Armenia - Turkey: was it "Genocide" or are there two sides to this story ?

Professor Edward Erickson, an authority on the Ottoman army during World War I, claims that there is no substantial evidence to support labeling the counterinsurgency operation against Armenians in 1915 as a genocide, but neither is there enough evidence to support a denial of the label.

Regardless of how we refer to the event, it is now of interest to historians, and the current Armenian endeavor to convince parliaments of different countries to pass genocide recognition bills, to come up with some better factual information, before everyone starts jumping to conclusions

Erickson, whose 2013 book “Ottomans and Armenians: A Study in Counterinsurgency” was the first account from a military perspective of the forced relocations, or “Tehcir" in Turkish, shared his views on what actually happened a hundred years ago.

A retired US army officer, Erickson delved into the Turkish archives and researched extensively before writing his book. He concluded that the Tehcir was vital, as it allowed the Ottoman government to disaffiliate insurgents from "Entente" (European powers), had posed a threat to the existence of the empire.

Frankly, the Armenian revolutionary committees were unsuccessful in achieving their goals; in the end they were crushed, and the majority of the Ottoman Armenians were either dead or refugees.

One of the major reasons for the failure of the committees was that the Armenian revolutionary committees were never a popularly supported movement among the majority of Ottoman Armenians, who were law abiding Turkish citizens. In order to be successful, a revolutionary movement must have a base of popular support and the Armenian revolutionary committees never had that.

The Ottoman government forced about 400,000 Ottoman Armenians to relocate. These Armenians mostly lived in six eastern provinces and in key cities along the army's lines of communication.

Since the Ottoman government and army were unable to determine which Armenians were actively supporting the committees and which Armenians were not. They erred on the side of what they believed to be national security, and relocated all of them from selected locations.

In 1917, there were still over 350,000 Ottoman Armenians living in their own homes in what is western Turkey today.

The successful inclusion of any minority in the political process is problematic at best. Simply having a few representatives in parliament cannot change the fundamental mismatch of political power.

The successful inclusion of any minority in the political process is problematic at best. Simply having a few representatives in parliament cannot change the fundamental mismatch of political power.

The Ottomans felt obliged to adopt a brand-new method to quell the Armenian insurrection, a method that was expressed in a decree by the government on May 31,1915. In what ways was this new method different from the counterinsurgency methods the Ottomans had resorted to throughout their history?

This was the first time the Ottoman government did not have sufficient military forces available to deal with rebellion. Traditionally, the Ottomans dealt with rebellion by sending in the army. In the spring of 1915, without the army in its normal garrisons, the Ministry of War had to find an alternative to the use of force.

The relocation of the Armenians from the rear areas of the eastern war zones was the solution of choice. While relocation was a new approach for the Ottoman Empire, in fact, it had been widely practiced by the Great Powers.

Confronting the past has nothing to do with it. It is important to consider that the Ottoman government in 1915 did not “invent” population removal as a way to deal with rebellion. It was widely used in practice by many of the Great Powers before World War I. We must also not forget that the government did not deport the Ottoman Armenians (deportation is permanent) and that the government intended to allow them to return to their homes after the war.

The relocations would not have happened if well-known leaders of the revolutionary committees (Andranik [Ozanian], Dro [Drastamat Kanayan] and Boghos Nubar, for example had not aligned themselves (and the committees) with the Russians, British, and French.

 Keep in mind that most Ottoman Armenians, and even many of the committee members, wanted the Ottoman Armenian population to remain law abiding and support the Ottoman government in 1914. They understood that rebellion would likely result in the destruction of Armenian lives and property. However, the actions of a few influential individuals brought great suffering to the majority of Ottoman Armenians, who were innocent bystanders.

Tens of thousands of Armenians died during the relocation  Were the Ottomans taking some kind of revenge?

There are number of explanations of why this happened. Many historians believe that hatred and jealousy against the Ottoman Armenians had built up over several generations. This made it easier for the numerous atrocities to happen.

There is absolutely no question that the Ottoman government did not fully consider what might happen to the hundreds of thousands of relocated Armenians. There is no doubt that the government did not have the resources to protect, feed and care for the huge numbers of Armenians under its care.

The relocations were badly managed and under resourced. The relocation convoys became easy targets for both criminal gangs and poorly supervised provincial officials. Let us also say that the Hamidiye cavalry regiments had long since been disestablished by the Ministry of War, but it is very likely that many of the renegades and criminals who preyed on the convoys were ex-Hamidiye cavalrymen.

Some historians argue that the Special Organization (Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa) opted to let things worsen and even facilitated the mass killings of civilian Armenians en route to the camps. Are these claims substantiated by historical facts?

The Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa  played no part in the relocations or the massacres of Armenians that accompanied the relocations and convoys.

Recent scholarly work by Dr. Ahmet Tetik and Ph.D. candidate Polat Safi establish that the SO had no part of this. The case against the SO was constructed by Vahakn Dadrian from a textual analysis of the 1919 newspaper accounts of the 1919 İstanbul show trials of individuals accused of war crimes. Dadrian's thesis is incorrect.

The CUP was a secret revolutionary group that did not oppose the use of terror to achieve its goals. The inner circle of the CUP had overthrown the Ottoman government and there is no question that Enver and the other CUP leaders knew exactly how dangerous secret revolutionary committees could be.

