Английская Википедия:Inter-Korean Liaison Office bombing

Материал из Онлайн справочника
Перейти к навигацииПерейти к поиску

Шаблон:Short description Шаблон:Use mdy dates

Шаблон:Infobox civilian attack

Inter-Korean Liaison Office bombing (Шаблон:Korean) refers to the bombing of the Inter-Korean Liaison Office located in Kaesong, Democratic People's Republic of Korea on June 16, 2020. The two Koreas decided to close the office on January 30 in response to the development of the 2019 coronavirus outbreak, and the South Korean staff left on the same day. However, during the closure of the Joint Liaison Office, the North Koreans were dissatisfied with a group of defectors spreading leaflets along the demilitarized zone and sent the Korean People's Army to blow up the building on June 16, accusing South Korea's violation of the Panmunjom Declaration, a move that is said to have worsened North Korea–South Korea relations and strained the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

Background

After the signing of the Panmunjom Declaration at the inter-Korean Summit in April 2018, the two sides agreed to establish a "permanent liaison office".[1] However, due to the visit of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to North Korea, the office initially scheduled to open in August 2018 was postponed to open on September 14 officially.[2] Following the breakdown of the 2019 North Korea–United States Hanoi Summit, the firm faced a long-term suspension, but this did not affect the twice-daily communication between the liaison officers of the two sides.[3]

In 2020, South Korea and North Korea decided to close their offices on January 30 in response to the development of the COVID-19 pandemic,[4] and South Korean staff left on the same day.[5] During the closure of the office, the South Korean side still had twice daily conversations with the North Korean authorities.[6] The South Korean Unification Ministry stated that the relevant personnel of the office was transferred to Seoul to continue operations after the closure.[7]

North Korea's dissatisfaction with South Korea's actions

On June 4, 2020, Kim Yo-jong, an alternate member of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea and the First Vice Minister of the Organization and Guidance Department, said that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was dissatisfied with a group of defectors sending 500,000 leaflets, 50 manuals, 2,000 $1 bills, and 1,000 memory cards along the Korean Demilitarized Zone on May 31 toward the DPRK, and demanded to immediately improve the situation.[8] Subsequently, a spokesman for the United Front Department of the Workers' Party of Korea unilaterally announced the closure of the inter-Korean Liaison Office the following day.[9] Kim Yong-chol, vice chairman of the Central Committee of the Workers' Party of Korea, pointed out at a central government meeting that the dissemination of the leaflets was a hostile act in violation of the inter-Korean peace agreement, and therefore cut off all communication channels with the Korean authorities on June 9.[10]

On June 12, the Director General of the United States Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (North Korea), Kwon Jeong-geun, condemned the remarks made by the South Korean side regarding efforts for the DPRK US dialogue and denuclearization.[11] The United Front Minister of the Korean Labor Party, Kim Young-chol, also issued a statement stating that he felt distrust of the inaction of the South Korean government.[12] Subsequently, in a speech on June 13, Kim Yo-jong once again criticized South Korea for ignoring bilateral relations and conniving with defectors, saying that it was "the time to say goodbye" to the South Korean government, authorizing the Korean People's Army to decide on a continuation of the enemy's actions.[13] Kim Yo-jong also pointed out in his speech on the same day that "in the near future, the useless joint liaison office between the North and the South will disappear".[14]

South Korea's response

After the South Korean government was informed of the North's dissatisfaction, the Ministry of Unification spokesman Roh Sang-ki said at a regular press conference on June 4 that the act of spreading anti-DPRK leaflets threatened the safety of people and property in the border area and that the government was studying an effective plan in this regard and called on people not to spread anti-DPRK leaflets at the border.[15] On the same day, the Ministry of National Defense (South Korea) spokesman Choi Hyun-soo said at a regular press conference that the South Korean government has not changed its position on the implementation of the Pyongyang Joint Declaration, which was signed by the two Koreas on September 19, 2018, in response to the North's unilateral threat to dismantle the agreement.[16]

