« More on Health of Nations | Main | Health of Nations: Japan »
April 22, 2005
Humanitarian Interventions
Last night I went to a lecture by Samantha Power, she of A Problem From Hell fame. If you ever get a chance, see her speak -- she's amazing. And for that matter, buy her book (or buy it for me -- yes, I lack all shame), she's an incredible mind and was somehow able to make an hour on Sudan and genocide an uplifting, informative, and inspiring experience. Anyway, I have some projects on Sudan in the works (some of them pre-lecture!) so stay tuned for that. Right now, I want to talk about humanitarian interventions for a sec.
CW here is that the American people don't much like the idea of committing troops in order to save lives. That, ostensibly, is why Bush had to go through the WMD rigamarole in order to invade Iraq, and why Clinton couldn't deploy to Rwanda. So I did a little bit of research tonight, and I feel safe in calling bullshit.
So far as I can tell, Clinton felt himself unable to intervene in Rwanda, mostly because of the Mogadishu fiasco. But even for Clinton, a draft-dodging president with the Somalia mess on his record, interventions were possible. When he pushed airstrikes against Serbia, Americans were solidly in his corner. In February of 1999, a month before the air strikes began, Americans opposed them 45%-43%. They also weren't paying attention to the issue, 70%-30%.
On March 24th, when the strikes began, Americans supported them, 50%-30%. Quite a switch. In April, poll after poll showed support in the high-50's to low-60's for sending in ground troops if the strikes failed. In May, support dropped, but mainly because Americans thought the war was mishandled (59% thought we had screwed up by announcing no ground troops would be deployed). More interesting, a poll testing a variety of different arguments for and against the war found the most convincing ones were those that mentioned the moral obligation to stop genocide. Everything else -- pleas for self-interest and stability and the preservation of American lives -- was in the low 50's or below, mention genocide and support popped up to the 60's. By June, support has sprung back up with around 56%-60% of Americans believing we'd done the right thing.
Let's move around some. Remember the furor over Liberia a year or two back? 60% favored the deployment of a peacekeeping force. And Sudan? 74% of Americans think the UN should intervene, 60% think the US should contribute troops, but only 42% are confident that the international community will intervene. What's the lesson? Americans believe, at least theoretically, in our obligation to stop genocide. And even if the support we're seeing is soft, the rally-round-the-flag effect is more than enough to make it hard. The polls that show Americans opposing the idea of humanitarian interventions are, if not wrong, then suffering from a structural deficiency wherein Americans support in the specific what they oppose in the abstract.
There's a lot of talk lately about how best to craft a progressive philosophy towards using force. This would appear to be part of it. Creating a clear standard for the use of force -- genocide or grave threat to the country -- would seem a simple way to dispose of a hard question. Solely relying on the functionality of the military to diffuse danger is, I think, an unattractive platform. American might can be a powerful weapon for positive change and taking such a wary stance towards it denies that fact. Being clear, loud and consistent in arguing that that America should militarily oppose genocide and should thus prepare plans to physically end Sudan's slaughter would be a powerful first step.
To preempt some comments, I realize it's not quite as easy as all that, and attempts to stop militarily prevent China from committing genocide probably wouldn't work. But that's okay. Our public philosophy on the use of force need not withstand every hypothetical, it just needs to be generally applicable and easily comprehensible. If China decides to start lopping off Muslim heads, we'll figure out a way to deal with the situation. As that's not a particularly likely scenario, I wouldn't worry about it. What I would argue, however, is that a willingness to forcibly end genocide would give the Christian right a space to ally with us -- they're great on humanitarian intervention -- and would also stand a good chance at ending genocides worldwide. If the next three were stopped cold and it became known that systematic slaughter would attract swift and sure military reprisal, you'd probably see far less of it. And if you can't turn a willingness to end genocide into a inspirational foreign policy, you're doing something wrong.
Note: All polling data from Polling Report.
