Fighting terror

LUC is excited to welcome Sir Nigel Rodley, Professor of Law and Chair of the Human Rights Centre, University of Essex, to talk about 'Fighting Terror' on Wednesday 4th May, 16-18.00, in the college Manor (LV44).

After various academic and professional positions in the US and Canada and after receiving his 2nd LLM degree in 1970, Nigel returned to the UK to become the first Legal Adviser of the International Secretariat of Amnesty International, a position he held until 1990; during the same period he taught Public International Law at LSE. In 1994 he became Professor of Law at the University of Essex.
In March 1993 he was designated Special Rapporteur on Torture by the UN Commission on Human Rights, serving in this capacity until 2001. Since 2001 he has been a member and vice chair of the UN Human Rights Committee. He was elected a Commissioner of the International Commission of Jurists in 2003 and is a member of Council of its British Branch, JUSTICE. He is a Trustee of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. Nigel Rodley was knighted ‘for services to human rights and international law’ in 1999.

Current affairs and ice cream; 20 April

Maybe it was appropriate that on the hottest day of the year so far, a group of LUC students and staff sat down to discuss the events going on in the arid desert of Libya. While their immediate thirst may have been quenched by an ice cream break half way through the night, their thirst for stories, opinions and knowledge kept them hanging on the lips of the speakers until security guards ushered them out of the building and shut the door behind them.


Going back to where the night started, the first LUC Current Affairs Night began, in true student style, about 15 minutes late. Gathered in the Student Lounge at the Lange Voorhout, a handful of professors, three speakers and around 40 students sat in a circle ready to informally ‘discuss foreign affairs with a glass of wine’. After a quick introduction and recap of the world headlines that week Jaap de Hoop Scheffer started off the evening by talking about Libya. As the subject rapidly ventured out to include Europe’s dependence on the US, the nature of Resolution 1973 and humanitarian intervention, the time was up and questions and remarks had to wait, as Aernout van Lynden took the spotlight.

The war correspondent and previous university professor spoke of ‘An Arab Awakening?’, where he distinguished between the different types of unrest the Middle East is experiencing. Reminding students never to make comparisons, he described how the countries differ immensely in terms of ethnic makeup, national priorities, governmental system and political histories, and how this fundamentally influences the current unrest. He reminded us of the near-permanent state of conflict Europe experienced between the late 19th century up until the end of the Cold War, shedding light on the bizarre expectation the global media and policy makers hold in terms of the war in Libya and other conflict being over within months. Cut off by a bleeping sound marking the end of his time, Chris Goto-Jones broke up the theme of civil unrest by addressing the situation of disaster-struck Japan.

While in reality civil unrest seemed not so far from the truth in Japan either, it was refreshing to focus on a completely different part of the world, and Chris surprised many about the semi-secret relationship the US and Japan have had since the Second World War. Furthermore, he spoke about Japan’s attitude towards aid and the politics involved in it, as well as the strange position Japan is experiencing suddenly being the receiver rather than the giver of aid.

After a quick break and re-building of the furniture, the audience, now divided into three groups, engaged in small-scale discussions addressing one of the three topics with the respective speaker. This format allowed everyone to contribute and fire individual questions to the speakers, as well as comparing perspectives on particular issues (‘Gaddafi: Should he stay or should he go?’). After 20 minutes and at the tune of the latest hits, the speakers rotated groups, allowing everyone to engage in each of the topics before the end of the second hour.

After a wrap up of the event people were invited to stay longer, and many students, still plagued by the heat and the prospect of empty water bottles and lack of leftover ice creams, took up on this offer and relocated themselves to the outside courtyard. Here conversation among students and one of the speakers continued until the security guard forcibly removed the group and set them on the doorstep of the Lange Voorhout. Still sparked by arguments and engaged in intense discussion, the closed green wooden door did not deter the students and Aernout, and after relocating to a nearby café, tales and conversations about the Middle East could be heard resounding far into the night.

For me, the fact that conversation and intense discussions did not end as the Current Affairs Night did, and even prevailed over the fact we were set outside of the building and found ourselves standing in the dark late at night, shows that it was a success. The night was meant to spark a greater interest for discussing current affairs, and the enthusiasm and active participation shown last night illustrates that our student body really is engaged and ready to discuss, and eventually face, these Global Challenges surrounding us.

