Category: Regions

  • Armenians Should Remain Vigilant To Counter Turkish Pressures on Obama

    Armenians Should Remain Vigilant To Counter Turkish Pressures on Obama

     

    Now that Sen. Barack Obama has been elected President, Armenian-Americans need to remain vigilant in order to counter Turkish pressures on the President-elect and his inner circle. Already, the Turkish government has embarked on a full-scale campaign to influence the next administration on a variety of critical issues for Turkey, such as the Armenian Genocide, Cyprus, the Iraq War, and the Kurds. Only a few days before the presidential election, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Erdogan sent two top officials to Washington to meet with close aides of Senators Obama and McCain to make sure that whoever is elected President would not make decisions against Turkish interests. Several American lobbying firms hired by Ankara are also hard at work to convince the President-elect

    and his advisors to support Turkey on a variety of issues. Clearly, the Turkish government is alarmed by Sen. Obama’s repeated promises to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Prime Minister Erdogan, in his letter of congratulation, went as far as expressing the hope that Obama as President would not carry out the promises he made as a candidate to the Armenian-American community. Moreover, Erdogan requested a meeting with Sen. Obama, presumably to dissuade him from acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. The Turkish Prime Minister is one of the leaders of 20 countries who are invited by Pres. George Bush to the White House Economic Summit later this week. The President-elect’s aides should reject Erdogan’s request for a meeting, reminding him that last January he insulted Sen. Obama by calling him “an amateur in politics,” just because the presidential candidate had issued a statement on the Armenian Genocide. As I had written in a column at that time, “Erdogan’s insulting words about Obama may haunt him after the election.” Despite the Turkish government’s intense lobbying efforts, it may be easier for Armenian-Americans to push their agenda forward during the Obama Presidency. Armenians have several significant advantages with the incoming administration over the outgoing one:

    1) Both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden have been staunch supporters of Armenian issues;

    2) The new Congress is more likely to pass legislation favorable to Armenians, since there will be a sizeable Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, joined by a large number of pro-Armenian Republicans in both Houses;

    3) The Departments of State and Defense would be less likely to oppose a congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide, given the likelihood that the White House would either support the measure or at least not oppose it;

    4) Although it appears some high-ranking pro-Turkish officials will be serving in the Obama administration, they are likely to be outnumbered by those who are either sympathetic or impartial on Armenian issues.

    Despite such a favorable balance of forces, the final outcome of any pro-Armenian legislation in Congress still hinges on two important prerequisites:

    1) The Armenian-American community’s vigilance and implementation of a full-scale grassroots and media campaign to counter all Turkish threats against the U.S.;

    2) The Armenian government’s postponement or preferably cancellation of a planned joint Armenian-Turkish historical commission that would have been exploited by the Turkish government to  undermine efforts to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide in the U.S. and other countries.

    Those in the Armenian community who remain skeptical about the next U.S. President keeping his campaign promise on the Armenian Genocide and/or support a Congressional resolution on this issue, should know that, no matter how justified their skepticism, they should not create the false and harmful impression that it is impossible for a U.S. President to acknowledge the Genocide. After

    all, a very prominent former President — Ronald Reagan — did issue a Presidential Proclamation back in 1981, which mentioned the Armenian Genocide. Pres. Obama would be simply repeating what was already stated 27 years ago by Pres. Reagan! Similarly, those who say that the House of  Representatives would never pass a resolution on the Armenian Genocide, should be reminded that the full House did pass such a resolution twice, once in 1975 and a second time in 1984. Thus, House Speaker Pelosi would be simply reaffirming what was already adopted by the House twice before!

    To be sure, Turkey’s denialist leaders can be expected to issue empty threats against the U.S. and repeat last year’s charade by recalling their Ambassador from Washington for a brief period. They would then send their envoy back to Washington after realizing that Turkey needs the United States more than America needs Turkey!

    If Armenian-Americans want the Obama administration to support their cause, they should more energetically support their political friends and counter their foes. The incoming administration, on the other hand, should show moral courage in the face of bullying tactics by Turkey, a third world country that should not be allowed to muzzle the U.S. Congress and the President of the United States.

