Tag: Energy

  • Turkey threatens ‘serious consequences’

    Turkey threatens ‘serious consequences’

    after US vote on Armenian genocide

    Strategic partnership at risk despite Barack Obama’s attempts to stop Congress resolution

    • Robert Tait in Istanbul and Ewen MacAskill in Washington
    • guardian.co.uk, Friday 5 March 2010 21.34 GMT
    Ahmet DavutogluForeign minister Ahmet Davutoglu says describing the 1915 Armenian killings as genocide is an insult to Turkey’s ‘honour’. Photograph: Adem Altan/AFP/Getty Images

    Turkey has threatened to downgrade its strategic relationship with the US amid nationalist anger over a vote in the US Congress that defined the mass killings of Armenians during the first world war as genocide.

    Barack Obama‘s administration, which regards Turkey as an important ally, was today desperately seeking to defuse the row. It expressed its frustration with the House of Representatives’ foreign affairs committee, which voted 23-22 yesterday in favour of a resolution labelling the 1915 massacre of up to 1.5 million Armenians a “genocide”.

    A furious Turkey may now deny the US access to the Incirlik air base, a staging post for Iraq, as it did at the time of the 2003 invasion, or withdraw its sizeable troop contribution to the coalition forces in Afghanistan.

    On the diplomatic front, the US needs the support of Turkey, which has a seat on the UN security council, in the push for sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme. Turkey is also helpful to the US on a host of other diplomatic issues in the Middle East and central Asia.

    The White House and state department began work today to try to prevent the controversial issue making its way to the floor of the house for a full vote.

    In Turkey, Suat Kiniklioglu, the influential deputy chairman for external affairs in the ruling Justice and Development party (AKP), warned of “major consequences” if the resolution was accepted by the full House of Representatives.

    “If they choose to bring this to the floor they will have to face the fact that the consequences would be serious – the relationship would be downgraded at every level,” he said. “Everything from Afghanistan to Pakistan to Iraq to the Middle East process would be affected.

    “There would be major disruption to the relationship between Turkey and the US.”

    His comments reflected deep-seated anger throughout Turkish society, as well as an official determination to press the Obama administration into making sure the resolution progresses no further.

    Turkey withdrew its ambassador to Washington for urgent “consultations” immediately after the vote, which was screened live on nationwide television.

    Its foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, appeared to blame the outcome on the White House, and said that describing the 1915 Armenian killings as genocide was an insult to Turkey’s “honour”. France and Canada have both classified the killings as genocide, unlike Britain.

    “The picture shows that the US administration did not put enough weight behind the issue,” Davutoglu told a news conference. “We are seriously disturbed by the result.”

    The mass killing of up to 1.5 million Armenians has long been a highly sensitive subject in Turkey. While the issue is now more openly debated than in the past, Turkish officials insist that to describe it as genocide equates it with the Nazi Holocaust.

    Turkey admits that hundreds of thousands of Armenians died, but disputes suggestions that it was part of a programme to eliminate the population, insisting instead that many died of disease. It has also suggested that the numbers have been inflated, and pointed out that many Turks died at the hands of Armenians.

    Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, who is on a visit to South America, stressed that both she and Obama opposed the house vote and wanted to see it go no further. She said any action by Congress was not appropriate. “We do not believe that the full Congress will, or should, act upon that resolution, and we have made that clear to all the parties involved.”

    Asked how she squared her support for the Armenian campaign on the election campaign trail with her new position, she said circumstances had changed, with the Turkish and Armenian governments engaged in talks on normalisation and a historical commission established to look at past events.

    “I do not think it is for any other country to determine how two countries resolve matters between them, to the extent that actions that the United States might take could disrupt this process,” she said.

    The chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America, Ken Hachikian, who led the lobbying campaign to get the house committee to back the resolution, today dismissed the Turkish threat of reprisals. “This is part of a Turkish pattern or huffing and puffing. With the other 20 countries that have passed similar resolutions, they made similar threats and then it was business as usual,” he said.

    Hachikian, who is based in Washington, said he hoped the vote would go to the full house before 24 April, Armenian genocide commemoration day. He accused Obama and Clinton of hypocrisy in trying to block a vote, saying they had supported the Armenian campaign during the presidential election.

    He said the Turkish government had spent $1m during the past few months lobbying members of Congress. His committee had spent only $75,000, which included adverts in media outlets read by members of Congress and their staff.

    Although Hachikian claimed to have the votes needed, and 215 members of the 435-member house have publicly backed the resolution, the chances of a full vote are small, given the opposition from the White House and state department.

    The vote came as attempts at rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia – which have no diplomatic ties – had already run aground. A protocol signed in Geneva last October promising to restore relations has yet to be ratified by the parliament of either country.

    Both Turkish and Armenian analysts voiced fears that the protocols may now be doomed.

  • Economic crisis appears to be over

    Economic crisis appears to be over

    March 06, 2010

    The Coming of “The Ten”

    Ten economies are becoming the new locomotive for the global economy

    By Martin Walker Senior Director of A.T. Kearney’s Global Business Policy Council

    The economic crisis of 2008-2009 appears to be over, but along the way it has transformed the shape and dynamics of the global economy. This unexpected and dramatic development has not been due to the vigor of the Chinese economy or the BRIC economies as a whole, but the emergence of a major new force in the global economy—the 10 middle-income emergent countries.

    These emergent economies are becoming, with remarkable speed, a whole new motor for the global economy. The 10 biggest of these—Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, Poland, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Iran, Argentina and Thailand—had a collective nominal GDP of $5.6 trillion in 2008, according to the IMF, larger than the GDPs of Japan or China. In purchasing power parity (PPP), their collective GDP was $8.8 trillion, larger than the economies of Japan and Germany combined. Indeed, these 10 non-BRIC countries constitute the world’s third largest economic group, after the European Union and the United States.

    Considered in this light, the global economy takes on an interesting new shape with five dominant components:

    Trade among emergent nations, sometimes called South-South trade, is now the most dynamic component of the global economy. This is NOT simply a factor of the BRIC countries; Brazil, India and Russia accounted for just 5.8 percent of China’s trade. The most striking development is China’s impact on the other emergent markets. Indeed, these other emergent markets helped rescue the Chinese economy from its 2008 nosedive. Taking the year-on-year export figures for November 2009, while Chinese exports to the European Union fell by 8 percent, and its exports to the United States fell by 1.7 percent, China’s exports to the ASEAN nations rose by a dramatic 20.8 percent, and China’s imports rose 45 percent.

    Within this decade, current trading trends suggest that South-South trade could overtake trade among the G7 nations, and should also exceed North-South trade. Fueled by rising populations and increased amounts of foreign direct investment, the non-G7 economies are likely to produce more than half of the world’s GDP. (Currently, the G7 economies account for 57 percent of nominal global GDP.)

    A Host of New Competitors
    Of course, the G7 nations will remain far richer, both as countries and individually, and are likely to continue to enjoy the fruits of their traditional dominance of higher education and technological innovation, among other things. But the large advantage the G7 nations long enjoyed—of comprising the world’s biggest, richest and most attractive consumer market—is being eroded with remarkable and unexpected speed. That means that their consumer tastes and habits will no longer be the global norm. New products are less likely to be developed and launched with Western consumers in mind. Research funds and projects are less likely to be predicated on a Western consumer base. The long tradition of Western cultural dominance, and the political influence and soft power that it generated, is likely to face increasing challenges.

    The new world order in the wake of the recession is going to be much less predictable, much more culturally eclectic and even chaotic.

    The significance of the growth of “The Ten” as a new locomotive force for the global economy is that there will be no single rival to Western culture, but a host of competitors. Brazilian music, Mexican singers, Turkish literature, Argentine dance, Thai sports, Polish architecture, Saudi calligraphy and Indonesian design will all jostle together in the vast new marketplace, alongside Bollywood movies, Russian space tourism and Chinese manufacturers. The new world order in the wake of the recession is going to be much less predictable, much more culturally eclectic and even chaotic. Some will find it an uncomfortable Babel; others will thrill to the rich excitements of choice and diversity.

    Most should be relieved that some gloomy recent suggestions of an inevitable clash of civilizations between China and the West are likely to give way to something more confused. The really good news is that when China’s growth rate slows, as it is likely to do this decade as the labor force peaks and the number of retirees soars, there are now new candidates for future growth ready to take China’s place and maintain global demand.

    Martin Walker is senior director of A.T. Kearney’s Global Business Policy Council. He is based in Washington, D.C.

    For more information, please contact the author.

    The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of A.T. Kearney or the Global Business Policy Council. The views are not meant to suggest specific inducement to make a particular investment or follow a particular strategy, but only as an expression of opinion.

    ==========================================

    a summary from mavi boncuk

    The coming of Ten

    Walker Figure1Walker Figure2Ten economies are becoming the new locomotive for the global economy By Martin Walker Senior Director of A.T. Kearney’s Global Business Policy Council.
    Mavi Boncuk |

    The economic crisis of 2008-2009 appears to be over, but along the way it has transformed the shape and dynamics of the global economy. This unexpected and dramatic development has not been due to the vigor of the Chinese economy or the BRIC economies as a whole, but the emergence of a major new force in the global economy—the 10 middle-income emergent countries.

    These emergent economies are becoming, with remarkable speed, a whole new motor for the global economy. The 10 biggest of these—Mexico, South Korea, Turkey, Poland, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Iran, Argentina and Thailand—had a collective nominal GDP of $5.6 trillion in 2008, according to the IMF, larger than the GDPs of Japan or China. In purchasing power parity (PPP), their collective GDP was $8.8 trillion, larger than the economies of Japan and Germany combined. Indeed, these 10 non-BRIC countries constitute the world’s third largest economic group, after the European Union and the United States.

    Considered in this light, the global economy takes on an interesting new shape with five dominant components:

    ==================================

    Martin Walker
    Senior Director of the Global Business Policy Council



    Martin Walker

    Martin Walker is the Senior Director of the Global Business Policy Council, a private think-tank for CEOs founded by the A T Kearney business consultancy. He is also a syndicated columnist and Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of United Press International.

    Previously, in his 25 years as a journalist with The Guardian newspaper, he served as bureau chief in Moscow and the United States, as well as European editor and assistant editor.

    A regular broadcaster on the BBC, National Public Radio and CNN, and panelist on Inside Washington and The McLaughlin Show, he is also a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington DC, a senior fellow of the World Policy Institute at the New School for Social Research in New York, and a contributing editor of the Los Angeles Times’s Opinion section and of Europe magazine.

