Turkish Forum

Category: Authors

  • China Eyes Greater Share of Turkey’s Rising Infrastructure Investments, Including Construction of a Nuclear Plant

    China Eyes Greater Share of Turkey’s Rising Infrastructure Investments, Including Construction of a Nuclear Plant

    China Eyes Greater Share of Turkey’s Rising Infrastructure Investments, Including Construction of a Nuclear Plant

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 9 Issue: 43
    March 1, 2012
    By: Saban Kardas
    China’s Vice President Xi Jinping’s visit to Turkey, where he held several meetings with Turkish leaders, has underlined the growing economic ties and diplomatic exchanges between the two countries, despite their failure to develop joint positions on political issues. Xi met Turkey’s president and prime minister, and participated in the Turkey-China Economic and Commercial Cooperation Forum.

    A large part of Xi’s contacts pertained to economic cooperation, which is understandable given that the two countries have been the most rapidly growing economies in the world in the wake of the global financial crisis. Their bilateral trade volume reached $24 billion in 2011, while it was only $1 billion at the beginning of the decade. However, the trade balance is tilted dis-proportionally in Turkey’s disfavor. One factor that helps correct this unhealthy picture is the growing Chinese interest in the Turkish economy. Chinese companies have been increasingly undertaking contracting services in Turkey, including plans for the construction of major railway networks. As Turkey plans to initiate other multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects, China is increasingly interested in getting a larger share of this pie. A delegation of businessmen accompanying Xi signed various agreements with their Turkish counterparts pertaining to Turkish exports, financial support by Chinese firms and energy investments, again reflecting the rising volume of Chinese investments in Turkey.

    During the visit, it was even mentioned by both parties to raise the bilateral trade volume to $100 billion over the next ten years or so (Anadolu Ajansi, February 23). While setting that target, however, the Turkish side complained about its inability to penetrate the Chinese market and called on China to take some measures that would help reduce the trade imbalance. One particular measure that was agreed upon during the visit would allow the central banks of the two countries to carry out a three-year currency swap agreement, worth $1.6 billion.

    Reportedly another item on the agenda was cooperation in peaceful nuclear technology. Following the business forum meeting, Deputy Prime Minister Ali Babacan said that Turkey’s Energy Ministry will start a dialogue with its Chinese counterpart on China’s construction of a nuclear power plant in Turkey (Anadolu Ajansi, February 22). In an effort to reduce its heavy dependence on hydrocarbons, as part of its energy strategy documents, Turkey has been planning to build up to three nuclear power plants. Short of possessing genuine technology, it has been seeking actively to develop partnerships with other countries in this field. Turkey has already signed an intergovernmental agreement with Russia pertaining to the first nuclear power plant, and the negotiations are under way with Japan and South Korea for the second one. China too has been very active in building many nuclear plants to meet its energy needs, which have increased due to its fast growing economy, and is now seeking to build power plants abroad.

    Though Turkey’s possible partnership with China in nuclear energy might make sense from a diversification point of view, awarding tenders to different countries also raises the question to what extent this will be an efficient strategy from the technology accumulation perspective. Granted, Turkish press maintained that China was ready to undertake the tender for the construction of the power plant through a $20 billion-worth foreign direct investment (Sabah, February 25). If this deal is realized, it will mark the largest single FDI flow into Turkish economy, which would also signify China’s trust in Turkey’s economic performance.

    However, the dynamics of Turkish-Chinese economic ties and their reflection in the political realm resemble very much Turkey’s somewhat problematic ties with Russia and Iran. At one level, Turkey’s economic relations with these three powers underscore the inherent shortcomings of Turkey’s growth model. While Turkey is running a huge trade deficit vis-à-vis Russia and Iran due to energy imports, its trade with China also has been similarly problematic, due to the import of consumer goods. Despite record growth rates in recent years, many experts warn that Turkey’s economic miracle is driven by domestic demand rather than exports, and its current account deficit poses a big vulnerability to an economic shock. As part of its commercial strategy of developing multi-dimensional partnerships with neighbors and other rising powers, Turkey has been quite intent on boosting the bilateral trade volume with various nations. However, short of a major restructuring of the underlying dynamics of Turkey’s economy so that it becomes more competitive and gains access to energy resources at reasonable costs, increasing the trade volume with other countries will not help Turkey become a major power house.