Enver and the leadership of the SO were also knowledgeable about guerrilla and irregular warfare, which also caused them to worry about the Armenian revolutionary committees' activities in 1915.

Whether it was a genocide or not. It might have been a genocide or it might not have been a genocide. To be honest, there is no authentic evidence (a paper trail of documents) today proving that this was a top-down, state-sponsored campaign of annihilation. However, neither can the reverse -- that it was not a genocide -- has been totally proven either.

What I assert is that the Armenian population of six provinces, as well as selected individuals elsewhere in the Ottoman Empire who were considered dangerous, were relocated for military reasons related to the perception that a large-scale Armenian insurgency , coordinated with and supported by the Russians, was about to erupt.

Bottom-line seems to be that this group of Armenians was not relocated to be killed; they were relocated as a precautionary military measure. In the absence of full evidence, it is premature to attach a label such as genocide to what happened in 1915.

Ottoman Armenians from all provinces and cities were relocated, mostly from the six eastern provinces.

However, many Armenians in the western provinces were excluded from relocation, such as Protestant and Catholic Armenians, also Armenians who worked on the railroad system, and also Armenian government officials and Armenian officers and soldiers (and their families). When the Ottoman government, however, thought, that Ottoman Armenian had links to, or was sympathetic toward, the committees, they were relocated.

Most Ottoman Armenians were law-abiding Ottoman empire citizens who had no interest in rebellion.

The mobilization and war plans, which were aimed at external threats, did not consider the Ottoman Armenians as an internal threat. It was only after an escalating series of incidents, including small rebellions and small landings on the Mediterranean coast by the British navy in early 1915, that the committees came to be seen as dangerous.

It is beyond doubt that the Armenian revolutionary committees in eastern Anatolia possessed the capability and the capacity to interdict the Ottoman army's lines of communications. What does this mean? Simply, there were small numbers of Armenians in key locations who had the ability to block and obstruct the flow of supplies (food, fodder and ammunition) to the Third Army, which was fighting the Russians.

If this had been allowed to happened, the Third Army would grow progressively weaker and would be unable to stop the Russians. The Ottoman military staffs believed that this was happening in March and April 1915 and they had plenty of reports as evidence.

Consequently the Ottoman government took action (relocations) to prevent this from happening. The relocations and elimination of the committees can be compared to cutting out a cancer before it metastasizes.

In American history, George Washington is a hero, but he was also a traitor to the British King George III. Washington's side won the war. Robert E. Lee, a famous confederate general, was also seen as a  traitor. His side lost the war.

So, whether one calls rebels, insurgents and guerrillas “traitors” depends on who wins or loses the war.

There is no question that the small numbers of Ottoman Armenians who engaged in rebellion, terrorism or who fought alongside the Russians were seen as traitors to the political entity known as the Ottoman Empire of which they were citizens.

The Ottoman army commanders and staffs saw the hostile activities of the Ottoman Armenians as evidence of military operations that were coordinated with and supported by the Russians. The Ottomans viewed the external operations of the Russian army and Armenian Druzhiny [legions] as complementary to the internal hostile

Opening up all of the archives on both sides of the argument will be good but probably won't accomplish much. Historians will never be able to agree conclusively about what actually happened. There will always be those who believe there was a genocide and those who think that it was something else.“

Open” archives is also an ambiguous and relative term. The Turkish archives are open, but it is very hard to gain access to because of the paperwork involved. For example, research in any Turkish archives by a foreigner requires a special visa from the Foreign Ministry.

US and EU archives do not require a special visa and anyone can walk in and get a research card.

Moreover, the Turkish military archives are located inside the military compounds in Ankara and one cannot just “walk in” like at the US archives in College Park, Maryland or in to EU archives in Bruxelles.  in Kew.

That said, however, the Turkish archives are “more open” than the Armenian archives or the records of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, which are not open to International scholars.

Some historians say that the Armenian archives are not open to researchers because  they contain information confirming that the Armenian revolutionary committees were engaged in an actual conspiracy with the Russians and the committees intended to conduct a coordinated joint offensive against the Ottoman Empire.

This is obviously only a guess on the part of some historians but it does make sense.

The official Turkish government position today is that more research is needed to fully understand what happened.

President Erdoğan has called for a joint historical commission to investigate the events of 1915.

Essentially, this also means the Turkish government has moved away from a position of total denial  (“it never happened”) to a more realistic position of “we don't really know what happened and we are willing to support historical research to discover the truth.” This is a good position.

Regarding the diplomacy surrounding the  issue. Today's Republic of Turkey was not in existence in 1915 and probably ought to totally ignore accusations on the subject until their has been an international and neutral, possibly UN study  done on the subject.

Parliaments cannot legislate history by voting on resolutions re: the Armenian genocide, which are not based on accurate facts and figures.

Parliamentary recognition, or the Pope's statements about the so-called Armenian genocide really don't mean too much or carry a lot of weight in the modern world of today, unless it supported by massive evidence - which so far it has not 

Turkey and Armenia will need to request the UN to do an in-depth study on the issue resulting in a binding conclusion to finally end this drama of mutual accusations.

EU-Digest

Wistleblowers :Assange to allow Swedish prosecutors to question him in LondonWikileaks

Julian Assange’s his legal team says the whistleblower has agreed to a long-negotiated interview with Swedish prosecutors about allegations of rape and sexual assault dating back to 2010.

