View Full Version : The EU and Georgia: Treaty Gamesmanship
The European Union and Georgia
Treaty gamesmanship
Aug 21st 2008
From The Economist print edition
Not even the Lisbon treaty could create European unity over Russia
NICOLAS SARKOZY, the French president, has certainly had a busy war. Since France has the rotating European Union presidency, he and his foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, quickly zoomed off to Moscow and Tbilisi, where they brokered a six-point ceasefire plan signed by Georgia’s Mikheil Saakashvili and Russia’s Dmitry Medvedev. It was unfortunate that the Russians then ignored the requirement to pull their troops out of Georgia proper, but Mr Sarkozy had a response to this too: he threatened to call an EU summit.
Mr Sarkozy’s activism may be admirable, but not all the lessons he is drawing from the crisis are convincing. In an article in Le Figaro newspaper on August 18th, he proclaimed, first, that the EU had risen to the occasion, showing just how much it could do with enough political will. Second, he argued that it could have done better still if only the Lisbon treaty had been ratified, since it would create both a permanent president of the European Council and a beefed-up high representative for foreign policy.
(http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/main.economist.com/worldart;pos=v5_art350x300;sect=world;sz=350x300;tile=1;sect=europe;ord=98917381?)
Institutions matter, and there are good arguments for the Lisbon reforms to the EU’s foreign-policy machinery. But the notion that they would magically transform a deeply divided club into a single powerful force is belied not just by recent history (think of the wars in former Yugoslavia and Iraq) but by the Georgian crisis itself. Mr Sarkozy may have popped up in Tbilisi (as did Germany’s Angela Merkel, who earlier met Mr Medvedev in Sochi), but other EU leaders such as Britain’s Gordon Brown and Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi have been near-invisible.
Worse, the policy response from France, Germany and Italy has been diametrically opposite to that of Britain, Sweden and the east Europeans. The French and Germans, eager to preserve their links to Moscow, have tried to be neutral, while the Italians have blamed the entire war on Mr Saakashvili. The British, Swedes and most east Europeans have loudly condemned Russia’s aggression. So long as EU members hold such divergent views, no amount of institutional tinkering can ever create a forceful common foreign policy.
In any case, the chances of Lisbon taking effect soon are slim, since a looming recession makes it unlikely that the Irish will reverse the no vote they cast in June. In the meantime, the best response from the EU to a resurgent Russia would be to forge a common energy policy that liberalises the market, reduces dependence on gas imports and does away with cosy bilateral deals (see article (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11986026)). And the biggest obstacles to such a policy? None other than Mr Sarkozy’s France and Ms Merkel’s Germany.
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11986010
Pandemonium
08-25-2008, 04:23 PM
Well what choice do they have, the situation Europe is in is too critic to take position. Russia has us in his power, so we if we wan't to keep the oil comming we have to obey them, but the public opinion is pro-georgian, so we have have to play double
daily666
08-25-2008, 05:10 PM
Sad but true.
The cited article should also be posted about European Energy Security.
Energy security in Europe
Dependent territory
Aug 21st 2008
From The Economist print edition
The war in Georgia puts energy security back on Europe’s agenda
OFFICIALLY, the European Union is no more worried about the closure of two oil pipelines running through Georgia than are the world’s oil traders, who have so far shrugged off the news. After all, less than 3% of Europe’s oil imports come from Azerbaijan via Georgia, according to the European Commission, and none of its gas. The commission plans to do no more than “monitor the situation closely”.
http://media.economist.com/images/20080823/CEU783.gif
Yet the Eurocrats, complains one European diplomat, are not looking at recent events in the Caucasus “with their energy spectacles on”. Some of his colleagues certainly suspect that a principal Russian motive for invading Georgia was to highlight its vulnerability as a transit route for oil and gas. European countries have long dreamt of securing access to gas from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan through a pipeline that crosses Georgia. That route would bypass Russia, which controls all the existing pipelines between Central Asia and the EU, and so leave less of Europe’s gas supply at Russia’s mercy. At the very least, the war in Georgia has highlighted the region’s instability, and thus the difficulty of this plan.
