Is the US risking its relations with Turkey by the House Committee’s recognition of the “Armenian Genocide”?
Dr. Uttam Kumar Das writes from Minneapolis, USA
The United States House Committee on Parliamentary Affairs on 4 March, 2010 adopted a resolution with a narrow margin votes of 23-22 which acknowledged the 1915 mass killing of the ethnic Armenian as “genocide” by the then Ottoman Empire.
Turkey, who is the successor of the Empire, has taken the development painfully and has recalled its Ambassador to the United States Namik Tan to Ankara for consultation regarding follow-up measures. However, this signifies an immediate reaction and diplomatic protest from Turkey.
According to the New York Times (March 5), the US Congress “refused to take any measure” as a follow-up of the resolution. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has reportedly assured Turkey that they (the US) are not moving further on the resolution considering backlash in diplomatic relations between the two countries.
According to the survivors of the “genocide” and/or their successors, an estimated 1.5 million people had to die due to the “disintegration policy” of the Ottoman Empire.
However, successor Turkey has been denying any genocide and claims that the number of deaths was not more than 300,000 and that also happened due to the “civil war” and “amid the chaos and unrest surrounding World War I.”
However, the Armenian Diaspora has been successful in advocating their cause and supporting research and publications on the issue.
A group of renowned international scholars and jurists, who reportedly unveiled the public documents of that period, term the mass-killing of the Armenians 95 years ago as “genocide.” In the US, so far 42 States have passed bills or resolutions acknowledging the mass killing as “genocide”.
Referring to the “Armenian genocide,” Nicholas Kristof wrote in the New York Times on March 5 “…the evidence is clear that genocide is the right word for what happened...”
According to this writer, “It's also true that Turkey has a problem acknowledging its brutality toward both Armenians and Kurds, although it has also gotten much better about this in the last decade.”
In a similar move, a bill was passed in 2007 by the US Congress. However, the then Bush administration did not take any further action fearing backlash in the relations with Turkey which is a NATO member country and strategic partner.
Given this backdrop, I interviewed (through e-mail and in person) three practitioners and experts on the respective areas to look into the potential impact and consequences of the resolution.
Edmon Marukyan
Human Rights Lawyer from Armenia
For Mr. Edmon Marukyan who is a human rights lawyer from Armenia and is currently at the University of Minnesota Law School as a Humphrey Fellow, the resolution is the “recognition and acknowledgment” of the “Armenian Genocide.” It is a moral issue for the Armenians.
He observes that over 95 years have passed since the “Armenian genocide” that drove Armenians to spread all over the world. According to him, the Armenians have been advocating for recognition of the “Armenian Genocide” and claiming for justice, if not in the legal sphere, on moral grounds.
Turkey, as the successor of the Ottoman Empire, should look at history honestly and recognize the “Armenian Genocide” as Germany did in case of the Holocaust, the human rights advocate comments.
Ziya Meral
PhD candidate for Political Science,
University of Cambridge, UK
Mr. Zia Meral is originally from Turkey and now has been perusing his doctoral research at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. He is considered as an expert on European-Turkey relations. I met him in Minneapolis while he was attending an international conference in February, 2010.
Mr. Meral observes that the resolution passed in the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs might provide a sense of vindication for Turkey. “It comes with a heavy price,” referring to Turkey-US relations he tells me in an e-mail interview.
According to him, in the short term, the Turkey-US relations will be damaged when the US needs close Turkish support for its exit strategies from Afghanistan and Iraq. The same also goes for a possible US sanction against Iran.
Mr. Meral points out that this move by the US House Committee has a detrimental outcome. “The resolution also will harm the ongoing and volatile Armenian and Turkish relations,” he says.
It will give more legitimacy to the nationalist voices in Turkey and Azerbaijan to halt talks. This will have a negative outcome for the Armenia-Azerbaijan-Turkey triangle, as well as for broader stability in the Caucasus, he predicts.
In the long term, this development will block the Turks to hear Armenian voices and paying attention to their suffering, Mr. Meral observes.
According to this Turkish researcher, it plays out the paranoid that what the world cares is to destroy Turkey and accuse it anyway they can. So, although some Armenians might see this as a success, this actually harms exactly what they want; a genuine Turkish acknowledgement of the suffering of Armenians.