“We have today sent a confirmation to prosecutors that Julian Assange agrees to be questioned. He assumes that the interrogation will follow the existing rules framework,” his lawyer Thomas Olsson told Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter on Thursday.

Australian-born Assange has spent more than 1,000 days in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, to avoid extradition to Sweden, which he fears will hand him over to the US. In America he may face separate charges pertaining to his role in the US diplomatic cable leaks, hosted on his website WikiLeaks in 2010.
Assange says he has “repeatedly” invited prosecutors to question him by video link or in London over charges brought by two women, which he denies.

To read more  click here

Russian Economy Strong, Western Sanctions Help Country Become More Self-Reliant says Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that the country’s economy remains strong despite various sanctions imposed on Russia by Western nations over its alleged role in conflict in eastern Ukraine. Putin hailed Russia’s economic performance while insisting that there were no Russian troops in Ukraine, and called on the latter to respect ceasefire agreements.

Putin, speaking on a live call-in show on television, predicted that Russia’s economy would see a negative growth of 3 to 5 percent in 2015 -- representing the sharpest decline since he became president 15 years ago -- but added that his country would use Western sanctions as an excuse to become more self-reliant.

The Russian leader also claimed that the fall would be less significant going forward, and pointed to the ruble’s recent recovery as an indication of Russia’s robust economy, the Associated Press reported.
“We must use the current situation to reach new levels of development,” Putin said, adding that sanctions helped Russia reduce its dependence on oil and imports, and encouraged it to focus more on domestic high-tech industries and agricultural production.

Putin, who acknowledged that an 11.4 percent annual inflation rate had hit consumers' budgets, said that the country can face many challenges if it remains united. He also claimed that the Russian economy would take about two years to recover from the current turmoil, BBC reported.

“If we preserve a stable situation in domestic politics, preserve the current consolidation of society, we shouldn't fear any threats,” AP quoted Putin as saying.

The Russian leader also talked about the United States’ debt situation, which, according to him, is worrisome not only for the country, but for the entire global economy as well.

“The state debt of the United States is already greater than the country’s GDP,” Sputnik quoted Putin as saying. “This is a very worrying thing, this is a warning signal not only for the [United] States, but for the entire economy. We don’t know yet how the situation will develop.”

Russian Economy Remains Strong, Western Sanctions Help Country Become More Self-Reliant: Putin

Britain: London Book Fair 2015: The Buzz Books of the Show

With no single title emerging as the big book of the fair, a handful of titles--fiction and nonfiction--caught the attention of fair-goers, and the wallets of editors. Here, a rundown of some of the books people were talking about at this year's London Book Fair:

Two debut novels which sold in rumored seven-figure deals--Yaa Gyasi's Homegoing and DeSales Harrison's The Waters & the Wild--were of course subjects of chatter. Gyasi's book, an epic about two half-sisters born in 18th century Ghana, was nabbed just before the fair, in a deal William Morris Endeavor's Eric Simonoff brokered with Knopf's Jordan Pavlin. Harrison's literary thriller sold in the States on the eve of the fair, with agent Bill Clegg, who now has his own shingle, closing a North American rights deal with Penguin Random House's Kate Medina.

Another novel that came up in talk during the fair was Affinity Konar's Mischling, which Lee Boudreaux won U.S. rights to, after a two-day auction. Sterling Lord's Jim Rutman sold the book, which is set in Poland in 1944 and follows twin sisters selected by Josef Mengele as subjects of his horrific genetics studies. (Mengele is the German SS officer and physician known, infamously, as Auschwtiz's "Angel of Death.") After Auschwitz is liberated, one sister, along with a fellow survivor, sets off on a journey across Poland to find the other sister, as well as Mengele, in order to exact revenge on the Nazi doctor. The book, which Boudreaux plans to publish in fall 2016, had also sold, at press time, in a number of other countries. Sterling Lord's Szilvia Molnar closed preempts in, among other places, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Italy, and Israel. 

Ali Land's debut, Good Me, Bad Me, also cropped up in various conversations. Christina Kopprasch at Flatiron Books nabbed the novel, at auction, from Sasha Raskin at the Agency Group. At press time, sales had also closed in, among other places, France, Germany, Holland, and Greece. In the novel Milly, the teenage daughter of a serial killer, gets a seemingly fresh start at life, thanks to being raised in a foster home and given a new identity. In spite of this, Kopprasch explained, Milly's "ambition to be good is tested." Land, Kopprasch added, currently works as a private investigator, but has long been interested in this novel's subject matter; she has a background in adolescent mental health, and her college dissertation was called "Children Who Kill."

Read more: London Book Fair 2015: The Buzz Books of the Show

Catholic Church: Vatican should understand they only exist as a 'theocracy' in Europe by the grace of the EU - by RM

French Predident Hollande with Laurent Stefanini

France stated on Wednesday March 15 it was standing by its choice to send a gay diplomat to the Vatican, despite three months of silence from the Holy See over the appointment. "France has chosen its ambassador to the Vatican.

The choice was for Laurent Stefanini and that remains the French proposal," government spokesman Stephane Le Foll said. "Negotiations are underway. Every ambassador must be approved when they are nominated ... we are awaiting the response from the Vatican," Le Foll added.

The lengthy delay in approving the candidate is seen as unusual and could indicate a rejection.

While the Vatican usually declares it has accepted a candidate around a month after an appointment is made, it makes no public statements at all if the answer is no.

The French cabinet approved the appointment of the 55-year-old Stefanini already on January 5 but has not yet received a reply.

