Tag: Ergenekon

  • Turkey’s state-dominated past goes up in smoke

    Turkey’s state-dominated past goes up in smoke

    Tobacco workers' protest, Ankara

    The protests in Ankara have been going on since December

    By Jonathan Head
    BBC News, Ankara

    Kenan and his colleagues huddled around a wood-fired stove, rubbing their hands to ward off Ankara’s bitter winter chill, and sipping tea.

    They were angry, so angry that it was difficult to get them to speak one at a time.

    “Our prime minister is crazy”, said Kenan, “he’s such a bully. You can’t run a state like this.”

    The seven men in Kenan’s tent were tobacco workers from Izmir.

    All around them, filling Sakarya Street – normally the site of central Ankara’s main market – were other tents, each from a different district of Turkey.

    Adana, Adiyaman, Batman, Bitlis… more than 50 places represented in all.

    The protest started in December when the government announced that more than 10,000 workers, in what was left of the once-dominant state tobacco monopoly Tekel, would lose their jobs.

    Most are manual labourers from the tobacco distribution centres – the state-owned tobacco processing factories were privatised and sold to British American Tobacco two years ago.

    Sustained protest

    The remaining workers have been offered alternative employment in the state sector, but only on short-term contracts, without benefits and at much lower wages.

    The state’s role should be to provide basic services, and the word ‘basic’ is important here
    Bulent Gedikli
    Economic advisor and MP

    With thousands joining their regular street protests, it has been the most sustained industrial unrest to confront the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan since he was first elected in 2002.

    A group of men from Batman in the south-east explained what this meant for them.

    “My salary is 1,400 lira ($950) a month”, said one.

    “Under the new contract I would get only half that. They give us 11-month contracts so we never know if we will have a job the next year. We cannot see any clear future for ourselves.”

    The government argues that it is being generous in conceding even this much.

    After all, it points out, unemployment has hit 14% in Turkey, and millions of people earn even less than the salaries these tobacco workers are being offered.

    Driven by business

    “The state should not be a manager, it should not be involved in trade or running companies”, says Bulent Gedikli, a member of parliament from the governing AK Party (AKP) and an economic advisor to the prime minister.

    “The state’s role should be to provide basic services, and the word ‘basic’ is important here.”

    AKP headquarters, Ankara

    The AKP’s new headquarters towers over its surroundings

    From its shiny new headquarters that towers over the squat, 1930s buildings of Ankara, the AK Party is projecting a very different vision of Turkey than the one envisioned by the country’s founding father, Ataturk.

    Often described as Islamist because of the conservative religious habits of its leaders, the party is actually driven at least as much by business as by faith.

    Prime Minister Erdogan is more of a Margaret Thatcher than an Ayatollah Khomeini.

    “The AKP is in favour of the market, against state enterprises – they have a prejudice that everything the market does is proper and just and successful”, says Professor Burhan Sanatalar, an economist at Istanbul’s Bilgi University.

    “The revenue side is also very important to them”, he says.

    “From the 1980s to 2008 privatization generated around $36bn, and 70% of that has been received during the AKP’s period in government.”

    “Statism”

    The AKP’s approach has helped generate impressive economic growth over the past decade, and spawned hundreds of successful new private businesses.

    Tobacco workers' protest, Ankara

    Tekel workers say they will no longer vote for the AKP

    But in a country where the state has dominated so much of life since the founding of the Turkish republic 87 years ago, it has also come as a shock to many Turks.

    Back in 1931 Ataturk announced his “Six Arrows” – the six principles that he believed should underpin the character of the nation.

    One was “statism”, a belief that the state should play a leading role in Turkey’s economic development.

    Even as late as the mid-1990s, more than half a million people were employed by state enterprises, about 20% of the industrial workforce.

    One of the areas brought under state management was tobacco and alcohol, in the huge monopoly known as Tekel.

    Once the country’s most important agricultural crop, by 1980 the tobacco monopoly employed more than 50,000 people.

