무료도메인 | 회원 가입만 해도 100% 무료다운 | 인기가요다운로드
1[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40]Next ..[110]

상식



차대번호 알면 사기도 막고 돈도 번다

No Comments Filed Under: 상식

차대번호 알면 사기도 막고 돈도 번다

[오토타임스] 2006년 12월 04일(월) 오후 09:22 가  가| 이메일| 프린트


경기도 일산의 한 수입차정비공장. 내부엔 벤츠 등 고급차들이 즐비하다. 외국에서 사고가 나거나 침수됐던 이들 차는 자동차부품용으로 수십만원에 수입됐다. 공장 직원들은 국내에서 사고난 차의 차대번호를 떼어 이들 차에 부착한 뒤 도색과 수리과정을 거쳐 멀쩡한 차로 위장했다. 짝퉁 수입차들은 수천만원에 팔려나갔다.

얼마 전 뉴스를 장식했던 짝퉁 수입차관련 기사다. 이들 차가 짝퉁으로 밝혀진 데 결정적인 역할을 한 게 바로 차대번호다. 차대번호는 자동차의 주민등록증으로, 차에 대한 많은 정보를 담고 있다. 차의 소유권을 유지하는 데 필요한 모든 법적인 사항에 사용되기도 한다. 위·변조가 어렵도록 타각돼 있고, 위조를 하더라도 자세히 보면 일반 소비자들도 알 수 있을 정도로 흔적이 남는 경우가 많다.

운전자들도 차대번호라는 말에 익숙하다. 그러나 차대번호를 어떻게 읽어야 하는 지, 어디에 있는 지 등을 제대로 아는 운전자들은 드물다. 운전자들이 자신의 차를 정확히 알고, 혹시 모를 사기 피해를 당하지 않도록 차대번호에 대한 궁금증을 풀어본다.

1. 자동차 정보의 보고차대번호는 17개의 숫자나 알파벳으로 이뤄졌다. 알파벳과 숫자는 국적, 제작사, 차종, 형식, 차체형상, 제동장치, 안전벨트 구분, 배기량, 제작년도, 생산공장, 제작일련번호 등을 뜻한다. 17개 자리 중 1∼2번째(국적, 제작사), 10번째(제작년도), 12∼17번째 자리는 어느 회사건 동일하기 때문에 제작회사와 제작연도 등을 알 수 있다. 3∼9번째는 제작사 자체적으로 설정한 부호와 규정에 의한 의미를 담고 있다.

2. 차대번호 어디에 쓰이나중고차를 거래할 때 자동차등록증에 있는 차대번호와 자동차에 타각된 차대번호가 틀릴 경우 문제차일 가능성이 높다. 또 차대번호의 위·변조를 확인해 도난차 여부 등을 알 수 있다. 자동차제작사도 차대번호를 별도 관리하면서 결함 등이 발생했을 때 해당 차를 추적해 결함이 사고로 이어지는 걸 예방한다. 리콜이 대표적인 예다.

3. 차대번호는 어디에차대번호는 일반적으로 엔진룸과 실내 사이의 방화벽 위에 있다. 그러나 차종마다 다른 곳에 적혀 있는 경우도 많다. SM5와 EF쏘나타는 엔진룸 조수석 대시패널 부분, 트라제XG는 엔진룸 조수석 휠하우스 옆, 카이런은 조수석 앞바퀴, 아반떼 2007년형은 조수석 밑에 있다. 차를 구입하거나 정비업체를 방문했을 때 차대번호 위치에 대해 물어보면 알 수 있다.

최기성 기자ⓒ 오토타임즈, 무단 전재 및 재배포 금지





전 세계를 깜짝 놀라게 할 15가지 사건과 제품들

No Comments Filed Under: 상식

2007년 `돼지해`가 어느 덧 두 주 앞으로 성큼 다가왔다. `개의 해`를 마무리한 지구촌은 새해에 또 어떤 일로 웃고 또 웃게 될까?

비즈니스 2.0은 20일(현지시간) 2007년에 전 세계를 깜짝 놀라게 할 15가지 사건과 제품들을 소개했다. 1월에 소비자판이 출시되는 마이크로소프트(MS)의 윈도 `비스타`를 포함해 혁신적 기술들이 대거 포함됐다.

▲中·印의 `플라이 투 더 문` : 내년에는 인도와 중국이 나란히 달 탐사를 계획하고 있다. 세계에서 가장 인구가 많은 두 국가가 새로운 에너지원 확보를 위해 달을 향해 날아간다. 인도의 `찬드라얀(Chandrayaan)`이 내년 9월에 발사될 예정이며, 중국의 `Chang`E-1`도 내년을 기다리고 있다.

▲비아그라를 대신할 콘돔 : 화이자에게 돈벼락을 안겨준 발기부전치료제 `비아그라`를 대신할 콘돔이 출시된다. 영국의 두렉스는 제니필(Zanifil)이라는 성욕 자극물질을 함유한 콘돔을 개발했으며, FDA의 승인을 거쳐 내년중 출시될 것으로 보인다.

▲USB의 팔을 잘라라! : 지금 세계에는 프린터와 마우스, 키보드를 포함해 20억개 이상의 USB 주변장치들이 존재한다. 그러나 만약 이들을 굳이 선으로 연결할 필요가 없다면? PC 주변은 훨씬 깨끗해지고 더 빠르고 쉬운 인터페이스와 전력 소비 감축이 가능하지 않을까? 이것이 바로 무선USB인 `WUSB`가 약속하는 미래. 글로벌 표준이 마련됐으며, PC업체들이 내년부터 이 기술을 제품에 적용하게 된다.

▲100弗 PC, 제3세계에 상륙 : 100달러짜리 노트북을 개발한 MIT 부설 매스컴연구소는 내년 말까지 지구촌에서 가장 가난한 국가들에 이 초저가 노트북을 공급할 계획이다. 세계 주요국에서는 내년 봄부터 판매될 예정인데, 초기에는 150달러에 판매될 전망이다.

▲Wi-Fi 시계 라디오 `첨비(Chumby)`의 등장 : 150달러짜리 시계 라디오 `첨비`가 내년중에 매장 진열대에 놓인다. 첨비는 와이파이 인터넷 정보기기로 메신저, 블로그 등 정보 리소스에 무선 연결할 수 있게 설계됐다. 구글 뉴스를 들으면서 아침을 시작할 수도 있고, TV와 MP3플레이어 등을 작동하는 리모콘으로 사용할 수도 있다고.

▲카지노, 휴대폰을 덮치다 : 네바다주가 새로운 규정을 만들면서 라스베가스에서 휴대폰을 이용해 도박을 즐기는 것이 가능해졌다. 더 베네시안이 휴대폰으로 카지노 게임을 공급하는 첫 업체가 될 예정이다.

▲250弗짜리 공룡 장난감 : 장난간 제조업체 퍼비가 250달러짜리 초현실 공룡인형 `플레오(Pleo)`를 출시한다. 이 장난감 안에는 38개의 센서가 있어서 움직임과 빛, 감촉, 소리 등을 포착할 수 있다고. 플레오가 성공할 경우 분투하고 있는 장난감 산업에 새로운 전기를 마련하게 될 것으로 보인다.

▲애플, 다음은 `iTV`다 : MP3플레이어 `아이팟`으로 대박을 떠뜨린 애플컴퓨터가 이번엔 TV와의 컨버젼에 주목했다. 299달러의 이 박스는 맥PC나 아이팟에 있는 동영상을 TV로 전송할 수 있게 해준다.


▲광고없이 소비자들의 시청료로 운영하며 각국의 시민기자들을 적극 활용하는 24시간 뉴스와 ▲태양열 사용의 효율성을 한 단계 높일 수 있는 `박막 태양열판`의 대량생산 ▲LCD와 PDP를 뒤이을 `SED(전자방출형디스플레이) TV`의 탄생 등도 주요 사건으로 꼽혔다.

잡지는 이 밖에 ▲1월로 예정된 윈도 `비스타`의 소비자 버전 출시 ▲미국인의 비만 문제를 해결할 것으로 기대되는 다이어트 음료 `엔비가(Enviga)` 출시 ▲샌프란시스코와 필라델피아 도시 전역의 `Wi-Fi` 설치 등이 내년에 세계를 놀라게할 것으로 전망했다.


기업 인수 금액 가이드

No Comments Filed Under: 상식

















































































































































































Company Acquired by Price
Broadcast.com Yahoo $5.7 Billion
GeoCities Yahoo $3.6 billion
Skype Ebay $2.6 billion
YouTube Google $1.65 billion
Overture Yahoo $1.52-1.63 billion
5% investment in AOL Google $1 billion
MySpace News Corp $580 million
Gravity Softbank Around $358 million
Inktomi Yahoo $235 million
MusicMatch Yahoo $160 million
dMarc Broadcasting Google $102 million
Lycos Daum Com. $95 million
Netmarble CJ Internet Around $84 million
Grouper Sony $65 million
Lycos Korea SK Comm. Around $47 million
Empas SK Comm. Around $39 million
Flickr Yahoo $30-35 million (rumored)
1noon NHN Around $36 million
del.icio.us Yahoo $30-35 million (rumored)
Bloglines IAC (Ask) $25 million (rumored)
Weblogs Inc. AOL $25 million (rumored)
Blogger Google $20 million (rumored)
Oddpost Yahoo $20 million (rumored)
ArenaNet NC Soft Around $20 million
LiveJournal SixApart $20 million (rumored)
Jumpcut Yahoo $15 million (rumored)
LAUNCH Media Yahoo Around $12 million
Rojo SixApart $10 million (rumored)
Cyworld SK Comm. Around $7 million
Picasa Google Under $5 million (rumored)
MeasureMap Google Under $5 million (rumored)
2.6% ownership of Baidu Google $5 million
weblogs.com Verisign $2 million
Writely Google Around $2 million (rumored)
Egloos SK Com. Around $1.6 million
Dodgeball Google Around $1 million (rumored)
Upcoming.org Yahoo Around $1 million (rumored)
WebJay Yahoo Around $1 million (rumored)
Urchin Google $???
Keyhole Google $???
Deja News Google $???
Hangame NHN $???
Dialpad Yahoo $???

주식투자 비법 (1)

No Comments Filed Under: 상식
주식투자 비법 (1) 작성자 : micellejs, 등록일 : 2007-07-31 17:19:56
내용 전체보기

Commonwealth of Nations - 영연방 회원국 -

No Comments Filed Under: 상식

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



• Learn more about using Wikipedia for research •

Jump to: navigation, search





























































Commonwealth of Nations






Flag



The Commonwealth of Nations as of 2006
Headquarters Marlborough House, London, UK
Official languages English
Membership 53 sovereign states
Leaders
 -  Head of the Commonwealth Queen Elizabeth II
 -  Secretary-General Don McKinnon since 1 April 2000
Establishment
 -  Balfour Declaration 18 November 1926 
 -  Statute of Westminster 11 December 1931 
 -  London Declaration 28 April 1949 
Area
 -  Total 31,462,574 km² 
12,147,768 sq mi 
Population
 -  2005 estimate 1,921,974,000 
 -  Density 61.09/km² 
158.2/sq mi
Website
thecommonwealth.org

The Commonwealth of Nations, usually known as the Commonwealth and sometimes as the British Commonwealth, is a voluntary association of 53 independent sovereign states, most of which are former British colonies (the exceptions being the United Kingdom itself and Mozambique).


The Commonwealth is an international organisation through which countries with diverse social, political, and economic backgrounds co-operate within a framework of common values and goals, outlined in the Singapore Declaration.[1] These include the promotion of democracy, human rights, good governance, the rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism, free trade, multilateralism, and world peace.[2]


Queen Elizabeth II is the current Head of the Commonwealth, recognised by each state, and as such is the symbol of the free association of the organisation’s members. This position, however, does not imply political power over Commonwealth member states. In practice, the Queen heads the Commonwealth in a symbolic capacity, and it is the Commonwealth Secretary-General who is the chief executive of the organisation. The Commonwealth is not a political union, and does not allow the United Kingdom to exercise any power over the affairs of the organisation’s other members.


Elizabeth II is also the current Head of State, separately, of sixteen members of the Commonwealth, called Commonwealth realms. As each realm is an independent kingdom, Elizabeth II, as monarch, holds a distinct title for each, though, by a Prime Ministers’ Conference in 1952, all include the words “Head of the Commonwealth” at the end; for example: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Jamaica and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. Beyond the realms, the majority of the members of the Commonwealth have their own, separate Heads of State: thirty-two members are Commonwealth republics and five members have their own monarchs (Brunei, Lesotho, Malaysia, Swaziland, and Tonga).


Every four years the Commonwealth’s members celebrate the Commonwealth Games, the world’s second-largest multi-sport event after the Olympic Games.







Contents

[hide]


  • 1 History

    • 1.1 Origins
    • 1.2 Remaining members gain independence
    • 1.3 Members not under the House of Windsor
    • 1.4 Old, New and White Commonwealth

  • 2 Membership

    • 2.1 Membership criteria
    • 2.2 Current members
    • 2.3 Member information
    • 2.4 Non-members

      • 2.4.1 Non-applicants
      • 2.4.2 Current and possible future applicants
      • 2.4.3 Suspension
      • 2.4.4 Withdrawal
      • 2.4.5 Other termination

  • 3 Objectives and activities

    • 3.1 Benefits of membership
    • 3.2 Criticisms

  • 4 Structure

    • 4.1 Head of the Commonwealth
    • 4.2 Commonwealth Secretariat
    • 4.3 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

  • 5 Commonwealth Family

    • 5.1 Commonwealth Foundation
    • 5.2 Commonwealth Games
    • 5.3 Commonwealth of Learning
    • 5.4 Commonwealth Business Council
    • 5.5 Commonwealth War Graves Commission

  • 6 Cultural links

    • 6.1 Literature

  • 7 See also

    • 7.1 Other organisations
    • 7.2 Lists of Commonwealth members

  • 8 Footnotes
  • 9 References
  • 10 Further reading
  • 11 External links


[edit] History



[edit] Origins


Although performing a vastly different function, the Commonwealth is the successor of the British Empire. In 1884, whilst visiting Adelaide, South Australia, Lord Rosebery described the changing British Empire, as some of its colonies became more independent, as a “Commonwealth of Nations”.


Conferences of British and colonial Prime Ministers had occurred periodically since 1887, leading to the creation of the Imperial Conferences in the late 1920s.[3] The formal organisation of the Commonwealth developed from the Imperial Conferences, where the independence of the self-governing colonies and especially of dominions was recognised. The Irish Oath of Allegiance, agreed in 1921, included the Irish Free State’s adherence to and membership of the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations. In the Balfour Declaration at the Imperial Conference in 1926, Britain and its dominions agreed they were equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations. This relationship was eventually formalised by the Statute of Westminster in 1931.



[edit] Remaining members gain independence


After World War II, the Empire was gradually dismantled, partly owing to the rise of independence movements in the then-subject territories (such as that started in India under the influence of Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhash Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Muhammad Ali Jinnah), and partly owing to the British Government’s strained circumstances resulting from the cost of the war. The word “British” was dropped in 1949 from the title of the Commonwealth to reflect the changing position.[4] Myanmar (formerly Burma, 1948), and Aden (1967) are the only former colonies not to have joined the Commonwealth upon post-war independence. Among the former protectorates and mandates, Egypt (independent in 1922), Iraq (1932), Transjordan (1946), Palestine (became in part, the state of Israel in 1948), Sudan (1956), Kuwait (1961), Bahrain (1971), Oman (1971), Qatar (1971), and the United Arab Emirates (1971) never became members of the Commonwealth. The Republic of Ireland left the Commonwealth upon becoming a republic in 1949. However, the Ireland Act 1949 passed by the Parliament of Westminster gave citizens of the Republic of Ireland a status similar to that of other citizens of the Commonwealth in UK law.



[edit] Members not under the House of Windsor


The issue of countries with constitutional structures that did not operate based on the shared Crown, but who wished to remain members of the Commonwealth, was resolved in April 1949 at a Commonwealth prime ministers’ meeting in London. Under the London Declaration, India agreed that when it became a republic in January 1950 it would accept the King as “symbol of the free association of its independent member nations and as such Head of the Commonwealth”. The other Commonwealth countries in turn recognised India’s continuing membership of the association. (At Pakistan’s insistence, India was not regarded as an exceptional case and it was assumed that other states would be accorded the same treatment as India.) The London Declaration is often seen as marking the beginning of the modern Commonwealth, and following India’s precedent, other nations moved to become republics, or constitutional monarchies under a different Royal House.



