Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.39 N° 68
Enero
Junio
2021
Recibido el 14/07/2020 Aceptado el 14/01/2021
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 39, Nº 68 (Enero - Junio) 2021, 234-242
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
George W. Bush and the Political and
Military Integration of the EU
(2004-2008)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.3968.14
Zakhar Vasilievich Pokudov *
Viktor Evgenievich Tumanin **
Marat Zufarovich Galiullin ***
Elvira Imbelevna Kamaletdinova ****
Abstract
The aim of the article is to study European integration and
the expansion of the European union together with the Atlantic
alliance during George W. Bush’s second term (2004-2008),
for which the historical method was used. Despite the tendency
that most researchers in the eld of modern history and political
science tend to focus on current events, and according to this logic it would
be more appropriate to analyze Trump’s foreign policy, in order to better
understand the contemporary tension between the EU and the United
States, today it is imperative to take a look at some contemporary historical
processes. It is concluded that, to which George W. Bush’s rhetoric has much
in common with Donald Trump, he also laid the groundwork for change in
U.S. foreign policy during Barack Obama’s presidential term (2008-2016).
The one-sided approach promoted primarily during George W. Bush’s rst
term went from a gradual transformation of coalition building and the full
support of the Atlantic alliance allies for the operation in Afghanistan in
2001, to more controversial rhetoric about “rebel states.”
Keywords: International relations; regional studies-foreigners;
contemporary political history; George Bush; European
integration.
* Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, Kazan, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
4282-7132. Email: zakharpokudov@gmail.com
** Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, Kazan, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
9260-3217. Email: v.tumanin@mail.ru
*** Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, Kazan, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
3798-4328. Email: maratscorpion@yandex.com
**** Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, Kazan, Russia. ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-
3619-6335. Email: elvira-imoiv@mail.ru
235
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 234-242
George W. Bush y la integración política y militar de
la UE (2004-2008).
Resumen
El objetivo del artículo es estudiar la integración europea y la expansión
de la unión europea junto a la alianza atlántica durante el segundo mandato
de George W. Bush (2004-2008), para lo cual se hizo uso del método
histórico. A pesar de la tendencia de que la mayoría de los investigadores
en el campo de la historia moderna y la ciencia política tienden a
concentrarse en los acontecimientos actuales, y según esta lógica sería
más apropiado analizar la política exterior de Trump, para comprender
mejor la tensión contemporánea entre la UE y los Estados Unidos, hoy
en día es imprescindible echar un vistazo a algunos procesos históricos
contemporáneos. Se concluye que, aunque la retórica de George W. Bush
tiene mucho en común con Donald Trump, también sentó las bases para
el cambio en la política exterior estadounidense durante el mandato
presidencial de Barack Obama (2008-2016). El enfoque unilateral que se
promovió principalmente durante el primer mandato de George W. Bush
pasó por una transformación gradual de la creación de una coalición y
la obtención del pleno apoyo de los aliados de la alianza atlántica para la
operación en Afganistán en 2001, a una retórica más controvertida sobre
los “estados rebeldes”.
Palabras clave: Relaciones internacionales; estudios regionales-
extranjeros; historia política contemporánea; George
W. Bush; integración europea.
Introduction
The tension between the two anks of NATO that has been growing
throughout 2000-2002 skyrockets in 2003, which culminates in the Iraq
war in 2003, in which France and Germany took strong opposition to the
Anglo-American ideas of military actions in Iraq. Nevertheless, despite
achieving its goal at the beginning of the operation, it quickly became
evident that the Iraq’s operation would be more complicated than it has
been expected to be.
In such circumstances, the Bush’s administration started to reconsider
its point of view towards their European allies and seeking their support and
strengthening the relationships by realizing that the unipolar world might
be only an unrealizable utopia in the 21
st
century. At the same time, while
America was spending millions of dollars for its operation in Iraq and the
neoconservative course of George W. Bush’s administration became to be
less popular, the EU became larger that unequivocally shifted the balance
within the transatlantic union towards Brussels.