    His books include “Waking Giant: Gorbachev and Perestroika,” “The Cold War: A History,” “Clinton: The President They Deserve” and “America Reborn,” published in May 2000 by Knopf. His latest novel “Bruno, Chief of Police” will be published in the U.S. in 2009 by Knopf and in Germany by Diogenes.

    ==============================================================

    Martin Walker Appointed Head of Global Business Policy Council

    Renowned Author and Commentator Martin Walker Appointed Head of A.T. Kearney’s Global Business Policy Council

    WASHINGTON, D.C. (January 25, 2007)—Global management consulting firm A.T. Kearney today announced the appointment of Martin Walker as senior director of the Global Business Policy Council (GBPC), a forum of CEOs and thought leaders focused on assessing global strategic opportunities and risk management. Since 1992, the GBPC has provided A.T. Kearney with a unique platform for delivering global business environment insights to its clients.

    Walker, 59, was most recently editor-in-chief emeritus of United Press International and also served as international correspondent and editor-in-chief since joining UPI in 2000.  Prior to UPI he spent more than 25 years as a reporter, columnist, foreign correspondent and assistant editor of Britain’s The Guardian newspaper. He will be based in Washington, D.C.

    Walker’s insights on economics, politics and current affairs have been featured in some of the world’s most prominent publications including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Times of London, Die Zeit of Germany and El Mundo of Spain.  He also is a regular guest on CNN and Fox News, on CNN’s Crossfire and Capital Gang; The McLaughlin Group; PBS-TV Washington Week in Review; NPR’s Diane Rehm Show and On the Media; and public affairs shows on the BBC, ABC (Australia) and in Canada.

    “Martin’s keen intellect and broad perspective on economics and world affairs uniquely position him to lead the direction and strategic initiatives of the Global Business Policy Council,” said Paul Laudicina, managing officer and chairman of A.T. Kearney.  “A.T. Kearney clients have come to rely on the Council for the insights they need to meet today’s leadership challenges.  Martin’s appointment ensures the Council will continue to play an essential role in helping business and government leaders monitor and understand global macroeconomic, geopolitical, socio-demographic and technological changes.”

    Walker has been on the faculty of the Global Business Policy Council since 1997.  He is the author of more than a dozen books including “The Cold War: A History” (1993) and “Europe in the New Century: Visions of an Emerging Superpower”.  He also is a senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington and a senior fellow of the New School University in New York.

    Walker regularly chairs Council on Foreign Relations events in New York and Washington, and has been a guest lecturer at Chatham House, London; Harvard’s Kennedy school; the universities of Columbia, Pittsburgh, Edinburgh, Toronto, Sussex (UK); UCLA, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International studies and MGU (Moscow State University).

    Walker was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was the Brackenbury scholar and took a first-class honors degree in modern history, and at Harvard, where he was a Harkness Fellow and a resident tutor at Kirkland House.  He was also a Congressional Fellow of the American Political Science Association, and served as an aide to U.S. Senator Edmund Muskie.

    About A.T. Kearney
    A.T. Kearney is one of the world’s largest management consulting firms. With a global presence spanning major and emerging markets, A.T. Kearney provides strategic, operational, organizational and technology consulting services to the world’s leading companies.

    A.T. Kearney’s Global Business Policy Council is among the consulting industries longest-standing strategic services for CEOs.  The GPBC helps senior business executives and government leaders monitor and capitalize on macroeconomic, geopolitical, socio-demographic and technological change worldwide. Council membership is limited to a select group of corporate leaders and their companies. The Council’s core program includes periodic meetings in strategically important parts of the world, tailored analytical products, regular member briefings, and other services.

  • Armenia Resolution Won’t Get Full U.S. House Vote, Aide Says

    Armenia Resolution Won’t Get Full U.S. House Vote, Aide Says

    March 06, 2010, 12:01 AM EST

    By Peter S. Green and James Rowley

    March 6 (Bloomberg) — Democratic lawmakers bowed to concerns expressed by the Obama administration and agreed not to schedule a full House vote on a resolution that labels as genocide the killing of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey, a congressional aide said.

    House leaders have no plans at this time for a chamber vote on the measure, which a House committee approved on March 4, the House Democratic leadership aide said yesterday. The aide spoke on the condition of anonymity.

    The resolution passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee on a 23-22 vote. Turkey responded by recalling its ambassador in Washington, Namik Tan, for consultations.

    U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had spoken out against a full House vote on March 4 while attending a conference in Costa Rica. She reiterated yesterday that President Barack Obama’s administration “strongly opposes the resolution.”

    A full House vote would “impede the normalization process between Turkey and Armenia,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said in Washington yesterday before word surfaced of the leadership’s decision. “The best way for Turkey and Armenia to address their shared past is through ongoing negotiations,” he said.

    The measure says the Ottoman Empire, the predecessor of modern-day Turkey, killed 1.5 million ethnic Armenians from 1915 to 1923. It asks the president to ensure that U.S. foreign policy reflects “appropriate understanding” of the atrocity and “the consequences of the failure to realize a just resolution.”

    Similar Recall

    Turkey, a U.S. ally and NATO member, had recalled its U.S. ambassador for a brief period in protest to a similar resolution passed by a House committee in 2007. That measure never came up for a full House vote.

    Turkish President Abdullah Gul said on his Web site that the March 4 committee vote was “one-sided and remote from historical realities,” and would hurt talks with Armenia.

    “We’ve worked at every level with the American administration on a variety of issues and we’ve always supported Mr. Obama’s vision of peace,” Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said in Ankara yesterday. “We don’t expect this contribution of ours to be sacrificed to a few local political games.”

    The resolution showed a lack of “strategic vision” on the part of U.S. lawmakers who supported it, Davutoglu said.

    Iranian Trade

    Turkey has been expanding trade with Iran and Obama in December called the country an “important player” in efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear program.

    Turkey’s border and its trade relationship with Iran makes Turkish support vital for U.S. efforts to use sanctions to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, said Bulent Aliriza, Director of the Turkey Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

    While the Armenia-related resolution came from Congress and not the administration, Turkey may not see any difference, further hampering U.S. efforts to impose sanctions on Iran, said Henri Barkey, a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

    “What is clearly very likely is that on Iran we are going to get less cooperation from them,” Barkey said before the aide disclosed that the resolution won’t get a full House vote.

    Turkey asserts that the resolution hurts Turkish and Armenian efforts to renew diplomatic relations that were broken over Armenia’s military intervention in Azerbaijan’s Nagorno- Karabakh region following the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union.

    Clinton’s Intervention

    Turkey and Armenia agreed in October to renew relations after Clinton helped the countries overcome a last-minute dispute before a signing ceremony in Zurich. Under the accords, which are waiting to be approved by Turkey’s parliament, a historical commission would investigate the killings.

    After the French parliament in 2006 approved legislation making it criminal to deny that a genocide took place, Turkey said France had done “irreparable damage” to relations between the two countries.

    The chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America, a lobbying group in Washington, praised the House committee shortly after it passed its genocide resolution. “You cannot have a relationship or a reconciliation based upon lies,” Kenneth Hachikian said in an interview after the vote. “Turkey can’t come to the table and say let’s reconcile but we deny what the rest of the world acknowledges.”

    The House resolution noted that England, France and Russia called the killings a crime against humanity at the time, and that Turkey’s own government indicted the leaders of the massacres after World War I.

    –With assistance from Hans Nichols in Washington and Steve Bryant in Ankara. Editors: Don Frederick, Mike Millard.

    -0- Mar/06/2010 05:00 GMT

    To contact the reporters on this story: Peter S. Green in Washington at psgreen@bloomberg.net; James Rowley in Washington at jarowley@bloomberg.net

    To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jim Kirk at jkirk12@bloomberg.net

    ==========================


    https://www.economist.com/united-states/2010/03/05/past-imperfect-present-tense

    The Armenian genocide


    Past imperfect, present tense

    Mar 5th 2010 | NEW YORK
    From Economist.com

    Congress reconsiders America’s official position on the Armenian genocide

    201010NAP060
    TWO questions faced an American congressional panel on Thursday March 5th as it considered the mass killings of Armenians during and after the first world war by forces of the Ottoman Empire. First, was it genocide? The historical debate is as hot, and unsettled, as ever. Armenians continue to insist that it was the first genocide of the twentieth century, while Turks call the killings merely part of the chaos of the break-up of empire.
    But the second question on the minds of congressmen in the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives was more urgent. What is more important, fidelity to history or concern for the present? The vote took place as warming relations between Turkey and Armenia have cooled again and those between Turkey and America are under increasing strain over Iran, Israel and other affairs in the region. Turkish diplomats and politicians gave warning before the vote that the consequences would be felt across the range of issues of shared concern to the two countries. In the end the panel narrowly decided against pragmatism and chose to set straight the historical records. A resolution recognising the killings as genocide was sent to the House by a vote of 23 to 22.
    When the same House committee passed a “genocide” resolution in 2007 the White House urged that the vote be scrapped. But this year, it had come with a twist; Barack Obama had promised during his election campaign to recognise the event as genocide. But before the vote his advisers said that while he acknowledges a genocide personally, he urged unsuccessfully that official interpretation be left to the parties involved. Congress is far more sensitive to lobbying than the president and to small but highly motivated groups of voters. Lobbyists working for both Armenians and Turks had been active before the vote and Armenians are concentrated in several Californian districts.
    But no fashioner of foreign policy–among whom the president is by far the most important–can ignore the strategic importance of Turkey. It is a vital American ally and has the second-biggest army in NATO. The country is home to an important American air base and is a crucial supply route for America’s forces in Iraq. Relations were difficult even before the beginning of the war in Iraq in 2003. The mildly Islamist government denied the Americans the ability to open a second front in Iraq through Turkey. Turkey’s relationship with Israel has deteriorated too. Israel’s two recent wars, in Lebanon and Gaza, have outraged Turkish public opinion. Mr Obama’s more even-handed approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict has improved America’s reputation in Turkey, but not by much.
    201010NAM970
    Turkey itself is caught between forces that make the Armenia issue potentially dangerous. The country’s secular, Western-oriented politicians, among others, have been discouraged by the strict terms offered by the European Union for eventual Turkish membership. In part as a result there has been a gradual realignment in Turkish foreign policy towards its more immediate neighbours. Turkey’s government seeks peaceful relations with countries at its borders, which has meant some cosying up to Iran, despite the fact that most of Turkey’s NATO allies are pushing for more sanctions against the Islamic republic over its alleged efforts to obtain nuclear weapons.
    The vote comes at a sensitive time, too, for Turkey’s relations with Armenia. The pair have been at odds since Turkey closed the border in 1993, during Armenia’s war with Turkey’s ethnic cousins in Azerbaijan. Last year, protocols were agreed that foresaw an establishment of diplomatic relations and an opening of the border. But Armenia’s highest court then declared that the protocols were not in line with Armenia’s constitutionally mandated policy that foreign affairs conform to the Armenian view of the genocide. Turkey responded with fury and the protocols were endangered. The American vote will anger Turkey further and perhaps make it even more inclined to turn away from Europe, America and Armenia in favour of its Islamic neighbours.
    One hope is that Turkish anger will subside if, as happened in 2007, the House leadership stops the resolution from reaching a full vote. It may do so again. Turkey recalled its ambassador after Thursday’s vote just as in 2007. The Turkish government, in a spat with the country’s nationalist army, may play the foreign-insult card to bolster its domestic strength. But ultimately the Turks are unlikely to weaken their relationship with America lightly.