    At the political level, too, there are similarities between Turkish-Chinese relations and Ankara’s relations with Moscow and Tehran. The growth of its trade volume with Russia and Iran neither helped Ankara forge a common position with these countries on regional issues, nor could it gain from them a more receptive attitude toward its demands in some economic and political issues. With China, too, the expansion of economic ties was partly a product of Ankara’s refrain from raising the thorny issue of the East Turkestan and the plight of the Uighur people. Moreover, as was demonstrated in the case of Beijing’s position on the Syrian regime’s violent suppression of the popular uprising, Turkey and China have not converged politically. The obvious political differences have not prevented Ankara from pursuing cooperation and enhanced diplomatic exchanges with Beijing.

    After Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s harsh reaction to China’s policies in Xinjiang in 2009, which caused a political friction, Turkey increasingly watered down its criticism, which opened the way for bolstering bilateral relations. Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s visit to China and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabo’s visit to Ankara in 2010 were such major occasions, and Erdogan is expected to visit China this year. The year 2012 is being celebrated as the Year of Turkey in China, while next year the Year of China will be celebrated in Turkey. It appears that Turkey is determined to maintain a high dose of pragmatism and commercially-driven thinking which have shaped its policy toward China, as well as other rising powers.

    https://jamestown.org/program/china-eyes-greater-share-of-turkeys-rising-infrastructure-investments-including-construction-of-a-nuclear-plant/
  • How to Counter Appeals Court’s Ruling Against Insurance Claims

    How to Counter Appeals Court’s Ruling Against Insurance Claims

    sassounian35

     

     

     

     

     

     

    The federal Court of Appeals issued a shocking decision last week. In a unanimous ruling, it struck down a California law that had allowed heirs of Armenian Genocide victims to sue life insurance companies for unpaid claims.

     

     

     

    Acknowledging its reliance on the “rarely invoked doctrine” of “field preemption,” the Court judged the state law to be unconstitutional, claiming that it intruded into the federal government’s foreign policy prerogative.

     

     

     

    The Appeals Court thus annulled a law passed by the California legislature in 2000, which had extended first to 2010 and then to 2016, the deadline for Armenian Genocide heirs to sue life insurance companies. On the basis of that law, California attorneys filed lawsuits against the New York Life and French AXA insurance companies. Both lawsuits were settled out of court for a total payment of $37.5 million.

     

     

     

    In 2003, Armenian plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit in U.S. federal court against German life insurance companies. Rather than fulfilling their long overdue contractual obligations, these companies sought the lawsuit’s dismissal, arguing that the reference to the Armenian Genocide in the State law was an encroachment on the federal government’s foreign policy powers. After several appeals, a panel of 11 federal judges dismissed the lawsuit against the German companies on February 23, 2012. This decision, however, does not undo the settlements reached earlier with New York Life and AXA.

     

     

     

    I believe the Appeals Court’s decision is highly flawed for the following reasons:

     

     

     

    1) The Court took the unusual position that the State law constituted an intrusion into the federal government’s foreign policy domain, even in the absence of any conflict between the two. In fact, the State of California and the federal government are in agreement on the genocide issue, since the House of Representatives recognized the Armenian Genocide in 1975 and 1984, Pres. Reagan acknowledged it in a Presidential Proclamation in 1981, and most importantly, the U.S. Justice Department cited the Armenian case as an example of genocide in an official report submitted to the World Court in 1951.

     

     

     

    2) The Appeals Court overstepped its judicial bounds by paying undue attention to Turkish denials, pressures, and blackmail, and charging that the California statute “imposes the politically charged label of ‘genocide’ on the actions of the Ottoman Empire (and, consequently, present-day Turkey) and expresses sympathy for ‘Armenian Genocide victims.’” This assertion is totally untrue, as the California law makes no reference to “present-day Turkey.” Delving further into political arguments rather than sound legal judgments, the Appeals Court quoted from newspaper articles — that were not part of the court record — to illustrate Turkey’s angry reaction to the French bill on penalizing genocide denial and Ankara’s rejection of the genocide label.

