It's not you, dear country, it's me
September 16, 2007 9:02 AM   Subscribe

Canada, Belgium, Iraq. What is so bad about countries breaking up?

Canada, Belgium, Iraq, these three countries are considering breaking up. While their stories are widely different, the general reaction is always the same: the breakup would be catastrophically bad thing.

Why? Is it simply the force of patriotism?

Legitimacy of the government comes from a mandate from the people. Nations have a right to self-determination. Irreconcilable differences alonealone seems like a valid reason for any divorce. Is there any reason that can justify keeping a country together against the will of the component nation?

I suspect the answer lies in the economical interests of the people in positions of power, but I cannot see how.
posted by gmarceau to Law & Government (27 answers total) 9 users marked this as a favorite
 
While it speaks to far more issues than just national unity, the extraordinarily insightful Federalist Papers give many sound reasons why national unity is a good thing.

From what I understand of the argument, one of the big factors comes down to the fact that a unified front representing a large group of citizens has considerably more economic, social, and military clout and bargaining power than the smaller constituents.

"Publius" also argues that having a single unified nation also makes it more difficult for foreign powers to play off one side against the other for their own benefit, and so on.
posted by NucleophilicAttack at 9:17 AM on September 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


Some might argue that India/Pakistan hasn't worked out so well.
posted by rtha at 9:20 AM on September 16, 2007


As far as Iraq, the whole reason for a possible breakup is that the country is made up of 3 separate sides, Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. The main problem is nether ethnic group is self contained in their part of Iraq. The Kurds are also a part of Turkey, and the creation of Kurdistan would empower the Kurds on the Turkish side to try and join. That and the Shiite and Sunni states would become proxy states for Iran and Saudi Arabia, but in some respects their influence is there already. (NucleophilicAttack alludes to this)

The main problem is that ethnic lines aren't really geographic lines. Whichever way you cut a piece of land up, you will have some people who are ethnically on one side of the line, and politically on the other. Their choices are to move or be at the mercy of the new majority, which at times is ideologically opposed to the other side. Most move.

And yes, it is usually an economically bad thing, not just for the powerful, but for almost anyone who has capital that straddles the new border, whether this be physical land or not. How long this lasts depends on everything else.
posted by zabuni at 9:22 AM on September 16, 2007


Not just an economic issue on the border - when the wall went up in Berlin, many families were divided on opposite sides. Even without a Wall, bordercrossing to go half a mile to see Granny is a pain.
posted by spaceman_spiff at 9:26 AM on September 16, 2007


Well, secession is rarely done simply for the fun of it. Usually a group of people within a nation get really angry about some particular issue and decide that the only way to see their desired policy enacted is to sever themselves from the parent country. A good example is the U.S. civil war. One solution to this is federalism - allowing small geographical sections of a nation to self-determine issues not explicity entrusted to the federal government.

In the case of Belgium specifically it comes down to the following things:
1) Dutch speaking (Flemish) Belgians are the majority, but feel put upon by the Francophone popualtion (Walloons). The monarchy is French speaking (their attempts at Dutch are embarassing at best), until quite recently Flemish students had to learn French but the Walloons never had to learn Dutch, all government interactions used to be in French, and even today you can not really get around the capital if you only speak Dutch (which is aggravating).
2) Flanders is much more economically prosperous. Depending on who you ask it accounts for as much as 70% of the country's GDP (I hate to cite this rag, but I can't find anything else at the moment). Many feel that Wallonia gets an unequal share of government spending as a function of what it contributes.
3) Many parties in Flanders pushing for secession are unabashedly racist and anti-immigrant. They want to split so they can have their crazy enforced monoculture policies enacted. Since many people want to split for the reasons listed above, these parties gain support.

Belgium's membership in the EU only provides further incentive to split - there would still be free trade and the practical changes for most Belgians would be fairly minimal in some ways. You'd still travel over borders freely, you could still work on either side of the country, and so forth.

Basically, secession can be a bad thing because it allows radicals (of any persuasion) to get their way by running off with a geographic region. It can be a good thing when the alternative is a perpetual fight between two groups of people held together under a governing system that isn't working for anyone (as in the case of U.S. independence).
posted by phrontist at 9:29 AM on September 16, 2007


Slovakia: the "Velvet Divorce"
posted by gimonca at 9:30 AM on September 16, 2007


I think "catastrophically bad" is an extreme overstatement of the general opinion on, say, Canada breaking up.

