Tag: Politics

  • Deputy Chief of Staff to the President of Armenia, Vigen Sargsyan Undermines Armenia’s National Security

    Deputy Chief of Staff to the President of Armenia, Vigen Sargsyan Undermines Armenia’s National Security

    appo
    By Appo Jabarian

    Executive Publisher / Managing Editor
    USA Armenian Life Magazine

    In February, Deputy Chief of Staff to the President of Armenia Vigen Sargsyan visited the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC, to discuss the prospects and “potential benefits of normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia,” according to the CSIS website.

    During the question-and-answer session, in response to a question from Mr. Kazari of the Embassy of the Republic of Azerbaijan in Washington, DC, Mr. Sargsyan astonishingly said the following regarding the current Armenian-Azeri border: “All those important parts of the borders can be de-blocked. Our immediate borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan have nothing to do with the territories around Nagorno Karabagh.”

    He continued: “Now as far as the occupation, our concerns are very much in favor [of] … what is important [is that] the president of Armenia [Serzh Sargsyan], who was the Minister of Defense of these territories, has always stated that he does not think of these territories as historic Armenian lands. He always stated that these territories have to return to Azerbaijan when the settlement of Nagorno-Karabagh is found.”

    In reference to the controversial former Foreign Minister of Armenia, Mr. V. Sargsyan added: “Vardan Oskanyan’s reference to the word of ‘occupied territories’ [ignited] big internal discussions on what he has to do” to mitigate the negative outcome in the mass media.

    As many readers recall, in September 2007, I had called for Mr. Oskanyan’s resignation or dismissal as Foreign Minister of Armenia. The article was disseminated through several news outlets around the globe.

    In that article, I wrote: “Oskanyan has been Foreign Minister for too long, without having achieved any substantial gains for Armenia. Furthermore, Armenia squandered away many valuable opportunities for diplomatic gains in the international arena and even sustained self-inflicted damages thanks to Mr. Oskanyan’s mishandling of several cases at the United Nations and elsewhere. It is absurd that the foreign minister … mislabels the liberated Armenian lands as ‘occupied’ territories. … Isn’t it time for a change? The political landscape is shifting. We need more proactive leaders in Armenia.”

    Is Mr. V. Sargsyan aware that the territories surrounding mountainous Artsakh have always been part of Armenia?

    The now-liberated territories around Artsakh are part of the entire Region of Artsakh that extends to the Kura River, just east of the border between the Republic of Artsakh and the former Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan.

    As Mr. V. Sargsyan should know, the Artsakh Region along with Nakhitchevan was arbitrarily carved out of the 1918-1920 independent Republic of Armenia. These regions were part of Armenia up until its takeover by the Soviet occupation forces in November 1920.

    In 1921, soon after Sovietization, Armenia was subjected to the process of “Stalinization” when the infamous Soviet Dictator Josef Stalin “gifted” the entire Region of Artsakh with its lowlands and highlands; and Nakhitchevan to the then newly created Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan.

    Presently, the Republic of Azerbaijan continues to illegally occupy 1) The northern Artsakh district of Shahumian; and Gandzak (Kirovabad); 2) the outlying lowlands that extend to Kura River; and 3) Nakhitchevan.

    One wonders if Pres. Serzh Sargsyan is aware of his Deputy Chief of Staff V. Sargsyan’s latest serious international blunder (to say the least), undermining Armenia’s national security interests during a lecture in Washington, DC.

    By using the misleading term “occupation,” Mr. V. Sargsyan should feel ashamed for having committed an act of blasphemy against the memory of thousands of innocent Armenian victims of the 1988 Azeri pogroms in Baku, Sumgait and Gandzak/Kirovabad and their deportation staged by Azerbaijan.

    Mr. V. Sargsyan also disrespected the memory of countless freedom fighters that liberated Artsakh from the Azeri yoke during the Artsakh Liberation War (1991-1994) which was in response to the 1988 Azeri crimes against defenseless Armenians.

    While still on the job, Mr. Sargsyan should steer away from or remain unswayed by the influence of neo-con enablers in various academic/diplomatic circles, such as the one inside the Fletcher School of Diplomacy which he graduated from.

    Interestingly, during recent years, the Fletcher School of Diplomacy has been serving as the farming grounds for spineless Armenian diplomats, among them former Foreign Minister Oskanyan.

    To President Serzh Sargsyan’s credit, as soon as he took the helm of Armenia’s leadership in 2008, he decommissioned Foreign Minister Oskanyan because of his dismal performance.