236
Zakhar Vasilievich Pokudov, Viktor Evgenievich Tumanin, Marat Zufarovich Galiullin y Elvira
Imbelevna Kamaletdinova
George W. Bush and the Political and Military Integration of the EU (2004-2008)
Thus, George Bush started to change his unilateral policy towards a
more cooperative one. However, his neoconservative course, which was
based mostly on the ides of Realpolitik, was persistent until the end of his
presidency, that was only highlighted by the dispute about Membership
Action Plan for Georgia and Ukraine in 2008, and future Russian-Georgian
conict which also pointed out the boundaries for the expansion of both
NATO and EU and laid down the basis for the Barack Obama’s European
policy.
1. Methods
The leading method to research this problem is the historical and
systematic method allowing understanding the laws of the European
integration, trace the consistent patterns and regularities of military
cooperation between the EU and the US. The historical and genetic method
helps in creating the factual framework for the analysis and to identify
how the issues of the European integration are connected with the military
cooperation within the Transatlantic alliance and to understand better
what legacy Barack Obama will inherit from the administration of the 43rd
American president.
2. Results and Discussions
The Iraq War, which began in March 2003, divided the European Union
into two camps. The rst camp that was led by France and Germany strongly
opposed the war. The second camp with such countries as the UK, Spain,
and Italy, supported American actions. The Iraq War led to a few more
contradictions between the EU and the US even before the beginning of the
military conict, and the alliance with its forces was divided. For instance,
in January 2003 Germany, France, and Belgium refused to provide
security guarantees for Turkey if the last would have been attacked by Iraq.
According to Serfaty, Iraq was a mistake for Europe long before it became to
be a mistake for the U.S., because it highlighted the lack of common ground
within the European part of the alliance and we can gradually trace it: in
2002 European countries were scared that they were unable to stop the
war in Iraq, in 2003 because they did not form a solid position concerning
the military operation, in 2004 because they were playing only a secondary
and auxiliary role in the liberation of Iraq they were not able to inuence
the process of its reformation, which was mostly done by the US (Serfaty,
2005). Thus, the Iraq war highlighted the military disbalance between two
anks of the transatlantic union and the unilateral moment of the USA.
However, despite this inability to nd a shared position in terms of foreign
politics, the European integration went further.
237
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 234-242
The enlargement of the European Union on 1 May 2004. This
enlargement was not only the biggest one for the European Union in terms
of the number of countries (10 new countries were added), but also in terms
of the population because it added 74 million people to the population of the
EU, which overall number became 455 million. Candidate countries were
gradually fullling acquis communautaire (Ispolinov, 2010), legislation
and legal acts that might put the legal system of candidate countries on
par with the same system of old members, and on May 1, 2004, the Czech
Republic, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Poland,
Malta, and Cyprus ofcially joined the European Union, previously
introducing approximately 50000 new laws. After their admission to the
European Union those countries continue reforms by creating new nancial
and legal institutions. Nevertheless, most of these countries were not ready
to introduce euros. For instance, Slovenia, Malta, and Cyprus introduced
euro in 2007, while Slovakia did the same only in 2009. Further expansion
of the eurozone had been paused due to the nancial crisis of 2008-2009
(Tibor, 2010).
Due to a signicant economic disbalance between the countries of
Western Europe and countries of Eastern Europe, we shall take into account
political motivation for this. For instance, even in the most economically
developed country from these 10 Eastern European countries – Slovenia,
GDP per capita was only 68% from an average number of the European
Union. The share of the service sector in GDP that is commonly considered
to be an essential measure while talking about postindustrial economics
which among old members of the EU was around 67% in the Czech
Republic was only 53,7%, and in Romania, which joined the EU in 2007 it
was even less – 41,7%. Moreover, a share of agriculture in the GDPs of the
Eastern European members was much higher in comparison to Western
Europe (Batorshina, 2011). Thus, despite enforcing acquis communautaire
(European Commission, 2019) Eastern European countries still supposed
to walk a long road on the way to the economic standards of the western
ank of the EU.
