David Aaronovitch (The Australian, 3/12/2008) appears to have accepted the pernicious myth that ideology is the key factor driving Muslim terrorists. But the most important cause of terrorism – and suicide terrorism in particular – is foreign occupation.
This has been shown comprehensively by University of Chicago Professor Robert Pape in his book Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. Pape’s work has been reviewed in leading political science journals in America and has met with much acclaim. Until someone is prepared to demonstrate flaws in Pape’s data, we should consider the possibility that actions do have consequences; that the favourable light in which we perceive our own governments is not how residents of other countries perceive them. In that sense, much of the terrorism we see today – although perhaps not the Mumbai attack, because Pape’s thesis is restricted to suicide attacks – is indeed the ‘fault’ of the United States and Britain, countries which have a history of occupying other countries. It is imperative that we try and move beyond speculative assertions about the causes of terrorism, and consider the empirical data.
0 Comments
1. Given a world in which states exist, libertarian philosophy holds that a foreign policy of non-interventionism is the best and most sensible way for governments to relate to each other. Non-intervention is essentially the same thing as neutrality. It means to trade with all nations, but to have as little political connection – what Jefferson called ‘entangling alliances’ – with them as possible. Non-intervention requires a state to maintain armed forces sufficient to deter and defeat aggressors, but does not entail stationing troops in regions of the world not directly relevant to defending one’s national borders.
Since non-intervention is a philosophic concept, a dissertation that explores at length the practical realities of neutrality would be extremely useful for the liberty-minded. The external policies of Switzerland, for example, can historically and in the present day be described as non-interventionist. Looking at a country like Switzerland and then asking how ‘successful’ it has been in avoiding expensive wars that diminish civil liberties domestically, or how much of a terrorist target it has been in comparison to aligned states like the US, would yield valuable policy insights. If it could be shown that neutral states tend to be more peaceful and attract fewer enemies, then there may be a case in favour of adopting such a policy. If, on the other hand, neutral states find themselves constantly under threat because they lack geopolitical security alliances with other states or do not extend their military abroad, then we may doubt the efficacy of non-interventionism. 2. The rise of WikiLeaks in recent years has caused tremendous alarm among those who protect state secrets. The Justice Department in the United States has considered criminally prosecuting WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for ‘theft of government property’, and federal employees (with a few exceptions) have been instructed by the White House not to look at publicly available documents posted on WikiLeaks. The leaking of classified information is not a new phenomenon. During the Cold War, American and Russian spies passed on information to the respective sides. Such material sometimes led to arrests or executions. For instance, when CIA informant Dmitri Polyakov was betrayed by mole Aldrich Ames the Soviets proceeded to arrest Polyakov and execute him. These types of incidents give rise to questions about the ethical status of intelligence leaks. From a Rothbardian standpoint, if the state is a ‘criminal gang writ large’ then the answer might be that there is nothing morally wrong with revealing state secrets, and in fact it may be a positively good thing because it helps expose a criminal entity. Liberty may be enhanced by a more open flow of information, for then the public knows precisely what state ‘criminals’ are doing behind closed doors. A useful dissertation in this area would investigate the rationales given for state secrecy and assess the historical evidence. For example, those opposed to transparency charge that leaks place military personnel and innocent lives at risk. If it is found that leaks do not as a general rule lead to loss of innocent life, then happily there would be fewer reasons to condemn whistle-blowers. 3. Thomas Carothers writes in Foreign Affairs that “One cannot get through a foreign policy debate these days without someone proposing the rule of law as a solution to the world's troubles”. Rarely however, has the rule of law been applied to foreign policy in a systematic way in order to establish timeless principles and apply these principles to facts. An idea for a dissertation is to draw upon the rule of law as formulated by liberals (particularly Hayek and Bruno Leoni) and examine how events such as the assassination without due process of Osama bin Laden by President Obama can be viewed from the perspective of constitutional government. The big spending promises made by the Liberal-National Coalition and the Labor Party during the recent Australian election campaign show once again that neither party is serious about reining in government spending.