Russia is easily the biggest supplier of oil and gas to the EU. It provided 38% of gas imports and 33% of oil imports last year. Some European countries—especially former Soviet republics and satellites—rely on Russia for virtually all their energy. The EU’s dependence will only grow, as its own production declines, along with that of its second-biggest supplier, Norway. By 2030, predicts the International Energy Agency, a watchdog for big energy consumers, Europe’s gas imports will have doubled—with much of the extra supply coming from Russia.
Russia has demonstrated its willingness to use oil and gas for political purposes on several occasions. In early 2006 it cut off the gas to Ukraine, which in turn siphoned off some supplies intended for countries such as Hungary and Italy. Russia has also cut off supplies of oil to Lithuania and gas to Belarus and Georgia. More recently, it cut by half the amount of oil it sends to the Czech Republic through the “Friendship” pipeline, in what many have interpreted as punishment for the Czechs’ willingness to host a radar base for America’s planned missile defences.
Despite much high-minded talk, Europe has responded to these events with indecision and division. Big energy firms in France, Germany and Italy, to name but three, have rushed to sign long-term contracts with Gazprom, Russia’s state-controlled gas giant, so as to secure their own supplies. There is also unseemly competition to sign up to Gazprom’s various pipeline schemes, while plans for alternatives that circumvent Russia languish.
Iran and Iraq both have gas to spare, but the EU is reluctant to do business with the first, because of its nuclear ambitions, and unable to do business with the second, because of its instability. It does not help that pipelines from either place, or from the Caspian, would have to cross Turkey, with whom Europe’s relations are getting frostier and Russia’s are getting warmer.
The commission would like to reduce individual countries’ vulnerability to supply interruptions by getting them to build more links between Europe’s largely separate national gas grids. To overcome the big gas companies’ reluctance to invest in pipelines that would expose them to more competition, the commission has suggested forcing them to sell their distribution networks. European governments hammered out a compromise, whereby firms could continue to own the network and sell the gas, as long as the two businesses are separately run. But the European Parliament has rejected this plan, leaving “unbundling” in limbo.
There is also talk of increasing imports of liquefied gas from farther afield. But the cost of building the necessary infrastructure has risen dramatically, and many proposed plants have run into planning problems. European governments might dust off such ideas again after the war in Georgia. In recent pow-wows, some observers have detected somewhat greater unity and resolve over Russia than before. There is also the comforting thought that the Soviet Union never cut supplies of gas to Europe throughout the cold war. Russia, after all, is almost as much at the mercy of the pipelines as the EU, in that it cannot easily send its gas anywhere else.
Kitsune
08-25-2008, 08:13 PM
Russia has us in his power, so we if we wan't to keep the oil comming we have to obey them, but the public opinion is pro-georgian, so we have have to play double.
With all due respect for your opinion...but are you crazy? We have to obey the Russians? The **** we have. Never! I rather sit in the dark than doing that. Besides, Russia needs out money as well, there are other countries in the world that sell that stuff, plus, we have the option to reduce our general dependency on oil and gas in the future if we make the smart choices now. If we build more power plants (and it would be very wise not to rule nuclear power plants here), we can achieve a lot in the foreseeable future. And we should start soon with this.
It is not certain yet, but if things get really bad, there might be a second Cold War ahead. If that should happen, we should keep one thing in mind, namely, who won the first one of those. In the end, the West will win the second one as well.
Russia has us in his power,...
Rubbish. Russia sells you a product. You buy the product. If it is OK for the west to use such relationships to influence their customers then it is perhaps time to stop trying to control Russia and perhaps they wont react. If the CIA hadn't spent billions on colour revolutions and just let the people decide for themselves perhaps the Russians might not feel so isolated.
...but don't listen to me... keep jabbing the bear with the stick... I am sure he wont bite you... bears are cuddly friendly animals from Disneyland that don't hurt humans... they just grumble when their porridge is too hot or too cold.
Well what choice do they have, the situation Europe is in is too critic to take position. Russia has us in his power, so we if we wan't to keep the oil comming we have to obey them, but the public opinion is pro-georgian, so we have have to play double
Really? Whenever I read comments on news websites they were mostly pro-S.Ossetian/Russian rather than georgian.
You're not "not obeying" Russia, you are just not interfering. Just like Russia has no say about Belgium's future.
