Tag: Barack Obama

  • President Obama’s Armenian dilemma

    President Obama’s Armenian dilemma

    Posted: 05:40 PM ET   President Obama and Turkish President Abdullah Gul hold a joint news conference Monday. President Obama and Turkish President Abdullah Gul hold a joint news conference Monday.

    Dave Schechter
    CNN Senior National Editor

    Armenian-Americans have April 24 circled on their calendars and they’ll be paying close attention to what President Obama says – or does not say – about that day.

    Armenians call April 24 their day of remembrance, marking the day in 1915 that they say Turks began a campaign to destroy their community, a period of several years that resulted in deaths of between 1 million and 1.5 million Armenians.

    The Armenians call it a genocide.

    The Turks reject that language. From the Turkish perspective, there were killings, but on both sides of an ethnic conflict. World War I was underway, this was not a deliberate program to exterminate a people, the Turks say, and they claim that Armenians overstate the number of casualties.

    “Race extermination” is what then-U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Henry Morgenthau Sr. called it in cables to the State Department. The word “genocide” itself did not enter the lexicon until some 30 years later.

    This is a sensitive issue, not only for Americans of Armenian and Turkish descent, but also for U.S. foreign policy. For many of the more than 1 million Armenian-Americans, this is where the rubber of candidate Obama’s campaign promises meets the road of President Obama in the Oval Office.

    As a senator and presidential candidate, Barack Obama repeatedly stated that the Armenian genocide is fact – not myth – and that he supported an oft-proposed but narrowly defeated Congressional resolution recognizing the slaughter as “the Armenian genocide.” In a Jan. 19, 2008, campaign statement, candidate Obama said, “As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.” Those positions helped Obama win endorsements from Armenian-American organizations and community support measured at more than 80 percent.

    But as President, he avoided use of the word “genocide” in front of his hosts during his recent trip to Turkey. “Well, my views are on the record and I have not changed views,” President Obama said during a news conference with Turkish President Abdullah Gul.

    That left many Armenian-Americans wanting more. Obama “missed a valuable opportunity to honor his public pledge to recognize the Armenian genocide,” Aram Hamparian, executive director of the Armenian National Committee of America, told the Los Angeles Times.

    To understand the passion of Armenian-Americans on this issue, consider this excerpt from a 2007 article by Michael Crowley in The New Republic: “Most Armenian-Americans are descended from survivors of the slaughter and grew up listening to stories about how the Turks, suspecting the Orthodox Christian Armenians of collaborating with their fellow Orthodox Christian Russians during World War I, led their grandparents on death marches, massacred entire villages, and, in one signature tactic, nailed horseshoes to their victims’ feet. . . Turkey’s refusal to acknowledge the guilt of their Ottoman forbears infuriates Armenians, leaving them feeling cheated of the sacred status awarded to Jewish Holocaust survivors.”

    So Armenian-Americans anticipate April 24 and whether, now that he is in the White House, President Obama will repeat what he has said before about the Armenian genocide.

    On that day, “the President has a well-timed opportunity to deliver on the change he promised, to honor the pledges he made and to affirm the U.S. record on the Armenian Genocide,” the Armenian Assembly of America said in a statement. “…we fully expect him to honor his pledge and affirm the historical truth of the Armenian Genocide. We encourage all people of goodwill to help us end the cycle of genocide denial by becoming an Ambassador of Affirmation and send a letter to President Obama,” the Assembly’s Executive Director Bryan Ardouny said in the statement.

    President Obama will face the community’s expectations yet again if the House of Representatives votes in favor of a resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide, a resolution that has been introduced for several years and was re-introduced in March.

    That resolution calls on the President to “accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide.”

    The resolution’s primary backer is Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., whose district includes the largest concentration of the nation’s roughly 1.5 million Armenian-Americans.

    Crowley’s 2007 article dealt with the historical and diplomatic issues attached to the resolution and the money the Turkish government has spent to hire big-name Washington lobbyists, including former leaders of Congress, to lobby against the resolution.

    “The resolution would be insulting to Turkey and would be very poorly received,” James H. Holmes, a retired U.S. ambassador who is now president of the American Turkish Council, told McLatchy newspapers. He added that “some very significant commercial opportunities” might be put at risk.

    The U.S. government wants to maintain good relations with Turkey for reasons that include U.S. military basing in that country, Iraq as its next-door neighbor and its potential role in the Middle East peace process, as well as those trade considerations.