The Vatican is the smallest "state" in the world with a population of 842 and has a landmass of only 110 acres.

 In 2007, the Vatican was also silent for months when the last gay ambassador was appointed. Eventually, France was forced to select another ambassador.

All this in spite of Pope Francis' PR comments regarding the church accepting LGBT individuals, he has publicly spoken out against same-sex marriage and adoption.

In this modern day and age - and basically already since Martin Luther and John Calvin broke the iron grip of the Catholic church on Europe with the reformation, the whole concept of the Vatican as a state is questionable to say the least.

Although the 1984 concordat states that the Catholic religion is no longer the sole religion of Italy, in 2007 the Church objected to the introduction of an omnibus religious freedom law which would “put the Catholic Church on the same level as religious sects” . This law has still not been passed in Italy and should be.

According to the EU's Copenhagen criteria which define what states are eligible to join the EU, a candidate state must be a free market democracy. Given that the Holy See is a theocracy it does not meet the criteria. Basically case closed - however as it is small, and surrounded by an EU state, it is closely linked to the EU. The Holy See has an open border with the EU and even intends to join the Schengen Information System.  It also uses the euro as its sole currency and has an agreement with the EU allowing them to mint their own coins.

The EU gave Italy authority to negotiate a deal with the Holy See in 2000, which allowed the Holy See to mint a maximum of €670,000. After a review of the arrangements, a new agreement came into force in 2010 which allowed the Holy See to mint €1 million a year (plus up to an additional €300,000 on special occasions).

With the above in mind, the Vatican should really start to comprehend that they exist as a "nation" only by the grace of the EU. They can not circumvent or disobey established EU Human Rights rules or impose their views on any member state, regardless of the fact they still seem to believe to qualify standing above established international laws. 

EU-Digest

Google apologizes for lies to newspapers over 'nonsense' traffic stats in EU response

has apologized to the Guardian and Bild, after citing “nonsense” figures for the two sites’ traffic statistics in a response to the European Commission’s antitrust charges against the company.

The figures, which claimed that the two papers get “up to 85% of their traffic directly” and “less than 10%” from Google, were later retracted.

In the wake of the decision by European regulators to investigate the search firm for anticompetitive practices, Google’s senior vice president for search, Amit Singhal, published a blog post arguing against the allegations.

“Any economist would say that you typically do not see a ton of innovation, new entrants or investment in sectors where competition is stagnating – or dominated by one player. Yet that is exactly what’s happening in our world,” Singhal wrote. He argued that the wealth of innovation in sectors such as travel search, shopping comparisons, and social media is evidence that Google does not dominate any of those sectors.

Google also defended its role in news, an area not covered by the European Commission’s complaint but one where it is constantly under attack across Europe. In Spain, the company closed its news search product after the introduction of a so-called Google Tax required it to pay licensing fees to papers it aggregated. In Germany, major publishers accused Google of blackmail when it removed images and text snippets following a lawsuit.

Downplaying Google’s strength in the news field, Singhal wrote that “when it comes to news, users often go directly to their favourite sites. For example, Bild and The Guardian get up to 85% of their traffic directly. Less than 10% comes from Google.”

But those figures are “nonsense”, according to the Guardian’s audience editor Chris Moran. Citing the paper’s internal statistics, he said that “unknown traffic to Guardian fronts” – readers coming directly to the paper’s front page – “was broadly the same in [page views] as Google referral.”

Read more: Google apologises to newspapers over 'nonsense' traffic stats in EU response | Technology | The Guardian

The European Commission: The Secret Mission Of VP Frans Timmermans - by Rene Cuperus:

Frans Timmermans the EU's point man

Frans Timmermans former Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs (Social Democrat)  is now Juncker’s number two in the new European Commission. Formally in charge of ‘Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights,’ his more difficult undertaking will likely be the informal task of keeping the UK in the EU.

The 2013 Dutch Kings’s Speech (Speech from the Throne, ‘’Troonrede’’) by Dutch King William Alexander at the opening of the new Dutch parliamentary year, provoked a lot of reactions, both domestically and internationally. In the speech, it seemed as if the Dutch post-war welfare state was abolished, substituted by a so-called ‘’participation society’’ based on mutual individualism.

This was only partly true. Indeed, the coalition of conservative liberals (VVD) and social-democrats (PvdA) did design and put into action an unprecedented decentralisation operation towards city councils and social organizations (care, employment), but in terms of rights, one cannot seriously argue that the Netherlands is getting rid of its welfare state.

This popular Dutch Foreign Minister is now ‘’the second man’’ of the new Juncker European Commission. It is unclear at this moment whether his portfolio in the Commission as ‘’First Vice-President, in charge of Better Regulation, Inter-Institutional Relations, the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights’’ is really a powerful job in the Berlaymont hierarchy. 

Some say that given his personality, language skills, and good connections with Juncker, as well as his huge European and international network, Timmermans will perform outside the boundaries of his formal functional profile, and will play an important role in international affairs and European foreign policy. He might even become one of the strongest figureheads for European Social Democracy political grouping in Brussels.

I (Rene Cuperus) myself argued – in an article writtenearlier  together with Adriaan Schout of Clingendael, the Dutch Chatham House – that the secret mission for Frans Timmermans might be helping to prevent ‘’Brexit’’ from happening.

