Daniela Márquez Estrada

Ruhr University Bochum

Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict
World Politics Module

Violence in Refugee Camps: The Necropolitics of the Refugee System

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
II. Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................... 1
III. The Refugee System and Necropolitics .................................................................................. 3
IV. Structural Violence in the Refugee System ........................................................................... 4
V. Cultural Violence in the Refugee System ............................................................................. 6
VI. Direct Violence in the Refugee System ................................................................................ 7
VII. The Role of Humanitarian Action ....................................................................................... 8
VIII. Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 10

"There are no parallels to the life in the concentration camps. Its horror can never be
fully embraced by the imagination for the very reason that it stands outside of life and
death." (Hannah Arendt)
 I. Introduction
In the current context of forced migration and the increasing number of refugees worldwide,
encampment continues to be the reality for millions of refugees. This is true in all contexts,
from the now gone Calais “Jungle” camp in France, to the city-like Kakuma refugee camp in
Kenya, people fleeing violence are subject to living in encampment through a system
constructed by diverse actors. This system, formed by not only States but also humanitarian
actors such as INGOs, creates a continuum of violence for refugees from conflict, flight to
encampment (Krause, 2015), and contributes directly to the exacerbation of direct violence
through the biopolitical and necropolitical management of bodies, which is further justified
and supported by neoliberal governmentality through humanitarian action.

In order to consider the aforementioned notions, it is important to understand the relevance

of the concept of Necropolitics, its complementary notion of Biopolitics, and their use in the
present analysis. The exercise of Necropolitical power by States in the Refugee system does
not stand alone however, but is rather part of a larger structure in neoliberal governmentality
of which humanitarian action also forms a part of (Piotukh, 2015) (Agier, 2008). In this sense,
the theory developed by the sociologist Johan Galtung regarding structural, cultural and
direct violence provides a relevant framework to analyze how the refugee system is formed
as a part of neoliberal governmentality, particularly regarding encampment.

The violence perpetrated in the former encampment in Calais and the ongoing camp in
Kakuma will be useful to highlight the characteristics of this biopolitical-necropolitical
management and its consequences on forms of direct violence such as Sexual and Gender
based Violence. As well as the significant role that humanitarian actors play in this system.

II. Theoretical Framework

As was mentioned previously, the complementary concepts of Necropolitics and Biopolitics
will be central to the present analysis. The notion of Biopolitics and Biopower preceded that
of Necropolitics and was although not entirely created, famously developed by French
philosopher Michel Foucault. In The History of Sexuality, Foucault establishes that the old
medieval power of taking life or letting live was replaced by the modern liberal power to
“foster life or disallow it” (Foucault, 1978, 138), in this sense, by exercising biopower, States
do not outright kill people whom are deemed undesirable to the nation-State but rather

1
provide the sufficient structural conditions to foster growth, improve mortality and life
expectancy or “optimize a state of life” (Foucault, 2003, 246) and, on the other hand disallow
life by not providing these conditions to bodies considered undesirable.

Furthermore, the concept of Biopolitics is formulated positively, meaning that the State
actively improves the conditions or the chances for life for certain populations (Foucault in
Piotukh, 2015, 20) and death is formulated by the absence of these conditions. The exercise
of the deadly aspect of biopolitics is often justified and carried out through racist notions for
which the “othering” of populations is crucial, or rather by promoting a process of
categorization of the population (Dean in Piotukh, 2015) in order to establish the more
“desirable” or “worthy” bodies to have an optimal state of life.

Considering this concept, it is unclear as to why a complementary notion such as

Necropolitics is needed if, indeed Biopolitics has a component of death in its definition. For
this analysis both concepts are relevant for two main reasons, on the one hand the idea of
Necropolitics was coined by Achille Mbembe with a decolonial mindset by highlighting even
more than in Biopolitics the importance of race in the categorization and justification of the
exercise of power by the States, particularly in the exercise of State sovereignty of delimiting
new spatial relations in colonial occupation by letting the colonized exist in a “third zone”
(Mbembe, 2003, 11-40), of existence as neither objects nor subjects.