[edit] Old, New and White Commonwealth


As the Commonwealth grew, Britain and pre-1945 Dominions (a term formally dropped in the 1940s) became informally known as the “Old Commonwealth“, particularly since the 1960s when some of them disagreed with poorer, African and Asian (or New Commonwealth) members about various issues at Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings. Accusations that the old, “White” Commonwealth had different interests from African Commonwealth nations in particular, and charges of racism and colonialism arose during heated debates about Rhodesia in the 1960s and 1970s, the imposition of sanctions against apartheid-era South Africa in the 1980s and, more recently, about whether to press for democratic reforms in Nigeria and then Zimbabwe.[citation needed] The term New Commonwealth is also used in the United Kingdom (especially in the 1960s and 1970s) to refer to recently decolonised countries, which are predominantly non-white and underdeveloped. It was often used in debates about immigration from these countries.[citation needed]


In recent years, the term “White Commonwealth” has been used in a derogatory sense to imply that the wealthier, white nations of the Commonwealth had different interests and goals from the non-white, and particularly the African members. Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has used the term frequently to allege that the Commonwealth’s attempts to force political changes in his country is motivated by racism and colonialist attitudes and that the White Commonwealth dominates the Commonwealth of Nations as a whole.[citation needed]



[edit] Membership



[edit] Membership criteria




Main article: Commonwealth of Nations membership criteria

The criteria for membership of the Commonwealth of Nations have developed over time from a series of separate documents. The Statute of Westminster 1931, as the fundamental founding document of the organisation, laid out that membership required dominionhood. The 1949 London Declaration ended this, allowing republican and indigenous monarchic members on the condition that they recognised the British monarch as the ‘Head of the Commonwealth‘.[5] In the wake of the wave of decolonisation in the 1960s, these constitutional principles were augmented by political, economic, and social principles. The first of these was set out in 1961, when it was decided that respect for racial equality would be a requisite of membership, leading directly to the withdrawal of South Africa’s re-application (which they were required to make under the formula of the London Declaration upon becoming a republic). The fourteen points of the 1971 Singapore Declaration dedicated all members to the principles of world peace, liberty, human rights, equality, and free trade.[2]


These criteria were unenforceable for two decades,[6] until, in 1991, the Harare Declaration was issued, dedicating the leaders to applying the Singapore principles to the completion of decolonisation, the end of the Cold War, and the fall of Apartheid in South Africa.[7] The mechanisms by which these principles would be applied were created, and the manner clarified, by the 1995 Millbrook Commonwealth Action Programme, which created the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG), which has the power to rule on whether members meet the requirements for membership under the Harare Declaration.[8] Also in 1995, an Inter-Governmental Group was created to finalise and codify the full requirements for membership. Upon reporting in 1997, as adopted under the Edinburgh Declaration, the Inter-Governmental Group ruled that any future members would have to have a direct constitutional link with an existing member.[9]


In addition to this new rule, the former rules were consolidated into a single document. These requirements, which remain the same today, are that members must:



  • accept and comply with the Harare principles.
  • be fully sovereign states.
  • recognise the monarch of the Commonwealth realms as the Head of the Commonwealth.
  • accept the English language as the means of Commonwealth communication.
  • respect the wishes of the general population vis-à-vis Commonwealth membership.[9]

These requirements are undergoing review, and a report on potential amendment is to be presented to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2007.[10] New members will not be admitted at the 2007 CHOGM, with 2009 set as the earliest date of entry.[11]



[edit] Current members


Countries whose membership is currently suspended are shown in Bold text.


Note: The table can be sorted alphabetically or chronologically using the “><” icon.













































































































































































































































































































































Country   Joined   Capital   Population   Land area (km²)  
 Antigua and Barbuda 1981 St. John’s &&&&&&&&&&081000.&&&&&081,000 &&&&&&&&&&&&0442.&&&&&0442
 Australia 1939 Canberra &&&&&&&021134563.&&&&&021,134,563 &&&&&&&&07741220.&&&&&07,741,220
 Bahamas 1973 Nassau &&&&&&&&&0319000.&&&&&0319,000 &&&&&&&&&&013878.&&&&&013,878
 Bangladesh 1972 Dhaka &&&&&&0139215000.&&&&&0139,215,000 &&&&&&&&&0143998.&&&&&0143,998
 Barbados 1966 Bridgetown &&&&&&&&&0269000.&&&&&0269,000 &&&&&&&&&&&&0430.&&&&&0430
 Belize 1981 Belmopan &&&&&&&&&0264000.&&&&&0264,000 &&&&&&&&&&022966.&&&&&022,966
 Botswana 1966 Gaborone &&&&&&&&01769000.&&&&&01,769,000 &&&&&&&&&0581730.&&&&&0581,730
 Brunei 1984 Bandar Seri Begawan &&&&&&&&&0366000.&&&&&0366,000 &&&&&&&&&&&05765.&&&&&05,765
 Cameroon 1995 Yaounde (constitutional)
Douala (economic)
&&&&&&&016038000.&&&&&016,038,000 &&&&&&&&&0475442.&&&&&0475,442
 Canada 1931 Ottawa &&&&&&&033039967.&&&&&033,039,967 &&&&&&&&09970610.&&&&&09,970,610
 Cyprus 1961 Nicosia &&&&&&&&&0826000.&&&&&0826,000 &&&&&&&&&&&09251.&&&&&09,251
 Dominica 1978 Roseau &&&&&&&&&&079000.&&&&&079,000 &&&&&&&&&&&&0751.&&&&&0751
 Fiji1 1970
1997
Suva &&&&&&&&&0841000.&&&&&0841,000 &&&&&&&&&&018274.&&&&&018,274
 Gambia 1965 Banjul &&&&&&&&01478000.&&&&&01,478,000 &&&&&&&&&&011295.&&&&&011,295
 Ghana 1957 Accra &&&&&&&021664000.&&&&&021,664,000 &&&&&&&&&0238533.&&&&&0238,533
 Grenada 1974 St. George’s &&&&&&&&&0102000.&&&&&0102,000 &&&&&&&&&&&&0344.&&&&&0344
 Guyana 1966 Georgetown &&&&&&&&&0750000.&&&&&0750,000 &&&&&&&&&0214969.&&&&&0214,969
 India 1947 New Delhi &&&&&01087124000.&&&&&01,087,124,000 &&&&&&&&03166414.&&&&&03,166,414
 Jamaica 1962 Kingston &&&&&&&&02639000.&&&&&02,639,000 &&&&&&&&&&010991.&&&&&010,991
 Kenya 1963 Nairobi &&&&&&&033467000.&&&&&033,467,000 &&&&&&&&&0580367.&&&&&0580,367
 Kiribati 1979 Tarawa &&&&&&&&&&097000.&&&&&097,000 &&&&&&&&&&&&0726.&&&&&0726
 Lesotho 1966 Maseru &&&&&&&&01798000.&&&&&01,798,000 &&&&&&&&&&030355.&&&&&030,355
 Malawi 1964 Lilongwe &&&&&&&012608000.&&&&&012,608,000 &&&&&&&&&0118484.&&&&&0118,484
 Malaysia 1957 Kuala Lumpur &&&&&&&027356000.&&&&&027,356,000 &&&&&&&&&0329847.&&&&&0329,847
 Maldives 1982 Malé &&&&&&&&&0321000.&&&&&0321,000 &&&&&&&&&&&&0298.&&&&&0298
 Malta 1964 Valletta &&&&&&&&&0400000.&&&&&0400,000 &&&&&&&&&&&&0316.&&&&&0316
 Mauritius 1968 Port Louis &&&&&&&&01233000.&&&&&01,233,000 &&&&&&&&&&&02040.&&&&&02,040
 Mozambique 1995 Maputo &&&&&&&019424000.&&&&&019,424,000 &&&&&&&&&0801590.&&&&&0801,590
 Namibia 1990 Windhoek &&&&&&&&02009000.&&&&&02,009,000 &&&&&&&&&0824292.&&&&&0824,292
 Nauru² 1968 Yaren (unofficial) &&&&&&&&&&013000.&&&&&013,000 &&&&&&&&&&&&&021.&&&&&021
 New Zealand 1947 Wellington &&&&&&&&04109000.&&&&&04,109,000 &&&&&&&&&0270534.&&&&&0270,534
 Nigeria³ 1960
1999
Abuja &&&&&&0128709000.&&&&&0128,709,000 &&&&&&&&&0923768.&&&&&0923,768
 Pakistan4 1947
1989
2004
Islamabad &&&&&&0161488000.&&&&&0161,488,000 &&&&&&&&&0880940.&&&&&0880,940
 Papua New Guinea 1975 Port Moresby &&&&&&&&05772000.&&&&&05,772,000 &&&&&&&&&0462840.&&&&&0462,840
 Saint Kitts and Nevis 1983 Basseterre &&&&&&&&&&042000.&&&&&042,000 &&&&&&&&&&&&0261.&&&&&0261
 Saint Lucia 1979 Castries &&&&&&&&&0159000.&&&&&0159,000 &&&&&&&&&&&&0539.&&&&&0539
 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines   1979 Kingstown &&&&&&&&&0118000.&&&&&0118,000 &&&&&&&&&&&&0388.&&&&&0388
 Samoa 1970 Apia &&&&&&&&&0184000.&&&&&0184,000 &&&&&&&&&&&02831.&&&&&02,831
 Seychelles 1976 Victoria &&&&&&&&&&080000.&&&&&080,000 &&&&&&&&&&&&0455.&&&&&0455
 Sierra Leone 1961 Freetown &&&&&&&&05336000.&&&&&05,336,000 &&&&&&&&&&071740.&&&&&071,740
 Singapore 1965 Singapore &&&&&&&&04237000.&&&&&04,237,000 &&&&&&&&&&&&0683.&&&&&0683
 Solomon Islands 1978 Honiara &&&&&&&&&0466000.&&&&&0466,000 &&&&&&&&&&028896.&&&&&028,896
 South Africa5 1931
1994
Pretoria (executive)
Bloemfontein (judicial)
Cape Town (legislative)
&&&&&&&047208000.&&&&&047,208,000 &&&&&&&&01221037.&&&&&01,221,037
 Sri Lanka 1948 Sri Jayawardhanapura Kotte (constitutional)  
Colombo (economic)
&&&&&&&020570000.&&&&&020,570,000 &&&&&&&&&&065610.&&&&&065,610
 Swaziland 1968 Mbabane &&&&&&&&01034000.&&&&&01,034,000 &&&&&&&&&&017364.&&&&&017,364
 Tanzania 1961 Dodoma &&&&&&&037627000.&&&&&037,627,000 &&&&&&&&&0945087.&&&&&0945,087
 Tonga 1970 Nuku’alofa &&&&&&&&&0102000.&&&&&0102,000 &&&&&&&&&&&&0747.&&&&&0747
 Trinidad and Tobago 1962 Port of Spain &&&&&&&&01301000.&&&&&01,301,000 &&&&&&&&&&&05130.&&&&&05,130
 Tuvalu 1978 Funafuti &&&&&&&&&&010000.&&&&&010,000 &&&&&&&&&&&&&026.&&&&&026
 Uganda 1962 Kampala &&&&&&&025827000.&&&&&025,827,000 &&&&&&&&&0241038.&&&&&0241,038
 United Kingdom 1931 London &&&&&&&060609155.&&&&&060,609,155 &&&&&&&&&0242900.&&&&&0242,900
 Vanuatu 1980 Port Vila &&&&&&&&&0207000.&&&&&0207,000 &&&&&&&&&&012189.&&&&&012,189
 Zambia 1964 Lusaka &&&&&&&011479000.&&&&&011,479,000 &&&&&&&&&0752618.&&&&&0752,618
Total &&&&&01921974000.&&&&&01,921,974,000 &&&&&&&031462574.&&&&&031,462,574


1 Left 1987, rejoined 1997, suspended since 2006.
2 Special member status 1968 to 1999, again since 2006.
3 Suspended between 1995 and 1999.
4 Left in 1972, rejoined in 1989, was suspended in 1999, readmitted in 2004 and suspended again in 2007.
5 Left 1961, rejoined 1994.



[edit] Member information





World map of the Commonwealth of Nations as of 2006. Current member states are coloured blue.

The Commonwealth comprises fifty-three, or almost a quarter, of the world’s countries and has a combined population of 1.9 billion people, almost a third of the world population and over twice as many as the whole of the Americas (North and South) put together. Of the 1.9 billion people, 1.4 billion live in the Indian subcontinent, and 93% live in Asia or Africa.


The total GDP is about US$7.8 trillion (about 16% of the total world economy).[citation needed] The land area of the Commonwealth nations is about 31.5 million km² (12.1 million square miles), or about 21% of the total world land area.


The five largest Commonwealth nations by population are India (1.1 billion), Pakistan (165 million), Bangladesh (148 m), Nigeria (137 m), and the United Kingdom (60 m). Tuvalu is the smallest member, with only 11,000 people.


The three largest Commonwealth nations by area are Canada at 3.8 million square miles, Australia at 3.0 million square miles, and India at 1.2 million square miles.


The largest military spenders are the United Kingdom at GBP£33.4 billion (US$66.8 billion), India at GBP£10.6 billion (US$21 billion), and Australia and Canada at GBP£5.3 billion (US$10.5 billion) respectively.[citation needed] The Commonwealth of Nations is not a military alliance. See: List of countries by military expenditures.


Nauru joined as a Special Member, but was a full member from May 1999 to January 2006 when it reverted back. [12]





Flags of the members of the Commonwealth in Horse Guards Road, next to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, London.

Membership is open to countries that accept the association’s basic aims and have a present or past constitutional link to a Commonwealth member. Not all members have had direct constitutional ties to Britain: some South Pacific countries were formerly under Australian or New Zealand administration, while Namibia was governed by South Africa from 1920 until independence in 1990. Cameroon joined in 1995 although only a fraction of its territory had formerly been under British administration through the League of Nations mandate of 1920–46 and United Nations Trusteeship arrangement of 1946–61. There is only one member of the present Commonwealth that has never had any constitutional link to the British Empire or a Commonwealth member: Mozambique, a former Portuguese colony, was admitted in 1995 on the back of the triumphal re-admission of South Africa and Mozambique’s first democratic elections, held in 1994. The move was supported by Mozambique’s neighbours, all of whom were members of the Commonwealth and who wished to offer assistance in overcoming the losses incurred from the country’s opposition to white minority regimes in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and South Africa. In 1997, amid some discontent, Commonwealth Heads of Government agreed that Mozambique’s admission should be seen as a special case and not set a precedent.[citation needed] Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) joined in 1972 in its own right after breaking away from Pakistan (formerly West Pakistan), which was a member until it left later in the same year.



[edit] Non-members



[edit] Non-applicants


Egypt, Myanmar and Iraq have never shown an interest in joining the Commonwealth, although they are eligible to do so, having histories of British rule. Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, Bahrain, Kuwait, Jordan and Oman similarly are not members. Other countries with historical links to the United Kingdom or other Commonwealth countries that could theoretically be Commonwealth members, but have shown no indication of a wish to join, include Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.


Hong Kong, which became a special administrative region of the People’s Republic of China following the end of British rule in 1997, did not join the Commonwealth.


The United States, which declared its independence from Britain more than 100 years before Lord Rosebery coined the term Commonwealth of Nations, is not a member.


France secretly considered membership in the 1950s, under the leadership of Prime Minister Guy Mollet. In the context of nationalisation of the Suez Canal, colonial unrest, and increasing tensions between British-backed Jordan and French-backed Israel, Mollet saw a union between Britain and France as a possible solution. A British Government document of the time reported “That the French would welcome a common citizenship arrangement on the Irish basis“. The request was turned down by the British prime minister Anthony Eden, along with a request for Commonwealth membership, and a year later France signed the Treaty of Rome with Germany and the other founding nations of the Common Market, later to become the EU. [13]



[edit] Current and possible future applicants


Rwanda (since 2003), Sudan, Algeria, Madagascar and Yemen have applied to join the Commonwealth, and there was some interest expressed by Israel (being formerly administered by the United Kingdom) and the Palestinian National Authority.[14]


Other eligible applicants could come from any of the remaining inhabited British overseas territories, Crown dependencies, Australian external territories and Associated States of New Zealand if any later become fully independent.[15] Many such jurisdictions are already directly represented within the Commonwealth, particularly through the Commonwealth Family.[16]



See also: Commonwealth of Nations membership criteria: Prospective members


[edit] Suspension







This article documents a current event.
Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

In recent years the Commonwealth has suspended several members “from the Councils of the Commonwealth” for failure to uphold democratic government. Suspended members are not represented at meetings of Commonwealth leaders and ministers, although they remain members of the organisation.