Read more: Rene Cuperus: The Secret Mission Of Frans Timmermans

Greece must ditch false hopes, tackle reform, Germany’s Schaeuble says - by Brendan Greeley, Rainer Buergin and Birgit Jennen

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble ruled out further concessions to Greece, saying it’s up to the Greek government to commit to the reforms needed to release aid rather than give false hopes to its people.

Schaeuble, speaking in a Bloomberg Television interview in New York on Wednesday, said that another debt restructuring wasn’t up for discussion now, and that Greek demands for war reparations from Germany were “completely unrealistic.”

Read more: Greece must ditch false hopes, tackle reform, Germany’s Schaeuble says - The Globe and Mail

Denmark: World′s coolest queen: Margrethe of Denmark turns 75

Queen Margrethe of Denmark

 She is the most popular regent in Europe. The Danes, and others around the world, appreciate Queen Margrethe for her unpretentious manner and the closeness to her subjects. Birthday celebrations run for more than a week.

She plans to govern until she falls out of her slippers, the good-humored monarch recently quipped at a press conference. Asked whether age had its advantages, Queen Margrethe II replied: "The experience is different to before, when you are young and doing everything for the first time."

Even if she no longer can pursue her favorite sport, cross-country skiing, everything is otherwise ticking along well according to the Queen.

Read more: World′s coolest queen: Margrethe of Denmark turns 75 | Culture | DW.DE | 16.04.2015

EU Refugee Policies: The EU needs fair refugee reception quotas, German expert says

Maritime disasters involving refugees, record numbers of asylum-seekers in Europe - current EU refugee policies appear to be less than efficient. German analyst Steffen Angenendt looks at urgently needed changes. 

Read the complete interview: The EU needs fair refugee reception quotas, German expert says | Europe | DW.DE | 15.04.2015

Google In Trouble with EU as the EU files antitrust charges against Google, opens Android probe

The European Union accused Google on Wednesday of cheating competitors by distorting Internet search results in favor of its Google Shopping service and also launched an antitrust probe into its Android mobile operating system. 

In a statement, Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager said the US tech giant, which dominates Internet search engines globally, had been sent a Statement of Objections -- effectively a charge sheet -- to which it can respond.

"I am concerned that the company has given an unfair advantage to its own comparison shopping service, in breach of EU antitrust rules," she said. "If the investigation confirmed our concerns, Google would have to face the legal consequences and change the way it does business in Europe."

The Commission, whose control of antitrust matters across the wealthy 28-nation bloc gives it a major say in the fate of global corporations, can fine firms up to 10 percent of their annual sales -- or a penalty of over $6 billion for Google.

If it finds that companies are abusing a dominant market position, the EU regulator can also demand sweeping changes to their business practices, as it did with US software giant Microsoft in 2004 and chip-maker Intel in 2009.

Read more: Business - EU files antitrust charges against Google, opens Android probe - France 24

ECB chief Mario Draghi unhurt after protest during speech - by Everton Gayle

European Central Bank President Mario Draghi was unhurt after a press conference was disrupted when a woman jumped on to the podium.

The protester, dressed in black, shouted: “End the ECB dictatorship.”

Draghi was visibly shaken and held his hand up in defence before the women was removed by security officials.

A Feminist activist group called Femen later claimed responsibility on Twitter for the protest. The press conference resumed shortly afterwards.

Note EU-Digest:  fortunately for the woman  representing Femen that she did not decide to do this protest at a US Central bank meeting, where she would have certainly been shot by "trigger happy" security there. 

Read more: ECB chief Mario Draghi unhurt after protest during speech | euronews, world ne

Global Economy: IMF ‘complex forces’ are shaping world economy with growth moderate

The International Monetary Fund has issued a warning that global growth remains fragile and moderate.

The IMF’s World Economic Outlook for 2015 says the prospects for advanced economies are improving, but only slightly, while emerging markets will see a slowdown.

Oil exporting nations will also experience a difficult year.

Olivier Blanchard is Chief Economist for the IMF says: “An unusually complex set of forces are shaping the world economy. Some such as the decline in the price of oil and the exchange rate movement are highly visible. But some from the legacies of the crisis that are hurting potential growth are less visible, but play a really important role behind the scenes.”

Globally growth is expected to be up on 2015, but some countries are being held to ransom by climatic conditions, such as drought in Brazil.

India is set to grow by 7.5 percent with the US hitting the 3.1 percent growth mark.
Russia is being squeezed by both falling oil prices and the sanctions and instability surrounding the situation in Ukraine.

On the bright side the IMF believes that despite a slowdown of growth in emerging markets in 2015 that is set to change and will drive global growth up to around 3.8 percent for 2016.

Read more: IMF ‘complex forces’ are shaping world economy with growth moderate | euronews, economy

Islam: Muslims reporting dreams about Jesus

“I was in the desert alone, lost. As far as the horizon, there was nothing in sight but sand. I felt the sand on my bare feet. Then I saw something extraordinary. In the midst of that barrenness, an immense wooden cross emerged from the earth, rising up with sand spilling from it back to earth.”

So begins a dream narrative posted by Bosnian Muslim teenager Emina Emlonic. A dream about Jesus.

It continues: “I felt then a spectator in my own dream, and the sight of the cross gave me neither fear nor joy. But I was a curious and began moving, almost floating, towards it, the most magnificent … thing I’d ever seen or imagined, and as I came closer to the cross, I suddenly saw a man walking toward me: a broad-shouldered, long-striding man, with a dark complexion, long hair, and wearing a white robe.

