Category: News

  • Can the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group solve the Afghan crisis?

    Can the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group solve the Afghan crisis?

    afghanistan0

    Despite the grim picture of turmoil and instability that has emerged in Afghanistan since the Taliban came to power, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has demonstrated a unique ability and efforts to resolve the Afghan crisis. As a regional organization, the SCO has shown interest in Afghanistan since its creation in 2001, primarily because the country’s stability affects its members, such as Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Iran and the Central Asian region. In this regard, in 2005, the SCO-Afghanistan contact group was created. Its main objectives are to establish dialogue with Kabul, combat security threats in the region, drug trafficking and organized crime, as well as contribute to the restoration of a peaceful, stable and economically prosperous state. However, as violence in the region escalated and US influence grew following its invasion in the country, the Contact Group lost its relevance and was disbanded in 2009.

    Afghanistan received observer status in the SCO when President Hamid Karzai visited China in 2012 and signed the SCO counter-terrorism protocol in 2015. In 2018, Afghanistan officially reaffirmed its commitment to combating terrorism, extremism, drug trafficking and economic cooperation. The Afghan Contact Group was revived in 2017 and held annual meetings before the Taliban took power.

    Today, during a period of global economic and political instability and conflicts in the Middle East, the revival of the activities of the SCO-Afghanistan contact group is more relevant than ever. Integrating Afghanistan into the Belt and Road Initiative will allow China to fill the economic and political power vacuum.

    Uzbekistan, a member of the SCO, also plays an important role in dealing with the Taliban because many Uzbeks live in Afghanistan, although they are persecuted. Turkmenistan takes a neutral position, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan take a wait-and-see position. Tajikistan supports the pre-Taliban government and hosts Afghan refugees and politicians.

    The differences between India and Pakistan regarding Afghanistan could not be more serious. India was the last regional stakeholder to reach out to the Taliban, while Pakistan has friendly ties and influence with the previous and current Taliban regime.

    Some of Afghanistan’s most pressing problems fall outside the organization’s mandate. Recognition, sanctions and humanitarian assistance are the responsibility of the UN.

    More than 90% of Afghans are at risk of starvation. The SCO’s response to the humanitarian crisis was country-specific. For example, India sent medical aid and a shipment of wheat in collaboration with the World Food Programme. So far, $2.4 billion has been raised, less than the $4.4 billion requested by the UN.

    The Taliban regime has violated its commitment to establish a representative and inclusive government. Restrictions on women’s freedom and human rights have threatened recognition, humanitarian assistance and access to frozen assets.

    The situation is complicated by disagreements between SCO members at present. However, the revival of the activities of the SCO-Afghanistan contact group would contribute to the solution to the Afghan crisis in a more targeted and organized way, not within initiatives of a single SCO member country.

  • Workshop on Armenian and Turkish Scholarship

    Workshop on Armenian and Turkish Scholarship

    From the Foundational Crime to the Making of a New State (and Nation): The End of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Turkish Republic

    turkiye

    Attend in person or on Zoom at https://myumi.ch/967mE

    To mark the centennial year of the founding of the Turkish republic, WATS (the Workshop on Armenian and Turkish Scholarship) has decided to organize an eleventh workshop at the University of Michigan in the fall of 2023 under the auspices of the Center for Armenian Studies.

    Marking the centenary of the founding of the Republic of Turkey, our conference aims to bring a critical perspective on the process of making states that involved ethnic cleansing or genocide. Few modern states are free of dark histories of exclusion, forced assimilation, or more sanguinary solutions to the remnants of imperial diversity. Investigating states that were founded on dispossession of indigenous peoples, we examine the Turkish past and the histories of the United States, Israel, and Australia, among others. Turkey is not unique, but its achievement in ridding Anatolia of Armenians and Assyrians, like the removal of Native Americans from continental United States, was admired by and positively referred to by Adolph Hitler as he planned his own genocidal policies in the lands to the east of Germany.

    Our conference examines the ideological and strategic choices made by Ottoman and Turkish nationalist leaders as they attempted to “modernize” their states through coercive demographic policies and the deployment of violence, which became enshrined as part of the repertoire of governance in the Kemalist state. Having eliminated the bulk of Christians, the heirs of the Ottomans repressed their former allies, the Kurds, turning what they conceived as a homogeneous ethnic nation-state into a mini-imperial state colonizing its non-Turkish subjects.