Or maybe in Belgium, considering your country being almost broke in half, anything that has the word "independence" is burned with fire these days, for the sake of national unity?:)
http://media.economist.com/images/20080823/CEU783.gif
There is almost a correlation between energy dependence and anti-russian rhetoric :)
Telmar
08-26-2008, 03:15 AM
Not even all East Europeans agree.
Czech president Vaclav Klaus confirmed he does not agree with the Polish/Baltic position on the issue of Georgia.
Interesting as everybody goes "oh noes its 1938 or 1968!!!" that the President of the country that suffered the most from Munich and the warsaw Pact invasion wished to distance itself from those point of views.
"This cannot be compared. At the time, Czechoslovakia did not attack the Subcarpathian Rus, the invasion was not a reaction to our attack. [Czechoslovak reform communist leader Alexander] Dubcek was no [incumbent Georgian President Mikhail] Saakashvili," Klaus points out.
http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=328282http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=328282 (http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=328282http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=328282)
Rubbish. Russia sells you a product. You buy the product. If it is OK for the west to use such relationships to influence their customers then it is perhaps time to stop trying to control Russia and perhaps they wont react. If the CIA hadn't spent billions on colour revolutions and just let the people decide for themselves perhaps the Russians might not feel so isolated.
...but don't listen to me... keep jabbing the bear with the stick... I am sure he wont bite you... bears are cuddly friendly animals from Disneyland that don't hurt humans... they just grumble when their porridge is too hot or too cold.
When will you stop with this nonsense?
People want freedom, security, and economic opportunity, they don't want to be run from Kreml.
Go ahead and tell us how we all are Washington's puppets bla bla. It's laughable.
When will you stop with this nonsense?
People want freedom, security, and economic opportunity, they don't want to be run from Kreml.
Go ahead and tell us how we all are Washington's puppets bla bla. It's laughable.
You are all Washington's puppets. America is at the center of a connected
universe, one where power is exercised by continuous bargaining, dialogue ,diffusion and a journey to find consensus, even though that power originates ultimately from a single source and that source is Washington DC.
daily666
08-26-2008, 04:15 AM
You are all Washington's puppets. America is at the center of a connected
universe, one where power is exercised by continuous bargaining, dialogue ,diffusion and a journey to find consensus, even though that power originates ultimately from a single source and that source is Washington DC.
Not really remember who said that, but it's better to be occupied by Washington than liberated by Moscow.
Not really remember who said that, but it's better to be occupied by Washington than liberated by Moscow.
tell this to S. Ossetians. ;)
you know, such semantics sounds cool, but useless in discussion.
Doublethinker
08-26-2008, 05:08 AM
With all due respect for your opinion...but are you crazy? We have to obey the Russians? The **** we have. Never! I rather sit in the dark than doing that.
Maybe you would.
But in some instances people simply can't afford to.
If a a patent dies on a surgeon's table, because the light went off, or if people start freezing at winter, the people wouldn't understand...
Doublethinker
08-26-2008, 05:11 AM
When will you stop with this nonsense?
People want freedom, security, and economic opportunity, they don't want to be run from Kreml.
Go ahead and tell us how we all are Washington's puppets bla bla. It's laughable.
People seem to have quickly forgotten how rough Washington has been playing in its South American backyard in the XIXth century, when it's economical supremacy wasn't so overwhelming and it didn't have enough economic leverage for 'soft control' from Wall street.
In fact, people seem to forget or even don't bother to research what has been before their lifetime.
YAY, Europe and US are in the age of prosperity, let's pretend we've always been democratic, respectful and gentle!
Kilgor
08-26-2008, 05:25 AM
There is almost a correlation between energy dependence and anti-russian rhetoric :)
Or.... 4 out of the top 5 had the joy of being occupied the soviet union, many happy memories !
Or.... 4 out of the top 5 had the joy of being occupied the soviet union, many happy memories !
One of those four WAS PART OF THE SOVIET UNION.
People want freedom, security, and economic opportunity, they don't want to be run from Kreml.
People want economic security. For most of the 90s the people of Russia had no financial security, though they had a vote it was worth nothing. It didn't give them a job. It didn't keep their pensions active. It didn't stop them getting robbed.