“And just as suddenly I ceased to be a witness to my dream. I was in it, walking toward the man walking toward me. I knew him immediately. He was Jesus. Without knowing why, I fell to my knees. He stood over me and touched my face with his right hand.”

Posted at the Catholic Thing website, such accounts of encounters with Jesus through dreams and visions increasingly are being reported, according to Pastor Frank Costenbader, founder of Manifold Hope Ministries, publisher of the Isa Dreams website.

EU-Digest

The Netherlands: Culinary Specialties: Dutch Food Influences - by Karin Engelbrecht

Many people have a preconception about Dutch food that it is bland and boring, lacking spice, both literally and figuratively. But in fact, the Dutch kitchen has been enriched by many foreign flavors. Early Persian and Arab influences were the result of trading. Roman, French and Spanish influences occurred because of various conquests throughout the history of the area.

Things really spiced-up Holland ruled the spice trade in the 17th century. And, more recently, the Netherlands has seen an influx of immigrants from some of its former colonies as well as guest workers from Turkey and Morocco.

Read more: Dutch Food Influences - History of Dutch Food - Culinary Influences on the Dutch Kitchen

The Netherkands - Cybercrime; Visting the Netherlands make sure you have good security on your computer

The Netherlands is popular with cyber criminals Tech & Media April 14, 2015 Protection concept: computer keyboard with Closed PadlockThe Netherlands is the number one country in Europe and fourth in the world for cyber criminals, according to figures published on Tuesday by security company Symantec. Dutch servers process a great deal of spam, phishing, botnets and other digital threats, Symantec reports. Globally, only the US, China and India process more malware. The Netherlands is popular with cyber criminals because its internet network works so well. The connections are fast and reliable, there are a lot of people online and Amsterdam has one of the largest internet junctions in the world. The fact that so much cyber crime is routed through the Netherlands does not mean all the criminals are Dutch, however. The country is mainly used by criminals around the world as one step in an attack in order to make detection difficult, Symantec says. Globally, Symantec registered 317 million new malware programmes in 2014.

Read more at DutchNews.nl: The Netherlands is popular with cyber criminals http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2015/04/the-netherlands-is-popular-with-cyber-criminals/

The Netherlands is the number one country in Europe and fourth in the world for cyber criminals, according to figures published on Tuesday by security company Symantec. Dutch servers process a great deal of spam, phishing, botnets and other digital threats, Symantec reports.

Globally, only the US, China and India process more malware. The Netherlands is popular with cyber criminals because its internet network works so well. The connections are fast and reliable, there are a lot of people online and Amsterdam has one of the largest internet junctions in the world.

The fact that so much cyber crime is routed through the Netherlands does not mean all the criminals are Dutch, however. 

The country is mainly used by criminals around the world as one step in an attack in order to make detection difficult, Symantec says. Globally, Symantec registered 317 million new malware programmes in 2014.

Read more: The Netherlands is popular with cyber criminals - DutchNews.nl

Terrorism: Over 6,000 Europeans now joined Middle East terrorists - Immigrants need better guidance towards EU citizenship

It has been recently reported that between 5,000 and 6,500 Europeans have traveled to Syria to join the Islamic State and the EU Commissioner for Justice said that 1,450 of them are French citizens.

The EU officials believe that “the figures are strongly under-estimated,” as foreign fighters are hard to keep track of, French newspaper Le Figaro reported citing Vera Jourova, the EU justice commissioner.
"At the European level, we estimate that 5,000 to 6,000 individuals have left for Syria," she told the paper in an interview.

Jourova added that the majority of them – 1,450 people – are French nationals.

The Commissioner added that they are eyeing more measures to avoid the suspected jihadists leaving the EU countries, considering “prevention [measures] rather than suppression” of the flow.

“We’ve allotted a budget of €2.5 million to provide training of prison and probation staff, as well as that of European prosecutors,” Jourova said.

Note EU-Digest: But it is not only a question of surveillance and incarceration. It goes much deeper than that. 

Europe is very poorly organized when it comes to the procedures/ceremonies surrounding immigrants becoming EU citizens.  In this respect the US is far better organized. New citizens there are sworn in before a judge and have to pledge/swear their allegiance to their new country and flag by placing their hand on the Bible or Koran, depending their religion. They are also given a certificate of citizenship and small flag of their new country. 

In the EU, new citizens usually get a letter in the mail advising them they have become citizens, need to start paying taxes and have to get medical insurance. All that without any official ceremony to "soften" the blow of the European bureaucracy coming at them full force.

Obviously this also makes many of the new citizens still feel closely associated with their former country and culture. 

Every person has a need to feel they belong and are appreciated. Many of our EU immigrants don't have that feeling, and more often than not, this results in these new citizens having very little loyalty to their new country. 

This is not their fault - it's ours. 

EU Government's  should start paying more attention to the semantics rather than only the mechanics surrounding an immigrant becoming a citizen of the EU.

EU-Digest

Middle East: How Bibi and Bush Made a Mess of the Middle East - by J.J. Goldberg

War Damage in Gaza

By now it’s become a Washington cliché: Barack Obama stumbling cluelessly through a Middle East in flames. He’s leading from behind, surrendering to Iran, withdrawing from the world, pivoting to Asia. He tried to disengage from Middle East entanglements, but the region sucked us back in.