     

     

     

    3) The Court could have severed the reference to genocide from the California statute, while keeping valid the legitimate demands of life insurance claimants, since the purpose of the lawsuit was the recovery of insurance benefits, not asserting genocide.

     

     

     

    Armenians should not be discouraged and not give up the struggle for their legitimate rights, despite this temporary legal setback. Here are some possible steps that could be taken to remedy the situation:

     

     

     

    1) File an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, even though the High Court hears only a very small percentage of the cases submitted to it.

     

     

     

    2) Ask the California legislature to pass a new law that would broaden the category of possible claimants, in order to overcome the Appeals Court’s objection that the existing law is “for a narrowly defined class of claims.”

     

     

     

    3) Lobby the U.S. Congress to pass similar legislation allowing lawsuits against delinquent insurance companies.

     

     

     

    4) Launch a new Armenian political initiative at the federal level, seeking the establishment of a “Presidential Advisory Commission on Armenian Genocide Assets,” similar to the existing commission on the Holocaust, which would use U.S. governmental channels rather than the courts to recover genocide-era assets.

     

     

     

    5) Embark on a worldwide campaign to protest and boycott German insurance companies that refuse to live up to their financial and moral obligations. Stage demonstrations in front of German companies’ offices in different countries until they realize that they would lose more business by ignoring the Armenian claims than paying the amounts owed to heirs of life insurance beneficiaries. Furthermore, Armenians must demand that Germany, Turkey’s ally during World War I, passes a law mandating that German companies pay delinquent insurance claims.

     

     

     

    Clearly, the pursuit of Armenian demands is more of a marathon than a sprint! Armenians must persist in their struggle and overcome all obstacles until their long overdue quest for justice is realized.
  • Sassounian’s column of February 23, 2012

    Sassounian’s column of February 23, 2012

    sassounian32
    Egemen Bagish: Turkey’s
    Minister of Genocide Denial
    Even though all Turkish government officials routinely deny the Armenian Genocide, one particular minister has turned denial into a full-time job. Ironically, as Minister for European Union Affairs, Egemen Bagish has harmed Turkey’s prospects for EU membership more than any of its critics!
    Although Bagish has been making zany statements ever since his ministerial appointment two years ago, his recent blunder in Zurich made headlines around the world. The Turkish Minister arrogantly dared Swiss authorities to arrest him after boasting that “the events of 1915 were not genocide!” Switzerland has a law that penalizes genocide denial, similar to the law now pending in France. A Swiss prosecutor is investigating Bagish’s words and his diplomatic status to see if charges could be filed against him for genocide denial.
    Of course, it does not take much courage to hide behind the cover of diplomatic immunity and make Don Quixotic statements, challenging the laws of other countries. If Minister Bagish were truly a macho man, he would waive his immunity, go to Switzerland, and publicly deny the Armenian Genocide. However, it appears that the feisty Minister has chickened out! After boasting that he would gladly return to Switzerland to deny the Armenian Genocide again, he facetiously declared that he would not go to Switzerland, since he has no money in Swiss banks! The real reason for the Minister’s abrupt change of heart is his fear of getting arrested should the Swiss prosecutor rule that his diplomatic immunity does not protect him from the crime of genocide denial.
    How much longer can Prime Minister Erdogan tolerate Mr. Bagish’s clownish antics that make Turkey look like a rogue state in the eyes of the world? Admiring his fluency in English, the Prime Minister had offered this 41-year-old former New York college student a top ministerial post, not realizing what a liability his loose tongue would prove to be!
    Just as Pres. George W. Bush’s nonsensical statements became known as “Bushisms,” the world now has a rich collection of “Bagishisms!” Here is a sampling of his preposterous remarks:
    — “What happened in 1915 can’t be classified as genocide as far as I’m concerned, but I was not around in 1915!”
    — “I’m a politician. My job is to determine the future, not the past!”
    — “In recent years, every one has seen that more Europeans are moving to Turkey than vice versa.”
    — During a recent conference in Qatar, Minister Bagish became the laughing stock of the audience, when he proudly announced that “Europe” is a Turkish word! The Greek Ambassador to Qatar angrily responded: “Europa was one of the lovers of Zeus in Greek mythology, everyone knows that!”
    — Minister Bagish does not seem to realize that he is contradicting himself by asking other countries to open their archives to see if there was an Armenian genocide, while concluding that there was no genocide! The least he could do is have the decency to keep his mouth shut until the Ottoman archives are fully open. Meanwhile, the archives of other countries have been open for decades.
    — Rattling off the witty Americanisms he picked up in the streets of New York, such as “a day late and a dollar short,” Bagish told Euronews: “This is execution without trial. Calling the 1915 events a genocide based solely on information we have right now comes from a lobby that nurtures malicious hatred.”
    — “Germany was a strong ally of the Armenians in 1915, so the Germans should open their archives and give documents to historians for examination,” Bagish told EU Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Fule, according to Hurriyet newspaper. Bagis made two factual errors in one sentence: Germany was the ally of the Ottoman Empire, not Armenians; and the German archives have been open for years!
    — “There’s no force that could bring about the arrest of any Turkish Minister,” Bagish bragged to journalists. Why is he then afraid to waive his diplomatic immunity and then deny the Armenian Genocide in Switzerland?
    — Bagish keeps on repeating the falsehood that the Armenian government “did not have the courage to respond to Prime Minister Erdogan’s letter requesting the formation of a commission of historians to study the Armenian Genocide.” In fact, the then Pres. Kocharian did answer, suggesting that all outstanding issues between the two countries be resolved in the larger context of government to government relations. It was the Turkish Prime Minister that did not respond to Armenia’s President.