Australia has a public debt of $400 billion. Cutting back on spending is essential if we want to avoid the need to increase taxes on future generations. However, the lack of political will has paralysed any serious effort to take charge of the situation. Both major parties have wasted political capital going after recipients of Newstart unemployment allowance or grandmothers on aged care payments. For example, the Turnbull government supported a bill to crack down on jobseekers who unreasonably refuse offers of employment. This is not exactly a winning strategy since these welfare constituencies are firmly entrenched and – rightly or wrongly – have strong emotional appeal to voters. Witness, for instance, the massive public support for Duncan Storrar, an Ausstudy payment recipient, who rightly complained on ABC’s Q & A television show that politicians aren’t raising the tax-free threshold on the lower end of the earnings scale. Storrar received $60,000 in donations after a crowdfunding campaign was launched to help him with living expenses. The Aussie battler has always had a special place in Australian culture. As a result, it makes little sense to argue for spending cuts that target dole recipients or the disabled. An austerity program premised on making the lower and middle-class give up benefits will face huge resistance. Instead, slashing politicians’ salaries is likely to have broad populist appeal. So, too, is attacking the privileges enjoyed by lobbyists and special interests. A campaign against wealthy elites who siphon millions of taxpayer dollars under the radar is likely to be more successful. Both parties have spent lavishly on politicians and bureaucrats and have handed out millions in subsidies to favoured lobby groups. In effect, Labor and the Coalition have worked the system to their advantage at the expense of taxpayers. The Australian Parliament has authorised generous perks for politicians who are among the highest paid in the world. Federal legislators have received subsidies to buy personal investment properties and attend weddings. Here’s an idea for a campaign: pay politicians no more than the average Australian full-time wage — about $75,000 per year. It is simply disingenuous to argue that politicians must be paid high salaries in order to attract the best and the brightest or that their workload is so intense that they deserve to be paid more. If the state of New Hampshire in America can get by with paying legislators $100 a year, why can’t we? Another potential campaign: stop shelling out taxpayer dollars for useless things. To name a few examples, the Victorian company Palm Products received $360,000 of taxpayer money to develop a coffee travel cup. The old Department of Industry, Innovation, Climate Change, Science, Research and Tertiary Education spent $14,000 to buy a coffee table. Finally, the Australian Institute of Sport spent $500,000 on a new logo? And why not scrap grants to companies that contribute directly or indirectly to climate change? Aren’t we supposed to be in the midst of a global warming crisis? All these examples show that cutting spending doesn’t have to be hard. It just requires identifying the areas on which Australians agree. Is there any doubt that voters would respond more favourably to reducing public servant salaries and eliminating corporate welfare than they would to tightening payment eligibility for perceived needy recipients like Storrar? Anyone concerned with government spending and its potential to lead Australia off a fiscal cliff should realise that cracking down on welfare payments means setting aside taxpayer funds to chase a never-ending stream of fraud. Ensuring compliance with rules isn’t cheap. It also sets dangerous precedents for privacy invasion; for example, when a private company such as eBay is asked to hand over customer data to Centrelink for cross-referencing. This is yet another reason why it makes more sense to go after the elites first. In the short-term, it may be better to stop wasting time and money chasing after dole recipients and let them keep their benefits. In the long-term, putting in place policies that create attractive jobs will encourage them to shift into the workforce without having to chase them with draconian bureaucracy that invades privacy. To stimulate job growth, however, taxes must be lowered and unnecessary regulations abolished. Since these free-market policies aren’t easy to get widespread agreement on, why not start small? By picking fights with elites, and obvious rip-offs like a $14,000 coffee table, there is actually a chance of winning. After all, politicians, bureaucrats and politically connected lobby groups are vastly outnumbered by ordinary voters. Originally published at OnlineOpinion.com.au Ten years ago [in 1998], the United Nations (UN) promised to deliver a “drug-free” world by the year 2008. Pino Arlacchi, the Drug Czar at the UN, exclaimed that although “[t]here are naysayers who believe a global fight against illegal drugs is unwinnable … they are wrong”. For what seemed like the umpteenth time, the UN assured us that if we simply sent them more money, their team of “experts” would take care of the problem.