Fiji, which was not a member of the Commonwealth between 1987 and 1997 as a result of a republican coup d’état, was suspended in 2000–2001 after a military coup, as was Pakistan from 1999 until 2004. Fiji was suspended once again following the military coup of December 2006.[17]


Nigeria was suspended between 1995 and 1999.


Zimbabwe was suspended in 2002 over concerns with the electoral and land reform policies of Robert Mugabe’s Zanu-PF government, before withdrawing from the organisation in 2003. It had previously been suspended from the Commonwealth under the country’s former name of Rhodesia from its unilateral declaration of independence in 1965 until its internationally recognised independence as Zimbabwe in 1980.


On 12 November 2007, in response to the 2007 Pakistani state of emergency, the Commonwealth gave Pakistan a 10-day deadline to restore its constitution and lift other emergency measures or face suspension from the 53-nation grouping.[18] On 22 November 2007, after the 10-day deadline had expired, Pakistan was suspended from the Commonwealth for violating its key principles, on the grounds of President Musharraf’s refusal to give up his role as head of the army, restore an independent judiciary and lift the state of emergency in the country.[19]



[edit] Withdrawal


As membership is purely voluntary, member governments can choose at any time to leave the Commonwealth. Pakistan left in 1972 in protest at Commonwealth recognition of breakaway Bangladesh, but rejoined in 1989. Zimbabwe left in 2003 when Commonwealth Heads of Government refused to lift the country’s suspension on the grounds of human rights violations and deliberate misgovernment.



[edit] Other termination


Although Heads of Government have the power to suspend member states from active participation, the Commonwealth has no provision for the expulsion of members. However, Commonwealth realms that become republics automatically cease to be members, unless (like India in 1950) they obtain the permission of other members to remain in the organisation as a republic. The Republic of Ireland left the Commonwealth when it became a republic, on 18 April 1949, after passing the Republic of Ireland Act 1948; because it preceded India’s London Declaration, remaining in the Commonwealth was not an option. However, Ireland has not shown any real interest in rejoining the Commonwealth, as it would be seen as a step back to colonialism by the majority of the population.[citation needed]South Africa was prevented from continuing as a member after it became a republic in 1961, due to hostility from many members, particularly those in Africa and Asia as well as Canada, to its policy of apartheid. The South African government withdrew its application to remain in the organisation as a republic when it became clear at the 1961 Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Conference that any such application would be rejected. South Africa was re-admitted to the Commonwealth in 1994, following the end of apartheid earlier that same year.


The Maldives left the Commonwealth in 1965 after declaring their independence from the United Kingdom; they were re-admitted to the Commonwealth on 9 July 1982.


The declaration of a republic in the Fiji Islands in 1987, after military coups designed to deny Indo-Fijians political power in Fiji, was not accompanied by application to remain. Commonwealth membership was held to have lapsed until 1997, after racist provisions in the republican constitution were repealed and reapplication for membership made.


Hong Kong was not a member but participated in certain elements as a British colony; these ceased after the 1997 handover of British rule to China.



[edit] Objectives and activities


The Commonwealth has long been distinctive as an international forum where highly developed economies (the UK, Australia, Canada, New Zealand) and many of the world’s poorer countries seek to reach agreement by consensus. This aim has sometimes been difficult to achieve, as when disagreements over Rhodesia in the late 1960s and 1970s and over apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s led to a cooling of relations between Britain and African members.


An important statement of the Commonwealth’s principles is the 1991 Harare Declaration, which dedicated the organisation to democracy and good government, and allowed for action to be taken against members who breached these principles. Before then the Commonwealth’s collective actions had been limited by the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other members.


The organisation is celebrated each year on Commonwealth Day, the second Monday in March.



[edit] Benefits of membership







This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (June 2007)

In its early days, the Commonwealth constituted a significant economic bloc. Commonwealth countries accorded each others’ goods privileged access to their markets (”Commonwealth Preference”), and there was a free or preferred right of migration from one Commonwealth country to another. These rights have been steadily eroded, but their consequences remain. Within most Commonwealth countries, there are substantial communities with family ties to other members of the Commonwealth, going beyond the effects of the original colonisation of parts of the Commonwealth by settlers from Britain or Ireland. Furthermore, consumers in Commonwealth countries retain many preferences for goods from other members of the Commonwealth, so that even in the absence of tariff privileges, there continues to be more trade within the Commonwealth than might be predicted. On Britain’s entry to the European Community, the Lomé Convention preserved some of the preferential access rights of Commonwealth goods to Britain’s market.


Some Commonwealth countries give Commonwealth citizens privileges that are not accorded to aliens. For example, in Britain the right to vote is given to all Commonwealth citizens resident in that country, one example being Bryan Gould, a New Zealander who was elected as a Labour MP. However, these privileges are largely not reciprocal, and it is up to each country to decide what privileges it accords to Commonwealth citizenship, except for the Commonwealth Scholarship. Other privileges that Britain grants Commonwealth citizens include access to immigration programmes such as the working holidaymaker visa. Some privileges offered by individual countries have eroded over the last few decades, but most countries continue to afford special treatment for immigration (e.g. right of abode in UK for some) and visas. Commonwealth citizens are also eligible to join the British armed forces.



[edit] Criticisms







This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (June 2007)

In recent decades there has been a mutual decline of interest in maintaining active intra-Commonwealth relations, and the organisation’s direct political and economic importance has declined. Realist critics have argued that in the 21st century the organisation is an inherently arbitrary alliance with members that are united only through a historical accident of British colonialism. They argue that the organisation lacks a balanced membership, and point out that it is very unusual for any international organisation to exclude highly important regions of the world such as most of Western Europe and South America from membership. Indeed, many Commonwealth members look increasingly to regional partners, non-Commonwealth as well as Commonwealth, to form their most important alliances. Such criticisms aside, and however arbitrary the origins of Commonwealth membership, the fact remains that shared legal, economic, and governmental traditions give its members a common outlook that is not always shared with regional partners.


Britain has forged closer relationships with other European countries through the European Union; this was widely felt as a betrayal by citizens of the “Old Commonwealth” whose economies had been developed on the assumption of access to British markets. Similarly, former British colonies have forged closer relationships with non-Commonwealth trading partners and closer geographic neighbours. Reaction to immigration from the new Commonwealth countries into Britain in the 1950s and early 1960s led to the restriction of the right of migration. The Commonwealth today mainly restricts itself to encouraging community between nations and to placing moral pressure on members who violate international laws, such as human rights laws, and abandon democratically-elected government. Key activities today include training experts in developing countries and assisting with and monitoring elections.



[edit] Structure



[edit] Head of the Commonwealth





Queen Elizabeth II



Main article: Head of the Commonwealth

Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of the Commonwealth, a title which is de facto annexed to the sovereign of the United Kingdom[20]. Some members of the Commonwealth, known as Commonwealth realms, also recognise the Queen as their head of state. However, the majority of members are republics, and a handful of others are indigenous monarchies.



[edit] Commonwealth Secretariat




Main article: Commonwealth Secretariat

The Commonwealth Secretariat (see External links below), established in 1965, is the main intergovernmental agency of the Commonwealth, facilitating consultation and cooperation among member governments and countries. It is responsible to member governments collectively.


Based in London, UK, the Secretariat organises Commonwealth summits, meetings of ministers, consultative meetings and technical discussions; it assists policy development and provides policy advice, and facilitates multilateral communication among the member governments. It also provides technical assistance to help governments in the social and economic development of their countries and in support of the Commonwealth’s fundamental political values.


The Secretariat is headed by the Commonwealth Secretary-General who is elected by Commonwealth Heads of Government for no more than two four-year terms. The Secretary-General and two Deputy Secretaries-General direct the divisions of the Secretariat. The present Secretary-General is Donald McKinnon, from New Zealand, who took office on 1 April 2000, succeeding Chief Emeka Anyaoku of Nigeria (1990–2000). The first Secretary-General was Arnold Smith of Canada (1965–75), followed by Sir Shridath Ramphal of Guyana (1975–90).



[edit] Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting




Main article: Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting

The main decision-making forum of the organisation is the biennial Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), where Commonwealth presidents or prime ministers assemble for several days to discuss matters of mutual interest. CHOGM is the successor to the Prime Ministers’ Conferences and earlier Imperial Conferences and Colonial Conferences dating back to 1887. There are also regular meetings of finance ministers, law ministers, health ministers, etc.



[edit] Commonwealth Family




Main article: Commonwealth Family

Commonwealth countries share many links outside government, with over a hundred Commonwealth-wide non-governmental organisations, notably for sport, culture, education and charity. The Association of Commonwealth Universities is an important vehicle for academic links, particularly through scholarships, principally the Commonwealth Scholarship, for students to study in universities in other Commonwealth countries. There are also many non-official associations that bring together individuals who work within the spheres of law and government, such as the Commonwealth Lawyers Association and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.



[edit] Commonwealth Foundation




Main article: Commonwealth Foundation

The Commonwealth Foundation is an intergovernmental organisation, resourced by and reporting to Commonwealth governments, and guided by Commonwealth values and priorities. Its mandate is to strengthen civil society in the achievement of Commonwealth priorities: democracy and good governance, respect for human rights and gender equality, poverty eradication and sustainable, people-centred development, and to promote arts and culture.


The Commonwealth Foundation was established by the Heads of Government in 1965. Membership of the Foundation is open to all members of the Commonwealth and currently (as of June 2007) stands at 46 governments out of the 53 member countries. Associate Membership, which is open to associated states or overseas territories of member governments, has been granted to Gibraltar. 2005 saw celebrations for the Foundation’s 40th Anniversary. The Foundation is headquartered in Marlborough House, Pall Mall, London, and has no other offices. Regular liaison and cooperation between the Secretariat and the Foundation is in place.


The Foundation continues to serve the broad purposes for which it was established as written in the Memorandum of Understanding:[21]



The purposes and areas of interest of the Foundation will be the administration of funds for increasing interchanges between Commonwealth organizations of the skilled or learned professions or skilled auxiliary occupations in order to maintain and improve standards of knowledge, attainment and conduct; and between non-governmental organisations of a voluntary rather than a strictly professional character throughout the Commonwealth. The Foundation’s areas of interest will also extend to include culture, information and the media, rural development, social welfare and the handicapped, and the role of women.



[edit] Commonwealth Games




Main article: Commonwealth Games

A multi-sports championship called the Commonwealth Games is held every four years, in the same year as the Winter Olympic Games. As well as the usual athletic disciplines, the games include sports popular in the Commonwealth such as bowls.



[edit] Commonwealth of Learning




Main article: Commonwealth of Learning

The Commonwealth of Learning (COL) is an intergovernmental organisation created by the Heads of Government to encourage the development and sharing of open learning/distance education knowledge, resources and technologies. COL is helping developing nations improve access to quality education and training.



[edit] Commonwealth Business Council




Main article: Commonwealth Business Council

The Commonwealth Business Council (CBC) was formed at the Edinburgh CHOGM in 1997. The aim was to utilise the global network of the Commonwealth more effectively for the promotion of global trade and investment for shared prosperity.


The CBC acts as a bridge for co-operation between business and government, concentrating efforts on these specific areas:



  • Enhancing trade
  • Mobilising investment
  • Promoting corporate citizenship
  • Facilitating ICT for Development
  • Public Private Partnerships

The CBC has a dedicated team, CBC Technologies, based in London and focused on the international technology and global services industry throughout the Commonwealth.


In October 2007, the United Kingdom Independence Party is calling for the UK to end its political union with the EU and set up a Free Trade Area with Commonwealth countries.[22]



[edit] Commonwealth War Graves Commission




Main article: Commonwealth War Graves Commission


[edit] Cultural links


The Commonwealth is also useful as an international organisation that represents significant cultural and historical links between wealthy first-world countries and poorer nations with diverse social and religious backgrounds. The common inheritance of the English language and literature, the common law, and British systems of administration all underpin the club-like atmosphere of the Commonwealth.


Mostly due to their history of British rule, many Commonwealth nations share certain identifiable traditions and customs that are elements of a shared Commonwealth culture. Examples include common sports such as cricket and rugby, driving on the left, parliamentary and legal traditions, and the use of British rather than American spelling conventions (see English in the Commonwealth of Nations). None of these are universal within the Commonwealth countries, nor exclusive to them, but all of them are more common in the Commonwealth than elsewhere.


In recent years the Commonwealth model has inspired similar initiatives on the part of France, Spain and Portugal and their respective ex-colonies, and in the former case, other sympathetic governments: the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie (International Organisation of Francophone Countries), the Comunidad Iberoamericana de Naciones (Organization of Ibero-American States) and the Comunidade dos Países de Língua Portuguesa (Community of Portuguese Language Countries). The Arab League, an association similar to the Commonwealth, was founded in 1945 and whose members and observers (except India) use Arabic as an official language.



[edit] Literature


The shared history of British rule has also produced a substantial body of writing in many languages - Commonwealth literature. There is an Association for Commonwealth Literature and Language Studies (ACLALS) with nine chapters worldwide. ACLALS holds an international conference every three years.


In 1987, the Commonwealth Foundation established the Commonwealth Writers Prize “to encourage and reward the upsurge of new Commonwealth fiction and ensure that works of merit reach a wider audience outside their country of origin.” Caryl Phillips won the Commonwealth Writers Prize 2004 for A Distant Shore. Mark Haddon won the Commonwealth Writers’ Prize 2004 Best First Book prize worth £3,000 for The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time.


Although not affiliated with the Commonwealth in an official manner, the prestigious Man Booker Prize is awarded annually to an author from a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland. This honour is one of the highest in literature.


LCD & PDP 장단점 비교

No Comments Filed Under: 상식

요즘 대형TV에 대한 관심이 점점 커져가고 있습니다. 그중에서도 벽걸이 TV에대한 관심이 대단한데 이 것들에 대한 이해는 그 인기보다는 부족한듯 합니다.


특히 LCD와 PDP의 특징과 선택 방법에 대해 안내해 드립니다.


글이 너무 길고 장황한 듯 합니다. 하지만 어려운 표현없이 쉽게 설명하려고 노력 하였으니 천천히 읽어 보시면 많은 도움이 될 듯 합니다. 


 


1. PDP와 LCD


2. 각 방식의 장단점


3. 디스플레이의 비교


4. 디스플레이의 선택


5. 작동 원리


 



 





 세계 최고 크기의 삼성의 102″ PDP와  LG의 100″ LCD


 


 


1. PDP와 LCD


 


이런 TV들은 대형화에 초점이 맞춰져 있습니다. 그 어떤 방식의 TV가 있다고 해도 제일 화질이 좋은 방식은 우리가 브라운관이라고 하는 일반 TV입니다. 이것을 CRT라고 하는데 이 CRT의 최대 문제점은 대형화 입니다. 크게 만들수는 있더라도 가격이 너무 올라가고 두께를 줄일수 없으며 무게가 너무 무거워 진다는 단점이 있습니다. 그래서 대형화 할 수 있는 다른 방식을 찾은것입니다. 이런 이유에서 CRT가 아닌 다른 방식의 대형화면을 개발하다보니 앏고 가벼운 방식을 택할 수 있었고 이제는 “대형TV=벽걸이TV”라는 생각과 함께 이른바 벽걸이 TV시대가 온 것입니다.


 


벽걸이 TV하면 생각하는건 당연히 PDP와 LCD입니다. 이 둘을 우선 구분하자면 우선 신형과 구형의 차이라고 해야 할까요?? 보는 시각에 따라서 어느 것이 신형인지는 달리 생각할 수 있습니다.