    However that number dropped as the government sold off manufacturing plants to multinational corporations.

    Ataturk and raki

    Not far from where the Tekel workers were holding their sit-in, stands the first factory built in Ankara on the orders of Ataturk, at the start of his mission to modernise and industrialise his country.

    Now it is deserted, awaiting a buyer. But you can still see the giant wooden barrels that indicate what it once was – a Tekel distillary.

    Former Tekel brewery

    The Tekel distillery – now deserted – was Ankara’s first factory

    A keen drinker of raki – an aniseed spirit popular in Turkey – Ataturk’s choice for his country’s first step into the industrial age also reflected his determination to push back the influence of Islam.

    Upstairs they still preserve the rooms, and their art deco furniture, where the great man used to sit with his friends and colleagues, drinking and planning his new state.

    You can hold the large tin ladle with which he sampled the produce.

    Back on Sakarya Street, the last beneficiaries of that statist dream queued up at soup kitchens set up by volunteers to support the protest.

    A few days after my visit they suspended their sit-in, still hoping to wring more concessions from the government.

    The wave of public sympathy for the Tekel workers has certainly caught the government off-guard, but it will not budge from its basic position.

    The workers will lose their health and other benefits, and they will lose their job security.

    Many of the disillusioned Tekel employees say they voted for the AKP in the last two elections – never again, they say.

    But they are a diminishing force in today’s Turkey.

    The days when millions of Turks could expect the state to look after them seem to be over.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8579872.stm

  • Turkey’s Political Revolution

    Turkey’s Political Revolution

    THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
    OPINION EUROPE MARCH 22, 2010

    Ankara’s civil-military struggle has global significance

      By MORTON ABRAMOWITZ AND HENRI J. BARKEY

      An unprecedented political drama has been unfolding in Turkey, leading toward the elimination of military tutelage over the country’s political life. Prosecutors recently arrested some of Turkey’s most senior military leaders, both active and retired.

      How this civil-military struggle evolves is critically important for Turkey’s future, but also has global significance. If the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) is successful in tapering Turkey’s escalating political polarization, avoiding petty religious issues, and enhancing its own democracy, the impact in the Islamic world, however intangible, could be enormous. Turkey’s friends can help by both making it clear where they stand, and by holding AKP’s feet to the fire.

      Shortly after the 2002 AKP electoral victory, elements of the Turkish military, including senior commanders, began worrying that the AKP would transform Turkey from the secular democracy inherited from Ataturk to a more religious and authoritarian state. Some, as we now know, began plotting against the new government. Their fears turned out to be correct, not because the AKP has turned Turkey into an Islamic state—it has not and is not likely to—but because it has gone very far in eliminating the military’s role in Turkish political life. That is an extraordinary achievement, although it is not AKP’s alone. Rather, it is the result of a profound and long-coming societal change—namely, the emergence of a conservative and pious middle class.

      Shaken by the arrests, a tough response from the Turkish military cannot be ruled out. Senior judges and prosecutors remain squarely in the military’s camp even if their subordinates do not, and the military may rely on the Turkish judiciary to somehow check the AKP, as it has tried to do before. Even if that succeeds, it would be a Pyrrhic victory and, in the end, be unlikely to change the course of Turkish politics’ steady civilianization. The Turkish military will, of course, not lose its importance. It is a formidable force in an unstable area and Turks cherish its patriotism and its contributions to the country’s security. It will retain much of its independence and remain a thorn in the side of the AKP. But its days as a kingmaker of governments are coming to an end.

      The military’s past attempts at interfering in political issues, ranging from the selection of the president to judicial processes, have served to undermine its own legitimacy, while helping the AKP win a second electoral victory in 2007. Still, the paralysis and distraction engendered by the court cases against the military have also taken a toll on the AKP. The party remains the most popular and powerful, but it is more vulnerable than ever, with its poll numbers dropping.