A decade later, how has UN fared? Any dispassionate observer would surely agree that they have failed dismally. After all, drugs are more widely available than before. Take a long-term view and the result is the same. On almost every indicator, outcomes have gotten worse since the so-called war on drugs began. Most tragically, drug overdose deaths have increased. In 1964, there were six drug overdose deaths in Australia. Yet by 1999, this number had grown to 958 deaths (Modernising Australia’s Drug Policy by Alex Wodak and Timothy Moore). The number of injecting users has also increased. A study in 1999 concluded that the number of injecting drug users in Australia had been doubling every ten years since the 1960s, reaching 100,000 regular injectors and an additional 175,000 occasional injectors by 1997. Although the drug warriors are vague as to what constitutes “victory”, it seems to me that if their goal is to save lives, this is not being achieved by the present strategy. Unfortunately, lack of success has not stopped the expansion of drug interdiction programs. Like the child who murders his parents and then pleads for pity because he is an orphan, governments have a long history of asking for regulatory powers despite creating much of the mess we see today in the area of drug policy. The financial costs are mounting. Despite $13 billion of taxpayer money being spent by Australian governments between 1976 and 2000, the Federal Police website reports that “[t]he illicit drug trade has become an international, multi billion dollar enterprise, estimated to be bigger than the oil trade and second only to the arms trade”. We continue to spend $100 million a year, yet surveys consistently show that drugs are easily available. Of those aged 14 and older, 33.5 per cent have tried marijuana, 8.9 per cent have tried ecstasy, 6.3 per cent have tried amphetamines, 5.9 per cent have tried cocaine and 1.6 per cent have tried heroin. In spite of efforts by police, 38.1 per cent of the community has tried an illicit drug at some point in their life. That equates to nearly 8 million people. These figures, from the latest National Drug Strategy Household Survey, are just the tip of the iceberg because many do not admit their use due to fear of the law. This is a war we are losing. Current statistics suggest that police only intercept a small percentage of the illegal drugs entering Australia. Even in the rare instances when law enforcement does succeed in significantly reducing the supply of a particular drug, users simply turn to other drugs instead. This was the case with the heroin drought of 2001: although heroin was less widely available, cocaine use rose to compensate. We need a more rational drug policy - one that provides better value for money, and does not marginalise users so they are afraid to seek the treatment they need. We should show more compassion towards non-violent drug users, instead of filling our prisons. Let us not succumb to the false stereotype that portrays drug users as deviant individuals. On the contrary, many are respected members of the community. To cite but a few examples: American President George W. Bush, former president Bill Clinton, former vice-president Al Gore, presidential nominee Barack Obama, the Supreme Court nominee Douglas Ginsburg, the Pulitzer Prize winning astronomer Carl Sagan and the Nobel laureate chemist Kary Mullis, have all tried at least one illicit drug. As Jacob Sullum demonstrates in his book titled Saying Yes: In Defense of Drug Use, the reality is that the majority of illicit drug users are productive citizens, not addicts. Irrational fear appears to be the main reason for the arbitrary line drawn between illegal and legal drugs. Or perhaps most people are unaware that alcohol and tobacco are responsible for more deaths than all the illicit drugs put together? Things are changing, albeit slowly. At the Prime Minister’s recent 2020 summit, medical doctor Wendell Rosevear argued that the billions of dollars spent on prisons would be better spent on drug intervention and education programs. Don Stewart, former chairman of the National Crime Authority, agrees: “Punitive measures will not work. We can’t go on the way we are.” This is a debate we urgently need to have. Lives depend upon it. Originally published at OnlineOpinion.com.au in 2008. If David Ellis wants to put a halt to development and preserve green wedge that he considers to be valuable, then he should organise a coalition of like-minded people and buy the land so that it remains untouched.