The Vietnamese had the option of French colonial rule and then American imperial rule via a South Vietnamese dictator. Cuba had a choice too. When did the Kremlin run either country?
Ask south korea about their free trade agreement with the US that they had little choice in. Bet you beef is off the menu there...
I am not suggesting the US is evil. But it is a bully, just like Russia, just like the UK, etc etc. You don't have to act like the nice guy... your media is hardly going to sympathise with those you deal with so you can be sure when you pay off Fiji to vote against a nuclear free zone in the Pacific you can weather any backlash you might get from your own public.
Kilgor
08-28-2008, 04:39 AM
One of those four WAS PART OF THE SOVIET UNION.
.
My Mistake
Occupied, and forced joined into the Soviet Union.
My Mistake
Occupied, and forced joined into the Soviet Union.
Most of the Baltic countries seemed to have enjoyed Nazi occupation. I guess they liked the uniforms and the free hand at killing people. Soviet occupation for 50 years was too good for most of them.
Most of the Baltic countries seemed to have enjoyed Nazi occupation. I guess they liked the uniforms and the free hand at killing people. Soviet occupation for 50 years was too good for most of them.
That is a wrong statement on so many levels... :-(
Kilgor
08-28-2008, 05:14 AM
Most of the Baltic countries seemed to have enjoyed Nazi occupation. I guess they liked the uniforms and the free hand at killing people. Soviet occupation for 50 years was too good for most of them.
Yes, the whole "baltics are nazi lovers", sure you can do better than that.
Nazi's and Soviets, like choosing between cancer and Aids.
WindiXX
08-28-2008, 05:56 AM
After Nazis were gone all those countries had a really swell time under soviet union. Only by judging from Berlin the people who lived in the west side had it really bad and a never ending party at the east side of the wall. Open your eyes dude and stop writing idiotisms.
Nazi Germany helped Finland during continous war by giving as supplies, tanks, guns and so on. That helped us to keep Soviet Union out of our beloved country. If that makes us Nazi lovers... oh well. And still. It was more like Hitler was the guy who was out of mind. As were Stalin...
Like Kilgor said, like choosin between cancer and AIDS, you can't win.
Yes, the whole "baltics are nazi lovers", sure you can do better than that.
IF Soviet Union under Stalin = Russia... you are no better than I.
But I am Facist so I must love Stalin right?
Nazi Germany helped Finland during continous war by giving as supplies, tanks, guns and so on. That helped us to keep Soviet Union out of our beloved country. If that makes us Nazi lovers... oh well. And still. It was more like Hitler was the guy who was out of mind. As were Stalin...
Hitler killed rather more than Stalin ever did, but modern Russia is the Soviet Union under Stalin and Germany and the west is nothing to do with Nazi Germany it seems. Yet another double standard that Russia cannot live up to.
When Baltic states refuse citizenship to a large percentage of its citizens (ie specifically the ethnically Russian ones) yet it is Russia that has the human rights problems...
I mean democracy is so damn important... but not for Russian Latvians it seems because without citizenship they have no vote.
The West is making its own bed.
Sergei
08-28-2008, 06:39 AM
Not really remember who said that, but it's better to be occupied by Washington than liberated by Moscow.
You know that Washington has written off the deaths of South Ossetians as "insignificant"?
Time for Condi to stop beating those war drums.
There is no love from South Ossetians towards US or its puppet Georgia.
Moreover, I think Saddamashvili has a price tag on his head already.
Sergei
08-28-2008, 06:43 AM
That is a wrong statement on so many levels... :-(
Actually GazB nails it.
The Baltic countries were the first to perform the "jewish solution" even before the Germans arrived with their famous einzats detachments.
Revolveri
08-28-2008, 06:56 AM
Hitler killed rather more than Stalin ever did.
Are you absolutely certain? I think they both killed more than enough though.
kosse
08-28-2008, 06:59 AM
When Baltic states refuse citizenship to a large percentage of its citizens (ie specifically the ethnically Russian ones) yet it is Russia that has the human rights problems...