  • Turkification of the Toponyms in the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey

    Turkification of the Toponyms in the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey

    LOOKING FROM THE ARMENIAN SIDE OF THE WINDOW  (A LOOK FROM FROM YEREVAN)   .. TURKISHFORUM

    LUSINE


    header events

    Lusine Sahakyan, PH.D., Yerevan State University
    sahakyan_lusine@yahoo.com
    ABSTRACT

    Toponyms represent persistent linguistic facts, which have major historical and political significance. The rulers of the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey realized the strategic importance of the toponyms and carried out consistent policies towards their distortion and appropriation. With the aim of the assimilation of the toponyms of the newly conquered territories the Ottoman authorities translated them into Turkish from their original languages or transformed the local dialectal place-names by the principle of contamination to make them sound like Turkish word-forms. Yet another method of appropriation was that of the etymological misinterpretation of the toponyms in question. A widespread method was also renaming the places displacing the former place-names altogether. The focus of the present article is the place-name transformation policy of the Ottoman and afterwards Republic of Turkey; the Ottoman (Latin-transcript)-Armenian translation of the decree dating to January 5, 1916 issued by the Minister of War Enver Pasha is presented in this article for the first time in English, Armenian and Russian translations. It concerns the transformation of “non-Muslim” place-names. The article also deals with the artificial term of “Eastern Anatolia” as a substitute for Western Armenia, the political objectives of the pro-Turkish circles as well as the aftermath of putting the mentioned ersatz term into circulation.

    In August 2009, during his visit to Bitlis, a formerly Armenian city in eastern part of what is now Turkey, Turkish President Abdullah Gul said publicly that the original name of the present-day Gyouroymak province was “Norshin”, which, he claimed, was in Kurdish.1 This statement should not be considered as a slip of the tongue; it represents traditional Turkish policies of Turkification and Kurdification of original Armenian toponyms. Norshin is purely an Armenian toponym both by its components “Nor”+”shen”, which mean “a new settlement”, and as a pattern to form place-names. All toponyms (villages, settlements, residential areas, etc.) with the component “shen” are indisputably Armenian as Martunashen, Vasakashen, Getashen, Vankshen, Hamshen, Verishen and the like.

    It should be noted that, besides being linguistically stable phenomena, toponyms are valuable also as bearers of historical information. As such, they can have an effect on current ethnopolitical conflicts, if applied with the aim of distorting and manipulating the historical evidence. This truly strategic significance of the toponyms has not gone unnoticed: the ruling circles of the Ottoman Empire and those of its successor state, the Republic of Turkey, as once again confirmed by the recent reports in the BBC and the Turkish media,2 have devised and implemented consistent policies to falsify the origins and appropriate, through various ways and methods, the Armenian toponyms in the territory under their control.

    The Turkish tribes who settled in various parts of Armenia in the 11-15th centuries and later the Ottoman authorities were changing original Armenian place-names in several ways. First, they were translating their meanings into Turkish such as Tantsout (place with a lot of pear-trees) into Armoudlou, Aghbyurashen (a village of springs) into Kyankendi, Karmrik (based on the word karmir, meaning “red” in Armenian) into Kezelja, Tsaghkadsor (a ravine of flowers) into Darachichek, etc.

    Second, some Armenian toponyms, which had already been transformed somewhat from their original shape under the influence of local dialects, were converted to sound like a word with Turkic roots and pronunciation, thus utilizing the principle of contamination. Thus Armtick (meaning roots in Armenian) was turned to Armoudi, Odzounkhach (a cross+snake) to Ouzounhach, Kyouropaghat (a title which goes back to Latin “curator palatii,” which was given to especially Armenian governors by the Byzantine Emperors) to Gyurbaghdi, Karhatavan (settlement where stone in cut) to Karadivan, Jeghopourkents (place with o lot of walnut-trees) to Chopurgens, etc.

    Third widely-spread method of distortion was to give new names to old settlements in an attempt to bury their ethnic affiliation in oblivion.3 Even Christian Armenian sanctuaries were given new names. Thus, the famous Armenian monastery Varagavank was renamed Yedikiliseh (meaning seven churches in Turkish), while the Holy Echmiadzin, the center of Armenian Church, where the Supreme Armenian Catholicos resided, was turned into Ouchkiliseh (three churches). According to our estimates, several dozens of settlements have been named by the word “kiliseh” or “Gharakiliseh” in both Western and Eastern Armenia.

    Fourth, the attempts to give Turkish etymological explanations to the Armenian toponyms represented yet another method of their appropriation campaign. Such faulty experiments were carried out, in particular, by Evliya Celebi, the Ottoman court historian of the 17th century, whose interpretations have often served as basis for modern Turkish scholars. Here is one example. In his Book of Travels (Seyahatname), the old Armenian place-name Bayberd or Baberd (which through dialectal and foreign lexical influences has undergone sound interchange and consequently was pronounced as Baybourd) is etymologically explained as “bay” (meaning rich in Turkish) + “yourd” (settlement in Turkish)4. In fact, this name includes two ancient Armenian components Bay + berd, which respectively mean a den or an impregnable shelter and a stronghold or a fortress. As an ancient fortress, Baberd was mentioned by Movses Khorenatsi as early as in the 5th century.5 Place-names with the ending “berd” have been scattered throughout all Armenia, as Tsamakaberd, Amberd, Vzhnaberd, Kharberd, Baghaberd, etc.6

    Evliya Celebi went further to “reveal” that the original Armenian river name of Jorokh is a distorted form of the Turkish Joui-rouh, which according to him means “the river of the soul”7. In fact, the name “Jorokh” originates from the Armenian verb “tsorel”- “tsorogh” (flowing) in which the initial “ts” has been transformed to “j” through sound interchange, a phenomenon peculiar to the Armenian language, as in “tsanatsel > janachel”, and “tskhni > jkhni”8. Evliya Chelebi links to the Persians the name of the town Zarishat,9 which was actually built by the Armenian royal dynasty of Orontids (570 BC-200 BC). He derives the town name of “Akn” from the name of a Byzantine princess “Egin”10; however, “Akn” is a purely Armenian word meaning “eye”, “spring” and “pit”.11 In the place name of “Pertek”, which is a dialectal deformation of the original “Berdak” (a small fortress), Celebi tries to find the Mongolian equivalent for the word “eagle”.12

    It is irrefutable that all the above-mentioned toponyms and others in Armenia have been recorded in historical sources far too earlier than any Turkic or Kurdish elements appeared on the Armenian Highland, which they gradually did only from the 11th century onwards.

    The “corrections” introduced by Celebi were by no means innocent etymological verbosities, but pursued far-reaching purposes of Ottomanizing the newly occupied territories. Evliya Chelebi was a state official, who in addition participated in Ottoman expansionist invasions. Thus, his etimological explanations had clear geopolitical motives.

    Around the middle of the 19th century Turkish authorities decided not only to distort or change the names of Armenian provinces, regions and villages, but to eliminate altogether the name Armenia as well. This policy was pursued especially after the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-1878, when the Armenian Question was included into the agenda of international diplomacy and European powers started exploiting it to derive various concessions from Turkey.

    The government of Sultan Abdul Hamid II substituted the name Armenia with such terms as Kurdistan or Anatolia, fallaciously. Starting from 1880 the name Armenia was forbidden to be used in official documents.13 The Sublime Porte thus wanted to make everyone believe that the Armenian Question did not exist: if there was no Armenia, then there was no Armenian Question.

    The historians are familiar with the plan of solving the Armenian Question with the assistance of England put forward by Kiamil Pasha, the pro-British Ottoman Grand Vizier and Commander-in-chief during the reign of the Sultan Abdul Hamid II:

    “If in Europe we have warmed a serpent (i.e. the Balkan peoples – L.S.) in our bosom, we should not do the same in Asian Turkey. Common sense tells us to do away with all these elements that can pose the same threats to us in the future and become the cause and a tool of foreign interference. Now, today, at least Britain’s interests demand that our territories in Asia Minor be safe from foreign meddling and all sources that may give others a pretext to meddle in our affairs. We, as well as the British not only do not recognize the word “Armenia”, but we must smash to smithereens all jaws which dare to pronounce that word. To reach our sacred goal it is therefore imperative and the state law demands [from us] to make any suspicious elements unfit, sweep forever from the face of the earth this Armenian nation, to annihilate them recklessly and for good” (the emphasis is mine – L.S.).14

    By deliberately distorting them, the Ottoman authorities were ascribing Armenian and Greek place-names to Turkish or Kurdish origin. At that stage, the Kurdish ethnic factor was used by the Ottoman rulers, for the Kurds were not yet viewed as a threat to the Ottoman Empire. Taking advantage of their religious fanaticism, in the 1890s Sultan Abdul Hamid, who was also known as “the father of the Kurds” (Bavê Kurda),15 organized the Armenian massacres through the Hamidiye regiments formed out of Kurdish brigands and the regular Turkish army soldiers.

    During Abdul Hamid’s reign all Turkish and Kurdish resettlements were given new names, which were the names of nomadic tribes or various Ottoman sultans such as Hamidiye, Reshidiye, Aziziye, Mahmoudiye, etc. This policy became especially manifest during the reign of the Young Turks (1908-1918).

