Cafe Babel Sofia /en/

Post-Lisbon Period: Who Pulls the Strings on the European Foreign Policy?

Babel Sofia — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 22:14:00 +0200

The Treaty of Lisbon introduces two important elements into the institutional architecture of the European Union – the figure of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the European External Action Service that will assist the High Representative.

Besides those two, the Treaty creates the post of the Permanent President of the Council of the European Union. To establish more coherencies, the EU Delegations in third countries have been transformed from Delegations of the European Commission to Delegations of the European Union. The political will behind those changes was to achieve a more clear and united voice of the EU on the global stage as well as to stress its visibility on a political level. Moreover, all those institutions has to insure that Europe can “speak with one voice”.

Despite the fact that the Treaty of Lisbon introduced a series of important legal, institutional and structural changes, some of them are being questioned on numerous occasions. For instance, before the entering into force of the Treaty of Lisbon, the European Community and the European Union had different statues. The Treaty of Lisbon put to an end this dual system and has given the EU a single legal personality. One of the shortcomings of the Treaty was, that it did not change the division of powers between the EU and the Member States in particular areas of EU activity. In many areas of external relations, Member States continue to have full power to define representation rules to external parties.

However, in practical terms, this switch is/was not so easy to be put in place. At present, in some international organizations the EU Delegation has a statute of an observer in comparison with the time before the Treaty of Lisbon. Before the Treaty of Lisbon, the rotation presidency of the European Union had the possibilities to make statements thanks to the statues of the nations. In the post-Lisbon period, the EU has a statute of an observer in the UN General Assembly. In 2010, the Union tried to make an attempt to have a resolution giving her a different status. This was possible only a year latter when a resolution was passed in the UN General Assembly, granting the EU delegation at the UN the right to speak on behalf of the EU.

It was the UK that pointed out a few months later during a meeting of Heads of Missions in Geneva the need of adding “and the member states” in the introduction of the statements made by the EU. Following the discussions, it was decided during meetings to be used the “WE” meaning “the EU and its member states”. The Geneva case turned to be an example duplicated in many other cases where the legal nature of the EU established with the Treaty of Lisbon prevents the organization to state for itself. In a number of international forums the EU couldn’t declare positions and to speak ‘with one voice’ in international organisations such as the UN and the OSCE. With the intervention of the Polish Presidency, an agreement was reached among Member States, the European Commission and the European External Action Service on how EU statements are delivered in international organisations.

The EU is trying to become a more important player and lead a common foreign policy. On the other hand, the European External Action Service is a new model of diplomacy but needs recognition as a real diplomatic service in the formal sense of the word first of all from within the Union. The Treaty of Lisbon gives the instrument but then it is the will of the member states to achieve a common foreign and security policy. As seen from the case above, the EU can have one common policy but based on long compromised among the member states. It takes time those compromises to take place.

Hristiana Grozdanova is a member of the Atlantic Council’s Young Atlanticist NATO Working Group.

Dealing with the Past, Winning the Future Implementing Intelligence Reform in Libya

Babel Sofia — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:39:00 +0200

Since the end of the hostilities that led to the ousting of Muammar Qaddafi, Libya has been undergoing a post-authoritarian political transition. Although the internal drive for reforms is present, it remains unclear whether this transition will be successful. To guarantee such an outcome, the country needs to embark on substantial reforms. Among those, the implementation of extensive and successful reforms of the security sector (SSR) is particularly important.

In this context, the reform of the intelligence services is a vital type of first-generation SSR. If poorly implemented it may prevent the transition of the entire sector. To be successful, this process should be long-term, public and transparent. In addition, it should be considered a priority.

* The Experience of the past

To offer guidelines on intelligence reforms to a country as unique and complex as Libya, one should search for valuable lessons from the closest matching region – the Western Balkans (Western Balkans is a term used to describe countries occupying the territory of former communist Yugoslavia that was violently dissolved in the nineties. Slovenia is usually counted out, while Albania, which was never a Yugoslav republic, is often included in the term. However, in this paper we will not be analyzing Croatia and Albania as they did not “host” NATO peacekeeping forces on their territory and they are both already full member states of the Alliance.). The reasons for such a comparison are many. All Western Balkan countries are post-authoritarian, whether or not the dictatorship occurred during or during and after communist rule. Furthermore, most of them experienced internal violence, some even colliding with international forces.