  • ARMENIA WILL TOLERATE NO EXPRESSION OF DENIAL THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

    ARMENIA WILL TOLERATE NO EXPRESSION OF DENIAL THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

    armradio.am
    11.11.2008 13:54

    Recently the Turkish press has been publishing materials on Armenia’s
    policy on the process of international recognition of the Armenian
    Genocide.

    Asked by “Novosti-Armenia” agency to comment on those publications,
    the Foreign Minister of Armenia, Mr. Edward Nalbandian stated:

    “The recent publications in the Turkish press on the process of
    international recognition of the Armenian Genocide ascribed to Armenian
    officials are distorted and presented upside down.

    I have said many times and I would like to repeat that Armenian
    officials have never spoken and will never speak for the suspension
    of the process of international recognition of the Armenian
    Genocide. Furthermore, Armenia cannot tolerate any expression of
    denying the Armenian Genocide.”

  • Calls grow for inquiry into baby’s death

    Calls grow for inquiry into baby’s death

    Pressure is growing for a public inquiry after a baby died despite the involvement of social services, police and doctors.

    Three people face jail for repeatedly assaulting the 17-month-old boy died in the same area of London where Victoria Climbie died from abuse in 2000.

    Minister for Children Beverley Hughes has called in the same man who looked into that case to conduct an independent nationwide review.

    Social services have been slammed after two men were convicted of causing or allowing the death of the baby who was on the “at-risk” register.

    An Old Bailey jury heard the boy, who had been used as a “punchbag”, died in August last year from a broken back – which a doctor had failed to spot – and other injuries sustained over a period of months at his home in north London.

    The men – a 32-year-old handyman and Jason Owen, 36, of Bromley, southeast London, who had lived with the family for five weeks – were however found not guilty of murdering the toddler who was on Haringey Council’s child protection register.

    The child’s 27-year-old mother had previously pleaded guilty to the charge of causing or allowing the child’s death.

    The series of failings by Haringey Council was described as “worse than Climbie” – referring to the case of eight-year-old Victoria Climbie who was murdered by her great aunt and the woman’s lover in 2000, after care workers and police in the borough had failed to save her.

    In an bitter twist, the homes of both the little boy and Victoria were a stone’s throw from each other. Two social workers and a lawyer have been given formal written warnings over the toddler’s case, the Haringey Local Safeguarding Children Board has said.

    The baby was seen 60 times by health or social workers during an eight-month period.

    By the end, he was unrecognisable, his curly, golden locks shaved off, his cheeks hollow and his eyes dead to the world.

    He had more than 50 injuries or bruises – 15 of them to the mouth – and at one stage had been smeared with chocolate to hide the marks. In the 48 hours before he was found dead in his blood-spattered cot, a doctor failed to spot his broken spine.

    A detective in the case described the boyfriend as “sadistic – fascinated with pain”. He had Nazi memorabilia in the house. The court heard the mother was “a slob, completely divorced from reality. She was living in a dream world and put her lover before her child. She closed her eyes to what was going on”.

    Gillie Christou, in charge of social workers looking after children on the register in Haringey, told the court she had agreed to keep the baby with his mother.

    She said: “I made the decision at the time based on the material in front of me and based on the background to the case.”

    The family cannot be identified for legal reasons. All three will be sentenced on December 15.

    ITN

  • Baby P death sparks national child protection review

    Baby P death sparks national child protection review

    A nationwide review of child protection services has been launched after two men were found guilty of involvement in the death of a 17-month-old baby who suffered horrific injuries after being used as a “punchbag”.

    In a case described as one of the most severe child protection failures since the murder of Victoria Climbié, the boy’s mother had earlier pleaded guilty to involvement in his death.

    The abuse of the child, known in court as Baby P, was said to have taken place over eight months, during which time the boy was on the child protection register of Haringey – the same local authority that was found to have failed seriously in its duty of care to Victoria, who died eight years ago.

    The verdict prompted an immediate response from authorities:

    • The children’s minister, Beverley Hughes, announced an independent review of child protection services.
    • A senior paediatrician is under investigation over claims that she failed to spot that the child had a broken back and ribs.
    • Two social workers and a lawyer had been given formal written warnings over the case.