Environmentally concerned activists in other countries have been known to put their money where their mouth is and buy land from developers in order to prevent unsightly construction. I believe this sort of voluntary cooperation is far superior to Mr Ellis' solution, which is to use government policy as a mechanism to coerce developers who may have equally valid claims. Arguably, increasing the supply of land available for development would greatly alleviate the housing affordability problem by reducing prices. (Letter to the editor, published April 2 2008, Manningham Leader) Imagine you are an entrepreneur. As a businessperson, would you start a venture where you were forced to pay workers $100 an hour, a rate which is well beyond what you could earn from them? No — you wouldn’t open a new enterprise if you were guaranteed a loss. Therefore, the only businesses that will thrive under such conditions are those which are sure to recover the cost of labour plus the cost of capital, and also compensate themselves for the enormous risk of opening a business in the first place. This argument, which is persuasive with a $100 per hour wage rate, can be repeated incrementally down the ladder. Labour economists have devoted much effort to empirically estimating the effects of minimum wage legislation on the employment levels of various age, race and gender groups. It is now widely agreed that increases in minimum wages do reduce employment opportunities, especially among teenagers. Perversely, the minimum wage ends up hurting those it is supposed to help. It is clear that the poorest and unskilled labourers are the ones who are crowded out of organised job markets when minimum wages are imposed. One textbook example comes from 1980 in Zimbabwe, where a government decision to set a minimum wage of $45 a month backfired dramatically, causing the dismissal of more than 5,000 workers. Studies on the subject of poverty have found that minimum wage legislation has only a minor effect on the distribution of income. This finding is not surprising, because not all low-wage workers are members of poor families. Many workers on the minimum wage, especially teenagers, are second earners in middle or upper class families. As Des Moorenotes in The Age (5 September 2006), ‘It is plain wrong to characterize the minimum wage as a safety net when more than half the recipients are in the top half of household incomes’. Even the fiercest minimum wage advocates usually concede there is a point when minimum wages would cost jobs. What most advocates of the minimum wage do not grasp is that there’s no known theoretically established rate which can be rationally fixed as a minimum wage. In other words, there’s no person in the world who has a Ph.D. in market interference, and who knows exactly when and where to interfere with the market. Economists make models, but a model is a simplified version of reality and is not the truth. Predictions of positive economics involve the influence of one variable on another, holding all other variables constant. But real-life labour market experiments are difficult to conduct, and economists generally use proxies to draw conclusions. So does the minimum wage help anybody at all? In fact, minimum wages do help certain people. In particular they help the members of trade unions, many of whom are already earning wages above the minimum wage. By making it illegal for employers to hire at market rates (the rate that is deemed mutually suitable to both employer and employee) they minimise competition for the jobs of organised labour and keep their salaries higher than would otherwise be the case in an open and free labour market. They also help lawyers, who are kept busy with reams of industrial relations legislation. This might seem heartless. Surely employees have less bargaining power than employers? Sometimes, they do. Most of the time however, there is competition for labour amongst employers themselves, who use good working conditions and pay as a means of attracting employees. Usually, employees who enter a job at a very low wage rate gain experience that enables them to earn more later. Social interaction with colleagues can prevent depression and provide other personal benefits. With a legally mandated minimum wage however, these options are closed to many looking for work. The fallacy arises when policymakers conflate issues of social welfare with labour market efficiency (which leads to lower prices for the consumer). Increased unemployment is the visible consequence. Concern for the ‘working poor’ might call for a different solution: better targeted welfare. But it does not call for government interference in voluntary wage contracts entered into by employer and employee. The minimum wage would not be such an issue if it weren’t for politicians who have capitalised on the perception that wage controls protect the poor from exploitation. If the poor are in trouble, what is required is to upgrade their skills and to shift their supply to sectors where market demand is growing. This is not an instantaneous process. But it is wrong to penalise small businesses by placing on them the burden of making unskilled workers wealthier than the market will support. Why kill the hen (entrepreneur) that lays the golden egg (of jobs)? John Millard's letter (Opinion, December 19) is a perfect example of the problem with water restrictions - they pit people against each other.
We're now told by our State Government that we should dob in neighbours if we see them watering their garden when they're not supposed to. This mentality cannot be beneficial for community cohesiveness. In reality, water restrictions are a clever way for the State Government to divert attention from its failure to properly manage water. The solution is to move towards a market system where water would be priced according to usage and supply would increase to meet demand. (Letter to the editor, Manningham Leader, January 2, 2008) In the 21st century, the idea of federalism seems quaint and somewhat naive. Since 1920, the High Court has consistently handed down judgments that grant the federal government plenary power. Any notion of the States having powers that are beyond the Commonwealth’s grasp has been summarily dismissed. Not surprisingly, the noble intention of the founders to put in place a system where the federal government deals only with national matters such as defence, interstate commerce etc. and state governments are responsible for education, health and other local issues, has not been achieved in practice. There is not much left of federalism in the Australian Constitution. Professor Craven documents the High Court’s centralising agenda in his book Conversations with the Constitution: Not Just a Piece of Paper. Reversing the decline of federalism, according to Craven, involves three steps. First, the states must have the ability to initiate referenda. The Commonwealth’s monopoly over the initiation of referendums has led to a series of pro-federal government proposals. Allowing states to put forward their ideas would present Australians a more balanced range of choices. Next, the federal government ought to obtain the agreement of at least three states before making a High Court appointment. Craven objects that the current system is biased: By providing that the commonwealth executive should appoint the justices, the founders ensured that the umpires of the national game of constitutional football would be chosen by the captain of one of the competing teams, and would display a corresponding degree of neutrality (p.79). Greater state input makes it more likely that judges in favour of restraining the federal government will be appointed.