    Just as the controversial 1619 Project in the United States has contested the origins of the American republic by seeking its beginnings with the first importation of African slaves, rather than the revolutionary events of 1776, so shall this workshop explore the formative events and processes from the initiation of systemic reforms in the Ottoman Empire in 1789, through the Tanzimat reforms of 1839 and 1876, the coup d’état of 1908 and the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1916, to the 1918 fall of the empire, the 1919-1922 rise of the Kemalist nationalist movement, and the 1923 founding of the Republic of Turkey.

    – SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
    -Friday, November 10, 20239:30 Introduction: Gottfried Hagen, Fatma Müge Göcek, Ronald Grigor Suny10:00-12:00 Session I: From Reform to Revolution
    Chair and Discussant: Melanie Tanielian (University of Michigan).Fatma Müge Göçek (University of Michigan) and Murat Özyüksel (University of British Columbia) Origins of the Republic of Turkey: Unionists and Local Congresses, 1918-1920Keith Watenpaugh (University of California, Davis) – Kill the Armenian/Indian; Save the Turk/Man: Carceral Humanitarianism, the Transfer of Children and a Comparative History of Indigenous GenocideArmen Manuk-Khaloyan (Georgetown University) – Intriguing Opportunities: International Finance, Great Power Diplomacy, and the Armenian National Banks Saga, 1912–1914Umit Kurt (University of Newcastle, Australia) – Republic of Perpetrators: Talat Pasha’s Genocide Technocrat Mustafa Reşat Mimaroğlu2:00-4:00 Session II: Revolution, War, Genocide and Their Afterlives
    Chair and Discussant: Ronald Grigor Suny (University of Michigan)Merisa Şahin (University of Michigan) –  The Early Young Turks and International Law: Carving an Ottoman CosmopolitanismSamuel Dolbee (Vanderbilt University) – Germs of Nationalism and Intercommunal Microbes in the Late Ottoman EmpireSahika Karatepe (State University of New York, Binghamton) – Gendered Labor History of the Armenian Genocide: Slave Labor, Social Reproduction and Sexual Violence in the Late Ottoman EmpireMehmet Polatel (Hrant Dink Foundation) – Restitution Under Occupation: Property Disputes in the Post-War Ottoman EmpireSaturday, November 11, 202310:00-12:00 Session III: The Fate of a Nascent Civil Society
    Chair and Discussant: Gottfried Hagen (University of Michigan)Heghnar Watenpaugh (University of California, Davis) –  Captive Sites and Survivor Objects: Theorizing the Cultural Heritage of Armenians in and out of TurkeyCeren Verbowski (York University) – Ernst Diez as an “Enemy of the Turks”: A Historical Debate on the Purity of Turkish Art in the Face of Armenian and Byzantine RemainsAram Ghoogasian (Princeton University) – Swords and Pens: Forging a Turkish CanonElif Shannon-Chastain (University of California, Irvine) – The Mother of the Turkish Theater: Knar Svajian and the Transformation and: Turkification of the Ottoman-Armenian Theater, 1908-19262:00-4:00 Session IV: Occupation, War of Liberation, and the Establishment of Violence as a Tool of Rule
    Chair and Discussant: Hakem Al-Rustom (University of Michigan).David Gaunt (Södertörn University) – Expulsion, Submission or Survival: Assyrian Christians in the Early Republic of TurkeyAri Şekeryan (Independent Scholar) – The ‘Armistice Complex’ and the Foundation of the Republic of Turkey: Revisiting the Precarious Situation of the Armenian CommunityCevat Dargin (University of Michigan) – Roadlessness: Ottoman Modernity Navigating Uncharted DersimVahram Ter-Matevosyan (American University of Armenia) – Armenian Interpretations of Kemalism in the 1920-40s: Rethinking Intellectual Debates on Turkey’s Ideological Foundations4:30-6:00 Session V: Roundtable: The Fatal Impossibility of Democracy: 100 Years of False Starts and FailuresFatma Müge Göçek (University of Michigan)
    Ronald Grigor Suny (University of Michigan Emeritus)


    If there is anything we can do to make this event accessible to you, please contact us at armenianstudies@umich.edu. Please be aware that advance notice is necessary as some accommodations may require more time for the university to arrange.

    Building:Weiser Hall
    Event Type:Conference / Symposium
    Tags:armenia, Turkey
    Source:Happening @ Michigan from Center for Armenian Studies, International Institute
    Upcoming Dates:Friday, November 10, 2023 9:30 AM-4:00 PMSaturday, November 11, 2023 10:00 AM-6:00 PM  (Last)
  • Balkan nations

    Balkan nations

    The Balkans is a southeastern European region that includes countries located on the Balkan Peninsula, with diverse landscapes and climates:

    Albania, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Turkey

    The initial Ottoman expansion took place at the expense of Christian lands in western Anatolia and the Balkans, particularly the Byzantine Empire
    The initial Ottoman expansion took place at the expense of Christian lands in western Anatolia and the Balkans, particularly the Byzantine Empire

    Countries in the Balkans often share borders with one another, and historical border disputes have influenced regional dynamics. Many Balkan nations were once part of the Ottoman Empire, which has left a significant historical and cultural impact.