 


LCD는 특별히 새로 나온 형식이 아닙니다.  옛날부터 우리가 사용해 오던 전자시계의 액정화면이 모두 LCD방식입니다. 이것을 좀더 발전시킨게 구형 핸드폰 화면에 들어있는 흑백 LCD이고 이제 핸드폰이나 컴퓨터 모니터 등으로 많이 쓰이는 컬러 LCD로 발전한 것입니다.


그러나 과거엔 이 LCD는 대형화 시킬 수 없다는 것이 중론이었습니다. 그래서 대형 TV를 만들 수 있는 다른 방식을 찾은 것이고 그렇게 새로이 개발 된것이 바로 PDP입니다. 그래서 LCD는 구형이고 PDP가 신형 입니다.


 


하지만 보통은 LCD가 더 신형 처럼 느껴집니다. 그 이유가 있습니다.  LCD는 스로로 빛이 나는 소재를 사용한 것이 아니라 뒤에 백라이트라는 빛을 따로 쏴줘야 하고 내부 단자가 복잡 해 대형화에 아주 불리합니다. 하지만 PDP는 두개의 유리판 사이에 플라즈마라는 일반인에게 다소 생소할 수 있는 물질을 집어넣어 스스로 빛이나고  단자가 단순해 질 수 있어 대형화에 적합한 방식으로 일본에서 처음 개발이 되었습니다.


 


이렇게 대형 TV에서는 PDP가 먼저 출발 하였습니다. 하지만 대형화에 한계가 있다는 LCD를 우리나라의 삼성 LG 를 비롯한 세계적 가전 업체에서 5세대 LCD를 개발 하면서 부터 대형화가 가능하다는 생각들이 들기 시작 했고, 결국 지금의 7세대 LCD는 대형화에 성공 하게 됐습니다. 이렇게 LCD가 PDP보다 대형시장에는 더늦게 출시되었기 때문에 PDP는 구형이고 LCD가 신형 이라고 생각 될 수도 있습니다.


 


처음에는 모든 가전업체에서 대형TV방식을 PDP하나로 생각하고 있었습니다. 하지만 이렇게 대형시장에 LCD의 불연듯한 출현으로 가전업체에서도 어느것을 주력으로 결정하지 못하고 시장의 흐름만 관망하고 있는 실정입니다. 그래서 그 결정의 몫이 우리 소비자가 되어버린 것입니다. 하지만 선택의폭이 넓어졌단 점에서 이 고민은 귀찬은것이 아니라 행복한 고민 되겠지요?  


 


판매량에서는 얼마전 LCD가 PDP를 추월했다고 합니다. 일반적으로 처음 접하는 사람들은 선명해 보이는 화질 때문에 대부분이 PDP보다 LCD를 더 선호하는 경향이 있습니다.


하지만 아직도 크기에선 PDP가 앞서 갑니다. PDP는 대부분의 업체에서 100인치 이상이 개발 된 상태지만  LG필립스를 제외하고는 마의 100인치벽을 넘지 못하고 있습니다. 요즘 상용화 되어 있는 크기도 PDP는 80인치급이 이미 상용화 되어 있는데 반해 LCD는 50인치급 이상은 보기 힘든 실정 입니다. 일단 크기면에선 PDP의 우세라는 점을 생각하면서 이제 본격적으로 여러가지 방식들을 비교해 보겠습니다.



 



사진 출처 : 뉴스 메이커



 


 


 


2. 각 방식의 장단점


 


CRT. 일반 브라운관 TV 입니다. 요즘은 슬림형도 나오는데 두께에는 한계가 있습니다. 그렇지만 화질 면에서는 단연 선두 입니다. 그어떤 방식도 CRT를 따라오진 못합니다. 그리고 모든 방송.. 게임.. 등이 이 CRT의 색감을 기준으로 하기 때문에 가장 정직한(?)색감을 감상할 수 있다는 점이 장점입니다. 이러한 이유로 과거 세계 디스플레이 시장을 선도하던 SONY는 아직도 고급형의 대형 CRT모델을 새로 선보이고도 있습니다. 하지만 위에서 말씀드렸다 싶이 대형화엔 한계가 있는게 사실입니다.


 


프로젝션 TV. 가격대비 크기에서는 최고 입니다. 과거의 CRT프로젝션은 화질이 매우 안좋았습니다. 시야각도 매우 좁아서 조금만 옆에서 보면 화면이 보이질 않고 휘도가 낮기때문에 화면이 너무 어두워서 낮에는 시청을 포기해야 할 정도였는데, 요즘의 LCD, DLP프로젝션은 많이 밝아지고 시야각도 많이 넓어졌습니다. 따라서 요즘 프로젝션 TV의 화질은 만족도가 많이 높아진 상태입니다.


 


LCD. 화면이 아주 밝고 가벼워서 벽걸이 TV로 좋습니다. 특별히 실제보다 더 선명한 색감을 줍니다. 그것은 위에서 말했다 싶이 스스로 빛이 나는 소자를 사용한 것이 아니라 뒤에서 따로 빛을 비춰주기 때문에 밝기가 아주 밝아서 보기에는 아주 선명해 보입니다. 매장에 가서 PDP와 LCD를 직접 비교해 보면 LCD의 선명도가 아주 높기 때문에 PDP는 마치 화질이 좋지 않은것 처럼 보이기도 합니다. 하지만 이 선명도가 약점이 되기도 합니다. 실제보다 더 밝게 표현되는 것 자체가 화질을 왜곡하는 것으로 밝은 회색이 흰색으로, 어두운 회색이 검정색으로 보이는 경향이 있습니다. 또한 LCD는 응답속도가 느린편이라 화면잔상이 있을 수 있다는 단점이 있습니다.


 


PDP. 대형화면을 위해 새로 개발된 방식의 벽걸이 TV입니다. LCD에 비하여 무게가 다소나가고 전력 소모가 많다고 하지만 위에서 말한 LCD의 단점을 그대로 충족해 주는 방식입니다. 같은 화면 면적을 비교할 경우 LCD에 비해서 PDP가 더 저렴하다는 장접도 있습니다.  요즘 일반 가정에서 구입할 수 있는 크기는 LCD는 40인치가 최대 인 반면 PDP는 50인치 까지도 구매가 가능합니다.  대형 화면 중 가장 CRT에 가까운 화질을 자랑합니다. 시야각도 넚고 화면 밝기도 밝은 편입니다. 하지만 LCD와 직접 비교한다면 LCD가 화질이 더 좋아 보인다는 것은 PDP의 최대 약점이라고 생각 됩니다.


 




최근 인기를 얻고있는 LG의 타임머신기능 PDP



 


 


 


3. 디스플레이의 비교


 


이런 대화면 디스플레이를 구입할때는 몇가지 고려할 사항들이 있습니다.


 


화질. 화질이 제일 중요한 부분일 것입니다. 하지만 보는 사람에 따라서 그 기준이 달라질 수 있습니다. CRT는 일반 브라운관 TV를 말합니다.


화질을 색감을 위주로 생각한다면 CRT > PDP > LCD > DLP가 되겠구요.


화질을 선명도로 생각을 하신다면 LCD > CRT >  PDP > DLP 라고 생각합니다.


처음 볼때는 다들 아래의 선명도를 기준으로 화질을 말하게 됩니다. 일단 눈에 확 와닿는 직접적인 느낌이 너무 강렬한 인상을 남기기 때문입니다. 하지만 오래 사용하다 보면 자연스러운 색감이 더 중요한 기준으로 바뀔 수 있습니다. 그래서 LCD에서 PDP로 바꾸는사람도 종종 있습니다.


 


HD급. 디지털 TV는 HD급과 SD급이 따로 판매 되고 있습니다. 이것은 디카에서의 화소를 생각하시면 됩니다. 화면에 찍힌 화소라고 하는 색을 내는 점의 갯수를 말하는데. 이 화소가 많아야 더 선명한 화면을 감상하실 수 있습니다.


SD급은 DVD화질로 30~60만 화소로 표현 됩니다. 하지만 HD는 300만화소에 육박하는 좋은 화질이죠. 지금은 일부 방송만 HD로 출력이되어.. HD급 TV의 좋은점을 크게 느낄수는 없으나 점점 늘어나는 HD방송을 생각할때 HD급 TV의 필요성이 느껴집니다.


하지만 가격대비 성능을 중요하게 생각하고 DVD정도의 화질이면 충분하다고 생각된다면 SD급 TV를 구입해도 큰 무리는 없습니다.


HD급도 일반 HD와 풀(Full)HD급이 있으니 이점도 확인하고 구매를 하셔야 합니다.  얼마전 모 홈쇼핑에서 SD급 PDP를 아무런 얘기를 안하고 판매해서 사람들은 당연히 HD급인줄 알고 샀다가 항의하는 문제가 있었습니다. 그러니 꼭 확인을 하고 구입을 해야 합니다.


 


응답속도. 시야각. 앞에서 잠깐 언급 했듯이 LCD의경우 응답속도가 늦어 화면에 잔상이 남게 됩니다. 그래서 빠른 화면전환이 있는 스포츠경기나 액션 영화의 스피디한 화면에서 문제가 발생할수 있으나 요즘은 많은 기술 발전으로 눈이 예민한 편이 아니거나 신경써서 관찰하지 않는다면 거의 느끼지 못하는 수준까지 발전한건 사실입니다.


시야각 역시 초기의 LCD와 프로젝션에서는 크게 문제되었지만.. 이제 LCD는 아무런 문제가 되지 않는다고 생각되고 프로젝션도 일반 가정에서 사용하는데 아무런 불편이 없을듯합니다. 일부러 구석에서 TV를 감상할 일은 없을테니 시야각 역시 큰 상관은 없다고 생각 됩니다.


 


소비전력.  PDP와 LCD의 비교에서 소비전력 역시 중요한 판단 기준이 됩니다. 일반적으로 PDP가 LCD에 비해 전력 소비가 많습니다.  40인치 기준으로 실제 소비전력은 PDP가 100W정도 더 높다고 하는데 이건 형광등 2~3개를 더 켜놓는 것과 같은 전력소모입니다. 


하지만 PDP가 전기료가 더 많이 나온다고 해서 무조건 비경제적인건 아닙니다. LCD가 더 고가이기 때문에 PDP의 전기료와  LCD와의 가격차이에서 어느것이 더 경제성이 있는지를 잘 따저 보아야 합니다.


 



기타. 일부 정량적인 수치를 좋아하는 사람들은 숫자로 표시되는 스펙에 너무 연연하는 경향이 있습니다. 화면밝기를 나타내는 휘도와 선명도를 나타내는 명암비가 바로 그것인데 하지만 이런 수치들은 같은 방식에선 큰 차이가 없고 각기 다른 방식별로 이미 그 차이가 결정되어 있기 때문에 큰 의미는 없다고 봅니다.


일반적으로 화면 밝기 순서는 위에서 말한 선명도의 순서인  LCD > CRT >  PDP > DLP 순이 그대로 유지된다고 생각하시면 됩니다.


마지막으로 셋톱박스 일체형인지 확인을 하셔야 합니다. 요즘엔 거의 대부분의 TV가 일체형이라서 큰 문제는 없지만 그래도 확인은 하고 구입을 하셔야 합니다. 셋톱박스는 디지털 방송신호를 받아들이는 수신장치로 이게 없다면 따로 구입을 하셔야 하는경우가 발생할 수 있습니다.


 




최근 출시된 삼성의 새로운 브랜드 “PAVV 보르도” LCD TV



 


 


 


4. 디스플레이의 선택


 


40인치 이상의 TV에서 가격과 화면 크기만 본다면 단연 프로젝션 TV입니다.


낯에 시청시간이 많거나 선명하고 깨끗한 화질을 원한다면 LCD입니다.


영화나 드라마의 풍부한 색감을 느끼면서 시청하고 싶으시다면 PDP입니다.


집이 그리 크지 않다면 슬림TV혹은 일반TV도 아주 좋은 선택일 수 있습니다.


 


자신의 예산에 맞는 알맞은 방식을 잘 선택 하셔야 합니다. 


예전에는 가장 저렴한 프로젝션TV가 가장 인기가 좋았고 지금도 판매 수량으론 프로젝션 TV가 가장 앞서 가지만  화질이나 외관상으로 그 한계점이 있어 요즘엔 PDP와 LCD에 그 인기가 다소 밀리는 듯한 분위기 입니다. 최근엔 세계적으로 LCD판매량이 PDP의 판매량을 넘어섰다는 조사결과가 보도 되었습니다.


 


각격대비 성능은 단연 프로젝션 TV입니다. 꼭 벽에 걸필요가 없다면 TV의 두께는 얇을 이유가 없습니다. 프로젝션 TV는 PDP,LCD 40인치급을 구입하는 가격이면 60인치에 육박하는 초대 화면을 만나실수 있다는 커다란 장점이 있습니다.


 


예산이 충분하고 전기료가 큰 상관이 없다면 단연 50인치 이상의 PDP를 추천 합니다. 하지만 집이 넓은게 아니라면 50인치 이상은 너무 크다고 생각합니다. 보통 30평을 전후하는 넓이의 집에선 TV와의 거리가 3M내외가 나오는데 이정도 거리면 40인치급이면 충분하다고 생각됩니다. 50인치는 오히려 부담스러울 수 있습니다.


넓은 공간의 매장에서 보는 화면의 체감 크기는 실제보다 작아 보이는 경향이 있습니다.  더욱이 판매원은 되도록 큰사이즈를 권하는 것은 당연할 것입니다. 그렇기 때문에 막상 집에 설치했을때 너무 커서 문제되는 일이 없도록 화면크기의 선택은 좀 더 신중을 기해야 합니다.


 


같은 40인치에서 PDP와 LCD를 비교하면 LCD가 일반적으로 사람들이 더 선호하는 선명함을 가졌고 유지비가 저렴합니다. 하지만 PDP에 비해 가격이 더 비싸다는 단점이 있습니다. 따라서 눈이 좀 예민한 편이거나 영화,드라마 감상을 즐기신다면 부드러운 색감의 PDP로 결정 하는것이 더 현명한 선택일 것입니다.


 


만일 그리 크지않은 거실구조의 집이라면 40인치급도 너무 커서 부담스러울수 있습니다. 그때는 30인치 급을 찾아야 하는데 LCD를 선호하는 분위기 때문에 30인치급 LCD를 선택하는 경우가 있는데, 앞에서 여러번 강조했듯이 화질의 기준이 되는 CRT TV가 가격면에서나 성능면에서 훨씬 유리하다고 생각합니다. 이때 요즘 나오는 슬림TV를 선택하는것도 좋은 방법일 수 있습니다.


 


마지막으로 브랜드도 TV선택의 중요한 부분을 차지하는것도 사실입니다. 하지만 국내 가전사들은 서로 세계최고 수준을 자부하기 때문에 그 기술력 차이는 작을것으로 예상되고, 대기업이 아닌 중소기업의 대형 TV역시 성능의 가장중요한 부분인 패널은 대기업의 제품을 그대로 가져와서 조립만하기 때문에 A/S만 확실한 기업이라면 가격적인 경쟁력이 있는 중견 중소기업의 TV도 충분히 고려해볼만 할 것입니다.


특히 패널이란 것은  우리가 보는 화면자체를 말하는 것으로 PDP와 LCD의 전부라고 해도 과언이 아닐까 하는 생각까지도 듭니다. 중소기업에선 이 패널을 대기업으로부터 구입해서 전파수신회로 화질조정회로등을 장착해 케이스를 씌워서 출고하게 됩니다. 대기업역시 패널 생산 회사(삼성SDI, LG필립스)와 조립출하(삼성전자, LG전자)가 분리되어 있기 때문에 완제품을 출하하는 대기업과 중소기업은 기술력의 차이는 크게 없다고 생각됩니다. 


 


 


모든 제품이 마찬가지겠지만 무엇보다도 중요한건 자신의 선택입니다. 매장에서 직접가서 이러한 장단점과 차이점들을 확인하고 자신의 중요하다고 생각되는 점을 선택의 기준으로 잡고 TV를 선택한다면 나중에 후회하지않고  오랬동안 만족하면서 TV를 사용할 수 있을 것입니다.


 



                                  대형TV는 자동차와 더불어 또하나의 남자의로망?


                                  대형TV는 예비부부의 중요한 관심사??