    So keep watch on April 24 or thereabouts as Barack Obama finds himself caught between positions he’s repeated over the years and the challenges he faces as President of the United States.

    Crowley, writing in The New Republic a couple of weeks ago, pointed out that it’s one thing to make such statements as a candidate and something altogether different to do so as President of the United States. “But the question is whether Obama reiterates those views in his official capacity. That’s what the Armenians have been desperate to see him to. And while there are sound arguments against inflaming the Turkish public with such an act, that is what Obama, as a candidate, explicitly promised he would do,” Crowley wrote.

    In 1948, a United Nations convention defined genocide as acts “committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.” In 2009, President Obama might have to decide whether this definition fits what happened to the Armenians nearly a century ago.

  • Biden’s Call with Sargsian

    Biden’s Call with Sargsian

    THE WHITE HOUSEFile:Joe Biden, official photo portrait 2-cropped.jpg

    Office of the Vice President

    ______________________________________________________________________

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                             April 23, 2009

    Readout of Vice President Biden’s Call with Armenian President Sargsian

    The Vice President spoke today with Armenian President Sargsian and welcomed Armenia and Turkey’s statement regarding their commitment to normalize their relations.  The Vice President applauded President Sargsian’s leadership, and underscored the Administration’s firm support for both Armenia and Turkey in this process.

    nd Turkey in this process.

  • 10 Countries in Deep Trouble

    10 Countries in Deep Trouble

    • Matthew Bandyk
    • Monday April 20, 2009, 10:32 am EDT

    While the collapsing U.S. housing market may be at the root of the global economic recession, the downturn’s effects are being felt hardest overseas. Take Iceland, for instance. Its biggest banks failed, its economy may shrink 10 percent this year, its government fell, its central banker was sacked, the country was bailed out with a $2.1 billion IMF loan, and 7,000 people (in a country of 300,000) took to the streets in protest.

    Which countries have the greatest chances of being the next stories of failure? U.S.News looked at some countries that are currently facing severe economic disruption that endangers their standards of living, attractiveness to foreign investors, and political stability. First, we examined what Moody’s Investors Service and Standard & Poor’s had to say about them. These firms rate the risk of sovereign bonds, securities that finance the debt of a country. Many of the countries we identified have poor bond ratings or ratings under review for a downgrade, showing that these governments are perceived as being at greater risk of defaulting on their debt.

    Second, we looked at what global markets think about a country’s debt, based on data from Markit. The financial information company provides daily pricing on credit-default swaps, contracts between two parties that provide a kind of insurance on corporate and government debt. Analysis was also supplied by credit-rating organization AM Best. It ranks countries into five tiers based on the risk to insurers posed by the countries’ economic, political, and financial systems. Using these analyses, here are five countries in deep trouble and five worth keeping an eye on.

    [Find your Best Place to Retire.]

    Five Countries in Deep Trouble

    Mexico. Thousands of would-be tourists from America and elsewhere had to cancel spring break trips to Mexico due to ongoing violence related to the drug trade. Mexico was the second country recently identified by the U.S. Joint Forces Command as possibly poised for a “rapid and sudden” collapse. Mexico’s “politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels,” says the report.

    The violence and tourism decline could not come at a worse time. Economists predict a 3.3 percent contraction of the Mexican economy this year. The poor economic growth means that the government is getting strapped for funds. In April, it asked the International Monetary Fund for a $47 billion loan. While credit-rating agencies don’t expect Mexico’s debt to grow riskier soon, and the risk of its sovereign derivatives has not skyrocketed like some other countries on this list, serious problems still remain for the Mexican economy. The country depends on the United States to consume its exports and pay Mexican immigrants who send money back home. If the U.S. recession deepens, Mexicans will feel the pain as much as Americans.

    Pakistan. The country has already almost gone bankrupt once in the past six months. In October, only an emergency $10 billion in support from the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, and others prevented Pakistan from defaulting on its debt. During that crisis, the cost of insurance on Pakistan’s debt exploded. Even though the situation has calmed since then, investors are not getting comfortable with Pakistan. It still costs $2.2 million a year to insure $10 million of Pakistan’s sovereign bonds.

