Category: Authors

  • Genocidaire Talaat’s Last Interview Shortly Before his Assassination

    Genocidaire Talaat’s Last Interview Shortly Before his Assassination

    SASSUN-4

    Aubrey Herbert, British diplomat, adventurer, intelligence officer, and Member of Parliament, conducted a rare interview with Talaat Pasha, in February 1921, just days before his assassination in Berlin by Soghomon Tehlirian.

    As all-powerful Grand Vizier of the Ottoman Empire, its despotic ruler and mastermind of the Armenian Genocide, Talaat had fled Turkey in November 1918 to avoid prosecution by the new regime. The 23-page interview with Talaat was published in 1924 (London) and 1925 (New York) in Herbert’s memoirs titled, “Ben Kendim: A Record of Eastern Travel.”

    Herbert first met Talaat in 1908 while stationed at the British Embassy in Constantinople (Istanbul). Eleven years later, Herbert received an unexpected letter from Talaat seeking a meeting with him “in any neutral country.” Desperately seeking to rehabilitate his diabolical image in the West, Talaat claimed that “he was not responsible for the Armenian massacres, that he could prove it, and that he was anxious to do so.” Herbert turned down Talaat’s request telling him: “I was very glad to hear that it was not he who was responsible for the Armenian massacres, but that I did not think any useful purpose could be served by our meeting at that time.”

    However, Herbert reversed his decision in February 1921, after Sir Basil Thomson, Director of British Intelligence, ordered him to leave immediately for Germany and meet Talaat. The secret rendezvous took place on February 26, in the small German town of Hamm.

    Talaat told Herbert again that “he himself had always been against the attempted extermination of the Armenians.” More incredibly, Talaat claimed that “he had twice protested against this policy, but had been overruled, he said, by the Germans.”

    Forgetting his own claims of innocence in the massacres, Talaat justified the mass killings by accusing Armenians of stabbing his country in the back during the war. Contradicting himself again, Talaat declared his support for Armenians by claiming that “he was in favor of granting autonomy to minorities in the most extended form, and would gladly consider any proposition that was made to him.”

    Talaat then switched the blame to the British for the Armenian killings: “You English cannot divest yourselves of responsibility in this matter. We Young Turks practically offered Turkey to you, and you refused us. One undoubted consequence has been the ruin of Christian minorities, whom your Prime Minister has insisted on treating as your allies. If the Greeks and Armenians are your allies when we are at war with you, you cannot expect our Turkish Government to treat them as friends.”

    Herbert and Talaat then decided to move to Dusseldorf, Germany, where they continued their discreet conversation for two more days. Herbert reported Talaat’s paradoxical attempt to cover up his role in the Armenian Genocide, while justifying this heinous crime. Talaat stated that “he had written a memorandum on the Armenian massacres which he was very anxious that British statesmen should read. Early in the war, in 1915, the Armenians had organized an army, and had attacked the Turks, who were then fighting the Russians. Three Armenian deputies had taken an active part; the alleged massacres of Moslems had taken place, accompanied by atrocities on women and children. He had twice opposed enforced migration, and he had been the author of an inquiry which resulted in the execution of a number of guilty Kurds and Turks.”

    Ironically, Talaat boldly told Herbert that he was not afraid of being assassinated. “He said that he never thought of it. Why should anyone dislike him? I said that Armenians might very well desire vengeance, after all that had been written about him in the papers. He brushed this aside.” Two weeks later, Talaat was assassinated in Berlin by Soghomon Tehlirian!

    Concluding his interview of Talaat, Herbert observed: “He died hated, indeed execrated, as few men have been in their generation. He may have been all that he was painted — I cannot say. I know that he had rare power and attraction. I do not know whether he was responsible or not for the Armenian massacres.”

    Only experts of that time period can verify the authenticity and accuracy of this lengthy interview. If true, what exactly were Talaat’s aims in proposing “an Anglo-Turkish alliance” and why was the British government so anxious to talk to him?

  • Portrait of a Turkish-American Genocide Denialist

    Portrait of a Turkish-American Genocide Denialist

    SASSUN-4

    While Armenian-Americans closely follow the sinister efforts of Turkey and its lobbying firms, they rarely pay attention to a handful of Turkish-Americans who are either on the payroll of the Turkish government or blindly carry out propagandistic activities out of a misguided sense of patriotism!