사진 출처 : 디지털 타임스


 


 


 


5. 작동 원리


 


글의 전체적인 흐름상 이 내용이 가장 먼저 나와야 하지만 글이 너무 길어져서 다소 지루하다싶은 이 내용들을 맨뒤로 옮김니다. 하지만 알아두면 좋은 지식될만한 내용입니다.


 


각 방식의 원리를 간단하게 설명하겠습니다.


기본적으로 어떤 디스플레이든지 필요한 색깔은 빨강,파랑,녹색 세가지 뿐입니다. 이 세가지 색만 낼수 있으면 이들의 조합으로 수천만가지이상의 천연 컬러를 연출할 수 있습니다. 이 세가지 색이 모두켜지면 흰색, 모두꺼지면 검정색으로 보여지게 되는 것이지요. 지금 이글을 보고 있는 컴퓨터화면이나 텔레비젼의 흰색부분을 가까이가서 본다면 이 세가지 색깔이 보일겁니다.


 


CRT. 화면 안쪽의 유리면에.. 전기적 충격을 받으면 빛이나는 형광물질을 수많은 점으로 도포하고 뒤쪽에 있는 전자총으로 쏜 전자가 이 각각의 점에 충돌하면 빨,파,녹 각각의 색으로 빛이나고 충돌하지 않으면 어두워서 검정색으로 표현되는 원리입니다.





그림 출처 : NAVER백과사전



 


LCD. 화면 뒤에서 백라이트라고 하는 흰색 빛을 비춰주고 그빛을 그냥 통과시겨주면 흰색으로보이고 완전히 차단해 버리면 검정색으로 보이게 됩니다. 또 빛을 빨강,파랑,녹색의 막을 통과시켜 보여주면 그 각각의 색으로 보이게 되는 간단한 원리 입니다. 그 빛을 막아주는 역할을 하는것이 액정이란 물질이라서 액정화면이라고 하는것이지요. LCD의 LC가  액체상태의 수정을 뜻하는 Liquid Crystal의 약자로 다시말해 액정을 뜻하는 것입니다.




그림 출처 : 오리님의 블로그(http://blog.naver.com/orrimaster)



 


PDP. 두개의 유리판사이에 칸막이를 이용해서 수많은 방을 만들고 그 방에다 각각의 프라즈마라는 전기 충격에 빛을내는 물질을 집어넣어 전기를 주면 그 물질이 스스로 빛을 내면서 발광하는 방식입니다. 그래서 프라즈마 디스플레이라고 부르는 것입니다. 이 프라즈마라는 물질은 상당히 어렵고 생소한 물질로 생각하기 쉬운데 형광등 가스와 같이 우리주변에서 아주쉽게 볼 수 있는 물질입니다.(정확히 말하자면 물질 이름이 아니라 기체,액체,고체와 같이 물제의 상태를 나타내는 말입니다.)



특히 빨강,주황,파랑,녹색등의 고유의 색을 가지는 네온사인을 생각하면 쉬울 것입니다. 이러한 것을 디스플레이에 응용한 것이지요..





그림 출처 : 서비님의 블로그(http://blog.naver.com/tigermajer)



 


LED.  LCD와 이름이 비슷하다고 해서 서로 비슷한 원리가 아닌가 생각하기도 쉬운데 LED는 Light Emitting Diode 의 약자이고  LCD는 Liquid Crystal Display 의 약자로 같은 단어는 하나도 없는 전혀 다른 방식입니다.


최근 많이 보이는 초대형 화면에선 발광다이오드라는 LED 소자를 사용합니다. 축구경기장이나 시내 건물벽에 있는 초대형 디스플레이가 바로 LED입니다. 최근에 새로 단장한 상암구장의 동영상 광고판 역시 이 LCD를 사용하는 것입니다. 또한 요즘에는 신호등도 이 LED를 이용하고 있습니다.


이 LED는 오래전부터 정말 많이 사용하고 있는데 그 대표적인 것이 모니터 혹은 TV의 전원버튼 옆의 빨강 초록 혹은 주황색의  조그만 전구 입니다. 이것이 전구가 아니라 이 LED란 것입니다. 예전엔 빨강과 초록색 두가지 밖에 없었습니다. (둘이 같이 빛을 내면 주황색으로 보이게 됩니다.) 그래서 가게 쇼윈도나 관공서등에서 볼 수 있는 옆으로 움직이는 글씨의 소규모 전광판이 이 LED를 이용한 것입니다. 문제는 예전에는 파란색 LED를 만들 수 없거나 만들어도 그 수명이 너무 짧아서 컬러 전광판을 만들지 못했 었는데 몇년전 수명이 긴 파란 LED가 개발되어 이제는 컬러 전광판이 등장한 것이구요. 따라서 이런 초대형 화면을 구현할 수 있게 된 것입니다. 하지만 아직도 파란색 다이오드가 여전히 가격이 높고 수명이 짧다는 문제가 있습니다


Expo (exhibition)

No Comments Filed Under: 상식

Expo (also known as World Fair and World’s Fair) is the name of various large public exhibitions held since the mid-19th century. The official sanctioning body is the Bureau International des Expositions (BIE), translated in English as the International Exhibitions Bureau (though sometimes rendered as the Bureau of International Expositions). BIE-approved fairs are divided into a number of types: universal, and international or specialized. They usually last between 3 and 6 months. In addition, countries can hold their own ‘fair’, ‘exposition’, or ‘exhibition’, without BIE endorsement.


Today, world expositions are the third largest event in the world in terms of economic and cultural impact, after the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games. They have been organized for more than one and a half centuries — longer than both the (modern) Olympic Games and the World Cup. The first Expo was held in The Crystal Palace in Hyde Park, London, in 1851 under the title “Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations”. The “Great Exhibition” as it is often called was an idea of Prince Albert, Queen Victoria’s husband, and was the first international exhibition of manufactured products. As such, it influenced the development of several aspects of society including art and design education, international trade and relations, and even tourism. Also, it was the precedent for the many international exhibitions, later called “World’s Fairs”, which were subsequently held until the present day.


The main attractions at World’s Fairs are the national pavilions, created by participating countries. At Expo 2000 Hannover, where countries created their own architecture, the average pavilion investment was around ? 13 million. Given these costs, EU governments in particular are sometimes skeptical about participation as tangible benefits are often assumed not to outweigh the costs. Effects are often not measured, however. An exception was an independent study for the Dutch pavilion at Expo 2000. This research estimated the pavilion (which cost around ? 35 million) generated around ? 350 million of potential revenues for the Dutch economy. It also identified several key success factors for world exposition pavilions in general[1].







Contents

[hide]


  • 1 A brief history of the World’s Fair

    • 1.1 Era I — ‘Industrialization’ 1851–1938
    • 1.2 Era II — ‘Cultural exchange’ 1939–1991
    • 1.3 Era III — ‘Nation branding’ 1992–present

  • 2 Categories of World Expositions

    • 2.1 Registered Expositions (”Universal Expositions”)
    • 2.2 Recognized Expositions (”International or specialized expositions”)

  • 3 After the fair
  • 4 USA membership
  • 5 See also
  • 6 References
  • 7 External links


[edit] A brief history of the World’s Fair





The United States pavilion at Expo 67 with minirail.

The origin of the idea of World’s Fair is found in the French tradition of national exhibitions, that culminated with the French Industrial Exposition of 1844 held in Paris. It was soon followed by other national exhibitions in continental Europe, and finally came to London where the first real international exhibition was held.


Since their inception in 1851, the character of world expositions has evolved. Three rough eras can be distinguished: the era of industrialization, the era of cultural exchange, and the era of nation branding.



[edit] Era I — ‘Industrialization’ 1851–1938


The first era could be called the era of ‘industrialization’ and covered, roughly, the period from 1800 to 1950. In these days, world expositions were especially focused on trade and famous for the display of technological inventions and advancements. World expositions were the platform where the state of the art in science and technology from around the world was brought together. The world expositions of 1851 London, 1889 Paris, World’s Columbian Exposition, Chicago 1893, 1900 Paris, and 1915 San Francisco exhibitions can be called landmarks in this respect. Inventions such as the telephone were first presented during this era. An important part of the Expo’s current image stems from this first era.



[edit] Era II — ‘Cultural exchange’ 1939–1991


The 1939 New York World’s Fair and the 1949 Stockholm World’s Fair represented a departure from the original focus of the expositions. From then on, Expos became more strongly based on a specific theme of cultural significance, and began to address issues of mankind. They became more future oriented and ‘utopian‘ in scope. Technology and inventions remained important, but no longer as the principal subjects of the Expo. Tomorrow’s World (New York, 1939) and Sports (Stockholm, 1949) are examples of these ‘new’ themes. Cross-cultural dialogue and the exchange of solutions became defining elements of the expos. The dominant Expo of this era arguably remains Montreal’s 1967 Expo67. At Expo 2000 in Hannover, a program called ‘Projects Around the World’ brought together sustainable initiatives and solutions from all over the globe. Expo 2005 of Aichi was probably the most thematic Expo to date.



[edit] Era III — ‘Nation branding’ 1992–present


From Expo ‘92 in Seville onwards, countries started to use the world expo more widely and more strongly as a platform to improve their national images through their pavilions. Finland, Japan, Canada, France and Spain are cases in point. A large study by Tjaco Walvis called “Expo 2000 Hanover in Numbers” showed that improving national image was the primary participation goal for 73% of the countries at Expo 2000. In a world where a strong national image is a key asset, pavilions became advertising campaigns, and the Expo a vehicle for ‘nation branding’. Apart from cultural and symbolic reasons, organizing countries (and the cities and regions hosting them) also utilize the world exposition to brand themselves. According to branding expert Wally Olins, Spain used Expo ‘92 and the 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona in the same year to underline its new position as a modern and democratic country and present itself as a prominent member of the EU and the global community.


Today’s world expositions embody elements of all three eras. They present new inventions, facilitate cultural exchange based on a theme, and are used for city, region and nation branding.



[edit] Categories of World Expositions


Presently, there are two types of world expositions: registered and recognized. Registered exhibitions are the biggest category events. Previously, registered expositions were called “Universal Expositions”. Even though this name lingers on in public memory, it is no longer in use as an official term. At registered exhibitions, participants generally build their own pavilions. They are therefore the most extravagant and most expensive expos. Their duration may be between six weeks and six months. Since 1995, the interval between two registered expositions has been at least five years. The next registered exposition will be Expo 2010 Shanghai.


Recognized expositions are smaller in scope and investments and generally shorter in duration; between three weeks and three months. Previously, these expositions were called “International or Specialized Expositions” but these terms are no longer used officially. Their total surface area must not exceed 25 ha and organizers must build pavilions for the participating states, free of rent, charges, taxes and expenses. The largest country pavilions may not exceed 1,000 m². Only one recognized exhibition can be held between two registered exhibitions.[2]



[edit] Registered Expositions (”Universal Expositions”)


Universal Expositions encompass universal themes that affect the full gamut of human experience. These Universal Expos usually have themes based on which pavilions are made to represent the country’s opinion on that theme. The theme for the 2005 Expo in Japan was “nature’s wisdom”. Universal expositions are usually held less frequently than specialized or international expositions because they are more expensive. To distinguish them from lesser fairs, they require total design of pavilion buildings from the ground up. As a result, nations compete for the most outstanding or memorable structure—recent examples include Japan, France, Morocco & Spain at Expo ‘92. Recent Universal Expositions include Brussels Expo ‘58, Seattle Expo ‘62, known as the Century 21 Exposition, Montreal Expo 67, San Antonio HemisFair ‘68, Osaka Expo ‘70,Spokane Expo ‘74, Knoxville, Tennessee Expo ‘82, New Orleans Expo ‘84, Vancouver Expo ‘86, Brisbane Expo ‘88, Osaka, Japan Expo ‘90, Seville Expo ‘92, Lisbon Expo ‘98 and Hanover Expo 2000. The Expo 2005 was held at Aichi Prefecture, Japan. Sometimes pre-fabricated structures are also used to minimize costs for developing countries or for countries from a geographical block to share space (i.e. Plaza of the Americas at Seville ‘92).


The only Universal exposition to be held without BIE approval was the 1964/1965 New York World’s Fair. Because that Fair did not comply with BIE rules in place at the time, the sanctioning organization denied the Fair an “official” status. The Fair proceeded without BIE approval and turned to tourism and trade organizations to host national pavilions in lieu of official government sponsorship.


The United States, Japan, Canada, Spain, Belgium, and Australia have hosted the World’s Fair in more than one city in different years.


BIE has moved to sanction expos only every five years, starting with the 21st century; with the 1980s and 1990s overflowing with expos back to back, some see this as a means to cut down potential expenditure by participating nations.


The rule may apply to all expos, or it may end up that Universal expositions will be restricted to every five years or so, with International or Specialized expositions in the in-between years for countries wishing to celebrate a special event.


List of hitherto official world expositions according to the Bureau International des Expositions (BIE)[3] and ExpoMuseum:[4]








  • 1851 London (United Kingdom)
  • 1855 Paris (France)
  • 1862 London (United Kingdom)
  • 1867 Paris (France)
  • 1873 Vienna (Austria)
  • 1876 Philadelphia (United States)
  • 1878 Paris (France)
  • 1880 Melbourne (Australia)
  • 1884 New Orleans (United States)
  • 1888 Barcelona (Spain)
  • 1889 Paris (France)
  • 1893 Chicago (United States)
  • 1896 Budapest (Hungary)
  • 1897 Brussels and Stockholm (Sweden)
  • 1900 Paris (France)
  • 1901 Charleston (United States)
  • 1904 St. Louis (United States)
  • 1905 Liège (Belgium)
  • 1906 Milan (Italy)
  • 1910 Brussels (Belgium)
  • 1911 Turin (Italy)
  • 1913 Ghent (Belgium)
  • 1914 Lyon (France)
  • 1915 San Francisco (United States)


  • 1915 San Diego (United States)
  • 1929 Barcelona (Spain)
  • 1933 Chicago (United States)
  • 1937 Paris (France)
  • 1939 New York City (United States)
  • 1939-1940 San Francisco (United States)
  • 1958 Brussels (Belgium)
  • 1960 Seattle (United States)
  • 1962 Seattle (United States)
  • 1964 New York (United States)
  • 1967 Montreal (Canada)
  • 1968 San Antonio (United States)
  • 1970 Osaka (Japan)
  • 1974 Spokane (United States)
  • 1982 Knoxville (United States)
  • 1984 New Orleans (United States)
  • 1986 Vancouver (Canada)
  • 1988 Brisbane (Australia)
  • 1990 Osaka (Japan)
  • 1992 Seville (Spain)
  • 1993 Daejon (South Korea)
  • 1998 Lisbon (Portugal)
  • 2000 Hanover (Germany)
  • 2005 Aichi (Japan)
  • 2008 Zaragoza (Spain)
  • 2010 Shanghai (China)

Bids for the Universal Expo 2015 have been accepted by the BIE:



  • Turkey, with the city of İzmir, - “New Routes to a Better World/Health for All” [1]
  • Italy, with the city of Milan, - “Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life” [2]

While still early for the Universal Expo 2020 (bids are due on 2011), there are citizen efforts in Houston, New York and San Francisco, with the intention of bringing a World’s Fair back to the United States:



  • Houston - “Energy and Exploration: A Vision for the Future” [3]
  • New York - “Showcasing the World” [4]
  • San Francisco - “Interculture: Celebrating the World’s Cultures while Creating New Ones through Interaction and Exchange.” [5]


[edit] Recognized Expositions (”International or specialized expositions”)


International expositions are usually united by a common theme—such as Transportation (Vancouver Expo ‘86) and ‘Leisure in the Age of Technology’ (Brisbane Expo ‘88). Such themes are narrower than the worldwide scope of Universal expositions.


Specialized expositions have a narrow theme, such as the International Garden Expositions, held in Osaka, Japan (1990), Kunming, China (1999), or Shenyang, China (2006) or the Lisbon Expo ‘98 dedicated to the Oceans.


Specialized and international expositions are usually smaller in scale and cheaper to run for the host committee and participating nations because the architectural fees are lower and they only have to rent the space from the host committee, usually with the pre-fabricated structure already completed. Some say this leads to better creative content as more money can be spent in this area.


