Category: America

A New World Order

An end of hubris

Nov 19th 2008
From The World in 2009 print edition

America will be less powerful, but still the essential nation in creating a new world order, argues Henry Kissinger, a former secretary of state and founder of Kissinger Associates

Reuters

The most significant event of 2009 will be the transformation of the Washington consensus that market principles trumped national boundaries. The WTO, the IMF and the World Bank defended that system globally. Periodic financial crises were interpreted not as warning signals of what could befall the industrial nations but as aberrations of the developing world to be remedied by domestic stringency—a policy which the advanced countries were not, in the event, prepared to apply to themselves.

The absence of restraint encouraged a speculation whose growing sophistication matched its mounting lack of transparency. An unparalleled period of growth followed, but also the delusion that an economic system could sustain itself via debt indefinitely. In reality, a country could live in such a profligate manner only so long as the rest of the world retained confidence in its economic prescriptions. That period has now ended.

Any economic system, but especially a market economy, produces winners and losers. If the gap between them becomes too great, the losers will organise themselves politically and seek to recast the existing system—within nations and between them. This will be a major theme of 2009.

America’s unique military and political power produced a comparable psychological distortion. The sudden collapse of the Soviet Union tempted the United States to proclaim universal political goals in a world of seeming unipolarity—but objectives were defined by slogans rather than strategic feasibility.

Now that the clay feet of the economic system have been exposed, the gap between a global system for economics and the global political system based on the state must be addressed as a dominant task in 2009. The economy must be put on a sound footing, entitlement programmes reviewed and the national dependence on debt overcome. Hopefully, in the process, past lessons of excessive state control will not be forgotten.

The debate will be over priorities, transcending the longstanding debate between idealism and realism. Economic constraints will oblige America to define its global objectives in terms of a mature concept of the national interest. Of course, a country that has always prided itself on its exceptionalism will not abandon the moral convictions by which it defined its greatness. But America needs to learn to discipline itself into a strategy of gradualism that seeks greatness in the accumulation of the attainable. By the same token, our allies must be prepared to face the necessary rather than confining foreign policy to so-called soft power.

Every major country will be driven by the constraints of the fiscal crisis to re-examine its relationship to America. All—and especially those holding American debt—will be assessing the decisions that brought them to this point. As America narrows its horizons, what is a plausible security system and aimed at what threats? What is the future of capitalism? How, in such circumstances, does the world deal with global challenges, such as nuclear proliferation or climate change?

America will remain the most powerful country, but will not retain the position of self-proclaimed tutor. As it learns the limits of hegemony, it should define implementing consultation beyond largely American conceptions. The G8 will need a new role to embrace China, India, Brazil and perhaps South Africa.

The immediate challenge

In Iraq, if the surge strategy holds, there must be a diplomatic conference in 2009 to establish principles of non-intervention and define the country’s international responsibilities.

The dilatory diplomacy towards Iran must be brought to a focus. The time available to forestall an Iranian nuclear programme is shrinking and American involvement is essential in defining what we and our allies are prepared to seek and concede and, above all, the penalty to invoke if negotiations reach a stalemate. Failing that, we will have opted to live in a world of an accelerating nuclear arms race and altered parameters of security.

In 2009 the realities of Afghanistan will impose themselves. No outside power has ever prevailed by establishing central rule, as Britain learnt in the 19th century and the Soviet Union in the 20th. The collection of nearly autonomous provinces which define Afghanistan coalesce in opposition to outside attempts to impose central rule. Decentralisation of the current effort is essential.

All this requires a new dialogue between America and the rest of the world. Other countries, while asserting their growing roles, are likely to conclude that a less powerful America still remains indispensable. America will have to learn that world order depends on a structure that participants support because they helped bring it about. If progress is made on these enterprises, 2009 will mark the beginning of a new world order.