      The AKP has done much to modernize and democratize Turkey—something only a pious and conservative party could have achieved. However, its increasingly combative style and its modus operandi of picking domestic fights rather than carrying out meaningful economic and political reforms have helped reduce its popularity. Its all-powerful prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has turned into an increasingly authoritarian leader, contemptuous of criticism. Mr. Erdogan’s proclaimed activist foreign policy in the Middle East, especially his softness on the Iranian nuclear program and harshness on Israel, has won him domestic and occasional foreign plaudits, but it has also contributed to his sense of invincibility. Neither will his international efforts, however popular at home, compensate for rising unemployment and stalled reform efforts. A party cannot live by foreign policy alone, especially when it also sets the stage for serious overreaching and the alienation of friends and allies. Mr. Erdogan’s remarkable outburst threatening to expel all “100,00 Armenians living illegally in Turkey” in retaliation for the adoption of resolutions in some countries recognizing the 1915 Armenian Genocide, is likely to call into question Turkey’s sincerity in reconciling with its neighbor Armenia, and has even earned him criticism at home.

      Turks will make up their own minds about how to deal with the AKP. Turkey’s tragedy has been the absence of a serious opposition to challenge the AKP. The resulting vacuum has usually been filled by the military. The inability of the opposition to focus effectively on economic or judicial reforms may be a major boon to the ruling party, but it has seriously undermined Turkish democracy.

      Despite Turkey’s impressive strides under AKP rule and the praise it has received from the West, the U.S. and other Western countries still have to put their money where their mouths are. While a genuinely free-market party, the AKP is not a liberal party in the traditional sense—Mr. Erdogan rules his party with an iron fist. Nor does the AKP appear to have much time for the needs of those who oppose it. It has ignored the legitimate fears of pro-secular groups, especially women, and it is intent on subduing the media rather than reforming it. It has also yet to effectively tackle the major cleavages in Turkish life: It made a start on the Kurdish issue but has lost its appetite; has long ignored the need to overhaul its authoritarian constitution and unfair election practices; and has failed to make clear to the public whether it is a truly secular party, as it proclaims.

      Turkey will only move forward if the AKP reshapes itself and acts on its promises to make Turkey a better-functioning democracy. That will not be easy, since politics in Turkey have been a zero-sum game this past decade. The West has praised the AKP until now, but it does Turks no favors by shying away from declaring that major changes are essential for Turkey to be a part of the EU and the wider democratic world. If the AKP doesn’t hear and heed that message, it may engender precisely what Turkey’s Western friends would loathe to see: The re-emergence of an authoritarian society, or even the military’s political comeback.

      Mr. Abramowitz, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, was American Ambassador to Turkey from 1989 to 1991. Mr. Barkey is a visiting fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a professor of international relations at Lehigh University.

    • Turkey to lodge lawsuit against states, recognizing Armenian genocide

      Turkey to lodge lawsuit against states, recognizing Armenian genocide

      03/22/2010

      Turkish oppositional parties’ MPs from National Unity and Republican People’s Party intend to come up with a lawsuit against the states, that recognized Armenian Genocide of 1915 in Ottoman Empire, Turkish Hurriyet reads.

      The final decision on the matter should be made by Turkish government, that is yet silent.

      According to the Republican MP Sukru Elekdag, international court should give a precise response to Turkey about its fault. He reckons that both countries’ parliaments break assumption of innocence, accusing Turkey of the genocide: “I suppose that if we achieve the international out-of-court settlement, extensive work should be done to establish our case.”

      He deems the states, that already recognized the fact of genocide should realize the meaning of the word and determine whether one state can accuse the other of such a crime.

      S.T.