    The government of Young Turks also attached great importance to the changing of “non-Muslim” place-names. They replaced many toponyms, some named after the Ottoman Sultans, with their own names such as Enveriye, Shevketiye, Mahmoutshevket-Pasha and the like.16 The “Resolution About the Resettlement of Refugees” (“Iskân-I Muhacirin Nizamnamesi”), a document adopted on May 13, 1913,17 served the specific Young Turk policy of total Turkification. The next step was made by Enver Pasha, the Young Turks’ Minister of War, on January 5, 1916.18

    Enver Pasha’s decree sent to the Turkish military-political authorities demanded that all place-names of Armenian, Greek, Bulgarian and other non-Muslim origins in the Ottoman Empire be transformed into Turkish ones.19 Below is the translation of his Decree (Emirname):

    DECREE

    1. It is important to change into Turkish all names of provinces, regions, villages, mountains and rivers belonging to Armenian, Greek, Bulgarian and other non-Muslim peoples. Making use swiftly of this favorable moment, we beseech your help in carrying out this order.

    2. Cooperating with military commanders and administrative personnel within the boundaries of your jurisdiction, respective lists of name changes should be formed of provinces, regions, villages, etc. and be forwarded to military headquarters as soon as possible. After being studied and approved, these lists of proposed changes should be sent to the Ministry of the Interior and the Communications Ministry for generalization and implementation.

    3. It is imperative that the new names reflect the history of our hard-working, exemplary and praise-worthy military. The glorified events of our present and past war experiences should, by all means, be mentioned. In case this is not possible, names of those who had highly moral principles and who have fallen rendering invaluable services to their country should be remembered; or names should be found that are appropriate to the given area’s specific crop, product, trade or geographical situation.

    Last but not least, teachers at schools in different parts of our Fatherland should find appropriate topics to teach about the given territory’s glorious history, climate, crop, trade and culture. It should be borne in mind that any sudden change of a conventional name into an inconvenient or improper one may bring about the continuation of using the old name by the population. Therefore, new names should be chosen taking all this into consideration. In case such principles cannot be observed, then Ereghli, for example, should be turned into Erikli or Erakli, Gallipoli into Veliboli in order to maintain the roots of old names.

    Enver, Deputy Commander-in-Chief, 23 Kanun-i Evvel, 1331 /1916/

    Inspired by Enver’s decree, the prominent military officer Huseyin Avni (Alparslan) Bey, the author of several articles about the Turkish language and culture, wrote: “If we want to be the owner of our country, then we should turn even the name of the smallest village into Turkish and not leave its Armenian, Greek or Arabic variants. Only in this way can we paint our country with its colors” .20

    As we see, he even goes a step further than his minister by suggesting that Arabic place-names also undergo changes. Enver Pasha’s decree mentioned only “Armenian, Greek, Bulgarian and other non-Muslim peoples”. This testifies to the fact that during the Ottoman period, when the Sultan was considered the spiritual head (Caliph) of all Muslims, the Arabic and Kurdish toponyms were not yet regarded as threatening to the authorities. However, it should be remembered that the overwhelming majority of the names of places where the Kurds moved in Western Armenia were Armenian in origin with, at times, some aspects of local dialectal or foreign linguistic influences. After the Armenian Genocide, these toponyms have been attributed to Kurds.

    During the war, the Armenian, Greek and Bulgarian toponyms were the first to be turned into Turkish. The Antranos caza in Bursa, for example, was turned into Orhanelli, Mikhalich was renamed Karajabey, the village Dimitri into Touran, the Rum village in Chorum into Yeni (new) Chamlejay. But a few months later, on June 15, 1916 the Ottoman Military Headquarters disapproved of these changes arguing that on the new maps these new names were causing confusion in military correspondence.21

    Having been deprived of its original population, Western Armenia continues to lose, along with many other historical and cultural values, its centuries-old Armenian place-names. They are being declared as Kurdish or Turkish. Haroun Tuncel, a Turkish historian, has admitted that “One cannot find in Turkey a scientific work that would deal with the origins of ancient toponyms for the simple reason that the person undertaking such an arduous task should be knowledgeable of the local dialects of several languages, including Persian, Arabic, Armenian, Zaza, Kourmanji, Assyrian-Aramaic, Sumerian and Akkadian… for any name considered Kurdish may well be either Sumerian, Akkadian or Turkish and any name considered Turkish may be either Arabic, Armenian or Akkadian in its origin”.22

    In an article, titled “28 thousand toponyms were changed. Nobody knows which one comes from which language”,23 &#350;. Türker has included among Kurdish names such indisputably Armenian toponyms as Van, Antep (Aintap),24 Kharpet (Kharberd), Erzingan (Erzinjan< Erzen-el-Rum<Artsen-el roum), Kilis (which is a distorted version of the word “Yekeghetsi”, meaning Church), etc25 . It remains a mystery why and how the Muslim Kurds came to name their settlements Church (Kilis)?

    The process of “nationalization” of toponyms was continued by the Kemalists, who were the ideological successors of the Young Turks. It gained momentum during the Republican period. Starting from 1923 the entire territory of Western Armenia was officially renamed “Eastern Anatolia”.26 After the Kurdish rebellions in 1925, 1927 and 1936 in eastern part of the Republic of Turkey, the Turkish authorities started renaming the Kurdish and Zaza settlements as well. As early as 1935, the Interior Minister Shukru Kayan put forward a draft resolution to rename Dersim into Tunceli. It is worth noticing that in February 2009 Sharafettin Halis, a deputy in the Turkish Parliament from the Democratic Society Party (DTP), proposed that Tunceli be granted its former name of Dersim; he argued that people cannot forget this name as it has become sacred for them and was used both in their daily lives and in their songs, tales and novels. The proposal was, however, labeled a “manifestation of separatism” by the Turkish Minister of Justice.27

    In 1940, the Turkish government issued a circular letter (No. 8589) which called for changing into Turkish all toponyms in foreign languages or with foreign roots, but the outbreak of World War II temporarily impeded its implementation.

    A special article devoted to the changes of toponyms was included in the 1949 Provincial administrative law (II Idaresi Kanunu). Furthermore, a “Specialized Organization for Renaming of Toponyms” (“Ad De&#287;i&#351;tirme &#304;htisas Kurulu”) was initiated in 1957. This organization renamed 653 settlements in Erzurum, 169 in Adana, 366 in Erzinjan (Yerznka), 224 in Adyaman, 70 in Moughla, 88 in Afion, 70 in Eskishehir, 297 in Moush, 374 in Aghre (Ararat), 279 in Gaziantepe, 24 in Nevshehir, 99 in Amasia, 167 in Giresoun (Kerasoun), 647 in Nighdeh, 193 in Ankara, 343 in Gyumushkhaneh, 134 in Ordou, 168 in Antalya, 128 in Hakkari, 105 in Rizeh, 101 in Ardvin, 117 in Hatay (Alexandretta/Iskenderun), 117 in Sakaria, 69 in Ayden, 185 in Sparta, 110 in Balekesir, 112 in Ichel, 392 in Siirt (Sghert), 32 in Bilejik, 21 in Istanbul, 59 in Sinop, 247 in Bingyol (Byurakn), 68 in Izmir (Smyrna), 406 in Sivas (Sebastia), 236 in Bitlis, 398 in Kars, 19 in Tekirdagh, 182 in Bolou, 295 in Kastamonu, 245 in Tokat (Eudokia), 49 in Bourdour, 86 in Kayseri (Cesaria), 390 in Trebizond, 136 in Boursa, 35 in Krklarel, 273 in Dersim, 53 in Chanakkaleh, 39 in Kershehir, 389 in Shanli Ourfa (Ourha), 76 in Chankere, 26 in Kojayeli, 47 in Oushal, 555 in Chorum, 217 in Malatia, 156 in Zongouldak, 20 in Edirne, 647 in Mardin, 555 in Diarbekir, 83 in Manisa, 383 in Elazegh (Kharberd), and 105 in Kahraman Marash.28

    After research work on 75.000 toponyms, the “Specialized Organization” changed 28.000 names, among which 12.000 were village names. According to H. Tunçel’s estimates, 12,211 villages were renamed during the period of 1940-2000, which constitutes approximately 35 per cent of the villages.29

    Turkish historian Ayse Hyur writes that during the reign of the Democratic Party ugly, humiliating, insulting or derisive names, even if they were Turkish, were subjected to changes. Village names with lexical components meaning red (kizil), bell (çan), church (kilise) were all changed. To do away with “separatist notions”, the Arabic, Persian, Armenian, Kurdish, Georgian, Tatar, Circassian, and Laz village names were also changed.30 From 1981 to 1983, the names of settlements on the Eastern and Western parts of the Black Sea also underwent changes.

    Bilir, the author of “Let Tunceli Be Named Dersim”, in an article published in the August 19, 2009 issue of “Bir Gun” daily, writes that, besides giving new names to the settlements, the Turkish authorities altered also the phonetic pronunciations of those old names to make them sound like Turkish words, as, for instance, Chinchiva to Shenyouva. This method of changing a toponym, as has already been mentioned previously, was suggested by Enver Pasha as early as 1916: “…change Ereghli into Erikli or Erakli, Gallipoli into Velipolou in order to maintain the old name roots”.31 This phenomenon, however, has deeper roots. Similar cases of Ottomanization-Turkification of Armenian toponyms were present in the 16th century Ottoman Geographical Registers.32 It is ironic to note that in the ongoing process of turning the so called Kurdish toponyms into Turkish ones some toponyms have been restored to their imaginary old Turkish versions, which are actually ancient and medieval Armenian place-names. Thus Pertag (Berd+ak) has been renamed Pertek, allegedly its old Turkish name, Esper (Sper)>Ispir, Erdekhan>Ardahan, Shakh>Shatakh, Kers>Kars, Zedkan> Elishkirt, which is the phonetically deformed variant of Alashkert<Vagharsh+a+kert, Geghi>Keghi, in both of which we have the word Gyugh-Gegh meaning village, Guimguim>Vardo, etc. 33

    Gul’s statement in Bitlis about Norshin had controversial repercussions among the country’s various political parties. Devlet Bahçeli, the leader of the opposition National Movement Party in particular, criticized Gul for it. Prime Minister Erdogan responded reminding Bahçeli that Manazkert, for example, was an Armenian toponym. “Are you more patriotic than Alparslan? Mustafa Kemal didn’t change the name Ankara when he made it the capital of the country. The name Ankara is of Latin origin. Are you saying you are more patriotic than Mustafa Kemal?” asked Erdogan.34 We believe this admission by Turkey’s Prime Minister should be attributed to the Turkish authorities’ desire to evade an awkward situation and show the world that they are democratic and open-minded. Besides, the statement might have been made to deter the Kurdish territorial claims.