The degree of success of the intelligence reforms in the Western Balkans varied between the different countries. In Macedonia—only a few of the reforms were publicized and a little was done to improve the image of the intelligence sector among the public. In Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), the unification of two intelligence services under one state-level institution (the Intelligence and Security Organization) in 2004 represented great challenge due to political sensitivities and mistrust between the agencies, as well as because of their links to war criminals. In the case of BiH, the EU relied on conditionality to accelerate the reforms of the intelligence sector, using negotiations on the Stabilisation and Association Agreement as a carrot to encourage and accelerate reform. Serbia and Montenegro’s experience can also teach a great deal about intelligence reforms by emphasizing the importance of personnel clean-up. In the Serbian and Montenegrin case, clean-up allowed to handle personnel with loyalties to the previous regime, to deal with internal resistance to reforms, as well as to address pre-existing relations between intelligence services and organized criminal groups.

* The way forward

However, applying the lessons of the WB to Libya is a daunting challenge, as the country itself is still far from stable. Libya is highly fragmented internally —with competing tribal loyalties taking precedence over national identity—and lacks strong and functional central political institutions. In this sense, one of the toughest challenges of the National Transition Council (NTC) is to assert authority over tribes, cities, and provinces which had basically relied on self-ruling over the past four decades and which are now resisting attempts to bring about a measure of national centralized control.

Weak central government, proliferation of armed groups and militias, and widespread internal divisions and instability make lagged SSR unsurprising. This seems to be specifically the case when referring to reforms of the intelligence sector. It seems that little to no progress has been achieved in terms of rebuilding Libya’s intelligence sector.

However, rebuilding the secret services and bringing the previously highly insular and secretive intelligence sector under the civilian control of the NTC would be a crucial step in the right direction.

* Steps not to be missed

Until the collapse of the previous regime, the Libyan secret services were closely associated with Qaddafi and, as such, the new authority faces the monumental challenge of rebuilding them completely, while bringing them, in parallel, under civilian democratic control. At the moment, the NTC has not made public any restructuring plan.

However, as the Western Balkan cases demonstrated, to be effective, secret services reforms should be conducted openly and transparently. The lack of publicly available information on Libyan secret services and their reforms (if already started) is not only discouraging but also clearly points out the first shortcoming of the SSR process.

In addition to openness, transparency, and involvement of the civil society, the focus should be also on including personnel clean-up, followed by a national process to deal with the archives and the information collected by the previous regime. This allows the transformation the secret services from a tool of the regime to a tool of the new state and its people protection.

Equally important, Libya should establish a solid framework to define roles and responsibilities of the new intelligence sector. This will serve as a guide to shape and place boundaries on the mandate of the intelligence services both within and outside the country. Such normative framework should not only clarify the mandate of the intelligence services, but it should also establish effective civil democratic control over this institution, in particular parliamentary oversight on their activities. The normative framework should also be in line with international human rights standards.

A new organizational structure for the intelligence services is also needed. Special attention should be paid to boosting the professionalism and experience of the personnel. The political authorities should invest time and political capital in recruiting and training. At the same time, in a sharply internally divided society like the Libyan one, it will be important for the new intelligence sector to rely on personnel that represents all the main internal tribal groups.

As a last point, receiving international support and assistance will also represent a step in the right direction. In the BiH case, there are studies praising the support received from Slovenia and Hungary and its role in helping the BiH SSR process. Both Hungary and Slovenia had previously experienced similar problems while reforming their own intelligence sectors, and therefore they were effective when assisting BiH in its own post-conflict transition. In the case of Libya, collaborating with international actors can be similarly beneficial.

To conclude, Libya is undergoing a particularly complex and difficult time, and its transitional success depends on the country being able to successfully implement a number of substantial reforms. Among those, rebuilding and reconfiguring of the intelligence sector is of utmost importance. This challenge should not be overlooked and postponed to a later stage of the post-revolutionary phase, as its success is deeply connected to the overall successful transition of the security sector and society as a whole.

***

Benedetta Berti is a fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies, a lecturer at Tel Aviv University, and the coauthor of the forthcoming book, “Hamas and Hezbollah: A Comparative Study” (Johns Hopkins University Press 2012).

