Conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh Analysis Dissertation

Conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh Analysis Dissertation This dissertation focuses on the conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh; the origins of the conflict, its present state and the possible future. Throughout the dissertation several key aspects and theories of International relations are analysed, such as: peoples right to self determination, the concept of nation-state and conflict resolution. Firstly, the relevant theories of International relations are explored and an attempt is made to compare them with reality and to show their use in the real world. Secondly, a historical background of the conflict is described, followed by a description of the conflict from 1988 to 1995 and the peace talks. Thirdly, an analysis of the future of NK is examined, pointing out possible solutions and forms of reconciliation. Moreover, relevant questions are individually looked at. For over ten years NK has been on a path of nation-state building. NK sees itself as an independent republic, even with lack of international recognition. NK has a population of 141,000 and an area that covers 11,458.38  km2. (Official website of the President of NK, http://www.president.nkr.am/en/nkr/statePower/ , accessed on March 2, 2011). The map below show the situation of NK, they show both the NK Autonomous Oblast and the present NK state boundaries that include the occupied territories of Azerbaijan: THEORY: RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION As this dissertation deals with the de facto state of Nagorno-Karabakh, it analyses and explores International Law concerning peoples right to self determination and the consequent recognition of their state. Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 of the United Nations Charter created in 1945 states that the aim of the UN is to: Develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace?. Article 1, part 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 states the following: All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development?. (United Nations Charter 1945, available at: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ [accessed March 2 2011]) Moreover, the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations of 24th October 1970 declares that: By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.? (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm [accessed march 2 2011]) The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people?. (UN General Assembly, Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1970,  available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3dda1f104.html  [accessed March 2 2011] ). These legal statements show the core understanding and acceptance of the international community regarding the idea of peoples right to self determination. Even though some core aspects of these declarations can be vague in their practical sense, their overall message is not contested. By taking into account these and other declarations, the case for the people of NK becomes clearer. Presently, the problem lies with the idea that NK peoples right to self determination collides with Azerbaijans right to sovereignty, so what is the solution? According to Dr. Otto Luchterhandt, the director of East European Research Department (University of Hamburg): The right to self-determination is not only a political principle but a rule of existing international law. The people of Nagorny Karabakh are the subject of the right to self-determination. The people of Nagorny Karabakh can claim for the highest level fulfilment of the law of self-determination â€Å" secession from the state of Azerbaijan because on the one hand its restriction to the status of a national minority stands in no reasonable relation to its legitimate interests in development and protection, and on the other hand the measure of its oppression has reached such unbearable proportions, that remaining in the federation of Azerbaijan has become unacceptable and it has announced it will for self-determination in an unmistakable and convincing manner.? (Luchterhandt, Nagorny Karabakhs Right to State Independence According to International Law, Boston, 1993) To use international law in a discussion in the case for NK, specific proof has to be shown. There is also the argument that juridical legitimacy of borders and territorial integrity works against the self-determination principle, however this cannot be taken into account in the case of Azerbaijan SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic). Firstly, it must be stated that NK was an autonomous oblast (an administrative unit) within the Azerbaijan SSR, and that Azerbaijan SSR was not defined by state borders, it was defined by administrative borders, therefore the Helsinki Agreement Final Act in 1975 concerning territorial integrity cannot be applied. As Francois Mitterrand said: Why should the interior administrative borders of a state be automatically recognised as international ones? (Zargarian,1999). Secondly, on the 31st August 19941 the Azerbaijan SSR confirmed the restoration of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan that had been created from 1918 to 1920. This declaration leaves to question the legality of the present Azerbaijans borders, including the territories of NK, territories surrounding NK and Nakhijevan, as none of these were part of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan. In addition, it is well documented that in December 1920, Azerbaijan SSR accepted the territories of NK and Nakhijevan as belonging to Armenia. These declarations were later altered by Stalin, which at the times was Commissar of Nationalities. To further analyse, the value of state sovereignty of Azerbaijan should be graded as lower than the importance of sovereignty of a state in a normal situation, with reference to the system of states in the League of Nations, therefore it is lower than the NK peoples right to self determination. (Raschhofer, 1960) This notion gives support to the national right to self-determination of NKs people in right to secession over Azerbaijans state sovereignty. (Luchterhandt, 1993). To conclude, as the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh was founded after a referendum on state independence on 10th December 1991, resulting in a 98% acceptance, and in agreement with international and Soviet law, it should ultimately be acknowledged as genuine under international law. Moreover, precedent of Eritrea can be used, which showed that self proclamation leads to be under the power of international law. NK relationship with other countries, international organisations, and treaties such as the Geneva Convention, all give power for self-determination. HISTORY The name Nagorno-Karabakh has a mixture of 3 languages; Nagorno is in Russian meaning mountainous?, and Karabakh is in Turkic and Farsi meaning Black Garden?. However, the Armenians call it Artsakh, as it was one of the provinces of Greater Armenia, and it is mentioned as early as second century BC: the ancient provinces of Artsakh and Utik, situated between Lake Sevan, river Kara and river Araxes. (Strabo, 1st century BC.) During the centuries, NK has been mainly populated by ethnic Armenians, however there were periods in which during conquests other ethnic groups would settle, such as Caucasian Tatars, Caucasian Albanians (no connection to Albanians in Balkans), Persians and Turkic tribes. The recent conflict with Azerbaijan has unleashed a historical fact finding war, where the Azeris lay historical claims to these lands, and the Armenians refute them. The people living in NK point out to the obvious evidence, such as hundreds of ruins, ancient monuments, religious building, churches and monasteries. (Tchilingirian,1999). As one farmer said in regard to this: This monastery (Monastery of Gandzasar) kept us Armenian, the writings on these walls made us know who we are. There is a khachkar (cross-stone), the size of a car, on top of this mountain; our ancestors placed it there to indicate that this is Armenian land? (Martakert, 1995). To review the history of Artsakh a new dissertation can be written, therefore to keep in line with this dissertation, a review of more recent history is made. After 1918, when the Georgians, Armenians and Azeris took advantage of the chaos of the Russian Revolution to establish independent states, war broke out between Armenia and Azerbaijan, however by 1921 all three republic were under the rule of the Red Army. (Swietochowski, 1985) Originally, the Bolsheviks determined NKs problem: The Chairman of the Azerbaijani Revolutionary Committee (Azrevkom), Narimanov declared: The government of Workers and Peasants of Azerbaijan, having heard the news of the proclamation in Armenia in the name of the insurgent peasantry of the Soviet Socialist Republic, salutes the victory of the fraternal Armenian people. From this day forward, the former borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan are suspended. Mountainous Karabagh, Zangezur, and Nakhichevan are recognized as integral parts of the Socialist