    One such Turkish-American is Oya Bain who was described in a recent interview by the Turkish denialist website HistoryofTruth.com as “one of the most active names in the Turkish American Diaspora.” She is a Board Member of the Assembly of Turkish American Associations (ATAA), a coalition of 60 Turkic associations in the United States.
    Ms. Oya Bains picture added to article by TF
    Bain claims that after many years of ATAA’s efforts in organizing “lectures, conferences, programs about the false Armenian claims throughout the U.S., in 2015 [Armenian Genocide Centennial], the frequency and the intensity of such programs reached the highest number.” She adds that there has been a significant “increase in the number of serious scholars and academicians studying the Ottoman period during WWI objectively and publishing their findings without the Armenian threats and intimidation of the previous years.”

    Curiously, Bain uses the wording, “we have serious scholars,” when naming denialist writers Ed Erickson, Michael Gunter, Guenter Lewy, Tal Buenos, Jeremy Salt, Norman Stone, Christopher Gunn, Maxime Gauin, and Pat Walsh.” What exactly does Bain mean by saying, “we have” them? This phraseology is surely a “kiss of death” for any self-respecting scholar!

    Responding to a question regarding relations between Armenians and Turks in Washington, DC, Bain takes advantage of the opportunity to attack the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA): “Yes, we have friends in the Armenian community. Turkish Armenians are warm, friendly and like us. Then, we face entities like ANCA, a relentlessly hostile and negative organization, prejudice, exaggerations and outright lies in the media, political circles, academia.” She is also not too fond of my weekly columns: “Just recently, an Oct. 20, 2015 article by extremist writer Harut Sassounian was headlined as ‘To Ban Genocide Denial, [European] Court Incites Armenians to Commit Violence.’”

    Closing her eyes to the millions of dollars spent every year by the Turkish government to manipulate politicians, journalists, authors, and so-called scholars, Bain exaggerates the measly budgets of ANCA and Armenian Assembly, falsely describing them as “well-funded, have plush offices and large staff…. It is definitely an industry.”

    Bain proudly reports that the Turkish Caucus in the House of Representatives has grown from 62 in 2005 to 151 members. Acknowledging that money buys votes, as in the case of former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, she asserts: “We don’t have as many votes as the Armenian and Greek communities, but we can provide financial and volunteer support.” Bain lashes out at Senator Menendez and House members Pallone and Pelosi by describing them as “die hard members [of Congress] who are very rigid and very antagonistic to Turks.”

    As a seasoned propagandist, Bain states that her organization tries to win over — I would say ‘fool’ — members of Congress by presenting to them “a message of reconciliation with Armenia.” As an example, she cites “ATAA’s support for the 2009 Armenian Turkish Protocols, especially the formation of an independent committee of objective historians to study the Armenian-Ottoman conflict.” She conveniently forgets to mention that Turkey has persistently refused to ratify the Protocols!

    Acknowledging that ATAA was established in 1979 by Sukru Elekdag, then Turkish Ambassador to the United States, Bain inadvertently discloses ATAA’s extensive political activities which violate the organization’s non-profit status! She unwisely urges ATAA groups “to get out of the harmful mindset that as 501-c-3 [non-profit] organizations they ‘cannot be active politically.’ This attitude has seriously hampered our efforts to challenge the regional Armenian allegations.” Complaints should be filed with the IRS to restrict or terminate ATAA’s lobbying activities.

    ATAA may also be in violation of other U.S. laws. Qualifying as “excellent” the relationship between ATAA and the Turkish Embassy in Washington DC, Bain acknowledges that successive Turkish Ambassadors in Washington have provided “much support” to ATAA, such as sponsoring “many fabulous fund-raising events at the Embassy.” She does not seem to realize that her self-aggrandizing revelations could land ATAA in legal trouble, requiring registration with the U.S. Department of Justice as a “foreign agent.”