I'm not as familiar with the Belgian issue, but I have a hard time imagining catastrophe befalling the erstwhile components of Belgium if they decide to split.

Iraq is a catastrophe no matter what.

And even beyond these three examples that you give, I don't think it's clear-cut:

There are, of course, bad examples like India and Pakistan, or Ethiopia and Eritrea, but one could argue that they would've had problems had they stayed together, too. In fact, the reason they split is basically *because* they had problems together.

On the other hand, you have, for example, the breakups of Czechoslovakia and the USSR, which I believe went relatively well. I should be clear that I'm not saying Russia is not fucked up right now, but that has more to do with the sudden onslaught of anarchocapitalism than it does with Latvians deciding that they wanted their own nation.

So, in summary, I'm not sure that your main assumption ("the general reaction is always the same: the breakup would be catastrophically bad thing") is accurate.
posted by Flunkie at 9:31 AM on September 16, 2007


Divorce isn't a great analogy, because the parties in the divorce are discreet entities, and it's easy to tell where one ends and another begins. That's not usually true with nations. When you partition a nation along lines of ethnicity or religion, you usually end up with people who live in the region that is associated with the "wrong" group. And that can lead to bad things like mass expulsions or minority populations who aren't seen to be legitimate members of the nation. There's also often lots of disputed territory, which can lead to nasty wars and ethnic cleansing and other bad, deadly stuff. I'm not saying that this happens every time a nation breaks up, but it's happened often enough to be serious cause for concern. It's more likely to happen where there aren't clear boundaries between the regions that are going to split up or a history of respect for minorities and commitment to human rights. I suspect that Canada could pull it off a lot more easily than Iraq could.
posted by craichead at 9:32 AM on September 16, 2007


Splitting Canada around Quebec would leave some of the Eastern provinces marooned.
posted by smackfu at 9:34 AM on September 16, 2007


Splitting Canada around Quebec would leave some of the Eastern provinces marooned.
There are several existing nations for which this is an issue, including the United States of America.

I am not saying that there wouldn't be issues with a breakup of Canada. I'm not even saying that a breakup of Canada would be good. I'm saying that it wouldn't be catastrophic.
posted by Flunkie at 9:37 AM on September 16, 2007


I've thought about it a lot; I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing as such. But it can lead to unpleasant consequences. For example:

1) Economic disparities between separated regions can cause big problems for the regions and neighbors. Croatia and Slovenia were traditionally the economic powerhouses of the former Yugoslavia. There was strong motivation on their part to split from the "money drain" republics of Montenegro, Macedonia, Serbia and Bosnia, who took money from them in larger part than they contributed (in essence; I'm simplifying a bit.) End result was panic on the part of Serbia, who had disproportionate control of the Yugoslav Army. Thus, a series of wars, which affected Bosnia (caught in the middle geographically, and with more of a mixed population) more than any of the primary parties, Croatia and Slovenia. (When Croatia and Serbia originally started fighting, the joke was, why isn't Bosnia in the war? The answer: It's advanced directly to the finals.) I'm from Bosnia and could go on about this for days. I lost most of my family, and I often wonder whether the dissolution of Yugoslavia was good or not. More than a decade after the war, things are very unsettled and many believe another war is inevitable - due in part to a horrific "peace plan."

2) The difficulties of minorities stuck in the "wrong" region. Loads of examples, but many decades after Pakistan and India split, Muslims and Hindus stuck in (respectively) India and Pakistan suffer discrimination, attacks and riots and whatnot.
I've just come from Romania, where the Hungarians (who largely developed the cultural and material infrastructure) still hold on to their identity and language strongly, but also suffer ridiculous discrimination and intolerance - and that's an EU state.

3) Implications for nearby states. Turkey and Iran certainly loathe the idea of an independent Kurdish state from what is now Iraq. Because the US and Turkey are relatively strong allies, and the US extends a lot of leeway to Turkey as one of our few true nominally Muslim allies, the US government is biased against partition of Iraq for this reason. Also, we would be empowering "enemy" states such as Iran, which would have a dependable ally in one of the Iraq mini-states. (America's fault, in my opinion, for supporting the Shah and his father, which led to what was once a fairly progressive country becoming an enemy, but . . .)