A huge thank you goes to Aernout van Lynden, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and Chris Goto-Jones for coming to speak and contribute their invaluable insights, as well as Cissie Fu for helping coordinate the event. Lastly a thank you goes to the students, whose participation and constant questioning in search of answers made me confident that even on the hottest and most beach-appropriate day, we are ready to engage in international and globally significant matters. And who knows, maybe next time we can devise a way to combine beach and heated discussion…


Cecilia Diemont, 1st year student, LUC

Oppression and revolution

 

London's critical utopia

Imagine the world in the XXVII century. Imagine a society in which capitalism as a ruling system has given its way to the Brotherhood of Man. Now, imagine a diary written in 1932 has been found, the biography of a great revolutionist called Ernest Everhard, written by his beloved wife and fellow comrade Avis. You are then presented with a detailed account of the first revolutionaries' struggle to overthrow the Oligarchy, the Plutocracy, the Iron Heel which is the entity that controls the power and wealth of the United States.
The greatness of The Iron Heel is that it speaks on behalf of different people, first of all Ernest, the eloquent socialist hero; Avis, the highly educated girl converted to the Cause of Socialism, and finally the academic notations of a man who now leaves in the utopia envisioned by the revolutionaries.
Through Avis's passionate and subjective record of Ernest's talks on the injustices of the Iron Heel towards the members of the labour class, London creates a first layer of narration, through which he can express his critical analysis of the American class struggle, and possibly his delusion for the failure of the 1905 Russian Revolution. London actually writes the novel in 1908, a period of labour's struggle in the USA against the evergrowing power of corporations that constitutes the suffocating regime Avis and Ernest dream to overthrow.
The second layer of narrative, the perspective of the XXVII century scholar, serves as more than one function; firstly, it represents a utopian age in which the socialist dream has finally been achieved, when people don't even remember certain practises or they find them barbarian; secondly, it balances Avis's account by correcting or explaining certain facts or characters that she talks about. London uses this second narrative-framing voice, both as a device to take distances from Avis's story, but also as yet another way to criticise and to make bitter remarks about his own society.
Description of the utopian society of the XXVII century, that so critically describes those of the XX century, are only hinted in the foreword and footnotes, and the reader is not to know how the centuries' long struggle eventually positively ended with the establishment of the Brotherhood of Man – London is concerned with the description of the present conflicts and does not bother with the explanation of a reality that is, in its nature, utopic. Knowing that there is the future perspective of a fair society is enough to provide for a happy ending that Avis's story, abruptly interrupted in the middle of a sentence, actually does not have.
The Iron Heel is about injustices, violence, conflicts. London shows how these actions are perpetuated by both sides of the “enemy line”, as both Oligarchists and Revolutionaries adopt violent methods to confront each other. However, London's sympathy, and the reader's, cannot help but falling with the rebels, who are striving for change in face of the oppressive status quo.
The society that the Oligarchy shapes and controls through its power relationship and invisible claws still bears remarkable similarities to the present US society, where lobbies and trusts are able to influence government's policies, where freedom of speech is threatened by the laws made ad corporationes, where the poor are denied health insurance or good education. London's text shouldn't be read as prophetical, but as a starting point from which to reflect upon the status of our present society. Do we still live under the Iron Heel? Do we have to wait for other six centuries before getting rid of systems of oppressions? Is Capitalism THE best economic-political-social system we can think of, or is a (modernised) socialist Utopia still a suitable option for designing our society? Food for thought, my friends, but remember: the fight goes on.

Sofia Lotto Persio, 1st year student, LUC

Three hundred and forty-six

Accused as ‘slacktivism’, a feel-good type of activism, by a student (who, might I say, never took up the offer of explanation or discussion) I’d like to remind all those who did participate in the recent Amnesty Letter Writing Campaign that their efforts weren’t in vain. Yes, they did contributed to a wonderful and entertaining evening in the LUC Common Room, but let us also not forget the impact and support oppressed families around the world will experience upon the arrival of hundreds of letters of support.