    The breakup of Yugoslavia in the 1990s resulted in violent conflicts, with lasting implications for the region.

    The Balkans are home to various ethnic groups and religions, with Orthodox Christianity, Islam, and Catholicism being the major faiths.

    Some Balkan nations aspire to join the European Union and NATO, which has implications for their political and economic development; while others have already become members.

    balkans

    Let’s compare them by several key attributes relating to their military, size, economy and quality of life.

    We will look at the top 3 and bottom 3 in each case.

    Military power (Global Fire Power index – 2023) 0 = Super military power and higher the number= less military power

    Top 3

    1. Turkey (11th in the world) – 0.2016
    2. Greece (30th in the world) – 0.4621
    3. Romania (47th in the world) – 0.7735

    Bottom 3

    1. Bosnia and Herzegovina (133rd in the world) – 3.0788
    2. Montenegro (128th in the world) – 2.8704
    3. North Macedonia (108th in the world) – 2.1717

    Population

    Top 3

    1. Turkey – 84.78 million (2021)
    2. Romania- 19.12 million (2021)
    3. Greece – 10.64 million (2021)

    Bottom 3

    1. Montenegro – 619, 211 (2021)
    2. North Macedonia- 2.065 million (2021)
    3. Slovenia- 2.108 million (2021)

    Landmass

    Top 3

    1. Turkey – 783, 562 km²
    2. Romania – 238, 397 km²
    3. Greece – 131, 957 km²

    Bottom 3

    1. Montenegro – 13, 812 km²
    2. Slovenia – 20, 273 km²
    3. North Macedonia – 25, 713 km²

    Education (UN education index – measures the expected years of schooling and mean years of schooling of the population – 0 = no Education at all and 1 = maximum Education)

    Top 3

    1. Slovenia – 0.914 (2019)
    2. Greece – 0.855 (2019)
    3. Croatia – 0.805 (2019)

    Bottom 3

    1. North Macedonia 0.704 (2019)
    2. Bosnia and Herzegovina 0.711 (2019)
    3. Turkey 0.731 (2019)

    Democracy Index (The Economists Intelligence Unit – 2022, 10 = super democratic and 0 = dictatorship)

    Top 3

    1. Greece – 7.97, Flawed Democracy (25th in the world)
    2. Slovenia – 7.75, Flawed Democracy (31st in the world)
    3. Bulgaria – 6.53, Flawed Democracy (57th in the world)

    Bottom 3

    1. Turkey – 4.35, Hybrid regime (103rd in the world)
    2. Bosnia and Herzegovina – 5.00, Hybrid regime (97th in the world)
    3. North Macedonia – 6.10, Flawed Democracy (72nd in the world)

    GDP (size of economy)

    Top 3

    1. Turkey – $819 billion (2021)
    2. Romania – $284.1 billion (2021)
    3. Greece – $214.9 billion (2021)

    Bottom 3

    1. Montenegro – $5.861 billion (2021)
    2. North Macedonia – $13.83 billion (2021)
    3. Albania – $18.26 billion (2021)

    GDP per capita (size of economy relative to population)

    Top 3

    1. Slovenia – $29, 291.40 (2021)
    2. Greece – $20,192.60 (2021)
    3. Croatia – $17,685.33 (2021)

    Bottom 3

    1. Albania – $6,492.87 (2021)
    2. North Macedonia – $6,694.64 (2021)
    3. Bosnia and Herzegovina- $7,143.31 (2021)

    GDP per capita at Purchasing Power Parity – IMF (how much can people buy with money in a country)

    Top 3 (2023)

    1. Slovenia – $52,641
    2. Croatia – $42,531
    3. Romania – $41,634

    Bottom 3 (2023)

    1. Albania – $19,197
    2. Bosnia and Herzegovina – $19,604
    3. North Macedonia – $21,111

    Exports of goods and services (in millions of $, 2022)

    Top 3

    1. Turkey – 343,688
    2. Romania – 129,165
    3. Greece – 105,756

    Bottom 3

    1. Montenegro -3,178
    2. Albania – 7,057
    3. North Macedonia – 10,150

    Percentage of Population Living in Poverty – Poverty Rate, World Bank

    Top 3 (with lowest poverty of population)

