ANKARA: Armenia Tells Diaspora: We Didn’t Sell The Country

ARMENIA TELLS DIASPORA: WE DIDN’T SELL THE COUNTRY

Today’s Zaman
Feb 11 2010
Turkey

Aside from the Turkish and Armenian public, the Armenian diaspora and
Azerbaijan have objected to the protocols signed between Armenia and
Turkey on Oct. 20.

The rapprochement process between Turkey and Armenia, which started
with Switzerland’s mediation in 2007, entered the public agenda
with President Abdullah Gul’s "soccer diplomacy" and finally became
official with the signing of protocols, is facing a serious crisis
following the Armenian Constitutional Court’s "justified" decision.

Aside from the Turkish and Armenian public, the Armenian diaspora
and Azerbaijan have objected to the protocols signed between the
countries in the process that began on April 23 and concluded with
the signing of the protocols on Oct. 20. The Armenian diaspora’s
attitude in particular put Armenian President Serzh Sarksyan in a
difficult position during his diaspora tour. The reaction against
Sarksyan inside the country was much weaker than the reaction shown
by the diaspora. While everyone thought Turkey’s Nagorno-Karabakh
condition would be the cause of deadlock in the process, Armenia
turned out to be the side that blocked the process.

Following the justified decision the Armenian Constitutional
Court announced on Jan. 12, 2010, it became clear that the Yerevan
administration was disinclined for real peace in the region and
attempted to make a move and launch an operation against Turkey
by way of the court. In an interesting "political" decision, the
Armenian Constitutional Court determined that, in the final analysis,
the protocols were compatible with the constitution; however, it
issued a reasoned decision stating that the implementation of some
items could not conflict with the Armenian Constitution and the 1991
Armenian Declaration of Independence.

With this decision, which cannot be appealed or revised by government
decree, the Armenian Constitutional Court basically rewrote the
protocols that were signed by Turkey and Armenia, with the US,
Russia, France, the EU and Switzerland as witnesses during the signing
ceremony. The reasoned decision not only abolished everything Turkey
achieved in the protocols but also formalized some provisions against
Turkey which the Armenian government did not have the courage to
openly introduce.

First of all, Armenia turned its rejection of Turkey’s Nagorno-Karabakh
condition to open borders into a constitutional court decision. Second,
by noting that "genocide" is undisputable for Armenians, the court
determined that the joint history commission mentioned in the
"Protocol on the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations" and the
"Protocol on the Development of Bilateral Relations" is against the
Armenian Constitution and that a commission can therefore not be set
up. Moreover, with this decision the court underlined that it will
continue accusing Turkey of "genocide," which is referred to in the
Armenian Declaration of Independence. Third, by stating that the "March
16, 1921 Treaty of Moscow and the Oct. 13, 1921 Treaty of Kars is
invalid," it abolishes Turkey’s gains in these protocols as well. The
decision also disregards agreements that affirm Turkey’s right as a
guarantor of Nakhchivan’s status and Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over
Nagorno-Karabakh. Lastly, it stipulates that the fifth item in the
protocols about Turkey’s eastern Anatolian region (and partially
southeast Anatolia) cannot contradict provisions of the preamble to
the Armenian Constitution and the requirements of paragraph 11 of
its Declaration of Independence.

With this decision, the Armenian Constitutional Court is expressing
that it does not recognize Turkey’s borders and is demanding land
from Turkey. In the wake of this Armenian move, Ankara immediately
showed its discontent and the Foreign Ministry made an announcement
stating that "the decision in question has preconditions and
restrictive provisions which are contrary to the letter and spirit
of the protocols." Turkey launched initiatives demanding assurances
from the Armenian government and the international community that the
Armenian Constitutional Court’s ruling is invalid. That said, it is
clear that the court’s ruling that the protocols are "compatible with
the constitution" and its efforts to make the same demands and classic
accusations against Turkey by virtually rewriting the protocols in
its reasoned decision are Yerevan’s attempts to make another move
over Turkey.

Why and how did Armenia, which is in an economically difficult position
in the region, which has suffered a major population decline (currently
at 1.8 million people) and which faces a power balance that is working
in favor of its biggest rival, Azerbaijan, enter this path?