    While Minister Bagish has diplomatic immunity, the rest of Turkey’s population does not enjoy such a privilege. It may be a good idea to accord immunity to all 72 million Turks in order to shield them from prosecution, when they utter the words “Armenian Genocide” in Turkey!

  • Turkey’s Syria Policy: The Challenge of Coalition Building

    Turkey’s Syria Policy: The Challenge of Coalition Building

    Turkey’s Syria Policy: The Challenge of Coalition Building

    February 17, 2012 / Saban Kardas

    Turkey is in the international spotlight over the Syrian uprising. So far, it has focused largely on the humanitarian situation taking a moral high ground on the civilians trapped by the conflict. Either due to its own ambitious rhetoric or the preferences of other regional and international actors, Turkey is expected in some circles to lead international efforts to end the actions perpetrated by the Baath regime. If necessary, this includes the use of force. Following the failure of the Arab League’s peace plan at the UN Security Council, Turkey has vowed to mobilize a coalition of like-minded states to address the unfolding humanitarian crisis. This effort epitomizes the limited but crucial role Turkey could play here: facilitating a coalition at the regional-global nexus, so that a coercive diplomatic solution short of military intervention is forged.

  • Rising Gas Consumption Reveals Structural Problems in Turkey’s Energy Policies

    Rising Gas Consumption Reveals Structural Problems in Turkey’s Energy Policies

    Rising Gas Consumption Reveals Structural Problems in Turkey’s Energy Policies

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 9 Issue: 32
    February 15, 2012
    By: Saban Kardas
    Heavy winter conditions have strained natural gas supplies in Turkey, shedding critical light on the country’s over reliance on hydrocarbons. Due to the record increases in household consumption and electricity demand, which coincided with interruptions in gas imports from Iran and Azerbaijan, concerns were raised as to whether Ankara’s current contracts meet its actual demand, and how this will affect its future energy policies.In early February, some media reports speculated that Russian gas shipments through the Western line declined by 30 percent. However, it was later explained that the declining shipment was due to Ukraine’s tapping the gas from the same route beyond normal levels, and Russia did not officially cut its exports to Turkey (Aksam, February 4). As Turkey’s largest gas supplier, Russia has been reliable so far. In the past, Russia even stepped in to make up for deficient quantities of gas when Turkey encountered shortages with other suppliers, especially Iran. Last December, Turkey agreed to renew a supply contract with Russia, which also foresaw a partial reduction in price in return for Ankara’s support for the South Stream project. In hindsight, it appears that Ankara’s decision to renew that contract, despite its initial objections, was motivated in part by the anticipated increased demand.