    1. Slovenia – 12% (2018)
    2. Albania – 14.3% (2012)
    3. Bosnia and Herzegovina – 16.9% (2018)

    Bottom 3 (with highest poverty of population)

    1. Montenegro – 24.5% (2018)
    2. Bulgaria tied with Romania – 23.8% (2018)
    3. Serbia – 23.2% (2018)

    Peacefulness (Global Peace Index 2023, 1 – 5 scale, 1 being a super peaceful utopia and 5 being a warzone)

    Top 3

    1. Slovenia – 1.334 (8th in the world)
    2. Croatia – 1.450 (14th in the world)
    3. Bulgaria – 1.640 (30th in the world)

    Bottom 3

    1. Turkey – 2.389 (121st in the world)
    2. North Macedonia – 2.039 (88th in the world)
    3. Albania – 1.925 (79th in the world)

    Happiness (Happiness Index, 2023, 10 being maximum happiness and 0 being totally depressed)

    Top 3

    1. Slovenia – 6.63 (22nd in the world)
    2. Romania – 6.48 (27th in the world)
    3. Serbia- 6.18 (43rd in the world)

    Bottom 3

    1. Turkey – 4.74 (109th in the world)
    2. Albania – 5.2 (88th in the world)
    3. Bulgaria – 5.37 (84th in the world)

    Suicide Rate (suicides per 100,000, WHO, 2019)

    Top 3 (has the least suicide)

    1. Turkey – 2.3 (10th in the world)
    2. Greece – 3.6 (27th in the world)
    3. Albania – 3.7 (29th in the world)

    Bottom 3 (has the most suicide)

    1. Montenegro – 16.2 (161st in the world)
    2. Slovenia – 14 (150th in the world)
    3. Croatia – 11 (121st in the world)

    Homicide rate (murders per 100,000, UN)

    Top 3 (with least murders)

    1. Slovenia – 0.4 (2021)
    2. Greece – 0.9 (2021)
    3. Bosnia and Herzegovina – 1 (2021)

    Bottom 3 (with most murders)

    1. Turkey – 2.5 (2021)
    2. Montenegro – 2.4 (2021)
    3. Albania – 2.3 (2021)

    Healthcare Index (100 being amazing quality & universal healthcare and 0 being 0 healthcare, 2023)

    Top 3

    1. Turkey – 71.1
    2. Slovenia – 66.4
    3. Croatia – 64.5

    Bottom 3

    1. Albania – 49.3
    2. Serbia – 52.2
    3. Bosnia and Herzegovina -54.8

    Life expectancy

    Top 3

    1. Slovenia – 82.31 Years
    2. Greece – 82 Years
    3. Croatia – 79.4 Years

    Bottom 3

    1. Bulgaria – 72.84 Years
    2. Romania – 75.14 Years
    3. Serbia – 75.21 Years

    CONCLUSION:

    Turkey has the most economic and military power as a whole, due primarily to it’s size.

  • Henry VIII or Suleiman The Magnificent?

    Henry VIII or Suleiman The Magnificent?

    Who was more powerful, Henry VIII or Suleiman The Magnificent?

    suleiman

    Suleiman the Magnificent, also known as Suleiman I, was the tenth Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, and he reigned from 1520 to 1566. He is one of the most famous and influential rulers of the Ottoman Empire. Suleiman was born on November 6, 1494, and he died on September 6, 1566.

    During his reign, Suleiman oversaw the expansion of the Ottoman Empire to its greatest territorial extent. It covered modern day Turkey, Georgia, Armenia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt, much of Libya and Algeria, Greece, Hungary, Romania, Moldova as well as bits of Ukraine and Russia. He ruled over 25 million souls.

    He is known for his military campaigns and successful conquests, which included the capture of Belgrade, Rhodes, and most notably, the siege of Vienna in 1529. Suleiman’s reign is often considered the height of Ottoman power and influence in both Europe and Asia.

    The economy of the Ottoman Empire was more than double France, Spain and the Hapsburg Empires combined.

    Suleiman was also a patron of the arts, and his rule saw a flourishing of literature, architecture, and culture. He is particularly well-known for his legal reforms and the codification of laws that became the basis for the legal system of the Ottoman Empire. His title, “the Magnificent,” reflects the grandeur and success of his rule. His reign is sometimes referred to as the “Golden Age of the Ottoman Empire.” He was succeeded by his son, Selim II, upon his death in 1566.

    ottoman empire under suleiman I the magnificent 1580

    Henry VIII was a King of England who ruled England from 1509 to 1547. Not even the whole of island of Great Britain. He ruled over a puny 2.3 million souls. His economy was tiny compared to the major European powers of the day – far less the mighty Ottomans. Henry was born on June 28, 1491, and he died on January 28, 1547.