    The economic situation isn’t all bad. The Asia Development Bank recently predicted that Pakistan’s economy will grow 4 percent in the next fiscal year beginning in July, compared to 2.5 percent growth estimated this year. But the wild card that could change everything is the country’s political situation. Pakistan is one of the most unstable countries in the world. On April 13, White House counterterrorism consultant David Kilcullen said that a political collapse in Pakistan could come within months. A 2008 report from the U.S. Joint Forces Command identified Pakistan as a country at risk of a “rapid and sudden collapse,” one that would create a devastating security problem for the world. The report says that “the collapse of a state usually comes as a surprise.” Anyone banking their money on Pakistan’s economic growth might not know what hit them.

    Ukraine. While Iceland may have suffered the worst financial collapse of the global recession, Ukraine has also received a dubious honor: It had the priciest sovereign credit-default swaps for the first quarter of the year. It currently costs about $3.9 million to insure $10 million of Ukrainian five-year sovereign bonds. A year ago it cost just under $3,000. S&P rates them CCC–the seventh-best (out of eleven) rating, indicating that Ukraine is vulnerable to nonpayment.

    As the government tries to solve the crisis, Ukrainians are getting squeezed. Kiev, one of the oldest capitals in Europe, has had to shut down free clinics, schools, and increase public transportation costs in order to close a deficit. The Institute for Economic Research and Consulting is forecasting a GDP contraction of 12 percent. The Ukrainian stock market has fallen 25 percent so far this year. The Ukrainian currency, the hyrvnia, is also plummeting, falling 35 percent against the dollar in the last six months. The Ukrainian government’s efforts to shore up the currency, including setting a floor for which the hryvnia can be traded, have so far been in vain.

    Venezuela. Hugo Chavez has inextricably tied the Venezuelan economy to oil, and that didn’t look so bad before the financial crisis. Oil profits helped deliver massive economic growth, so much that 4.8 percent growth in 2008 was seen as a disappointment. But with oil prices having plunged due to the global slowdown, the fortunes for Chavez’s strategy have changed. Many economists are predicting negative growth for Venezuela this year, such as the 4 percent drop predicted by Morgan Stanley.

    From June to September, the cost for an investor to buy insurance against Venezuela’s debt almost doubled. Right now, to protect $10 million in Venezuelan sovereign bonds against default, an investor would need to spend $1.8 million each year. S&P gives Venezuela’s sovereign bonds a BB rating, meaning Venezuela faces “major ongoing uncertainties” that could lead to “inadequate capacity” to meet its obligations. S&P also has a negative outlook for the bond rating, meaning it could decline in the next six months to two years.

    Argentina. The Argentine economy is notorious for its boom and busts. The country last defaulted on its debt in 2002, but enjoyed economic improvements through most of this decade. During that last financial crisis, citizens staged protests known as cacerolazos, which means “banging of pots and pans,” but the demonstrations resulted in broken windows and fires. Argentina has not seen that kind of violence stemming from the current financial crisis yet, but foreign investors are worried the economy is back to “bust” mode. CMS Datavision ranks Argentina as having the third most expensive credit derivatives in the world. Right now, Markit composite prices show an annual cost of $3.2 million for an investor to buy protection against $10 million of Argentina’s sovereign debt. Moody’s rates Argentina’s sovereign bonds as B3, meaning a high, speculative credit risk, and S&P as B-, meaning that more bad economic news for Argentina could lead to default. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development gives Argentina a seven, its riskiest classification rating.

    Five Countries to Keep An Eye On

    Latvia. Iceland isn’t the only country that’s seen massive protests against economic hardship. In January, a 10,000-strong demonstration in Latvia’s capital, Riga, turned into a riot. Tremendous economic growth since the end of the Cold War earned Latvia its place as one of the “Baltic Tigers.” GDP growth was 11.2 percent in 2006, for instance. But Latvia’s Ministry of Finance forecasts a 14.9 percent drop in GDP this year. Latvia is getting a $7.5 billion emergency loan from the IMF, but the organization is sitting on part of the money because of the Latvian government’s failures thus far to reform its budget. The past two years have seen the cost of Latvia’s credit default swaps increase over one-hundred fold. Moody’s rates Latvia’s bonds as Baa1, or “moderate” credit risks, and projects that they could become riskier bets in the medium term.

    Croatia. The country’s beaches on the Adriatic Sea draw so many visitors that tourism is almost 20 percent of the country’s GDP. But since the recession is taking a bite out of travelers’ pocketbooks, Croatia’s economy is getting bitten as well. The government forecasts unemployment could rise as high as 12 percent this year. And a recent poll found that 78 percent of Croatians think the country is going in a bad direction, with unemployment cited as the primary reason. All this bad economic news might be one of the reasons S&P projects a possible rating decline for Croatia’s BBB-rated bonds. The BBB rating means that Croatia does not have payment problems yet, but are in a position where their ability to pay for debt could be easily weakened.