Source: www.economist.com, Nov 19th 2008

“New World Order” transmutes into “Age of Compatible Interest”

March 29, 2009
Why Turkey belongs to the EU

Sigurd Neubauer

Friday 27 March 2009 – 07:30

With its geographical location, at the crossroads of an East-West and North-South axis, Turkey has played a dominating geopolitical role from the days of the Ottoman Empire to the present. In recognition of Turkey’s strategic position, President Harry S. Truman was quick to incorporate Turkey into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). As the alliance is celebrating its 60th anniversary, Turkey is again at a crossroad. This time, the choice facing the Turkish Republic is whether Ankara should continue its path towards becoming a full fledged member of the European Union, or if Turkey should adopt a “neo Ottoman” foreign policy brokering conflicts between Israel and Syria and between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Beyond its broad foreign policy implications, Turkey is also facing a significant internal identity crisis where traditional urban pro-Western elite are being challenged by a new and emerging conservative bourgeoisie originating from the Anatolian heartland. At the center of this power struggle, is the current ruling Islamic Development Party (AKP) led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan vis-à-vis the Turkish military establishment.

Turkey’s powerful generals have long seen themselves as the “guardians” of secularism as they adhere to the principals of “Kemalism,” laid out by the Republic’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938). “Ataturk,” or “father Turk,” as his people called him, emerged on the political stage during the vanishing days of the Ottoman Empire. During these turbulent times, as pockets of Turkish populated settlements were threatened by increasing nationalism in the various regions of the empire, the young and ambitious army officer, Mustafa Kemal, was to become one of the most notable military leaders and statesmen of his generation.

Transition from Empire to Republic

From a small principality on the frontiers of the Islamic world at the turn of the 14th century, the Ottoman Empire became the most powerful state in the Islamic world stretching from central Europe to the Indian Ocean under the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent (1520-1566). Following the long wars of the 17th century, the Ottoman Empire declined as a world power in favor of the European mercantile powers. By the mid 18th century, what was left of the once mighty empire became known as the “sick man of Europe.” Despite countless reforms of the civil and bureaucratic structure, Ottoman political life continued under European tutelage.

Recognizing Turkey’s state of decay, Ataturk envisioned a strong, independent, and secular republic. According to noted Ataturk biographer, Lord Kinross: “Ataturk differed from the dictators of his age in two significant respects: his foreign policy was not based on expansion but on retraction of frontiers; his home policy on the foundation of a political system that could survive his own time.” Some of the republic’s early reforms were instituting a constitutional parliamentary system in 1923, followed by the introduction of the Swiss Civil Code in 1926. From a legal perspective, the Swiss Civil Code replacing traditional Sharia laws was an important step in the direction of westernization of personal, family, and inheritance laws. Other significant changes promoted by the Kemalists were adopting the Latin alphabet, western numerals, weights and measures, and gender equality.

Military and Democracy

The political system during the early Kemalist era remained a one party state, where no legal opposition was active until after World War II. Turkey has since come a long way in its democratization effort, despite brief military interventions in 1960, 1971, and 1980. Each time, the generals provided important exit guarantees that enhanced the military’s position, yet civilian control of the Republic has prevailed, as Turkey has become a competitive multiparty system.

With the reelection of the AKP in 2007, Prime Minister Erdogan has secured his base as he openly challenges Turkey’s ancient regime, on a verity of issues from the headscarf ban to, as the only NATO ally, inviting Iran’s controversial President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Istanbul. The notion that “Turkey has to follow an integrated foreign policy and cannot have priority with the EU at the expense of its relations with the Middle East—as advocated by senior AKP officials—is a clear break with Kemalist foreign policy. Yet at this critical juncture, it is important for Europe to fully embrace Turkey. Because of its strategic location and economic ties to continental Europe, the Balkans, the Caucasus, the Mediterranean, and the Black Sea region, Turkey can fully complement the EU on a variety of issues from trade to security. In particular, Turkey can provide the European markets access to rich energy resources from the Middle East and Eurasia.