    In her concluding remarks, Bain accuses the American media of “bias, suppression of any good news of Turkey, subtle discrimination.” She then adds: “The media bias became much worse during April 24, 2015, the centenary of the Armenian claims…. It will probably take another 100 years to reverse and correct the misconceptions.” Bain vainly hopes that “in the next 100 years the Armenian lies and propaganda will be purged and a balanced view of the Turkish Armenian tragedy will emerge, respecting the suffering and death of both peoples during 1915. I think the Armenian tragedy is now so debased by vulgar propaganda that it cannot get lower…. One wishes that the Internet may eventually be cleansed of the garbage of wrong information about the Armenian claims. I am hopeful about the next 100 years. The tide is turning around.”

    It is imperative that Armenians counter the lobbying campaigns of not only the Turkish government but also ‘Lone Wolves’ like Oya Bain, without overstepping the bounds of civility and legality!

  • Turkey was First Country to Recognize The Armenian Genocide — in 1918

    Turkey was First Country to Recognize The Armenian Genocide — in 1918



    The Armenian Genocide is rarely discussed in the Turkish Parliament; and even rarer are statements calling for its recognition.

    On January 14, 2016, two of the three recently elected Armenian members of the Turkish Parliament boldly dared to raise the issue of the Armenian Genocide in their parliamentary remarks.

    Selina Dogan, representing the opposition Kemalist CHP Party (Republican People’s Party), made the following statement in Parliament: “Since this issue concerns not only Armenians but also Turkey, therefore, it should be raised in the Turkish Parliament and not in other parliaments. Otherwise, on every April 24, we will continue making trite statements and hastily rid this topic from our minds. I am convinced that none of us is interested in doing so. I would like to remind you that during a 2015 public rally in Erzurum, the Prime Minister clearly stated that the deportation is a Crime against Humanity.”

    Garo Paylan, representing the Kurdish opposition HDP Party, then took the floor and also spoke about the Armenian Genocide: “One hundred years ago the Armenian people were uprooted and exterminated by a decision of the State. My family — grandfather and his family — also suffered from these events. My grandfather was orphaned, having lost both parents. I am from the generation of orphans and leftovers of the sword, living in this land. My race is massacred.”

    As Paylan was speaking, several members of Parliament shouted in disapproval. Baki Shimshek, member of the ultra-nationalist opposition MHP Party, warned: “We are in the Turkish National Assembly. No one can say that genocide was committed. Such rudeness is unacceptable!”

    Although this was an unusual discussion, it was not the first time that affirmative statements were made in the Turkish Parliament on the Armenian Genocide. In November 2014, Sebahat Tuncel of HDP Party proposed a resolution condemning the Armenian Genocide. Tuncel urged Pres. Erdogan to come to the Parliament to acknowledge and apologize for the Armenian Genocide and other mass crimes. The resolution also asked Erdogan to repeat his apology publicly at one of the sites of mass killings, and declare April 24 as an official Day of Mourning. In addition, the Parliament was requested to form a Truth Commission and make public all documents in state archives pertaining to these mass crimes. Finally, the proposed resolution sought moral and material restitution for descendants of the victims. Not surprisingly, Tuncel’s resolution was quickly suppressed, never to see the light of day again!

    As I reported over a year ago, Tuncel’s proposal was not the first time that a resolution was submitted to the Turkish Parliament to recognize the Armenian Genocide. On November 4, 1918, the newly-constituted Ottoman Turkish Parliament discussed at length the crimes committed by the Young Turk Government, after a motion was presented stating: “A population of one million people guilty of nothing except belonging to the Armenian nation were massacred and exterminated, including even women and children.” In response, Minister of Interior Ali Fethi Okyar declared: “It is the intention of the government to cure every single injustice done up until now, as far as the means allow, to make possible the return to their homes of those sent into exile, and to compensate for their material loss as far as possible.”

    As a result of this motion, a Parliamentary Investigative Committee was set up to collect all relevant documents describing the actions of those responsible for what was then called, “Armenian deportations and massacres.” The evidence was turned over to the Turkish Military Tribunal and those found guilty were hanged or given lengthy prison sentences.

    In addition to this parliamentary motion, we need to recall the words of Kemal Ataturk, first President of the Republic of Turkey, who was quoted by the Los Angeles Examiner on August 1, 1926, as stating: “These leftovers from the former Young Turk Party who should have been made to account for the lives of millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse from their homes and massacred.”