At a regular press conference in the morning of June 8, the Korean Ministry of Unification said that according to the routine business arrangement of the inter-Korean Liaison Office, the two Koreas talk once a day in the morning and once in the afternoon, but in the morning of that day, the North did not answer the phone, which was the first time that the North did not answer the phone after the establishment of the office in 2018.[17] On the following day, a regular press conference of the Ministry of Unification of Korea stated that the DPRK answered the phone on the afternoon of the 8th, but did not mention why they did not took the call in the morning and said that the two sides should maintain communication channels.[18] The North Korean government subsequently cut all communication channels with the South Korean authorities on June 9, and the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs held a press conference that afternoon, saying that it would closely monitor changes in inter-Korean relations with the United States.[19] In response to the unilateral cut-off, Blue House only said that the inter-Korean communication channels "should continue to be maintained and used according to a mutual agreement",[20] prompting the opposition People Power Party to criticize the Moon Jae-in administration for adopting a low-profile toward North Korea and allowing North Korea to take advantage of it.[21]

On June 10, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Korea reported two groups of defectors who had violated the regulations on the distribution of leaflets to the DPRK under the Korean Exchange and Cooperation Act and decided to cancel their registration licenses.[22] On June 14, the Korean government expressed concern over Kim's remarks,[23] and the Ministry of National Defense held an emergency meeting at the Blue House on the same morning to check the military's readiness and discuss how to deal with North Korea.[24]

Events

Yonhap News Agency quoted sources as saying that the South Korean government observed vehicles suspected of carrying explosives at the inter-Korean Joint Liaison Office after Kim and Jung spoke on June 13.[25] The South Korean military observed flames on the first and second floors of the office the following day.[26]

On the morning of June 16, the General Staff Headquarters of the Korean People's Army issued a communiqué stating that it is fully prepared for the ongoing deterioration of inter-Korean relations and that it has firmly guaranteed any external measures taken by the party and the government from a military perspective.[27] In response, South Korean Defense Ministry spokesman Choi Hyun-soo stressed at a regular press conference that the South Korean military is on alert to deal with any situation at any time,[28] and said the South Korean side will work closely with the U.S. to keep a close watch and track the movement of the North Korean forces.[29] The government then observed a loud noise and smoke coming from the Kaesong Industrial Park in the afternoon, and the military immediately checked whether it was related to the demolition of the inter-Korean Liaison Office,[30] and said it was stepping up its surveillance and alert of the North Korean side, while asking the frontline commander to take up his position to command the border guard force.[31] The Republic of Korea Army confirmed through visual observation that the inter-Korean Liaison Office building in the Kaesong industrial area had been blown up, and the North Korean authorities later confirmed that the General Headquarters of the Korean People's Army had given orders to the mission unit to blow up the inter-Korean Liaison Office at 2:49 p.m. Pyongyang time,[32] saying through the official media, Korean Central Broadcasting Station, that this was in response to the public opinion of the North Korean people.[33]

After the destruction of the office, the North Korean authorities said that they will redeploy military forces to the Kaesong industrial area and the Geumgang Mountain International Tourism Special Zone at the border, and reestablish posts and restart military drills.[34] In response to the North Korean government's statement, the chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Jeon Dong-jin,[35] said that he will closely monitor the North Korean government's movement 24 hours a day and will respond strongly if provoked by military actions.[36] The President of the Republic of Korea, Moon Jae-in, convened a plenary session of the National Security Council after learning of the destruction of his office,[37] the ninth time since he took power.[38] After the meeting, Kim Yoo-geun, secretary general of the National Security Council of Korea, said that the DPRK's action completely failed to meet the expectations of everyone who is looking forward to the development of inter-Korean relations and permanent peace on the Korean peninsula,[39] and made it clear that the DPRK should be held responsible for all consequences arising from it.[40] In regards to the North's bombing of the office, Yoon Do-han, chief secretary for national communications at Blue House, said that the South Korean government has not received any plans or notifications.[41]