Specialized and international are similar in that the host organization provides the rental space to participating countries, as well as the building itself, which is usually pre-fabricated. Countries then have the option of ‘adding’ their own colours, design etc. to the outside of the pre-fabricated structure and filling in the inside with their own content. One example of this is China, which invariably has chosen to add a Chinese archway in the front of its pre-fabricated pavilions to symbolize the nation (Expo ‘88, Expo ‘92, Expo ‘93).


Additionally, San Francisco’s 1894 “Midwinter Fair” was an offshoot of sorts from Chicago’s 1893 Exhibition.


The 2008 International Exhibition will be hosted by Zaragoza, Spain with the theme “Water and the Sustainable Development”. (This is an International Expo, not a Universal Expo, as is stated on its official website.)


The official candidates to host the 2012 International Exhibition are:



  • Korea, with the city of Yeosu - “The Living Ocean and Coast: Diversity of Resources and Sustainable Activities” [6]
  • Morocco, with the city of Tangiers - “Routes of the world, cultures connecting. For a more united world” [7]
  • Poland, with the city of Wrocław - “The culture of leisure in World Economies” [8]


[edit] After the fair


The majority of the structures are temporary, and are dismantled at the end of the expo. Towers from several of these fairs are notable exceptions. By far the most famous of these is the Eiffel Tower, built for the Exposition Universelle (1889), which is now the most well-known symbol of its host city Paris. Surprisingly, some then contemporary critics wanted the tower dismantled after the fair’s conclusion.


Other major structures that were held over from these fairs:



  • The Crystal Palace, from the first World’s Fair in London in 1851, chosen because it could be recycled to recoup losses, was such a success that it was moved and intended to be permanent, only to be destroyed by a fire (of its contents) in 1936.
  • The 1876 Centennial Exposition’s main building still in Fairmount Park, Philadelphia.
  • The World Heritage-listed Royal Exhibition Building in Melbourne, constructed for the Melbourne International Exhibition (1880).
  • The main buildings of Expo ‘98, in Lisbon, were completely integrated in the city itself.
  • In Brussels, the Atomium still stands at the site of the 1958 exposition. It is an 165 billion times enlarged Iron-Atom shaped building.
  • The Space Needle in Seattle was the symbol of the 1962 World’s Fair, and the US pavilion from that fair became the Pacific Science Center. The monorail ran daily for many years, until an accident in November 2005 caused it to close for most of the next year when it resumed daily operation.

Other outstanding exceptions:



  • The remains of Expo ‘29 in Seville where the ‘Plaza de España’ forms part of a large park and forecourt, and many of the pavilions have become offices for Consulate-Generals.
  • An elevated railway with trains running at short intervals was built for the Milan 1906 expo. It linked the fair to the city centre. It was dismantled in the 1920s.
  • The aquarium of Milan Expo ‘06 (1906) was built for the fair and after 100 years is still open and was recently renovated.
  • The ICOH (International Commission on Occupational Health), was settled in Milan during the Expo ‘06 and had the first congress in the Expo pavilions. In June 2006 the ICOH celebrated the first century of life in Milan.
  • The pavilions of Expo ‘92 in Seville had been reconverted into a technological square and a theme park.
  • The M. H. de Young Museum in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park was a survivor of the 1894 California Midwinter International Exposition until it was replaced with a larger building.
  • The rebuilt Palace of Fine Arts is all that remains from the 1915 San Francisco Panama-Pacific International Exposition. This can be seen on the fair grounds near the Golden Gate Bridge.
  • San Antonio kept intact the Tower of the Americas, the Institute of Texan Cultures and the Convention Center from HemisFair ‘68.
  • Among the structures still standing from Expo 67 in Montreal are Moshe Safdie’s Habitat 67, Buckminster Fuller’s American pavilion (now the Biosphere), and the French pavilion (now the Montreal Casino).
  • The Sunsphere remains as a figure in the Knoxville skyline, left from the 1982 World’s Fair.
  • The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago is housed in the last remaining building of the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition, which had been the Palace of Fine Arts. The intent or hope was to make all Columbian structures permanent, but most of the structures burned, possibly the result of arson during the Pullman Strike. The fair’s only other known remaining building is the Norway pavilion, a small house located at a museum in Wisconsin. However, the foundation of the world’s first Ferris Wheel, which operated at the Exposition, was unearthed on the Chicago Midway during a construction project by the University of Chicago, whose campus now surrounds the Midway.
  • The Skyneedle remains from Expo ‘88 in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
  • A particular case is the EUR quarter in Rome, built for a World’s Fair planned for 1942, was never used for its intended purpose, because of World War II, and today hosts various offices, governmental or private, and some museums.
  • The “American Theatre” on the Brussels Expo in 1958 is now frequently used as a television studio by the VRT.

Some World’s Fair sites became (or reverted to) parks incorporating some of the expo elements, such as:



  • Audubon Park, New Orleans: Site of New Orleans’s World Cotton Centennial in 1884
  • Jackson Park, Chicago and the Chicago Midway: Site of the 1893 Columbian Exposition
  • Nashville: Tennessee Centennial Expo
  • Forest Park, Saint Louis: Home of the Saint Louis Louisiana Purchase Exposition of 1904
  • San Diego: Panama-California Exposition (1915) & California Pacific International Exposition (1935)
  • Seattle: Century 21 Exposition
  • Flushing Meadows Park, Queens, New York City: Site of both the 1939/1940 and 1964/1965 New York World’s Fairs
  • Montreal: Expo 67
  • San Antonio: HemisFair ‘68
  • Expo Memorial Park, Osaka: Expo ‘70
  • Spokane: Expo ‘74
  • Vancouver: Expo ‘86
  • Brisbane: Expo ‘88
  • Seville: Expo ‘92
  • Daejeon (Taejŏn): Expo ‘93
  • Lisbon: Expo ‘98 which was divided in several structures, namely Pavilhão Atlântico, Casino Lisboa, Oceanário and Pavilhão da Ciência.

Some pavilions have been moved overseas intact:



  • The Argentinian Pavilion from the 1889 Paris is now in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
  • The Chilean Pavilion from 1889 Paris is now in Santiago, Chile and following significant refurbishment in 1992 functions as the Museo Artequin
  • The Japanese Tower of the 1900 World’s Fair in Paris was relocated to Laken (Brussels) on request of King Leopold II of Belgium.
  • The Belgium Pavilion from the 1939 New York World’s Fair was relocated to Virginia Union University in Richmond, Virginia.
  • The USSR Pavilion from Expo 67 is now in Moscow.
  • The Sanyo Pavilion from Expo ‘70 is the Asian Centre at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC.
  • The Portugal Pavilion from Expo 2000 is now in Coimbra, Portugal.

The Brussels Expo ‘58 relocated many pavilions within Belgium: the pavillion of Jacques Chocolats moved to the town of Diest to house the new town swimming pool. Another pavillion was relocated to Willebroek and has been used as dance hall Carré [9] ever since. One smaller pavillion still stands on the impressive boulevard towards the Atomium: the restaurant “Salon 58″ in the pavillion of Comptoir Tuilier. For more information on remaining pavilions in Brussels and Belgium, check the following site: [10].


Many exhibitions and rides created by Walt Disney and his WED Enterprises company for the 1964 New York World’s Fair (which was held over into 1965) were moved to Disneyland after the closing of the Fair. Many of the rides, including “it’s a small world“, “Great Moments with Mr. Lincoln“, and “Carousel of Progress” (since moved to the Walt Disney World Resort and updated), are still in operation.


Disney had contributed so many exhibits to the New York fair in part because the corporation had originally envisioned a “permanent World’s Fair” at the Flushing site. That concept instead came to fruition with the Disney theme park Epcot, an extension of the Walt Disney World Resort, near Orlando, Florida. Epcot has many of the characteristics of a typical Universal Exposition: national pavilions, as well as exhibits concerning technology and/or the future, along with more typical amusement-park rides. Meanwhile, several of the 1964 attractions, relocated to Disneyland, have been duplicated at the Walt Disney World Resort.


Occasionally other bits and pieces of the Fairs remain. In the New York subway system, signs directing people to Flushing Meadows, Queens remain from the 1964-5 event. In the Montreal subway at least one tile artwork of its theme, “The World of Man”, remains. Also, a seemingly endless supply of souvenir items from Fair visits can be found, and in the United States, at least, can often be bought at garage or estate sales. Many of these events also produced postage stamps and commemorative coins. The 1904 Olympic Games were held in conjunction with the St. Louis Fair, although no particular tie-in seems to have been made.



[edit] USA membership


The USA had its membership of the BIE withdrawn in June 2001. The cause was the non allocation of funds by the U.S. Congress for two years. However, no concrete reason for failing to pay membership has been given by the United States Congress, sometimes hinting that it was political that the United States is now no longer a member of the BIE. The online news source “Ranger” reported, “Indeed, world’s fairs were seen as a joke by many; the 1982 world’s fair in Knoxville, Tenn., for instance, was the subject of ridicule in the 1996 episode of The Simpsons ‘Bart on the Road.’ This bad impression, a drive to save taxpayer money and increasing nationalism in America resulted in then-Secretary of State Colin Powell withdrawing the United States from the body governing World’s Fairs, the Bureau of International Expositions, in 2001.” [5]


In a letter from April 20, 2006, the secretary general of the BIE said, “As you are aware, the United States government withdrew from the BIE in June 2001. Citizens realize and would welcome the strong impact a World’s Fair can have on their city, state and country. It would be wonderful to, once again, attend an Exhibition in the United States.” [6] Participation in the BIE is controlled by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.



[edit] See also



  • List of world’s fairs


[edit] References




  1. ^ Tjaco Walvis (2003), “Building Brand Locations”, Corporate Reputation Review, Vol.5, No.4, pp.358-366
  2. ^ Based on: BIE Convention
  3. ^ http://www.bie-paris.org/main/index.php?p=257&m2=253
  4. ^ http://www.expomuseum.com
  5. ^ San Antonio changes after HemisFair ‘68, speaker says
  6. ^ Letter from the BIE Secretariat to David Oats


[edit] External links




Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
World’s Fairs


  • İzmir(Turkey) is the Official Candidate to host Expo 2015 and EXPO 2015 İzmir Film, İzmir
  • Giftex is India’s Premier Corporate Gifting fair
  • Milan, Italy, Official Candidate city to host Expo 2015
  • Expo 67
  • Donald G. Larson Collection on International Expositions and Fairs, 1851-1940
  • International Exhibitions, Expositions Universelles and World’s Fairs, 1851-2005: A Bibliography
  • 2012: Tangier International Expo
  • 1964-65 New York World’s Fair Carousels
  • Expo 67 remembered. The Montreal Universal and International Exhibition of 1967
  • The 1904 World’s Fair: Looking Back at Looking Forward
  • A Fair to Remember: The 1905 Lewis and Clark Centennial and American Pacific Exposition and Oriental Fair in Portland, Oregon
  • ExpoMuseum, an online world’s fair museum
  • 1964/1965 New York World’s Fair Web site
  • 1964/1965 New York World’s Fair discussion
  • Glasgow 1938
  • 1933/1934 Chicago World’s Fair Web site
  • Official Web site for the Expo Toronto 2015 Bid
  • Belgium World’s fairs remains Web site in French
  • France World’s Fair’s remains 1855-1937 Web site in French
  • “The USA Needs The BIE. The BIE Deserves The USA.”
  • “World’fairs discussion in French but English is welcome”
  • “A lot of World’s Fairs presented by a lot of photographs”
  • France must host the Expo 2020 in Lille “Arts, Cultures and Traditions”
  • A site advocating for Montreal to host the 2017 recognized fair
  • 2012: Wrocław International Expo
  • ImagineLille2017.com - Proposal for Expo 2017

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expo_%28exhibition%29“

First_Chechen_War

No Comments Filed Under: 상식

First Chechen War



From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Jump to: navigation, search




























First Chechen War

Photos by Mikhail Evstafiev











Date December 11, 1994 – August 31, 1996
Location Chechnya

Parts of Ingushetia, Stavropol Krai and Dagestan

Result Khasav-Yurt Accord
De facto independence of Chechnya
Combatants


Russian Federation


Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
Commanders
Pavel Grachev
Anatoly Kulikov
Konstantin Pulikovsky
Anatoliy Romanov
Vyacheslav Tikhomirov
Gennady Troshev
Dzhokhar Dudayev  †
Aslan Maskhadov
Strength
(December 11, 1994)
40,000-50,000
(December 11, 1994)
3,000-15,000[1]
Casualties
Military:
At least 3,500 killed or missing
Civilian:
At least 161 killed outside Chechnya[1]
Military:
At least 6,000 killed or missing
Civilian:
50,000–100,000 dead[2]

The First Chechen War (Russian: первая чеченская война) was fought between Russia and Chechnya from 1994 to 1996 and resulted in Chechnya’s de facto independence from Russia.


After the initial campaign of 1994–1995, culminating in the devastating Battle of Grozny, Russian federal forces attempted to control the mountainous area of Chechnya but were set back by Chechen guerrilla warfare and raids on the flatlands (including mass hostage takings beyond Chechnya) in spite of Russia’s overwhelming manpower, weaponry, and air support. The resulting widespread demoralization of federal forces, and the almost universal opposition of the Russian public to the brutal conflict, led Boris Yeltsin’s government to declare a ceasefire in 1996 and sign a peace treaty a year later.


By one conservative estimate there were 7,500 Russian military, 4,000 Chechen combatant, and more than 35,000 civilian deaths.[3] Other estimates put the number of casualties between 80,000 to 100,000 killed. More than 500,000 persons were displaced by the conflict,[4] as cities and villages across the republic were left in ruins, but the conflict between the Russian Federation and the Chechen separatists remained unresolved; in 1999 it resumed in the form of the Second Chechen War.







Contents

[hide]


  • 1 Origins of the war in Chechnya

    • 1.1 Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union
    • 1.2 The collapse of the Soviet Union
    • 1.3 Chechen declaration of independence

  • 2 Internal conflict in Chechnya
  • 3 The Russian war in Chechnya

    • 3.1 Initial stages
    • 3.2 Battle for Grozny
    • 3.3 Continued Russian offensive
    • 3.4 Quagmire
    • 3.5 Spread of the war
    • 3.6 Endgame
    • 3.7 Grozny again
    • 3.8 The Khasav-Yurt Accord

  • 4 Aftermath

    • 4.1 Casualties
    • 4.2 Prisoners
    • 4.3 The Moscow peace treaty

  • 5 Notes
  • 6 See also
  • 7 External links


[edit] Origins of the war in Chechnya







[show]
First Chechen War
1st Grozny - Dolinskoye - Khankala - 2nd Grozny - Samashki - Budyonnovsk - Pervomayskoye - Shatoy - 3rd Grozny






[show]
Conflicts in the former Soviet Union
Nagorno-Karabakh – South Ossetia – 1st Abkhazia – Georgia – North Ossetia – Transnistria – Tajikistan – 1st Chechnya – 2nd Abkhazia - Dagestan – 2nd Chechnya



Main article: History of Chechnya


[edit] Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union


Russian Cossacks had lived in lowland Chechnya (Terek) since the 16th century. Russia first invaded the Chechen highlands during the reign of Peter the Great, in the early 18th century, as a countermeasure to Chechen raids on Russian settlements. After a series of fierce battles, Russia defeated Chechnya and annexed it in the 1870s. Chechnya’s subsequent attempts at gaining independence after the fall of the Russian Empire failed. In 1922 Chechnya was incorporated into Bolshevist Russia and later into the Soviet Union (USSR).


In 1936, Soviet leader Joseph Stalin created the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. In 1944, on the orders of NKVD chief Lavrenti Beria, more than 1 million Chechens, Ingushes, and other North Caucasian peoples were deported to Siberia and Central Asia, officially as punishment for alleged collaboration with the invading Nazi Germany. Stalin’s policy made the state of Chechnya a non-entity. Eventually, Soviet first secretary Nikita Khrushchev granted the Chechen and Ingush peoples permission to return to their homeland and restored the republic in 1957.



[edit] The collapse of the Soviet Union





North Caucasus region

Russia became an independent nation after the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991. While Russia was widely accepted as the successor state to the USSR, it lost most of its military and economic power. While ethnic Russians made up more than 70% of the population of the Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic, significant ethnic and religious differences posed a threat of political disintegration in some regions. In the Soviet period, some of Russia’s approximately 100 nationalities were granted ethnic enclaves that had various formal federal rights attached. Relations of these entities with the federal government and demands for autonomy erupted into a major political issue in the early 1990s.