Afaik in Estonia almost everybody has had to take the same citizenship test..even the ethnic Estonians who weren't born before 1939 (i.e. most of them). Not many countries give citizenship to people who can't master the local language and Estonia is not an exception. That's just how it is, nobody wants a 5th column. I doubt I could get a Russian citizenship if I moved there and didn't take a language test. Or?
WindiXX
08-28-2008, 07:07 AM
Hitler killed rather more than Stalin ever did
Some theories thinks that Stalin was responsible of deaths of circa 60 million people. That is kind a hard to say if it is true or not (or even close) because of the inaccuracy of the historical proofs of that time. But many fact seems to point that Stalin was responsible of many more deaths than Hitler ever was. Still, both were bad men and did bad things, that is not the point.
You say that people think that Russia = Stalin Soviet Union but Germany doesn't have nothing to do with Nazis (in peoples minds). Have you ever considered that since the times of Nazi empire the Germans haven't done anything bad to anyone? I mena, no threats, no conflicts, not anything big like that. Russia on the other had has done lots of those, recently and past. And still you wonder why people think like that?
Some theories thinks that Stalin was responsible of deaths of circa 60 million people. That is kind a hard to say if it is true or not (or even close) because of the inaccuracy of the historical proofs of that time. But many fact seems to point that Stalin was responsible of many more deaths than Hitler ever was. Still, both were bad men and did bad things, that is not the point.
You say that people think that Russia = Stalin Soviet Union but Germany doesn't have nothing to do with Nazis (in peoples minds). Have you ever considered that since the times of Nazi empire the Germans haven't done anything bad to anyone? I mena, no threats, no conflicts, not anything big like that. Russia on the other had has done lots of those, recently and past. And still you wonder why people think like that?
simple, fella. in the end, SU was on the winning side.
WindiXX
08-28-2008, 07:17 AM
Thank god we lost then :D
daily666
08-28-2008, 07:36 AM
You know that Washington has written off the deaths of South Ossetians as "insignificant"?
Time for Condi to stop beating those war drums.
There is no love from South Ossetians towards US or its puppet Georgia.
Moreover, I think Saddamashvili has a price tag on his head already.
The only ones that threatens everybody around is Dmitri Medvedev and especially Russian Generals.
daily666
08-28-2008, 07:41 AM
simple, fella. in the end, SU was on the winning side.
Well, honestly that's the thing I've always been thinking about when I was in Germany, especially western parts. How come they've LOST the War, we Won it, yet they seemed to be the winners.
Kilgor
08-28-2008, 06:18 PM
Actually GazB nails it.
The Baltic countries were the first to perform the "jewish solution" even before the Germans arrived with their famous einzats detachments.
I have to chuckle when the Russiaphiles call the Baltic's Nazi lovers, while the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had a nice little collaboration going in Poland and to carve up europe.
Well, honestly that's the thing I've always been thinking about when I was in Germany, especially western parts. How come they've LOST the War, we Won it, yet they seemed to be the winners.
massive influx of outside funds? nation's work culture, discipline etc?
btw, it's not all about money, no?
widi243
08-28-2008, 06:29 PM
Not really remember who said that, but it's better to be occupied by Washington than liberated by Moscow.
My parents in 1982 p-) When I ask them why TV that "Reagan Flies on his Pershing and kill us all" and I didn't understood why they pray for it. And then my parent told me something about it:)
widi243
08-28-2008, 06:32 PM
tell this to S. Ossetians. ;)
you know, such semantics sounds cool, but useless in discussion.
We don't have to say it them! They will realized it soon.p-)
We don't have to say it them! They will realized it soon.p-)
wanna bet?
oh, and "it's better to be occupied by Russia than liberated by Georgian artillery barrages".
;)
V.I.D.
08-28-2008, 07:10 PM
I have to chuckle when the Russiaphiles call the Baltic's Nazi lovers, while the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had a nice little collaboration going in Poland and to carve up europe.
Do you ever chuckle when you think of the UK and its past role in the world? Colonialism, slavery, Boer wars, Africa, India, "white man's burden", pacts with Hitler? Is that some good comedy material, too, or what?
muttbutt
08-28-2008, 07:14 PM
Do you ever chuckle when you think of the UK and its past role in the world? Colonialism, slavery, Boer wars, Africa, India, "white man's burden", pacts with Hitler? Is that some good comedy material, too, or what?He's not British, so I don't think he gives a ****...