    Modern Turkish historiography has greatly contributed and supported this systematic program of changing, distorting and appropriating “non-Muslim” toponyms in Turkey. Upon the publication of the works of chroniclers and archival materials of the earlier period of the Ottoman Era, Turkish historians have made use of their rich stock of falsifications and have distorted Armenian toponyms en masse.35

    Armenia or Ermenistan have been coarsely and retroactively replaced with “Eastern Anatolia”. The following highlights one such example. In his “Jihan Numa” Kyatib Celebi, a famous Ottoman chronicler of the 17th century, had a special chapter, titled “About the Country Called Armenia”. When, however, this book was republished in 1957 its modern Turkish editor H. Selen changed this title into “Eastern Anatolia”.36 The fact, however, is that Armenia together with its boundaries was unequivocally mentioned in the works of Ottoman historians and chroniclers. An excerpt from the said chapter of Kyatib Celebi’s Jihan Numa illustrates clearly the falsifications of modern Turkish historians.

    “Hamdullah says. The Armenia vilayet consists of two parts – Greater and Lesser. …Greater Armenia extends well into Iran and is known by the name of Touman Akhlat. It borders the Lesser Armenia, Rum, Diarbekir, Kurdistan, Azarbaijan37 and Aran. Its length covers the area from Erzen-el-Rum (Erzurum) to Salmas, while its width – from Aran to the end of Akhlat vilayet. Its capital is Akhlat. In my opinion Greater Armenia at present consists of the Van and Erzurum vilayets, while Lesser Armenia – of Adana and Marash eyalets. In the Takvim-el-Bouldan,38 the following cities are mentioned in Armenia: Elbistan,39 Adana, Arjesh, Azarbaijan, Bitlis, Barda, Bilekan, Tiflis, Akhlat, Debil, Sultaniye, Sis, Tarsus, Malatia, Van, Vostan, Moush, Erzen-el-Rum and Malazkert”.40

    While Celebi mentioned only part of the territory of Armenia,41 the fact that the Ottoman historian admitted the existence of Armenia as a country speaks for itself.

    Armenia is referred to by other Ottoman authors of the 17th century as well. The official court historian Evliya Celebi mentions it as Armenistan.42 Munejjim Basi,43 another Turkish historian of the same century, also wrote about the vast country of Armenia, including into it the cities of Kherd Bert (i.e. Kharberd – L.S.), Erzinkan, Moush, Egin (Akn), Melazjerd (i.e. Manazkert), Bitlis, Akhlat, Arjesh, Vostan, Shirvan and the capital Debil (i.e. Dvin).44 From the descriptions of these historians, it becomes evident that in the 17th century official Ottoman historiography recognized the existence of the occupied Greater Armenia, and acknowledged it by its internationally accepted name of Armenia (Ermenistan). While Cilicia with its Adana and Marash eyalets was recognized by them as Lesser Armenia. Thus, in the 17th century when the Armenian Question was not as yet included into the agenda of international diplomacy, the terms Anatolia or Eastern Anatolia were never used to indicate Armenia. Furthermore, the “Islamic World Map” of the 16th century45 and other Ottoman maps of the 18th and 19th centuries have clearly indicated Armenia (Ermenistan) on a specific territory as well as its cities.46

    Armenia (&#1575;&#1585;&#1605;&#1606;&#1587;&#1578;&#1575;&#1606;) and Anatolia (&#1575;&#1606;&#1575;&#1591;&#1608;&#1604;&#1740;) are clearly differentiated in the map published in Istanbul in 1803-1804 (see Map 2).47 The Ottoman authors were using the term Armenia till the end of the 19th century. One example is Osman Nuri, the historian of the second half of the 19th century, who mentions Armenia repeatedly in his three-volume “Abdul Hamid and the Period of His Reign.”48

    It is more than obvious that the Ottoman historians and chroniclers in contrast to the modern Turkish ones, knew very well Armenia’s location and did not “confuse” it with Anatolia.

    The word Anatolia means “sunrise” or “east” in Greek. This name was given to the Asia Minor peninsula approximately in the 5th or 4th centuries B.C. During the Ottoman era the term Anadolou included the north-eastern vilayets of Asia Minor with Kyotahia as its center.49 The numerous European, Ottoman, Armenian, Russian, Persian, Arabic, Georgian and other primary sources did not confuse the term Armenia with Anatolia. This testifies, inter alia, to the fact that even after the loss of its statehood the Armenian nation still constituted a majority in its homeland, which was recognized by Ottoman occupiers as well.

    Therefore, it is very sad to witness today certain Armenian historians of the Diaspora and even diplomats and analysts in Armenia, who have started to substitute the term “Western Armenia” with that of the ersatz “Eastern Anatolia”. These people have willingly and submissively undertaken the task of enacting Abdul Hamid’s decree of 1880. Incredibly, some Diasporan historians are even using the term “Anatolia” to indicate the entire Armenian Highland.50

    Even if this ersatz term of Eastern Anatolia has somehow been put into circulation in Western scientific circles under the influence of systematic Turkish lobbying and falsifications and at times also due to the lack of knowledge, it is unacceptable for us, because the substitution of Western Armenia with the term “Eastern Anatolia” would mean voluntary renunciation of our homeland, rejection of our centuries-old historical and cultural heritage, denial of the Armenian Genocide, burial into oblivion of its consequences and, last but not least, rendering support to the Turkish negationist position towards the rights of the Armenian nation to Western Armenia.51

    Conclusion

    The Turkish authorities realize that Armenian toponyms are the product of a civilization spanning several millenia civilization and vivid witnesses of the indigenous presence of Armenians in Western Armenia. The extermination of the native population, however, did not stop with the Armenian Genocide; it was followed by the destruction of Armenian historical and cultural heritage, including the Armenian toponyms.

    The policy of Turkification of toponyms in the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Turkey has gone through several stages:

    Up to the end of the 19th century, Turkish officials and historians still continued to use the names “Armenia” or “Ermenistan”. At the same time, they were appropriating and changing the place names of occupied territories.
    After the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, when the Armenian Question became an international issue, the Turkification of Armenian as well as other Christian toponyms has been carried out more consistently.
    This process intensified during the Young Turks and the Kemalist regimes, when a full-scale Turkification policy of toponyms targeted all non-Turkic nations.
    Finally, during the present fourth stage, decades after eliminating Western Armenia of its native Armenian population, the Turkish authorities, fearing the potential threat posed by the Kurdish factor, have started to reshape their policy by partially restoring the original Armenian names of certain settlements in order to counter their Kurdish variants. However, they try to ascribe Turkish roots to these Armenian toponyms.
    All this demonstrates that falsification of toponyms has been and still remains an important constituent part of Turkish demographic policies.

    Toponyms are not only linguistic facts, but also accurate and objective historical evidence. The ancient Armenian place-names are explicit and emphatic linguistic evidence, which reveal the entire truth about the true native owners of the Armenian Highland. This is why the protection, maintenance and restoration of Armenian toponyms have invaluable strategic significance today.

    ——————————————————————————–

    [*] This is an updated version of L. Sahakyan’s article, which was first published by the ARARAT Center for Strategic Research in Armenian and Russian, respectively on September 18, 2009 (http://blog.ararat-center.org/?p=284) and November 19, 2009 (http://blog.ararat-center.org/?p=331).