What does Armenia seek to achieve with this move? Until now, the
lack of progress on the Nagorno-Karabakh problem was always shown
as the biggest obstacle to the approval of the protocols. Turkey’s
Nagorno-Karabakh precondition and the global pressure over Armenia to
fulfill the condition placed Armenia in a tight spot. But with this
move Armenia made via the constitutional court, the Nagorno-Karabakh
precondition was instantly placed at the bottom of the agenda.

Furthermore, Armenia knows very well that Turkey is the first side that
will be blamed if any problem arises during the process of normalizing
relations and of opening Turkish-Armenian borders. As you will recall,
the day the protocols were signed, on Oct. 10, Armenia changed its
mind about a part of the text that was agreed upon by both sides
in advance and a small-scale crisis erupted. Nevertheless, Armenia
continued to chase after small plans, to put Turkey in a difficult
position on the international arena and to push for the US Congress to
approve accusations of genocide committed by Turkey despite Turkey’s
peaceful efforts. Meanwhile, Yerevan is sending the message to the
diaspora that it did not "sell the Armenian case" while the Sarksyan
administration tries to protect itself from troublesome allegations.

Lastly, we need to focus on the increasing initiatives Turkey has
launched on the Nagorno-Karabakh problem. During his visit to the US
and Russia, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan asked both President
Barack Obama and President Dmitry Medvedev to put pressure on Armenia.

In the aftermath of these efforts, Russia, which holds the "key to
Nagorno-Karabakh," made a noticeable increase in the level of its
efforts. Russia and Armenia are now trying to construct a "road map"
with a general framework to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh problem during
this period. But even if a road map to be signed between Armenia and
Azerbaijan does not solve the Nagorno-Karabakh problem in the short
term, it will be an effective way for the international community
to put pressure on Turkey to open its borders. It is for this reason
that plans being made about the Nagorno-Karabakh issue today are more
to ensure that Turkey opens its borders and not so much to find a
lasting solution.

*Sinan Ogan is the president of the Turkish Center for International
and Strategic Analysis (TURKSAM).

Turkey, Armenia Must Honour Peace Deals-Turkey’s Gul

TURKEY, ARMENIA MUST HONOUR PEACE DEALS-TURKEY’S GUL

Reuters
Feb 11 2010
UK

ANKARA, Feb 11 (Reuters) – Turkey and Armenia must show political
courage and honour their commitments to bury a century of hostility,
Turkey’s president said on Thursday, after the two countries accused
each other of trying to rewrite the accords.

Four months after Turkey and Armenia signed an historic deal to open
their border with the endorsement of the United States, the European
Union and Russia, the process has been thrown into question by the
weight of still-unresolved disputes.

"We have to be aware that concluding this historic process will require
honouring our commitments in their entirety as well as displaying
adequate political courage and vision," Turkey’s President Abdullah Gul
said in a letter addressed to his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sarksyan.

"Overcoming long-established prejudices and nurturing mutual
understanding and trust among our two neighbouring peoples were our
main objectives when endorsing the process of normalisation between
our countries. You should have no doubt that our determination to
move these objectives forward is intact, provided this resolve and
commitment remains reciprocal."

On Wednesday, Sarksyan said the accords must be voted on by the
Turkish parliament before Armenia’s parliament would approve them,
and warned that Armenia could break off the effort to normalise
relations if Turkey dragged its feet.

The accords require approval by both parliaments.

Ankara and Yerevan have accused each other of trying to re-write
the texts, which are the closest the sides have come to overcoming
the legacy of the mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks during
World War One.

Turkey has demanded that ethnic Armenian forces pull back from the
front lines of the disputed mountain region of Nagorno-Karabakh as
a condition of ratifying the peace deal. This has aroused fierce
resistance in Armenia.

The Turkish condition is aimed at placating close Muslim ally
Azerbaijan, an oil and gas exporter which lost control over
Nagorno-Karabakh when ethnic Armenians there, backed by Christian
Armenia, broke away as the Soviet Union collapsed.

The accords made no mention of Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia and Turkey
said they would create a commission to investigate the WWI massacres,
which Armenia — backed by several European states and many historians
— says was genocide.

Turkey rejects the term and says many Muslims and Christians died
during the chaotic collapse of the Ottoman empire.

The deal would bring big economic gains to poor, landlocked Armenia.