The Korean diplomatic personnel dormitory adjacent to the office was also affected by the impact of the explosion, resulting in a collapse of the outer wall of the dormitory.[42] According to the photos taken by the television station, Korean Broadcasting System, on June 17 at a height of about 2000 meters in the no-fly zone along the Military Demarcation Line,[43] it was also found that the comprehensive support center for the Kaesong Industrial Area near the office was also affected and seriously damaged.[44] On June 19, South Korean government sources told the "Korea JoongAng Daily" that after analyzing the images of the South Korean army and the North Korean official media, it was found that the TNT explosives set up by the North Korean explosion should amount to hundreds of kilograms.[45]

Aftermath

Inter-Korean relations

On June 15, the President of the Republic of Korea, Moon Jae-in, proposed to the DPRK to send the head of the Korean National Security Agency, Jung Eui-yong, and the head of the Korean National Intelligence Service, Suh Hoon, as special envoys to meet with the chairman of the Korean Labor Party, Kim Jong Un, but on June 17, the DPRK rejected the proposal.[46] In response to North Korea's unilateral message that it wanted to send envoys, Moon said that although the act was a bit too much, he would continue to explore ways to break through the Korean impasse to keep persuading North Korea and the United States.[47] Under the situation where relations between North and South Korea continue to deteriorate, South Korean Minister of Unification Kim Yeon Jik resigned on the 17th taking responsibility for the degradation of inter-Korean relations.[48] The spokesman of the Blue House, Kang Min Seok, said in a press conference on the morning of 19th that Moon Jae-in agreed to his resignation and said that Moon Jae-in had dinner with Kim Yain Tie on the evening of 18th and listened to Kim Yain Tie's position.[49]

After the North Korean government bombed the office, Kim Young-chul, the minister of the united front of the Korean Labor Party, said that there would be no more exchanges, cooperations or even talks between the two Koreas in the future, adding that "everything that has happened between the two sides should be treated as a dream",[50] while the North Korean government continued to push forward military measures and said through the official media that it had prepared more than 3,000 balloons and 12 million leaflets for "retaliatory punishment".[51] The leaflets were published with a picture of Moon drinking tea, a string of mocking words and a lot of smoked cigarette butts on the end.[52][53] The South Korean military said it will pay close attention to how the North Koreans act and the way they take action, and then return with any possible military response.[54][55] The South Korean military also found that the North Korean government has reinstalled loudspeakers for "Psychological warfare"[Notes 1] in non-military areas, indicating that the two sides' previous efforts to improve relations have returned to square one.[56]

Kim Jong Un, Chairman of the Korean Labor Party, presided over the preparatory meeting of the 5th meeting of the Central Military Commission on June 23 and decided to suspend the implementation of the military action plan.[57][58] Some official media also deleted critical reports on the Korean authorities.[59] The Korean media "Central Daily" pointed out that North Korea had observed the dismantling and reinstallation of loudspeakers at the Peace Observatory in Ganghwa County, Incheon Prefecture, while South Korean Congressman Kim Yong Ho expressed through the media,[60] South Korea's Vice Minister of Unification, Xu Hu, confirmed that the DPRK had completely removed loudspeakers in the border areas when attending a private forum of the National Committee on Foreign Affairs Unification.[61] After the suspension of critical reporting, the North Korean official media had not published any reports directly criticizing the South Korean government as of July 5.[62] The North Korean foreign media only resumed writing articles criticizing the South Korean military and political parties on June 26.[63][64]