    Kadir Konuksever, “Kürt aç&#305;l&#305;m&#305; ve Kürt isimleri”, BBC Türkçe, 12 A&#287;ustos, 2009. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler/2009/08/090812_kurdish_names. &#8617;
    A, Murado&#287;lu, Ahi Mesut ve Nor&#351;in.., Yeni &#351;afak, 11.08.2009&#1417;Enver Alper Güvelin, Nor&#351;in: Psikolojik e&#351;i&#287;in a&#351;&#305;lmas&#305;, &#1043;&#1072;&#1079;&#1077;&#1090;&#1072; Yeni &#351;afak, 16.08.2009&#1417; &#8617;
    For more details refer to L. Sahakyan’s The Toponyms and Demography of Bardzr Haik Provinces of Baberd, Sper and Derzhan in the 16th century Ottoman Register Books {Barts Hayki Baberd. Sper Derzhan gavarneri tekhanunnern u zhokhvrdagrutyuni XVI dari osmanyan ashkharagir matyannerum} published by “Lousakn” Publishers, Yerevan, 2007, pp. 83-84. &#8617;
    Celebi, Evliya: Turkish Sources about Armenia, Armenians and Other Trans-Caucasian Peoples {Turkakan akhbyurneri Hayastani, hayeri yev Andrkovkasi myus zhokhvurdneri masin, Evliya Chelebi} translated into Armenian from the original with a foreword and commentaries by A.Kh. Safrastyan, vol. 3, published by the Arm SSR Academy of Sciences, 1967, p.127. &#8617;
    Movses Khorenatsi, The History of Armenia {Hayots patmutyun}, Yerevan, 1999, p. 104. &#8617;
    For a detailed etimological analysis of Baberd, see L. Sahakyan’ s above mentioned monograph, pp.130-131. &#8617;
    Celebi, Evliya: Turkish Sources… {Turkakan akhbyurneri…}, p.127. &#8617;
    Ajaryan, H.: Armenian Etymological Dictionary {Hayeren atmatakan bararan}, vol. 2, p.469. See also New Wordbook of the Haykazyan Language {Nor bargirk haykazyan lezvi}, vol. 1, Yerevan, State Univ.y Publ. House, p.1026. &#8617;
    Celebi, Evliya: Turkish Sources… {Turkakan akhbyurneri}, vol.3, p. 120. &#8617;
    Ibid, p.155. &#8617;
    Ajaryan, H. Armenian Etymological Dictionary {Hayeren atmatakan bararan}, Yerevan, 1971, State Univ.y Publ. House, vol. 1, p. 106-108. &#8617;
    Celebi, Evliya: Turkish Sources…{Turkakan akhbyurneri…}, vol. 3, p. 157. &#8617;
    Modern History of Armenia in the Works of Foreign Authors {Novaya istoriya Armenii b trudax sovremennix zarubezhnix avtorov}, edited by R. Sahakyan, Yerevan, 1993, p.15 (in Russian). &#8617;
    Tserents, National Theory: “The Ottoman Monarchy, Turkish Armenians and Russian Armenians” {“Azgayin tesutyun, Osmanyan Inknakalutyun, tachkahayk yev rusahayk”}, Pords, Tpkhis, 1897, N VII-VIII, pp. 204-205. Modern History of Armenia in the Works of Foreign Authors, p.17 (in Russian). ) &#8617;
    Frat N., “Vulpes Vulpes Kurdistanica,” Günlük, 17.8.2009, (www.gunlukgazetesi.com). &#8617;
    Frat N., Ibid. &#8617;
    Ay&#351;e Hür, “Tez zamanda yer isimleri de&#287;i&#351;tirile,” Taraf , 01.03.2009. &#8617;
    Modern Turkish historian Aishe Hyur, by the way, writes that the measures taken to systematically change non-Turkish names were sped up during World War I (“Bin Yerin &#304;smi De&#287;i&#351;ti, Hangi &#304;sim Hangi Dile ait?” www.kenthaber.com/Haber/Genel/Dosya/gundem/28-bin-yerin-ismi-de&#287;i&#351;ti). &#8617;
    Ba&#351;bakanl&#305;k Osmanl&#305; Ar&#351;ivi, Dâhiliye Nezâreti, &#304;UM, nr. 48/17, lef: 2. M. &#350;ükrü Hanio&#287;lu, Enver Pa&#351;a, DIA, XI, &#304;stanbul, 1995, ss. 261-264. A. Yüksel, Do&#287;u Karadeniz Ara&#351;t&#305;rmalar&#305;, &#304;stanbul, 2005, ss. 21-22. &#8617;
    H. Tirebolulu {Huseyin Avni} Alparslan, Trabzon &#304;li Lâz m&#305;? Türk mü?, Giresun, 1339. s. 17. &#8617;
    Aktar A, “Yer isimlerini Turkle&#351;tirmek…”, Taraf , 23 Ekim, 2009. &#8617;
    Türker &#350;., “28 bin yerin ismi de&#287;i&#351;ti, Hangi ismin hangi dile ait oldu&#287;u bilinmiyor!”, Vatan, 16.08.2009, www.esoyle.com/2009/08/30/28-bin-yerin-ismi-de&#287;i&#351;ti. &#8617;
    Türker &#350;., op. cit. &#8617;
    The original toponyms are given in parentheses. &#8617;
    Refer to the same source. &#8617;
    Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia {Sovetakan haykakan hanragitaran}, Yerevan, 1974, p.327. Also A Concise Armenian Encyclopedia {Haykakay hamarot hanragitaran}, Yerevan, 1990, pp. 192-193. &#8617;
    Bilir O., “Tunceli, Dersim Olsun” Tekilfini Ekimde yeniden,” Bir Gün, 2009, 19 Agustos. Refer also to www.birgun.net &#8617;
    Bilir O., Ibid&#8232;&#8617;
    Tunçel H., “Türkiye’de &#304;smi De&#285;i&#351;tirilen Köyler,” Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Firat Universitesi, 2000, cilt 10, say&#305; 2. &#8617;
    Türker S., “28 bin yerin ismi de&#287;i&#351;ti…,”, Vatan, 16 Agustos, 2009. &#8617;
    See Yuksel A., Dogu Karadeniz Arastirmalari, Istanbul, 2005, s. 21-22. &#8617;
    For the details, see Lusine Sahakyan, Toponyms and Demography of Bardzer Hayk Provinces of Baberd, Sper and Derjan in the 16th century Ottoman Register Books {Barts Hayki Baberd. Sper Derzhan gavarneri tekhanunnern u zhokhvrdagrutyuni XVI dari osmanyan ashkharagir matyannerum}, pp. 77-108. &#8617;
    O. Bilir, “Tunceli, Dersim Olsun” Tekilfini Ekimde yeniden,” Bir Gün, 19 Agustos 2009. Refer also to www.birgun.net. &#8617;
    “Erdo&#287;an Bahçeli’ye yeni sert sözlerle yüklendi,” Hürriyet, 10 Kas&#305;m, 2009. &#8617;
    See L. Sahakyan, Toponyms and Demography, op. cit., pp. 71-108, 130-135. &#8617;
    For details refer to A. Papazian’s Turkish Documents about Armenia and Armenians (XVI-XIX cc) {Turkakan vaveragreri Hayastani yev hayeri masin (16-19-rd darer)}, Yerevan, 1999, p. 125. &#8617;
    Azerbaijan – Atrpatakan, a province of Iran. &#8617;
    Takvim-al-Buldan” is the Statistical Data- book of Abul Fida, an Arab historiographer and geographer. It served as a source book for Kyatib Calabi (Turkish Sources about Armenia, Armenians and Other Trans-Caucasian Peoples {Turkakan akhbyurneri Hayastani, hayeri yev Andrkovkasi myus zhokhvurdneri masin,, vol. 2, Yerevan, p. 258). &#8617;
    Elbistan-Albistan, a town in Cilicia in the Zeytun caza of the Marash province. &#8617;
    Turkish Sources…{Turkakan akhbyurneri…}, vol.2; Kyatib Celebi, Jihan Numa, pp. 29-30. &#8617;
    Refer also to A. Papazian’s Turkish Documents about Armenia and Armenians (XVI-XIX cc) {Turkakan vaveragreri Hayastani yev hayeri masin (16-19-rd darer)}, pp.112-114, 121-122. &#8617;
    &#1069;&#1074;&#1083;&#1080;&#1103; &#1063;&#1077;&#1083;&#1077;&#1073;&#1080;, &#1050;&#1085;&#1080;&#1075;&#1072; &#1087;&#1091;&#1090;&#1077;&#1096;&#1077;&#1089;&#1090;&#1074;&#1080;&#1103;. &#1055;&#1088;&#1077;&#1076;&#1080;&#1089;&#1083;&#1086;&#1074;&#1080;&#1077; &#1040;. &#1055;. &#1043;&#1088;&#1080;&#1075;&#1086;&#1088;&#1100;&#1077;&#1074;&#1072;. &#1055;&#1088;&#1080;&#1084;&#1077;&#1095;&#1072;&#1085;&#1080;&#1103; &#1080; &#1082;&#1086;&#1084;&#1084;&#1077;&#1085;&#1090;&#1072;&#1088;&#1080;&#1080; &#1040;. &#1055;. &#1043;&#1088;&#1080;&#1075;&#1086;&#1088;&#1100;&#1077;&#1074;&#1072;, &#1040;. &#1044;. &#1046;&#1077;&#1083;&#1090;&#1103;&#1082;&#1086;&#1074;&#1072;. &#1042;&#1099;&#1087;&#1091;&#1089;&#1082; 2, &#1048;&#1079;&#1076;. “”&#1053;&#1072;&#1091;&#1082;&#1072;”, &#1052;&#1086;&#1089;&#1082;&#1074;&#1072;, 1979, &#1089;. 102. &#8617;
    Refer to Munejjim Basi: Turkish Sources…}, vol.2, p.183. &#8617;
    Ibid., pp.199-200. In Arabic and Turkish sources the toponym Dvin has been distorted and written in various ways like Debil (refer to vol. 2 of Dictionary of Toponyms of Armenia and the Adjacent Regions, Yerevan, 1988, p. 68 ) Douin, Dabil, Adabin and Douviy (refer to S. Vartanyan’s The Capitals of Armenia {Hayastani mayrakakhaknere}, Yerevan, 1995, p. 109.) &#8617;
    “The Islamic World Map” was drawn in the 1570s. Its diameter is 28.5 cm, and it is kept in the Bodlian Library, Oxford, manusc. Var.317 f9v-10r (Refer to R. Galchian’s “Armenia in World Cartography”, Yerevan, 2005, p.148. &#8617;
    The Second Map of the “Mediterranean Region” (reprinted in R. Galchian, ibid., p. 228). &#8617;
    “Asian Turkey” was printed in 1803/1804. Size: 72×54 cm, British Library, London-OIOC 14999, vol. 2 (2), f.18. The second map in “The Mediterranean Region”, size: 80×58 cm, British Library, London-OIOC 14999, vol. 2 (2), f.5.,”The Ottoman Country”, published in1867, size:42×29 cm, The British Library, London-Maps 42.d.1, f.2 (Refer to R. Galchian’s monograph, ibid. pp. 226, 240 and 246). &#8617;
    The Turkish Sources {Turkakan aghbyurner}. Vol. 4. Transl. from the original by A. Kh. Safrastyan and G. H. Santurjyan. Yerevan, 1972, pp. 126, 131, 133, 136, 165, 167, 172, 175, 180, 184, 188, 190£ &#8617;
    Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia {Sovetakan haykakan hanragitaran}, vol.1, Yerevan, 1974, p. 373. For details about Turkish attempts to change the place name of “Western Armenia” with that of “Eastern Anatolia” see Zograbyan L. N., {Orfografia Armyanskogo Nagoriya}, Yerevan, 1979, p. 14-15. See also E. Danielyan’s article titled “Issues of Ancient Armenian History in Historiology” {“Hin Hayastani patmutyan hayetsakargayin himnahartseri patmagrutyan mej”}, published in Patma-banasirakan Handes (Historico-Philological Magazine), 2003, N3, pp. 30-37, as well as his article titled “Armenia and Armenian Geographical Names: A Scientific Assignment to Protect the Armenian Natural and Historical Environment” {Hayasann u haykakan tekhanunneri, hayots bnapatmakan mijavayri pashtpanutyan gitakan aradzadrank”}, published in VEM, an all-Armenian magazine, 2009, N1 (26), pp. 13-15. &#8617;
    Ronald Grigor Suny, Looking Toward Ararat: Armenia in Modern History, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1993. The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, vol. 1, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1997, pp. 22, 26, 37. Ayvazyan A.: The History of Armenia as Presented in American Historiography, a critical survey, Yerevan, 1998, pp. 37-40. &#8617;
    Refer to Armen Ayvazyan’s “Western Armenia vs. Eastern Anatolia”, Europe and Orient (Journal of the Institute Tchobanian, Paris), No. 4, 2007.

  • HISTORY: The situation of the Armenians: By one who was among them

    HISTORY: The situation of the Armenians: By one who was among them

    By Hj Pravitz, Nya Dagligt Allehanda, 23 April, 1917

    By Hj Pravitz, Nya Dagligt Allehanda, 23 April, 1917

    Hj Pravitz takes a deeper look at the statements that had previously been made by Mrs. Marika Stjernstedt, in Nya Dagligt Allehanda, a Swedish Newspaper published in the period 1859-1944.

    *******************
    “Recently returned home from abroad I have right now – i.e. somewhat late – had the opportunity to look at two Swedish booklets on the Armenian issue. “Sven Hedin – adelsman” [Sven Hedin a nobility], by Ossiannilsson and “Armeniernas fruktansvärda läge” [the terrible situation of the Armenians], by Marika Stjernstedt. The former book went immediately in the waste basket. In all its poorly hidden appreciation of the title character, it annoyed me more than a main article in Dagens Nyheter. The latter, which seemed spirited by the compassion for the suffering Armenians, I have read repeatedly, and it is really this and its inaccuracies that my article is about.