“It is simply not enough to enshrine the past, or gain small battles in cornering Turkey. How we pursue the ultimate end we want is as important as remembering the past,” he says.
However, as a Turk he strongly believes that Turkey has to rectify the suffering of Armenians. But “I am saddened by this resolution,” he concludes.
Dr. Ellen J. Kennedy
Professor and Interim Director, Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, University of Minnesota
Dr. Ellen J Kennedy has been active in educating people on the devastations and human casualties and sufferings of the holocaust and genocides. According to her, it is the moral obligation of the US to acknowledge “Armenian genocide.” However, she acknowledges that the resolution passed in the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs may negatively impact US-Turkey relations. Following is the excerpts from her e-mail interview.
"Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Howard Berman and other supporters of the resolution have said it well: that the United States has a moral obligation to speak out against genocide, to prevent it happening again. The International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) has labeled this tragedy as genocide.' The U.S. has not done so because of political relationships with Turkey. The Turkish government denies that this was genocide, saying that the numbers of deaths are both over-stated and are a consequence of civil war, not genocide.
"Turkish and Armenian government officials have been negotiating for an improvement of relations between their two countries, including an opening of borders. This resolution may result in Turkey's withdrawal from these negotiations and in a significant decline in relations. For the three million people in Armenia and the eight million Armenians in the Diaspora, who are the world's most scattered people, it represents a welcome acknowledgment of the tragedy that has become almost invisible. Hitler reputedly said, on the eve of efforts to exterminate Europe's Jews, Who speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?
"The Foreign Affairs Committee approved a similar resolution in 2007 but it didn't come to a full vote after pressure from then-President George W. Bush.
"Many human rights groups, the Armenian community, and scholars such as IAGS, noted above, have long advocated for this action.
"In 2006, France's national assembly outlawed denial of the Armenian genocide. Armenian activists in Europe have tried to block Turkey's pending application for membership in the European Union based on this issue."
It is difficult to say what the impact might be. During his campaign for the presidency, Obama pledged to recognize the 1.5 million Armenian deaths as genocide but the administration has now reversed its position. Current relations between Turkey and Armenia can be affected very negatively. Clearly President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton feel that there will be negative repercussions on US-Turkey relations. The US is pushing for new sanctions against Iran to be approved by the UN Security Council; Turkey holds a seat on the council and could withhold approval. In addition, Turkey is a crucial staging ground for US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Dr. Uttam Kumar Das is an Advocate (Attorney) in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh and specializes on human rights and migration issues. He is presently affiliated with the Human Rights Center at the University of Minnesota Law School in Minneapolis, U.S.A as a Humphrey Fellow (Fulbright Scholar). E-Mail: udas1971@yahoo.com.
*Originally appeared in the PROBE News Magazine (Dhaka, Bangladesh), March 12-18, 2010; link: http://www.probenewsmagazine.com/index.php?index=2&contentId=5897.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
[U.S.] Congress puts history up to vote*
Columns
Congress puts history up to vote
Reverberations from the Armenian slaughter will shake U.S. relations with Turkey.
Published: 03/07/2010
By Uttam Das
Likely a success of the Feb. 5 international conference at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed a resolution last week condemning the 1915 Armenian mass killing as “genocide.” The bill succeeded by a narrow margin of 23-22.
The theme of the conference was “The Armenian Genocide within the Framework of National and International Law,” and academics, researchers and legal and human rights experts traveled from across the world to share findings and expertise with colleagues.
A similar genocide acknowledgment bill was passed in 2007 under President George W. Bush but was not signed into law due to political backlash from Turkey, the successor of the Ottoman Empire held responsible for the genocide.
Though the resolutions passed last week do not bring any immediate legal obligation for the United States, its diplomatic and political consequences have already begun to manifest themselves.
This has been seen as a “difficult” and “painful period” for Turkey, which immediately called its U.S. Ambassador, Namik Tan, back to Ankara in diplomatic protest against passage of the resolution.
According to historians, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians died “amid the chaos and unrest surrounding World War I” following the “disintegration policy” of the Ottoman Empire, a New York Times article read last week.