Turkey would burnish its credentials as a potential EU entry state
and boost its clout in the South Caucasus, a region criss-crossed
by pipelines carrying oil and gas to the West. (Writing by Ibon
Villelabeitia; editing by Andrew Roche)

BAKU: International Committee Of Red Cross Delivers Letter From Azer

INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF RED CROSS DELIVERS LETTER FROM AZERBAIJANI CAPTIVES

Trend
Feb 11 2010
Azerbaijan

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) representatives
met with the Azerbaijani citizens who are in captivity in Armenia.

The organization’s Armenian employees met February 2 with captives
Anar Hajiyev and Eldar Tagiyev.

We talked to them and got acquainted with their conditions, Gulnaz
Guliyev, ICRC Azerbaijan spokesperson, told Trend News today.

She said that ICRC representatives delivered letters to the captives
from their families.

In return, Hajiyev and Tagiyev also sent letters to their families.

Resident of the Alibayli village in the Tovuz region, Tagiyev Eldar
Heydar, was taken hostage by Armenian armed forces on Dec. 28.

Azerbaijani Army Lieut. Anar Hajiyev was taken prisoner on May 10
last year close to Fizuli.

Possible Effect Of Failure

POSSIBLE EFFECT OF FAILURE

A1Plus.am
10/02/10

Unexpected scenarios are not excluded in the development of
Turkish-Armenian relations, says former NKR Foreign Minister Arman
Melikyan. According to him, a possible scenario could be Turkey’s
decision to "leave" the US and this will lead to the Turkish-Russian
alliance.

Melikyan says that as a result, Armenia may lose both the liberated
territories and Artsakh. "The Turkish-Russian alliance may be more
preferable for Russia than the Russian-Armenian relations," said
Arman Melikyan at "Artsakh" club.

If the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations fails, according
to Melikyan, Turkey will strengthen its anti-Armenian actions in
the region.

"The failure of this process will lead to the point where we will
acquire an additional active opponent and enemy. I think the Armenian
government is disoriented and doesn’t know how to get out of this
situation," said Melikyan.

Stefan Fule appointed EU Commissioner for Neighborhood Policy and En

STEFAN FULE APPOINTED EU COMMISSIONER FOR NEIGHBORHOOD POLICY AND ENLARGEMENT

Armradio.am
10.02.2010 16:13

Czech diplomat Stefan Fule was appointed as the new European
Commissioner for Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement.He will replace
Benita Ferrero-Waldner in this post.

The European Parliament approved new team of the European Commission on
Tuesday. Jose Manuel Barroso was elected the Commission President for
the second term and Catherine Ashton – the Union High Representative
for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Commission Vice President.

Gunther Hermann Oettinger takes the office of European Commissioner
for Energy, Andris Piebalgs – European Commissioner for Development.

The new team will take the office on Wednesday.

ProCredit Bank Looks Forward To Strong Development In 2010

PROCREDIT BANK LOOKS FORWARD TO STRONG DEVELOPMENT IN 2010

PanARMENIAN.Net
09.02.2010 17:54 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ On February 5, 2010 ProCredit Bank celebrated its 2nd
anniversary. As Bertolt Hertzfeldt, Executive Director of ProCredit
Bank emphasized, "ProCredit Bank offers banking services not only to
small and medium sized businesses but also for all people, who live
and work in the neighbourhood of the Bank. We provide transparent
and fair conditions to our customers. We see team work as a key in
delivering excellent service to our clients and want to thank our
customers for the trust they put in us. We are proud that we have
achieved such good results in a short period of time and look forward
to a strong development in 2010".

ProCredit Bank welcomed its first customers on February 05, 2008,
aiming to offer reasonable products for everyone. ProCredit Bank
is a full-fledged bank with a 100% foreign capital, focused on the
development of small and medium sized enterprises and offering a full
scale of banking services to private individuals and legal entities.

Another important area of ProCredit Bank’s focus is to promote savings
culture among the population, by starting even from small amounts.

ProCredit Bank in Armenia is part of the ProCredit group, consisting
of 22 financial institutions operating in Eastern Europe, Africa and
Latin America, which are governed by ProCredit Holding AG located in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Founders of ProCredit Bank are such well-known international
organizations as: ProCredit Holding AG – 67.50% shares, EBRD – 16.67%
shares, KfW – 15.83 % shares.

The bank’s shareholders shared the vision of a business model which
aims at responsible banking that seeks transparency, efficiency and
long term profitability and makes an impact on the development of
the country.

Over these two years ProCredit Bank established itself as a
responsible, easy-to-understand and transparent financial institution.