    Baby P, who was 17 months old, died after months of being used “as a punchbag” and then having his back and ribs broken, the court heard.

    One of the men convicted of causing or allowing his death in the Old Bailey today was the 32-year-old boyfriend of the baby’s mother. The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was cleared of murder charges.

    The other man convicted today was Jason Owen, 37, who lodged in the same house. The boy’s 27-year-old mother pleaded guilty to the same charge at the start of the trial in September.

    Both men have been remanded in custody to be sentenced on December 15.

    Last week, on the orders of the judge, Stephen Kramer QC, the jury found the mother and Owen not guilty of murdering the baby on August 3 last year.

    The children’s minister said she had asked Lord Laming, who chaired the Victoria Climbié inquiry, to prepare an independent report of progress being made to implement reforms set out following the Climbie case.

    “Ed Balls [the children’s secretary] and I have today asked Lord Laming to prepare an independent report of progress being made across the country,” she said.

    Lord Laming told BBC Radio 4’s World at One: “It would be awful wherever it happened, but it seems particularly sad that it happened in the same area where Victoria experienced this awful cruelty and a terrible death and involved the very same services.”

    He added: “What we know about people who deliberately harm children is that they go to great lengths to disguise their activities.

    “People who work in this field have to be streetwise and they certainly have to be sceptical. They have to make sure that all the activities are monitored, that the child is regularly seen and that they observe the way in which child and parents relate to each other.”

    Baby P was seen 60 times by health or social workers during that period, around twice a week. However, close to his death, he became unrecognisable, with more than 50 injuries or bruises, and an attempt had been made to cover up the crime.

    A postmortem examination revealed the boy had a broken back, eight fractured ribs, missing fingernails and toenails, multiple bruises and an injury to the inside of his mouth. He had also swallowed one of his own teeth. The court heard that his back had been broken by slamming him down over a bent knee or a bannister, which would have left him paralysed.

    It is claimed he was taken to hospital three times in the months before his death after being repeatedly beaten and abused. The child was last seen by social services on July 30 – when his mother and her boyfriend had smeared him with chocolate to cover up his injuries, according to Owen – and by a paediatrician two days before his death.

    Sally O’Neill QC, prosecuting, told the jury that the boy was taken to a child development clinic at St Ann’s hospital, Haringey, on August 1.

    By that time he is said to have had eight fractured ribs and a broken back, injuries that would have left him in terrible pain and unable to move his legs.

    He was examined by a consultant paediatrician, Dr Sabah al-Zayyat, who noted that Baby P appeared “cranky” and “miserable” but was said not to have found any indication that he had fractured ribs or a broken back.

    However, two medical experts told the court they believed those injuries would have been evident.

    At 11.35am on August 3 2007, an ambulance was called to the house. Its crew found Baby P already stiff and blue in his cot. He was taken to North Middlesex hospital where he was pronounced dead at 12.20pm.

    The Old Bailey heard he should have been protected by social workers, police and health professionals, but his mother had manipulated them with lies.

    Gillie Christou, in charge of social workers looking after children on the register in Haringey, told the court she had agreed to keep the baby with his mother.

    She said: “I made the decision at the time based on the material in front of me and based on the background to the case.”

    A detective in the case told the court the boy had more than 50 injuries, 15 of them to the mouth. He added that the boyfriend was “sadistic – fascinated with pain”.

    The mother was “completely divorced from reality. She was living in a dream world and put her lover before her child. She closed her eyes to what was going on.”

    Outside court today, Detective Superintendent Caroline Bates said police errors were made that caused a delay at the start of the abuse inquiry, but these had not been significant to the outcome.

    “With hindsight, having the benefit of a major investigation, we know quite clearly that the mother was lying and trying to subvert agencies involved with the family,” she said.

    In June, “police officers felt very strongly that [Baby P] should not be returned” to his mother, and a police inspector asked twice whether the threshold had been reached to start care proceedings.

    “This was a huge tragedy which should have been avoided. If we had only known the truth about the adults in the house,” said Ms Bates.