However, Turkey refuses to use the word “genocide” and instead cites the deaths as an outcome of a civil war. Turkey has been waging a campaign against any bill in this regard.
To speculate on the effect this bill would have in both the short and long term, I spoke with Ziya Meral, a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. Meral, originally from Turkey, spoke of a “sense of vindication” for Turkey, adding that the acknowledgment comes at a heavy price. “At the short term, the Turkey-U.S. relations are being damaged,” Meral wrote in an e-mail response.
It is true that the United States needs an effective partnership with Turkey regarding its strategic and military interests.
According to Meral, who presented at the February conference in Minneapolis, the United States needs close Turkish support for its exit strategies from Afghanistan and Iraq. The same is also true for possible U.S. sanctions against what it deems a nuclear-ambitious Iran.
Observers like Meral point out that the “genocide bill” will further disrupt already volatile Armenian-Turkish relations by giving more legitimacy to nationalist voices in Turkey.
However, the passing of the bill by the U.S. House committee and “recognition and acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide” is seen as a victory for the Armenian “moral issue,” says Edmon Marukyan, an attorney in his home country and a current Humphrey Fellow. He explains that the “genocide” forced Armenians to spread out all over the world. The Armenians have been seeking justice for the genocide “if not on legal sphere,” Marukyan said, “on a moral one.”
According to Dr. Ellen Kennedy, professor and interim director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the University of Minnesota, for the 3 million people in Armenia and the 8 million Armenians living in other countries, the recent resolution represents a welcome acknowledgment of a tragedy that has become almost invisible. She referred to Hitler saying on the eve of efforts to exterminate Europe’s Jews, “Who speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”
In 2006, France’s National Assembly outlawed the denial of the Armenian genocide. Armenian activists in Europe have also tried to block Turkey’s pending application for membership in the European Union based on this issue, says Kennedy.
However, what prompted the U.S. House committee to pass the bill at this point in time?
Kennedy told me, referring to the Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Howard Berman, that the United States has a moral obligation to speak out against the genocide and to prevent it from happening again.
According to Kennedy, who is also the executive director of the nonprofit advocacy platform World Without Genocide, scholars have succeeded in labeling the Armenian tragedy “genocide.”
The International Association of Genocide has been successful in patronizing some of the scholars. Even British jurists like Dr. Geoffrey Robertson categorize the Armenian mass killing as “genocide” through research and publications.
It is clear that the United States has avoided a position on the issue, considering consequences from Turkey. But what now?
The Obama administration and the powerful Jewish lobby did not back the Turkish position, as an English newspaper in Turkey, The Daily News & Economic Review, reports.
As a senator, Barack Obama supported the previous Armenian resolution. He was also critical of President George W. Bush for stopping it. Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have also reportedly supported similar bills in the past.
However, that does not guarantee that the “genocide bill” would be approved by a Congress dominated by Democrats. Turkey will once again work hard to persuade the Obama administration to keep history’s semantics on its side.
Uttam Das welcomes comments at udas@mndaily.com.
* Originally appeared in the Minnesota Daily; link: http://www.mndaily.com/2010/03/07/congress-puts-history-vote
Congress puts history up to vote
Reverberations from the Armenian slaughter will shake U.S. relations with Turkey.
Published: 03/07/2010
By Uttam Das
Likely a success of the Feb. 5 international conference at the University of St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs passed a resolution last week condemning the 1915 Armenian mass killing as “genocide.” The bill succeeded by a narrow margin of 23-22.
The theme of the conference was “The Armenian Genocide within the Framework of National and International Law,” and academics, researchers and legal and human rights experts traveled from across the world to share findings and expertise with colleagues.
A similar genocide acknowledgment bill was passed in 2007 under President George W. Bush but was not signed into law due to political backlash from Turkey, the successor of the Ottoman Empire held responsible for the genocide.
Though the resolutions passed last week do not bring any immediate legal obligation for the United States, its diplomatic and political consequences have already begun to manifest themselves.
This has been seen as a “difficult” and “painful period” for Turkey, which immediately called its U.S. Ambassador, Namik Tan, back to Ankara in diplomatic protest against passage of the resolution.