Secondly, the concept of Necropolitics is not opposite or antithetical to Biopolitics but takes
it further. Necropolitics establishes the exercise of biopower, or in this case necropower by
States in order to “make die” rather than “let die” or in other words, having death as a tool
for governance (Wright, 2011, 709) based on race or other categorizations of groups that are
considered undesirable or even compromising to the rest of the population. As an example
of this, Mbembe mentions concentration camps as a form of Necropolitics. (Mbembe, 2003,
11-40)

Another concept crucial for the analysis here presented is that of the typologies of Violence
otherwise known as the violence triangle (Galtung, 1990, 294) by sociologist Johan Galtung.
Galtung presents three conceptions of violence: Structural Violence, Cultural Violence and
Direct Violence, all of which are interrelated. According to Galtung, Direct Violence are the
most visible forms of violence and they occur as “events” (Galtung, 1990, 294); Structural

2
Violence can be seen as the negation of some of the most basic needs such as survival needs
or freedom needs, it is a “process” of exploitation by which certain people get more
advantages than others and benefit from this inequality and injustice, (Galtung, 1990, 294)
or indeed can be seen as “Deep structural elements of the society mark some people as
deserving worse treatment, or even mark some people as less human.” (Price, 2012). The
final aspect of the triangle is Cultural Violence, described as aspects of culture that are used
to legitimize structural and direct violence and make them seem natural or “normal”.

Finally, the third concept to consider for this analysis is that of Sexual and Gender Based
Violence, otherwise known as SGBV. SGBV can be defined as an umbrella term that
includes harmful acts such as physical, psychological, sexual etc, which are based on socially
ascribed differences based on sex and gender (IASC in Krause, 2015) (Oliveira, 2018).
Furthermore, the Socio-Ecological model suggests that SGBV is multifaceted and complex,
meaning that it is the result of diverse factors interacting with each other in an individual,
familiar, socio-economic and cultural levels (Oliveira, 2018) (Horn, 2010, 357).

III. The Refugee System and Necropolitics

The Refugee System in the present analysis is considered to encompass not only the regional
or State level legal systems of asylum based on the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967
Protocol, but rather all the structure related to this, which includes encampment and the
creation of “deathscapes” (Strümer, 2018) as consequences of neoliberal governmentality,
which in turn have become legitimate in State discourse through instances of Cultural
violence. By analyzing the violence inherent in encampment, it is important to return to the
idea of the Refugee System, and establish how borders have become spaces of death, where
States not only exercise their biopower of “letting die”, but instead exercise the necropower
of “making die”.

This is clear when observing for example the alarming number of people who have died
attempting to crossing the Mediterranean or crossing through Mexico to reach the United
States. As was mentioned previously biopower and necropower are complementary notions,
and European States as well as the US have exercised both in the context of the Refugee
System. The action of letting people fleeing violence die in both cases is a clear exercise of
biopower, it could be argued however, that these actions go beyond “letting die” but that

3
policies constructed around the awareness of the very real possibility of death in these spaces
cannot be interpreted but as a form of “making die”, or an exercise in necropower.

Furthermore, even when refugees are allowed to become asylum seekers, they are subjected
to what Mbembe calls a “triple loss” which are the “loss of ‘home,’ loss of rights over his or
her body, and loss of political status” (Mbembe in Stümer, 2018), which renders them to a
state of living dead, and subjecting them to the previously mentioned third zone of existence
as neither subjects nor objects. These three losses which render an individual into a living-
dead are also what is present and provides a linkage to the continuum of violence of conflict,
flight and encampment.

The loss of home is present both in conflict by forcing refugees into fleeing, and remains
during flight and encampment (or even in settlements outside encampment). The loss of
rights over his or her body is present as well in all aspects, and particularly enforced during
flight through the deathscapes and in encampment or even in refugee experiences outside of
encampment when they are prohibited to exercise the right of freedom of movement or to
pursue professional goals as many Refugee legal regimes do (e.g Germany and Mexico). The
loss of political status is manifested as a loss of subjectivity of the refugee, many legal
systems are based on an approach reliant on a liberal conception of citizenship, and any other
body that falls outside of this conception or even of a collective imaginary of what the citizen
of a country should look like is not perceived as a subject of the State.