    In a statement after the verdicts, Sharon Shoesmith, chair of Haringey local safeguarding children board, said an independent review into what happened has been set up. Every recommendation had been acted upon, she said.

    The independent review concluded that the abuse should have been discovered by the community paediatrician who saw the child two days before he died.

    The report said that just over a week before Baby P died, the legal advice was that, on the information provided, the threshold for initiating care proceedings had not been met.

    It said: “Expert medical opinion commissioned during the course of this serious case review concluded that a diagnosis of abuse should have been made at that point.”

    Wes Cuell, the NSPCC acting chief executive, said professionals dedicated to protecting children were being “overwhelmed” by the scale of child abuse, and supporting them must be a priority for the government.

    According to the NSPCC, half of the children killed or seriously injured through abuse and neglect are babies under a year old, while a further 20% are under the age of five. On average, 47 pre-school children are killed every year, mostly by their parents or carers.

    After the verdicts, the judge, Stephen Kramer, excused members of the jury from serving for 10 years, telling them: “You have heard evidence of a harrowing nature and you have seen things which in the course of your everyday life you would not be expected to see.”

    Guardian

  • Who is Rahm Emanuel?

    Who is Rahm Emanuel?

    According to reports Hollywood guru Ari Emanuel’s brother Congressman Rahm Emanuel has accepted the post of Chief of Staff in President-elect Barack Obama Administration. George Soros affiliated Rahm Emanuel volunteered at an Israeli Defence Forces base during the Persian Gulf war. His father, Benjamin Emanuel, is an Israeli pediatrician who was active in the pre-independence Israeli underground, Irgun, the hard-line militant terrorist group which fought for Jewish independence until 1948. According to The Jerusalem Post, “Dr. Benjamin Emanuel was convinced that his son’s appointment would be good for Israel. Obviously he will influence the president to be pro-Israel,” he was quoted as saying. “Why wouldn’t he be? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to clean the floors of the White House.”

    “Rahm Emanuel is no Reason for Hope or Celebration”

    –Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of Tikkun Magazine

    Transcript

    Why I support the REAL News
    (a short message from a supporter)

    HOWARD ZINN, HISTORIAN AND AUTHOR: I like the idea of The Real News, because we are
    in desperate need of independent sources of information and analysis.

    Who is Rahm Emanuel?

    PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: The question of the prosecution of George Bush is one of the issues that will face Barack Obama as he becomes the next president of the United States. Many people think the lack of impeachment procedures set a dangerous precedent about the unitary presidency and the abuse of power. Will Barack Obama address any of this? To analyze this question we are joined now by David Swanson, who’s the founder of After Downing Street and Washington director of democrats.com. He joins us from Virginia. Welcome, David.

    DAVID SWANSON, CO-FOUNDER, AFTERDOWNINGSTREET.ORG: Good to be here.

    JAY: So, David, with democrats.com and After Downing Street, you guys campaigned quite heavily in favor of Barack Obama. On the other hand, he doesn’t have the most—what can I say?—courageous record in terms of voting on the FISA bill and standing on these questions in relationship to impeachment. Talk a little bit: your response to his election, and then what will be a litmus test for you, whether he’s actually taking on some of the abuses of the last eight years.

    SWANSON: Well, here I sit in Virginia, which up through 1964 always voted for a Democrat for president because the Democrats were more racist, and from that point to this always voted for a Republican because the Republicans were more racist. And we’ve been through a campaign where the Republican candidate and running mate ran a racist campaign, and Virginia has voted for Obama—for not only a Democrat, not only the less racist party, but a black man. And so I’m absolutely thrilled. This works wonders for Virginia politics, as well as for national politics. And it would have been an absolute disaster for the peace movement, for any sort of justice movement, to have McCain and Palin in there. Barack Obama is not about to solve all the country’s or the world’s problems left to his own devices, but there is the possibility of public pressure influencing him—he is a politician that responds to public pressure. And so there is hope, there is a role for US citizens.

    JAY: Well, one of his first major decisions was his chief of staff. He’s offered the job to Rahm Emanuel. What do you know about Emanuel? And what does it tell you about the direction of the Obama administration?