On June 25, the 70th anniversary of the Korean War, South Korean President Moon Jae-in gave a speech, saying that he would protect the lives and security of his people at all costs and that Seoul has a strong all-round national defense force that will not tolerate any provocation,[65] the first warning message to Pyongyang authorities since Moon took office.[66] The Korean Foreign Ministry's Institute for Disarmament and Peace Research released a research report on the same day, saying that the withdrawal of the U.S. policy of hostility towards North Korea is the prerequisite for maintaining peace on the Korean Peninsula,[67] and that the U.S. started the Korean War to cause the pain of national division on the Korean Peninsula, which is why North Korea is determined to take the path of nuclear self-defense.[68] The Korean Defense Minister Jeong Kyeong-doo and U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper issued a joint statement on the same day, calling on the North Korean authorities to exercise self-restraint and decide to maintain peace and security in Northeast Asia through trilateral and multilateral security cooperation between South Korea, the United States and Japan.[69]

On July 8, Korean lawyer Lee Kyung-jae filed a lawsuit against Kim Woong-jung and Park Jung-tien, the chief of staff of the Korean People's Army, for damaging Korean public property.[70][71] Lee Kyung-jae said that although the Korean government cannot actually punish Kim and Park, it wants to show the Korean people the hypocrisy of their leaders.[72][73]

On July 27, 2021, Park Soo-hyun, chief secretary for national communication at the Blue House in South Korea, said that the communication channel between the DPRK and the Republic of Korea (ROK) was restored and that this is the first time that the leaders of both sides have reached an agreement on restarting the communication channel after repeatedly discussing the restoration of North Korea–South Korea relations through correspondence since April 2021.[74] The Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) also issued a communiqué on the same day.[75] After the interruption of the communication channel between the two Koreas, the DPRK side had not responded to the daily messages sent to the ROK side through the International Merchant Marine Network (IMN), but seven days after the restoration of the communication channel,[76] the DPRK side responded to the IMN calls, which also led to the full restoration of the military communication channel between the two Koreas.[77] On August 1, Kim Woong-jung, vice minister of the Central Committee of the Korean Labor Party.[78]

In an authorized statement on August 10, Kim Woong-jung, vice minister of the Central Committee of the Labor Party of Korea, said that the DPRK was "strongly dismayed by the treacherous behavior of the South Korean authorities" as the U.S. and South Korea insisted on starting joint military exercises that further aggravated the unstable situation despite the unanimous condemnation and opposition from inside and outside.[79][80] Then, at 5 p.m. that day, the DPRK side did not answer the routine phone calls made by the South Korean side through the liaison office channel and the East-West Sea military communication line, cutting off the communication channel again after only 14 days, which had been restored on July 27.[81] On the following day, Kim Young-chul, the minister of the Unification Front Department of the Korean Labor Party, issued a statement through the Korean Central News Agency,[82] saying that the Korean side had given up the opportunity to improve inter-Korean relations and had reciprocated the North's goodwill with hostile acts, pointing out that Kim Woong-jung, the deputy minister of the Central Committee, had been commissioned by the party's Central Committee to issue a statement on the first day as an opportunity for the North to give the Korean side a choice.[83] In this regard, the Korean Ministry of Unification issued a position on the same day after consolidating the positions of relevant departments, saying that it is not in the interest of any party to aggravate tensions on the Korean peninsula and urging the DPRK to restart dialogue as soon as possible, and that the ROK will not prejudge the direction of the DPRK's response in the future, but will continue to pay close attention to relevant movements.[84]

On September 29, Kim Jong Un, chairman of the Korean Workers' Party, delivered a policy speech on "the current direction of struggle for new development of socialist construction" at the 5th session of the 14th Supreme People's Assembly of the DPRK,[85] pointing out that the pipeline between the two sides is expected to be restored in early October of the same year.[86] The government's position on the issue was published by the Unification Ministry.[87][88] On October 4, the Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) issued a communiqué stating that all communication lines were reopened at 9:00 p.m. that day, and that the relevant South Korean authorities should be aware of the significance of the reopening.[89] The Korean Ministry of Unification also confirmed on the same day that the North-South Joint Liaison Office and the South Korean military had resumed normal bilateral communication,[90] while Blue House did not formally state its position on the resumption of communication between the two sides, but only responded to the position expressed by the Ministry of Unification and the Ministry of National Defense.[91]