    Kazakhstan. While the Central Asian nation’s GDP has grown in recent years, Kazakhstan has two problems that have created the potential for economic disaster: a reliance on foreign lending and a reliance on oil. Kazakhstan holds 3.2 percent of world’s oil reserves. But the soaring oil prices that have boosted Kazakhstan’s economy are no more, and investors have pulled money out of Kazakhstan in response. The cost of buying protection against Kazakhstan’s debt has skyrocketed about 75 percent during the past year. The cost is back up to a peak reached in October, and it currently costs $875,000 a year to insure $10 million of Kazakhstan’s debt. S&P has a negative outlook on Kazakhstan’s BBB-rated sovereign bonds, meaning they could get riskier in the next six months to two years.

    Vietnam. Unlike many of the other countries on this list, Vietnam has had some good news recently. The Asian Development Bank forecasted Vietnam’s economic growth at 4.5 percent for the next year, the highest in Southeast Asia. Yet the country just registered its slowest economic growth in a decade. A survey found that 46 percent of Vietnamese were afraid of unemployment in January, up from 9 percent in September. Both Moody’s and S&P have a negative outlook for Vietnam’s sovereign bonds. The price of its sovereign derivatives has almost doubled in the past year. Vietnam falls into the riskiest of the five tiers as rated by AM Best. In particular, the firm identifies Vietnam’s financial system, plagued by “relatively poor infrastructure and cumbersome bureaucracy,” as “very high” risk.

    Belarus. Minsk, the capital of Belarus, was mostly destroyed during World War II and much of the city was rebuilt in the form of hulking, utilitarian, Soviet-style buildings. Belarus also retains a heavy Soviet influence in its financial system–all but one of the country’s 31 banks is controlled by the state, according to AM Best. Because of Belarus’s failure to reform its financial system, the firm gives the country its highest score for financial risk. Even though Belarus scores relatively well for political stability, that economic rating is enough to push it into the riskiest of the report’s classifications.

    Belarus’s problems aren’t just speculative. Although its economy is still growing, the IMF expects it will expand 1.4 percent this year, compared to 10 percent last year.The country’s government has also been approved for a $2.46 billion IMF loan. But the IMF now forecasts that the country will need a further $10.7 billion in 2009. Still, other experts disagree about just how fragile Belarus’s economy is. Its bonds are rated as B1 from Moody’s, meaning high credit risk but also at the top of the pack of the high-risk countries.

    [See America’s Best Places to Retire.]

  • ANCA Genocide Dilemma

    ANCA Genocide Dilemma

    Armenian National Committee of America

    Years of persistent lobbying by the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) has now led to more than 100 members of the US Congress supporting the Armenian Genocide bill, and in the light of Obama’s record on Armenian Genocide, this healthy bipartisan majority should have led to Americas President Obama formally signing on, after the bill had been passed by the Congress and the Senate.
    Following President Obama’s 6th April remarks before the Turkish Parliament, ANCA’s Executive Director Aram Hamparian commented: “In his remarks today in Ankara, President Obama missed a valuable opportunity to honour his public pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide. Harut Sassounian followed by writing of his efforts to “expose the Turkish government’s ploy of creating the false impression that Ankara is engaged in serious negotiations to establish diplomatic relations with Yerevan” ……. “Turkey has been exploiting the illusive promise of opening the border in order to pressure Armenia into making concessions on a host of issues, while simultaneously subverting Pres. Obama’s pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide”.

    On the 22nd April, the State Department made an announcement, which was followed by numerous reports in the international news that, according to the Turkish Foreign Ministry “Turkey and Armenia had agreed on a roadmap for normalizing relations and reaching reconciliation”. Add to that Russia’s state television announcement that a ‘document’ had been signed, considered to be ‘historic’, it must be assumed that tomorrow 24th April, the chances of President Obama using the ‘Genocide’ word are all but over.

    Turkey, through its determined process of negotiations and manipulations, has not only achieved its priority objective of staving off an otherwise inevitable Obama recognition of Armenia’s Genocide, it has also re-linked normalizing Turkish – Armenian relations to the Armenian – Azerbaijani conflict over Karabakh. The Sargsyan / Nalbandian camp responded with a resounding silence, a signal that they are not too eager to release the details of the ‘roadmap’ or the document’.