Republic of Armenia. Long live the fraternity and union of workers and peasants of Soviet Armenia and Azerbaijan.? (L. Chorbajian, P. Donabedian, C. Mutafian, 1994) The decision by Narimanov was acclaimed by the ethnic Armenians which thought that it was a fair decision. Moreover, Narimanov declared: no territorial conflict will cause bloodshed between these two age-old neighbourly peoples?. ( Chorbajian, Donabedian, Mutafian, 1994). Yerevans central authority henceforth declared: Based on the declaration of (Azrevkom) ¦it is hereby declared that Mountainous Karabagh is henceforth an integral part of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Armenia? (Libaridian, 2004) This announcement was never realised, even if it was at the beginning supported by Stalin. Stalins view was that Karabagh should be given to Azerbaijan, in an effort to increase friendly relations with Turkey, which by then had aspirations to be a communist state. (Lane, 1992) It must be understood that Turks and Azeris are ethnically the same people. Even though the decision over NK was reached on July 4th 1921 in the Kavburo (Caucasian Bureau of the Communist Party): Based on the declaration of (Azrevkom) ¦it is hereby declared that Mountainous Karabagh is henceforth an integral part of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Armenia? (Libaridian, 2004) The Kars and Moscow treaties were signed in October, giving Azerbaijan the control of NK. Thus, NKs Armenian populations (90% of NK) desire to unite with Armenia was ignored, creating ethnic tensions that would eventually end in full scale war. The Armenians tried to relocate NK to Armenia SSR in 1929, 1935, 1963, 1966, 1977 and 1987. The main reasons were the anti-Armenian discrimination, demographic shifts and economic underdevelopment. (Ulubabian, 1994) The Armenian population had declined by 25% from 1920 to 1979, due to hardships created by these discriminatory attitudes. The modern conflict started on February 1988, when due to the glasnost policy created by Gorbachev and its subsequent openness, the NK authorities asked to transfer the NK Autonomous Oblast to Armenia SSR. The reaction in Azerbaijan SSR was negative, as in 13th June it rejected this demand, on the other hand Armenia SSR on 15th June gave acceptance to this request. Due to the argument between Azerbaijan SSR and Armenia SSR, Moscow had to decide, and since Articles 73 and 78 of the 1977 USSR Constitution states that borders may only be changed if both republics agree on the change, NK stayed under Azerbaijans SSR authority, until the Soviet Union broke down in 1991. The conflict itself started with violence and ethnic-cleansing, with guerrilla warfare. Pogroms against Armenians started in Sumgait (near Baku) in February 1988 and in January 1990 in Baku. The Armenians of Baku (approximately 220,000) and from other parts of Azerbaijan were forced to flee, except in areas of NK. In return, Azeris in Armenia (160,000) were forced to leave, however no pogroms and mass violence was recorded, unlike in Baku. It was not until Yeltsin came to power that Russia sided with the Armenians, as before the USSR broke down the USSR Army was helping the Azeris. The Russians helped the Armenians with weapons, fuel and logistical support. The reason the Russians sided with the Armenians was because it was against Azerbaijans pro-Turkey and pro-Western positions. (Betts, 1999). Russias view was that Armenia was its only ally in the South Caucasus, and due to its geopolitical situation in regard to Turkey in Iran, help should be given. Full scale war broke out between 1991 and 1994 among the Azeri Army and the irregular Armenian guerrilla fighters. At the beginnings of 1992 the Azeris were in control of nearly half of NK, forcing out Armenian civilians as they advanced. Spring 1992 was when the advantage turned towards the Armenians, as their offensive pushed the Azeris to retreat. Once the city of Shushi was captured in May 8 1992, the Armenians had control of NK and the surrounding territories. It must be noted that the Armenian side was mostly fought by guerrilla fighters, which did not respond to any central authority in NK or Armenia. Most of the fighters or Fedayeen (Freedom Fighters), as the Armenians call them, were ordinary people without training or military weapons. The Armenians were helped by the Diaspora, which sent money, weapons and volunteers to help. The Azeri side brought mercenaries from Chechnya and mujahedeen from Pakistan and Afghanistan (approximately 3,000 fighters). (Taarnby, Michael. 2008 ) In May 1994 a cease fire was signed with Russia as intermediary in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. The ceasefire was signed by the Azerbaijani authorities and General Babayan from the NK Armed forces. The result of the war was that the Armenians ended up controlling 20% of Azerbaijans territory. An estimated 4,500 people died and 25,00 wounded from the Armenian side, and an estimated 30,000 died and 60,000 wounded on the Azeri side. (De Waal, 2003). CEASE FIRE AND PEACE TALKS Before the ceasefire agreement mediated by Russia, several attempts were made to find a solution. The first attempt was by Boris Yeltsin and Nursultan Nazarbayev on September 1991, it gave no fruit. Next mediation was by Iran on February 1992. Since Irans historical relationship with both the Armenians and the Azeris was close, it attempted to increase its dominance in the region, especially to push Turkey aside. The Tehran conference did not reach to any agreement. After this, CSCE (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe) started to arbitrate, it also pressed Iran out of the negotiations, as the latter was not a member of CSCE, On August 1992, Nazarbayev tried again, but the mediation led to nowhere. CSCE tried on several occasions from 1992 until December 1994 to reach an agreement for both sides, but its inexperience and Russias parallel involvement made it fail. From May 1994, when the ceasefire was signed, several propositions were laid on the negotiation table, but NK was only to agree to a complete package?, while Azerbaijan pushed for a step by step? approach. ( Mooradian, 1999) To date, there has been no concrete agreement between the two parts. The main mediator is the Minsk Group, created in 1993 by the CSCE (now OSCE), even though the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan have met on various occasions, NKs government is still left out of any negotiations. CAN KOSOVO BE USED AS AN EXAMPLE? After the recognition of Kosovos independence, many other de facto states looked closely to see if it would set an example. Even though the states that have recognised Kosovo state that Kosovo cannot be used as a precedent, others may argue that it can and has. The main reason the international community uses to implicate the uniqueness of Kosovo is that it has been under UN and international control, while other de facto states like NK, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have not. To analyse the relevance of Kosovo, a comparison is made. The similarities with NK are various: both consist of a minority that sees itself discriminated, both conflicts started in an era of transition brought by the disintegration of the Soviet Union, both held referendums and used the peoples right to self determination idea. The differences must also be noted: NK can argue that before the transition era, it already was an Autonomous Oblast. NK has existed for longer, with relative better stability, and has made more progress on state-building, even though it received less international attention and financial support. (Murinson, 2004) Other differences are that NK is not accepted as a negotiating part in the peace process, Armenia acts as its representative. It can be argued that the Kosovo can be used as an example of a state gaining independence, however, the international community argues that it is a unique case, however this does not limit the political ramifications it has brought. Kosovos independence has given hope to other de facto states, who argue that in all, they should have a better chance in gaining independence than Kosovo. As the former President of NK stated: If the world community is ready to recognize the independence of Kosovo, I think it will be very hard for them to explain why they do not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh? (Yakubyan, 2006) And as the Speaker of NK Parliament said: A serious basis for the international recognition of our sovereignty, we have held free elections for 16 years, law-enforcement bodies are formed, powers are divided, [the] army is under civil control? (Karabakh Has Serious Grounds for International Recognition of Sovereignty «, in: Karabakh Open, 20 February 2008) To explain why Kosovo deserves international recognition and other de facto states in very similar positions do not is very hard, even by the same international community that accepted Kosovos independence. The reasons can vary from the official statement that Kosovo has been under international control, while other have not, but it is also correct to assume that other factors such as mutual interests among regional powers. Russias involvement in the NK peace process has many times thrown the Minsk Groups propositions away, as Russia can benefit from the no peace no war? situation over NK: it sells arms and heavy weaponry to both Armenia and Azerbaijan, arming both sides. WHY HAS ARMENIA NOT RECOGNISED NKS INDEPENDENCE? This question is very interesting in the sense that it would be logical that Armenia should be the first country in recognising the independence of NK, however there is one main reason of why it has not. The official Armenian response to these questions is that since Armenia has started: An international legal process of settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh  conflict, and this is why Armenia has still not recognized the enclaves independence? It  is for  the  same reason that Armenia has not recognized the independence of Kosovo, Oleg   Yesayan,   Armenian   ambassador   to   Belarus. (Alima Bissenova. (2008). Armenia links issue of Abkhazia, S. Ossetia to N.