The battle for Eurasia

On the other hand, the Turkish government has shown increasing frustration, not only with U.S. policies towards the Middle East but also with the EU’s refusal to seriously consider its bid. Should Europe fail to embrace Turkey, this could be a fatal push of Turkey into the Russian orbit. Despite historical mistrust, Turkish-Russian economic ties have greatly expanded over the past decade, reaching $32 billion in 2008, making Russia Turkey’s largest trading partner. By taking advantage of cooling relations between Ankara and Washington, Moscow is determined to expand its sphere of influence over the black sea region and Eurasia. Through an aggressive trade and investment policy, Russia skillfully outmaneuvered the United States by closing its airbase in Manas, Kyrgyzstan.

In the great powers struggle for influence, Turkey is an indispensable piece, too precious for the West to lose. Instead of remaining a “Christian Club,” the European Union should overcome its historical fear of “the Turks” and recognize that as a NATO member, Turkey will prioritize its ties with the United States and the West; as an EU member, Turkey will continue to cherish democracy, liberalism, and secularism. Europe turning its back on Turkey could be the nail in the coffin for an occidental oriented foreign policy and a secular national identity.

Source: The Diplomatic Courier (USA), 25-03-2009

March 27, 2009
Karabakh should be returned to Azerbaijan

[ 25 Mar 2009 16:29 ]
Vienna –APA. On 24th March, in Vienna, the Third Armenian Azerbaijani Public Peace Forum was opened with an international Round Table on Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict – Challenges and Opportunities for Building Confidence Between Societies.

Almost 40 Armenian and Azerbaijani civil society leaders, experts, intellectuals gave a start to the events that are going to continue in Vienna until 27th March. The three Co-Chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group Ambassador Bernard Fassier, Ambassador Yury Merzlyakov and Matthew Bryza, as well as the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office for Nagorno-Karabakh conflict Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk and Mr. Alexandros Katsanis, representative of the current OSCE Chairman-in-Office, took part in the Forum.
During almost 5-hours of open and frank discussion, the international mediators and civil society shared their views on the challenges and possibilities to build confidence between the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis today. This is a very rare opportunity when all international mediators in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process are discussing the different aspects of the conflict together with such a large civil society delegation from all sides of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict divide. In such sense, this is an event that marks a milestone in the Nagorno-Karabakh peacebuilding process.
After the round table, the mediator of the dialogue, International Alert’s representative for Eurasia region Dessislava Roussanova, said: “The three Co-Chairmen had a united message to the Forum – war is not an option. But the Co-Chairmen were there not just to deliver their messages. They were there to listen, to engage in dialogue, and to discuss very frankly with civil society issues and aspects of the Nagorno-Karabakh peacebuiding process and the possible role that civil society could play in it. The discussion was very constructive, the tone was extremely positive. There was a desire among many that this collaboration between civil society and the mediators should become a regular cooperation.”
Regnum agency reports that Co-Chairs made interesting speeches in the event. French Co-Chair Bernard Fassier noted that the mediators did not solve the problem, but assist the sides in the process and try to achieve international guarantee.
To him, the compromise is a solution of the problem without defeat, not missing the opportunity. Fassier added that attempts on recognition of Nagorno Karabakh as independent state and returning it to Azerbaijan without any terms can cause new war .
The diplomat stated that Madrid proposals were not ideal and stressed that unideal compromise was better than the war.
“The real version is returning of territories, which are under the control of Armenian servicemen, to Azerbaijan and security of the temporary status of Nagorno Karabakh for Baku and Yerevan. Self-determination of peoples problem can be solved after 5-10 or 15 years, when Azerbaijani community will return back to their lands ,” he said.
The US Co-Chair Matthew Bryza underlined that Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents should achieve the peace.
“They should know that the process will not occur basing on Azerbaijan, but international guarantee,” he said. Bryza added that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported to assist for the solution to the conflict .
Russian Co-Chair Merzlyakov noted that the difficult problem is divergence of opinion between the sides on status quo. The diplomat added that the monitorings are held to strengthen confidence building between the sides at present.
“One of the last monitorings did not take place because of violation of cease fire . Moreover, the sides did not implement demands of MG on withdrawal of snipers from the front. The mediators support negotiations conducted between Azerbaijani and Armenian civil societies. Such kind of meetings will not be held in Yerevan, Baku , but other cities,” he said.