IV. Structural Violence in the Refugee System

Having established the exercise of bipower and necropower by States in the Refugee System,
it is important to consider how these “deathscapes” and encampment are part of a much larger
violence triangle. As previous studies have shown, direct violence is a constant presence in
Refugee camps (Agier, 2011; Krause, 2015; Horn, 2010) and these “events” as Galtung refers
to them (Galtung, 1990, 294) have often been manifested as Sexual and Gender based
violence, exemplified in studies of SGVB in Kakuma Refugee Camp (Horn, 2010) and Kyaka
II Refugee Settlement (Krause, 2015).

Whilst the Socio-Ecological Approach provides an insight into the complexity and
multidimensional causes of SGVB, it is also important to consider the structural and cultural

4
violence that lead to and feed from these instances of direct violence. The structure in which
the Refugee system exists and operates, including of course encampment, can be described
as a structure that works within neoliberal governmentality. Governmentality here refers to
the Foucauldian definition of “[…] institutions, procedures, analyses and reflections,
calculations, and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific, albeit very complex,
power that has the population as its target, political economy as its major form of
knowledge, and apparatuses of security as its essential technical instruments” (Foucault in
Piotukh, 2016, 108), as well as the historical process which has resulted in the preponderance
of neoliberalism as a form of government in what is often called the “Global North”.

As was mentioned before, the exercise of biopower and necropower regarding the Refugee
System has and is being determined by a neoliberal rationale of government, and it is this
governmentality that has become not only the structure in which States operate necropower
but also the ideology through which it is justified. In this sense, neoliberalism focuses on the
individual as part of a competitive market economy, and endorses resilience forming relations
within and outside the State (Mavelli, 2016) on the ideal of non-interventionism in the market
and fully endorsed interventionism of socio-political aspects (Foucault in Mavelli, 2016) that
could affect the functioning of the market economy, both in the territory of the State, through
its relations with other States, its citizens and the bodies outside of its territoriality.
Considering this, it is not that biopolitics and neoliberalism are necessarily linked because
biopolitics may exist outside of the scope of neoliberalism, but rather that neoliberal
governments have used and continue to use biopower and necropower as forms of socio-
political interventionism.

In this sense, the Refugee System is created through the exercise of biopower and necropower
by States under the notion of a neoliberal governmental structure that justifies both the
“letting die” and the “making die” of refugees as a necessary measure or mechanism of
security for the market economy to continue unhindered by undesired bodies. This leads to
the formation of policies such as encampment that force refugees to live in a state of living
dead deprived of a home, power over their own bodies and citizenship in order to foster life
for the people considered desirable or in this case resilient and useful for the market and the
neoliberal governmentality.

5
This structure that allows the use of necropower for the undesirable bodies fits within the
concept of structural violence, marking the people that do not fall under the logic of
usefulness under neoliberalism to be deserving of worse treatment or to be considered as less
human (Price, 2012) and this structural violence is experienced as inequality and injustice for
refugees, who are led to live in “outside prisons” and strenuous conditions of flight, further
exacerbating their experience in conflict and feeding into forms of direct violence via trauma,
frustration, insufficient support for livelihoods etc.

V. Cultural Violence in the Refugee System

Having established how the structural violence in the context of Refugee Camps and
specifically encampment is formed and its role in forming and influencing forms of Direct
Violence, it is important to consider the third form of the violence triangle: Cultural Violence.
As is referred in its name Cultural Violence is related to all the cultural aspects that serve to
justify forms of structural and direct violence, Galtung suggests that “Just as political science
is about two problems - the use of power and the legitimation of the use of power - violence
studies are about two problems: the use of violence and the legitimation of that use.”
(Galtung, 1990, 292).