To support the new legal foundation for a much bigger union, the
European Constitution was created in October 2004. Despite the only
legal procedures, this constitution also had a symbolic meaning – the
European ag, anthem, and motto were adopted. Furthermore, talking
about European political institutions, a typical “governmental” terminology
was used. For instance, European law, the European minister of foreign
affairs etc. It should have inuenced a collective European identity among
various European nations. According to Levina, “The constitution recalled
for governments and citizens that the European Union is not only a
common market but also a system of political governance, which is based
on the common values and principles” (2010: 58). Nevertheless, despite
the creation of such a Constitution, it had not been adopted, and the next
238
Zakhar Vasilievich Pokudov, Viktor Evgenievich Tumanin, Marat Zufarovich Galiullin y Elvira
Imbelevna Kamaletdinova
George W. Bush and the Political and Military Integration of the EU (2004-2008)
legal action which would enforce political ideas of this constitution would
be the Lisbon Treaty, which was signed in December 2007 and enacted on
1 December 2009 (Levina, 2010).
The next European enlargement happened in 2007, when Romania and
Bulgaria joined the European Union, even though it was evident that these
countries were not ready to join the European Union. According to Tibor,
the European Union had never before integrated countries with such a low
average income, which was 3,500 and 4,500 dollars in Bulgaria and Romania
respectively. The comparison to the 9,200 dollars of average income for
the ten previously admitted Eastern and Central European countries,
and especially to the 29000 dollars income among average countries in
the European Union, was striking. Moreover, Bulgaria and Romania had
problems with corruption and transparency and had a lousy infrastructure
(Tibor, 2010). Nevertheless, with the enlargement of the European Union
the Schengen area had also enlarged. Thus, in December 2007 Poland, the
Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Malta, Lithuania, Latvia,
and Estonia joined the Schengen area. In December 2008 Switzerland
joined, which in the same manner as Norway and Iceland, is a member of
the Schengen area, but not a member of the European Union (Dragunova,
2008).
Nonetheless, we might also say that during the rst decade of the 21st
century, Europe was enlarging not only to the East but also to the West.
Despite some political conundrum between the USA and the EU, the trade
between these two political entities remained to be extremely lucrative. To
point out this fact, in 2007 the transatlantic economic integration act was
signed between the president of the European Commission, José Manuel
Barroso, George W. Bush and Angela Merkel (Nolan, 2012).
Therefore, the
future of the transatlantic relationships looked bright. For instance, that is
how José Manuel Barroso commented on the transatlantic relationships
before signing this treaty, “Our political relationship with the US is as
close as ever, based on deep ties of kinship. With the international role of
the US economy as powerful as ever and with the EU now rmly back on
the growth and jobs path, this is the right time to deepen our economic
partnership and to further strengthen the transatlantic economy. This
agreement will allow us to demolish existing, unnecessary barriers posed
by divergent regulations and nip new ones in the bud. With the necessary
political commitment and follow up on all sides, the new framework will
deliver lower costs for businesses and consumers on both sides of the
Atlantic» (European Commission, 2007).
Moreover, with the economic cooperation, the military cooperation was
also striving. Western Europe in 2007 held a solid second place among
world regions in terms of military spending, by spending 301 billion
dollars, which was 22,5% from the world military spending. In addition to
239
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 234-242
it, Central and Eastern Europe also considerably increased their military
spending – by 162% in 2007, which was the biggest increase in military
spending among world regions, thus considerably contributing to the
European forces. Nonetheless, despite big numbers, European military was
still strongly lagging behind the American military because European forces
were consisting of 27 different forces that still needed some coordination,
which might be extremely complex in terms of communication and at least
a universal language.
Additionally, among the member states, these spending’s were also
unequal. For instance, while Spain was spending in 2007 12,3 billion
dollars, the UK spent 59,2 billion dollars. Furthermore, as it had already
been shown with the example of the Iraq War, it was extremely complex to
nd a common political agenda for the various members of the European
Union. For instance, the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence vividly
demonstrated it. This declaration was supported by France, the UK,
Germany, Italy, and 46 other countries around the globe. Nonetheless,
Spain, Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and other 100
countries, which had problems with ethnic minorities, refused to admit
the existence of Kosovo, and Miguel Ángel Moratinos, who was a minister
of foreign affairs of Spain, even called it “a violation of international law”
(Tibor, 2010: 28).