    The ANCA effort to gain US recognition has to be commended, but why has ANCA been criticising Turkey for doing exactly what it was expected to do, dissuade Pres. Obama from standing by his pledge to recognize the Armenian Genocide. ANCA should have been directing its criticism at Serzh Sargsyan and Eduard Nalbandian; it was they who thwarted the Obama Genocide recognition, not Turkey.

    But ANCA has a problem with criticising the Sargsyan regime, which goes back to Armenia’s first President, Levon Ter-Petrossian (LTP). ANCA is made up predominantly of members from the Dashnaktutsiun (Dashnak) Party, which was outlawed by LTP after his victory in the 1991 Presidential election. A number of in-country Dashnak leaders were imprisoned for several years accused of involvement in ‘criminal’ activities. Robert Kocharian forced LTP out of office in 1998 (on the Karabakh issue) and brought the Dashnak Party back from political obscurity. Since then, in contrast to the Dashnaks in the Diaspora, who appear to cling on to traditional and highly commendable Dashnak principles, the Dashnaks in Armenia have disgraced themselves by consistently collaborating with the Kocharian / Sargsyan regime and failing their obligations to the Armenian electorate.

    The ANCA was faced with a dilemma; if it had criticised the regime on its Genocide misdealings, then Levon Ter-Petrossian would have been given a boost in his efforts to move back into Armenian mainstream politics, which the Dashnaks in Armenia would not tolerate. The ANCA is also aware that, once in City Hall, LTP would be looking directly at the Armenian Presidential Palace, a major problem for the regime and its faithful co-conspirators, the Dashnak Party. Armenia should therefore not be fooled by a seemingly nationalistic letter from Armen Rostumian, appealing to the US Congress for Genocide recognition; the Dashnaks are in close collaboration with the illegitimate Sargsyan regime in its Genocide ‘Sell-Out’, as it is with all other regime matters.

    If the ANCA had directed its criticism and considerable influence at the party actually responsible for Armenia’s failure in this year’s Genocide recognition debacle, then Armenia would have had a much greater chance of celebrating this 24th April as the day which signalled full international recognition of Armenia’s Genocide.

  • History overshadows hope on Turkey’s Armenian border

    History overshadows hope on Turkey’s Armenian border

    250px Kohrvirab

    By Daren Butler April 22, 2009

    IGDIR, Turkey (Reuters) – Far below Mount Ararat’s snow-covered peak, history weighs heavy on the shoulders of Turks and Armenians seeking to overcome animosity generated by genocide claims and territorial disputes.

    A recent diplomatic initiative to restore ties between the arch foes has fueled hopes of economic and strategic benefits. It has also stirred up century-old distrust and fears among locals as they watch developments from the militarized frontier.

    The distrust of many in Turkey’s Igdir province is illustrated by a monument near Ararat consisting of five 40-meter-tall swords thrust toward the sky. It commemorates the killing of Turks by Armenians during and after World War One.

    The memorial is a riposte to Armenian claims, supported by many countries and academics, that Ottoman Turk forces killed 1.5 million Armenians in a 1915 genocide which is commemorated across the border in Armenia on April 24.

    “In Igdir there are still living witnesses who tell their descendants about the killings by Armenians here,” said Goksel Gulbeyi, chairman of an association set up to refute Armenian genocide claims.

    Turkey fiercely rejects the genocide charge, saying many were killed on both sides during the conflict.

    “There are people here who still feel resentment. The border shouldn’t be reopened until they are reassured,” he said.

    At the Alican border gate 15 km (10 miles) away, soldiers send journalists away while farmers dig in surrounding land.

    Gulbeyi’s group has launched a campaign to block the reopening of the border, closed by Turkey in 1993 in support of its traditional Muslim ally Azerbaijan, which was fighting Armenian-backed separatists in the breakaway mountain region of Nagorno-Karabakh.

    Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said this month the deadlock over Nagorno-Karabakh, where a fragile ceasefire holds but a peace accord has never been signed, should be resolved before any deal is struck between Turkey and Armenia.

    There are also fears in Igdir, which has a large Azeri population, that Armenia covets Turkish territory. Mount Ararat, which provides a backdrop to the capital Yerevan, is a national symbol of Armenia and is pictured on its currency.