April 22, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83440a95553ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Humanitarian Interventions:
Comments
I definatley agree on channeling public suport into comprehensive foreign policy (i even am kind of interested in stopping genocide). but one of the things that i have always wondered is why policy makers haven't constructed a better image of genocide intervention. if, and when, the united states were to stop genocide in darfur, or other region, why not capitalize on it for the public? beyond issues of soveignty and international interestes, the the US has taken a lax role on maximizing self-aggrandizing intervention policy. everybdoy would agree that stopping genocide is not only the most morally upright policy, but arguments for regional stability and thus national security appear strong. these are all easy pictures to paint that would affirm 'american morality' as well as make the people feel good about themselves and support their leaders.
Posted by: grant | Apr 22, 2005 2:51:37 PM
I definatley agree on channeling public suport into comprehensive foreign policy (i even am kind of interested in stopping genocide). but one of the things that i have always wondered is why policy makers haven't constructed a better image of genocide intervention. if, and when, the united states were to stop genocide in darfur, or other region, why not capitalize on it for the public? beyond issues of soveignty and international interestes, the the US has taken a lax role on maximizing self-aggrandizing intervention policy. everybdoy would agree that stopping genocide is not only the most morally upright policy, but arguments for regional stability and thus national security appear strong. these are all easy pictures to paint that would affirm 'american morality' as well as make the people feel good about themselves and support their leaders.
Posted by: grant | Apr 22, 2005 2:52:43 PM
From my impression of the government at Khartoum, it seems like they are cowardly as well as despicable. They always seem to be pushing the envelope on how much destruction they can wreck, yet pulls back whenever the international spotlights are on them.
It is common knowledge that the Janjaweed are government sponsored killers. Yet by insisting on the fiction that they are independent actors, Khartoum managed to put just enough distance between themselves and the heinous actions they're committing by proxy for the kabuki dance of diplomacy to continue.
Of course, I'm no expert on the subject. But my gut instinct tells me that we are way on the wrong track here. We are not acting because we fear a lengthy and bloody engagement. Yet I believe, given their past behavior, it is far more likely that Khartoum will cave as soon as serious international pressure is put to bear. Instead, we are throwing money in the form of aid at them, which does nothing but teach Khartoum that there will be no consequences for their misbehavior.
Posted by: battlepanda | Apr 22, 2005 3:55:55 PM
"Creating a clear standard for the use of force"
It was done. PDD-25. Power doesn't like it:
Against this backdrop, and under the leadership of Anthony Lake, the national-security adviser, the Clinton Administration accelerated the development of a formal U.S. peacekeeping doctrine. The job was given to Richard Clarke, of the National Security Council, a special assistant to the President who was known as one of the most effective bureaucrats in Washington. In an interagency process that lasted more than a year, Clarke managed the production of a presidential decision directive, PDD-25, which listed sixteen factors that policymakers needed to consider when deciding whether to support peacekeeping activities: seven factors if the United States was to vote in the UN Security Council on peace operations carried out by non-American soldiers, six additional and more stringent factors if U.S. forces were to participate in UN peacekeeping missions, and three final factors if U.S. troops were likely to engage in actual combat. In the words of Representative David Obey, of Wisconsin, the restrictive checklist tried to satisfy the American desire for "zero degree of involvement, and zero degree of risk, and zero degree of pain and confusion." The architects of the doctrine remain its strongest defenders. "Many say PDD-25 was some evil thing designed to kill peacekeeping, when in fact it was there to save peacekeeping," Clarke says. "Peacekeeping was almost dead. There was no support for it in the U.S. government, and the peacekeepers were not effective in the field." Although the directive was not publicly released until May 3, 1994, a month into the genocide, the considerations encapsulated in the doctrine and the Administration's frustration with peacekeeping greatly influenced the thinking of U.S. officials involved in shaping Rwanda policy.
Posted by: praktike | Apr 22, 2005 4:12:30 PM
Great essay! Almost convinces me too.
Intervention isn't a slam dunk however. We should not ask troops to do stuff that may not be do-able, or run high risks that another Somalia-type disaster will destroy all future efforts because the situation is not solvable with military forces.
Some very careful thought should go into each potential situation before intervening, since their are danger-points and side effects. White troops in black nations, or Christian troops in Moslem nations are two.
Somalia had no government then, no prospect of a government being created, and has no government today. Everyone was armed, and rival groups were vying for power. No consensus of Somalia's neighbors for intervention existed.