Kilgor
08-28-2008, 07:22 PM
Do you ever chuckle when you think of the UK and its past role in the world? Colonialism, slavery, Boer wars, Africa, India, "white man's burden", pacts with Hitler? Is that some good comedy material, too, or what?
I am a victim of British Imperialism, Mate :P
V.I.D.
08-28-2008, 07:50 PM
I am a victim of British Imperialism, Mate :P
....well, good for you bruv, and bad for me, then. The point being is that very few, if any, nations can self-righteously claim the high moral ground when discussing others. And "big powers", old and new, particularly so.
Nazi's and Soviets, like choosing between cancer and Aids.
It seems the choice between NATO and Russia have become the same, with NATO still ahead of them commies on body count.
Are you absolutely certain? I think they both killed more than enough though.
Have seen many claims in the west with ridiculous figures. The famous claim that the officer purge just before WWII crippled the Soviet Army... and it did. Of course what they rarely mention that most of those officers supposedly killed were returned to service in 1942 and later after serving their terms.
Stalin certainly moved internal populations around, but he did that to everyone. Of course when he moved Latvians out of latvia it was a crime against latvians. When he moved russians into latvia it was a crime against latvia again. As if the latvians were forced but the russians went by choice...
Not many countries give citizenship to people who can't master the local language and Estonia is not an exception.
Not many countries will deny citizenship to someone who has lived there legally all their life and was born there, and whose parents were born there.
Here in New Zealand we have the native New Zealanders called Maori. There is no requirement to learn Maori to become a NZ citizen. How many people around the world speak Maori? It makes no sense to force potential citizens to learn a language spoken by so few people. Would say the same for Estonian.
That's just how it is, nobody wants a 5th column.
Hahahahahaha... you think a real 5th column would not speak the local language?
By denying a significant percentage of your population citizenship and the right to vote you are alienating them and most likely creating a 5th column yourself.
I doubt I could get a Russian citizenship if I moved there and didn't take a language test.
And if you had been born there and lived all your life but everyone around you spoke Estonian and you never bothered to learn Russian you might have a point.
Some theories thinks that Stalin was responsible of deaths of circa 60 million people.
Hahahahahaha... that is really funny. Why not 100 million. Or perhaps 1,000 million?
But many fact seems to point that Stalin was responsible of many more deaths than Hitler ever was.
The first estimate for deaths in 11/9 I heard was up to 30,000. Lets see where the 60 million figure comes from before we accept it as even in the realms of possibility. Considering the efficiency of the Germans they only managed to kill about 6 million Jews from 1933 to 1945 I have a hard time believing Stalin killed 10 times that number.
You say that people think that Russia = Stalin Soviet Union but Germany doesn't have nothing to do with Nazis (in peoples minds).
Germany = nazis is the same as Russia = stalin. Nazism is part of Germanys history. Stalin is part of Russias history. If you can't work that out...
Have you ever considered that since the times of Nazi empire the Germans haven't done anything bad to anyone? I mena, no threats, no conflicts, not anything big like that.
Having US, French, British and Soviet troops on their territory as well as the division of Germany possibly had something to do with that.
Russia on the other had has done lots of those, recently and past. And still you wonder why people think like that?
Russia has been independant as long as the other former members of the Soviet Union. The west treats the other independant states differently than they treat the Russians. Georgia is Americas best ally!!!! Stalin is from Georgia! In fact Stalin is half Georgian and Half South Ossetian. When South Ossetia joins the Russian Federation then you can say Stalin was half Russian.
while the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had a nice little collaboration going in Poland and to carve up europe.
The Rippentrop agreement was a non aggression pact. If Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were buddies there would be no need for a NON AGGRESSION agreement. There were secret aspects of that agreement showing spheres of interest so they wouldn't step on each others toes. It is hardly a friendship pact as you make it out to be.
The point being is that very few, if any, nations can self-righteously claim the high moral ground when discussing others.
Doesn't stop them though.
Do you ever chuckle when you think of the UK and its past role in the world?
You are assuming chuckles has a soul.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.