All said, though - power to the people. I also believe that functional democracy becomes fairly impossible once countries reach a certain size - one of the reasons that lobbies have more power in America than public sentiment.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 9:38 AM on September 16, 2007 [3 favorites]


If you read the Canadian Supreme Court decision on Quebec secession, you'll see that the democracy issue is pretty well addressed--that's why we keep having referendums. (IAAC)

One major problem with Quebec seceding is that it would literally cut the country in half. The Atlantic provinces would be physically separated from the rest of Canada. Then there's the fact that the aboriginal groups don't want to leave, since the federal government is the lesser of two evils when it comes to dealing with government for them. Also, it would require massive relocating of infrastructure.

India/Pakistan was a similar problem, because there were initially TWO Pakistans (Bangladesh) and when people migrating to East Pakistan reached it near the partition deadline, they found it's borders closed and had to cross the widest part of India to reach the other Pakistan. The deadline passed, everyone started massacring everyone, and so on.

Countries that are small enough for a relatively fast population movement (e.g. Israel) would presumably not have these problems. As for Iraq, I have the impression that the three areas being considered (i.e. Sunni Iraq, Shi'ite Iraq, and Kurdish Iraq) are demographically and geographically relatively homogeneous and could be partitioned. The problem is pockets of other groups in these areas, which would have to be mutually accepted or moved. See this demographic map.

Also, countries need minimum amount of industry, natural resources, etc. If a state is partitioned, some of the new states may be left holding the short end of the stick in that regard. Also if there have been forcible movement of populations in the past, some groups may be denied (easy) access to sites of religions and/or historical importance.
posted by sarahkeebs at 9:40 AM on September 16, 2007


Much of what I wrote above was answered while I was writing about it. I would like to point out that Slovakia's "Velvet divorce" has caused problems for its minority populations of the Roma and Hungarians, which would have been buffered in a united Czechoslovakia (somewhat.) There is a big economic disparity between the Flemish and Walloon parts of Belgium, plus a large German population which would become disenfranchised.

I understand what Spaceman Spiff says about Berlin, but that wasn't a wished-for split. And even between the contentious states of Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia, border crossings do not cause any real problems.
posted by Dee Xtrovert at 9:42 AM on September 16, 2007


People have ties to their land. If you're a Shiite and you're living in a majority Sunni area, you would have to leave your home. That creates a lot of instability and hostility. You also have to divide natural resources, which gets messy. Division also means accepting failure, which is a third rail in politics.
posted by HotPatatta at 9:43 AM on September 16, 2007


On the international scale, the fear is generally precedence. Although in international law there are suggestions of a right of self-determination of peoples (i.e. one part of a country declaring itself separate from the rest of the country) but in practice -- or, more specifically, in the legal sense -- this doesn't happen.

Many, many countries' borders do not enclose a region that is homogeneous, either in peoples or in resources. Italy, for example, has always traditionally had a rich North that resembles other wealthy European countries while the South has always traditionally been poor. Most Italians would not like it to be divided up, but there were a few separatist movements in the 90s--the most popular party being, I think, Lega Nord (the Northern League).

If Italy had been broken up, it would probably not have been catastrophic for the North but it would have been for the South.

Even in the most "capitalistic" countries, states themselves are effectively socialist in a way, in that they gather the wealth from the entire nation and then generally redistribute it evenly (although sometimes of course goverments play regional favorites, so some areas get more money than others).

As imperfect as the nation-state is, it is the system we currently have in place and it's relatively stable. If we allowed breakups in Canada, Belgium, and Iraq it would only be the tip of the ice berg.

There are also so many questions raised as to under what circumstances a country could break apart. For example, in the case of Quebec's movements towards separation a Canadian court (think it was the Supreme Court of Canada but not entirely sure) argued that although in theory a right to self-determination might exist in cases in which a given people or region were entirely disenfranchised (and thus, it is has been argued, that state in a sense "loses" its right to territorial integrity) this was not the case in Canada -- special allowance made for the province, as well as the simple fact that the citizens in Quebec are amply represented in the government, have a say in their government, and even afforded special linguistic considerations (all other provinces of Canada must post signs, etc. in both languages, while Quebec posts in French only) all mean that their "rights to internalself-determination" are being provided without the need to resorting to "external self-determination."