    The combination of the 1918 Parliamentary motion, the guilty verdicts of the Turkish Military Tribunals, and the damning words of President Kemal Ataturk qualify Turkey as the first country that recognized the Armenian Genocide!

    Consequently, rather than seeking recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey, Armenians should demand restitution for all their losses, as promised 98 years ago by Minister of Interior Fethi Okyar!

  • Turkish Parliament Will Hide the Truth Should it Block the Genocide Resolution

    Turkish Parliament Will Hide the Truth Should it Block the Genocide Resolution

    Last week, a Turkish Parliamentarian submitted a proposal to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, seeking condemnation of the Armenian Genocide, a series of atrocities, and other acts of state terrorism.
    In this document, Sebahat Tuncel, member of pro-Kurdish Peoples’ Democratic Party (HDP), requests that Pres. Erdogan acknowledge and apologize in Parliament for the Armenian Genocide, massacres of Dersim, Marash, Sivas, and Chorum, mass hangings after the Sept. 12, 1980 military coup, and other Crimes Against Humanity resulting from state terror.
    The proposed resolution also demands that the Turkish President visit one of the sites of the mass killings, repeat his apology in public, and declare April 24 to be an official Day of Mourning. Within a year, the Parliament is to form a Truth Commission and make public all documents in state archives regarding these crimes. Moreover, moral and material restitution should be provided to descendants of the victims.
    It is expected that the Turkish Parliament would reject consideration of this proposal. Most probably, Tuncel’s real intent is to raise the issue of the Armenian Genocide and other mass killings in Parliament, regardless of the outcome. The mere submission of such a resolution would create a national uproar inside the Parliament, the media, and Turkish denialist circles. Tuncel must be aware that she is running the risk of having her parliamentary immunity lifted and being prosecuted for bringing up banned subjects under Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code.
    While welcoming Tuncel’s daring and bold proposal, Armenians, Turks, Kurds, and others should not forget that this would not be the first time the Turkish government has taken up the deportation and massacre of Armenians. On November 4, 1918, immediately after the collapse of the Young Turk regime and before the founding of the Republic of Turkey by Kemal Ataturk in 1923, the Ottoman Parliament considered a motion on the crimes committed by the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP): “A population of one million people guilty of nothing except belonging to the Armenian nation were massacred and exterminated, including even women and children.” The then Minister of Interior Fethi Bey responded by telling the Parliament: “It is the intention of the government to cure every single injustice done up until now, as far as the means allow, to make possible the return to their homes of those sent into exile, and to compensate for their material loss as far as possible.”
    A Parliamentary Investigative Committee proceeded to collect relevant documents describing actions of those responsible for the Armenian mass killings and turned them over to the Turkish Military Tribunal. CUP’s leading figures were found guilty of massacring Armenians and hanged or given lengthy prison sentences. The Military Tribunal requested that Germany extradite to Turkey the masterminds of the massacres who had fled the country. After German refusal, they were tried in absentia and sentenced to death.
    To reinforce her proposal with historical and legal precedents, Tuncel may want to submit to the Turkish Parliament a copy of the 1918 parliamentary motion and discussion on the Armenian Genocide, which was referred to at the time as “Armenian deportations and massacres.” She should also submit a copy of the guilty verdicts issued by Turkish Military Tribunals. Finally, Tuncel should remind the Parliament of the historic admission Kemal Ataturk made in an interview published in the Los Angeles Examiner on August 1, 1926: “These leftovers from the former Young Turk Party who should have been made to account for the lives of millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse from their homes and massacred.” Would any Turkish Parliamentarian dare to call the Father of Modern Turkey a liar?
    Should the Turkish Parliament block Tuncel’s resolution and prevent its consideration, it would expose the Erdogan government’s fear of facing the truth and concealing the guilt of its predecessors! Regardless of the end result, this proposal is an unexpected positive development on the eve of the Armenian Genocide Centennial and provides some consolation to descendants of the victims of more recent Turkish atrocities.
    The introduction of Tuncel’s proposal to the Turkish Parliament coincided with the unanimous recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Bolivia’s Senate and Parliament. Significantly, this acknowledgment was achieved on its own merits, without any Armenian lobbying efforts, which negates the standard Turkish claim that countries recognizing the Armenian Genocide do so under pressure from local Armenian communities. Hardly any Armenians live in Bolivia!
  • The White House Should Answer 10 Key Questions on Artsakh

    The White House Should Answer 10 Key Questions on Artsakh

    For many years, the Armenian-American community has been dissatisfied with United States policy on Artsakh (Nagorno Karabagh).