    The imports from Iran, the second largest supplier, have been problematic. Upon failure to bridge the differences in negotiations that were in progress, the Energy Minister Taner Yildiz announced that Turkey had decided to take Iran to the International Court of Arbitration. The negotiations pertained to two interrelated issues. While Turkey is contracted to import 10 billion cubic meters (bcm) annually gas from Iran, it maintains that Tehran fell short of meeting that target and it imported around 7 bcm to 8 bcm per annum. Ankara wanted to import the excess amount accumulated in the last two years. Also, Turkey was demanding a discount, as it paid the highest price for Iranian gas. The law suit was lodged on the first issue, and if no agreement is reached in the price discount dispute, Turkey will also take it to arbitration in March (Radikal, February 1).

    A few days later, gas supplies from Iran fell dramatically, due to technical problems. Reportedly, the compressor stations were experiencing technical failures. As a similar problem was also encountered with gas supplies from Azerbaijan, Turkey’s third largest provider, the gas flow from the eastern pipeline declined by around 85 percent. While on average the flow was around 40 million cubic meters (mcm) per day, it fell to 6 mcm per day. Turkey’s average daily consumption also reached as high as 192 mcm per day, while last year it was around 171 mcm per day (Anadolu Ajansi, February 7).

    The technical problems were solved within a few days and the gas flow returned to normal levels, but this development underscored the fragile nature of the country’s gas supplies. To alleviate growing public concerns, Yildiz announced that there was no immediate risk to shipments from Russia, and consumers will not experience any shortages. Turkey undertook several precautions. The power stations that convert natural gas to electricity either stopped production or shifted to secondary fuels. Also, Turkey made greater utilization of LNG conversion stations and tapped the reserves in underground storage facility in Silivri. Periodically, electricity supplies were also interrupted in some areas (Zaman, February 4).

    Despite the minister’s efforts to reassure consumers, experts highlight several problems in Turkey’s natural gas supplies. Electricity producers complained that the secondary fuels are more expensive and increase the price by around 10 percent (Milliyet, February 5). Due to rising demand and declining production at natural gas-based power plants, electricity prices skyrocketed in the free market where producers and distributors meet (Zaman, February 13). Producers and distributors are concerned that electricity generation costs have exceeded the price guarantees in the contracts, forcing them into net losses. Yildiz contradicted those claims, arguing that such seasonal fluctuations need to be seen as normal developments (Anadolu Ajansi, February 14).

    Moreover, shortcomings in reserves were also revealed during this crisis. Turkey’s underground storage facilities in Silivri have a capacity of 2.6 bcm and BOTAS is expected to keep 2.1 bcm in reserves, which will be enough to meet Turkey’s needs for around two weeks. As Turkey tapped these reserves in response to declining deliveries, it has been argued that BOTAS’ failure to fill it to full capacity before the winter was a major mistake. However, BOTAS issued a statement, maintaining that it stored quantities above the minimum levels required by existing legal provisions (Zaman, February 9). Granted, this development underscores Turkey’s poor capacity in managing its strategic reserves. It also demonstrates that despite its claims to be emerging as a major energy hub Turkey’s current capacity to manage that hub still remains unsatisfactory.

    To enhance that capacity Turkey finalized a protracted tender last fall with a Chinese company that will construct storage facilities in Tuz Golu (Salt Lake) near Ankara, which will have a capacity of 1 bcm. More importantly, the electricity producers’ association painted a very grim picture of the balance between demand and contracted gas supplies. While Turkey’s current contracts enable it to import around 170 mcm daily, its average daily consumption is around 180 mcm per day.

    They maintain that the problem is not just conjectural and cannot be explained by seasonal conditions. Rather, Turkey’s excessive reliance on natural gas for electricity generation appears to be a source of the problem (www.haberturk.com, February 13). According to Energy Market Regulatory Agency, Turkey imported 40 bcm gas and consumed 43.5 bcm in 2012, its consumption is expected to reach 48.5 bcm. While around half of Turkey’s electricity is produced from natural gas, slightly over half of its gas imports are used in power plants.