According to historians, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians died “amid the chaos and unrest surrounding World War I” following the “disintegration policy” of the Ottoman Empire, a New York Times article read last week.
However, Turkey refuses to use the word “genocide” and instead cites the deaths as an outcome of a civil war. Turkey has been waging a campaign against any bill in this regard.
To speculate on the effect this bill would have in both the short and long term, I spoke with Ziya Meral, a doctoral candidate in political science at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. Meral, originally from Turkey, spoke of a “sense of vindication” for Turkey, adding that the acknowledgment comes at a heavy price. “At the short term, the Turkey-U.S. relations are being damaged,” Meral wrote in an e-mail response.
It is true that the United States needs an effective partnership with Turkey regarding its strategic and military interests.
According to Meral, who presented at the February conference in Minneapolis, the United States needs close Turkish support for its exit strategies from Afghanistan and Iraq. The same is also true for possible U.S. sanctions against what it deems a nuclear-ambitious Iran.
Observers like Meral point out that the “genocide bill” will further disrupt already volatile Armenian-Turkish relations by giving more legitimacy to nationalist voices in Turkey.
However, the passing of the bill by the U.S. House committee and “recognition and acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide” is seen as a victory for the Armenian “moral issue,” says Edmon Marukyan, an attorney in his home country and a current Humphrey Fellow. He explains that the “genocide” forced Armenians to spread out all over the world. The Armenians have been seeking justice for the genocide “if not on legal sphere,” Marukyan said, “on a moral one.”
According to Dr. Ellen Kennedy, professor and interim director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the University of Minnesota, for the 3 million people in Armenia and the 8 million Armenians living in other countries, the recent resolution represents a welcome acknowledgment of a tragedy that has become almost invisible. She referred to Hitler saying on the eve of efforts to exterminate Europe’s Jews, “Who speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”
In 2006, France’s National Assembly outlawed the denial of the Armenian genocide. Armenian activists in Europe have also tried to block Turkey’s pending application for membership in the European Union based on this issue, says Kennedy.
However, what prompted the U.S. House committee to pass the bill at this point in time?
Kennedy told me, referring to the Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Howard Berman, that the United States has a moral obligation to speak out against the genocide and to prevent it from happening again.
According to Kennedy, who is also the executive director of the nonprofit advocacy platform World Without Genocide, scholars have succeeded in labeling the Armenian tragedy “genocide.”
The International Association of Genocide has been successful in patronizing some of the scholars. Even British jurists like Dr. Geoffrey Robertson categorize the Armenian mass killing as “genocide” through research and publications.
It is clear that the United States has avoided a position on the issue, considering consequences from Turkey. But what now?
The Obama administration and the powerful Jewish lobby did not back the Turkish position, as an English newspaper in Turkey, The Daily News & Economic Review, reports.
As a senator, Barack Obama supported the previous Armenian resolution. He was also critical of President George W. Bush for stopping it. Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have also reportedly supported similar bills in the past.
However, that does not guarantee that the “genocide bill” would be approved by a Congress dominated by Democrats. Turkey will once again work hard to persuade the Obama administration to keep history’s semantics on its side.
Uttam Das welcomes comments at udas@mndaily.com.
* Originally appeared in the Minnesota Daily; link: http://www.mndaily.com/2010/03/07/congress-puts-history-vote
US to take 20,000 students each year
US to take 20,000 students each year*
This is good news, but the concerned authorities need to keep a watch against dubious consultants who may be out to make a quick buck at the expense of the aspiring students
Dr. Uttam Kumar Das writes from Minneapolis, USA
I wrote a column in the PROBE News Magazine in November last year exploring prospects of huge number of people’s immigration to the United States from Bangladesh. For its own national and economic needs and interests, the US needs migrant workers and immigrant population. At the same time, it will also look into whom to take in and whom not to, given its related laws and public policies, public opinions, security and other concerns.
Though immigration is normally a federal matter, there may be differences in terms of policy and public opinion from one state to another. Therefore, to succeed in supplying both migrant workers and immigrant populations, the sending countries need to strategize its steps to meet the demand.