      News from Armenia – NEWS.am

    • Uncomfortable Truth ; Mr Erdogan’s unfortunate threats

      Uncomfortable Truth ; Mr Erdogan’s unfortunate threats

      Re: Uncomfotable Truth – 18/03/2010 as below.
      Dear Editor,
      Mr Erdogan’s unfortunate threats are truly regrettable especially as he does not represent the views of most Turkish People. His threats were quickly denied by his own Foreign Secretary Mr Davutoglu, indicating that this is not part of an Turkish Foreign Policy agenda. You are right in finding his intervention as demagogic and disreputable but he is still the same Prime Minister whose reputation and achievements have been held up as an example of a leader of a moderate Islamic government by most commentators in EU and US until very recently!
      Regarding the Armenian genocide claims, this is far from being an accepted fact and an ‘uncomfortable truth’ for Turkey. The claims have been strongly disputed by hundreds of archives (English, French and Russian) and many non Turkish and Turkish scholars. By the way the Armenian Government refuses to open its own archives. The real truth is that there were awful killings and deaths on both sides due to war, starvation and extreme cold and that in fact more Turks than Armenians had died tragically during this period. Unfortunately the powerful Armenian Diaspora continues to distort history and many people are blind to the obvious facts. Only last year Lord Avebury, along with Armenian activists were trying to lobby the Turkish Parliament by impressing on them the notorious and discredited ‘Blue Book’ and had to be stopped ( details are available).
      We hope that we are all interested in the real truth and that it must prevail.
      Yours faithfully,

      Betula Nelson
      Media Relations
      The Ataturk Society of the UK

      From The Times
      March 18, 2010

      Uncomfortable Truth

      Turkish threats to expel Armenian migrants to make a political point are shameful

      • 9 Comments
      Recommend? (16)

      Deportations have powerful symbolism in modern European history. The notion that the government of a would-be member state of the EU might propose the forced collective expulsion from its territory of a specified nationality ought to be unthinkable. Yet that course was casually threatened yesterday by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish Prime Minister, against 100,000 Armenian migrants.

      Its purported justification was the recent passage of non-binding resolutions in the US Congress and the Swedish parliament. These motions describe as genocide the mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire during and after the First World War. Turkey takes strong issue with the claim of genocide. The history and politics of TurkishArmenian relations are convoluted, but the ethics of Mr Erdogan’s remarks are not. His intervention is demagogic and disreputable.

      The US and Swedish votes were carried by narrow margins and were opposed by their respective governments. The historical events that they recall began with the massacres of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915. The very word “genocide” is a post-1945 coinage, intended to define the peculiar barbarity of Nazism. Only gradually did the Armenian massacres come to be recognised as the first authentic case of genocide in the 20th century. But so they were. On conservative historical estimates, around a million Armenians were killed in a xenophobic purge that continued till 1923. It was a crime without precedent in modern history.

      Historical truth matters. It is extraordinary that the Government of modern Turkey should resist it. No one alive today was responsible for these barbarities. They were committed by an imperial power that has long since passed into history along with Wilhelmine Germany, to which it was allied in the First World War. While running for the presidency, Barack Obama declared his intention of being a leader who would speak the truth about the Armenian genocide. In practice, while his views are a matter of record, Mr Obama has been conciliatory in relations with Turkey.

      Mr Erdogan has little cause for complaint about the symbolic diplomacy of resolutions on historical events. He has no justification whatever for threats against Armenian migrants. Turkey is home to thousands of illegal immigrants from Armenia. Few would dispute that sovereign nations have the right to determine barriers to entry on the part of non-citizens, but these are migrants who have sought refuge from disaster. Forming an impoverished population that does necessary but low-wage work, they include many whose homes and livelihoods were destroyed in the Armenian earthquake of 1988. Mr Erdogan estimated yesterday that of 170,000 Armenians in Turkey, only 70,000 held Turkish citizenship. He threatened directly to tell the rest to leave.

      Turkey is a member state of Nato and a strategically important power within the Western alliance. It borders Iraq, in whose stability the Western democracies have an intense interest. But the Government in Ankara cannot exploit that status in order to advance its own diplomatic goals at the expense of liberal values. To object to a proper historical accounting of awesome crimes is a demeaning and destructive stance. But then to retaliate against the most vulnerable people within Turkey’s borders is unconscionable.