As was suggested before, neoliberalism along with biopower and necropower in the Refugee
System conform the Structural Violence which Cultural Violence justifies. In this case
however, what could this justification be if not neoliberalism itself? It is important then to
consider neoliberalism not only as a form or logic of governmentality but also as an ideology
that is fomented and serves to justify its own form of government. Galtung has proposed
ideology to be a form of Cultural Violence and whilst he referred to nationalism his words
serve to create the linkage of neoliberalism as an ideology “[…] A steep gradient is then
constructed, inflating, even exalting, the value of Self; deflating, even debasing, the value of
Other. At that point, structural violence can start operating. It will tend to become a self-
fulfilling prophecy: people become debased by being exploited, and they are exploited
because they are seen as debased, dehumanized. When Other is not only dehumanized but
has been successfully converted into an 'it', deprived of humanhood, the stage is set for any
type of direct violence, which is then blamed on the victim.” (Galtung, 1990, 298)

6
In this sense, neoliberalism as Cultural Violence in the Refugee System is formed as exalting
the value of certain bodies useful and resilient to the market centered economy and therefore
deserving of the conditions which foster life, and the refugee is debased and easily exploited,
many conflicts are indeed if not created then at least exacerbated by neoliberal State logic
exploiting the people to the point of turning them into refugees and when these people seek
to escape this conditions they are “exploited because they are seen as debased”, and deprived
of humanhood (Galtung, 1990, 298).

In order to exemplify the neoliberal categorization of bodies through ideology it is perhaps

useful to observe studies on the moral reasoning of the public to humanitarian crisis. Some
studies (Seu, 2016; Zagefka, Noor, Brown, Randsley De Mour, & Hopthrow, 2011) highlight
the unevenness of donations to humanitarian crises, setting the example of the 2004 tsunami
in South East Asia as opposed to the protracted crisis in Darfur: “The UK Disasters
Emergency Committee (DEC) received a total of £200 million in response to its appeal for
the tsunami in South‐East Asia, which contrasts starkly with the £13.6 million received for
the Darfur Crisis since 24 May 2007. The 2004 tsunami killed 200,000 people and left
600,000 homeless; the conflict in Darfur left 1.5 million people reliant on humanitarian aid”
(Zagefka & James in Seu, 2016).

Seu suggests that one of the aspects that lead to more donations is the logic of the
blamelessness of the victims and the similarity between victims and helpers (Seu, 2016), both
of these categorizations imply that donations are given to people perceived as more “human”
or desirable as is implied in the importance of the similarity between victims and helpers and
on the other hand the need for a justification for aid under a neoliberal approach by
establishing arbitrary categorizations regarding the blamelessness of victims.

VI. Direct Violence in the Refugee System

As it has been mentioned previously, Sexual and Gender Based Violence is persistently
present in the context not only of encampment but also during conflict and flight, all of which
form a continuum of violence based on notions of power and dominance that can be linked
through structural violence manifested in Gendered Power Structures, Insufficient Law
Enforcement and Trauma. (Krause, 2015) They can also be linked as previously mentioned

7
by the three losses theorized by Mbembe which render an individual into a living-dead
condition.

As was established previously, direct violence is interrelated with structural and cultural
violence, and these concepts provide further linkage to the exacerbation and continuity of
SGVB in the Refugee System, particularly in situations of displacement, a study in Kakuma
Refugee Camp (Horn, 2010), with and Ecological approach suggests that there is an increase
in domestic violence in displacement and that “The nature of the refugee camp […] plays a
role in creating conditions that facilitate domestic violence” (Carlson in Horn, 2010), further
signaling as to the structural conditions that can lead to or exacerbate a previously existing
“event” originating from conflict and flight.

Another identifiable example of Direct Violence in the context of the Refugee System is that
of the violence that emerged in what was known as the “Jungle” in Calais, in this
encampment, refugees were subject to constant police brutality, racist attacks by the local
population and even the piles of hazardous waste dumped next to the tents which housed the
refugees. (Davies, 2017) This Direct violence was thoroughly justified through cultural
violence, blaming the refugees for leaving their countries of origin as opposed to blaming the
conditions of the camp by itself.

VII. The Role of Humanitarian Action

In this context of State based structural, cultural and direct violence, along with its basis on
neoliberal foundations of governmentality, the question remains as to what the role of
Humanitarian Action and in particular, Humanitarian Organizations is. Having undergone
various transformations throughout its history, Humanitarian Action nowadays preaches
action mostly through the principle of humanity based on the humanitarian imperative as
outlined in the Humanitarian Charter, which implies that “(…) action should be taken to
prevent or alleviate human suffering arising out of disaster or conflict” (The Sphere Project
2011, 20); as well as the principle of neutrality, establishing a perceived distance from
political actors.