    SWANSON: Well, of course, he already picked as a running mate a senator, Joe Biden, who had led the charge for the invasion of Iraq in the Senate back in 2003, so that was not encouraging either. Rahm Emanuel has been the amazing, early bad news following the last two elections. In January 2007, Rahm Emanuel told The Washington Post, effectively, look, we’re going to let this war go on two years so that we can run against it again—which has cost nearly 2,000 US servicemen and -women their lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. And then, following this election, we get the news that Emanuel is being offered the job of chief of staff, which, presumably, he’s going to accept. This is a disaster. You know, it’s good to have someone who knows Congress as your chief of staff; it’s not necessarily good to have someone like Emanuel.

    JAY: David, what was the quote? Because that’s kind of an outrageous thing he would have said, to allow a war to continue for pragmatic political purposes. What was the quote to The Post?

    SWANSON: Well, there was a story in The Washington Post in January 2007, and it quoted Emanuel in some cases, and it paraphrased him in others. On Iraq it was a paraphrase, but it was to the effect of don’t look to Emanuel’s Democrats for any solution on Iraq. They see it as Bush’s war. They want the Republican Party to fall apart, and they want to be there in two years to pick up the pieces. And so this was telegraphing to the country that the Democrats were going to do what in fact Emanuel orchestrated—and they did for two years—and that was: pretend to try to end the occupation of Iraq, pretend that legislation was needed, and blame the Republican filibuster power and the president’s veto power for their failure to do what they could have accomplished simply by ceasing to fund the occupation.

    JAY: So the pro-Emanuel argument that we’ve been hearing is that he’s a fighter. It’s actually throwing down the gauntlet by Obama. Even though he’s talking about bipartisanship, he’s got himself a pit bull to fight the Republicans. Is this a sign, perhaps, of an ability to fight on behalf of Obama?

    SWANSON: Well, it comes down to a question of what you’re going to fight for, right? I mean, Josh Lyman, the fictional character based on Emanuel, had some principles he wanted to fight for. I don’t know what those are with Emanuel. If you look at the Reuters story about this today, there’s a quote from a Republican who’s very, very pleased because he thinks Emanuel’s job is going to be cracking the heads of Democrats to move them from the left to the center, which is what his job has been for the past two years. So it wouldn’t surprise me if that were his job. And that’s my worry. Emanuel is a guy who two years ago recruited pro-war candidates to run against antiwar Democrats in primaries. This is the guy who directed all of the money from Washington to pro-war candidates. This is not encouraging to me.

    JAY: For people that wanted fundamental change, real change, it doesn’t sound like that’s what it’s going to be. But the potential of a war within the Democratic Party between the progressive and conservative sections must be very real. In picking Emanuel, Obama’s clearly picked the side he’s coming down on.

    SWANSON: These centrists, the right-wing side of this debate, is far and away superior to Bush and Cheney or McCain and Palin, there’s absolutely no question. But it’s not a transformational candidacy; it’s not a major change and change we can believe in; it’s absolutely not. When you’re talking about keeping on the same secretary of war—or defense, as we misleadingly call it—that Bush had, that McCain also was proposing to keep on, in Gates, that you’re talking about bringing Colin Powell into your administration, a man who went to the United Nations and blatantly lied us into an aggressive war, this is not what people voted for. And so this honeymoon has been very, very short-lived: it was a matter of hours before Emanuel was offered this job.

    JAY: Now, you’ve been very involved originally in an attempt to have an impeachment of Bush, and you’ve been supporting efforts to prosecute George Bush. At the core of that is the issue of defense of constitutional rights and abuse of power. What would you be looking for, both in terms of an appointment of attorney general and pieces of legislation from this administration that might undo some of what was done in the last eight years?