    • Advice to Prime Minister Erdogan:

      Advice to Prime Minister Erdogan:

      Continue Denying the Armenian Genocide

      Mr. Erdogan, please keep up the good work. Armenians need your kind assistance to pursue their cause until justice is done.

      By Harut Sassounian

      Publisher, The California Courier

      sassounian32

      It is a well-known fact that Turkish leaders are exceptional diplomats. However, as soon as they hear the words Armenian Genocide, Greece, Cyprus or Kurdistan, these diplomats lose their “cool” and resort to emotional outbursts and undiplomatic actions that harm their own interests.

      Realizing that this is the 95th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide, Turkish officials have been nervously preparing themselves for the upcoming tsunami of commemorations that would remind the international community of the crimes against humanity committed by Ottoman Turks.

      The first unexpected shot was fired on February 26 by the Parliament of the Autonomous Government of Catalonia, Spain, when it unanimously recognized the Armenian Genocide. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu immediately contacted his Spanish counterpart and Catalonian officials venting his anger and demanding an apology!

      Two days later, an expose of the Armenian Genocide was aired by CBS’s 60 Minutes, showing bones of Armenian victims still protruding from Syrian desert sands, almost a century later! The Turks were livid, accusing Armenians of unduly influencing the CBS network and questioning, as usual, the authenticity of the bones and the sand!

      Four days later, the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee adopted a resolution acknowledging the Armenian Genocide. Turkey lost despite:

      n      Pressuring the Obama administration to oppose the resolution;

      n      Hiring multi-million dollar lobbying firms;

      n      Sending teams of Turkish parliamentarians to Washington;

      n      E-mail campaigns by Turkish and Azeri Americans; and

      n      Threatening to boycott U.S. defense contractors if they did not oppose the resolution.

      Immediately after losing that vote, Turkey recalled its Ambassador from Washington, indicating that he may be kept in Ankara until after April 24. State Minister Zafer Caglayan postponed his U.S. visit, intended to develop economic ties, “until the United States corrects its mistake.” A scheduled trip by the executive board of the Turkish Industrialists’ & Businessmen’s Association to Washington on March 16 and 17 was also canceled, and anti-American protests were held in Turkish cities. More importantly, Prime Minister Erdogan indicated that he might cancel his planned participation in the global summit on nuclear security to be held in Washington next month.

      Before Turkish passions had cooled down, Sweden’s Parliament dealt a second devastating blow to Ankara on March 11, by reaffirming the genocide of Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks, by a vote of 131-130. Once again, Turkey recalled its Ambassador, and Prime Minister Erdogan canceled his upcoming trip to Stockholm which was to be accompanied by a large trade delegation. And, anti-Swedish demonstrations were held in several Turkish cities.

      These overly dramatic reactions prompted Turkish and foreign commentators to have a field day, speculating that if more countries recognize the Armenian Genocide, Turkey won’t have ambassadors left anywhere in the world, and Turkish officials won’t be visiting other countries, having to cancel their overseas trips. Furthermore, Turkey would be left without any imported goods and a weakened military, having canceled all purchases from the outside world. Turkey’s isolation is a just retribution for its denialist policy. By trying to punish others, Turkey is simply punishing itself.

      Vahe Magarian of Cincinnati, Ohio, sent a pointed letter to the New York Times last week, suggesting that Turkey’s recalled Ambassadors, “rather than flying home, should be made to march home on foot. Forced marches were the preferred means of travel during the dying days of the Ottoman Empire.”

      Prominent Turkish commentator Can Dundar wrote in Haber1 an article titled: “Are we going to recall all our Ambassadors?” He stated that, at this rate, by the time the 100th anniversary of the Armenian Genocide rolls around in 2015, there won’t be a single country left not accusing Turkey of genocide. Isn’t it about time that we search out what dirty work our fathers did 95 years ago? Shouldn’t we ask what did we do wrong, Dundar implored.