Or did it? Here the cliché gets muddled. In one version, we’ve abandoned longtime allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia, who are left to battle the Iranian threat alone. In another version, we’re fighting on too many fronts — Iraq, Syria, Yemen — with no clear idea who’s the enemy.

We’re fighting alongside Sunni Saudi Arabia against Shiite Iran’s proxies in Yemen. We’re fighting alongside Shiite Iran against Sunni ISIS in Iraq. We’re supporting Syrian rebels battling against both ISIS and Iran’s Syrian proxy, the Assad regime. Meanwhile we’re jawboning in Switzerland to make Iran eliminate half its centrifuges. And keep half.

In one telling, Obama lacks an overall foreign policy vision, a must for real leaders. In another, he’s secretly adopted the arcane theory of “offshore balancing,” a modified isolationism. The idea is, you use naval and air power rather than ground troops to defend your friends. Which doesn’t sound quite like isolationism, but never mind. One neoconservative, Lee Smith, wrote in Tablet last year that Obama had adopted Israel-bashing “balance” maven Stephen Walt as his foreign policy guru, though Walt’s never been to the Obama White House.

How did things get so confused? Actually, it’s rather simple. Let’s start at Square One.

In early January 2002, four months after the September 11 attacks, Israeli national security council director Uzi Dayan met in Washington with his American counterpart Condoleezza Rice. She told him — to his surprise, he later told me — that President Bush had decided to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein. A month later Dayan’s boss, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, met with Bush in the White House and offered some advice, based on decades of Israeli intelligence.

Removing Saddam, Sharon said, according to three sources with direct knowledge, will have three main results, all negative. Iraq will implode into warring tribes of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. You’ll be stuck in an Iraqi quagmire for a decade. And Iran, a far more dangerous player, will be rid of its principal enemy and free to pursue its ambitions of regional hegemony. Bush didn’t agree.

Israeli leaders continued pooh-poohing Iraq all spring. Dismissal turned to alarm in August, when Iranian dissidents released evidence that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons. In September Sharon told his cabinet to stop discussing Iraq. It was annoying the White House.

On September 12, however, a different Israeli voice visited Washington: ex-prime minister-turned-private citizen Benjamin Netanyahu. A longtime Sharon rival, closely allied with Washington’s neoconservatives, he’d been invited to address the Republican-led House as an expert on Iraq. Baghdad, he said, was hiding mobile centrifuges “the size of washing machines.” Moreover, “if you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region.” Throughout the Middle East, including Iran, populations will be inspired to topple their own dictators.

Bush, of course, listened to Netanyahu and the neocons, not Sharon and his generals. Alas, Sharon was right. Iraq imploded. Iran surged.

The invasion had reverberations, but hardly positive. The rest is history.

Iran, we later learned, briefly halted nuclear research in 2003, fearing it was next on Bush’s hit list. Once it realized it was safe, it resumed work. The United Nations now started churning out resolutions condemning Tehran for violating its signed commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran dutifully sat with France, England and Germany and agreed to behave, but kept working anyway. There was nobody to stop it.

In Iraq, as Sharon predicted, removing Saddam’s Sunni-dominated dictatorship allowed the Shiite majority to take over. Sunnis were marginalized. Saddam’s army was disbanded rather than coopted. The Shiite-controlled government, though U.S.-backed, effectively allied itself with Iran, which now controlled an arc from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean.

In late 2003 Iraq’s Sunnis began fighting back. Leading the insurgency was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian-born terrorist with a gruesome penchant for decapitation. In 2004 his organization, swollen with Saddam’s veterans, intensified the fighting and took the name Al Qaeda in Iraq. Zarqawi was killed in 2006, but the organization was undeterred and renamed itself the Islamic State in Iraq. In 2011 it entered Syria to join the growing civil war there, eventually renaming itself yet again as the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.

In 2009 two more regimes changed: Washington and Jerusalem. Barack Obama entered the White House on a wave of popular disgust with the long, pointless Iraq war. Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon’s protégé, was forced from office amid scandal and his Kadima party was replaced by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud.
Netanyahu immediately set about sounding the alarm about Iran’s nukes.

A series of U.N. sanctions got nowhere. Ditto U.S. and European sanctions under both Bush and Obama. In 2006 the three powers negotiating with Iran were joined by Washington, Moscow and Beijing. But Bush’s Washington took a back seat, reluctant to engage the enemy. Russia and China, noting America’s passivity, weren’t serious.

Obama upgraded U.S. participation in 2009. This jolted Russia and China to attention but outraged Netanyahu and the Republicans. Netanyahu now began eyeing a military attack. His generals and spymasters resisted, warning that a solo Israeli attack wouldn’t work and America wasn’t ready for another war. Iran’s working centrifuges multiplied from 164 in 2009 to 10,000 in 2012.

Netanyahu tried pressuring Obama, but the gambit got mired in Washington’s partisan infighting. Relations turned poisonous. Looking for other answers, Bibi fired one security adviser after another but kept getting the same response: Work with Washington. Finally in 2013 Obama opened a back channel to Tehran, leading to the current compromise talks. Then came the explosion in Bibi’s relations with Obama — and, less noticed, with his generals.

And what of those democratic regional reverberations? They came. In January 2011 an economic protest in Tunisia was coopted by hopeful democrats and became a revolution. Protests spread to Egypt, then Libya, Syria and Yemen. It seemed to be just what Netanyahu had predicted, an Arab Spring reverberating from Saddam’s downfall. So, at least, said Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice and a bevy of academics.