    It would only be logical, if Pres. Sargsyan were to deal with Mr. V. Sargsyan, the way he dealt with Mr. Oskanyan. May be, Mr. V. Sargsyan should not even wait – he should present his letter of resignation sooner rather than later.

    To listen to Mr. V. Sargsyan’s comments at CSIS, please fast-forward to the last 5 minutes of his remarks, by using the following link: ).
    Audio file icon is located under the heading: “Audio: The Prospects for Armenia-Turkey Normalization: The View from Yerevan”

  • US Congress panel ‘Armenian genocide’ vote wrong

    US Congress panel ‘Armenian genocide’ vote wrong

    Baroness Sarah Ludford Ingiliz Liberal Party Avrupa Milletvekili – soyledikleri cok guzelkendisine tesekkur edelim assagidaki yazisi icin (emaili var)

    Haluk
    Turkish Forum, Ingiltere

    YONETIM KURULU ADINA

    —–Original Message——————————————————————————————
    From: Sarah Ludford MEP (Lon) <Office@sarahludfordmep.org.uk>
    To: grassroots@turkishnews.com; turkish-forum-advisory-board@googlegroups.com

    Sent: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:02
    Subject: US Congress panel ‘Armenian genocide’ vote wrong
    liberal democrats

    NEWS RELEASE

    BARONESS SARAH LUDFORD

    MEP Liberal Democrat MEP for London

    www.sarahludfordmep.org.uk

    Date: Monday 8 March 2010

    Contact:

    Sarah Ludford or Sonia Dunlop +44 (0)20 7288 2526 or Mobile +44 (0)7970 795 278

    Email: office@sarahludfordmep.org.uk

    US Congress panel ‘Armenian genocide’ vote wrong

    London Liberal Democrat MEP Sarah Ludford, the party’s European justice & human rights spokeswoman and vice-chair of the European Parliament delegation to the United States, has strongly criticised the vote by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives to label the treatment of Armenians in 1915 as ‘genocide’.

    She said:   “Both the US and the EU have backed the welcome moves to set up a joint commission of historians from Turkey and Armenia to try and establish the truth about the tragic and large-scale wartime deaths almost a century ago. It makes no sense for outsiders in Europe or America to wade in with hobnail boots and prejudge the outcome of that sensitive exercise.”

    “That there were deportations which entailed atrocities and deaths of many Christian Armenians is not in doubt. But the precise actions, the 1915 war context, and the extent of reciprocal killings of Muslim Turks all need to be better understood.”

    “The term genocide has a very narrow meaning under the 1948 Convention: the deliberate intent to destroy an ethnic, national, racial or religious group. It is deeply irresponsible to use that term without establishing the full facts about the Armenian case and to leave the suspicion that politics or even religious prejudice is a motive.

    That is why as an MEP I have always refused to define the events of 1915 and preferred to await the conclusion of honest and objective research. That is not a cop-out, it is acting with integrity.”

    “The Congressional vote was won by the narrowest of margins, 23 to 22. I hope that in those circumstances wisdom will prevail, with Congressmen heeding the call of President Obama and Secretary Clinton not to progress this to a vote of the full House.”

    END

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

    The Right Honourable
    Sarah, Lady Ludford
    MEP
    225px Sarah Ludford MEP at Bournemouth

    Member of the European Parliament
    for London
    Incumbent
    Assumed office
    1999

    Born 14 March 1951 (1951-03-14) (age 58)
    Nationality British
    Political party Liberal Democrat
    Spouse(s) Steve Hitchins
    Alma mater London School of Economics

    Sarah Ann Ludford, Baroness Ludford (born 14 March 1951) is a Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament and a nonvoting member of the House of Lords (where her voting membership is suspended during her MEP tenure).

    She was made a Life peer as Baroness Ludford, of Clerkenwell in the London Borough of Islington in 1997.

    A former councillor in the London Borough of Islington, and married to the former leader of the council, Steve Hitchins, she was elected as a Member of the European Parliament in the European Parliament election, 1999 and re-elected in 2004 and in 2009 representing London.

    Because of the change in the rules of the European Parliament, she is not entitled to sit in the Lords due to her re-election to the European Parliament in the 2009 election. In October 2008, Parliament’s rules were changed so that if a member of the Lords were elected as an MEP, their right to sit and vote in the Lords would be suspended. This satisfies the new European Parliament rules and hence, Lady Ludford, the only person to whom this applies, is not allowed to vote in the Lords while an MEP.

    She is a member of the Liberal Democrat groups Friends of Israel and Friends of Turkey.