Since its start it welcomed more than 9,700 clients including non-loan
clients and has an outstanding loan portfolio of about USD 32.4 mln.

and deposit portfolio around USD 18.3 mln.

Burma’s Stateless people

Burma’s Stateless people

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Stateless "Burmese"
Burma (or Myanmar) is an ethnically diverse nation with 135 distinct
ethnic groups officially recognized by the Burmese government. These
are grouped into eight "major national ethnic races":

1. Kachin
2. Kayah
3. Kayin
4. Chin
5. Mon
6. Bamar
7. Rakhine
8. Shan

The "major national ethnic races" are grouped primarily according to
region rather than linguistic or ethnic affiliation, as for example
the Shan Major National Ethnic Race includes 33 ethnic groups speaking
languages in at least four widely differing language families.

There are at least 6 groups of stateless persons originating in Burma,
the Rohingya ; native born but non-indigenous people, such as Burmese
Indians, Burmese Chinese, Panthay, Anglo Burmese; as well as children
born in Thailand or oversea of Burmese parents. Many unrecognised
ethnic groups exist, the largest being;

1. Burmese Chinese(except Kokang Chinese who are recognized by Burma)
2. Panthay – Chinese Muslims (who together with Burmese Chinese form 3% of
the population)
3. Burmese Indians (who form 2% of the population),
4. Anglo-Burmese,
5. Rohingya or Chittagonian Bengali Muslims.

There are no official statistics regarding the population of the
latter two groups, although unofficial estimates place around 52,000
Anglo-Burmese in Burma with around 1.6 million outside of the country.

1.Burmese Indians

Burmese Indians are a group of people of Indian subcontinental
ethnicity who live in Myanmar (Burma). While Indians have lived in
Burma for many centuries, most of the ancestors of the current Burmese
Indian community emigrated to Burma from the start of British rule in
the mid 19th century to the separation of British Burma from British
India in 1937. During British times, ethnic Indians formed the
backbone of the government and economy serving as soldiers, civil
servants, merchants and moneylenders. A series of anti-Indian riots
beginning in 1930 and mass emigration during the Japanese occupation
of Burma followed by the forced expulsion of 1962 left ethnic Indians
with a much reduced role in Burma.

Ethnic Indians today account for approximately 2% (about 950,000) of
the population of Burma and are concentrated largely in the two major
cities (Yangon and Mandalay) and old colonial towns (Pyin U Lwin and
Kalaw). They are largely barred from the civil service and military
and are disenfranchised by being labeled as ‘foreigners’ and
‘non-citizens’ of Burma. Amongst the well-known Burmese Indians is
S. N. Goenka, a leading practitioner and teacher of the vipassanÄ=81
meditation technique and Helen, a well-known Bollywood film actress.

The term "Burmese Indian" refers to a broad range of ethnic groups
from South Asia, most notably from present-day Bangladesh and
India. Indians have a long history in Burma with over 2000 years of
active engagement in politics, religion, culture, arts and
cuisine. Within Burma, they are often referred to as ka-la (a term
generally used for dark skinned foreigners though it has historically
been also used to describe foreigners from the west), a term that is
considered derogatory or Kala Lumyo. Its root is believed to be ku la
meaning either "to cross over (the Bay of Bengal)" or "person"
depending on the way it is pronounced.[1] An alternative explanation
is that the word is derived from `Ku lar’, meaning the people who
adhere to a caste system

The majority of Indians arrived in Burma whilst it was part of British
India. Starting with the annexation of Tenasserim and Western Burma
after the First Anglo-Burmese War, a steady stream of Indians moved to
Burma as civil servants, engineers, river pilots, soldiers, indentured
labourers and traders.[1] Following the annexation of Upper Burma in
1885, numerous infrastructure projects started by the British colonial
government and increases in rice cultivation in the delta region
caused an unprecedented economical boom in Burma that drew many
Indians, particularly from southern India, to the Irrawaddy Delta
region.

After Independence, Burmese law treated a large percentage of the
Indian community as "resident aliens". Though many had long ties to
Burma or were born there, they were not considered citizens under the
1982 Burma citizenship law which restricted citizenship for groups
immigrating before 1823

An unknown number of Persons of Indian Origin (PIOs) are stateless,
though at least half a million could be affected. Thousands have been
living in Burma for over four generations, not belonging to India or
Burma. The last official census in Burma held in 1983 reported
approximately 428,000 persons of Indian origin in Burma. The current
population is estimated to be about 600,000, but according to the
Indian government, as many as 2.5 million PIOs could be living in
Burma. Only about 2,000 hold Indian passports. Although they have
lived in Burma for more than four generations, they lack documentation
required by the 1982 Burmese citizenship law and are therefore
stateless. They cannot travel outside the country and face low
economic status.