Gonca Noyan is a PhD candidate at the University of Illinois at Chicago and the co-founder & social media coordinator of Soft Power TR.

Hristiana Grozdanova is an EU policy advisor, working on issues related to Common Foreign and Security Policy of the EU.

Jelena Petrovic is a PhD candidate at War Studies Dpt, King's College London specializing in conditionality policy, NATO enlargement and security developments in the Western Balkans.

Benedetta, Gonca, Hristiana, and Jelena are members of the Atlantic Council’s Young Atlanticist NATO Working Group

East Sights on the West Side

Babel Sofia — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 11:13:00 +0200

Imagine that you are responsible for taking an important decision that will change the life of thousands of people.

Imagine that you are not alone in taking this decision. There are 26 fellows that should have exactly the same opinion on the topic you have to decide.

Now, imagine that you have promised something not that long ago and it is hard to take a step back.

The conference "East Sights on the West Side", organized by Cafe Babel Sofia, put on the table the debate for the future enlargement of the European Union. The aim was to gather as many different points of view as Cafe Babel could. This debate was part of the Orient Express Reporter project of Cafebabel, co-funded by the European Union and in partnership with Allianz Kulturstiftung and Fondation Hippocrène.

And we did it. Around the table there were a head of unit in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, well-known sociologist, director of a NGO with specific focus on enlargement, researcher and practitioner in the region. Each of them presented the topic of enlargement from a different perspective.

"What we want is a fully integrated region. Provided that they fulfill the EU criteria for accession." said Emilia Kraleva, Head of Unit at theMinistry of Foreign Affairs. She paid attention to the practical side of becoming a EU member state - the long way of the negotiation process.

"We are on the point where the referendum in Croatia on their accession might be negative. On the other hand, the EU is ready to accept them" added Jean-Arnault Dérens, Director of the Courrier des Balkans. He analyzed the complexity of the topic - the reality is not black and white and the enlargement is not one-way street.

Dragomir Yordanov is Director of the National Institute of Justice. Based on his two years experience as a judge in Kosovo, He explained how hard is application of the law in the newly state in Europe. He pointed that the reform of the judicial system could take time but it is a vital process for the citizens and for the state itself.

Francesco Martino is an Italian working as journalist in Bulgaria for the Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso. He wants the enlargement to become a reality but at the same time he is afraid that the European Union institutions took restrictive measures for the Western Balkan countries. Double standard said he and explains how important is for the young people in those countries to have visa liberalization so they could travel freely.

Antonyi Galabov was the last to speak drawing a parallel between the EU and previously existed unions. He underlined that the unions themselves are not good or bad but when building a union one should take into account the specifics of every state. Specifics hidden in their history, past and future.

By the end of the debate, Cafe Babel Bulgaria had nothing more to add. We think that we should speak about the enlargement so to make it happen. We were proud to host the discussion in the beginning of the summer even realizing that in the middle of the student’s term we probably won’t get much of attention. This time. Because we will keep on trying to rise the voice on this important topic. Next step. Enlargement. Future.

Hristiana Grozdanova

Cafe Babel Sofia

Hristiana@gmail.com

The Story of Coffee

Babel Sofia — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 09:34:00 +0200

Since seeing cafes full with people drinking coffee in the middle of the workday I arrived in Bulgaria, I keep suspecting that Bulgarian economy and society are very much kafence-driven. Not only here, though, coffee isn’t just a beverage or commodity. Coffee has influenced societies throughout history, and the impact on Muslims and Christians is revealingly similar.

Coffee (just like Christianity) came to change Europe from the East. From Arabic comes the word qahwah that entered Turkish as kahve, which then gave birth to the European words for coffee: kawa in Polish, koffie in Dutch and kave in Hungarian.

The coffee tree originated in Africa, around present-day Ethiopia. As other contemporary Africans, Ethiopians probably boosted their energy with balls of coffee and animal fat and took time out with wine from coffee-berry pulp. Then, the plant was domesticated and taken to Yemen and until the end of the 17th century Yemen provided almost all the world coffee supply.