    [edit] External links

    • Sarah Ludford MEP official site
    • Sarah Ludford profile at the European Parliament
    • Sarah Ludford profile at the site of the Liberal Democrats

    Ludford: Senatonun Kararı ‘Korkunç’

    Avrupa Parlamentosu Üyesi İngiliz Milletvekili Sarah Ludford, ABD Temsilciler Meclisi Dış İlişkiler Komisyonu’nun Aldığı Kararı Eleştirdi. Kararın Yanlış Olduğunu Söyleyen Sarah Ludford, “Türkiye Ve Ermenistan Bu Olayın Araştırılması Için Bir Tarih Komisyonunun Kurulması Konusunda Anlaşmışken, Soykırım Iddialarını Yargılamak Ne ABD Ne De AB’nin Işi Olmalı.” Dedi.

    1915 Yıllarında Büyük Toplulukların Göçe Zorlandığı Bir Sırada Acı Ölümlerin Yaşandığını Belirten Ludford, “Bu Sırada Çok Sayıda Hıristiyan Ermeni’nin Öldüğünden Hiç Kimsenin Şüphesi Yok. Ancak 1915 Olayları Daha İyi Analiz Edildiğinde Müslüman Türklerin Öldürülmesi Olayının Da Anlaşılması Gerekiyor.” Ifadesini Kullandı.

    Soykırım Sözünün 1948 Konvansiyonu’na Göre Çok Net Bir Anlamı Olduğunu Sözlerine Ekleyen Ludford, Bir Milleti, Irkı Ya Da Dini Bir Grubu Kasten Ve Sistematik Bir Şekilde Ortadan Kaldırma Durumunda Ancak Soykırımdan Bahsedilebileceğini Söyledi. 1915 Yılındaki Ermeni Iddialarını Araştırmadan Ve Konuyu Bilmeden Bu Sözcüğü Kullanmanın Tam Bir ‘Sorumsuzluk’ Olduğunu Vurgulayan Ludford, “Bir Milletvekili Olarak Ben Bu Yüzden Her Zaman 1915 Olaylarını ‘Soykırım’ Olarak Adlandırmaktan Kaçındım Ve Bu Konudaki Bağımsız Araştırmaların Sonucunu Bekledim. Bu Sorumluluktan Kaçma Ya Da Bir Uydurma Değil. Bu Dürüst Olmak Demektir.” Diye Konuştu.

    Dış İlişkiler Komisyonu’nun Bir Oy Farkla Bu Kararı Aldığını Hatırlatan Ludford, Sağ Duyunun Galip Gelmesini, Kongre Üyelerinin ABD Başkanı Barack Obama Ve Dışişleri Bakanı Hillary Clinton Ile Birlikte Bu Tasarıyı Temsilciler Meclisi’ne Gelmesini Engellemeyi Umduğunu Dile Getirdi.

  • Israel Lobby Gets Congress to Stick It to Turkey

    Israel Lobby Gets Congress to Stick It to Turkey

    The Israelis are trying to teach the Turks a lesson…….This was simply an act of punishment for Turkey for not being nice to Israel and for courting Iran.

    MJ Rosenberg
    Senior Fellow Media Matters Action Network
    Posted: March 5, 2010 11:42 AM

    That battle is now being carried to Washington. The Israelis are trying to teach the Turks a lesson. If the Armenian resolution passes both houses and goes into effect, it will not be out of some newfound compassion for the victims of the Armenian genocide and their descendants, but to send a message to Turkey: if you mess with Israel, its lobby will make Turkey pay a price in Washington.

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

    MJ Rosenberg

    M.J. Rosenberg is the former Director of Policy Analysis for Israel Policy Forum (IPF).

    In this position, MJ heads IPF’s Washington, D.C. office and writes IPF Friday, a weekly  opinion column on the Arab-Israeli conflict which is widely circulated throughout the United States and the Middle East. In addition, MJ has published numerous op-eds, in the national and Jewish press.

    MJ spent eighteen years within the United States government, fourteen on Capitol Hill as an aide to Representatives Jonathan Bingham (D-New York), Edward Feighan (D-Ohio) and Nita Lowey (D-New York) and Senator Carl Levin (D-Michigan).  Immediately prior to coming to IPF, he was a political appointee to USAID, where he served as Chief of Staff for Thomas Dine, the head of the Eastern Europe/NIS Bureau of USAID.

    From 1982 to 1986, MJ was editor of Near East Report, the American Israel Public Affair Committee’s (AIPAC’s) biweekly publication on Middle East Policy.