    The Six Wives of Henry VIII
    The Six Wives of Henry VIII

    Henry is famously known for his six marriages. His desire to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, and the Pope’s refusal to grant him an annulment, led Henry to establish the Church of England in 1534. Henry passed the Act of Supremacy, which declared the English monarch as the supreme head of the Church of England, further solidifying his control over the church.

    This event, known as the English Reformation, resulted in the Church of England breaking away from the authority of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. As part of the English Reformation, Henry ordered the dissolution of the monasteries in England, confiscating their lands and wealth. This move had profound effects on the religious, social, and economic landscape of England.

    Henry VIII king of england

    Henry’s reign had a lasting impact on English history, especially in the areas of religion and government. The establishment of the Church of England set the stage for the development of Protestantism in England, and the monarchy’s power and role in governance were significantly transformed.

    Resources:

    • Colin Riegels, BCL in Law, University of Oxford
    • World History Encyclopedia
  • Is Turkish the best natural/non-artifical language

    Is Turkish the best natural/non-artifical language

    Is Turkish really the best natural/non-artifical language out there, and if yes, why?

    is turkish natural nonartificial language

    Former English lecturer at Bilkent University Robin Turner answers this question on Quora:

    It’s a point of dogma among linguists that no natural language is superior to another. Personally I think this is just dogma, but it’s probably true that there is no such thing as the best language overall for the simple reason that languages have to balance a number of different and often contradictory things. A language with a very large vocabulary will likely be more expressive, but will be harder to learn. Using tones multiplies the available vocabulary while limiting the use of intonation to express emotion. Isolating languages (where words do not have different grammatical forms) have simple grammar at the expense of relatively inflexible word order (except for Chinese, which is an isolating language that also has fairly flexible word order, but it does this at the cost of ambiguity).

    Having said this, we can say Turkish has some advantages.

    1. It’s agglutinating (“stick things on the end of words”) grammar is almost completely regular and very easy to learn. Learning a new grammatical feature is usually just a case of learning which suffix you need to add to the verb, and you can put your new knowledge into practice immediately.
    2. Related to this, you can play around with word order with little danger of ambiguity. In English, fronting (moving a word to the beginning of a sentence to emphasise it) is very limited (e.g., “That I could go for”) but in Turkish, like Latin, you can do it as much as you like. You can also move the question word ma/mi around to show what you are questioning (Ali geldi mi? = “Did Ali come?” Ali mi geldi? = “Was it Ali that came?”).
    3. It has no gender, articles or other ways of making nouns a nightmare. It does have case, but once you’ve sat down and drilled yourself in it, it’s easy – it’s not like Latin where you have different declensions.
    4. Because Turkish adopted the Latin alphabet late, it is written almost exactly as pronounced (there are a few exceptions where the written form doesn’t properly represent contractions, like ağabey or yapayım).
    5. The language reforms of the mid-twentieth century got rid of a slew of Arabic and Persian loanwords, sometimes replacing them with (usually) logical Turkish neologisms. This created a smaller and more consistent vocabulary.

    But of course, these can be also construed as disadvantages. The grammar means that you have to keep your ears open to catch the suffix that tells you if a sentence is negative (and by the time the speaker gets to the verb, someone will probably have interrupted them). Losing all those loanwords was seen as a tragedy by many. Writing phonetically makes it more likely that people speaking different dialects will “misspell” words, and so on.

    I love Turkish, but I can’t claim that it is objectively superior to other languages, just better for some people if they like the kind of features that Turkish has. It’s like Malcolm Gladwell said, “There is no such thing as the perfect Pepsi. There are only perfect … Pepsis.1

    1. Choice, happiness and spaghetti sauce | Malcolm Gladwell ↩︎
  • Fire of Anatolia

    Fire of Anatolia

    USA Tour 2023

    Don’t miss an extraordinary journey that will immerse you in the magic of dance and the splendor of Anatolia. “Fire of Anatolia,” Turkiye’s premier dance ensemble, is touring the United States in celebration of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Republic of Turkiye. Experience the elegance and dynamism of Anatolian dance like never before.

    fire of anatolia usa tour

    October 28, Saturday

    Washington DC / Lisner Auditorium

    Seats are filling up fast! Purchase your ticket today>

    https://www.90events.com/Ticket/Dates