Coffee penetrated the Ottoman Empire from conquered Egypt and Hejaz (region of Saudi Arabia) in the early 16th century. The drink, brought by the merchants trading with the Ottomans, officially entered Europe through Venice in 1615. From Venice, then European trading headquarters, coffee and coffeehouses spread to the rest of Italy. London merchant Edwards brought coffee to England in 1652, again from the Ottoman Empire, and in a few years the city consumed more coffee than any other. The Austrians, according to a legend, discovered coffee with the help of interpreter Georg Franz Kolschitzky who taught them how to use several tons of green coffee left by Ottomans nearby Vienna after the 1683 siege. Soon the Viennese actively engaged in drinking coffee and commemorated Kolschitzky with a memorial.

Among both Muslims and Christians, coffee was seen as an alternative to alcohol. Muslim societies, prohibited from intoxicants by a number of Qur’ānic verses, appreciated the invigorating effect of coffee beans. Arab warriors believed that aromatic breads from dried and toasted coffee beans, with butter and salt, would help them fight better. In Yemen, the state officials at first promoted drinking coffee or chewing coffee beans as an alternative to chewing stimulating and addictive khat plant, still used, but illegal, today. In Europe, while the new drink was widely seen as a substitute for spirits, drinks stronger than coffee were also consumed in coffeehouses.

As for coffee’s health effects, if was seen interchangeably as a powerful medicine and a harmful substance. At the beginning of the second millennium C.E., Avicenna proclaimed coffee a medicine. Yet once “half the Cairo Medical Association stood up on its hind legs and told the grand vizier that coffee was responsible for all diseases from athlete's foot to zymosis.” In Europe, coffee was often sold next to lemonade by vendors and believed to have a positive health effect. Still, in Germany doctors warned women against coffee as dangerous for bearing children. Clergymen also attacked it, as the drink of infidels. They accepted coffee only when, the legend goes, Pope Clement VIII tried it and became fond of the drink, thus “baptizing” it.

For both Christians and Muslims, a coffeehouse was really the first place of its sort: socialization, business and entertainment altogether for the price of a coffee cup. Lloyd’s, world leading insurance market, started as a London coffeehouse. In fact, most of the old London clubs are descendants of coffeehouses because different layers of the society had their own coffee drinking places. While European coffeehouses were purely secular institutions, Iranian coffeehouses could host sermons and narrations of mullahs or dervishes—but it was acceptable to ignore to them.

Coffeehouses quickly became hubs of political activity. A common question to ask on entering an old English coffeehouse was “Which is the treason table?” Charles II, king of England, eventually banned coffeehouses, but the widespread opposition made him reopen them in a week. Sultan Selim II, Ottoman emperor, prohibited coffee shortly after it was introduced in his land. In both cases the prohibition campaigns on coffee or coffeehouses were brief and “tended to peter out as the initial moral ardor waned or was deflected by bribery,” or simply called off once the tax revenues fell too much.

Coffee largely shaped the modern perception of the night as a time not only for rest, but also for activity. The prolific French writer Voltaire is said to have enjoyed 50 coffee cups a day. Only later, in the 1800s, enormous Brazilian harvests of energizing beans turned coffee from an exquisite beverage to an everyday drink.

The history of coffee and coffeehouses has also been a tale of global trade and international relations. For instance, coffee popularity dramatically shrank in England when tea successfully took on the lands of English-dominated Sri Lanka (Ceylon before 1972). Today at least for 25 million farming families in 50 countries the evergreen plant is the major source of income. In 1963, International Coffee Organization was established under the auspices of the United Nations in order to regulate the voluminous coffee market. Still, global deregulation, technological innovations and market tendencies bring instability to the small producers of coffee. That’s why Europeans, as important consumers of coffee, should make sure they get their coffee in the way that’s not harmful for economies, ecologies or societies of the countries-suppliers. And, meanwhile, give a thought to how the drink has shaped their cultures and lives.

Pictures: Ottoman coffee house from Yerasimos, Stephanie, Turkish Style (New York: Vendome Press, n.d.) / The CoffeeHous Mob Ned Ward, The CoffeeHous Mob, frontispiece to Part IV of Vulgus Britannicus, or the British Hudibras (London, 1710), the British Library.