The recent turbulent events in North Africa and the Middle East have shown how people and ideas can be empowered by the use of mass media, essentially shedding light on the immense power of the propagation of words. History has shown how the impact of people writing letters can be enormous too, and thus also play major role in ensuring justice is done.
Since Amnesty International’s earliest days in the 1960s, letter writing has been an integral part of the campaign for demanding human rights and the release of political prisoners. Hundreds of prisoners have been freed due a continuous stream of letters from Amnesty members calling for the respect of human rights, as well as voicing their support for political prisoners.
And letter writing is exactly what LUC students undertook last Monday night. Starting at 22:00 and going all the way through to 04:00, a dedicated group comprising of roughly half the College gave their time, creativity and ink to Write for Rights. Besides formal letters to politicians and diplomats (regarding the detainment of Burmese political prisoners and the exploitation of illegal immigrants in Malaysia), students settled down in the Common Room and feverishly wrote notes of support and encouragement to a host of political prisoners and human rights NGOs. As the night progressed and the impressive pile of filled envelopes grew, various musical performers, litres of hot drinks and snacks drove the group to produce letters of praise, poems and drawings.

Throughout the night a humanitarian-focused movie was shown, students performed a preview of the LUC play, some sang or DJed, while others contributed lame dance moves during their letter writing breaks. The buzzing atmosphere and insane amounts of sugary snacks kept everyone in high spirits, while friendly (and completely beneficial) competition saw students such as Limo Baroud and Sarah-Louise Todd write non-stop for the whole six hours. These latter two students produced a spectacular 106 letters between them. If anyone were ever entitled to a hand massage, or possesses these skills, please look no further than these two!

Slashing all expectations, 04:00 saw a considerably large group bearing down into the depths of the box with letters, two last students calling out from the other side of the room that they were ‘nearly done! Just two more! Please! Give me a few more minutes!’ With great pride we’d like to announce that a total of 346 letters were written over the course of 6 hours and 49 students.
Due to LUC students’ incredible effort we are sending letters of protest and support over the whole world this week. So whether you are a true believer of blog-driven revolutions or more cautious about the power of the spread of words, your commitment to take action through words on Monday night is truly appreciated, and on behalf of SAIM The Hague we would like to say: thank you thank you thank you, and we are so proud of all of you who participated.
 
Cecilia Diemont, 1st Year Student, LUC, Co-Chair of SAIM (Student Amnesty Int. Movement)

A big thank you also goes to those students who attended the Amnesty Training Day on Wednesday. Through a very interactive and informative session led by two regional Amnesty employers, members of SAIM learnt vital information about Amnesty’s founding, the structure of the organization, worldwide membership and brainstormed for ideas for campaigns in the future. To Marianne and Naomi—thank you for coming down to visit and inspire us, and we will keep you updated on our activities!

Fundraising result

LUC and MEARC are delighted to be able to announce the success of our collaborative efforts to provide information about and promote fundraising for the reconstruction in Japan following the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis of March this year.
Following our information evening and panel event on 1 April, we are proud to be able to announce that we have now raised over 2,000 euro. The money has been donated to the Red Cross.
Many thanks to all those staff, students and other participants from around the Netherlands who supported this event and this cause.
LUC and MEARC wish to extend their ongoing support to the people of Japan at this difficult time; we will not forget that the process of recovery will take a long time, and we hope to be able to play a small role in the future.

LUC's first Current Affairs evening

Dear staff and students of LUC,

I would like to invite you to the very first Current Affairs Night this coming Wednesday, to be held in the student lounge from 19.00-21.00 at the Lange Voorhout.
The event will be based on informal, interactive discussion about current global affairs. The aim of the evening is encouraging both students and professors alike to gain new insights and understanding of events in the news by questioning each other and being exposed to different perspectives. There will be three speakers who will shortly introduce a theme they have particular expertise in, after which there will be small scale-discussions in which everyone will be able to contribute.

The program is as follows;
19.00: Welcome and introduction
19.15: Chris Goto-Jones (on Japan)
19.30: Jaap de Hoop Scheffer (on Libya)
19.45: Aernout van Lynden ('An Arab Awakening?')

20.00: Break to refill drinks etc.

20.05-21.00: audience divided into three groups to discuss each of the topics with the respective speaker, rotating every 20 minutes

21.00: Thank you, and option to stay and continue discussion if people wish to do so

Given the interesting speakers and the close relation Current Affairs has with the LUC program, I hope to see many of you there. Besides this I believe it would be a great opportunity for students and professors to interact in a different and more informal setting, and I am looking forward to seeing the differences of perspective on the various issues between students and staff!
I hope to see you there Wednesday evening!