March 25, 2009
U.S. Envoy Again Visits Armenia

By Ruben Meloyan

A senior U.S. official paid on Wednesday a brief and apparently unexpected visit to Yerevan which the Armenian Foreign Ministry said focused on international efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza, who is also Washington’s chief Karabakh negotiator, met with President Serzh Sarkisian and Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian and made no public statements afterwards. Sarkisian’s office also did not immediately report any details of the talks.

According to the Armenian Foreign Ministry, Bryza passed on to Nalbandian a message from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton relating to U.S.-Armenian relations, regional security and the ongoing dialogue between Armenia and Turkey. A ministry statement said Clinton “warmly recalled” her March 17 phone conversation with Sarkisian that also touched on these subjects.

“In the message, Secretary of State Clinton expressed her readiness to provide utmost support to the process of a peaceful settlement of the Karabakh conflict,” said the statement. “During the meeting Eduard Nalbandian and Matthew Bryza discussed issues pertaining to the Artsakh (Karabakh) negotiating process,” it added without elaborating.

Bryza already visited Yerevan as well as Baku and Stepanakert early this month together with the two other co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, Yuri Merzlyakov of Russia and Bernard Fassier of France. The three mediators expressed hope that the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan will meet again soon and make further progress towards the signing of a framework Karabakh peace accord. The meeting could take place on the sidelines of a European Union summit in Prague scheduled for May 7.

https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1600561.html

March 25, 2009
US Jews may be ready to step into Armenian genocide debate

Despite a serious strain in relations with Turkey as a result of harsh Turkish criticism of Operation Cast Lead, Israel has not changed its policy on the question of whether the killing in the early 20th century of some 1.5 million Armenians should be characterized as genocide.

In this photo provided by the Photlure photo agency in Armenia, a boy pauses in front of a wall-sized poster depicting the faces of 90 survivors of the mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, in Yerevan, Armenia.
Photo: AP [file]

This issue is once again on the agenda as US lawmakers introduced last week, as they do every spring, a resolution that would call the killings a “genocide.”

“Our position on this has not changed,” one senior Israeli diplomatic official told The Jerusalem Post.

Israel’s position on this matter was last formally articulated in March 2007, when the Knesset shelved a proposal for a parliamentary discussion on the issue.

Health Minister Ya’acov Ben-Yizri, speaking on behalf of Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, said at the time: “As Jews and Israelis, we have special sympathy and a moral obligation to commemorate the massacres that were perpetrated against the Armenians in the last years of Ottoman rule. The state of Israel never denied these terrible acts. On the contrary, we understand fully the intense emotional feelings aroused by this, taking into consideration the number of victims, and the suffering of the Armenian people.”

At the same time, Ben-Yizri also said that Israel understood that this was a “loaded” issue between the Armenians and Turks, and that Israel hoped “both sides will reach an open dialogue that will enable them to heal the wounds that have been left open.”

The diplomatic official said that Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s vicious criticism of the IDF’s actions in Gaza had not altered Israel’s position on the Armenian genocide issue.

Israel’s position on this is important, because it impacts the position of major American Jewish organizations which in the past have helped Turkey lobby against the legislation in Congress to declare the event a genocide.

American Jewish leaders insist that “the relationships between Turkey, Israel and the United States remain very important,” said Conference of Presidents executive vice chairman Malcolm Hoenlein.

“Our position hasn’t changed,” added Jess Hordes, head of the Anti-Defamation League’s Washington office. The position currently states that that a congressional resolution on the issue would be “counterproductive.”