Yulia Shenderovich

The Missing Link in the Eurozone Governance Debate

Vihar Georgiev — Thu, 27 May 2010 10:35:00 +0200

To me it is apparent that the debate is triangular – among the Commission, the ECB, and the European Council, leaving one player out. The European Parliament, that is.

The President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy proposed a “crisis cabinet”. He said that “there is not much hierarchy or organic links between the main players and the main institutions”. The idea is to include the European Comission President Jose Manuel Barroso, the head of the European Central Bank Jean-Claude Trichet and Mr Van Rompuy himself in this “crisis cabinet”.

At the same time the President of the European Commission called Germany’s plans on improving economic governance in the eurozone as “naïve”. He believes that any treaty reform is not feasible in the moment.

To me it is apparent that the debate is triangular – among the Commission, the ECB, and the European Council, leaving one player out. The European Parliament, that is.

In a way this is understandable. Any further integration of economic governance will encroach on state sovereignty. That is why it is essential to have sound support in the Member States for any further reform.

Then again, the weak conditionality of the Stability and Growth pact, as negotiated by the Member States, failed to perform. Any coordination mechanism short of Treaty reform will probably go the same way. We can see this in the conceptual disputes between Germany and France during the years and even today.

True, the EP did have a debate on economic governance coordination last week. But did it really influence the debate in the EU? Did it reach the European citizens? I am not so sure.

The dark scenario is political divergence rather then convergence. This may well be happening, given some unilateral steps made by Germany. But it should not surprise us – governments do calculate their own tactical interest, betting against the other participants in the currency union. In fact, history is full of such examples where currency unions dissolute due to political disagreement.

The European leaders seem to believe that they can “fix” the eurozone on an intergovernmental level with the support of the ECB, preferably without introducing Treaty reform. It would be great, but it is not possible.

That is why it would be much, much better if the European Parliament had a stronger voice in the debate. It is in the moment the only institution that can provide a forum for open deliberation of diverging political ideas for reform.

On a bitterer note – Member States may well circumvent the public discussion, but they will not fool the markets.

‘Roma’ Seminar in Sofia

Babel Sofia — Thu, 20 May 2010 12:52:00 +0200

The French and Italian Ambassadors- Mr. de Poncins and Mr. Benazzo initiated a campaign about the ‘roma’ problems in Bulgaria, which ended with a final round-table in the French Institute: “Roma in Bulgaria: Integration and Migrations”

The round table took a closer look on Sliven and its large ‘roma’ suburb “Nadejda”, where in more than ten years time since the famous “Democracy” in 1989, nothing has changed. There are no houses, most of the buildings are under construction, but five families normally share this kind of accommodation. There are often cuts of electricity, enormous wholes on the streets that need a lot to resemble an image of a regular European road. In these miserable conditions it is difficult for the parents to think about the future of their children and their education, which is obligatory until 16 years of age.

A major problem to reach the established ending age of education are the marriages of young ‘roma’ girls /12-13 years of age/, who are forced to quit school in order to take care of their children. Ms Miranda Vuolasranta, from the Finnish Roma Forum, claims that these marriages are not a tradition in the ‘roma’ societies, but evidently for all the rest of the ‘roma’ at least in Bulgaria, this is not the truth. Another major problem is acceptance and integration in nowadays Bulgarian society, which simply does not care and is unaware of the ‘roma’ problems, because the governors stay quiet and when somebody is to blame normally they point at the ‘roma’, which encourages racism and marginalization of every ‘roma’ representative. Some ‘roma’ parents do not want their children to go to a Bulgarian school as they themselves are not integrated in the Bulgarian society and their children, in their opinion, will not be either. Their Bulgarian counterparts do the same, when they are aware of the presence of ‘roma’ children in the class, they prefer to change the school of their children.

Even though, a great number of ‘roma’, who speak Bulgarian, remember the age of the communist regime, when ‘Roma’, ‘Turkish’, ‘Jewish’ and ‘Bulgarian’ children were going together to the schools and there was not an ethnical differentiation. These parents are conscious that they must be proactive, that they should not wait for somebody to come and give them a hand, but find a way themselves, through NGOs and well structured projects to ask funds for, like the creation of a public library or nursery schools, which will make the life of the society better one. Nevertheless, a priority is that they need to learn Bulgarian in order to integrate better and help their children in their studies and qualification. Here is a paradox: Bulgarian citizens-‘roma’minority, which as such has to preserve its identity, but as citizens of the country it is more than a necessity for them to speak the language.

