Month: November 2006

FRENCH GENOCIDE BILL COMPLICATES TURKEY’S EU BID
By Scott Peterson
The Daily Star, Lebanon
Oct 31 2006
By a wide margin, the French Parliament voted earlier this month to
make it a criminal act to deny an Armenian genocide at the hands of
Ottoman Turks, enraging Turkey and further deepening its suspicion
of the European Union.
Muslim Turkey – which has sought for decades to join the EU and is
now in membership negotiations – vowed retaliation against France
that could disrupt billions of dollars in trade, even as both sides
explore the limits of free speech.
The vote came the same day that Orhan Pamuk, the celebrated Turkish
novelist, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. Charges of
“denigrating Turkishness” against Pamuk – brought after he publicly
spoke of the killing of 1 million Armenians during World War I, and
30,000 Kurds – were dropped earlier this year in a case seen as a
test of Turkey’s commitment to EU-driven reforms.
The two events get at the heart of contradictions in modern Turkey,
where democratic and West-leaning EU aspirations often clash with
history. The staunchly secular state – a full member of the NATO
military alliance – casts itself as an indispensable bridge between
East and West, but has yet to be accepted as such by Europe.
Many Turks see the genocide vote – a hot-button issue – as just one
more obstacle to keep them out of the 25-member EU club.
“Turks find it very hard to swallow this; even Francophile Turks
educated there are turning their backs on France,” says Sami Kohen,
a foreign affairs columnist for Milliyet newspaper. “A lot of us
fear this will further encourage critics of the EU [who] will say:
‘Enough is enough; we should give up on this EU.'”
Turkish lawmakers Wednesday proposed a counter-bill that would
recognize an “Algerian genocide” carried out by colonial French forces
in 1945. Turkish columnists are also raising France’s considerable
role in Rwanda’s 1994 genocide, as they seek to even the moral
playing field.
Analysts say the French vote is likely to embolden Turkish nationalists
and those who oppose EU membership for Turkey. Recent polls show
that Turkish support for joining the EU has dropped from nearly 70
to around 50 percent now.
To become law, the bill must pass the French Senate, which is not
certain, and be signed by President Jacques Chirac. Punishment would
include a one-year prison term, and a $56,500 fine, the same penalty
now on French books for denying the Holocaust.
One Turkish newspaper headline took aim at France’s reputation as
the home of human rights and justice. It read: “Libert~N, ~Ngalit~N,
stupidit~N.”
“French-Turkish relations, which have developed over centuries …
have been dealt a blow today as a result of the irresponsible false
claims of French politicians who do not see the political consequences
of their actions,” Turkey’s Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said in
a statement.
“If this bill is passed, Turkey will not lose anything but France
will lose Turkey,” Gul had warned before the vote. “[France] will
turn into a country that jails people who express their views.”
The vote has become a political issue in France, where a majority is
against Turkey’s membership in the EU, where 400,000 ethnic Armenians
live, and where presidential elections are to be held in six months.
French exports to Turkey in 2005 totaled $5 billion.
During a visit to Armenia earlier this month, Chirac stated that Turkey
should not be allowed to join the EU unless it officially accepts that
the death of more than 1 million Armenians, which took place in the
last years of the Ottoman Empire, constitutes a “genocide.” Though
the French government said it opposed the legislation as “unnecessary
and untimely,” Chirac says Turkey must recognize the genocide before
it joins the EU.
But while EU officials have been at pains to note that no such genocide
criterion applies to Turkey, the sentiment matches widening unease
in Europe over Turkey’s EU application. Such fears in France are
believed to be one reason the French last year rejected the proposed
EU constitution.
“France has done its best to hamper Turkey’s relations with the EU”
and has been seeking “a kind of vengeance” against Turkey since the
EU constitution failure, says Seyfi Tashan, director of the Turkish
Foreign Policy Institute in Ankara, Turkey’s capital. “So politically,
the more damage they do to Turkey, the better.”
Armenians say that 1.5 million died in 1915 in the first systematic
genocide of the 20th century, though historians often count 1
million. Turkey officially argues that some 300,000 Armenians died
in a partisan conflict that took just as many Turkish lives, when
Armenians sided with invading Russian armies during World War I.
While Turkey has declared that it would open its files to historians,
a host of Turkish writers and academics who have challenged official
versions of events, sometimes using the word “genocide,” have been
charged with insulting the state by hard-line prosecutors.
Treading that line has been Pamuk, whose novels have dug into Turkey’s
imperial past to explore the contradictions and dilemmas of modern
Turkey. The Nobel citation praised the work: “In the quest for the
melancholic soul of his native city, [Pamuk] has discovered new symbols
for the clash and interlacing of cultures.” In February 2005, Pamuk
told a Swiss newspaper that “30,000 Kurds and a million Armenians
were killed in these lands and nobody but me dares to talk about it.”
“What I said is not an insult, it is the truth,” Pamuk said during
his trial. “But what if it is wrong? Right or wrong, do people not
have the right express their ideas peacefully?”
Scott Peterson is a staff writer for the Christian Science Monitor,
where this article originally appeared. THE DAILY STAR publishes this
in collaboration with the Common Ground News Service.