Best wishes,
Cecilia (1st year student, LUC)

Capitalism as the pathway to glory

Strikes, boycotts, “wild threats from anarchists” – the workers’ struggle was in full swing in late nineteenth-century America.[1] It had by this time become apparent to many of the country’s elite and oppressed alike that the rapid industrialisation of the preceding decades and the socio-economic system that resulted from it was far from perfect. Enabling a select group of individuals to live in tremendous wealth, it forced the overwhelming majority of the population into poverty. By the end of the nineteenth-century, this awareness had led numerous intellectuals to criticise the economic relations and social structures of the time, some convinced that they could not be changed, others presenting a way out of them. “Workers of the world, unite!” exclaimed Marx and Engels in their eloquently formulated attack on capitalism, The Communist Manifesto. Elsewhere, too, the socialist movement began to take flight – throughout the world the workers’ struggle expressed itself in strikes and boycotts, inspiring a sense of disdain and fear in the minds of the targeted bourgeois and a sense of hope and power in the minds of the proletariat. In Looking Backward (1888), the American novelist Edward Bellamy reveals what he perceives to be most pressing problems of the nineteenth-century – and how they are solved completely in an imaginary alternative society set a century into the future. Tellingly, this ‘perfect society’ is not the result of a violent class struggle or bloody revolution, but the result of capitalism itself – an end of the industrial evolution.

In this ideal society, the United States is prosperous because the old economy of private capital does no longer exist. Rather, it has evolved into an economy of publicly owned capital, a natural outcome of the “industrial evolution.”[2] Seeking to expand their businesses, merchants united into corporations and aggregated their capital and as such a smaller and smaller group of individuals and businesses controlled an increasingly large amount of capital. This process continued until eventually certain syndicates controlled larger flows of money than states. At this point, all business was nationalised in a final act of monopolisation: the nation became the greatest corporation of all, and its inhabitants became its employees – it is the year 2000 (though we are led to believe that the reign of selfish capitalism had ended decades before the time in which Bellamy sets this story). As the sole employer, the state owns all capital and rewards every employee. It divides the national product equally among its citizens, and is in charge of both the distribution and production of goods. Money has no use anymore, as private transactions have been abolished: everyone buys standardised products from great malls stocked by the nation with credit, an abstraction of money (which does not exist in material form). As such, no one is driven by greed for money; instead the population is driven by greed for honour – motivating every individual to work to the best of his ability.

From this brief description might have become clear that Bellamy’s utopian society shows many characteristics of a socialist society – private capital does not exist, and the entire society is organised in line with the maxim “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Yet Bellamy repeatedly bashes the “followers of the red flag” in his novel, accusing them of hindering (social) change rather than promoting it. [3] As a representative of the American bourgeois, and writing to a bourgeois audience, he could not afford (nor did he probably want to afford) to make the parallels with socialism all too clear, as the many strikes, threats of violence and boycotts did not particularly inspire solidarity in the upper classes of society – those who could force change top-down. This distrust of socialism might also explain why Bellamy chose to set his novel in the future, rather than in an elusive, contemporary, terra incognita like his literary colleague Thomas More. Would he have presented it as an already existing society, his fellow countrymen might easily associate it with ‘the socialist threat’, a concern that may have been reinforced by the fear that the socialist revolutions in Europe could be exported to the American continent.

Yet there may be another reason (and numerous other reasons, for that matter) that Bellamy chose to set his novel in a future America. It showed his contemporaries that an alternative society, a society in which labour problems are impossible, is conceivable even without giving in to socialism, as a result of capitalism – and even in America (instead of an elusive country in another part of the world). Presenting an alternative to communism and the path to glory defined by Marx and Engels, Bellamy demonstrated to his readers that even if some of Marx’ assumptions were correct a class struggle would not be the only conceivable way out of the labour problems. As such, Looking Backward might be called a counter-narrative to The Communist Manifesto – a vision of the future that was probably reassuring to the workers and propertied classes alike (‘capitalism may not be all that bad’).