But it didn’t work out as Netanyahu promised. The autocrats fought back. Liberal democrats, never a significant force, collapsed before Islamist radicals. Libya descended into chaos. Syria became a slaughterhouse. Yemen fell into civil war. Obama dithered, looking for bloodless diplomatic solutions to the whirlwind. America’s Arab allies, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, fumed at the inaction. Washington wanted the moderate Arab powers to take charge of their own affairs, but that wasn’t how they rolled.

The final straw came last summer, when Yemen’s capital fell to a little-known Shiite sect, the Houthis. In the 1960s, backed by the Saudis, they’d battled Egypt’s Nasser to defend the traditional imamate against his republicans. They’re still battling the republic, but now Iran’s backing them, part of its Shiite imperial ambition. The Saudis, seeing an Iranian pincer action on their southern flank, are finally fighting back, with backing from the full Arab League. As in Syria, as in Libya, Obama’s providing air cover while Arabs see to their own affairs. It’s Pax Americana for a post-Iraq, post-abundance era.

Nowadays you don’t hear much about Iraq being the inspiration for the Arab Spring, except in academic papers and intelligence assessments. It’s too embarrassing.

Read more: How Bibi and Bush Made a Mess of the Middle East – Forward.com

Tourism Sector EU: The tourism industry is 'make or break' for the EU economy - by Ana-Claudia Tapardel

Batavia Stad, Flevoland, the Netherlands

What would you do on your holiday? Would you relax of the beach of a Greek island? Perhaps you would go skiing in the French Alps, or hiking in the Carpathians? How about a cruise along the Danube delta? Or maybe a wine tour in the Douro valley?

These activities are only a small portion of what Europe has to offer its domestic and international visitors. In fact, its diversity in art, landscapes, food and traditions have all helped make it the world's top tourist destination. From Bucharest to Lisbon, Europe's great variety in terms of scenery, services, cultures and people is unrivalled.

And the economic return from the tourism sector speaks for itself: prior to the accession of Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia, tourism accounted for 13 per cent of the EU's GDP. Nowadays, tourism represents 10 per cent of the European economy. The tourism sector employs approximately 5.2 per cent of the total workforce - roughly 10 million jobs - and involves almost two million small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Yet while the tourism sector provides many opportunities to Europe, it is also faced with many challenges. These are mainly related to changes in global trends and increasing competition with non-European countries, particularly in Asia and North America.

For Europe to be competitive and continue attracting both EU and non EU citizens, we first need a defined strategy that will not only take into consideration new global trends, but will also bring together the main institutional actors (the parliament, the commission and the council), as well as the relevant stakeholders in the field.

In this context, I would like to point out that members of parliament's European tourism development, cultural heritage, way of St James and other European cultural routes intergroup - which I co-chair - is actively pushing for the revision and update of the commission's 2010 communication titled, 'Europe, the world's number one tourist destination'.

In order for us to achieve our goals, we must ensure that the European tourism sector and its actors receive the attention they deserve. In my opinion, one way to give the sector the boost it needs is by designating a 'European year for tourism'.

Read more: The tourism industry is 'make or break' for the EU economy | The Parliament Magazine

EU-US trade pact to miss 2015 deadline - "Europe should not sell its soul to the devil" - by Benjamin Fox

A 2015 deadline to agree a landmark trade deal with the United States is likely to be missed, EU trade officials have conceded.

"We cannot exclude that it may take longer," Latvian foreign minister Edgars Rinkevics, whose country currently holds the rotating EU presidency, told reporters following a meeting of EU trade ministers on Wednesday (25 March).

“We have to do our best to get an agreement but we don’t want to reach an agreement just for the sake of it,” he added. “The political will is there but there is an acceptance that it may take longer”.

“We are aiming to conclude this under the Obama administration … but I cannot give you a date,” said EU trade commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom, who added that ratification of TTIP could get caught up in the next US presidential election cycle.

The race to replace Barack Obama will begin in earnest in autumn, when the Democratic and Republican parties begin their nomination process ahead of the presidential election in November 2016.

Trade negotiators have now concluded eight rounds of talks with a view to agreeing a transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP), but were given a provisional deadline of December 2015 by EU leaders to agree a draft text.

The most thorny issue for ministers remains the investor protection mechanism known as ISDS, which allows firms to take governments to court if they discriminate against them or introduce new laws which threaten their investments.

“ISDS is a hot potato,” conceded Rinkevics. He said there are “differences in opinion” amongst ministers, but added there is no indication that member states want to open up the EU-Canada trade agreement, which includes the controversial regime.

Note EU-Digest: A European Parliamentarian when asked about the TTIP and the ISDS controversy said. "The EU must not sell  its soul to the devil by agreeing to the non-transparent TTIP - regardless of the 'fantastic' stories we hear about the economic benefits of the TTIP, we only need to look at the results achieved following the NAFTA agreement between Canada, Mexico,  and the US."

 "That  agreement, which has now been in effect 20 years, still shows little improvement in the overall economic conditions of ordinary citizens in the participating countries." 

"NAFTA has, however, certainly been a bonanza for the free-wheeling, uncontrolled, multi-national corporations - we must not repeat that in these negotiations with the US."

Read more: EU-US trade pact to miss 2015 deadline