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

    Israel Lobby Gets Congress to Stick It to Turkey

    Yesterday the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the Armenian genocide resolution. That is the bill, kicking around for years, that recognizes the Armenian genocide as precisely that – genocide. The Turkish government has always strongly opposed the resolution, arguing – unconvincingly, in my opinion – that the slaughter of the Armenians occurred in the context of war and was not an attempt at their intentional eradication.
    I never understood why the Turks care so much. The current democratic Turkish Republic was not even in existence during the Armenian slaughter. It is the successor state to the Ottoman Empire under which the killing took place. The current Turkish government is no more responsible for the Armenian genocide than the current German government is responsible for the Holocaust.
    Nonetheless, the Turks vehemently oppose using the term “genocide” to describe the events of 1915.
    And successive American administrations have deferred to the Turks by opposing Congressional bills “commemorating” the “Armenian genocide.”
    It is no different this year. The Obama administration lobbied against the resolution because it believed that enacting it would disrupt our relations with Turkey, a fellow NATO member and our largest ally in the Middle East. It also argued that passing the bill now would disrupt negotiations now underway between Turkey and Armenia.
    It passed anyway and the Turks immediately called its ambassador home.
    But here is where it gets really interesting. The following comes from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the Associated Press of the Jewish world. JTA writes:
    In the past, the pro-Israel community [i.e. the Israel lobby] , has lobbied hard against previous attempts to pass similar resolutions, citing warnings from Turkish officials that it could harm the
    alliance not only with the United States but with Israel — although Israel has always tried to avoid mentioning the World War I-era genocide.
    In the last year or so, however, officials of American pro-Israel groups have said that while they will not support new resolutions, they will no longer oppose them, citing Turkey’s heightened rhetorical attacks on Israel and a flourishing of outright anti-Semitism the government has done little to stem.
    That has lifted the fetters for lawmakers like Berman (Chairman Howard Berman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee) , who had been loath to abet in the denial of a genocide; Berman and a host of other members of the House’s unofficial Jewish caucus have signed on as co-sponsors.
    Get that. The lobby has always opposed deeming the Armenian slaughter a genocide largely because Turkey has (or had) good relations with Israel. And the lobby, and its Congressional acolytes, did not want to harm those relations.
    But, since the Gaza war, Turkish-Israeli relations have deteriorated. The Turks, like pretty much every other nation on the planet, were appalled by the Israeli onslaught against the Gazans. And said so.
    Ever since, the Netanyahu government has made a point to stick it to the Turks. Most famously, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon seated the Turkish ambassador in a kindergarten chair during a meeting, and “forgot” to put a Turkish flag on the table alongside the Israeli flag. He then called the Israeli photographers in and said to them in Hebrew – so the Turkish ambassador wouldn’t understand, “The important thing is that they see he’s sitting lower and we’re up high and that there’s only one flag, and you see we’re not smiling.”
    News of that episode so enraged the Turks and humiliated the Israelis that Ayalon had to apologize three times, in progressively more abject terms, or face a rupture in Israeli-Turkish relations.

    That battle is now being carried to Washington. The Israelis are trying to teach the Turks a lesson. If the Armenian resolution passes both houses and goes into effect, it will not be out of some newfound compassion for the victims of the Armenian genocide and their descendants, but to send a message to Turkey: if you mess with Israel, its lobby will make Turkey pay a price in Washington.
    And, just maybe, the United States will pay it too.
    Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjmediamatters

    Huffington Post

    686 words posted in Zionist provocation, Af-Pak war, , Israel • Leave a comment

    COMMENTS
    Dnlmsstch I’m a Fan of Dnlmsstch 17 fans permalink
    The reason that the Turks have a problem admiting the genocide is becasue Mustafa Kamal and other founders of the Modern Secular Turkish Republic were involved – if not directly at least peripheraly – to admit that is like admiting that George Washington and other founder were complicit with the genocide of Native Americans.
    Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:46 PM on 3/05/2010
    – lightningbolt I’m a Fan of lightningbolt 142 fans permalink
    As usual, everything will be blamed on Israel. The Jewish people are the eternal scapegoat.
    Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:36 PM on 3/05/2010
    – joeinvt I’m a Fan of joeinvt 13 fans permalink
    Are you denying or defending the Armenian genocide? And are you opposed to lobbying generally or simply effective lobbying done by Jews?
    Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:48 PM on 3/05/2010
    – mok10501 permalink
    This comment is pending approval and won’t be displayed until it is approved.
    Henry Kissinger was lobbying for the Turks, isn’t he the biggest Jew in the nation? What happened, didn’t the Turks paid enough? Oo, I see, that penny pincher doesn’t count ha?.
    Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:10 PM on 3/05/2010
    – lbsaltzman I’m a Fan of lbsaltzman 92 fans permalink
    Excellent post. I am reminded of the shifting alliances in the novel 1984. Ironically Israel had better be careful or one day it may be that Congress will no longer be afraid to discuss the truth about Israel.
    Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:31 PM on 3/05/2010
    – Annoula I’m a Fan of Annoula 21 fans permalink “That battle is now being carried to Washington. The Israelis are trying to teach the Turks a lesson. If the Armenian resolution passes both houses and goes into effect, it will not be out of some newfound compassion for the victims of the Armenian genocide and their descendants, but to send a message to Turkey: if you mess with Israel, its lobby will make Turkey pay a price in Washington. And, just maybe, the United States will pay it too. ”
    Precisely that’s the core of the issue right now. That the US reserves the right to label war atrocities and crimes against humanity depending on how it fits its agenda and/or Israel’s. For as long as the relations between Israel and Turkey continued to be good, that resolution would never had made it out of Comittee. This was simply an act of punishment for Turkey for not being nice to Israel and for courting Iran. In my book, that’s called HYPOCRISY. The sad truth is the US has become a tool of the Likud party. And the attacks on 9/11 were a response to that. How much more is the US willing to sacrifice for the sake of the Zionists zealots?
    Reply Favorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:06 PM on 3/05/2010

  • 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.

  • GRIM HISTORY OF ARMENIANS IN TURKEY THAT LED TO ACCUSATIONS OF GENOCIDE

    GRIM HISTORY OF ARMENIANS IN TURKEY THAT LED TO ACCUSATIONS OF GENOCIDE

    Mark Tran

    guardian.co.uk

    Friday 5 March 2010 12.11 GMT

    Repression of 2.5 million people in Ottoman empire dates back to
    autonomy movement in late 19th century
    Ottoman soldiers pose with hanged Armenians
    Ottoman soldiers posing in front of hanged Armenians in 1915. A US
    congressional committee yesterday voted to label the Ottoman empire’s
    actions as genocide. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

    Armenia believes Turkey committed genocide in the deaths of at least
    1 million Armenians when they were deported from Turkish Armenia in
    1915, and welcomes the non-binding resolution passed by the US house
    foreign affairs committee.

    Repression of the 2.5 million Armenians in the Ottoman empire dates
    back to 1894-96 under Sultan Abdulhamid, when Armenians in the eastern
    provinces, encouraged by Russia, began agitating for autonomy.

    Abdulhamid cracked down on separatist sentiment by encouraging
    nationalistic feelings against Armenians among neighbouring Kurdish
    tribesmen.

    A combination of Kurdish persecution and a rise in taxes led to an
    Armenian uprising that was brutally suppressed by Turkish troops
    and Kurdish tribesmen in 1894. Thousands of Armenians were killed
    and their villages burned. Two years later, another revolt broke
    out when Armenian rebels seized the Ottoman bank in Istanbul. More
    than 50,000 Armenians were killed by mobs apparently co-ordinated by
    government troops.

    Those death tolls were dwarfed by the killings during the first world
    war, when Armenians from the Caucasus formed volunteer battalions
    to help the Russian army against the Turks. Early in 1915, these
    battalions organised the recruiting of Turkish Armenians from behind
    Turkish lines.

    The Young Turk government reacted by ordering the deportation of the
    Armenian population to Syria and Palestine. About 1 million died from
    starvation or were killed by Arab or Kurdish tribes along the route.

    Many survivors fled to Russian Armenia where, in 1918, an independent
    Armenian republic was established. Armenia won independence when the
    Soviet Union fractured in 1991.

    Turkey accepts that atrocities took place but argues that there was
    no systematic attempt to destroy the Christian Armenians. It puts the
    number of deaths during 1915 at around 300,000 and says many innocent
    Muslim Turks also died in the turmoil of war.

    The legal definition of genocide is found in the 1948 UN convention
    on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide.

    Article two of this convention defines genocide as “any of the
    following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part,
    a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing
    members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members
    of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
    calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in
    part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

    Henri Barkey, a Turkey scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for
    International Peace in Washington DC, said that “the overwhelming
    historical evidence demonstrates that what took place in 1915 was
    genocide”. He nevertheless opposes the US ruling as a needless
    political manoeuvre.

    Argentina, Belgium, Canada, France, Italy, Russia and Uruguay are among
    more than 20 countries which have formally recognised genocide against
    the Armenians. The European parliament and the UN sub-commission on
    prevention of discrimination and protection of minorities have also
    done so.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/mar/05/history-armenia-turkey-genocide

    __,_._,___

  • 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.