Japanese and U.S. response

On June 16, the Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe, said he would "work closely with South Korea and the United States and analyze intelligence to respond" after being informed of the bombing of the inter-Korean liaison office,[92] while the Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga said at a press conference on June 17 that the Japanese government was very concerned about North Korea's actions and that it was "maintaining the necessary alert posture to be fully prepared for all incidents.[93]

The United States Department of State issued a statement saying that the North Korean authorities should avoid further counterproductive actions and said it decided to extend sanctions against North Korea for one year,[94] the fourth time since President Donald Trump took office,[95] because North Korea's actions and policies continue to pose "an unusual and extraordinary threat" to U.S. national security, foreign policy and the economy.[96] The U.S. Department of Defense said it will actively discuss with South Korea the feasibility of joint military exercises.[97]

Korean military sources pointed out on June 17 that U.S. Navy EP-3E electronic reconnaissance aircraft and U.S. Army RC-12X reconnaissance aircraft stationed in Korea were flying over the Korean Capital Territory on that day to implement surveillance and reconnaissance missions against North Korea.[98] A military aircraft tracking site said the U.S. Air Force RC-135W reconnaissance aircraft in the morning of the 18th over the Korean capital circle.[99] On June 22, the military aircraft tracking website also pointed out that two B-52 Stratospheric Fortress bombers were observed flying from Alaska's Aisin base to the Philippine Sea via Japan, which was seen as a measure to warn the North Korean side.[100] The U.S. Air Force released photos of a joint elephant walk exercise with the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force at Misawa Airfield in Aomori Prefecture on the 23rd.[101]

Other reactions

Following the bombing of the North-South Joint Liaison Office, Russian Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Sergeyevich Peskov issued a statement expressing concern about the situation on the Korean Peninsula and calling on both Koreas to remain calm,[102] but at this stage the Russian government has no plans to help ease tensions on the Korean Peninsula.[103] The European Union issued a statement on the matter, stating that it deeply regretted the recent actions of North Korea and said that the Pyongyang authorities should refrain from further provocative and destructive actions.[104] The European Union reiterated its support for the Korean government's efforts to achieve peace and prosperity on the peninsula and the need to reignite dialogue between the parties,[105] according to a joint press release issued after a video conference between EU Summit President Charles Michel and EU Executive Committee President Ursula von der Leyen on June 30 and President Moon Jae-in of the Republic of Korea.[106]

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China is also working with the government of the Republic of Korea (ROK) to improve the relationship between the two countries,[107] and to maintain peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.[108] The president of the Republic of China, Tsai Ing-wen, said that the government of the Republic of China is closely concerned about the development of the border conflict between China and India and the tension on the Korean Peninsula.[109][110] The government has also issued a statement saying that the national security team is closely monitoring the latest developments and is in constant contact with all relevant countries.[111]

Related disputes

Airborne flyers controversial content

The message pointed out that the flyer floated to North Korea was related to the malicious photograph manipulation of Kim Jong Un's wife, Ri Sol-ju, as the protagonist of a pornographic film,[112] and that South Korean netizens did not approve of the flyer's content and considered it crazy and bad.[113] The named "Free Korean Movement Alliance" said that the leaflet was not produced by it, and pointed out that the leaflet had appeared in 2013.[114] According to a check by the Korean media outlet World Journal, it was confirmed that the malicious leaflet was put out by extreme conservative groups such as Pyongyang Citizens' Association and Blue Union in October 2013 when Park Geun-hye was in power.[115]

Concerns about violations of free speech

On July 17, the Ministry of Unification of Korea officially revoked the permission for the establishment of the "Free North Korea Movement Alliance" and "Daechuan", a group of North Korean defector groups.[116] The government also said that the groups are not in line with the purpose of their establishment,[117] but also endanger the safety of residents in the border areas of Korea and North Korea, and aggravate the tension in the peninsula, which is detrimental to national interests.[118] The US government is of the opinion that South Korea is giving in to North Korea's demands and abandoning its dignity as an exemplary democracy.[119]