2. Anglo-Burmese or Eurasians

The Anglo-Burmese, also known as the Anglo-Burmans, are a community of
Eurasians of Burmese and European descent, and emerged as a distinct
community through mixed relations (sometimes permanent, sometimes
temporary) between the British (whether English, Scots or Welsh) and
other European settlers and Bamar from 1826 until 1948 when Burma
gained its independence from the United Kingdom. Today, this small but
influential Eurasian community is dispersed throughout the world, with
very few accurate estimates as to how many remain behind in
military-ruled Burma (or Myanmar.)

The term Anglo-Burmese is also used to refer to Eurasians of European
and other Burmese ethnic minority groups (e.g. Shan, Karen, Mon,
Chinese) descent. It also, after 1937, included Anglo-Indian residents
in Burma. Collectively, in the Burmese language, Eurasians are
specifically known as bo kabya; the term kabya refers to persons of
mixed ancestry or dual ethnicity.

Earliest settlement

The first Anglo-Burmese community emerged in the early 1600s, as the
Portuguese and Bamar intermixed, and this multicultural community was
collectively known as the Ba-yin-gyi. The community was established in
Syriam (now known as Thanlyin) on the outskirts of modern-day
Yangon. The settlement was founded by Felipe de Brito. De Brito is
said to have gone mad, having declared himself king of Lower Burma,
causing his outpost to be destroyed and himself executed by the
Burmese king. Most of the small community of Eurasian and European
settlers was banished inland to Shwebo then known as Moksobo.

Additionally, a small band of French soldiers captured in the late
1700s by the Burmese King was provided with Burmese wives and
established a similar, small Eurasian community. In one of the last
census counts conducted by the British in the 1930s, a number of
people in Upper Burma still classified themselves as descendants of
these bands of Portuguese and French soldiers.[1] After the Portuguese
and the French, the Dutch also established trade missions in Burma and
along with them came Armenian settlers, both communities intermarrying
with the already established Eurasians or marrying local Burmese
people. The VOC (Dutch East India Company) was active in Burma in the
1700s and many Anglo-Burmans of Dutch heritage are descended from the
Dutch merchants who settled in the country. Today’s Anglo-Burmese can
count a very diverse lineage in their blood.

British Rule

British settlers now began to settle in large numbers in Burma,
intermixing with the local Burmans (Bamar) and other local ethnic
groups, and the Eurasian community grew larger, some say larger than
the Anglo-Indian community in India (see ‘Finding George Orwell’ by
Emma Larkin). Frequently, European men took Burmese women as
"temporary" wives, often deserting them and their offspring after
their tours of duty ended in Burma but legal, long lasting marriages
did also take place. Frequently, when a "temporary" relationship
ended, the European father left behind a sum of money for the upkeep
of their children, and sometimes the children were removed from their
Burmese mothers and placed into convent schools run by Europeans,
where their Burmese heritage was often undermined. The issue of mixed
marriages, particularly between Bamar women and British males, was to
become a major issue in the independence movement as it further
developed.

Anglo-Burmans represent a very diverse heritage, their Asian side
primarily representing Burman blood, but also Karen, Shan and Mon as
well as other smaller Burmese ethnic groups (Chin, Kachin, Arakanese
for example). The European element included, aside from the British,
other European influence, chiefly Greek, Dutch, Scandinavian, Irish
(who left their country when the Great Irish Famine happened since
their country was under British rule), German, Austrian, French,
Portuguese, Italian and Russian. In addition, Iraqi (Assyrian/Chaldean
Christian), Armenian (the Armenians were classed as White/Europeans in
colonial Burma), and Anglo-Indian blood was also represented among
Anglo-Burmans. By the 1920s, the Anglo-Burman community was a distinct
ethnic group in Burma.