-Karabakh. Available: http://www.cacianalyst.org/?q=taxonomy/term/4page=6. Last accessed 20th January 2011.) However, due to the recent statements by Azerbaijan of taking NK back by force has made the Armenian side declare that it would recognise NK if war started: Armenia is categorically against a military resolution of the problem. In the event Azerbaijan unleashes a new military venture, Armenia will have no other choice but to recognize de jure the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh and provide for the safety of its population through all means,? President of Armenia, Serge Sarkisian Astana, Kazakhstan, December 2010. EuroAsia. (2010). Armenia Says Will Recognize Karabakh In Case Of War. Available: http://www.eurasianet.org/node/62556. Last accessed 20th January 2011 One could argue that Armenia should recognise NK, in the same manner as Russia has recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The recognition of NK would give Armenia legal right to aid NK in case war started with Azerbaijan. Moreover, some argue that if Armenia does not recognise NK in the foreseeable future, the status and issue of NK could be forgotten to history, as it would lose its momentum in the pursuit for recognition. RECOMENDATIONS From the overall analysis of the NK conflict and other similar conflicts around the world, some basic and concrete to the NK case recommendations can be made: OSCE and other international peace organisations should look to include NK in the negotiation process as an independent actor, like they did with the ceasefire agreement. International organisations should pave the way to stipulate better assurances for non resumption of armed conflict. The line of fire should be closely observed for ceasefire violations. Programs should be developed in order to teach both societies about tolerance, reconciliation and mutual respect. International organisations should look to integrate the public in debates and discussions, and rely less on top-down approaches. (Faber, 2005) International organisations should push for a peacekeeping force to be deployed on the contact line, it should also try to organise a new referendum under the eyes of international observers, henceforth push for a lawful democratisation and a peace settlement. (Freizer, 2006) Governments in Armenia, NK, and Azerbaijan should start to include conflict resolution and prevention, peace building and peacekeeping, human rights programmes at schools and universities, in order to increase public awareness. NGOs should create projects along with the civil society to educate the population about the conflict and conciliation for peace. Finally, an international recognition of NK would ensure a peaceful settlement of the conflict, and would make NK answerable to international law. Moreover, NK would have access to loans from the IMF or the WB, thus being able to develop better as a state. Open borders with Azerbaijan would bolster trade, and maybe bring trust between the people. CONCLUSION The conflict of NK is very complicated to be able to analyse without going into much detail. There are many arguments for and against certain strategies, using international law, international recognition, state sovereignty, refugees, and many others, but one thing is being ignored; the fact that NK has been acting like any other recognised democratic state for over 15 years. NKs human rights violations, degree of democracy and transparency and corruption are all better than Armenia or Azerbaijan, (Freedom House, 2011) yet still there is little advance among the international community in recognising NK. Some may add that the West uses double standards: Weve got used to the double standards of the West. I believe that the people of South Ossetia have much more reason for gaining independence than the Kosovan Albanians.? (Yuri Morozov, Prime Minister of South Ossetia). In my opinion, the West does not fully use double standards, but approaches the question very surgically, since it un derstands the uniqueness of every conflict, and that it could be disastrous to use one peace settlement in another area, as every conflict has its own inimitable dynamics. I think that NK pace to independence is correct, as sooner or later it will have to be recognised, it should continue developing its government in order to set an example. In the near future two outcomes are possible, either an international recognition of NK or war will break out, it is inevitable, as both sides continue arming themselves, therefore it in my opinion it is in the best interest that of the international community to prevent such hostilities by recognizing NK. As Chekov said: If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise dont put it there. (A. P. Chekhov, in Teatr i iskusstvo 1904, No. 28, 11 July, p. 521) Conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh Analysis Dissertation Conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh Analysis Dissertation This dissertation focuses on the conflict of Nagorno-Karabakh; the origins of the conflict, its present state and the possible future. Throughout the dissertation several key aspects and theories of International relations are analysed, such as: peoples right to self determination, the concept of nation-state and conflict resolution. Firstly, the relevant theories of International relations are explored and an attempt is made to compare them with reality and to show their use in the real world. Secondly, a historical background of the conflict is described, followed by a description of the conflict from 1988 to 1995 and the peace talks. Thirdly, an analysis of the future of NK is examined, pointing out possible solutions and forms of reconciliation. Moreover, relevant questions are individually looked at. For over ten years NK has been on a path of nation-state building. NK sees itself as an independent republic, even with lack of international recognition. NK has a population of 141,000 and an area that covers 11,458.38  km2. (Official website of the President of NK, http://www.president.nkr.am/en/nkr/statePower/ , accessed on March 2, 2011). The map below show the situation of NK, they show both the NK Autonomous Oblast and the present NK state boundaries that include the occupied territories of Azerbaijan: THEORY: RIGHT TO SELF DETERMINATION As this dissertation deals with the de facto state of Nagorno-Karabakh, it analyses and explores International Law concerning peoples right to self determination and the consequent recognition of their state. Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 of the United Nations Charter created in 1945 states that the aim of the UN is to: Develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace?. Article 1, part 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 states the following: All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development?. (United Nations Charter 1945, available at: http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/ [accessed March 2 2011]) Moreover, the Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations of 24th October 1970 declares that: By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter.? (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm [accessed march 2 2011]) The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people?. (UN General Assembly, Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1970,  available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3dda1f104.html  [accessed March 2 2011] ). These legal statements show the core understanding and acceptance of the international community regarding the idea of peoples right to self determination. Even though some core aspects of these declarations can be vague in their practical sense, their overall message is not contested. By taking into account these and other declarations, the case for the people of NK becomes clearer. Presently, the problem lies with the idea that NK peoples right to self determination collides with Azerbaijans right to sovereignty, so what is the solution? According to Dr. Otto Luchterhandt, the director of East European Research Department (University of Hamburg): The right to self-determination is not only a