    I dare to claim, that hardly any other Swede has had the opportunity like me, to thoroughly and closely study the misery among the Armenians, since I now for about a month have traveled right among all the emigrating poor people. And this, during the right time, fall 1915, during which the alleged brutalities, according to both writers, were particularly bad.

    I want to hope, that what I am describing below, which are my own experiences, will have the purpose to remove the impression of inhumanity and barbarity from the Turkish and German side, which is easily induced by the reading of the two booklets mentioned above.

    If I understand the contents of the books correctly, both writers want to burden the Turks as well as the Germans with deliberate assaults or even cruelties.

    My position as an imbedded eyewitness gives me the right and duty to protest against such claims, and the following, based on my experiences, will support and strengthen this protest.

    Despite the fact that I was and am such a pronounced friend of Germany and its allies, which is consistent with the position of a servant of a neutral country, I started my journey from Konstantinopel (Istanbul) through the Asian Turkey, with a certain prejudiced point of view, partly received from American travelers, about the persecution of the Armenians by their Turkish masters. My Lord, which misery I would see, and to which cruelties I would be a witness! And although my long service in the Orient has not convinced me that the Armenians, despite their Christianity, are any of God’s best children, I decided to keep my eyes open to see for myself to which extent the rumors about Turkish assaults are true and the nameless victims were telling the truth.

    I sure got to view misery, but planned cruelties? Absolutely nothing.

    This is precisely why it has appeared to me to be necessary to speak up.

    To start with, it is unavoidable to state, that a transfer of the unreliable Armenian elements from the northern parts of the Ottoman Empire to the south was done by the Turkish government due to compulsory reasons.

    It should have been particularly important to remove, from the Erzeroum district, all these settlers, who only waited for a Russian invasion to join the invading army against the hated local legal authority. When Erzeroum fell in February 1916, an Armenian, with whom I just shared Russian imprisonment, uttered something I interpreted as ‘It would have fallen way earlier if we had been allowed to stay.’ That a country like Turkey, threatened and attacked by powerful external enemies, is trying to secure itself against cunning internal enemies, no one should be able to blame her.

    I think it points to a misconception when one claims that the Armenians are living under the uninterrupted distress of some sort of Turkish slavery. There are peoples that have it worse. Or what about Indian Kulis and Bengalis under British rule, and the Persian nationalists in Azerbaijan under the Russians’ – “penetration pacificue”, and the Negroes in Belgian Congo, and the Indians in the Kautschuk district in French Guyana. All these, not to mention many others, seem to me, are victimized to a higher degree and more permanently than the Armenians. I guess technically, one can say that a longer lasting but milder persecution is less bearable to endure than a bloody but quick act of despotism, as in (Ottoman) assaults of the kind that from time to time put Europe’s attention on the Armenian issue. Apart from these periodical so-called massacres, the reason of which could to a large degree be ascribed to the Armenians themselves, I do think that the (Armenians) are treated reasonably well.

    The (Armenians) have their own religion, their own language, both in speaking and writing, their own schools etc.

    As far as the much discussed major Armenian migration is concerned, I am the first to agree that the attempts of the Turkish side to reduce the difficulties of the refugees left a lot to be desired. But I emphasize again, in the name of fairness, that considering the difficult situation in which Turkey, as the target of attack from three powerful enemies, was in and it was, in my opinion, almost impossible for the Turks, under these circumstances, to have been able to keep up an orderly assistance activity.

    I have seen these poor refugees, or “emigrants”, to use Tanin’s words, seen them closely. I have seen them in the trains in Anatolia, in oxen wagons in Konia and elsewhere, by foot in uncountable numbers up in the Taurus mountains, in camps in Tarsus and Adana, in Aleppo, in Deir-el-Zor and Ana.

    I have seen dying and dead along the roads – but among hundreds of thousands there must, of course, occur casualties. I have seen childrens’ corpses, shredded to pieces by jackals, and pitiful individuals stretch their bony arms with piercing screams of “ekmek” (bread).

    But I have never seen direct Turkish assaults against the ones hit by destiny. A single time I saw a Turkish gendarme in passing hit a couple of slow moving people with his whip; but similar things have happened to me in Russia, without me complaining, not then, nor later.

    In Konia, there lived a French woman, Madame Soulie, with family and an Italian maid. They lived there, despite the war, and the Turks did them no harm. And as far as the Germans stationed in the town are concerned, she called them ‘our angels.’ ‘They give all they have to the Armenians!.’ Such evidence of German readiness to sacrifice I established everywhere the Germans were.

    In Aleppo, I lived by the Armenian Baron, the owner of a large hotel. He did not tell me about any Turkish cruelties, although we talked a lot about the situation of his fellow citizens. We also talked about Djemal Pasha, who would come the day after and with whom I would meet. Baron expressed himself very positively about this man, who by the way, least of all seemed like an executioner.

    In Aleppo, I hired an Armenian servant, who then during a couple of months was my daily company. Not a word has he told me about Turkish cruelties, neither in Aleppo nor in his home town of Marash or elsewhere. I must unconditionally believe in exaggerations from Mrs. Stjernstedt’s side and I do not put one bit of confidence in the Armenian authorities she claims to refer to.

    On page 44, Mrs. Stjernstedt writes about (the town of) Meskene and an Armenian doctor Turoyan. I was in Meskene right when he was supposed to have been there. I looked carefully around everywhere for historical landmarks, since Alexander the great crossed the Euphrates (river) here, and the old testament also talks about this place. There was not a sign of Armenian graves and not of any Armenians either, except for my just mentioned servant. I consider Mr. Turayan’s evidence very questionable, and I even dare to doubt that this man, if he exists, was ever there during the mentioned time. If the conditions in Meskene really were as he claims, will anyone then believe that the suspicious Turks would have sent an Armenian up there with a “mission from the government”?

    For fourteen days, I followed the Euphrates; it is completely out of the question that I during this time would not have seen at least some of the Armenian corpses that, according to Mrs. Stjernstedt’s statements, should have drifted along the river en masse at that time. A travel companion of mine, Dr. Schacht, was also travelling along the river. He also had nothing to tell when we later met in Baghdad.

    In summary, I think that Mrs. Stjernstedt, somewhat uncritically, has accepted the hair-raising stories from more or less biased sources, which formed the basis for her lecture.

    By this, I do not want to deny the bad situation for the Armenians, which probably can motivate the collection initialized by Mrs. Stjernstedt.

    But I do want to, as far as it can be considered to be within the powers of an eyewitness, deny that the regular Turkish gendarme forces, who supervised the transports, are guilty of any cruelties.

    Later on, in a different format, I want to impartially and neutrally like now treat the Armenian issue, but at the moment, may the adduced be enough.

    Rättvik, April 1917

    HJ Pravitz.

  • The Swine Flu and the Depopulation Agenda ; Dr. Rauni Kilde

    The Swine Flu and the Depopulation Agenda ; Dr. Rauni Kilde

    Dr. Rauni Kilde on the Swine Flu and the Depopulation Agenda

    Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde (born 1939 in Värtsilä, now in the Republic of Karelia) was the provincial medical officer of the Finnish Lapland Province with a doctorate in medicine from 1975 until a car accident in 1986, which took away her ability to continue her work and career. Since then she has been best known for her UFO contacts and related thoughts.

    video :

    From: tezer de groot [tezerdegroot@yahoo.com]

    Finlandiya’da Lapland bölgesinin eski Sağlık Bakanı Dr. Rauni Kilde ..Domuz gribi aşısı bir aldatmaca ..dünya nüfusunun çoğu öldürülmek isteniyor,……….Dr. Kilde, 14-15 Mayıs 2009 tarihinde yapılan Bilderberg toplantısında bu kararın alındığını belirtti.

    Kilde: “Grip aşısı milyonları öldürecek”

    Finlandiya’lı Dr. Rauni Kilde’den domuz gribi hakkında çok çarpıcı açıklamalar… Kilde; “Dünya nüfusunun üçte ikisini öldürmek istiyorlar” dedi ve dünya karıştı..

    Finlandiya’da Lapland bölgesinin eski Sağlık Bakanı Dr. Rauni Kilde’den domuz gribi hakkında çor cesur açıklama. Domuz gribi aşısının bir aldatmaca olduğunu itirafa eden Dr. Kilde, “Bu aşı ile mümkün olduğunca dünya nüfusunun çoğu öldürülmek isteniyor, bu nedenle önce küçük çocuklara ve hamile kadınlara uygulanması öneriliyor” dedi.

    Bu düşüncenin eski ABD Başkanlarından Henry Kissinger’e ait olduğunu söyleyen Dr. Kilde, 14-15 Mayıs 2009 tarihinde yapılan Bilderberg toplantısında bu kararın alındığını belirtti.

    Dr. Kilde, bir televizyona yaptığı açıklamasında, “ABD, hiçbir maddi kayıp yaşamadan hatta milyarlarca dolar kazanarak dünya nüfusunu üçte iki oranında azaltmayı hedeflemektedir” diye konuştu.

    Dünya Sağlık Örgütü’ne domuz gribinin ölümcül bir salgın olduğu yönünde beyanda bulunması için baskı yaptıklarını belirten Rauni Kilde, “Böylece aşıyı tercihli değil zorunlu yapmak istiyorlardı. Özellikle hamile kadınların ve çocukların ilk önce aşı ile zorunlu tutulması gelecek nesilleri hedeflediğini göstermektedir” açıklamasında bulundu.

    Finlandiya hükümetinin sınıflandırmayı kabul etmediğini ve aşının zorunluluğunu kaldırmak için, hastalığın derecesini normal olarak gösterdiğini ifade eden Kilde sözlerini şöyle sürdürdü; “Hiç kimse aşının bir yıl, beş yıl ya da 20 yıl sonra ne gibi etkilerinin olacağını bilmiyor: Mutlak kısırlık mı? Kanser mi? Ya da ölümcül herhangi bir hastalık mı?”

    Dr. Rauni Kilde, “Amerikan yönetimi ileride bundan dolayı doğacak herhangi bir sıkıntıdan dolayı ilaç şirketlerine bir sorumluluk yüklenmemesi için şimdiden önlemini aldı ve onları tüm sorumluluklardan muaf tuttu. Bu bile işin ciddiyetini göstermeye yeter” dedi.

    Kaynak:

    ***

    Bu haberin içeriğini destekleyen ve uygulanmış olan iki ayrı önemli projeden bahsetmek istiyorum ;

    20 yıllık kısırlaştırma projesi

    Küçük bir Kaliforniya biyoteknoloji şirketi olan Epicyte, genetik mühendisliği marifetiyle,
    yendiğinde erkeği kısırlaş­tıran bir mısır geliştirdiklerini açıkladı.