Haiti was better than Somalia because of historical US intervention, location near the US, smaller population, no on-going civil war (although a great deal of unrest and small-scale gun-carrying groups), AND agreement of the OAS that something should be done.
So, yes, a general policy of stopping genocide, tempered in the policy's specifications by a realistic and thorough examination of the propects for success, either unilaterally or multi-laterally.
Sudan is hard. No consistent support by neighbors for intervention by a western power. Sensitivity about US role in Moslem nations (after Iraq). Significant Chinese presence and dependendence on Sudanese oil. A government totally opposed to intervention and with significant forces - including modern Russian and Chinese jets.
Colin Powell's criteria for military action were probably over-conservative generally, and specifically not easily applicable to humanitarian or anti-genocide considerations. But his requirement for a known, practical exit-strategy is certainly a good thing to fully explore ahead of time and in depth.
We often know little and don't fully explore and understand each situation enough. When the EU says "no boots on the ground" in Sudan, we should understand why they take that position, since they pay attention to Africa far more than we do.
Crafting a policy that makes sense is much more than being outraged and wanting to stop the slaughter. In the case of Sudan, it seems clear that international forces could stop the slaughter, and very unclear how to deal with a determined anti-west Islamic government, and how to withdraw after the slaughter is stopped.
Battlepanda's points are well taken regarding the Sudanese government's back and forth under pressure, but still....
it's the exit strategy, stupid (present company excepted)
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Apr 22, 2005 4:14:38 PM
I am totally sympathetic to interventions to stop Genocide. We can't be all things to all people, but when we can, we should intervene.
I don't think right now we can feasibly deploy ground forces to the Sudan. That is a shame, and out military should be large enough to do so, but it isn't and that, pretty much is that.
I think we could though enforce a no-fly policy over Darfur. It wouldn't completely stop the Janajaweed, but it would stop them from recieving air support from the Government in Darfur. In addition, predator style surveilance of the area would likely put a chill on attacks as well.
Of course with China lusting after Sudanese oil and France playing along, the chance of any security council authorization is nil.
Posted by: Dave Justus | Apr 22, 2005 4:47:49 PM
Dave -- good comments all, and the idea about some predator surveillance is similarly spot-on. But we can just do some air strikes with the threat of ground troops and coordination with AU forces -- it really would take no more than that.
Posted by: Ezra | Apr 22, 2005 4:56:04 PM
Dave -- good comments all, and the idea about some predator surveillance is similarly spot-on. But we can just do some air strikes with the threat of ground troops and coordination with AU forces -- it really would take no more than that.
Posted by: Ezra | Apr 22, 2005 4:57:28 PM
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
xoomer.xxxvideos2
Posted by: JEROGatch | Oct 28, 2006 12:57:29 AM ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
ORZ-TV-OMEGA
Posted by: qwer | Dec 6, 2006 10:08:32 AM wow gold wow powerleveling 出会い World of Warcraft Gold beijing travel Posted by: wow gold | Aug 30, 2007 11:43:08 AM 托盘 托盘 托盘 托盘 托盘 托盘 托盘 托盘 托盘 托盘 托盘 托盘 托盘 托盘 托盘 Posted by: peter.w | Sep 15, 2007 7:30:20 AM The comments to this entry are closed.
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
FORUM-lixium
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power level
wow power level
wow power level
wow power level
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft powerleveling
world of warcraft power leveling
world of warcraft power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
wow gold
wow gold
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
wow gold
wow gold
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
china tour
china tour
beijing
beijing
great wall
翻译公司
翻译公司
上海翻译公司
上海翻译公司
保洁
保洁
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
钢托盘
木托盘
钢制托盘
托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
南京托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
杭州托盘
成都托盘
武汉托盘
长沙托盘
合肥托盘
苏州托盘
无锡托盘
昆山托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
南京托盘
南京钢制托盘
南京钢托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
托盘
托盘
托盘
钢托盘
铁托盘
钢制托盘
塑料托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
木托盘
塑料托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
木制托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘
托盘
钢托盘
钢制托盘
铁托盘
塑料托盘
木托盘
纸托盘
木塑托盘
柱式托盘
波纹板托盘
镀锌托盘
南京托盘
上海托盘
北京托盘
广州托盘