Finally, the Senate should be transformed into a genuine ‘states house’. Senators should be selected by their respective state parliaments rather than being directly elected. Senators would then represent the party interests of Victoria, Tasmania, etc. but not the interests of the federal parliamentary parties. If these changes were implemented, there would undoubtedly be a re-working of the relationship between the Commonwealth and the States. However, most of Craven’s proposals require amendment of the Constitution via section 128, an exceedingly difficult process. Are there more practical means of restraining the federal government? Indeed there are. Missing from Craven’s analysis are two concepts related to federalism that could prove useful in restoring the Federal-State balance: namely, secession and nullification. Secession is self-explanatory: it is the severing of ties from a larger political entity. In their Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (perhaps unintentionally) laid the groundwork for a theory of federalism that allows for genuine participation by the States in interpreting the Constitution. They posed a simple question: can one be in favour of states’ rights while at the same time denying them the means to enforce those rights? The answer, according to the two statesmen, is ‘no’. If states are to realistically enforce their constitutional rights, they will need to be able to wield the threat of secession when the federal government oversteps its bounds. Although Craven comes down in favour of federalism, he has elsewhere written against secession, apparently not seeing any inconsistency in supporting one but opposing the other! The NSW Legislative Council once advocated a right of secession, but Craven denounces its view as ‘wanton destruction’ as compared to the ‘constructive criticism’ of those states who accepted Commonwealth supremacy. The theory of nullification, unlike secession, does not involve the complete severance of all bonds tying a state to the central government. Rather, nullification is deployed on a case-by-case basis to render void specific federal laws that affect a particular state. It is based on the principle that the highest federal court, itself an organ of the central government, should not wield a monopoly on constitutional interpretation. Constitutional interpretation is the inherent right of the people of each state – acting through their representatives – and cannot be the exclusive domain of the High Court. Examples of nullification are rampant in America, and include the widespread defiance of federal anti-marijuana laws by socially liberal states such as California. The advantage of secession and nullification from a practical point of view is that they require majority support only in the state affected by federal oppression. Unlike constitutional amendment through section 128, which calls for a majority of Australian states as well as a majority of the Australian people, secession and nullification can be implemented peacefully through plebiscite or by a vote of the State parliament. Were these ideas to take root among the Australian public, they would be an effective means of limiting the federal government’s hegemony. But if constitutional amendment is desired, then another idea, confederalism, would place the states in a powerful position vis-à-vis the federal government. Confederalism is a bulwark of states’ rights since the central government is dependent upon the states for its continued existence.1 The thirteen American states which united under the Articles of Confederation during the 1700s typified such a relationship between centre and states. This union then dissolved and re-formed under the US Constitution because of alleged difficulties in achieving national objectives under the Article’s finance arrangements. However, an excellent study by Russell Sobel shows that no such problem existed, and that the confederal model works just as well in this respect as federalism.2 Federalism, confederalism, secession and nullification are inextricably linked. Any discussion about how to reform federalism would benefit from consideration of all of its dimensions, and this Craven’s work fails to do. The notion of an Australian state seceding, or nullifying laws it declares unconstitutional, is not unusual once one considers that Australia – in effect – carried out a peaceful secession from the British Empire when it became an independent nation. Secession also became a major issue in the 1930s when Western Australians by a two-thirds majority indicated that they wanted to leave the Commonwealth. Unfortunately, the Australian Government refused to honour the popular result and permit WA to secede. So these ideas are not new in Australian history, and have the added advantage of allowing for a potent check upon the federal government. NOTES [1] A confederal model would live up to the hopeful words of Holder, a South Australian delegate to the constitutional conventions, who said: ‘I do not want that the States should be dependent for their existence on the Commonwealth. If there must be any dependency, there would be less danger in making the Commonwealth dependent on the States’. Convention Debates, Adelaide, 1897, p. 155. [2] Russell Sobel, ‘In defence of the Articles of Confederation and the contribution mechanism as a means of government finance: A general comment on the literature’, Public Choice, No. 99, 1999, pp. 347-356. US foreign policy over the past fifty years (whether Democratic or Republican), has been characterised by consensus on certain fundamental points.