    SWANSON: Well, we were talking offline about making Michael Ratner attorney general. I certainly would applaud that and do anything to make it happen. I don’t expect it to happen. This is a candidate, in Obama, who said months ago that he was unaware of any crimes having been committed by Bush and Cheney, but he would immediately have his attorney general look into the question. So we should hold him to that. He has committed to revising the Patriot Act to restore some rights. He’s committed to no longer using signing statements to rewrite laws as he signs them into law. You know, these are encouraging things. We should push for them to happen. But my concern is that if we have eight years of a president blatantly violating the law, rewriting laws with signing statements, and then the only change is that the next president ceases to do it, where is the deterrence down the road to future presidents? What tells them they can’t do what Bush and Cheney did? Which is why I continue to push for impeachment, which can happen even after you’re out of office, and for prosecution, which is very, very low on Obama’s list, but which can happen at the state or local level, which can happen in foreign countries, which can happen internationally. We need that accountability, not just better policies. But I’m very happy that we will be seeing some better policies in the immediate future.

    JAY: Thank you very much, David, for joining us.

    SWANSON: Thank you.

    JAY: And thank you all for joining us. And remember, again, there’s a donate button. And I know I keep nagging about this, but if you don’t support us, we won’t be here. Thank you very much.

    DISCLAIMER:

    Please note that TRNN transcripts are typed from a recording of the program; The Real News Network cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

    David Swanson’s Bio

    He is the creator of ImpeachCheney.org, the Washington Director of Democrats.com and co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition; a board member of Progressive Democrats of America; of the Backbone campaign; and of Voters for Peace. He serves on a working group of United for Peace and Justice. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich’s 2004 presidential campaign.

  • Sarkisian Says Karabakh Status Central to Peace Accord

    Sarkisian Says Karabakh Status Central to Peace Accord

    Armenia believes the status of Nagorno-Karabakh is a key issue in the continuing search for a settlement in the long-running Armenian-Azerbaijani dispute and regards the Armenian-controlled territories surrounding the enclave as a guarantee of its population’s security, the country’s leader said in an interview with a leading European newspaper.

    The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung quoted President Serzh Sarkisian in its Monday issue as saying that Azerbaijan’s recognition of the self-determination of Nagorno-Karabakh’s population can be followed by solutions to other issues.

    “The control over territories is not an end in itself for us, but is aimed at Karabakh’s security. Today we need to negotiate over principles of settlement, which can be followed by the basic peace accord. We still have a long way to go,” Sarkisian said, according to the text of his interview disseminated by the presidential press office Tuesday.

    Earlier this month Sarkisian met with his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliev in Moscow and following tête-à-tête talks signed a joined declaration along with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev pledging to step up efforts for a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

    The signing of the nonbinding document came amid growing international hopes for a breakthrough in internationally mediated Armenian-Azerbaijani peace talks.

    Sarkisian commented that the Moscow declaration was important for the Armenian side due to its exclusion of a military way of resolving the dispute.

    “Of course, it is just a declaration, and we would be very glad to reach an agreement. Anyway, I do not mean to underestimate the importance of that document,” Sarkisian told the German paper. “I am also glad that Azerbaijan signed a document that assumes all principles of international law as a basis for a solution to the conflict and not only the principle of territorial integrity.”

    Nagorno-Karabakh, a mostly Armenian-populated autonomous region in Soviet Azerbaijan, broke free of Baku’s control after the demise of the USSR, prompting a bloody war that claimed thousands of lives on both sides.

    After nearly three years of fighting, Karabakh Armenians managed to establish control over the most part of the region and expand into surrounding areas to form a security zone.

    Since 1994, when hostilities ended after a Russia-brokered ceasefire, negotiations between the former warring sides over the future of the region have been conducted through the Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) jointly chaired by the United States, France and Russia.

    The parties to the conflict have so far been unable to reconcile the two seemingly conflicting principles of international law, i.e. territorial integrity of states and the right of nations to self-determination. The stalemate that until recently had been observed in the peace process led to increased war rhetoric and petrodollar-backed military buildup in Azerbaijan as well as questions over the efficiency of the format of negotiations.

    “I also positively evaluate the fact that despite critical assessments of the effectiveness of the Minsk Group’s activities made of late, the document [signed in Moscow] underscores the importance of the Group’s format and the role of the United States, Russia and France as mediators,” Sarkisian said.

    The Armenian leader also effectively excluded a status of Karabakh implying its dependence on Baku as he said that history proves Armenians cannot develop in a safe environment under Azerbaijani rule.
    “We have never thought that Karabakh can remain within Azerbaijan with any status,” he said.

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1598298.html