According to more traditional international law scholars, no real right to external self-determination currently exists. They argue that the Declaration on Friendly Relations and Co-Operations Among States was discussing self-determination of peoples within the context of colonization only. Non-traditionalists, I guess you'd call them, point to more recent international judgements to suggest that, in the context of a state that specifically violates the self-determination of a people within its country -- Tibet and former East Timor both come to mind -- international law suggests a right to external self-determination, i.e. seccession. Whether this will ever happen legally is doubtful. In the case of East Timor, for example, the ballot question that formally decided the free status of East Timor stated not "Do you wish to break free from/separate from Indonesia" but rather "Do you wish to join up with Indonesia" (obviously these are not exact quotes, but the sentiment is accurate), with a vote of "No" actually being a vote for seccession. Never mind that for 20 something (?) years East Timor had been a de facto part of Indonesia. [Drew 2001]

Okay, I've gone on way to long. The point is that there is a wealth of excellent material on the self-determination of peoples, particularly in the field of International Law. If you get your hands on any international law textbook there will be an entire chapter (or two) on self-determination, which is also somewhat informed by a look at the recognition of States in international law.

Oh, and again just to reiterate. The breakups of Canada and Belgium would be catastrophically bad not in and of themselves (which, ironically, is almost an argument against seccession in and of itself -- why secede if the results are not remarkable?) but the precedent set would be unbelievably bad. It would open the sluice gates to the dissolution of a vast majority of nations. As bad as it can sometimes be, territorial integrity is probably better than a world filled with warring city-states.
posted by Deathalicious at 9:44 AM on September 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


IANAIL (IANA International Law-er) but I did take an excellent course taught by Catriona Drew (cited above) who was fairly obsessed with the subject of self-determination, very possibly because she is Scottish. Although, as she lamented, while everyone else was seeing the introduction of a Scottish parliament as a move towards Scottish independence, she pointed out that in fact by strengthening the Scots' internal self-determination it was making it harder for them to argue for actual external self-determination according to precedents set by international law.
posted by Deathalicious at 9:49 AM on September 16, 2007


There's no general principle involved in this; it's all about the specific context. Recall that the breakup of Czechoslovakia was peaceful and, apparently, quite successful. The Czech Republic and Slovakia get alone fine with each other and with everyone else. On the other hand, the breakup of Yugoslavia has been bloody and painful.

What you have to worry about is the "Treaty of Versailles" effect: whether the treaty/situation you create today will cause wars tomorrow. If there is any more ill-conceived and misbegotten "peace" treaty in history than the Treaty of Versailles, I don't know what it is. It pretty much guaranteed a renewal of war in Europe.

A breakup of Iraq into three pieces would have that kind of potential.

First, if it was broken up into three sections, more or less along partisan lines, it would leave the Sunnis without any of the oil fields. The Shiites and Kurds would be rich, the Sunnis would not be -- and they'd be pissed.

Second, a Shiite south becomes a constant target for takeover and political intrigue by Shiite Iran. It also serves as an Iranian proxy base for operations against the Kurds, the Iraqi Sunnis, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.

Third, an independent Kurdistan would constantly be at war with Syria, Turkey, and/or Iran, because there are restive Kurdish populations right across all three of those borders, and considerable sympathy for them in Iraqi Kurdistan.

So a three-way break up of Iraq leads to the following wars: Sunni west against Shiite south (attempted conquest to gain control of oil). Iran into Shiite south (acquisition/destabilization). Shiite south against Sunni west (Iranian aggression by proxy). Iran versus Kurdistan. Turkey versus Kurdistan. Syria versus Kurdistan. Sunni west against Kurdistan (attempted reconquest to gain control over oil).

If the Sunnis get screwed this way, they also become fertile territory for a resurgence of al Qaeda, and the potential is there for Syrian intrigue and proxying.

Moreover, a clean break is non-trivial, because there's a lot of mixing in some of the major cities. Who gets Baghdad? Whichever it is, they end up with a big minority population from the other two sections who will constantly cause trouble. And Mosul (which probably ends up controlled by the Kurds) has a big Sunni population.