      The main reason why Turkish officials panic every time the Armenian Genocide is acknowledged by yet another country is their fear of being asked to pay compensation for Armenian losses and return the occupied lands. Prime Minister Erdogan and his colleagues don’t seem to understand that Genocide recognition by itself does not lead to legal claims. How many inches of land have Armenians managed to liberate from Turkey as a result of such recognition by more than 20 countries? If Turkish leaders would only understand that parliamentary resolutions have no legal effect, maybe they would not get so excited over them!

      Nevertheless, there should be no doubt that Armenians still demand the return of their ancestral lands located in Eastern Turkey. Such claims have to be pursued in various courts, unless an unexpected cataclysmic event occurs first, causing the collapse or dismemberment of the Turkish State.

      In the meantime, we advise Mr. Erdogan to continue denying the Genocide at every opportunity, in order to encourage Armenians to persist in their efforts to expose Ankara’s lies. Were it not for Turkish officials’ vehement denials, there would not have been a worldwide outcry to reaffirm the facts of the Armenian Genocide by airing TV documentaries and adopting genocide resolutions.

      Mr. Erdogan, please keep up the good work. Armenians need your kind assistance to pursue their cause until justice is done.

    • Gul Named Chatham House Prize Winner Because Of His Leader Qualities, Says Chairman

      Gul Named Chatham House Prize Winner Because Of His Leader Qualities, Says Chairman

      gul ve karisi

      LONDON (A.A) – 19.03.2010 – Turkish President Abdullah Gul has been voted the winner of this year’s Chatham House Prize because of his qualities as a national, regional and international leader, Chairman of Chatham House said on Friday.

      “I warmly congratulate the President on this award which recognizes his accomplishments and acknowledges the growing influence he has achieved for Turkey,” DeAnne Julius said in a statement.

      Gul will be invited to collect the award and a scroll signed by Queen Elizabeth II at a ceremony in London later this year. The other nominees for this year’s prize were French Finance Minister Christine Lagarde and Croatian President Stjepan Mesic.

      Robin Niblett, Director of Chatham House, said “Chatham House members have a deep interest in international affairs and have voted for President Gul to acknowledge his efforts within Turkey as well as on the international stage. Our members represent a cross-section of the most influential globally orientated individuals in business, academia and public life.”

      Suzan Sabancı Dincer, a member of Chatham House Panel of Senior Advisers, and Chairman and Executive Board Member of Akbank, said that she was proud and delighted that President Gul is to receive this prestigious award.

      “His efforts to bring stability and prosperity to Turkey’s region and his encouragement of Turkey’s rapid progress towards reform and full European integration have been acknowledged by Chatham House members,” she said.

      The Chatham House Prize is an annual award presented to the statesperson deemed by members of the Royal Institute of International Affairs at Chatham House to have made the most significant contribution to the improvement of international relations in the previous year. (TÇ-CE)

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

      President      Abdullah Gül Voted Winner of the Chatham House Prize 2010

      FOR IMMEDIATE      RELEASE 13.30 HRS FRIDAY 19 MARCH

      Abdullah Gül, President of Turkey, has been voted the winner of
      the Chatham House      Prize 2010. This annual award is presented to
      the statesperson deemed      by members of the Royal Institute of
      International Affairs at Chatham      House to have made the most
      significant contribution to the improvement      of international
      relations in the previous year.

      President Gül is recognized for being a significant figure for
      reconciliation and moderation within Turkey      and internationally,
      and a driving force behind many of the positive      steps that Turkey
      has taken in recent years.

      Mr Gül has worked to deepen Turkey’s      traditional ties with
      the Middle East, mediate between the fractious      groups in Iraq
      and bring together the Afghan and Pakistani leaderships to try to
      resolve      disputes during 2009. He has also made significant efforts
      to reunify the      divided island of Cyprus and has played a leading
      role, along      with his Armenian counterpart, in initiating a process
      of reconciliation      between Turkey and Armenia.