political principle but a rule of existing international law. The people of Nagorny Karabakh are the subject of the right to self-determination. The people of Nagorny Karabakh can claim for the highest level fulfilment of the law of self-determination â€Å" secession from the state of Azerbaijan because on the one hand its restriction to the status of a national minority stands in no reasonable relation to its legitimate interests in development and protection, and on the other hand the measure of its oppression has reached such unbearable proportions, that remaining in the federation of Azerbaijan has become unacceptable and it has announced it will for self-determination in an unmistakable and convincing manner.? (Luchterhandt, Nagorny Karabakhs Right to State Independence According to International Law, Boston, 1993) To use international law in a discussion in the case for NK, specific proof has to be shown. There is also the argument that juridical legitimacy of borders and territorial integrity works against the self-determination principle, however this cannot be taken into account in the case of Azerbaijan SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic). Firstly, it must be stated that NK was an autonomous oblast (an administrative unit) within the Azerbaijan SSR, and that Azerbaijan SSR was not defined by state borders, it was defined by administrative borders, therefore the Helsinki Agreement Final Act in 1975 concerning territorial integrity cannot be applied. As Francois Mitterrand said: Why should the interior administrative borders of a state be automatically recognised as international ones? (Zargarian,1999). Secondly, on the 31st August 19941 the Azerbaijan SSR confirmed the restoration of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan that had been created from 1918 to 1920. This declaration leaves to question the legality of the present Azerbaijans borders, including the territories of NK, territories surrounding NK and Nakhijevan, as none of these were part of the Democratic Republic of Azerbaijan. In addition, it is well documented that in December 1920, Azerbaijan SSR accepted the territories of NK and Nakhijevan as belonging to Armenia. These declarations were later altered by Stalin, which at the times was Commissar of Nationalities. To further analyse, the value of state sovereignty of Azerbaijan should be graded as lower than the importance of sovereignty of a state in a normal situation, with reference to the system of states in the League of Nations, therefore it is lower than the NK peoples right to self determination. (Raschhofer, 1960) This notion gives support to the national right to self-determination of NKs people in right to secession over Azerbaijans state sovereignty. (Luchterhandt, 1993). To conclude, as the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh was founded after a referendum on state independence on 10th December 1991, resulting in a 98% acceptance, and in agreement with international and Soviet law, it should ultimately be acknowledged as genuine under international law. Moreover, precedent of Eritrea can be used, which showed that self proclamation leads to be under the power of international law. NK relationship with other countries, international organisations, and treaties such as the Geneva Convention, all give power for self-determination. HISTORY The name Nagorno-Karabakh has a mixture of 3 languages; Nagorno is in Russian meaning mountainous?, and Karabakh is in Turkic and Farsi meaning Black Garden?. However, the Armenians call it Artsakh, as it was one of the provinces of Greater Armenia, and it is mentioned as early as second century BC: the ancient provinces of Artsakh and Utik, situated between Lake Sevan, river Kara and river Araxes. (Strabo, 1st century BC.) During the centuries, NK has been mainly populated by ethnic Armenians, however there were periods in which during conquests other ethnic groups would settle, such as Caucasian Tatars, Caucasian Albanians (no connection to Albanians in Balkans), Persians and Turkic tribes. The recent conflict with Azerbaijan has unleashed a historical fact finding war, where the Azeris lay historical claims to these lands, and the Armenians refute them. The people living in NK point out to the obvious evidence, such as hundreds of ruins, ancient monuments, religious building, churches and monasteries. (Tchilingirian,1999). As one farmer said in regard to this: This monastery (Monastery of Gandzasar) kept us Armenian, the writings on these walls made us know who we are. There is a khachkar (cross-stone), the size of a car, on top of this mountain; our ancestors placed it there to indicate that this is Armenian land? (Martakert, 1995). To review the history of Artsakh a new dissertation can be written, therefore to keep in line with this dissertation, a review of more recent history is made. After 1918, when the Georgians, Armenians and Azeris took advantage of the chaos of the Russian Revolution to establish independent states, war broke out between Armenia and Azerbaijan, however by 1921 all three republic were under the rule of the Red Army. (Swietochowski, 1985) Originally, the Bolsheviks determined NKs problem: The Chairman of the Azerbaijani Revolutionary Committee (Azrevkom), Narimanov declared: The government of Workers and Peasants of Azerbaijan, having heard the news of the proclamation in Armenia in the name of the insurgent peasantry of the Soviet Socialist Republic, salutes the victory of the fraternal Armenian people. From this day forward, the former borders between Armenia and Azerbaijan are suspended. Mountainous Karabagh, Zangezur, and Nakhichevan are recognized as integral parts of the Socialist Republic of Armenia. Long live the fraternity and union of workers and peasants of Soviet Armenia and Azerbaijan.? (L. Chorbajian, P. Donabedian, C. Mutafian, 1994) The decision by Narimanov was acclaimed by the ethnic Armenians which thought that it was a fair decision. Moreover, Narimanov declared: no territorial conflict will cause bloodshed between these two age-old neighbourly peoples?. ( Chorbajian, Donabedian, Mutafian, 1994). Yerevans central authority henceforth declared: Based on the declaration of (Azrevkom) ¦it is hereby declared that Mountainous Karabagh is henceforth an integral part of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Armenia? (Libaridian, 2004) This announcement was never realised, even if it was at the beginning supported by Stalin. Stalins view was that Karabagh should be given to Azerbaijan, in an effort to increase friendly relations with Turkey, which by then had aspirations to be a communist state. (Lane, 1992) It must be understood that Turks and Azeris are ethnically the same people. Even though the decision over NK was reached on July 4th 1921 in the Kavburo (Caucasian Bureau of the Communist Party): Based on the declaration of (Azrevkom) ¦it is hereby declared that Mountainous Karabagh is henceforth an integral part of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Armenia? (Libaridian, 2004) The Kars and Moscow treaties were signed in October, giving Azerbaijan the control of NK. Thus, NKs Armenian populations (90% of NK) desire to unite with Armenia was ignored, creating ethnic tensions that would eventually end in full scale war. The Armenians tried to relocate NK to Armenia SSR in 1929, 1935, 1963, 1966, 1977 and 1987. The main reasons were the anti-Armenian discrimination, demographic shifts and economic underdevelopment. (Ulubabian, 1994) The Armenian population had declined by 25% from 1920 to 1979, due to hardships created by these discriminatory attitudes. The modern conflict started on February 1988, when due to the glasnost policy created by Gorbachev and its subsequent openness, the NK authorities asked to transfer the NK Autonomous Oblast to Armenia SSR. The reaction in Azerbaijan SSR was negative, as in 13th June it rejected this demand, on the other hand Armenia SSR on 15th June gave acceptance to this request. Due to the argument between Azerbaijan SSR and Armenia SSR, Moscow had to decide, and since Articles 73 and 78 of the 1977 USSR Constitution states that borders may only be changed if both republics agree on the change, NK stayed under Azerbaijans SSR authority, until the Soviet Union broke down in 1991. The conflict itself started with violence and ethnic-cleansing, with guerrilla warfare. Pogroms against Armenians started in Sumgait (near Baku) in February 1988 and in January 1990 in Baku. The Armenians of Baku (approximately 220,000) and from other parts of Azerbaijan were forced to flee, except in areas of NK. In return, Azeris in Armenia (160,000) were forced to leave, however no pogroms and mass violence was recorded, unlike in Baku. It was not until Yeltsin came to power that Russia sided with the Armenians, as before the USSR broke down the USSR Army was helping the Azeris. The Russians helped the Armenians with weapons, fuel and logistical support. The reason the Russians sided with the Armenians was because it was against Azerbaijans pro-Turkey and pro-Western positions. (Betts, 1999). Russias view was that Armenia was its only ally in the South Caucasus, and due to its geopolitical situation in regard to Turkey in Iran, help should be given. Full scale war broke out between 1991 and 1994 among the Azeri Army and the irregular Armenian guerrilla fighters. At the beginnings of 1992 the Azeris were in control of nearly half of NK, forcing out Armenian civilians as they advanced. Spring 1992 was when the advantage turned towards the Armenians, as their offensive pushed the Azeris to retreat. Once the city of Shushi was captured in May 8 1992, the Armenians had control of NK and the surrounding territories. It must be noted that the Armenian side was mostly fought by guerrilla fighters, which did not respond to any central authority in NK or Armenia. Most of the fighters or Fedayeen (Freedom Fighters), as the Armenians call them, were ordinary people without training or military weapons. The Armenians were helped by the Diaspora, which sent money, weapons and volunteers to help. The Azeri side brought mercenaries from Chechnya and mujahedeen from Pakistan and Afghanistan (approximately 3,000 fighters). (Taarnby, Michael. 