President Yeltsin incorporated these demands into his 1990 election campaign by claiming that their resolution was a high priority. There was an urgent need for a law to clearly define the powers of each federal subject. Such a law was passed on March 31, 1992, when Yeltsin and Ruslan Khasbulatov, then chairman of the Russian Supreme Soviet and an ethnic Chechen himself, signed the Federation Treaty bilaterally with 86 out of 88 federal subjects. In almost all cases, demands for greater autonomy or independence were satisfied by concessions of regional autonomy and tax privileges. The treaty outlined three basic types of federal subjects and the powers that were reserved for local and federal government.


The only federal subjects which did not sign the treaty were Chechnya and Tatarstan. Eventually, in the spring of 1994, President Yeltsin signed a special political accord with Mintimer Şäymiev, the president of Tatarstan, granting many of its demands for greater autonomy for the republic within Russia. Thus, Chechnya remained the only federal subject which did not sign the treaty. Neither Yeltsin nor the Chechen government attempted any serious negotiations and the situation would deteriorate into a full-scale conflict.



[edit] Chechen declaration of independence





Chechnya (red) and the Russian Federation

Meanwhile, on September 6, 1991, militants of the All-National Congress of the Chechen People (NCChP) party, led by former Soviet general Dzhokhar Dudayev, stormed a session of the Chechen-Ingush ASSR Supreme Soviet with the aim of asserting independence. They killed the Communist Party of the Soviet Union chief for Grozny, brutalized several other party members, and effectively dissolved the government of the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Republic of the Soviet Union.


In the following month Dudayev won overwhelming popular support to oust the interim central government-supported administration. He was made president and declared independence from the USSR. In November 1991, President Yeltsin dispatched troops to Grozny, but they were forced to withdraw when Dudayev’s forces prevented them from leaving the airport. After Chechnya had made its initial declaration of sovereignty, the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Republic split in two in June 1992 amidst the Ingush armed conflict with the other Russian republic of North Ossetia. The Republic of Ingushetia then joined the Russian Federation, while Chechnya declared full independence in 1993 as the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria.



[edit] Internal conflict in Chechnya



See also: Battle of Grozny (November 1994)

From 1991 to 1994, tens of thousands of people of non-Chechen ethnicity, mostly Russians, left the republic amidst reports of violence against the non-Chechen population. Chechen industry began to fail as a result of many Russian engineers and workers leaving or being expelled from the republic. During the undeclared Chechen civil war, factions both sympathetic and opposed to Dudayev fought for power, sometimes in pitched battles with the use of heavy weapons.


In March 1992, the opposition attempted a coup d’état, but their attempt was crushed by force. A month later, Dudayev introduced direct presidential rule, and in June 1993, dissolved the parliament to avoid a referendum on a vote of non-confidence. Federal forces dispatched to the Ossetian-Ingush conflict were ordered to move to the Chechen border in late October 1992, and Dudayev, who perceived this as “an act of aggression against the Chechen Republic,” declared a state of emergency and threatened general mobilization if the Russian troops did not withdraw from the Chechen border. After staging another coup attempt in December 1993, the opposition organized a Provisional Council as a potential alternative government for Chechnya, calling on Moscow for assistance.





Dudayev’s supporters pray in front of the Presidential Palace in Grozny, 1994. Photo by Mikhail Evstafiev

In August 1994, when the coalition of the opposition factions, based in the north of Chechnya, launched an armed campaign to remove Dudayev’s government, Moscow clandestinely supplied rebel forces with financial support, military equipment, and mercenaries. Russia suspended all civilian flights to Grozny while the air defense aviation and border troops set up a military blockade of the republic. On October 30, 1994, unmarked Russian aircraft began bombing the capital Grozny. The opposition forces, who were joined by Russian troops, launched a clandestine but badly organized assault on Grozny in mid-October 1994. It was followed by a second, larger attack on November 26–27, 1994. Dudayev’s National Guard forces repelled the attacks. In a major embarrassment for the Kremlin, they also succeeded in capturing some 20 Russian Army regulars and about 50 other Russian citizens secretly hired by the Russian FSK state security organization.[2]


On November 29, President Boris Yeltsin issued an ultimatum to all warring factions in Chechnya ordering them to disarm and surrender. When the government in Grozny refused, President Yeltsin ordered an attack to restore “constitutional order.” By December 1, Russian forces were carrying out heavy aerial bombardments of Chechnya, targeting both military sites and the capital Grozny.


On December 11, 1994, five days after Dudayev and Minister of Defense Pavel Grachev of Russia had agreed to avoid the further use of force, Russian forces entered Chechnya in order to “establish constitutional order in Chechnya and to preserve the territorial integrity of Russia.” Grachev boasted he could topple Dudayev in a couple of hours with a single airborne regiment, and proclaimed that it will be “a bloodless blitzkrieg, that would not last any longer than December 20.”



[edit] The Russian war in Chechnya



[edit] Initial stages


On December 11, 1994 Russian forces launched a three-pronged ground attack towards Grozny. The main attack was temporarily halted by deputy commander of the Russian Ground Forces, Colonel-General Eduard Vorobyov, who then resigned in protest, stating that it is “criminal” to use the military against “ones’ own people”. Many in the Russian military and government opposed the war as well. Yeltsin’s adviser on nationality affairs, Emil Pain, and Russia’s Deputy Minister of Defense, Colonel-General Boris Gromov (esteemed commander of the Soviet-Afghan War), also resigned in protest of the invasion (”It will be a bloodbath, another Afghanistan,” Gromov said on television), as did Major-General Borys Poliakov. More than 800 professional soldiers and officers refused to take part in the operation; of these, 83 were convicted by military courts, and the rest were discharged. Later, Lieutenant-General Lev Rokhlin refused to be decorated as the Hero of Russia for his part in the war.





Russian Mil Mi-8 helicopter downed by the Chechens near Grozny, December 1994. Photo by Mikhail Evstafiev

The Chechen Air Force was destroyed in the first few hours of the war, while around 500 people took advantage of the mid-December amnesty declared by Yeltsin for members of Dzhokhar Dudayev’s armed groups. Nevertheless, Boris Yeltsin cabinet’s expectations of a quick surgical strike, quickly followed by Chechen capitulation, were horribly misguided, and Russia soon found itself in a quagmire. The morale of the troops was low from the beginning, for they were poorly prepared and did not understand why they were sent into battle. Some Russian units resisted the order to advance, and in some cases the troops sabotaged their own equipment. In Ingushetia, civilian protesters stopped the western column and set 30 military vehicles on fire, while about 70 conscripts deserted their units. Advance of the western column was halted by the unexcepted Chechen resistance at Dolinskoye. A group of 50 Russian paratroopers surrendered to the local militia, after being deployed by helicopters behind enemy lines and then abandoned.


Yeltsin ordered the former Soviet Army, to show restraint, but it was neither prepared nor trained for this. In effect civilians losses quickly mounted, alienating the Chechen population and rising hostility to the federal forces even among those who intiatially supported the attempts to unseat Dudayev. Other problems occurred as Yeltsin sent in freshly trained conscripts from neighboring regions rather than regular soldiers. Highly mobile units of Chechen fighters caused severe losses to Russia’s ill-prepared, demoralized troops. The federal military command then resorted to the carpet bombing tactics and indiscriminate rocket artillery barrages, causing enormous casualties among the Chechen and Russian civilian population. By mid-January 1995, Russian bombing and artillery had killed or injured thousands of civilians.[5]


With the Russians closing in on the capital, Chechens started to prepare bunkers and set up fighting positions in Grozny. On December 29, in a rare instance of a Russian outright victory, the Russian airborne forces seized the military airfield next to Grozny and repelled a Chechen armored counterattack in the battle of Khankala. The next objective was the city itself.



[edit] Battle for Grozny




Main article: Battle of Grozny (1994-1995)




A Chechen fighter near the burned-out ruins of the Presidential Palace in Grozny, January 1995. Photo by Mikhail Evstafiev

When Russians attacked the Chechen capital of Grozny from December 1994 to January 1995, thousands of civilians died from a week-long series of air raids and artillery bombardment of the sealed-off city in the heaviest bombing campaign in Europe since the destruction of Dresden.[6] After armored assaults failed, the Russian military set out to pulverize the city into submission. Russian aircraft bombarded Grozny while armored forces and artillery hammered the city from the ground. The Russian assault fell mainly on Grozny’s civilians, mostly ethnic Russians, as separatist forces operated from buildings filled with Russian civilians as human shields.


The initial attack ended with a major rout of the attacking forces and led to heavy Russian casualties and nearly a complete breakdown of morale. An estimated 1,000 to 2,000 federal soldiers died in the disastrous New Year’s Eve assault. All units of the 131st ‘Maikop‘ Motor Rifle Brigade sent into the city, numbering more than 1,000 men, were destroyed during the 60-hour fight in the area of the Grozny’s central railway station, leaving only about 230 survivors (1/3 of them captured). Several other Russian armored columns each lost hundreds of men during the first two days and nights of the siege.[7]


Despite the early Chechen defeat of the New Year assault and many further casualties, Grozny was eventually conquered by Russian forces amidst bitter urban warfare. On January 7, 1995, Russia’s Major-General Viktor Vorobyov was killed by mortar fire, becoming the first on a long list of generals to be killed in Chechnya. On January 19, despite heavy casualties, Russian forces seized the ruins of the presidential palace, which had been heavily contested for more than three weeks as Chechens finally abandoned their positions in the destroyed downtown area. The battle for the southern part of the city continued until the official end on March 6, 1995.


By Sergey Kovalev’s estimates, about 27,000 civilians died in the first five weeks of fighting. Dmitri Volkogonov, the late Russian historian and general, said the Russian military’s bombardment of Grozny killed around 35,000 civilians, including 5,000 children, and that the vast majority of those killed were ethnic Russians. While military casualties are not known, the Russian side admitted to having lost nearly 2,000 killed or missing.[8] International monitors from the OSCE described the scenes as nothing short of an “unimaginable catastrophe,” while former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev called the war a “disgraceful, bloody adventure,” and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl described the events as “sheer madness.”[9]



[edit] Continued Russian offensive





Hostages released from the hospital at Budyonnovsk (Russia), June 1995. Buddyonovsk crisis was considered the major turning point in the war

In the southern mountains, the Russians launched an offensive along the entire front on April 15, 1995, advancing in columns comprised of 200–300 vehicles.[3] The Chechens defended the city of Argun, moving their military headquarters first to completely surrounded Shali, then shortly after to Serzhen-Yurt as they were forced into the mountains, and finally to Shamil Basayev’s stronghold of Vedeno. The second-largest city of Gudermes was surrendered without a fight, but the village of Shatoy was defended by the men of Ruslan Gelayev. Eventually, the Chechen Command withdrew from the area of Vedeno to the Chechen opposition-aligned village of Dargo, and from there to Benoy.[4]


Between January and June 1995, when the Russian forces conquered most of the republic in the conventional campaign, their losses in Chechnya were approximately 2,800 killed, 10,000 wounded, and over 500 missing or captured, according to an estimate cited in a U.S. Army report.[10] The dominant Russian strategy was to use heavy artillery and air strikes throughout the campaign, leading some Western and Chechen sources to call the air strikes deliberate terror bombing on the part of Russia.[5]


Ironically, due to the fact that ethnic Chechens in Grozny were able to seek refuge among their respective teips in the surrounding villages of the countryside, the highest proportion of initial civilian casualties were inflicted against ethnic Russians who were unable to procure viable escape routes. The villages, however, were also targeted even from the early on; the Russian cluster bombs, for example, killed at least 55 civilians during the January 3, 1995 Shali cluster bomb attack.


It was widely alleged that Russian troops, especially those belonging to the MVD, committed numerous, and in part systematic acts of torture and summary executions on rebel sympathizers; they were often linked to zachistka (cleansing) raids, affecting entire town districts and villages that harbored boyeviki, the rebel fighters. In the lowland border village of Samashki, from April 7 to April 8, 1995, Russian forces killed at least 103 civilians, while several hundred more were beaten or otherwise tortured.[11] Humanitarian and aid groups chronicled persistent patterns of Russian soldiers killing civilians, raping, and looting civilians at random, often in disregard of their nationality. Chechen criminals also robbed and killed ethnic Russians and looted abandoned houses.


As the war went on, separatists resorted to large hostage takings, attempting to influence the Russian public and Russian leadership. More than 1,500 hostages were seized and about 120 civilians died in the June 1995 Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis in southern Russia. The Budyonnovsk raid enforced a temporary stop in Russian military operations, allowing the Chechens the time to regroup in the time of their greatest crisis and prepare for the national guerrilla campaign.



[edit] Quagmire





Chechen irregular fighter with a Borz. Photo by Mikhail Evstafiev

The full-scale Russian attack led many of Dudayev’s opponents to side with his forces, and thousands of volunteers to swell the ranks of mobile guerilla units. Many others formed local self-defence militia units to defend their settlements in the case of the federal offensive action, numbering officially 5,000–6,000 badly-equipped men in late 1995. Altogether, Chechens fielded some 10,000–12,000 full-time and reserve fighters at a time, according to the Chechen command. According to the UN report, the Chechen separatist forces included a large number of child soldiers, some as young as 11 (including females).[12]





A teenage fighter in Chechnya. Photo by Mikhail Evstafiev

In addition to the continued conventional fighting, the separatists resorted to guerrilla tactics, such as setting booby traps and mining roads in the enemy territory. They also effectively exploited a combination of mines and ambushes. The successful use of improvised explosive devices was particularly noteworthy. In effect, by the summer of 1995, Russian military sources said the Chechen mine attacks on the transportation routes were “acquiring a massive character.”


Human rights organizations accused Russian forces of engaging in indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force whenever encountering resistance, resulting in numerous civilian deaths. For example, during the December 1995 rebel raid on Gudermes, Russian forces pounded parts of the town with heavy artillery and rockets, killing at least 267 civilians.[11] They also prevented civilians from evacuating from areas of imminent danger, and prevented humanitarian organizations from assisting civilians in need. Separatist fighters, in turn, kidnapped or killed Chechens considered to be collaborators and mistreated civilian captives and federal prisoners of war, especially pilots. Both rebel and federal sides of the conflict kidnapped hostages for ransom and used human shields for cover during the fighting and movement of troops (in one incident, a group of surrounded Russian troops took approximately 500 civilian hostages at the Grozny’s 9th Municipal Hospital[13]). Russian forces committed violations of international humanitarian law and human rights on a much larger scale than Chechen separatists.[4] The violations by the members of the Russian forces were usually tolerated and not punished even when investigated, with the example story of Vladimir Glebov.





A soldier in the war in Chechnya. Photo by Mikhail Evstafiev

Television and newspaper accounts widely reported largely uncensored images of the carnage to the Russian public. As a result, the Russian media coverage partially precipitated a loss of public confidence in the government and a steep decline in president Yeltsin’s popularity. Chechnya was one of the heaviest burdens on Yeltsin’s 1996 presidential election campaign. In addition, the protracted war in Chechnya, especially many reports of extreme violence against civilians, ignited fear and contempt of Russia among other ethnic groups in the federation.


In the fall of 1995, the Russian commander in Chechnya, Lieutenant-General Anatoliy Romanov, was critically injured and paralyzed in a bomb blast in Grozny. Suspicion of responsibility for the attack fell on rogue elements of the Russian military, as the attack destroyed hopes for a permanent ceasefire based on the developing trust between Romanov and General Aslan Maskhadov, Chief of Staff of the Chechen forces and former Soviet Colonel.[14] In August, the two personally went to southern Chechnya in an effort to convince the local commanders to release Russian prisoners, while the Russian command spread word through the media that some Chechen field commanders had announced that they would no longer obey Maskhadov.[15] In February 1996 the Russian forces in Grozny opened fire on the massive pro-independence peace march involving tens of thousands of people, killing a number of demonstrators.[16]



[edit] Spread of the war





Chechen separatist fighter praying. Photo by Mikhail Evstafiev

Chief Mufti Akhmad Kadyrov’s declaration that Chechnya was waging a Jihad (Muslim holy war) against Russia raised the spectre that Jihadis from other regions and even outside Russia would enter the war. By one estimate, in all up to 5,000 non-Chechens served as foreign volunteers; they were mostly Caucasian and included possibly 1,500 Dagestanis, 1,000 Georgians and Abkhazians, 500 Ingushes and 200 Azeris, as well as 300 Turks, 400 Slavs from Baltic states and Ukraine, and more than 100 Arabs and Iranians. The volunteers included a number of ethnic Russians, which included citizens of Moscow. On March 6, 1996, a Cypriot passenger jet flying toward Germany was hijacked by Chechen sympathisers to publicize the Chechen cause; as was a Turkish passenger ship carrying 200 Russian passengers on January 9, 1996 (these incidents, perpetrated by the Turkish gunmen, were resolved without fatalities).