      President Gül is also recognized for being an unwavering
      proponent of      anchoring Turkey      in the European Union. Under
      his leadership, Turkey is consolidating      civilian democratic rule
      and undergoing extensive political and legal      reforms to bring the
      country closer to European standards of democracy      and human rights.

      President Gül will be invited to collect the award and a scroll
      signed by      our Patron, Her Majesty The Queen, at a ceremony in
      London later this year.

      Dr DeAnne      Julius, Chairman of Chatham House, said:
      ‘President Gül has been      voted the winner of this year’s Chatham
      House Prize because of his      qualities as a national, regional and
      international leader. I warmly      congratulate the President on this
      award which recognizes his      accomplishments and acknowledges the
      growing influence he has achieved      for Turkey.’

      Dr Robin      Niblett, Director of Chatham House, said: ‘Chatham
      House members have      a deep interest in international affairs and
      have voted for President Gül      to acknowledge his efforts within
      Turkey as well as on the      international stage. Our members
      represent a cross-section of globally      orientated individuals in
      business, academia and public life.’

      Suzan Sabanci Dinçer, Panel of Senior Advisers, Chatham House,
      and      Chairman and Executive Board Member, Akbank, said: ‘As a
      Chatham House      Senior Adviser and a Turkish citizen I am proud and
      delighted that      President Gül is to receive this prestigious award.
      His efforts to bring      stability and prosperity to Turkey’s region
      and his encouragement of      Turkey’s rapid progress towards reform
      and full European integration have      been acknowledged by Chatham
      House members.’

      About      the Chatham House Prize
      The process to select the nominees of the Prize draws      on the
      recommendations of our research teams and the advice of our three
      Presidents. Chatham House members then vote for the winner in a ballot.
      The winner is presented with a crystal award and a scroll signed
      by our      Patron, Her Majesty The Queen. The other nominees for the
      2010 Prize were      Christine Lagarde, Finance Minister, France and
      Stjepan Mesic, President      of Croatia (2000-10).

      Previous      Winners of the Chatham House Prize
      President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil won the Prize in
      2009;      President John Kufuor of Ghana was the 2008 winner; HH
      Sheikha Mozah,      Chairperson of the Qatar Foundation for Education,
      Science and Community      Development, was the 2007 winner; Joaquim
      Chissano, President of      Mozambique (1986-2005), was the 2006
      winner; and President Victor      Yushchenko of Ukraine was awarded the
      inaugural Prize in 2005.

      About      the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham
      House)
      Chatham House is both the name of the building in London in which
      the institute is based      and the name by which the Royal Institute
      of International Affairs is      widely known. Our mission is to be a
      world-leading source of independent      analysis, informed debate and
      influential ideas on how to build a      prosperous and secure world
      for all.

      Chatham      House Presidents
      Chatham House is politically independent and has Presidents
      and Council Members from each of the three major UK      political
      parties. Our Presidents are: Lord Ashdown,      (High Representative of
      the International Community and EU Special      Representative in
      Bosnia        and Herzegovina between 2002-06); Sir John Major, (UK
      Prime Minister 1990-97); and Lord Robertson (Secretary      General,
      NATO, 1999-2003).

      Contacts

      Dates for the award ceremony will be released in a separate
      press announcement when the details are confirmed. The award ceremony
      will take place in London      and will be open to the media.

      Nicola Norton, Media Relations      Manager
      Direct: +44 (0)20 7957 5739
      Mobile: +44      (0)7917 757 528
      nnorton@chathamhouse.org.uk

      Sara Karnas, Communications Administrator
      Direct: +44 (0)20 7314 2787
      Mobile: +44      (0)7958 669 785
      skarnas@chathamhouse.org.uk

      Keith Burnet, Communications      Director
      Direct: +44 (0)20 7314 2798
      Mobile: +44      (0)7714 200 920
      kburnet@chathamhouse.org.uk

      ENDS