At any rate, Bellamy’s utopian novel has been a huge literary success, selling millions of copies even in the nineteenth-century. Inspiring countless political movements back in its day, Looking Backward is a perfect example of how utopian literature can both reflect and shape (political) reality. It is an extraordinarily detailed book, and I have not done it justice in this brief essay which focuses merely on the socio-economic aspects Bellamy highlights in the novel. I can recommend it to everyone – it is an easy, enjoyable read which offers an intriguing insight in the problems and (perceived) solutions in late nineteenth-century America. Just don’t expect to find a blueprint for a perfect society – you’ll find that you probably would not want to live in the society outlined by Bellamy (but then, this is not where the novel derives its power from in the first place).

Barend de Rooij (1st year student, LUC)

[1] Edward Bellamy, Looking Backward, rev. ed. (1888; repr.,Bedford, MA: Applewood Books, 2011), 163.
[2] Bellamy, Looking Backward, 36.
[3] Bellamy, Looking Backward, 163

The LUC Dean's Masterclass is run each semester for the students who made the honour roll in the previous semester.

Espinoza on inequality in Latin America

Professor Espinoza is professor at the Universidad de Santiago de Chile and holds the Andres Bello Chair at Leiden University in 2011. He is well known for his work on inequality, social networks, social mobility and community.

LUC is delighted to be able to host Professor Espinoza during his stay in The Netherlands. He will talk about the reasons for the persistency of inequality despite great advances in affluence in Latin America, and also about the reasons why such inequalities are considered problematic. He will consider this situation from the standpoint of policy and social mechanism.
The seminar will be at the usual time and place: at LUC's manor building (LV44) at 16.15-18.00 on Wednesday 20th April. A poster with further information is here.

Students will be interested to know that LUC's first current affairs evening will take place after this event in the college lounge, from 19-21.00.

Suganami on the causes of war

Wednesday 13th April, 16.15-18.00, and LUC The Hague (LV44). 
Hidemi Suganami studied International Relations at Tokyo University, University of Wales, and the London School of Economics. He taught International Relations at Keele University in England (1975-2004) where he held a personal chair in the Philosophy of International Relations. He currently teaches at Aberystwyth University, Wales, where he is Professor in the Department of International Politics. His publications include The Domestic Analogy and World Order Proposals (1989), On the Causes of War (1996) and, with Andrew Linklater, The English School of International Relations (2006). He is currently working on the relationship between history, theory and ideology in the study of international relations.
In his seminar, Professor Suganami intends to cover questions such as: (1) Are there some standard ways in which war comes about? (2) How should we respond to the finding, which has caused much excitement among IR scholars, that there is no war between democracies? (3) Isn’t there a case for suggesting, as historians tend to do, that each war has its unique set of causes? (4) What is the relationship between the accounts we give to the occurrences of war and the ways in which they come about? And, finally, (5) how does our analysis change its content when we shift our focus away from war between sovereign states towards different kinds of war?
More details are here (poster).
Students interested in doing some preparatory reading can look here and here.

七転び八起き

First of all, I would like to express my sympathy with the victims of the disaster in Japan and all of those involved. To remain strong in such a horrendous situation deserves nothing but respect and high esteem. Furthermore, many thanks to the organisers of Friday’s information evening. Besides answering many of the visitors’ questions, the evening also symbolised an inspiring feeling of commiseration for those in peril. The widespread and palpable feeling of solidarity last Friday gave me an insight in the potential of LUC the Hague. Besides functioning as a regular university college, LUC could become a platform for information on contemporary affairs and situations in the world. As students and staff of the very first year of LUC, it is our responsibility to live up to the mission statement “building knowledge for a better world”. Important events such as the information evening about Japan are the true foundation of the process of building for a better world. By listening to, observing and interacting with leading experts in the fields of different global challenges, students can create the necessary awareness for a necessary better world. On a planet where nature is not always on our side and vice versa, future scholars or policy makers should be aware of the risks and dangers of life on earth. LUC can serve as a distributor of knowledge that could enable us to live on earth our earth sustainably, safely and peacefully. As scholars and students, we have the duty to learn from disasters and horrors in order to learn to deal with them in the future . I would like to end this short blog entry with a Japanese saying that a friend of mine once told me: 七転び八起き(nana korobi - ya oki), Fall seven times – get up eight.

Jules Marc van der Sneppen (1st year student, LUC)

Where it all began?