Subsequent actions

Korean government draws fire for new law

On December 3, 2020, the ruling United Democratic Party (UDP) sent a draft of the "Propaganda Prohibition Act against North Korea" to the National Assembly of Korea for scrutiny, which covers the prohibition of propaganda shouting through leaflets and loudspeakers against the North Korean side in border areas.[120] However, the bill is strongly supported by the Common Republican Party and suppresses the opposition's views, causing dissatisfaction among the opposition parties in Korea.[121] U.S. Republican Congressman Chris Smith expressed concern over the implementation of the bill by the South Korean parliament.[122] In response to concerns about infringement of freedom of speech, South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha said in an interview with CNN that freedom of speech is crucial to human rights, but it does not mean that it is unquestionable, but needs to be restricted.[123]

After the bill was passed on Dec 14, the Fighters for a Free North Korea, a group of defectors, said it would file a lawsuit against the bill for unconstitutionality.[124] The American Human Rights Foundation stated that it had sent letters to the National Assembly, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Unification Ministry, the ruling United Democratic Party and the largest opposition party, the People Power Party, before the December 9 debate on the bill, stating that the bill infringes on freedom of speech and is unconstitutional.[125] Human Rights Watch called the bill a misguided strategy to win the favor of Kim Jong Un.[126] After the passage of the bill, the Unification Ministry of Korea said that although freedom of speech is provided for in the Korean constitution, the safety of people's lives at the border is more important, and pointed out that the new law only restricts some forms of freedom of speech at a minimum.[127]

At the end of March 2021, the amended "Propaganda Prohibition Act against North Korea" came into effect, which prohibits the delivery of anti-North Korean leaflets and loudspeaker shouting along the military demarcation line.[128] The Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that the hearing did not affect the Korea-US alliance,[129] and pointed out that the Korean government will continue to introduce the purpose of the law to the U.S. Congress,[130] the State Department and human rights groups and other relevant parties, and strive for the Korean government's position to be fully reflected in this hearing.[131]

In response to the Korean government's amendment, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights wrote to the Korean government expressing concern about the negative impact of the law on the right to freedom of expression and the legitimate activities of some civil society groups and human rights advocates in Korea,[132] and requesting information on whether the amendment complies with international human rights law and the scope of illegal activities under the amendment.[133] The UN Special Rapporteur on North Korea, Tomas Ojea Quintana, said last December that he had recommended that South Korea reconsider the amendment in accordance with the due process of the relevant democratic institutions before implementing the law. In protest, the Alliance for a Free North Korea Movement, a group of defectors, again dropped 500,000 flyers from April 25 to 29 along the military demarcation line from Paju City, Gyeonggi Province, to Gangwon Province.[134]

See also

Notes

  1. The "mental warfare shouting" is one of the specific tools of battlefield psychological warfare, combined with other mental warfare actions to respond to military operations. Шаблон:Cite web

