Author: Chakhmakhchian Vatche

FREEDOM HOUSE: ARMENIA REGISTERS IMPROVEMENT

Panorama.am
30/04/2010

Freedom House independent, international watchdog organization,
published Thursday the annual report on Freedom of the Press 2010:
A Global Survey of Media Independence. Armenia is ranked among the
not free states.

Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Slovenia have free media in the region,
while Bulgaria, Serbia, Albania, Kosovo, Ukraine and Georgia are
reported as partly free.

Turkey is ranked among partly free countries, while Iran is not free.

Ukraine, Armenia, and Moldova registered slight improvements, the
report says. Control of the media and restrictions of the free flow
of information have declined in Armenia, the score shows 66 instead
of the previous 68.

AZERBAIJANI FM: UPDATED MADRID PRINCIPLES – SUITABLE BASIS FOR SETTLING NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT

Trend
April 29 2010
Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan has adopted the updated Madrid principles and considers them
a suitable basis for settling the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov said at the
meeting with his Italian Counterpart Franco Frattini in Rome.

Mammadyarov brought to the attention of Frattini that peace and
stability in the region is impossible without settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry reported.

Solution to the conflict will create conditions for mutual cooperation
and understanding in the region and, in general, prosperity of the
region, Mammadyarov said.

Agreeing with Mammadyarov, Frattini said that Italy supports the
current negotiation process.

The sides also discussed energy cooperation between the two countries.

Frattini stressed Azerbaijan’s role in the energy security of Europe.

ARMENIA’S PRESIDENT HOSTS RUSSIA’S OSCE MG CO-CHAIR

Aysor
April 28 2010
Armenia

Armenia’s President Serzh Sargsyan hosted Wednesday the newly-appointed
OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair Igor Popov of Russia, a spokesperson for
state administration said.

President Serzh Sargsyan congratulated him on appointment and said
that he hopes Popov will contribute to the process of settlement to
the Karabakh conflict.

Parties discussed a range of issues and last developments in the
Karabakh talks.

2ND ANNUAL AYF CYCLE AGAINST DENIAL RAISES AWARENESS OF GENOCIDE

Asbarez
Apr 28th, 2010
ENCINO, CALIFORNIA

More than 400 community members took part in a bike-a-thon Sunday to
commemorate the Armenian Genocide during the Cycle Against Denial, an
event organized by the Armenian Youth Federation San Fernando Valley
"Sardarabad" chapter.

Cycle Against Denial began and ended at the Holy Martyrs’ Armenian
Church on White Oak Avenue. The participants ranged in ages 5 to 73,
with Eric Josephbek’s 5-year old in a bike trailer behind him to 73-
year old Antranik Baghdasarian, a repeat cyclist.

AYF Valley "Sardarabad" Chapter member Aline Karakozian explained
that this event is geared towards the community, to raise awareness
about the cycle of genocide and create activists in promoting the end
of genocides worldwide. "Last year the cyclists went another route;
this year we decided to gain more exposure, cycle past a different
group of people to educate them about genocide as well."

The mob of people cycling down White Oak, Victory, Sepulveda and
Ventura Blvd. in the San Fernando Valley caused for traffic to build
up with the individuals driving by continually asking questions about
why these individuals were riding.

Karakozian went on to explain the bonding experience the event
created. "All these individuals came out to support one cause and they
are all from different backgrounds. Nearing the end of the bike ride
everyone is exhausted, attempting to motivate each other to continue,
creating a bond that forces each and every person to finish."

Founded in 1933, the Armenian Youth Federation (AYF), with chapters
throughout the United States and affiliated organizations around the
world, is the largest and most influential Armenian American youth
organization. Inspired by the past and motivated by the needs of the
future, the AYF actively strives to advance the social, political,
educational and cultural awareness of all Armenian youth.

ARMENIA FREEZES PEACE PROCESS WITH TURKEY
Naira Melkmyan

Institute for War & Peace Reporting IWPR
April 27 2010
UK

Russia and US put brave face on move, welcoming fact that Armenia
has not withdrawn from process entirely.

Armenian president Serzh Sargsyan has frozen the peace process with
neighbouring Turkey, and accused Ankara of trying to insert fresh
conditions into an agreement they reached last year.