In this backdrop, the visiting US Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Policy Ms. Judith A McHale announced in Dhaka recently that her country would take 20,000 students each year from Bangladesh for higher studies. This is indeed good news for Bangladesh and for students who are looking for an opportunity for a standard overseas degree and professional development.
However, a mere announcement is not enough. It is important for the government of Bangladesh to monitor and ensure that the announced number of students are getting the opportunity each year, and negotiate to expand opportunities for scholarships and other financial support form the US government and other sources so that the meritorious students from comparatively non-solvent families could avail this chance. Also, there is a need to press for expanding the number in the years to come, given the requirements of our young generation.
At the same time, another issue comes to forefront -- to standardize the education (i.e. at a school, college and university level) as well as language skills so that our students could compete with their counterparts from other nations. No malpractice should mar this opportunity.
Studentship is one of the prospective ways to enter the US, which may give rise to future opportunities for an individual to adjust his status into a Legally Permanent Resident (Green Card holder) or naturalization and get citizenship in the US, given the skill and interest of the individuals and necessity of the host country and government.
That does not mean that those who will be going for higher studies would settle in the US in future. The government of Bangladesh has to create an environment and infrastructure so that the students come back to home, armed with their new degrees, knowledge and expertise and can use those for the development and benefit of the country. This is what India and China have now started to implement.
US academic institutions have a sound reputation for standard and quality education. There are exceptions, of course, and students have to be careful about that. There is ample opportunity for foreign and international students for higher studies and research scholarships and funding, apart from self-funding ones.
Higher education is also a significant source of revenue for the US exchequer. During the 2008-2009 academic year the country earned about US$ 18 billion from the foreign and international students’ tuition and other fees.
The Washington DC-based Institute of International Education (IIE) projected that during 2008-2009 session, 671,000 international students came to the US. India tops the list with 103,000 students while China sent 98,500.
The area of higher studies and research is wide; curriculums are modern and practical, and renowned institutes have globally acclaimed academics and researchers.
Given my present affiliation, the University Of Minnesota Law School offers diverse ranges of specializations in different branches of law like business and trade, labor and employment, family matters, immigration, and human rights. At the same time, there is opportunity for dual degrees in public policy, business management, media, and health and ethics alongside a law degree.
It is encouraging to hear that the US is going to take a huge number of students for higher studies from Bangladesh yearly. At the same time, it is a matter of concern as well.
Considering the reality in Bangladesh, there may be a mushrooming of so-called advisory and consulting companies. They may give attractive advertisements on TV and in the newspapers.
Given my experiences, working in the migration area and coming to the US with a Fulbright Scholarship, I could say that those so-called consultants do nothing but fill their own pockets with money from aspiring students and their guardians. Therefore, the prospective students and their guardians need to be cautious about any malpractice. They should inquire about an institution through internet or the public affairs section of the US Embassy in Dhaka and contact accordingly.
The respective agencies of the Bangladesh government, the US Embassy, and the American Center in Dhaka need to take special measures to prevent any malpractice. Alongside the websites, national, regional and local newspapers would be effective instruments to disseminate related information. Also, notice boards at academic institutes and government offices at district and divisional levels could be used for disseminating information.
If needed the respective laws and policies need to be amended and their effective implementation would enable the Bangladesh government to prevent and prosecute any emerging malpractice with regard to students’ immigration to the US.
Dr. Uttam Kumar Das is an Advocate in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, presently affiliated as a Humphrey Fellow (Fulbright Scholar) with the Human Rights Center and Law School at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. He is a specialist in Human Rights. E-mail: udas1971@yahoo.com, udas1971@yahoo.com
*Originally appeared in PROBE News Magazine (Dhaka, Bangladesh), Feb 19-Mar 4, 2010; link: http://www.probenewsmagazine.com/index.php?index=2&contentId=5844
This is good news, but the concerned authorities need to keep a watch against dubious consultants who may be out to make a quick buck at the expense of the aspiring students
Dr. Uttam Kumar Das writes from Minneapolis, USA
I wrote a column in the PROBE News Magazine in November last year exploring prospects of huge number of people’s immigration to the United States from Bangladesh. For its own national and economic needs and interests, the US needs migrant workers and immigrant population. At the same time, it will also look into whom to take in and whom not to, given its related laws and public policies, public opinions, security and other concerns.