Nevertheless, Bush’s administration was eager to encourage Europeans
to spend more on their defense. Bush’s administration also had an economic
reason for it – by the beginning of his second term due to the “costly war
on terror” the 200 billion dollars surplus which George W. Bush inherited
from Clinton’s administration, was turned into a 400 billion dollars of
annual decit (Rielly, 2008).
Furthermore, in 2008 a new era in relationships between NATO and the
Russian Federation had begun with NATO plans for further expansion to
the East, and American plans of placing missile defense systems in Poland
and the Czech Republic, and military conict in Georgia. After the end of the
Cold War, NATO had considerably expended and after incorporating Latvia,
Lithuania, and Estonia was situated on the Russian western borders, which
immediately swung geopolitical balance in favor of the Western alliance.
This fact was somehow unpleasant for the Russian political
establishment, (Beloglazov et al., 2019) and military conict in Georgia in
2008, clearly showed boundaries for a further western military (NATO)
and political expansion (EU). Furthermore, the issue concerning further
NATO extension had separated western allies even before. For instance,
during the NATO’s summit in Bucharest 2-4 April 2008 George W. Bush
was pushing to accelerate the participation of Georgia and Ukraine in
Membership Action Plan (MAP), which is considered to be the rst step
before being fully integrated in the transatlantic alliance. However,
240
Zakhar Vasilievich Pokudov, Viktor Evgenievich Tumanin, Marat Zufarovich Galiullin y Elvira
Imbelevna Kamaletdinova
George W. Bush and the Political and Military Integration of the EU (2004-2008)
Germany and France decisively blocked this intension by referring to the
internal political instability and “frozen conicts” in South Ossetia and
Abkhazia (Noetzel and Schreer, 2009). As the historian of the European
Union Martin J. Dedman pointed out, the U.S. and its western allies must
have been nally decided how to perceive post-Soviet Russia – as an ally in
a ght against global terrorism, or as a geopolitical competitor that should
be contained. To perceive Russia from both sides was impossible, which the
military conict in Georgia vividly emphasized (Dedman, 2010).
Conclusion
Therefore, despite all the setbacks of the rst Bush’s presidency in
the euro-American relationships, during the second Bush’s term these
relationships improved. Nevertheless, as pointed by a professor of
international relations at Georgetown University Charles A. Kupchan
“Certainly we are not back to where we were during the pre-Bush era, but
we also have climbed back from the abyss in relations that surrounded the
Iraq war” (Bush Second Term Repairs Damage to European Relations,
2008). Despite the fact that the European integration went further, and the
EU became bigger, the Russian-Georgian conict of 2008 underlined the
limits of possible expansion to the East for both NATO and EU.
To sum up, in this article, military cooperation between the EU
and the United States during two presidential terms of George W. Bush has
been analyzed. At the dawn of the 21
st
century the relationships between the
USA and EU were developing due to potential economic competition, for
instance in terms of steel, and some misunderstandings in terms of foreign
policies. However, after September 11 attacks, NATO was unied against a
common enemy – international terrorism. However, the Iraq War proved
to be divisive for the Western alliance and highlighted difculties of the
European Union in terms of nding a common position. Moreover, American
foreign policy and especially the Bush Doctrine, which was based on a
signicantly increased American military and economic might, highlighted
the existing imbalance between the two anks of the transatlantic alliance.
However, it did not stop the European integration, with the 5th and the 6th
enlargements in 2004 and 2007 respectively. 2008 became to be a quite
divisive year for the European foreign policy again with Kosovo declaration
of independence and military conict in Georgia. The last also pointed out
possible boundaries for the NATO and EU expansion to the East of the
Union. In terms of military, in the end of the Bush’s second term the strong
economic ties between the European Union and the United States remained
to be present, as well as a signicant military imbalance between these two
political entities, despite the fact that Europe became much bigger in terms
of population and active military personnel.