Speaking on April 22, he confirmed, however, that Armenia was still
keen to sign the original deal. The remarks came significantly just
two days before the date when Armenians around the world remember
the killings of Armenians in World War One Ottoman Turkey that they
regard as genocide.

"For a whole year, there has been no lack of high-ranking Turkish
officials expressing prior conditions in public speeches. For a
whole year, Turkey has done all it can to waste time, and to break
the process," he said.

"We want to keep the possibility of a normalisation of our mutual
relations, since we want peace. Our political goal of a normalisation
of Armenian-Turkish relations remains in force."

Russia and the United States, which had been pushing for the peace
process to continue, put a brave face on the statement, welcoming
the fact that Sargsyan had not withdrawn from the process entirely.

The two presidents met at a football match between their two sides
in 2008, then a year ago agreed the two protocols under which their
mutual border would open and diplomatic relations be created.

But in the last 12 months, Armenia’s policy of trying to secure
international recognition of the Ottoman killings as genocide has
angered Turkey. Issues surrounding the Nagorny Karabakh conflict,
in which Turkey supports Armenia’s rival Azerbaijan, have also raised
tensions.

Experts said therefore that Sargsyan’s statement was merely a
confirmation of an already existing situation.

"The process was frozen before," Alexander Iskandaryan, director
of the Kavkaz Institute, said. "The problems are in Turkey itself,
and they are largely connected with Turkish internal politics,
specifically the forthcoming parliamentary elections."

Turkey has yet to respond to the Armenian statement. "We are
evaluating the content of this statement and what it means" legally
and politically, Turkish foreign ministry spokesman Burak Ozugergin
told Agence France-Presse.

"In this context, we are also discussing steps that could be taken
in the coming period," he added, without elaborating.

One Turkish commentator, Yusuf Kanli of Hurriyet Daily News, said
the Armenian decision was a political one.

"Armenia’s move to start the process of ratifying the protocols was
a cunning political move designed to corner Turkey and force it to
also act on the ratification of the protocols," he wrote.

"The present decision of the Armenian coalition government to halt the
parliamentary ratification process is a political decision conceding
that the earlier move has failed to achieve the designed effect
in Ankara.

"Yerevan should understand that Turkey has extended it a hand in
peace and good neighbourliness. If it wants to turn down that hand,
it will be its own choice."

Sargsyan’s statement was accompanied by one from the ruling coalition
in parliament calling for a halt to the protocols’ ratification
process.

"The Armenian side’s constructive steps and the expectations of
the world community have consistently struggled with the Turkish
side’s inconsistency, manoeuvring, and policy of permanently raising
conditions, which pushed into a dead-end the process of ratifying
the Armenian-Turkish protocols signed in Zurich on October 10, 2009
in a sensible timescale," the statement said.

Ruben Melkonyan, a Turkey expert in Armenia, said the coordinated
statements may well be an expression of impatience from Armenia,
and a sign that the ratification process cannot last forever.

The two countries’ different interpretations of the 1915 mass slaughter
of Armenians in Turkey are the main block in the path to normalised
relations.

Turkey denies genocide and talks of a forced exile in wartime
conditions. All the same, the genocide has been officially recognised
by countries all over the world including recent votes by the US
House of Representatives and the Swedish parliament.

The US State Department put a positive twist on the announcement,
welcoming Sargsyan’s decision not to halt the process entirely.

"We understand that … both sides … reached a hurdle in the
process regarding the ratification of the protocols. I think we’re
encouraged that neither side has walked away from the process, but
I think we all recognise that we’ll just need some time to perhaps
create some new momentum that allows the process to move forward,"
said Assistant Secretary of State Philip J Crowley.

"This is something that the Armenians had hinted to us that they were
prepared to do, and so we’re not surprised by the announcement."

There was a matching statement from Moscow, where the foreign ministry
was encouraged by Sargsyan’s announcement that the process was only
frozen, not ended.

"We express our hope that the two countries manage to overcome the
current difficult situation and create the conditions for a full
normalisation of relations, something that all countries in the region
are interested in," the ministry said in a statement.

Observers in Moscow said Sargsyan had probably been forced to take
action by opposition parties, which had begun to campaign more vocally
against the peace deal.