Another topic is the education coming from the family and the examples these children have before stepping into the society, which often are not the best. An argument raised by Ms. Diana Kirilova, a PhD student in the Sorbonne University of ‘roma’ origin, was the teaching process in the Bulgarian schools and the ‘roma’ children marginalization inside the classes, as well as the inpreparation of the teachers in the Bulgarian schools. She talked about the number of students which in her opinion is elevated, she claimed 25 students per class, which is a normal number for every Bulgarian school and is not a reason for marginalization. The problem here is how to deal with ‘roma’ students, who are unable to speak Bulgarian and integrate them at the same level corresponding to their age with the other students. The obstacle is not the number of children, but the school organization for extra curricular classes and additional help. The preparation of the teachers is arguable as most of them have to pass a special training and studies before being hired. There was an interview with a ‘roma’ future teacher of children who claimed himself that he makes some grammatical and orthographical errors, but as he is ‘roma’ he did not count in the survey of Ms Kirilova. Another socially integrated ‘roma’ is Mr. Milen Milanov from the Ministry of Labour, who did not differ much from the average Bulgarian business and political elite in terms of conduct and diplomatical argumentation, which hides more than reveals. The representative of the Ministry of Education in this meeting was just a defenseless figure, who wasn’t able to answer any of these important quests as it was not in her power. The question is why the Ministry did not try to send somebody in power to put on the table valuable and needed solutions. Once again the Ministry ignores serious problems that is shameful not to take into account as European country. The only valuable contributions in this meeting were the presentations of Mr. Michel Guet, Council of Europe, with solutions and practical changes for the minority classes; Ms Vicari, Vice-prefect in Milan, with developed and used suggestions and examples, of how the Italian authorities deal with similar problems; and Dr. Olivier Adam, Doctors of the World, with a very sober point of view and concrete requests for the Bulgarian authorities of the unhealthy conditions the ‘roma’ have to live.

Check out the website of the documentary movie "La cité des Roms"

Kremina KIRILOVA

The Existential Crisis of the Euro – Where Did We Go Wrong?

Vihar Georgiev — Thu, 20 May 2010 10:56:00 +0200

I am not an economist. But the warnings against the current EU approach towards the eurozone crisis come from too many places.

The German government is on the forefront of an attempt to restrict the volatility of the euro exchange rate. First, the German financial regulator BaFin placed a unilateral ban on naked short-selling of eurozone sovereign debt instruments, with little effect. Second, Angela Merkel proposed a comprehensive reform of the stability and growth pact, with tougher rules of the game aiming to achieve one thing in particular: that member states bear the responsibility for a solid budget management. Third, Germany is hosting an international conference on financial market regulation in Berlin.

So far, so good. The markets, however, are not impressed. In fact, some analysts say that the euro may fall below parity with the dollar in the first quarter of 2011. The problem is that the decline in the euro may hurt demand for the region’s sovereign bonds in the year when new debt will be soaring.

The President of the eurogroup, Jean-Claude Juncker, says that foreign-exchange intervention isn’t an urgent issue.

One leg of the problem according to Proffessor Michel Aglietta, is that we have a solvency problem with Greece, not a liquidity problem. He says that the austerity program for Greece is a ticking bomb that could cost dearly to the whole European Union. He advocates for immediate restructuring of the Greek debt. He also says that the eurozone will not survive without a system for budgetary transfers among eurozone members. According to him the private sector is not capable to compensate for the draconian austerity measures in Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Italy.

Jan Kregel and Rob Parenteau outline the key aspects of the eurozone predicament using the financial balance approach developed by Wynne Godley. They say that the current attempt at “budgetary discipline” in peripheral eurozone members will lead to fiscal retrenchment, private income deflation, and rising private debt distress. They warn that IMF conditionality is bound to set off the twin contagion vectors of falling trade surpluses and rising bank loan losses in the core nations.

I am not an economist. But these warnings against the current EU approach towards the eurozone crisis come from too many places (for alternative ideas see Peter Bofinger and Stefan Ried, Avinash Persaud, and Paul De Grauwe). This issue is way too serious to be decided upon in a hurry.