2008 ) In May 1994 a cease fire was signed with Russia as intermediary in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. The ceasefire was signed by the Azerbaijani authorities and General Babayan from the NK Armed forces. The result of the war was that the Armenians ended up controlling 20% of Azerbaijans territory. An estimated 4,500 people died and 25,00 wounded from the Armenian side, and an estimated 30,000 died and 60,000 wounded on the Azeri side. (De Waal, 2003). CEASE FIRE AND PEACE TALKS Before the ceasefire agreement mediated by Russia, several attempts were made to find a solution. The first attempt was by Boris Yeltsin and Nursultan Nazarbayev on September 1991, it gave no fruit. Next mediation was by Iran on February 1992. Since Irans historical relationship with both the Armenians and the Azeris was close, it attempted to increase its dominance in the region, especially to push Turkey aside. The Tehran conference did not reach to any agreement. After this, CSCE (Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe) started to arbitrate, it also pressed Iran out of the negotiations, as the latter was not a member of CSCE, On August 1992, Nazarbayev tried again, but the mediation led to nowhere. CSCE tried on several occasions from 1992 until December 1994 to reach an agreement for both sides, but its inexperience and Russias parallel involvement made it fail. From May 1994, when the ceasefire was signed, several propositions were laid on the negotiation table, but NK was only to agree to a complete package?, while Azerbaijan pushed for a step by step? approach. ( Mooradian, 1999) To date, there has been no concrete agreement between the two parts. The main mediator is the Minsk Group, created in 1993 by the CSCE (now OSCE), even though the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan have met on various occasions, NKs government is still left out of any negotiations. CAN KOSOVO BE USED AS AN EXAMPLE? After the recognition of Kosovos independence, many other de facto states looked closely to see if it would set an example. Even though the states that have recognised Kosovo state that Kosovo cannot be used as a precedent, others may argue that it can and has. The main reason the international community uses to implicate the uniqueness of Kosovo is that it has been under UN and international control, while other de facto states like NK, Abkhazia and South Ossetia have not. To analyse the relevance of Kosovo, a comparison is made. The similarities with NK are various: both consist of a minority that sees itself discriminated, both conflicts started in an era of transition brought by the disintegration of the Soviet Union, both held referendums and used the peoples right to self determination idea. The differences must also be noted: NK can argue that before the transition era, it already was an Autonomous Oblast. NK has existed for longer, with relative better stability, and has made more progress on state-building, even though it received less international attention and financial support. (Murinson, 2004) Other differences are that NK is not accepted as a negotiating part in the peace process, Armenia acts as its representative. It can be argued that the Kosovo can be used as an example of a state gaining independence, however, the international community argues that it is a unique case, however this does not limit the political ramifications it has brought. Kosovos independence has given hope to other de facto states, who argue that in all, they should have a better chance in gaining independence than Kosovo. As the former President of NK stated: If the world community is ready to recognize the independence of Kosovo, I think it will be very hard for them to explain why they do not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh? (Yakubyan, 2006) And as the Speaker of NK Parliament said: A serious basis for the international recognition of our sovereignty, we have held free elections for 16 years, law-enforcement bodies are formed, powers are divided, [the] army is under civil control? (Karabakh Has Serious Grounds for International Recognition of Sovereignty «, in: Karabakh Open, 20 February 2008) To explain why Kosovo deserves international recognition and other de facto states in very similar positions do not is very hard, even by the same international community that accepted Kosovos independence. The reasons can vary from the official statement that Kosovo has been under international control, while other have not, but it is also correct to assume that other factors such as mutual interests among regional powers. Russias involvement in the NK peace process has many times thrown the Minsk Groups propositions away, as Russia can benefit from the no peace no war? situation over NK: it sells arms and heavy weaponry to both Armenia and Azerbaijan, arming both sides. WHY HAS ARMENIA NOT RECOGNISED NKS INDEPENDENCE? This question is very interesting in the sense that it would be logical that Armenia should be the first country in recognising the independence of NK, however there is one main reason of why it has not. The official Armenian response to these questions is that since Armenia has started: An international legal process of settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh  conflict, and this is why Armenia has still not recognized the enclaves independence? It  is for  the  same reason that Armenia has not recognized the independence of Kosovo, Oleg   Yesayan,   Armenian   ambassador   to   Belarus. (Alima Bissenova. (2008). Armenia links issue of Abkhazia, S. Ossetia to N.-Karabakh. Available: http://www.cacianalyst.org/?q=taxonomy/term/4page=6. Last accessed 20th January 2011.) However, due to the recent statements by Azerbaijan of taking NK back by force has made the Armenian side declare that it would recognise NK if war started: Armenia is categorically against a military resolution of the problem. In the event Azerbaijan unleashes a new military venture, Armenia will have no other choice but to recognize de jure the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh and provide for the safety of its population through all means,? President of Armenia, Serge Sarkisian Astana, Kazakhstan, December 2010. EuroAsia. (2010). Armenia Says Will Recognize Karabakh In Case Of War. Available: http://www.eurasianet.org/node/62556. Last accessed 20th January 2011 One could argue that Armenia should recognise NK, in the same manner as Russia has recognised Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The recognition of NK would give Armenia legal right to aid NK in case war started with Azerbaijan. Moreover, some argue that if Armenia does not recognise NK in the foreseeable future, the status and issue of NK could be forgotten to history, as it would lose its momentum in the pursuit for recognition. RECOMENDATIONS From the overall analysis of the NK conflict and other similar conflicts around the world, some basic and concrete to the NK case recommendations can be made: OSCE and other international peace organisations should look to include NK in the negotiation process as an independent actor, like they did with the ceasefire agreement. International organisations should pave the way to stipulate better assurances for non resumption of armed conflict. The line of fire should be closely observed for ceasefire violations. Programs should be developed in order to teach both societies about tolerance, reconciliation and mutual respect. International organisations should look to integrate the public in debates and discussions, and rely less on top-down approaches. (Faber, 2005) International organisations should push for a peacekeeping force to be deployed on the contact line, it should also try to organise a new referendum under the eyes of international observers, henceforth push for a lawful democratisation and a peace settlement. (Freizer, 2006) Governments in Armenia, NK, and Azerbaijan should start to include conflict resolution and prevention, peace building and peacekeeping, human rights programmes at schools and universities, in order to increase public awareness. NGOs should