References

  1. Шаблон:Cite web
  2. Шаблон:Cite web
  3. Шаблон:Cite web
  4. Шаблон:Cite web
  5. Шаблон:Cite web
  6. Шаблон:Cite web
  7. Шаблон:Cite web
  8. Шаблон:Cite web
  9. Шаблон:Cite web
  10. Шаблон:Cite web
  11. Шаблон:Cite web
  12. Шаблон:Cite web
  13. Шаблон:Cite web
  14. Шаблон:Cite web
  15. Шаблон:Cite web
  16. Шаблон:Cite web
  17. Шаблон:Cite web
  18. Шаблон:Cite web
  19. Шаблон:Cite web
  20. Шаблон:Cite web
  21. Шаблон:Cite web
  22. Шаблон:Cite web
  23. Шаблон:Cite web
  24. Шаблон:Cite web
  25. Шаблон:Cite web
  26. Шаблон:Cite web
  27. Шаблон:Cite web
  28. Шаблон:Cite web
  29. Шаблон:Cite web
  30. Шаблон:Cite web
  31. Шаблон:Cite web
  32. Шаблон:Cite web
  33. Шаблон:Cite web
  34. Шаблон:Cite web
  35. Шаблон:Cite web
  36. Шаблон:Cite web
  37. Шаблон:Cite web
  38. Шаблон:Cite web
  39. Шаблон:Cite web
  40. Шаблон:Cite web
  41. Шаблон:Cite web
  42. Шаблон:Cite web
  43. Шаблон:Cite web
  44. Шаблон:Cite web
  45. Шаблон:Cite web
  46. Шаблон:Cite web
  47. Шаблон:Cite web
  48. Шаблон:Cite web
  49. Шаблон:Cite web
  50. Шаблон:Cite web
  51. Шаблон:Cite web
  52. Шаблон:Cite web
  53. Шаблон:Cite web
  54. Шаблон:Cite web
  55. Шаблон:Cite web
  56. Шаблон:Cite web
  57. Шаблон:Cite web
  58. Шаблон:Cite web
  59. Шаблон:Cite web
  60. Шаблон:Cite web
  61. Шаблон:Cite web
  62. Шаблон:Cite web
  63. Шаблон:Cite web
  64. Шаблон:Cite web
  65. Шаблон:Cite web
  66. Шаблон:Cite web
  67. Шаблон:Cite web
  68. Шаблон:Cite web
  69. Шаблон:Cite web
  70. Шаблон:Cite web
  71. Шаблон:Cite web
  72. Шаблон:Cite web
  73. Шаблон:Cite web
  74. Шаблон:Cite web
  75. Шаблон:Cite web
  76. Шаблон:Cite web
  77. Шаблон:Cite web
  78. Шаблон:Cite web
  79. Шаблон:Cite web
  80. Шаблон:Cite web
  81. Шаблон:Cite web
  82. Шаблон:Cite web
  83. Шаблон:Cite web
  84. Шаблон:Cite web
  85. Шаблон:Cite web
  86. Шаблон:Cite web
  87. Шаблон:Cite web
  88. Шаблон:Cite web
  89. Шаблон:Cite web
  90. Шаблон:Cite web
  91. Шаблон:Cite web
  92. Шаблон:Cite web
  93. Шаблон:Cite web
  94. Шаблон:Cite web
  95. Шаблон:Cite web
  96. Шаблон:Cite web
  97. Шаблон:Cite web
  98. Шаблон:Cite web
  99. Шаблон:Cite web
  100. Шаблон:Cite web
  101. Шаблон:Cite web
  102. Шаблон:Cite web
  103. Шаблон:Cite web
  104. Шаблон:Cite web
  105. Шаблон:Cite web
  106. Шаблон:Cite web
  107. Шаблон:Cite web
  108. Шаблон:Cite web
  109. Шаблон:Cite web
  110. Шаблон:Cite web
  111. Шаблон:Cite web
  112. Шаблон:Cite web
  113. Шаблон:Cite web
  114. Шаблон:Cite web
  115. Шаблон:Cite web
  116. Шаблон:Cite web
  117. Шаблон:Cite web
  118. Шаблон:Cite web
  119. Шаблон:Cite web
  120. Шаблон:Cite web
  121. Шаблон:Cite web
  122. Шаблон:Cite web
  123. Шаблон:Cite web
  124. Шаблон:Cite web
  125. Шаблон:Cite web
  126. Шаблон:Cite web
  127. Шаблон:Cite web
  128. Шаблон:Cite web
  129. Шаблон:Cite web
  130. Шаблон:Cite web
  131. Шаблон:Cite web
  132. Шаблон:Cite web
  133. Шаблон:Cite web
  134. Шаблон:Cite web