"The problem is that in Armenia, restoring relations with Turkey is
not very popular. Many people think that here Armenia is losing its
honour, and that it is effectively agreeing with the fact that Turkey
does not recognise the genocide in exchange for opening its borders,"
Sergei Markov, a member of the Russian parliament and a political
analyst, said.

"Apart from that, many think that Turkey will use its influence to
ensure that Armenia will not support Nagorny Karabakh."

But if Sargsyan hoped to satisfy the opposition parties, then he was
disappointed, since his statement was met with fresh protests. A group
of 14 opposition groups – including two with seats in parliament,
Dashnaktsutyun and Heritage — demanded he should take his signature
off the protocols.

"Armenia, both in parliament and outside, does not have the right to
put resolutions that threaten Armenian interests on the political
agenda. Therefore we urge our colleagues from the coalition to,
instead of this half measure, raise the clear question of taking
these protocols off the political agenda," Stepa Safaryan, head of
the Heritage fraction in parliament, said.

Naira Melkmyan is a freelance journalist in Yerevan.

SAVE A MOM’S LIFE– AND LEARN HOW TO GET PEOPLE TO GIVE
By Maia Szalavitz

Psychology Today
e/201004/save-moms-life-and-learn-how-get-people-g ive
April 26 2010

Bone marrow can now be donated by giving blood.

Irene Katrandjian, a 52-year-old mother of three, never thought she
might need a stem cell transplant herself someday when she joined
a donor registry several years back. "I heard that a little boy
needed stem cells. I thought, ‘Why wouldn’t you help?’ To me, it was
a no-brainer."

Now, her children and others are conducting a stem cell blood drive
to save Katrandjian’s life.

The New Jersey SAT tutor, suffers from a rare form of blood cancer
called "peripheral T cell lymphoma."

Here, I’ll provide more info about her particular case and how you
can help save a life right now — but I also want to explore some of
the factors most likely to produce empathy and altruistic behavior
and how you can use them to motivate people (including yourself and
your kids) to be kinder and consequently, healthier, too.

Although she spent two hours a day at the gym six days a week and felt
like she was in great shape, Katrandjian had become concerned about a
"pea sized" lump in her right leg. A doctor told her not to worry —
but she sought a second opinion and was diagnosed in 2008.

Unfortunately, while they worked at first, chemotherapy and a
transplant of her own stem cells did not keep the rampaging disease
at bay for long. A recently approved drug developed by her doctor,
Owen O’Connor, chief of medical oncology at NYU, called pralatrexate
has put Katrandjian into the state of remission required for her
to be able to benefit from a transplant. "She’s on that now and is
responding very nicely," says O’Connor.

But without finding a matching donor, the drug alone won’t help in
the long run. "If she doesn’t get a transplant, she will die," her
doctor says.

Until recently, many people were reluctant to donate stem cells
because they had to be taken from bone marrow, a process that requires
extracting the marrow from a donor’s hip bone.

"It’s much easier now," says O’Connor, explaining that this changed
over the last five to ten years. Today, a donor who matches usually
only has to give blood. And to find out if you’re a match, all you
have to do is fill out this form on this website and a kit to take a
painless DNA sample from your saliva will be mailed. (I’ve just done
it myself).

For a matching donor, blood is retrieved just like in a normal blood
donation through an IV — though the process here takes a bit longer.

>>From the IV, the stem cells are removed by a machine and the same
blood — now minus the stem cells — is returned through an IV in
the opposite arm.

O’Connor says, "Everyone should donate with eye to helping. Your
modest discomfort compared to that of a patient who will die if they
don’t get a transplant, should be put in context. Making it easy is
important if it helps–but you have to think that you’re investing
your time and cells to help someone who’s having anything but an easy
time. The bottom line still has to be a plea to help someone in a
situation you pray to God you’re never in."

Katrandjian is Armenian — so people of that descent are especially
encouraged to give, as genetically, they would be more likely to be
a match.

So, what’s the best way to get people to give and help others?

Katrandjian’s story actually contains many of the key elements. For
one, studies find that the easier and less painful it is to give
(blood v. bone marrow, free mail-back kits v. having to go somewhere),
the more likely it is that people will do so.

Second, people almost never give "generically" — if I tell you that
thousands of people are dying every year from a rare disease and you
can help by giving blood, you’re quite unlikely to be moved unless you
are an extraordinarily compassionate person. As Stalin coldly quipped,
"One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic."