Following the British withdrawal in 1948, some Anglo-Burmans left
Burma, primarily for the United Kingdom. It is an interesting irony of
note that whereas both Anglo-Burmans and Anglo-Indians had tended to
look down on the native Bamar, after they emigrated to Britain, many
ended up calling themselves Burmese in white society, primarily due to
British attitudes which refused to acknowledge those of mixed origins
as their own. Many Anglo-Burmans began to lose their jobs, to be
replaced with pure Burmans as the bureaucracy of the country became
increasingly Burmanized.

Today, only a handful of people actually identifying themselves as
Anglo-Burmans are believed to remain in Burma. Most who remained after
1962 adopted Burmese names, and converted to Buddhism to protect their
families, jobs and assets. Because of the similar heritage and roles
played, and because Burma was historically part of the Empire as part
of India, Anglo-Burmans were once counted as Anglo-Indians; today,
Anglo-Indians still accept Anglo-Burmese as their "kith and kin" and
world reunions of Anglo-Indians usually also include many who would
also be classed more correctly as Anglo-Burmese, to reflect their
Burmese, rather than Indian, blood.

3.Panthays

Panthays form a group of Chinese Muslims in Burma. Some people refer
to Panthays as the oldest group of Chinese Muslims in Burma. However,
because of intermixing and cultural diffusion the Panthays are not as
distinct a group as they once were Chinese-speaking, and of
predominantly Han Chinese ethnic origin, this little-known group of
Sunni Muslims of the Hanafi madhhab forms a predominantly endogamous,
closely inter-related minority group in four countries – China, Burma,
Thailand and Laos – and today represents both Islamic and Chinese
cultures in northern Southeast Asia.

Panthay is a term used to refer to the predominantly Muslim Hui people
of China who migrated to Burma. They are among the largest groups of
Burmese Chinese, and predominantly reside in the northern regions of
Burma (formerly known as Upper Burma), particularly in the
Tangyan-Maymyo-Mandalay-Taunggyi area and Shan States.

The name Panthay is a Burmese word, which is said to be identical with
the Shan word Pang hse. It was the name by which the Burmese called
the Chinese Muslims who came with caravans to Burma from the Chinese
province of Yunnan. The name was not used or known in Yunnan itself.

The Burmese word Pathi is a corruption of Persian. The Burmese of Old
Burma called their own indigenous Muslims Pathi. It was applied to all
Muslims other than the Chinese Muslims. The name Panthay is still
applied exclusively to the Chinese Muslims. However Chinese Muslims in
Yunnan did not call themselves Panthay. They called themselves Huizu
(å=9B=9Eæ – =8F), meaning Muslim in Chinese. Non-Muslim Chinese and
Westerners refer to them as Huihui (å=9B=9Eå=9B=9E).

4.Burmese Chinese

The Burmese Chinese or Chinese Burmese are a group of overseas Chinese
born or raised in Burma (Myanmar). Although the Chinese officially
make up three percent of the population, the actual figure is believed
to be much higher. Among the under-counted Chinese populations are
those of mixed background, those that have declared themselves as
ethnic Bamar to escape discrimination, and tens of thousands of
illegal Chinese immigrants that have flooded Upper Burma since the
1990s but are not counted due to the lack of reliable census taking.

The Burmese Chinese dominate the Burmese economy although many
enterprises today are co-owned by the military. Moreover, the Burmese
Chinese have a disproportionately large presence in Burmese higher
education, and make up a high percentage of the educated class in
Burma.

Generally, the Burmese Chinese in Lower Burma, like other oversea
Chinese fall into three main groups:

* Hokkien (Burmese: eingyi shay, or let shay lit. long-sleeved shirts)
from Fujian Province
* Cantonese (Burmese: eingyi to, or let to lit. short-sleeved shirts)
from Guangdong Province
* Hakka (Burmese: zaka, lit. mid-length sleeve) from Fujian and
Guangdong provinces

In Upper Burma and Shan Hills, the Panthay and Kokang, mainly speakers
of a Mandarin dialect of the Southwestern Mandarin branch, most akin
to Yunnanese, predominate. The mountain-dwelling, farming Kokang are
classified as a part of the Shan national race, although they have no
linguistic or genetic affinity to the Tai-speaking Shan, and the
largely trading Muslim Panthay are long considered separate local
nationalities rather than a Chinese diaspora community. Combined, they
form 21% of Burmese Chinese.