While the ADL has labeled what happened to the Armenians a genocide, Hordes noted, “this issue is best handled by the parties themselves” rather than by Congress. He also noted that since the Gaza operation, the ADL had seen Turkey take steps to deal with anti-Semitism domestically.

“Hopefully the differences that emerged in this operation will be behind us. Both countries recognize they have strategic relations that are important to maintain.”

But for all the assurances, some Jewish groups say they are beginning to see support for Turkey’s positions decrease among American Jews.

In February, shortly after the worst of the Israel-Turkey row over Gaza, a senior official in a major American Jewish organization admitted that “no Jew or Israeli in his right mind will insult Turkey, but next time they might not come to Turkey’s aid or equivocate quite so much on the issue.”

Another senior official, speaking to the Post on Tuesday, suggested the shift may be more dramatic.

“The grassroots membership of the major organizations has never been happy about looking the other way about the massacre of Armenians, even if it happened so long ago. After all, ‘so long ago’ was just 25 years before the Holocaust,” the official said. “But [supporting Turkey] was seen as a matter of life or death for Israelis.”

This has changed palpably, the official said. “Erdogan’s behavior in Davos was disgraceful. He called Israelis ‘baby-killers.’ He told Turkey’s parliament that the Jews control the media. He said things that, if he were a political leader in America, we’d be demonstrating outside his house. People are now asking themselves, ‘Who are we going to bat for?’ There’s not a lot of support in the grassroots for bending over backwards to meet the needs of Turkey right now.”

Even before Erdogan’s outburst, the issue was a point of contention among some American Jewish advocacy groups. In 2007, ADL National Director Abe Foxman triggered a storm when he reversed the traditional American Jewish organizational position on the issue and, while in a dispute in the Boston area over the matter, released a statement saying that had the word “genocide” existed in the early 20th century, it would have been used to describe events of 1915 perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians.

The Turks were infuriated at the time, warning that Turkish-Israeli ties could be harmed if the American Jewish organizations did not work – as they had done in the past – to ensure that the US Congress did not pass a resolution characterizing the massacre a genocide.

The legislation was eventually removed from the table after then-US president George W. Bush and numerous former secretaries of state and defense wrote letters saying that passing the legislation would harm American interests.

The Los Angeles Times reported last week that US President Barack Obama was hesitating on a campaign pledge to designate the killings as genocide. Obama is scheduled to visit Turkey on April 5, and is looking to improve ties with Ankara and enlist its help in dealing with Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan, something that would be complicated by calling the events genocide.

The paper reported that improved relations between Turkey and Armenia were among the reasons the Obama administration was using to explain postponing a presidential statement on the matter.

Hilary Leila Krieger and Allison Hoffman contributed to this report.

March 25, 2009
Novruz celebration in New York

[ 24 Mar 2009 11:17 ]
New York. Zaur Hasanov –APA. Novruz Holiday was celebrated in Orion Palace, Brooklyn, New York.

Representatives of the communities and diplomats attended the event, APA US bureau reports. Addressing the opening ceremony, chairwoman of the Azerbaijani Society of America Tomris Azeri spoke about the history of Novruz Holiday and its importance for the Turkic peoples. Azerbaijani ambassador to UN Agshin Mehdiyev noted that Novruz is the incoming of spring and symbol of unity and reconciliation. He wished peace and welfare to the Turkic world.
The annual special prizes of the Azerbaijani Society of America were presented to Narmin Sultanova (City University of New York) and Jamila Hashimova (Georgetown University) at the event. Announcing the contest among the Azerbaijani students studying in USA, the Society aims to learn their ideas about the future directions of the Diaspora’s activity.
Turkey’s Consul General in New York Mehmet Samsar, representative of the Turkish community of America Ali Chinar, leaders of the Jewish community Erza Friedlander and others attended the event.

Lala Yusubova’s dance group “The Caucasus” and Amir Vahab’s ensemble performed the concert program.

March 24, 2009