But when people hear about a specific case — like that of a New
Jersey mom with three kids — they are much more likely to give.

Indeed, research by psychologist Paul Slovic finds that people given a
photo of a person in need give money as those shown statistics. Even
including statistics can reduce giving–so if you want to find out
more about how many people have the condition that Katrandjian does,
I’m not including it here!

Another factor that matters, sometimes unfortunately, is how we see
the victim. People are much more likely to help those who they see
as "deserving" — mothers, for example, like Katrandjian who have
given to others are far more likely to receive, too. Children —
like four-year-old Charlotte Conybear of Philadelphia, who also needs
a transplant — are especially likely to benefit.

While that’s fair in some cases, it can also be problematic if
we aren’t careful. Determining who is "deserving" can be a moral
minefield — but it’s something that has to be considered when we
are trying to encourage compassionate behavior.

Guilt, however, can also prod giving according to some research.

Further, a connection to a specific group of people can encourage
donations — people are much more likely to give to someone who seems
"like us" than they are to give to someone who appears to be very
different. Like "deservingness," group membership is a double-edged
sword because too much focus on it can discourage giving by those not
in that group. However, it can be useful, particularly in cases like
this where the characteristic is actually relevant to the probability
of the donation being useful.

In this instance, people in other minority groups are particularly
urged to give because all minorities are under-represented in stem
cell banks and changing this will benefit everyone.

Recognizing that giving is healthy — even if you have to lose a bit
of blood — also encourages altruism.

Research shows that people who volunteer to help others, who have
stronger relationships and feel the sense of purpose that giving
brings actually live longer than those who do not.

Finally, there’s symmetry: most people have a deep sense of justice
and we like to help when it feels like we can right a wrong.

Considering the genocidal terror Katrandjian’s people have faced,
it feels life-affirming to give blood to save life in this context.

I just signed up to donate — and I hope you will, too! (Oh yeah,
and personal appeals from someone we feel some sort of connection to
can help, in addition so if this makes it more likely for you to give,
I certainly encourage it!).

ARMENIAN FM: WAITING FOR TURKEY’S COMMITMENT NOT ELECTIONS

Panorama.am
13:15 27/04/2010

Politics

To advance the normalization of Armenian-Turkish ties Armenian side
currently waits for Ankara’s commitment, Armenian FM Edward Nalbandyan
declared at "Real politics" televised program by Public TV.

Regarding President Sargsyan’s address "Our political objective of
normalizing relations between Armenia and Turkey remains valid, and
we shall consider moving forward when we are convinced that there is a
proper environment in Turkey and there is leadership in Ankara ready to
reengage in the normalization process" and answering to the question if
Armenia waits for the elections in Turkey, Edward Nalbandyan answered:
"Elections are Turkey’s internal affairs. We’ve declared we’ll advance
if we see partners in Turkey, who are ready to walk forward without
preconditions, to normalize ties, and to commit the agreements.

Whether they’ll be new or old partners it’s Turkey to decide."

"The recent period was like turning a sand watch and by the falling
of every sand both the international community and we were losing
trust towards Turkey. If trustworthy steps are done by Turkey we’ll
act correspondingly," Armenian FM stated.

FAO REGIONAL CONFERENCE FOR EUROPE TO BE HELD IN YEREVAN IN MAY

Aysor
April 26 2010
Armenia

Armenia will host the 27th Food and Agriculture Organisation Regional
Conference for Europe, which will take place in country’s capital
Yerevan on May 13-14. Subjects on the agenda are the matters arising
from the World Summit on Food Security and the 36th Session of the
FAO Conference, notably implementation of the Immediate Plan of Action
(IPA), including the Decentralized Offices Network, climate changes,
and global crisis.

The Conference is being held once in two years, and marks this year
the first time of the holding of the great event of such kind in the
Caucasian countries.

"Such a big event is being held in the Caucasian region for the
first time," told Aysor Mrs. Gayane Nasoyan, an Assistant to the
Yerevan FAO Office Representative. She said that the Conference will
gather together 200 delegates, including Ministers of Agriculture of
54 nations.