Finally, there are the Tayoke kabya of mixed Chinese and indigenous
Burmese parentage. The kabya (Burmese: mixed heritage) have a tendency
to follow the customs of the Chinese more than of the Burmese. (Indeed
those that follow Burmese customs are absorbed into and largely
indistinguishable from the mainstream Burmese society.) A large
portion of Burmese Chinese is thought to have some kabya blood,
possibly because immigrants could acquire Burmese citizenship through
intermarriage with the indigenous Burmese peoples.

Most Burmese Chinese practice Theravada Buddhism, incorporating some
Mahayana Buddhist and Taoist beliefs, such as the worship of Kuan
Yin. Chinese New Year celebrations, as well as other Chinese
festivals, are subdued and held privately. Clan associations are often
the only places where the Chinese culture is retained. The Panthay or
Chinese Muslims (å=9B=9Eæ=95=99è=8F¯ä&#xB A;º; , lit. "little flowers")
practice Islam.

The Kokang people are an ethnic group of Burma (also known as
Myanmar). They are Mandarin-speaking Han Chinese living in Kokang
Special Region. In 1997, it was estimated that the Kokang people,
together with more recently-immigrated Yunnanese, constituted 30-40
percent of Burma’s ethnic Chinese population. They are not grouped as
Burmese Chinese, as they are considered as recognized as ethnic races
by Burma.

4. Rohingya or Chittagonian Bengali Muslims.

The Rohingya is a Muslim ethnic group of the Northern Arakan State of
Western Burma (also known as Myanmar). The Rohingya population is
mostly concentrated in two bordering townships of Arakan to
Bangladesh, namely Maungdaw and Buthidaung, and is spread in three
townships of Akyab, Rathedung and Kyauktaw. Rohingya people are
predominantly Muslims. They are recently the latest group of boat
people in Indian Ocean.

The Rohingya are Muslims who reside in the northern parts of the
Rakhine (historically known as Arakan) State, a geographically
isolated area in western Burma, bordering Bangladesh. The British
annexed the region after an 1824-26 conflict and encouraged migration
from India. Since independence in 1948, successive Burmese governments
have considered these migration flows as illegal. Claiming that the
Rohingya are in fact Bengalis, they have refused to recognize them as
citizens. Shortly after General Ne Win and his Burma Socialist
Programme Party (BSPP) seized power in 1962, the military government
began to dissolve Rohingya social and political organizations. The
1974 Emergency Immigration Act stripped Burmese nationality from the
Rohingya. In 1977, Operation Nagamin (Dragon King) constituted a
national effort to register citizens and screen out foreigners prior
to a national census.

The resulting military campaign led to widespread killings, rape, and
destruction of mosques and religious persecution. By 1978, more than
200,000 Rohingya had fled to Bangladesh. The Burmese authorities
claimed that their flight served as proof of the Rohingya’s illegal
status in Burma.

Under the 1982 Citizenship Law, Rohingya were declared `non-national’
or `foreign residents.’ This law designated three categories of
citizens: (1) full citizens, (2) associate citizens, and (3)
naturalized citizens.

None of the categories applies to the Rohingya as they are not
recognized as one of the 135 `national races’ by the Myanmar
government. More than 700,000 Rohingya in northern Rakhine today are
effectively stateless and denied basic human rights.

Children born outside the country

The Burmese government refuses to give citizenship to children born
outside the country to Burmese parents who left illegally or fled
persecution. Children born in Thailand of Burmese descent do not have
birth certificates and the parents do no have citizenship
papers. Neither recognized by the Burmese government nor wanted by the
Thai government, many of the roughly two million Burmese migrant
workers and 150,000 Burmese refugees are effectively stateless as a
result of not having citizenship documentation, and face lives of
desperation.

Related articles

1. Burma/Myanmar. The International Observability on Statelessness,
rma-myanmar
2. Statelessness,
3. Searching for Citizenship,
5.html
4. Stateless People in Bangladesh,
(a re the Biharis Muslim and other
stateless non-Bengalli, came with Chittagonian Bengali
Muslims(Rohingya)as boat people, which resulted in planned mass exodus
of boat people from Bangladesh??? by human trafficking operators)
5. Over 100,000 ‘Stateless’ People Offered Citizenship,
/content/article/173/30421.html
6. The Stateless People of Bangladesh,
2004/the_stateless_people_of_bangla.html

Posted by Boon Raymond at 10:17 AM
Labels: Burma

teless-burmese.html

http://www.nationalityforall.org/bu
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statelessness
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c15
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component
http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/
http://teochiewkia.blogspot.com/2010/02/sta
www.statelesspeopleinbangladesh.net/

Ruben Safrastyan: It’s Turkey’s Turn To Take A Step

RUBEN SAFRASTYAN: IT’S TURKEY’S TURN TO TAKE A STEP
Lusine Vasilyan

"Radiolur"
08.02.2010 15:03

"The process has slowed down, but it’s not deadlocked. It’s Turkey’s
turn to take a step," Director of the Oriental Studies institute of
the Academy of Sciences, Turkologist Ruben Safrastyan told a press
conference today.