Thomas More - Utopia

The first book read for the Dean’s class is Thomas More’s Utopia, which could be seen as the start of the whole genre of Utopia’s. Written in the sixteenth century it clearly shows the clash between the ending feudal system and the starting modern age (with the building of the nation-state).
For me the most interesting part of Utopia was the way More tried to mix a strong normative view on religion with a humanist view on almost all other matters concerning society. As More himself was a devoted Catholic and eventually even died for his believe; in Utopia this is shown through his strong statements against; who he claims are not even human! So the person in question should be forbidden to speak in public and hold any public offices as well.

However on the other side we see More as a humanist and socialist, for he does not believe in social classes, which leads him to make all people shift jobs every 5 years or so with one another, thinks money irrelevant and believes that all people should be educated properly; from which also follows according to More that all people will be reasonable once they have received such an education.

In the end however, although More makes many reasonable points which are especially great when we realize the time in which he wrote them down (1516), I believe More was still too normative in his religious believes to come to a truly great society in his Utopia; for above all the humanistic and socialistic standpoints he put a religious domination (through morals that he believes all people should and would have in this society of Utopia, and the control over society and those morals he gives to the priests!) that limits basically all freedom and equality he gave to the people of Utopia in the other parts of his book.

Laura Pierik, 1st year student, LUC

The LUC Dean's Masterclass is run each semester for the students who made the honour roll in the previous semester.

Japan panel follow up

Many people expressed the desire to help on Friday, and we hope that such people can use this site as a way of communicating with each other and hence as a way to facilitate follow-up meetings and events. Feel free to post comments to that end; we can use this thread to find each other again.

Japan awareness panel

On Friday 1 April, the LUC Research Centre and the Modern East Asia Research Centre co-hosted a panel of experts to discuss recent events in Japan, with the intention of disseminating accurate, reliable information, and also to provide opportunity for coordination of some fund-raising activities.

The hosts were delighted that so many people attended the event, and also that Prof.dr. Laurens Jan Brinkhorst, a long-time patron of MEARC and the former EU Ambassador to Japan, took the time to chair the event for us.

In addition to the panelists and audience, the event attracted attention from representatives of the Dutch government, media and business. Minister Ishii of the Japanese Embassy was also in attendance, and he spoke of the traditional importance of water in Japanese history and culture, noting its extreme nature in that part of the world.

The panel (left to right) included Prof Chris Goto-Jones, dean of LUC, director of MEARC and professor of comparative philosophy at Leiden, who spoke about the place of natural disasters and nuclear crisis in the literary culture of modern Japan; Dr Rogier Busser, assistant professor of Japanese Political Economy at Leiden, who spoke about the likely impact of the disastrous events of March on the Japanese and world economy; Dr Ethan Mark, assistant professor of Modern Japanese History at Leiden, who spoke about popular and grass-roots reactions to the crises in Japan; Dr Jan Leen Kloosterman, associate professor of Nuclear Reactor Physics, Delft University, who explained the crisis in the Fukushima reactors; and Prof Jean Savelhout, professor of Radiation Safety & Health, Leiden University and VU Amsterdam, who explained the possible effects of radiation on the health and environment of Japan and elsewhere.

Every seat was taken in the lecture hall, as a diverse audience of students, academics, government representatives, journalists, business people and a wide general audience sought more information about events in Japan. In the end, it was decided to continue the discussion about how help could and should be provided to the people most impacted by these events. A collection was made for the Japanese Red Cross -- the panelists all waived their honoraria so that the money could be donated to the Red Cross -- more events will be planned in a considered way over the next period.

The hosts would like to thank all of those involved in Friday's event. We express our ongoing sympathies to the people of Japan, and our determination to find new and appropriate ways to help them.

Courageous men and women

'Courageous men and women had for many decades defied state terror... Today they are joined by the masses'


Listen to Dr Elizabeth Kassab

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2011/02/110228_kassab.shtml

Dr Kassab is the author of Contemporary Arab Thought: Cultural Critique in Comparative Perspective published by Columbia University Press.

http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-14488-9/contemporary-arab-thought

For a review of Dr Kassab's book, see

http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-levant&month=1009&week=e&msg=opEoQuUesNZ2g9dx4PWyCw&user=&pw=

Thomas Bundschuh