This is however, far from the way Humanitarian Action operates in the context of the Refugee
System. Humanitarian Action is based on the idea of being a temporary measure to alleviate

8
human suffering, however in the context of encampment and the overall context of forced
migration worldwide, it has been transformed into a permanent arrangement (Agier, 2008,
43) and even more so an instrument of neoliberal governmentality as a part of the structural
violence it seeks to combat and as an aspect of cultural violence seeking to appease any sort
of discontent over the treatment of refugees.

As Agier suggests (Agier, 2008, 44), the humanitarian imperative is not in question in itself,
but rather the way in which humanitarian action has been instrumentalized and become an
accepted principle for the governing of refugees. Although HA actors assume neutrality and
perhaps practice it in a day to day basis in the field, the participation of these NGOs cannot
be considered but as complicit and even an essential aspect of new forms of interventionism
and “sustaining the biopolitical divide (or rather, in producing and sustaining a number of
biopolitical divides) is informed by neoliberal rationality, which answers the question about
how to govern under developed populations effectively in a particular way” (Piotukh, 2015,
151) and it has even come to be used as a larger part of a strategy of containment of bodies
and as an instrument of “violent pacification, containment and management of threatening
populations” (Reid, 2010)

It is this instrumentalization of Humanitarian Action what has been called as the “paradox of
humanitarian aid” (Agier, 2008, 61), as on the one hand it provides much needed help to
alleviate the suffering of populations in need, but on the other hand it becomes part of this
system of government which treats refugees as sub-humans or living dead. The continuous
exercise of biopower and necropower by States is supported in a way by Humanitarianism,
as it provides a feasible alternative for governments to not actively integrate or accept
refugees as demanded by the international law of refugees, but rather promote strategies of
containment and relegating biopolitical functions to these organizations, which then become
the managers of the living dead.

In this way, Humanitarian Action becomes part of the structures that treats refugees as non
subjects and faces what decades ago was questioned by Florence Nightingale, known as
Nightingale’s risk. “the fact that humanitarian help to people in war might also help their war
effort as well-is the perpetual shadow of the humanitarian project” (Barnett, 2003, 419), and

9
is also used by the States as a form of cultural violence by which they justify structural
violence and direct violence by donating and promoting the activities of these organizations.

VIII. Conclusions

It has been the purpose of this essay to demonstrate the Violence inherent in the Refugee
System as it exists worldwide nowadays and further establish the responsibility of both States
and Humanitarian actors such as INGOs in the creation and perpetuation of this system. This
order operates in the form of the violence triangle described by Johan Galtung by promoting
direct forms of violence through a structure that has been formed by necropower as described
by Achille Mbembe and the Foucauldian concept of biopower acting under notions of
neoliberal governmentality. This structure has relegated refugees into becoming living dead
and to exist in a third space, using neoliberal ideology as a form of cultural violence
integrating racial, security and even humanitarianism into the normalization of structural and
cultural violence.

The purpose of this essay has been as well to demonstrate the false neutrality under which
humanitarian action continues to operate in the Refugee System and although I have done
generalizations regarding the nature of NGOs and States, it is with the purpose of initiating
a reflection on the importance of recognizing the Necropolitics of the Refugee System and
the political and social implications for NGOs to act even under the guidance of the
humanitarian imperative and humanitarian principles. It is only with this conscience that
humanitarian action can assume itself as part of the structure and the culture that allows the
exercise of this biopower and necropower that States instrumentalize to continue categorizing
and acting upon the bodies of refugees.

Finally, it has been the purpose of this essay to understand the violence encountered by
Refugees as part of a bigger system encompassing violence during conflict, violence during
flight and during encampment.

IX. References

Krause, U. (2015). A Continuum of Violence? Linking Sexual and Gender-based

Violence during Conflict, Flight, and Encampment. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 34
doi: 10.1093/rsq/hdv014

10
Agier, M., & Fernbach, D. (2008). On the margins of the world: The refugee
experience today (English ed.). Cambridge, UK; Malden, MA;: Polity.

Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality. New York: Vintage Books

Barnett, M. (2003). International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs
1944-), 79(2), 417-419. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/3095833
Foucault, M (2003) ‘Society Must be Defended’: Lectures at the Collège de France,
1975–76 (trans. Macey, D ). New York, NY: Picador.
Foucault, M (2003) ‘Society Must be Defended’: Lectures at the Collège de France,
1975–76 (trans. Macey, D ). New York, NY: Picador.
Galtung, J. (1990). Cultural Violence. Journal of Peace Research,27(3), 291-305.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/stable/423472
Price, J. M.(2012). Structural Violence: Hidden Brutality in the Lives of Women.
Albany: State University of New York Press. Retrieved December 1, 2018, from
Project MUSE database
Mills, C. (2018). Biopolitics. London: Routledge.
Davies, T., Isakjee, A., & Dhesi, S. (2017). Violent inaction: The necropolitical
experience of refugees in europe: Violent inaction. Antipode, 49(5), 1263-1284.
doi:10.1111/anti.12325
Wirtz, E. (2017). The inhumanity of humanitarian aid: Gender and violence in a
kenyan refugee camp (Order No. 10607313). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses Global. (1975367051). Retrieved from
http://ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/1975367051?accountid=14656
Agier, M. (2011). Managing the Undesirables: Refugee Camps and Humanitarian
Government. Cambridge and Malden: Polity Press.
Horn, R. (2010). Exploring the Impact of Displacement and Encampment on
Domestic Violence in Kakuma Refugee Camp. Journal of Refugee Studies, 23 (3),
doi:10.1093/jrs/feq02
Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research
6 (3): 167-191.
Arendt, H. (1966) The Origins of Totalitarianism (New York: Harvest), 444.
Wright, M. (2011). Necropolitics, Narcopolitics, and Femicide: Gendered Violence
on the Mexico-U.S. Border. Signs, 36(3), 707-731. doi:10.1086/657496

11
Mbembé, J. & Meintjes, L. (2003). Necropolitics. Public Culture 15(1), 11-40. Duke
University Press. Retrieved January 20, 2019, from Project MUSE database.
Oliveira, C., Keygnaert, I., Oliveira Martins, Maria do Rosário, & Dias, S. (2018).
Assessing reported cases of sexual and gender-based violence, causes and preventive
strategies, in european asylum reception facilities. Globalization and Health, 14(1),
48-12. doi:10.1186/s12992-018-0365-6
Stümer, J. (2018). The Dead Are Coming: Border Politics and Necropower in
Europe. Cultural Politics 14(1), 20-39. Duke University Press. Retrieved January 31,
2019, from Project MUSE database.
The Sphere Project. (2011). Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in
Humanitarian Response: The Sphere Handbook. Rugby, Warwickshire, United
Kingdom: The Sphere Project, 2011. https://doi.org/10.3362/9781908176202.
Piotukh, V., & Taylor & Francis eBooks A-Z. (2015). Biopolitics, governmentality
and humanitarianism: 'caring' for the population in afghanistan and belarus.
Abingdon, Oxon;New York, NY;: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315889689
Mavelli, L. (2017). Governing the resilience of neoliberalism through
biopolitics. European Journal of International Relations, 23(3), 489-512.
doi:10.1177/1354066116676321
Seu, I. B. (2016). ‘The deserving’: Moral reasoning and ideological dilemmas in
public responses to humanitarian communications. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 55(4), 739-755. doi:10.1111/bjso.12156
Reid, J. (2010). The biopoliticization of humanitarianism: from saving bare life to
securing the biohuman in the post-interventionary societies. Journal of Intervention
and State-building, 4(4): 391–411.
Zagefka, H., Noor, M., Brown, R., Randsley De Mour, G., & Hopthrow, T.
(2011). Donating to disaster victims. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41,
353–363. doi:10.1002/ejsp.781
Zeveleva, O. (2017). Biopolitics, borders, and refugee camps: exercising sovereign
power over nonmembers of the state. Nationalities Papers, 45(1), 41–60. https://doi-
org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1080/00905992.2016.1238885

12