Chief among these is the notion that American power ought to be used as a force for ‘good’ in the world. Another key tenet accepted by the political establishment is that terrorist attacks are motivated by religious fanaticism and hatred of American values rather than practical grievances. Various scholars have contended, however, that the planks of foreign policy accepted by the mainstream are flawed. In the first place, how can American power be a force for good when the revenue to fund state wars is acquired through coercive taxation, and is thus objectionable from an ethical standpoint? The taxation required to finance interventions constitutes a burden on the productive private sector and is hardly a force for good in the domestic sphere. Mark Crovelli further points out intervening states are themselves illegitimate and may be a danger to those they claim to protect. Moreover, just as government involvement in economic affairs can produce unintended consequences, so too can military interventions lead to unexpected results. Writers such as Chalmers Johnson and Michael Scheuer have suggested that terrorists attack the US not due to an innate opposition to democracy and freedom, but because of resentment at American actions abroad. Operations pursued overseas have led to ‘blowback’ against Americans, most notably on September 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden cited US support for Israel and repressive Arab regimes, the stationing of troops on the ‘holy land’ of Saudi Arabia and the sanctions on Iraq that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians as specific grievances motivating the 9/11 attacks. The belief that al Qaeda is motivated by opposition to Western systems of government or culture has led many to support measures such as the PATRIOT Act without pondering the implications for civil liberties. The Act greatly expands the scope of police power. Such an approach does not make much sense however, if one accepts the contentions of Johnson and Scheuer. Instead of curbing civil liberties and moving the US away from the rule of law, it would be better to address the root of the terrorists’ discontent: America’s military presence in the Middle East. This means withdrawing troops from that region, ending foreign aid to Arab regimes and generally pursuing a policy of non-interventionism. The foreign policy establishment resists non-interventionism. Their analyses invariably propose aggressive deployments and strict sanctions to deter so-called rogue states. The problem with the establishment perspective is that it places the US on a permanent war footing by embroiling the military in sectarian conflicts that could be resolved at the local level. This has adverse effects on liberty. War increases the size and scope of government: the military-industrial complex is kept well fed under the establishment policy however average citizens suffer reductions in their standard of living. As Randolph Bourne explains, ‘War is the health of the state’. A common retort is that non-interventionists are naïve about the potential for nuclear weapons to be acquired by terrorists or used by rogue states. However the non-interventionist is in favour of unilateral free trade, meaning that rogue states would be engaged rather than isolated. Engagement, especially with respect to trade and finance, tends to increase interdependency and reduces the chances of war. China will be less eager to attack the US if it has a productive trading relationship with the American people. However the Chinese will feel few qualms about invading a protectionist third-world nation that is of minor economic importance. States are unlikely to launch a nuclear first-strike because they have a home address and can be wiped out with brute force. The theory of ‘mutually assured destruction’ thus has an important place in devising strategy against rogue states. But what about terrorists, who have no fixed location and engage in guerrilla warfare? It is improbable that a terrorist organisation could acquire a nuclear weapon. Benjamin Friedmanwrites: “The possibility that terrorists will soon manufacture nuclear or biological weapons and kill us in droves is remote. The difficulty of making nuclear and biological weapons is generally understated”. Leaders of rogue states know that if they were discovered to pass on such weapons to terrorist groups, they would soon be deposed by the US military, and so are unlikely to risk doing so. There is consequently little reason to pursue a policy premised on global interventionism. It is important to scale back military bases around the world in order to preserve liberty at home. Joe Hoft writes: Based on current delegate counts and poll numbers Ted Cruz will be mathematically unable to reach the delegate count required for him to win the Republican Presidential nomination. |
AuthorSubscribe to my newsletter and Youtube channel. Categories
All
Archives
November 2022
|