OVER 35 FAMILIES MOVE TO ARMENIA FROM DUBAI WITHIN RETURN HOME ACTION FRAMEWORK

PanARMENIAN.Net –
April 25, 2010 – 09:23 AMT 04:23 GMT

We resolved to return home so as to unite our efforts in a struggle
for Genocide recognition. Turkey has to be held responsible for the
blood on 1,5 million Armenians massacred, former resident of Dubai,
now a citizen of Armenia Abraham Apenian said.

As he told PanARMENIAN.Net reporter, over 35 families moved to Armenia
from Dubai within Return Home action framework; 15 families will
return to Armenia in June 2010.

As he noted, on April 24, Dubai commemorates Genocide victims by a
series of events.

TURKEY, US: FALLING OUT

WorldBulletin.net
t/author_article_detail.php?id=2163
April 26 2010
Turkey

For more than six decades, U.S. officials have regarded Turkey as
an important, loyal U.S. ally. Throughout the Cold War, Washington
viewed Turkey as NATO’s indispensable "southeast anchor." When the
Cold War ended, many members of the American foreign-policy community
insisted that Turkey was an even more important U.S. security partner
than before. Paul Wolfowitz, who would become deputy secretary of
defense under President George W. Bush, was one of several prominent
experts who argued that there were a handful of "keystone powers"
in the international system, and that Turkey was high on that list.

Pro-Turkish analysts argued that in a post-Cold War environment, Turkey
not only remained NATO’s southeast anchor, it was also a crucial bridge
between the Middle East and Europe and a valuable conduit for Western,
secular influence in much of the Muslim world, especially the Central
Asian republics that emerged from the wreckage of the Soviet Union.

But over the past seven or eight years, Turkey’s international behavior
has begun to cause noticeable uneasiness among U.S. officials and
members of the foreign policy community. A chill has developed in
U.S.-Turkish relations, and it is likely to get worse.

The first major blow to the relationship occurred in early 2003 when
U.S. leaders sought permission from Turkey to open a northern front
from Turkish territory for the impending conflict with Iraq. Turkish
leaders demanded a huge sum (reportedly in excess of $30 billion)
for permitting such an operation. Even if Washington had agreed
to such thinly veiled extortion, though, it is not at all clear
that Ankara would have gone ahead with the agreement. It was the
Bush administration’s bad luck that an Islamist government, led by
the Justice and Development Party (AKP), had taken power following
the electoral rout of the traditional Kemalist secular parties in
November 2002. That government was not inclined to back another
U.S. war against a Muslim country.

Washington could not count on support from the secular Turkish
military for that venture either–a point that embittered U.S. military
leaders, who complained about the ingratitude of America’s ally. But
Turkish military commanders were at least as worried as the civilian
politicians about the probable impact of the strategy to depose Saddam
Hussein. In their view, such a step would exacerbate the problems
with the Kurdish region of Iraq that the Persian Gulf War and the
imposition of the northern no-fly zone had already caused since the
early 1990s. Ousting Saddam, they believed, would fatally weaken
the government in Baghdad and allow Kurdish secessionist forces in
northern Iraq to run amok.

That was not a minor issue for Turkey. About 20 percent of the Kurdish
population in the Middle East reside in Iraq, but fully 50 percent
live in southeastern Turkey, where a low-level insurgency by the
Marxist Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) remained stubbornly persistent.

Any emergence of a Kurdish political entity in northern Iraq was seen
as a potential threat to the unity of the Turkish state.

The gap between U.S. and Turkish views regarding Iraq has grown to
a chasm in the years since the overthrow of Saddam’s regime. Turkish
leaders have seen Iran’s influence in Iraq on the rise, epitomized by
Tehran’s cozy ties with the Shiite-led government of Prime Minister
Nouri al-Maliki, a development that almost no one in Turkey welcomed.

Even worse, from Ankara’s standpoint, is the now ostentatious de facto
independence of Iraqi Kurdistan. To Turkish leaders, both military
and civilian, that undesirable development was the inevitable product
of a myopic U.S. policy, and they are seething over it.

To make matters worse, the PKK insurgency, which had subsided in
the years since the capture of the organization’s leader, Abdullah
Ocalan, in 1999, flared again as Iraqi Kurdistan consolidated its de
facto independence. PKK fighters used Kurdish territory in Iraq as
a sanctuary from which to launch attacks inside Turkey. Ankara’s
complaints to Washington about that situation and the Kurdish
regional government’s failure to take action against PKK fighters
mounted steadily.