    Epicyte, Svalbard’ın iki sponsoru olan DuPont ve Syngenta ile teknolojilerini yaymak için ortaklık kurmuştu.

    Çok il­ginçtir ki Epicyte, genetiği değiştiril­miş sperm öldürücülü mısırı

    ABD Ta­rım Bakanlığından (USDA) aldığı araştırma fonuyla geliştirmişti.

    Toplumun üremesini engelleyecek olan işlem önce erkeği kısırlaştirmak
    amaciyla spermi öldüren bir katkiyla mısır vasitasiyla kullanima verildi.
    Erkeklerin spermleri , döllenme sağlayamayacak duruma getirilmeye başlandi.

    Böylece “Negatif ojenik” projesi yürütülmeye başlandi.
    Kara baronlar bununla da yetinmediler .
    Bir başka uygulamalari da şöyle oldu ;

    1990’larda BM Dün­ya Sağlık örgütü, Nikaragua, Meksika ve Filipinler’de
    15 ila 45 yaşları arasın­daki milyonlarca kadının tetanoza kar­şı aşılanması için

    bir kampanya başlat­tı.Erkekler de tetanoz olabilirdi ama aşı erkeklere yapılmadı.

    Bu şüphe uyandırıcı durumdan ötürü Katolik bir kilise organizasyonu olan
    Comite Pro Vida de Mexico (Meksika Yaşam Komitesi) aşıları test ettirdi.
    Test sonuç­ları ile, Dünya Sağlık örgütü’nün (WHO) yalnızca çocuk doğuracak yaş­taki

    kadınlara dağıttığı aşıların Chorionic Gonadotrophin (hCG) içerdiği ortaya çıktı.

    Doğal bir hormon olan hCG, tetanoz toksoid taşıyıcılarıyla birleştiğinde
    kadınların hamile kalma­sını engelleyen antikorları üretiyordu.

    Daha sonradan ortaya çıktı ki Rocke­feller Vakfı, Rockefeller Nüfus Kon­seyi,
    Dünya Bankası ve ABD Ulusal Sağlık Enstitüleri,
    Dünya Sağlık örgü­tü (WHO) için tetanoz taşıyıcın bir kı­sırlaştırma aşısı üretmek için
    1972’de 20 yıllık bir proje başlatmışlardı.

    Ayrı­ca Svalbard Kıyamet Tohum Deposu’nun ev sahibi Norveç hükümeti
    kısırlaştırıcı aşının üretilmesi için 41 mil­yon dolar bağış yapmıştı!

    ***

    Saygın okur ,

    Yukarıda görüldüğü gibi Dünyanın en etkin kurumları ,şirketleri , vakıfları

    Dünya toplum sağlığını ve üremesini olumsuz bakımdan etkileyecek

    çalışmalar yapmış ve projeler üretmiştir.

    Emperyalizmin ve küresel ağaların dünyada yaşayan toplumları gıda üzerinden

    kontrol ederek denetlemek ve yönetmek projeleri olduğunu biliyoruz.

    GDO’lu gıdalar ve tohumlar da bu nedenle kullanıma sokulmuştur.

    Aynı çalışmalar ise yoğun bir şekilde GDO üzerinden oynanmaktadır.

    Genetiğiyle oynanan gıdaların insanoğlu üzerindeki etkileri nedeniyle sağlıklı olmayan,

    beyin ve düşünsel kavrama yeteneği gelişmemiş ,aksine kas gücü yüksek olan köle toplumlar

    ile üreme yeteneği azaltılmış toplumlar da yaratmak mümkündür .

    Benzeri çalışmalar aşı üzerinden de yapılmıştır.

    Önce  bir salgın yaratılarak , salgın hastalığını önleyecek olan bir aşı içinde

    toplumlara her türlü virus ve benzeri hastalık unsurlarını vermek mümkündür !

    Üstelik de salgını yaratacak olan aşı para karşılığı verilecek,

    Diğer bir deyişle , yaratılan hastalık para karşılığı satılacaktır !!!

    Şimdi bana paranoyak diyebilirsiniz ,

    O zaman aşağıdaki farklı bir haberi okuyunuz ;

    mikrobiyoloji uzmanı Joseph Moshe Amerika’da tutuklandı

    flu1

    3 ay önce Yahudi kökenli bir mikrobiyoloji uzmanı Joseph Moshe Amerika’da katıldığı bir

    talk show programında; adı “Baxter Intl” olan bir şirketin Ukrayna laboratuarında biyolojik savaş aracı olarak kullanılmak üzere çok tehlikeli bir grip virüsü üzerine çalışma yaptığını ve bunun sonuçlarının iyi olmayacağını söylemişti.

    Talk show programının hemen çıkışında arabası durdurularak yüzüne gaz sıkma metodu ile etkisiz hale getirilmiş ve Amerikanın LAPD SWAT komando timi tarafından alelacele tutuklanmıştı.

    flu2

    3 ay içinde süreç aynen Joseph Moshe’nin söylediği şekilde gerçekleşti. Domuz gribi salgınının hemen ardından, Ukrayna’da çok daha tehlikeli bir virüs salgını ortaya cıktı. Ölümler sonucu yapılan otopsilerde ölen insanların akciğerlerinin tamamen kan ile dolu olduğu görüldü. Tesadüfe bakınız ki domuz gribi virüsü de yine bu şirketin

    araştırma laboratuarının bulunduğu bir bölgede ortaya çıktı ve yayıldı.

    Öte yandan domuz gribi aşısını bir diğer üreten şirket yılsonunda 500 milyon Euro kar ile kapatacaklarını açıkladı.

    Bahsi geçen virüs üretici şirket menşei tahmin edin hangi ülkeye ait?

    Tabii ki Amerika.

    Amerika bugün kendi krizini tüm dünyaya mal etmenin hemen arkasından, kendi ekonomisini sağlık sektörüne dayandırarak tekrar kurtarma çabasında ve bu şirket Amerikan hükümeti tarafından aktif olarak desteklenmekte.

    Joseph Moshe’nin tutuklanma aceleciliği ve şekli bile bunu ispatlar nitelikte.

    Laboratuarlarının bulunduğu bölgelerde tüm dünyaya yayılma potansiyeli bulunan yeni ve tehlikeli salgınlar ortaya çıkmakta. *2*

    EK’te Amerika’da bu şirket aleyhine açılmış davaya ait toplam 105 sayfalık bir dokuman,

    var .

    ***

    Başka ne diyeyim saygın okur ?

    Geçmiş olsun !

    Naci Kaptan

    ***

    TANITIM VE KAYNAKÇALAR

    Dr. Rauni Kilde on the Swine Flu and the Depopulation Agenda


    Rauni-Leena Luukanen-Kilde (born 1939 in Värtsilä, now in the Republic of Karelia) was the provincial medical officer of the Finnish Lapland Province with a doctorate in medicine from 1975 until a car accident in 1986, which took away her ability to continue her work and career. Since then she has been best known for her UFO contacts and related thoughts

    ***

    Dr.Joseph Moshe

    Moshe was dramatically arrested and detained by the FBI last week having earlier called Dr True Ott’s radio show claiming that Baxter was incorporating a bioweapon in its vaccine.Joseph Moshe – BioMedical Scientist

    Moshe was dramatically arrested and detained by the FBI last week having earlier called Dr True Ott’s radio show claiming that Baxter was incorporating a bioweapon in its vaccine

    www.loadedparanormal.com…

    KAYNAKÇALAR

    *1*

    *2* Joseph Moshe (MOSSAD Microbiologist): Swine flu vaccine is bioweapon Friday, August 21, 2009

    ———————————————————————————————————————-

    Related:

    Militarization of Swine Flu Preparations

    Fear, Intimidation & Media Disinformation: U.K Government is Planning Mass Graves in Case of H1N1 Swine Flu Pandemic

    What are Obama’s investments in biotech companies apparently developing the “bird” and “swine” flu vaccine?

    Big Pharma: Baxter Files Swine Flu Vaccine Patent a Year Ahead of Outbreak

    Charges For Conspiracy Against Mankind

    Obama gets billions for ‘pandemic’ Swine Flu

    Swine Flu Outbreak Or Bioterrorism And Intent To Commit Mass Murder?

    Media sensationalism, corporate power and the swine flu outbreak

    Swine Flu: Who Profits?

    Swine Flu Created in Lab as Bio-Weapon?

    As Swine Flu Spreads, Conspiracy Theories of Laboratory Origins Abound

    Who Will Profit from the Deadly Flu This Time?

    UK prepares mass graves for swine flu victims

    Swine flu drug increases stroke risk

    VIDEO – Swine Flu vaccine Baxter linked to Dyncorp´s mercs H1N1 patents

    VIDEO –  Made in a Lab – The Swine Flu Swindle

    VIDEO – ‘Swine flu virus began life in lab’

    Mandatory Swine Flu Vaccine Alert

    VIDEO – Flashback: 1976 Swine Flu Scam

    VIDEO – The Swine Flu Fiasco (CBC, 1983)

    VIDEO – Mexican Flu Outbreak 2009: SPECIAL REPORT by Dr Leonard Horowitz

    Swine Flu Vaccinations Could Prove More Deadly Than the Swine Flu

    Flu is Not the biggest danger… It’s the Vaccine

    Next step in H1N1 scare: Microchip implants

    Cops jump on swine-flu power: Shots heard ’round the world

    Dangerous, Deadly H1N1 Vaccine Scam

    Martial Law Alert Over Swine Flu

    Nano Particles used in Untested H1N1 Swine Flu Vaccines

    Rockefeller and Silverstein implicated in new FBI pandemic

    VIDEO Alert: Preparing for the Swine Flu Pandemic: Body Bags for the Canada’s First Nations

    Comprehend VeriChip’s Swine Flu Chip

    Joseph Moshe (MOSSAD Microbiologist): “Swine flu vaccine is a bioweapon”

    VIDEO – The Swine Flu Conspiracy

    VIDEO – Dr Len Horowitz – Anglo American Flu Genocide

    The “Deadly Second Wave of Swine Flu”. Scaremongering or Sequel of Vaccinations?

    A Strengthened Virus and a Police State

    Prelude to Final Disaster: Rockefeller´s Depopulation Programme

    The Move to Depopulate the Planet

    The Population Reduction Agenda For Dummies


    Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)

    • Video: Ron Paul – Putting Swine Flu In Perspective
    • WHO: swine flu infects 29 countries
    • Swine Flu Article