    Under the guise of neutrality, OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair James Warlick and his predecessors have put the blame on both sides of the conflict each time that Azerbaijan has opened fire on Armenia and Artsakh. Such an unfair approach has encouraged Pres. Aliyev to escalate his attacks.

    To eliminate or at least minimize such bloody aggression, 85 members of Congress recently signed a joint letter urging the Obama Administration to implement the following three steps regarding the border between the two countries: 1) withdraw the snipers; 2) increase the number of international monitors; and 3) deploy gunfire locators. Not surprisingly, Azerbaijan has rejected all three proposals, while Armenia, Artsakh, and the Minsk Group of mediators (France, Russia, and United States) have accepted them.

    Last week, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce held a classified briefing with Amb. Warlick concerning the implementation of the proposals which he and Cong. Eliot Engel had initiated. Before the closed-door meeting, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) had circulated a set of 10 suggested questions for Amb. Warlick. While it not known if these questions were raised during the congressional briefing, the Obama Administration should be asked to respond publicly to the 10 questions so that everyone becomes aware of its position on the Artsakh conflict.

    To ensure that an official answer is received, I suggest the posting of these questions on the White House website, under the “Petitions” section. The website states that the Obama Administration will issue a formal response in 60 days to any petition that gathers over 100,000 signatures within 30 days of its posting. Azeris have already taken advantage of this unique opportunity by posting on the White House website two anti-Armenian petitions which gathered 105,686 and 126,828 signatures respectively. As expected, the White House did issue a statement in response to the two Azeri petitions.

    Below are the 10 ANCA questions which should be posted as a petition on the White House website:

    1) What specific steps, if any, has the U.S. government taken to ensure the implementation of the Royce-Engel peace proposals, specifically with regard to an agreement on the non-deployment of snipers, the addition of observers, and the deployment of gunfire locator systems along the line of contact?

    2) The State Department has been both very vocal and highly specific about what it believes the Armenian side must concede. Is the U.S. government willing to match this public diplomacy with equally high-profile and similarly concrete demands upon Azerbaijan?

    3) What are the specific facts, legal arguments, and policy considerations that led our government to officially recognize Kosovo but not Nagorno Karabakh?

    4) Does the Azerbaijani government’s record of domestic repression and corruption in any way impact how our government views Azerbaijan’s claim to extend its governance over Nagorno Karabakh?

    5) Why has Azerbaijan’s well documented (and video-taped) destruction of the medieval Armenian Cemetery in Djulfa never been mentioned in either the State Department’s Human Rights or Religious Freedom reports?

    6) What is the U.S. government’s current request, if any, regarding the re-incarceration of admitted and still unrepentant axe-murderer Ramil Safarov?

    7) What is the U.S. policy concerning the Azerbaijani government’s travel restrictions related to U.S. citizens of Armenian heritage?

    8) What is the U.S. policy regarding NATO member states, notably Turkey, making sales or transfers of advanced, offensive weaponry to Azerbaijan?

    9) What specific restrictions exist regarding travel and communication between the citizens and officials of the United States and Nagorno Karabakh? What are the justifications for any such restrictions of these freedoms? What, if any, are the perceived benefits of such restrictions?

    10) What interests do you believe have been served, if any, by official U.S. public restraint in challenging Azerbaijan’s high-profile anti-Armenian incitements, threats, and cross-border aggression?

    I believe that a well-publicized petition can gather much more than 100,000 signatures within 30 days of its posting on the White House website, particularly if prominent individuals with a large number of followers endorse the petition.

  • Azerbaijan’s Parliament Introduces Outrageous Anti-American Resolution

    Azerbaijan’s Parliament Introduces Outrageous Anti-American Resolution

    Given the joyful spirit of the holiday season, I wanted to dedicate my article to a cheerful subject. However, when I saw the text of the bizarre Resolution submitted to Azerbaijan’s Parliament on Christmas Eve, I knew that I could not pick a more disgustingly amusing topic.