A three-way breakup of Iraq leads to decades of bloody war. No matter what you think of our involvement in Iraq, that particular outcome is just about the worst imaginable.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 9:54 AM on September 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


I've thought for a long time now that it comes from our monkey brains defining territory as a thing. That is, a civil war (not a war of secession (as in the US case)) tends to be fought by people who squabble over control of "a country", and would view breaking it up as appeasement of the exact current problem in "their country" (i.e. their enemies). So, the Iraqis fighting, I imagine, think something along the lines of, "Those damn Shiites are keeping me down, I'ma squash them and free Iraq for all Sunni."

Think of it in anthropological terms, or primatology, and you'll find it easier to imagine the process that blocks thoughts of apportioning land and sovereignty.

The other issue, especially as relates to US policy, might relate to the US desire to continue to control Iraq as a strategic partner/money sink. They probably think it easier to justify continued control of a single geopolitical region than to justify it of two, especially if they coexist semi-peacefully and request diplomatically that the US get the fuck out of their business.
posted by Netzapper at 10:00 AM on September 16, 2007


Deathalicious: "(all other provinces of Canada must post signs, etc. in both languages, while Quebec posts in French only)"

This is not true. At best it's an extreme oversimplification. The subject is very emotional and contentious so misinformation definitely doesn't serve Canadians well.

Canada is officially bilingual. Canadian/federal government services must be provided in French and English. This is true in all provinces and territories, though the practical reality of it varies from region to region.

Only one province is officially bilingual -- New Brunswick. There, provincial services must be provided in both languages.

All other provinces are officially unilingual -- all English-speaking except Quebec. In the English-speaking provinces, provincial services are sometimes provided in other languages, but are only required to be provided in English. In Quebec, officially they only require provincial services to be provided in French (Bill 101).

I've lived in six provinces of ten, am from New Brunswick originally and live in Quebec for 6+ years and I'd be very surprised to get service in French in Red Deer, Alberta, but I'd be very surprised to not be able to get service in English in Quebec. At most in Quebec, dealing with the province as an Anglophone can be inconvenient.

You may have been referring to Quebec's signage law, whereby signs (such as on stores) must be posted in French. They can be posted in other languages as well, but the French words must be the largest/most prominent.
posted by loiseau at 10:24 AM on September 16, 2007


"While their stories are widely different, the general reaction is always the same: the breakup would be catastrophically bad thing.

"Why? Is it simply the force of patriotism?"


One reason is the larger the country the more stable things are. Like insurance a catastrophe in one region can be handled by contributions form another region. The boom out west is helping the goverment handle the downturn in central Canada. And the larger the country the more diverse the resource base.

smackfu writes "Splitting Canada around Quebec would leave some of the Eastern provinces marooned."

It's not at all clear that secessionist Quebec would include northern Quebec. There are both pre and post scenarios that see that land staying with Canada. Considering the hydro resources it'll be a real battle royal if it gets to that.
posted by Mitheral at 10:46 AM on September 16, 2007


loiseau: "All other provinces are officially unilingual -- all English-speaking except Quebec."

Sorry, I just realised I meant to say the are de facto uninlingual. Quebec and NB are the only two provinces with legislated official languages.
posted by loiseau at 10:46 AM on September 16, 2007


Countries don't like it because what's stopping other countries from doing the same, and then you lose tax base, you lose strategic resources and you lose influence. The same could be said for secessionist city states.
posted by furtive at 11:04 AM on September 16, 2007


A while ago, I went to the troubled areas of Belfast for the first time.

Like a lot of people, I'd heard a lot about "Catholic Areas" and "Protestant Areas" and vaguely wondered why they couldn't just stay out of each others areas.

When you actually get there though, an area might be just two or three streets: maybe 200 yards long and 40 yards wide. It will be separated from the next area by a Peace Wall: a high steel fence, closed at night in troubled periods to stop people killing their neighbours in the next area.

It may sound like a great idea in theory to resolve conflicts by splitting territory into smaller units. But where exactly do you stop splitting?
posted by TheophileEscargot at 12:34 PM on September 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


Rah-rah Quebec secessionists and "it won't be a catastrophe" observers often miss the trees for the forest. Secession creates a brand-new sovereign nation, with all the rights that it entails.