According to him, the "football diplomacy" stage of the
Armenian-Turkish relations was completed with the signing of the two
protocols, while the new stage has dim, but interesting nuances.

"Turkey is trying to win time," he said. Safrastyan believes,
the Armenian National Assembly must not undertake to consider the
protocols until discussions start in the Turkish Parliament.

Vic Darchinyan Vs Nonito Doneir Rematch In June

VIC DARCHINYAN VS NONITO DONEIR REMATCH IN JUNE

PanARMENIAN.Net
04.02.2010 13:48 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Promoter of the Armenian boxer Vic Darchinyan
Gary Shaw is pushing for Nonito Doneir (Philippines) to fight WBC/WBA
superflyweight champion Viv Darchinyan in June with Southern California
being a likely landing spot for the fight, BoxingScene.com reported.

"Nonito would like to get another fight in before June, so we’ll see.

He definitely wants Darchinyan. If a deal can be worked out we will
make the fight at 115 where Nonito is fighting at now. Nonito really
wants to be busy and fight for 4 times this year," the manager of
Cameron Dunkin said.

If Doneir makes short work out of Guerrero, maybe Top rank can squeeze
him in fight with Arce in April, but a bad cut or other injury could
jeopardize the Darchinyan rematch.

Vakhtang Darchinyan or Vic "Raging Bull" Darchinyan (born 7 January
1976 in Vanadzor, Armenia) is a professional boxer who is the current
WBA, WBC unified Super Flyweight World Champion. Darchinyan was also
formerly the IBF and IBO champion of the flyweight division and
briefly reigned as the IBO’s super flyweight champion also. He is
a southpaw boxer, who currently trains under Billy Hussein, brother
of boxers Nedal and Hussein Hussein. Previously, he was trained by
former 3-division world champion, Jeff Fenech in Sydney.

Darchinyan’s amateur career was 158-18 record with 105 knockouts,
fighting in many different countries, as he participated for Armenia
in the2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia. He went to the third
round in the 112 lb division before losing against Bulat Jumadilov
ofKazakhstan. Darchinyan moved to Australia after competing in the
Olympics, eventually became an Australian citizen on 7 July 2004.

Darchinyan turned pro at age 24 on 3 November 2000.

He won his IBF title on 16 December 2004, in his first fight in the
United States, beating respected champion Irene Pacheco of Colombia,
via 11 round technical knock-out.

On February 7, 2009, Darchinyan successfully defended his unified
title against Jorge Arce, winning by TKO in the 11th round.

Turkish Ambassador Considers Ratification Of Genocide Resolution Unl

TURKISH AMBASSADOR CONSIDERS RATIFICATION OF GENOCIDE RESOLUTION UNLIKELY

Noyan Tapan
Feb 5, 2010

ISTANBUL, FEBRUARY 5, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. Speaking at
the conference held by Turk Democracy organization on February 2,
the deputy advisor to the Turkish foreign ministry Namik Tan, who has
been recently appointed Turkish ambassador to the U.S., said that it
is unlikely that the U.S. Congress would ratify the "anti-Turkish"
resolution on the Armenian Genocide in April, Marmara reported. "The
United States will do such a thing neither this year not in the near
future," the ambassador declared. According to N. Tan, such resolutions
are extremely irrelevant and baseless, especially now that Turkey
signed the protocols on normalization of its relations with Armenia
without preconditions, thus taking one of the most important decisions
in its history.

The newly appointed ambassador also said that it would be wrong to
scare Turkey away by voicing threats about Armenian resolutions. "We do
not expect such a negative move from our American allies – not only
this year, but also in the coming years, especially this year when
efficient cooperation has been established between us. The ratification
of the resolution would be a blow to the establishment of peace and
stability in the Caucasus," he added. The ambassador also expressed
his opinions about some other issues of interest to Turkey.