create projects along with the civil society to educate the population about the conflict and conciliation for peace. Finally, an international recognition of NK would ensure a peaceful settlement of the conflict, and would make NK answerable to international law. Moreover, NK would have access to loans from the IMF or the WB, thus being able to develop better as a state. Open borders with Azerbaijan would bolster trade, and maybe bring trust between the people. CONCLUSION The conflict of NK is very complicated to be able to analyse without going into much detail. There are many arguments for and against certain strategies, using international law, international recognition, state sovereignty, refugees, and many others, but one thing is being ignored; the fact that NK has been acting like any other recognised democratic state for over 15 years. NKs human rights violations, degree of democracy and transparency and corruption are all better than Armenia or Azerbaijan, (Freedom House, 2011) yet still there is little advance among the international community in recognising NK. Some may add that the West uses double standards: Weve got used to the double standards of the West. I believe that the people of South Ossetia have much more reason for gaining independence than the Kosovan Albanians.? (Yuri Morozov, Prime Minister of South Ossetia). In my opinion, the West does not fully use double standards, but approaches the question very surgically, since it un derstands the uniqueness of every conflict, and that it could be disastrous to use one peace settlement in another area, as every conflict has its own inimitable dynamics. I think that NK pace to independence is correct, as sooner or later it will have to be recognised, it should continue developing its government in order to set an example. In the near future two outcomes are possible, either an international recognition of NK or war will break out, it is inevitable, as both sides continue arming themselves, therefore it in my opinion it is in the best interest that of the international community to prevent such hostilities by recognizing NK. As Chekov said: If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise dont put it there. (A. P. Chekhov, in Teatr i iskusstvo 1904, No. 28, 11 July, p. 521)

Assignment: The Welfare Reform Act Essay

The Welfare Reform Act is better known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, this was created by former President Clinton. Clinton vowed to stop welfare, he wanted it to be someone’s right not just a privilege to receive aid. Clinton wanted to help the needy people who actually needed help, but many people were angry with the changes that it made. Clinton did not think that people’s reactions would be so negative, but they were. Medicaid did not change the way that they it provides coverage to members, but it changed how many people it covered. Clinton did not want to continue seeing his country become dependent on the assistance, he wanted to increase the employment rate. There were too many children that were living in poverty and Clinton seen a cycle that he knew he had to break. The Welfare Reform Act did not cause too many of the beneficiaries to lose their necessary coverage, they were still able to receive the coverage if they qualified. The law stated that if you were poor enough you could still receive the health insurance. It is good because people can still work and get the health insurance if they do not make too much, because a lot of times jobs do not offer private insurance to their employees. The law did affect immigrants, the immigrants that were here illegally were no longer to receive health insurance and those that came to the United States legally had to wait five years before they could qualify for insurance if they were poor enough at the time. There were many providers that were affected in a negative way because many of them treated Medicaid patients at the time of the Welfare Reform Act. Providers like hospitals and clinics had to face the fact they would lose many patients and have more people who would try and receive free services. There were certain states that had more immigrants than others who had to choose between helping those patients and turning them away when they no longer could receive any health insurance, unless they got other help from the state (Ku, & Coughlin, 2010). The Act did cut the percent of people who received Medicaid, like the illegal immigrants and those that no longer qualified, but if you were needy it is more than likely that you still qualified for insurance. It varies from each state; there are some states that may be able to help more than others because they have more state funds. According to ( Ku, & Coughlin, 2010), â€Å"A larger category of people,  immigrants entering the United States after August 1996, will no longer be eligible for full Medicaid coverage, although they remain entitled to emergency care coverage†. Most people who qualify still could receive assistance if they were needy. The Welfare Reform Act has decreased the amount of fraud and has also increased the amount of people who are working. Many people were forced to go to job programs, to ensure that they had the necessary tools to get back on their own feet. If you wanted to receive TANF this was a requirement. Before this act was in place there were many people out there that were taking advantage of the system, people were getting to use to the money and other assistance that was easy to get. The new law was made to put a stop to the way that things were headed to. The new generation has a better chance at succeeding in life because there is more help out there. You can still get health insurance, cash aid, and food stamps; you just have to actually be in need. The law only requires that you do what you can to be able to do it all on your own and they will help along the way. There are many people that probably wish that things were the same as they were before this law was put in place, but things are still continuing to get better. According to research, â€Å"Some 2.9 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1995† (Rector, & Fagan, 2003), that is a very large amount. The percent of children that were living in hunger went down and the amount of people who were having children out of wedlock has also gone down (Rector, & Fagan, 2003). The new act makes sure that the adults who are asking for the assistance go to a job program that helps you to get on your feet and be able to take care of your family without any assistance. All of these things have turned out to be more positive than negative, so it is good that our former President Clinton brought a change to America. References: Ku, L., Coughlin, T. A. (2010). How the New Welfare Reform Law Affects Medicaid. Urban Institute, p.1 Retrieved October 3, 2010 from http://www.urban.org/publications/307037.html Rector, R., & Fagan, P. Ph. D. (2003). The continuing good news about welfare reform. The Heritage Foundation, p.1. Retrieved October 3, 2010 from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/02/the-continuing-good-news

Financial Performance Of The Nokia Corporation Finance Essay - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 8 Words: 2525 Downloads: 1 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Finance Essay Type Argumentative essay Did you like this example? Nokia Corporation is a Finnish multinational telecommunication corporation having its headquarters situated in Keilanieme, Espoo. It is one of the worlds leading mobile phone suppliers and fixed telecom networkers. Nokias engaged in the manufacture of mobile devices and in converging Internet and communication industry. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Financial Performance Of The Nokia Corporation Finance Essay" essay for you Create order It offers an extraordinary Internet services platform called as Ovi which allows all its customers to buy digital content, such as music and videos, get maps for navigation services and manage contacts and photo files online. The Company operates in three business segments: Devices and Services; NAVTEQ, and Nokia Siemens Networks. It has over 123,000 employees spread over 120 countries. Its subsidiary Nokia Siemens networks produces telecommunications network equipment, solutions and services. It also provides free digital map information and navigation services through its wholly owned subsidiary NAVTEQ. Nokia being the worlds largest manufacturers of mobile telephone has a global device market share of 30% in the latest financial report taken in the third quarter 2010. But however, it is still a disappointment to see a dip from an estimated 34% in the third quarter of 2009 and from an estimate of 33% in the second quarter in 2010. In this report, the financial performance and the marketing strategies of Nokia is analyzed based on the various financial ratios. The financial report of the past five years from 2009 2005 is studied considering the change in the marketing strategies implemented in 2005 and the global recession which has been hitting the market lately..The marketing strategy of Nokia is studied in the light of PESTLE, SWOT and BCG matrix. FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE OF NOKIA: In the modern business, the managers should have a good understanding of the various business functions in order to make effective decisions and plannings for the successful operation of the business. One of the key functions of the business is bringing together the financial information of the company which is in the form of a cash flow statement, profit and loss account and balance sheets and carrying out the necessary calculations to determine the financial position of the company. The sales volume, and profitability generated from the shareholders investment, the companys ability to pay its debtors and the companys position compared to its competitors help not only the management but also the investors in determining whether to invest in the companys share or not.