Meanwhile, the war in Chechnya spawned a new form of separatist activity in the Russian Federation. Resistance to the conscription of men from minority ethnic groups to fight in Chechnya was widespread among other republics, many of which passed laws and decrees on the subject. For example, the government of Chuvashia passed a decree providing legal protection to soldiers from the republic who refused to participate in the Chechnya war and imposed limits on the use of the Russian army in ethnic or regional conflicts within Russia. Some regional and local legislative bodies called for a prohibition on the use of draftees in quelling internal uprisings; others demanded a total ban on the use of the armed forces in quelling domestic conflicts.


Limited fighting occurred in the neighbouring Russian republic of Ingushetia in 1995, mostly when Russian commanders sent troops over the border in pursuit of Chechen fighters. Although all sides generally observed the distinction between the two peoples that formerly shared the autonomous republic, as many as 200,000 refugees from Chechnya and neighboring North Ossetia strained Ingushetia’s already weak economy. On several occasions, Ingush president Ruslan Aushev protested incursions by Russian soldiers, and even threatened to sue the Russian Ministry of Defence for damages inflicted. President Aushev said that his people could not forget how the same Russian armored columns “and the same Defense Minister” (Grachev) assisted in the destruction of Ingush settlements and the expulsion of Ingush population during the 1992 ethnic conflict in North Ossetia.[6] Undisciplined Russian soldiers were also reported as murdering, raping, and looting in Ingushetia. In a widely reported incident partially witnessed by visiting Russian Duma deputies, at least nine Ingush civilians and an ethnic Bashkir soldier were murdered by apparently drunk Russian soldiers. In earlier incidents, drunken Russian soldiers killed another Russian soldier, the Ingush Health Minister and five Ingush villagers.[17]


The Russian government officials feared that a move to end the war short of victory would create a cascade of secession attempts by other ethnic minorities, and present a new target for extreme nationalist Russian factions. The Don Cossacks, who were originally sympathetic to the Chechen cause, turned hostile in result of the Chechen terror attacks, and the Kuban Cossacks started organising themselves against the Chechens, including manning paramilitary roadblocks against infiltration of their territories by militants. In January 1996, Russian forces, in reaction to the large-scale Chechen hostage taking in Kizlyar, destroyed Pervomayskoye, a border village in the Russian republic of Dagestan. This action brought strong criticism from the hitherto loyal Dagestan and escalated domestic dissatisfaction.



[edit] Endgame





A group of the Chechen boyeviki (fighters). Photo by Mikhail Evstafiev

The poorly-trained, ill-supplied, and badly led conscripts of the Russian army proved incapable of suppressing determined Chechen opposition, both in the Chechen capital and in the countryside. It took Russian forces over 15 months to capture Bamut, a small village southwest of the capital Grozny, which fell on May 22, 1996. On March 6, 1996, between 1,500 and 2,000 Chechen fighters infiltrated Grozny and launched a three-day surprise raid on the city, overrunning much of the city and capturing caches of weapons and ammunition. Also in March the Chechens attacked Samashki, where hundreds of villagers were killed by indiscriminate Russian fire. A month later, on April 16, forces of Arab commander Ibn al-Khattab destroyed a large Russian armoured column in an ambush near Shatoy, killing at least 53 soldiers. In another near Vedeno, at least 28 troops were killed.[18]


As military defeats and growing casualties made the war more and more unpopular in Russia, and as the 1996 presidential elections neared, Yeltsin’s government sought a way out of the conflict. Although a Russian guided missile attack killed the Chechen President Dudayev on April 21, 1996, the rebels persisted. Yeltsin officially declared “victory” in Grozny on May 28, 1996, after a new temporary ceasefire was signed with the Chechen Acting President Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev.[19] While the political leaders were talking about the ceasefires and peace negotiations, military forces continued to conduct combat operations. On August 6, 1996, three days before Yeltsin was to be inaugurated for his second term as president, and when most of the Russian Army troops were moved south due to what was planned as their final offensive against remaining mountainous rebel strongholds, the Chechens launched another surprise attack on Grozny.



[edit] Grozny again




Main article: Battle of Grozny (August 1996)




Two Chechen fighters take cover behind a burned Russian BMP-1 vehicle on a street of Grozny. Photo by Mikhail Evstafiev

In spite of the fact that the Russians had about 12,000 troops in and around Grozny, more than 1,500 Chechen fighters, led by Shamil Basayev, had overrun the key districts within hours. The attackers then laid siege to the Russian posts and bases and the government compound in the centre, while a number of Chechens deemed to be Russian collaborators were rounded up, detained, and in some cases executed.[20] At the same time Russian troops in the other cities of Argun and Gudermes were too surrounded in their garrisons.


Several attempts by the Army armored columns to rescue the mainly MVD units, which were trapped by the Chechens, were repelled with heavy Russian casualties; the 276th Motorized Regiment of 900 men lost 450 dead or wounded in a two-day attempt to reach the city centre. Russian military officials said that more than 200 soldiers had been killed and nearly 800 wounded in five days of fighting, and that an unknown number were missing; Chechens put the number of Russian dead at close to 1,000. Thousands of demoralized, hungry, and thirsty troops were either taken prisoner or surrounded and largely disarmed, their heavy weapons and ammunition commandeered by the rebels.


On August 19, despite the presence of 50,000 to 200,000 both Chechen and Russian civilians, as well as thousands of federal servicemen in Grozny, the Russian commander Konstantin Pulikovsky gave an ultimatum for Chechen fighters to leave the city in 48 hours, or it would be leveled in a massive aerial and ground bombardment. This was followed by a chaotic of scenes of panic as civilians tried to flee before the army carried out its threat, with parts of the city ablaze and falling shells scattering refugee columns.[21] The bombardment was halted by a ceasefire brokered by Yeltsin’s national security adviser Alexander Lebed on August 22. The ultimatum, issued by Gen. Pulikovsky, now replaced, had been a “bad joke”, Gen. Lebed said.[22] However, Maskhadov later said the ultimatum was probably Lebed’s initiative.[7]



[edit] The Khasav-Yurt Accord


During eight hours of subsequent talks, Lebed and Maskhadov drafted and signed the Khasav-Yurt Accord on August 31, 1996. It included: technical aspects of demilitarization, the withdrawal of both sides’ forces from Grozny, the creation of joint headquarters to preclude looting in the city, the withdrawal of all federal forces from Chechnya by December 31, 1996, and a stipulation that any agreement on the relations between the Chechen Republic Ichkeria and the Russian federal government need not be signed until late 2001.



[edit] Aftermath



[edit] Casualties


According to the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, 3,826 troops were killed, 17,892 were wounded, and 1,906 are missing in action.[23] According to NVO, the authoritative Russian independent military weekly, at least 5,362 Russian soldiers died during the war, 52,000 got wounded or sick and some 3,000 more remained missing by 2005.[24] The estimate of the Committee of Soldiers’ Mothers of Russia, however, put the number of the Russian military dead at 14,000.[25]





Dead bodies on a truck in Grozny. Photo by Mikhail Evstafiev

Chechen casualties are estimated at up to 100,000 dead or more, of which most were civilians.[26] Various estimates put the number of Chechens dead or missing between 50,000 and 100,000.[2] Russian Interior Minister Kulikov claimed that fewer than 20,000 civilians were killed. State Duma deputy Sergey Kovalyov’s team could offer their conservative, documented estimate of more than 50,000 civilian deaths. Aleksander Lebed asserted that 80,000 to 100,000 had been killed and 240,000 had been injured. The number given by the Ichkerian authorities was about 100,000 killed.[2]


According to Gazeta, approximately 35,000 ethnic Russian civilians were killed by Russian forces operating in Chechnya, most of them during the bombardment of Grozny.[27]


Chechen separatists estimated their combat deaths at about 3,000 (including 800 in the first three months, mostly killed by mortar fire [8]), although this number is almost certainly too low. It is impossible to know how many Chechen rebels were killed, since many fought independently and were not under the control of Dudayev (as such, their deaths were not counted among official Chechen losses). The Russian estimate is much higher; Russia’s Federal Forces Command estimated that 15,000 Chechen fighters had been killed by the end of the war.[28]



[edit] Prisoners


In the Khasavyurt agreements, both sides specifically agreed to an “all for all” exchange of prisoners to be carried out at the end of the war. Despite this commitment, many persons remained forcibly detained.


As of mid-January 1997, the Chechens still held between 700 and 1,000 Russian soldiers and officers as prisoners of war, according to Human Rights Watch.[29] According to Amnesty International same month, 1,058 Russian soldiers and officers were still detained by Chechen fighters who were willing to release them in exchange for members of Chechen armed groups.[30]


A partial analysis of 264 of the list of 1,432 reported missing Chechens found that, as of October 30, 1996, at least 139 were still being forcibly detained by the Russian side. It was entirely unclear, however, how many of these men were in fact alive.[29]



[edit] The Moscow peace treaty





Street of the ruined Grozny after war

The Khasav-Yurt Accord paved the way for the signing of two further agreements between Russia and Chechnya. In mid-November 1996, Yeltsin and Maskhadov signed an agreement on economic relations and reparations to Chechens who had been “affected” by the 1994–96 war.


In February 1997 Russia also approved an amnesty for Russian soldiers and Chechen rebels alike who committed illegal acts in connection with the war in Chechnya between December 9, 1994, and September 1, 1996.[9]


Six months after the Khasav-Yurt agreement, on May 12, 1997, Chechen-elected president Aslan Maskhadov traveled to Moscow where he and Yeltsin signed a formal treaty “on peace and the principles of Russian-Chechen relations” that Maskhadov predicted would demolish “any basis to create ill-feelings between Moscow and Grozny.”[31]


Maskhadov’s optimism, however, proved misplaced. Over the next two years many of Maskhadov’s former comrades-in-arms, led by field commander Shamil Basayev, launched an incursion into Dagestan in the summer of 1999, and soon Russia invaded Chechnya again.



[edit] Notes




  1. ^ 120 in Budyonnovsk, and 41 in Pervomayskoe hostage crisis
  2. ^ a b c Civil and military casualties of the wars in Chechnya Russian-Chechen Friendship Society
  3. ^ New Left Review - Tony Wood: The Case for Chechnya
  4. ^ a b First Chechnya War - 1994-1996 Globalsecurity.org
  5. ^ Cluster Munitions Use by Russian Federation Forces in Chechnya
  6. ^ Williams, Bryan Glyn (2001).The Russo-Chechen War: A Threat to Stability in the Middle East and Eurasia?. Middle East Policy 8.1.
  7. ^ Gall, Carlotta; Thomas de Waal (1998). Chechnya: Calamity in the Caucasus. New York University Press. ISBN 0-8147-2963-0. 
  8. ^ Faurby, Ib; Märta-Lisa Magnusson (1999). “The Battle(s) of Grozny“. Baltic Defence Review (2): 75-87. 
  9. ^ The First Bloody Battle. The Chechen Conflict. BBC News (2000-03-16).
  10. ^ LESSONS LEARNED FROM MODERN URBAN COMBAT U.S. Army
  11. ^ a b THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Human Rights Developments Human Rights Watch
  12. ^ The situation of human rights in the Republic of Chechnya of the Russian Federation United Nations
  13. ^ Grozny, August 1996. Occupation of Municipal Hospital No. 9 Memorial
  14. ^ Honoring a General Who is Silenced The St. Petersburg Times
  15. ^ CHECHNYA: ELECTION DATE POSTPONED, PRISONER EXCHANGE IN TROUBLE. The Jamestown Foundation
  16. ^ Mass protests in Grozny end in bloodshed Chechnya PeaceWatch Project
  17. ^ Army demoralized Centre for Russian Studies
  18. ^ Russian fighting ceases in Chechnya; Skeptical troops comply with Yeltsin order
  19. ^ Yeltsin declares Russian victory over Chechnya CNN
  20. ^ The Violation of Human Rights and Norms of Humanitarian Law in the Course of the Armed Conflict in the Chechen Republic Memorial
  21. ^ Lebed calls off assault on Grozny The Telegraph
  22. ^ Lebed promises peace in Grozny and no Russian assault CNN
  23. ^ The War in Chechnya. MN-Files. Mosnews.com (2007-02-07).
  24. ^ Saradzhyan, Simon. “Army Learned Few Lessons From Chechnya“, Moscow Times, 2005-03-09. 
  25. ^ CASUALTY FIGURES Jamestown Foundation
  26. ^ The Russian Army in Chechnya by Pavel Felgenhauer
  27. ^ DO ETHNIC RUSSIANS SUPPORT PUTIN’S WAR IN CHECHNYA? The Jamestown Foundation
  28. ^ Knezys, Stasys, and Romaras Sedlickas. The War in Chechnya. 1st ed. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1999. 303-304
  29. ^ a b MISSING PERSONS, THOSE FORCIBLY DETAINED, AND EXCHANGES Human Rights Watch
  30. ^ AI REPORT 1998: RUSSIAN FEDERATION Amnesty International
  31. ^ YELTSIN, MASKHADOV SIGN PEACE AGREEMENT. RFE/RL

hey yall



[edit] See also




Wikimedia Commons has media related to:
First Chechen War


  • Caucasian War
  • Chechnya
  • Chechen people
  • History of Chechnya
  • History of post-Soviet Russia
  • Islam in Russia
  • Second Chechen War


[edit] External links



  • Why the Russian Military Failed in Chechnya U.S. Foreign Studies
  • Chechnya Reference Library A collection of analyses and interviews of the Chechen commanders conducted by United States Marine Corps
  • Why It All Went So Very Wrong TIME magazine
  • Chechen War 1994-96 The World Regional Conflicts Project
  • Chechnya Crimes of War Project
  • First Chechnya War - 1994-1996 Foreign Military Studies Office
  • Red Dawn in Chechnya: A Campaign Chronicle ARMOR (Early 1995)
  • The Chechen Campaign Pavel Felgenhauer (Fall 1995)
  • War and Human Rights (links) Memorial human rights group
  • Wounded Bear: The Ongoing Russian Military Operation FMSO (August 1996)
  • Chechen 9×18mm BORZ (”Wolf”) machine-pistol Security Arms
  • Cursed and forgotten Documentary by Sergey Govorukhin about the Chechen war




v • d • e
Russian-Chechen Conflict











Main events Specific articles Federals Separatists

Wars



  • First Chechen War
  • Dagestan War
  • Second Chechen War

Notable battles



  • Grozny (1994)
  • Grozny (1994–1995)
  • Grozny (1996)
  • Grozny (1999–2000)

Other



  • Khasav-Yurt accord
  • Russian apartment bombings
  • Hostage crises:

    • Buddyonovsk
    • Kizlyar
    • Moscow
    • Beslan

Second Chechen War



  • 1999 bombing campaign
  • Assassinations
  • Casualties

    • Aircraft losses

  • Crimes and terrorism:

    • Mass graves
    • Suicide attacks

  • Insurgency

    • Caucasian Front

  • International response
  • Federal government in Chechnya

Combatants:



  • Russian Federation

    • Russian Army (Ground Forces)
    • MVD (OMON, Internal Troops)
    • FSB and GRU
    • Special forces (OSNAZ, Spetsnaz)

  • Republic of Chechnya (Kadyrovtsy)

Key leaders:



  • Boris Yeltsin
  • Vladimir Putin
  • Doku Zavgayev
  • Akhmad Kadyrov †
  • Alu Alkhanov
  • Ramzan Kadyrov

Combatants:



  • Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
  • Mujahideen

Key leaders:



  • Dzhokhar Dudayev †
  • Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev †
  • Aslan Maskhadov †
  • Abdul Halim Sadulayev †
  • Doku Umarov
  • Shamil Basayev †