Finally, the Turkish government, under pressure from the military,
warned Washington in late 2007 that it would launch an offensive into
northern Iraq to clean out PKK sanctuaries. U.S. officials sought to
mediate between Ankara and the Kurdish regional government, facing
the prospect that its long-time NATO ally and the most pro-American
faction in Iraq might well go to war against each other. Washington
ultimately managed to prevail on the Turkish military to scale-down
the scope of its intervention and pressured the Kurdish regime to
avoid direct confrontation with invading Turkish forces. But neither
side was happy with the arrangement, and Turkey continues to stir
the pot by threatening to launch new offensives.

At a minimum, Ankara’s behavior has complicated Washington’s already
troubled mission in Iraq, and U.S. officials are understandably
unhappy. The Turkish government’s repeated warnings that it will not
tolerate Iraq’s oil-rich city of Kirkuk to come under the jurisdiction
of the Kurdish regional government is also a growing source of tension.

>>From Washington’s standpoint, Turkey has not been acting like much
of an ally with respect to Iraq policy. From Ankara’s standpoint, U.S.

policy in Iraq is clumsy, obtuse and undermines important Turkish
interests. That dispute has clearly been a catalyst, perhaps the
principal catalyst, for the noticeable deterioration in U.S.-Turkish
relations.

But the foreign-policy sources of the growing estrangement lie deeper.

Ankara is quite deliberately deemphasizing ties with its traditional
NATO allies, including the United States, and is placing greater
emphasis on strengthening links within the Muslim world, especially
the Arab nations. The government of Prime Minister Erdogan not only
has distanced itself from Washington’s wildly unpopular policy in Iraq,
but key differences have emerged about how to deal with Iran.

Ankara continues to oppose the U.S.-led strategy of imposing
multilateral economic sanctions on Tehran because of that government’s
apparent quest to build nuclear weapons.

That stance puts Turkey in the same camp as China and Russia on
the Iran issue, much to Washington’s chagrin. But it is consistent
with Ankara’s overall rapprochement with Moscow. Turkey is not
only cooperating closely with Russia on energy issues, but it has
tilted toward its onetime adversary on other matters. Most notably,
the Turkish government did not back the angry U.S. reaction toward
Russia during that country’s 2008 war against Georgia. Nor has Turkey
been supportive of Washington’s goal to add Georgia and Ukraine to
the roster of NATO members–a move that Moscow regards as hostile to
its interests.

If Washington is unhappy about the increasingly friendly ties between
Turkey and Russia, it is even more distressed about the rapidly
escalating animosity between Turkey and Israel. Ankara’s blunt
criticism of the Israeli military offensive in Gaza last year is the
most visible indicator of deteriorating Israeli-Turkish relations,
but it is hardly the only one. Those ties reached their nadir earlier
this year when the Israeli deputy foreign minister humiliated the
Turkish ambassador–by, among other actions, making him sit on a
couch blatantly lower than his host’s, thereby making him look like
a school child awaiting a scolding from the principal. The frosty
relations between Turkey and Israel have had a further negative
impact on U.S.-Turkish ties. Washington is deeply unhappy that Ankara
has apparently become unfriendly toward America’s favorite ally in
the region.

The latest blow to the U.S.-Turkish relationship came last month when
the House Foreign Affairs Committee voted to approve a resolution
condemning the Armenian genocide that occurred during the final years
of the Ottoman Empire. Previous resolutions on that topic had always
died in committee. The reaction to the latest vote in Turkey was
one of fury, and Ankara recalled its ambassador to Washington for
several weeks.

Although congressional leaders and even Turkey’s long-standing friends
in the U.S. military are beginning to have second thoughts about the
reliability of the political and security partnership with Ankara,
the Obama administration has not yet given up on its goal to establish
closer ties with Turkey. That will not be an easy task, though. The
foreign-policy differences between Washington and Ankara are now both
numerous and profound. Going forward, the United States is likely to
have a rocky relationship, at best, with that keystone power.

Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy
studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of more than 400 articles
and eight books on international affairs. His latest book is Smart
Power: Toward a Prudent Foreign Policy for America (2008).