[1] The financial statement of Nokia is analyzed in the light of the various financial ratios such as Profitability, Activity, Solvency, Financial structure and Stock Market Measures. These ratios interpret the various items found in the companys balance sheet and income statements. This process not only reviews the past results of Nokia but also helps in evaluating the current situation of the company. The financial performance graph exhibited by Nokia in the past five years has been a fluctuating one.(cont) PROFITABILITY ANALYSIS: Profitability analysis is an analysis that enables a company to evaluate the market segments. It allows them to report the sales and profit data of a company using the different customised characteristics and key figures. This analysis can be categorised on the basis of products, customers, orders or any combination of these. Using these profitability calculations, the business profits made in one year can be compared with the other years and also the profitability of different business can be compared. The aim of this system is to provide the various departments within the organisation namely marketing, product management and corporate planning departments with the necessary information to support the internal accounting and decision making process. It measures the managements capacity to generate profits on sales and total investment in the business. In the case of Nokia..(profitability analysis of nokia) 1.1GROSS MARGIN: The gross margin of a company is theÂÂ  percent ofÂÂ  total sales revenueÂÂ  that the company retains after incurring the direct costs associated with producing the goods and services sold by the company. The higher the percentage, the more the company retains on each Euro of sales. This shows the percentage of control that the management has over cost.[2] Gross Margin (%) = Gross Profit / Operational Profit X 100 Turnover (2009 = 13264/40984*100 = 32.36%) The gross margin (%) of Nokia is YEAR 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 Gross Profit 13264 17373 17277 13379 11982 Turnover 40984 50710 51058 41121 34191 Gross margin (%) 32.36 34.26 33.84 32.54 35.04 (All the figures mentioned above are in EUR millions) As we can see from the table above, the gross margin % had a raising trend in the 2006 -08 , where it increased from 32.54% to 34.26%. But however, in the year 2009 the profits have come down from 50710Eur m 40984Eur m resulting in a decrease of 1.90% in the gross margin. 1.2 NET MARGIN: The net margin ratio of a company is the ratio that allows an external person to make an overall assessment of the profitability of the company over a given period of time by comparing the level of net trading profit to the sales volume.[3]The percentage of net margin shows how much of each Euro earned by the company is translated into profits.ÂÂ   Net margin (%) = Profit Before Tax X 100 Turnover (2009 =962/40984*100 = 2.347) Year Profit Before Tax Turnover Net Margin (%) 2009 962 40984 2.35 2008 4970 50710 9.8 2007 8268 51058 16.19 2006 5723 41121 13.91 2005 4971 34191 14.53 (All the figures in the table above are in Euro m) As the figures show, there has been a significant fall in the net profit % from the year 2008 -2009; the net profit % in the year 2008 was 9.8% which then decreased to 2.34% in the year 2009. However, the years 2005 2007 have been good with the profit % being 14.53, 13.19 and 16.19 respectively. This shows that the operating expenses of nokia have increased and the cost of must be controlled. The cost have increased drastically resulting in a decrease in the net profits. 1.3 RETURN ON EQUITY: Return on Equity is the amount of net incomeÂÂ  returnedÂÂ  as a percentageÂÂ  of shareholders equity. It measures the companys profitabilityÂÂ  by revealing how muchÂÂ  profit a company generatesÂÂ  with the money shareholders have invested.ÂÂ  [4] Return on Equity = Profit after Tax X 100 Shareholders Funds (it is given in d annual report) Year Return on Equity (%) 2009 6.5 2008 27.5 2007 53.9 2006 35.5 2005 27.1 (All the figures in the table have been taken from the nokias official wesite)[5] The return on equity % showed steady growth in the years 2005 and 2006 and then reached the peak value in 2007 with a ROE % of 53.9 but the ROE has decreased to a great extend in the years 2008 and 2009. As a result of the decrease in the profits after tax, the profits of the tax in year 2008 were 3889 Eur m which decreased to 260 Eur m in 2009. 1.4 RETURN ON CAPITAL EMPLOYED: Return On Capital Employed is the ratio that indicates the efficiency and profitability of a companys capital investments. The Return On Capital Employed should always be higher than the rateÂÂ  at whichÂÂ  the company borrows, otherwise any increase in borrowing will reduce shareholders earnings. Return on Capital Employed = Earnings Before Interest and Tax X 100 Net Assets (it is given in d annual report) Year Return on capital employed (%) 2009 6.7 2008 27.2 2007 54.8 2006 46.1 2005 36.5 ACTIVITY ANALYSIS: Activity analysis measures the companys efficient utilization of resources. The greater the efficiency in the use of its assets to generate sales, the higher is the potential profitability. Hence, the analysis compares the level of sales with the investments in selected assets. The activity analyses that are considered here to study about Nokia are: Turnover of Assets Turnover of Fixed Assets Stock Turnover Days of Stock Held 2.1 TURNOVER OF ASSETS: Turnover of assets is the efficient use of assets for the profitable operation of the business. It is a consistent reliable indicator of managerial skills in generating sales volume on a base of the total assets employed by the company. Turnover assets = Turnover Assets (2009 = 40984/35738 = 1.14) Year Turnover Assets Turnover of Assets 2009 40984 35738 1.14 2008 50710 39582 1.28 2007 51058 37599 1.35 2006 41121 22617 1.81 2005 34191 22452 1.52 (All the figures in the table above are in Euro m) 2.2 TURNOVER OF FIXED ASSETS: The turnover of fixed assets is the measure of a companys ability to generate net sales from fixed-asset investments -ÂÂ  specifically with regard to property, plant and equipment etc. The higher the fixed-asset turnover ratio the more effective the company has been using the investment in fixed assets to generate revenues. Turnover of Fixed Assets = Turnover Fixed Assets (2009 = 40984/12125 = 3.38) Year Turnover Fixed Assets Turnover of Fixed Assets 2009 40984 12125 3.38 2008 50710 15112 3.35 2007 51058 8305 6.14 2006 41121 4031 10.20 2005 34191 3347 1021.54 (All the figures in the table above are in Euro m) 2.3 STOCK TURNOVER: The Stock Turnover is the total value of stock sold in a year divided by the average value of goods held in stock. This makes sure that the cash is not tied up in stock for too long, so as to lose its value over time. It measures sales turnover as a ratio of stocks, and is intended to show how fast stock is moved. The higher the score, the more liquid is the position and lower the investment in stock the better it is. Stock Turnover = Cost of Sales Average Stock (2009 = 27720/2199 = 12.60) Year Cost of Sales Average Stock Stock Turnover 2009 27720 2199 12.60 2008 33337 2704.5 12.32 2007 33781 2215 15.25 2006 27742 1611 17.22 2005 22209 1486.5 14.94 (All the figures in the table above are in Euro m) 2.4 DAYS OF STOCK HELD: The number of days the stock is held is the ratio that measures the average number of days stock held by an organization. Days of Stock held = Average Stock X 365 Cost of sales (2009 = 2199///227720*365 = 28.95) Year Average Stock Cost of sales Days of Stock Held 2009 2199 27720 28.95 2008 2704.5 33337 29.61 2007 2215 33781 23.93 2006 1611 27742 21.195 2005 1486.5 22209 24.43 (All the figures in the table above are in Euro m) SOLVENCY ANALYSIS: Solvency ratios is the ratio that measures the relationship between debts and owners equity and examine the proportion of debt the company is using i.e.; toÂÂ  measure a companys ability to meet long-term obligations. It measuresÂÂ  the size ofÂÂ  a companys after-tax income, excluding non-cash depreciation expenses, as compared to the firms total debt obligations. It provides a measurement of how likely a company will be able to continue meeting its debt obligations. Acceptable solvency ratios will vary from industry to industry, but as a general rule of thumb, a solvency ratio of greater than 20% is considered financially healthy. Generally speaking, the lower a companys solvency ratio, the greater the probabilityÂÂ  that the company will default on its debt obligations. The different solvency ratios are: Current Ratio Quick Assets Debtors Collection Period Creditors Payment Period Speed of cash flow 3.1 CURRENT RATIO: Current ratio is the most popular measure of short term solvency. It indicates the extend to which the claims of short-term creditors are covered by comparative liquid assets.