    Electricity producers argue that Turkey urgently needs to reduce the share of gas in electricity generation to around 30 percent through greater use of renewables, domestic resources and nuclear power. This is a problem emphasized a long time ago and energy strategy documents have stated it as their objective to undercut dependence on gas. Yildiz also reiterated it recently. There is a broad consensus inside Turkey on the need to significantly revise its energy policies, but it seems there is less consensus on “how” and “how soon” Turkey should achieve a more balanced energy mix.

    https://jamestown.org/program/rising-gas-consumption-reveals-structural-problems-in-turkeys-energy-policies/
  • Bryza Confesses his Love for Turkey, Confirming his anti-Armenian Bias

    Bryza Confesses his Love for Turkey, Confirming his anti-Armenian Bias

     

     sassounian311
     
    It appears that my prediction about Matt Bryza leaving the State Department and working as a lobbyist is coming true. After his brief stint as Ambassador to Azerbaijan came to a premature end, Bryza disclosed to the Turkish Hurriyet newspaper last week that he will be “advising people, government, and private sector on major investment projects.”
     
    It remains to be seen whether Bryza’s planned activities fall within the legal definition of “lobbying” and “advocacy” on behalf of third parties, such as Turkish and Azeri entities, given the restrictions imposed by U.S. law on former government officials. Depending on the specific type of activity, there is either a one or two-year ban. However, in the case of “very senior officials” such as Bryza, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, there is a lifetime ban. He would certainly be prohibited from having contact with former State Department colleagues on behalf of other parties, regarding official matters with which he was involved as a government employee.
     
    In his interview with Hurriyet, Bryza validates in his own words the accusation that he was biased and unprofessional, while acting as the American Co-Chair of OSCE’s Minsk Group of mediators on the Karabagh (Artsakh) conflict. At the time, he was repeatedly criticized for being anti-Armenian, pro-Azerbaijani and pro-Turkish. Senators Barbara Boxer and Robert Menendez, who placed a hold on his nomination as Ambassador to Azerbaijan, and the Armenian National Committee of America, which objected to Pres. Obama’s ill-advised decision to send Bryza to Baku without Senate confirmation, are now fully vindicated.
     
    In the past, Bryza’s apologists used the convenient excuse that as a government official, he had no choice but to support the President’s position on the Armenian Genocide and related issues. Yet, now that he is a free man, why does he continue to parrot those same Turkish-inspired, anti-Armenian slogans? Could it be that Bryza, in and out of government, has been trying to ingratiate himself to his future paymasters? Otherwise, why would he give Hurriyet the standard Turkish line that politicians and parliaments should not get involved in acknowledging the Armenian Genocide? To score points with Turkish and Azeri officials, Bryza angrily lashes out at the ANCA: “The organization that blocked me will keep bringing up this issue forever. But it’s not up to governments but to people to make their own determination on how to characterize it…. Turkey has the ability to influence that debate in a significant way…. The radicals that blocked me hate that. They don’t want to have an open debate; an open dialogue is their enemy.”
     
    While applauding the more open attitude among some Turks toward a discussion of the Armenian Genocide, Bryza finds as “legitimate” the Turkish official view that “this should not be recognized politically as genocide. It’s not the business of any politician in any country to characterize these events as genocide or not as genocide. It has to be up to societies — not to others — to have a decision taken based on a political calendar. To me, that’s dishonest.”
     
    Bryza then takes his pro-Turkish bias a little too far by revealing his denialist views: “Truth is on everyone’s side, especially on Turkey’s side. The debate about this [Armenian Genocide] issue is really one-sided right now. Anybody who voices a different view is attacked as a genocide-denier, which immediately means you are against human rights. If you believe there was a genocide committed, you can equally argue looking from a narrow definition of the word that genocide was committed to many others, against Turks or Muslims in eastern Anatolia. Let’s have a dialogue of the multiple atrocities [against] many groups. Let’s talk about it all. Let’s be fair and not forget the suffering of others.”
     
    Finally, Bryza seems to have fulfilled his life-long dream of living in Istanbul. During his 2005 visit to Ankara, after a U.S. Embassy official introduced him to local journalists as “an old friend of Turkey,” Bryza unabashedly declared: “I am thrilled to be back in Turkey. Turkey in many ways feels for me like a second home…. I can’t spend enough time in your beautiful country. I hope to be back soon and often.” In a column I wrote at the time, I expressed the hope that “Bryza would soon realize his wish and retire in Turkey permanently.” Now, his wish has come true! Hurriyet reported last week that after leaving Baku last month he had settled in Istanbul. “You can’t imagine how happy I am to be in Istanbul…. Look at me, I am married to a Turkish woman,” Bryza exclaimed!