I attribute most of China’s error not on blatant malevolence, but simply out of incompetence. Let us look at our(U.S.) involvement in Iraq as an example. We(Americans) have very intelligent and competent people in our government and academia. But even with knowledeable people we have utter disasters like Iraq. China on the otherhand, have a legion of local party officials who aren’t exactly sophisticated, and is in fact, extremely corrupt.
It really is not surprising that China would be selling missile technology or small arms to certain questionable nations. Ukrain, for example, also does similiar things, but the Chinese are better businessmen. The real wonder is why would the CCP be so dumb to sell nuclear/missile technology to Pakistan who may or may not be able to control access to technology to Muslim extremists in China? I guess it looked like a good idea to “contain” India, and the idea of nuclear proliferation appeared to be too much of a “first world” problem to them at the time.
The real question to address is, why is China so adamantly against sending NK refugees to SK? We all know why SK detests this idea. People say that they fear a complete and utter breakdown of NK system of refugees are allowed to flee, but I have to disagree. I remain utterly perplexed why sending 70 NK people to Seoul would be such an issue to the CCP.
How many NK must flee in order for Kim dynasty to collapse? But how many NK WOULD if China allowed them to go? I would venture not too many. NK already has strict control of information. But even the fear of fleeing is enough disincentive. Even the vast majority of NK people hiding in China are only there to get food for their families residing in NK.
It just appears to me that CCP believes that NK inhumane policies is fundamentally important aspect of Chinese well-being. I would love to know WHY they would think that, but I think the Chinese are again, making an error like giving away nuclear secrets to Pakistan.
Even with NKHRA, it seems clear that US really isn’t all that interested in allowing in refugees. To date, how many NK refugees have entered US? These handful of people that China sends back to NK doesn’t make a dent, and it’s unlikely that allowing 70 people to go to SK will open up the “floodgates” of NK economic refugees.
That was a Southpark reference by the way Rhesus. Halloween Lord of the Ring’s parody special. Where the boys deliver a porn video to a blockbuster in another town.
Just so we are clear. I am neither Aleysen nor BigDragon and I don’t know who they are. Frankly, I’m honest enough that if I wanted express any disgust or hatred, I would do so blatantly instead of relying on Shakespeareian allusions and comedy central jokes.
I don’t think you are those guys (or guy) Jing, and I didn’t say so in my post. The point was that the difference in stance wasn’t so clear then. The post was _positive_ about you, awright?
lol stupid people
real names of online poker players
Take your time to check out the pages in the field of online gambling poker online poker bonus codes free money
Pacific Poker
Take your time to take a look at some relevant information in the field of Pacific Poker Free rolls Schedule
13 g pkr chp txs hldm
Take your time to check some helpful info dedicated to txs hldm ttrl
Bst Rtd nln Csns
Take your time to take a look at some relevant information dedicated to slm slt fr gm
navel torture
Thomas P.M. Barnett on…
hydrangea
Please visit some helpful info in the field of ftd florists
hearts black jack
In your free time, visit some relevant information about gratis black jack karte