[6]Current ratio is calculated simply dividing the current assets to the current liabilities. Current Ratio = Current Assets Current Liabilities (2009 = 23613/15188 = 1.55) Year Current Assets Current Liability Current Ratio 2009 23613 15188 1.55 2008 24470 20355 1.2 2007 29294 18976 1.54 2006 18586 10161 1.82 2005 18951 9670 1.96 Nokia Corp.s current ratio deteriorated from 2007 to 2008 but then improved from 2008 to 2009 but however the ratios still remain below the 2007 levels. 3.2 QUICK ASSETS: Quick assets is the cash and other assets that can or will be converted into cash fairly soon. This includes accounts receivable, marketable securities etc. A measure of the companys quick assets helps in determining the companys liquidity and its ability to meet its obligations. The ratio used for this purpose is called as the quick ratio or acid test ratio. It compliments the current ratio. Its purpose is to compares the near cash assets with maturing creditors claims. Quick Assets = Current Assets Stock Current Liability (2009 = 23613-1865/15188 = 1.43) Year Current Assets Stock Current Liability Quick assets 2009 23613 1865 15188 1.43 2008 24470 2533 20355 1.07 2007 29294 2876 18976 1.39 2006 18586 1554 10161 1.67 2005 18951 1668 9670 1.78 The Nokia Corp.s quick ratio deteriorated from 2007 to 2008 but then improved from 2008 to 2009. 3.3 DEBTORS COLLECTION PERIOD(not edited ) The period, on average, that a business takes to collect the money owed to it by its trade debtors. If a company gives one months credit then, on average, it should collect its debts within 45 days. The debtor. he term Debtor Collection Period indicates the average time taken to collect trade debts. In other words, a reducing period of time is an indicator of increasing efficiency. it enables the enterprise to compare the real collection period with the granted/theoretical credit period. Debtor Collection Period = (Average Debtors / Credit Sales) x 365 ( = No. of days) (average debtors = debtors at the beginning of the year + debtors at the end of the year, divided by 2) Debtors Collection Period = Debtors X 365 Sales (2009 = 7981/40984*365 = 71.08) Year Debtor Sales Debtors Collection Period 2009 7981 40984 71.08 2008 9444 50710 67.97 2007 11200 51058 80.06 2006 5888 41121 52.26 2005 5346 34191 57.07 (All the figures in the table above are in Euro m) 3.4 CREDITORS PAYMENT PERIOD: Creditors Payment Period is the ratio that relates the amount owed to trade creditors by a company at the end of a specified period in relation to the cost of purchases bought on credit during that period i.e.; it is the total number of days that a company will take to settle the amounts it owes to its creditors. Creditors Payment Period = Creditors Purchase Year Creditors Purchase Creditors Payment Period 2009 4950 2008 5225 2007 7074 2006 3732 2005 3494 3.5 SPEED OF CASH FLOW: Speed of Cash Flow = Turnover Debtors 365 (2009 = 40984-7981/365 = 90.42) Year Turnover Debtors Speed of Cash Flow 2009 40984 7981 90.42 2008 50710 9444 113.05 2007 51058 11200 109.2 2006 41121 5888 96.52 2005 34191 5346 79.02 FINANCIAL STRUCTURE: (not edited) Financial Structure is the framework of the various types of financings employed by a firm to acquire and support resources necessary for its operations. Commonly, it comprises of stockholders (shareholders), investments (equity capital), long-term loans (loan capital), short-term loans (such as overdraft), and short-term liabilities (such as trade credit) as reflected on the right-hand side of the firms balance sheet. Capital structure, in comparison, does not include short-term liabilities.[7] 4.1 CAPITAL GEARING RATIO: Capital Gearing Ratio is the analyzes of the capital structure of a company. It is the measure of the percentage that the owner funds as opposed to the percentage the outsiders funds. If more capital is invested by the owners than the amount borrowed, the risk decreases. This is known as low gearing. If outside interest exceeds the owners interest, the risk increases. This is known as high gearing. Capital Gearing Ratio = Debt Debt +Equity (2009 = 20989/35738 = 0.59) Year Debt Equity Capital Gearing 2009 20989 35738 0.59 2008 23072 39582 0.58 2007 20261 37599 0.54 2006 10557 22617 0.47 2005 9938 22452 0.44 (All the figures in the table above are in Euro m) 4.2 INTEREST COVER: (not edited) Interest cover is a measure of the adequacy of a companys profits relative to interest payments on its debt. The lower the interest cover, the greater the risk that profit (before interest) will become insufficient to cover interest payments. It is: EBIT net interest paid A value of more than 2 is normally considered reasonably safe, but companies with very volatile earnings may require an even higher level, whereas companies that have very stable earnings, such as utilities, may well be very safe at a lower level. Similarly, cyclical companies at the bottom of their cycle may well have a low interest cover but investors who are confident of recovery may not be overly concerned by the apparent risk. Interest Cover = Gross Profit (Operational profit) Interest Payable (2009 = 13264/1661 = 7.99) Year Gross Profit Interest Payable Interest Cover 2009 13264 1661 7.99 2008 17373 2302 7.54 2007 17277 2565 6.73 2006 13379 92 145.42 2005 11982 205 58.45 (All the figures in the table above are in Euro m) 5 STOCK MARKET MEASURES: 5.1 PRICE PER EARNINGS: It is the valuation ratio of a companys current share price compared to its per-share earnings. Price Per Earnings Ratio = Market Price of Shares Earnings per Share (2009 = 8.88/0.24 = 37) Year Market Price of Share Earnings Per Share Price Per Earnings 2009 8.88 0.24 37 2008 20.04 1.07 18.73 2007 16.98 1.85 9.18 2006 17.08 1.06 16.11 2005 11.96 0.83 14.41 (All the share prices mentioned above has been calculated taking the date as 31st Mar for every five years) 5.2 EARNINGS PER SHARE: It is the portion of a companys profit allocated to each outstanding share of common stock.ÂÂ  Earnings per shareÂÂ  serve as an indicator ofÂÂ  a companys profitability. Earnings Per Share: Profit after Tax No: of Shares (it is given in d annual report) Year Earnings Per Share 2009 0.24 2008 1.07 2007 1.85 2006 1.06 2005 0.83 5.3 DIVIDEND YIELD Dividend yield = Dividend per share Market value per share (2009 = 0.40/8.88 = 0.045) Year Dividend Per Share Market Value Per Share Dividend Yield 200.9 0.40 8.88 0.045 2008 0.40 20.04 0.0199 2007 0.53 16.98 0.031 2006 0.43 17.08 0.025 2005 0.37 11.96 0.031

The Luxurious Presidential Suite Was A Rarity Among These...

Short Story: The luxurious presidential suite was a rarity among these aged rails. Ornate decor and luxurious accommodations reflect the influence of fine Victorian elegance. Stained glass windows, rare wood carvings, deep pile carpets, opulent overstuffed furniture and a complete galley equipped with all the necessary facilities prepared the traveler with a taste of grandeur and equipped them with a sense of greater importance. The train was bound for Washington D.C. Equipped with the finest of suits, I was well-known for elegant attire. I brought along pictures from home in which I reminisced upon long, forgotten memories of my children and my wife. Reviving and reliving each and every picture. Each brought happiness and a smile to my†¦show more content†¦Every bone inside my body froze entirely. Immediately, my body uncontrollably began exerting large amounts of sweat. My heart which was once tired from exhaustion, forcefully pumping blood quicker than ever. My lifetime flashed befor e me. In an unclear haze , my thoughts shifted to my children Alan and Herbert Jr. The realization that my time with them had been short and the idea of not providing a substantial and consistent appearance that is essential in providing at least a decent childhood experience.for them, devastated me..Commotion and panic existed in the car in which the sound had been heard and had surprisingly increased. My attention withdrew from my children as I quickly dashed towards my suite. Three minutes later, I was alarmed by the sound of screaming and repeated pounding on the door. My heart froze. â€Å"Crack!† The noise was heard again. Even closer this time. The knocking and the screaming stopped and I was completely overwhelmed with mixed emotions, mainly fear. â€Å"Open up!† said a rather firm yet weary voice. My panic and distress caused me to resist opening my mouth and revealing my location. Without making a sound, I cautiously made my way to the rear platform where stairs leading to the top of the train were. â€Å"Open up!† the voice said again with an authoritative tone. Didn’t say a word. My sweaty palms grasped the stairs and I