    A breakthrough between Turkey and Armenia could help shore up stability in the Caucasus, criss-crossed by oil and gas pipelines which make it of strategic importance to Russia, Europe and the United States.

    Western diplomats are concerned that in retaliation for the border reopening, Azerbaijan might be unwilling to sell its gas in the future through Turkey to Europe, and instead send most of it to Russia for re-export.

    FRAGILE OPTIMISM

    Despite the concerns, tentative cross-border contacts have generated fragile optimism among many in eastern Turkey, where livelihoods are largely made from farming and where per capita income is around a tenth of levels in affluent western Turkey.Continued…

    “We want peace. I went to Armenia and I was received very well. We show them hospitality when they come here. I think it would be good for our economy and trade if the border opens,” said Ali Guvensoy, chairman of the Kars Chamber of Commerce.

    That optimism is shared in landlocked Armenia. A reopening of the border would provide a huge boost to the economy, having already lost out on lucrative energy transit deals and trade with eastern Turkey.

    Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan has said he expects the border to reopen by the time he attends a football match between the two countries in October.

    Last year, President Abdullah Gul became the first Turkish leader to visit Armenia when he attended the first of the two World Cup qualifying ties between the two countries.

    U.S. President Barack Obama, who visited NATO ally Turkey this month, has urged Turkey to normalize ties with Armenia. The EU has said such ties would help Turkey’s bid to join the bloc.

    Obama, who as a candidate labeled the killings genocide, said during his visit that he stood by his views, but said he did not want to obstruct the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement.

    “I think Mr Obama and the United States must intervene and solve the problems between the two countries so the border can be opened,” Guvensoy said in his gloomy office in Kars, where the architecture tells of the town’s Russian history.

    Above his desk hangs a portrait of Ottoman General Kazim Karabekir, who captured Kars from Armenian forces in 1920.

    South of Kars, the Turkish village of Halikisla illustrates how closely the two countries are bound together despite the deep historical wounds which divide them.

    Set in a tree-filled valley below a rocky hillside, it is a stone’s throw away from an Armenian village across the Arpacayi River. It recalls a time when Turks and Armenians lived side by side. Military installations now frame the picturesque scene.

    “The only contact we have is when sheep stray from one side of the border to the other,” said 55-year-old Kiyas Karadag, a village official, drinking tea with locals on a hill overlooking the Armenian side of the frontier.

    “If the problems are solved we want the border open. It will be good for trade, good for our province, good for our country.”

    (Writing by Daren Butler)

    © Copyright 2009 Reuters. Reuters content is the intellectual property of Reuters or its third-party content providers. Any copying, republication, or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

  • Turkey as a Ally in Obama’s Foreign Policy

    Turkey as a Ally in Obama’s Foreign Policy

    The Middle East Institute of Columbia University
    and
    SIPA Turkish Initiative

    Present


    “The Resurgence of Turkey as a Central Ally in Obama’s Foreign Policy”

    with

    54F1DAAD2C488B4F83C4791Fb
    Nicole Pope

    Former Turkey Correspondent for the French Daily Le Monde and the Co-author of “Turkey Unveiled: A History of Modern Turkey”


    Thursday, April 23rd
    7:00 pm – 8:30 pm

    Columbia University International Affairs Building, Room 404 (Street level)
    420 West 118th street (at Amsterdam Avenue)

    Directions: 1 train to 116th street. Walk east through the campus to Amsterdam Avenue
    Campus map: http://www.columbia.edu/about_columbia/map/
    Zoomed map: http://www.columbia.edu/about_columbia/map/international_affairs.html

    Free and open to the public

    Refreshments and baklava will be served

    Obama recently made the first country visit of his presidency to Turkey. The strong parallels between Turkish foreign policy andObama’s new foreign policy appear to indicate a prominent role for Turkey in achieving major U.S. foreign policy objectives during the Obama administration.  Is Turkey indeed re-emerging as a central ally for the U.S.?

    Nicole Pope is a Swiss journalist and writer, based in Istanbul since 1987. She is co-author of “Turkey Unveiled: a history of modern Turkey” and worked for 15 years as Turkey correspondent for the French daily Le Monde. Her articles have also been published in numerous other international publications including The Economist, The International Herald Tribune, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and The Independent. Nicole worked for the International Committee of the Red Cross in Baghdad (1982-83) and in south Lebanon (1983-84). She has also lived in Tehran, Bahrain and Cyprus.