Two minutes of brainstorming raises all sorts of sticky situations ... Quebec would be able to ...

* Print money
* Raise an army
* Enter into treaties and trade agreements
* Dump toxic waste
* Change its intellectual property laws
* Dismantle the famed Canadian health care policy
* Close its borders
* Open its borders
* Go nuclear

All of which has serious implications for its neighbors.

And oh yeah ... Canada can do all of the above, in direct opposition to the newly formed nation of Quebec!

Imagine Quebec secedes ... and the United States favors Canada in a trade deal that costs Quebec trillions in Quebec dollars. Remember, we're talking about a G8 country here, not the Czechs and Slovaks. Quel d├ęsastre!

The Czechs and Slovaks had a much easier go at this, because the economic stakes were not as high, and unity was essentially thrust upon them by external forces. Canadian secession wouldn't be a catastrophe, in that militants wouldn't take to the streets (or would they?). But the economic and personal shocks would be enormous and potentially catastrophic in their own special ways.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 12:48 PM on September 16, 2007 [1 favorite]


I think minority rights are the biggie. I might (hypothetically) have lived on the Pac coast my whole life & fit in pretty well with dominant Seattle values. However I could move to say Texas or the deep south and have expectations that I would still be in America. I could continue to participate in the national political process & take advantage of national policies which might not reflect the will of my locality or neighbors. I'm not going to be OK with secession. I would consider it a big problem even if my neighbors vote for it.

Imagine this on a smaller scale, suppose you buy a house on a block full of nuts. Fine, they're nuts but you can get along & besides there's only so much they can do to you. Can they secede and take you with them by majority vote?

Then again, FWIW IMHO international "law" is a joke.
posted by Wood at 4:11 PM on September 16, 2007


Many parties in Flanders pushing for secession are unabashedly racist and anti-immigrant. They want to split so they can have their crazy enforced monoculture policies enacted. Since many people want to split for the reasons listed above, these parties gain support.

Damn, this must be some dangerous country I live in. I'd never have known it.

As far as I know, there's one racist party in Belgium, which is indeed Vlaams Belang. Their lates election results have been disappointing, and the general consensus is that they're over the hill.

N-VA is also a 'separatist' (or confederalist) party, but it is in a voting cartell with CD&V, the long time power party in Flanders, and by no means racist. The newly formed Lijst Dedecker isn't "unabashedly racist and anti-immigrant" either, although they are certainly on the right of the wing. Compared to any US political candidate, though, every one of these parties/politicians except Vlaams Belang is a pinko communist. The devolution of powers that they want to see, would give Flanders and Wallonia still less power than any of the American states. How's that for separatism?

The French speaking part of Belgium has been ruled by the same party (Parti Socialiste) for decades. Being in power so long has had a corrupting influence on the morals: there has been one scandal after another in Wallonia (especially in public housing projects), and generally, there has not been a policy of innovation or entrepreneurial climate. The PS seems to think that "more people out of work" equals "more socialists".

That (and not racism, which is just as rampant in poor towns in Wallonia as in poor towns in Flanders, by the way) is the great cultural divide between Flanders and Wallonia.

The fact that you claim that Flanders = racist, phrontist, is a sign that you've only been reading English language newspapers, which base their understanding of Belgium exclusively on French speaking press (like Le Soir, which could well be tagged as an "unabashedly anti-Flemish" newspaper). Rant over.
posted by NekulturnY at 12:36 AM on September 17, 2007 [1 favorite]


The international press is a little amusing on the topic of Belgium. Belgians are generally not alarmed at the difficulty they're having forming a coalition since the last election. There is no majority of Flemish seeking separation.

There is resentment over some things, like Brussels being, in fact, a Flemish city (historically) yet severely Francophone. Even my partner takes pleasure in refusing to use his fluent French, in Brussels, and he otherwise despises the separatists. The only folks I ever heard complain about the language of the royal family were Vlaams Belang, on some nasty website. The fact is, the king (a Hapsburg) is viewed as a point of unity (which could change, as his sons are seen as unsuited).

As for "international law", I don't see any reason why Iraqis or Belgians should consider themselves any more beholden to it than, say, the United States.
posted by Goofyy at 7:04 AM on September 19, 2007


« Older Mystery Girl   |   Searching for Mantegna & Other Images online... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.