    The proposed Azeri bill is in response to the U.S. House Resolution 4264 (Azerbaijan Democracy Act of 2015) introduced by Helsinki Commission Chair Cong. Chris Smith (R-NJ) on December 16, calling for denial of U.S. entry visas to Azerbaijan’s leaders, their business partners, as well as security, law enforcement, and judicial officials. The Resolution also demands the curtailment of U.S. economic and energy projects with Azerbaijan.

    Cong. Smith criticized Azerbaijan’s government for jailing journalists, opposition leaders and human rights activists, holding fraudulent elections, and violating rights of religious minorities.

    To counter Cong. Smith’s initiative, Rovshan Rzayev, Deputy Chair of Azerbaijan’s Parliamentary Committee on Legal Policy, fearlessly rushed to propose a counter-Resolution on December 24 that would:

    1) Refuse entry to Azerbaijan of: U.S. officials and family members; Senators and House members involved in discrediting Azerbaijan; politicians cooperating with Armenian Diaspora organizations; journalists, representatives of Non-Governmental Organizations, and experts conducting a “smear campaign against Azerbaijan”; Americans who have earned “huge funds as a result of their collaboration with U.S. authorities”; politicians elected “with the support of the Armenian Diaspora” and lobbying groups; persons involved in fraud in U.S. elections; and finally, those “opposing U.S. ratification of international human rights treaties”!
    2) Break all business ties between Azerbaijani and American companies;
    3) Ban U.S. Non-Governmental Organizations from implementing programs in Azerbaijan and close down their bank accounts; terminate activities in Azerbaijan of NGOs funded by the U.S. government and Congress; end all “cooperation with the United States in the fields of trade, energy, military and security;” withdraw Azeri troops from joint military operations in Afghanistan; prohibit transit of American military and civilian goods through Azerbaijan; and remove the U.S. co-chair from the Minsk Group of mediators on Nagorno Karabagh.

    Incredibly, the proposed Azeri Resolution orders the United States to make substantial improvements and changes in the following areas before Azerbaijan would lift its sanctions:

    1) Violations of human rights; racial and religious discrimination; manifestations of xenophobia and Islamophobia; and inhuman treatment of prisoners;
    2) Disproportionate use of force against protesters;
    3) Restrictions of freedom of speech and press, and violation of the privacy of U.S. citizens;
    4) Corruption and lobbying activities;
    5) Widespread electoral fraud;
    6) Interference in the internal affairs of foreign countries;
    7) Slander and smear campaigns against the Republic of Azerbaijan;
    8) Unambiguous position on “the Nagorno Karabagh conflict in compliance with international law, sanctions on the aggressor country [Armenia], and no ties with the separatist regime of Nagorno Karabagh.”

    The lengthy text of the proposed Azeri resolution accuses the United States government of scores of violations, such as:

    1) Refusal to ratify 12 out of 16 United Nations human rights treaties;
    2) Growing racial and religious discrimination, xenophobia and Islamophobia: “Some 50% of the people are shot by the police; 70% of those arrested and killed in New York are black; and one third of the black people between the ages of 20-29 are in prison”;
    3) Genocide against the indigenous people of the United States, resulting in the killing of “more than three million American Indians”;
    4) Importing “more than 12 million slaves” from Africa;
    5) Violations of the freedom of expression and press; illegal interference by the intelligence agencies in the people’s private lives; widespread bugging and persecution; and “police attacks and arrests of journalists have become an everyday occurrence in the United States”;
    6) “Legal corruption and lobbying”: In the first months of 2015 alone, 2,320 criminal cases on charges of bribery were filed against officials at various levels;
    7) Widespread fraud in U.S. elections;
    8) “Interference in the internal affairs of independent states on the pretext of fighting terrorism and establishing democracy;”
    9) Support for “separatist regimes,” such as Nagorno Karabagh.

    There is no question that the United States is not a perfect democracy, but to have the parliament of one of the most corrupt and despotic regimes in the world criticize the American Government and its shortcomings is totally ridiculous and outrageous!

    Since Azerbaijan needs the U.S. far more than the U.S. needs Azerbaijan, we hope Azerbaijan’s Parliament will quickly adopt the proposed Resolution and cut off all ties with the United States. Good riddance! Americans would then have a better reason to celebrate the New Year!