241
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 39 Nº 68 (Enero - Junio 2021): 234-242
Acknowledgments
The work is performed according to the Russian Government Program
of Competitive Growth of Kazan Federal University.
Bibliographic References
BATORSHINA, Irina Alexandrovna. 2011. “The fth wave of the European
enlargement: pro et contra” In: Baltic region. No. 3, pp. 49-58 (in
Russian).
BELOGLAZOV, Albert Vladislavovich; MUBARAKSHINA, Anastasiya
Mikhailovna; ZAKIROV, Almaz Vasilovich. 2019. “Global Supply Chain
Strategy in the Cooperation of Russia and Tajikistan in the Field of
Security in the Early 21st Century” In: International Journal of Supply
Chain Management (IJSCM). Vol. 8, No. 5, pp. 943-947.
DEDMAN, Martin. 2010. The origins and development of the European Union:
1945 – 2008; a history of European integration. Routledge. Edinburgh,
Scotland.
DRAGUNOVA, Evgeniya V. 2008. “Processes of the European integration in
the second of the 20th century: unity and diversity” In: Herald of the
Leningrad State University. 143-154. (in Russian).
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. 2007. “EU and US to sign up to transatlantic
economic integration plan at Washington Summit on 30 April” In:
European Union: European Commision. Available online. In: https://
europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-07-587_en.htm. Consultation date:
13/12/2019.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. 2019. European Neighbourhood Policy and
Enlargement Negotiations. Available online. In: https://ec.europa.eu/
neighbourhood-enlargement/policy/conditions-membership/chapters-
of-the-acquis_en. Consultation date: 20/11/2019.
ISPOLINOV, Alexei. 2010. “The concept of acquis Communautaire in law of
the European Union” In: Moscow University Herald. No. 5, pp. 68-87
(in Russian).
LEVINA, Natalia. 2010. “Lisbon Treaty – the new basic document of the
European Union” In: Herald of People’s Friendship University of Russia.
Section: law, pp. 98-104 (in Russian).
NOETZEL, Timo; SCHREER, Benjamin. 2009. “Does a Multi-Tier NATO
Matter? The Atlantic Alliance and the Process of Strategic Change” In:
International Affairs. Vol. 85, No. 2. pp. 211-226.
242
Zakhar Vasilievich Pokudov, Viktor Evgenievich Tumanin, Marat Zufarovich Galiullin y Elvira
Imbelevna Kamaletdinova
George W. Bush and the Political and Military Integration of the EU (2004-2008)
NOLAN, Mary. 2012. The Transatlantic Century: Europe and America, 1890-
2010. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, England.
RIELLY, James T. 2008. “The Bush’s Administration’s Foreign Policy Legacy”
In: Politique américaine. No. 12, pp. 73-86.
SERFATY, Simon. 2005. The vital partnership: power and order: America and
Europe beyond Iraq. Rowman & Littleeld. Michigan, USA.
TIBOR, Balogh. 2010. Europe Since 1980. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge, England.
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
Planilla de suscripción 2015
Nom bre ____________________________________________________
Ins ti tu ción __________________________________________________
Di rec ción___________________________________________________
Ciu dad ________________________País_________________________
Che que de ge ren cia a nom bre de: Univer si dad del Zu lia (LUZ),
Fa cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas, In gre sos Pro pios
Ban co Oc ci den tal de Des cuen to, Cuen ta co rrien te Nº 212700890-9
Ta ri fa de sus crip ción por un año (dos nú me ros):
Ve ne zue la: Bs. 80 + En vío
Ejem plar so lo: Bs. 40 + En vío
Amé ri ca La ti na $ 40 + En vío
Resto del mundo $ 50 + Envío
Esta pla ni lla debe ser en via da a la si guien te dirección:
Re vis ta “Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas”
Fa cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas
Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
Apar ta do Pos tal 526, Ma ra cai bo Ve ne zue la
Puede adelantar información por: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.com
~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com
Planilla de suscripción