Though immigration is normally a federal matter, there may be differences in terms of policy and public opinion from one state to another. Therefore, to succeed in supplying both migrant workers and immigrant populations, the sending countries need to strategize its steps to meet the demand.
In this backdrop, the visiting US Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Policy Ms. Judith A McHale announced in Dhaka recently that her country would take 20,000 students each year from Bangladesh for higher studies. This is indeed good news for Bangladesh and for students who are looking for an opportunity for a standard overseas degree and professional development.
However, a mere announcement is not enough. It is important for the government of Bangladesh to monitor and ensure that the announced number of students are getting the opportunity each year, and negotiate to expand opportunities for scholarships and other financial support form the US government and other sources so that the meritorious students from comparatively non-solvent families could avail this chance. Also, there is a need to press for expanding the number in the years to come, given the requirements of our young generation.
At the same time, another issue comes to forefront -- to standardize the education (i.e. at a school, college and university level) as well as language skills so that our students could compete with their counterparts from other nations. No malpractice should mar this opportunity.
Studentship is one of the prospective ways to enter the US, which may give rise to future opportunities for an individual to adjust his status into a Legally Permanent Resident (Green Card holder) or naturalization and get citizenship in the US, given the skill and interest of the individuals and necessity of the host country and government.
That does not mean that those who will be going for higher studies would settle in the US in future. The government of Bangladesh has to create an environment and infrastructure so that the students come back to home, armed with their new degrees, knowledge and expertise and can use those for the development and benefit of the country. This is what India and China have now started to implement.
US academic institutions have a sound reputation for standard and quality education. There are exceptions, of course, and students have to be careful about that. There is ample opportunity for foreign and international students for higher studies and research scholarships and funding, apart from self-funding ones.
Higher education is also a significant source of revenue for the US exchequer. During the 2008-2009 academic year the country earned about US$ 18 billion from the foreign and international students’ tuition and other fees.
The Washington DC-based Institute of International Education (IIE) projected that during 2008-2009 session, 671,000 international students came to the US. India tops the list with 103,000 students while China sent 98,500.
The area of higher studies and research is wide; curriculums are modern and practical, and renowned institutes have globally acclaimed academics and researchers.
Given my present affiliation, the University Of Minnesota Law School offers diverse ranges of specializations in different branches of law like business and trade, labor and employment, family matters, immigration, and human rights. At the same time, there is opportunity for dual degrees in public policy, business management, media, and health and ethics alongside a law degree.
It is encouraging to hear that the US is going to take a huge number of students for higher studies from Bangladesh yearly. At the same time, it is a matter of concern as well.
Considering the reality in Bangladesh, there may be a mushrooming of so-called advisory and consulting companies. They may give attractive advertisements on TV and in the newspapers.
Given my experiences, working in the migration area and coming to the US with a Fulbright Scholarship, I could say that those so-called consultants do nothing but fill their own pockets with money from aspiring students and their guardians. Therefore, the prospective students and their guardians need to be cautious about any malpractice. They should inquire about an institution through internet or the public affairs section of the US Embassy in Dhaka and contact accordingly.
The respective agencies of the Bangladesh government, the US Embassy, and the American Center in Dhaka need to take special measures to prevent any malpractice. Alongside the websites, national, regional and local newspapers would be effective instruments to disseminate related information. Also, notice boards at academic institutes and government offices at district and divisional levels could be used for disseminating information.
If needed the respective laws and policies need to be amended and their effective implementation would enable the Bangladesh government to prevent and prosecute any emerging malpractice with regard to students’ immigration to the US.
Dr. Uttam Kumar Das is an Advocate in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, presently affiliated as a Humphrey Fellow (Fulbright Scholar) with the Human Rights Center and Law School at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. He is a specialist in Human Rights. E-mail: udas1971@yahoo.com, udas1971@yahoo.com
*Originally appeared in PROBE News Magazine (Dhaka, Bangladesh), Feb 19-Mar 4, 2010; link: http://www.probenewsmagazine.com/index.php?index=2&contentId=5844
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)