GHOUKASSIAN HOPES FOR KARABAKH PARTICIPATION IN TALKS BE POSSIBLE SOON
PanARMENIAN.Net
30.10.2006 18:10 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Nagorno Karabakh has to be optimistic regarding
settlement of the conflict, NKR President, Supreme Commander-in-Chief
of the NKR Armed Forces Arkady Ghoukassian told journalists Monday upon
completion of planned troop exercises in NK. “We have to be optimistic,
as if we lose faith in the talks, war will be the alternative, which
is undesirable both to us and Azerbaijan. Naturally, we are interested
in continuation of the talks,” he said.
“As for the outcomes, today it makes no sense speaking of these, as
the arrangement may be adopted when all items are agreed upon. This
is not the case yet. The more frequently Armenian and Azeri FMs meet,
the better as each meeting is a new chance to agree over items, over
which there is no consensus still,” the NKR President said. “We noted
many times that the Nagorno Karabakh conflict cannot be solved without
NKR participation,” he said. Ghoukassian underscored that the stance
of the Karabakh party “has not changed and will not change.” “We will
not give up our independence,” he said, reports Novosti-Armenia.

PUTIN: RUSSIA ON SHAMEFUL THIRD PLACE ON INVESTMENT INTO ARMENIAN ECONOMY
PanARMENIAN.Net
30.10.2006 18:23 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Russian President Vladimir Putin started the meeting
with his Armenian counterpart Robert Kocharian. Putin expects that
investments of Russian companies to the economy of Armenia will
increase. He stated it, when opening the meeting.
“Russia is on shameful third place on investment into Armenian
economy,” the Russian leader said. “I say shameful, as it is strange
that Russia is not the first on investment into the economy of its
strategic partner,” he explained. “However, trade increases and within
8 months it made 60%,” Putin added.
In his turn Robert Kocharian reported that all arrangements between
Yerevan and Gazprom are being implemented. “All serious agreements
on energy projects are entering the phase of implementation,” he
said. He noted Russia’s record of being the third on capital investment
volume should be changed. “I do not doubt it will change next year
considerably,” Kocharian said. He also reported that the practical
implementation of a project of ArmenAl – one of the largest enterprises
in the region – was launched a few days ago, reports ITAR-TASS.

ALIYEV: BAKU MAY REVIEW ITS POLICY IN KARABAKH ISSUE
PanARMENIAN.Net
31.10.2006 12:52 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ In case the talks over settlement of the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict are futile, Azerbaijan will review its policy, Azeri
President Ilham Aliyev said. “It is difficult to say what will happen
in case the talks fail. In any case, if the current round of talks is
futile, Azerbaijan will review its strategy, tactics and attitude,”
the Azeri President told journalists.
The Azeri President noted that Baku insists on conflict settlement
“on the basis of international legal norms, providing for withdrawal
of Armenian occupation forces from the Azeri territory and conferring
high degree of autonomy to NK within Azerbaijan.”
“There is a positive practice of autonomy in the world. There are
especially many national minorities and autonomies in Europe. Being
a national minority does not mean having the right to secede part of
the state and form a new one,” I. Aliyev said, reports Interfax.

CIRCUS ANIMALS “EARN MONEY” DURING THE BREAKS
A1+
[12:19 pm] 31 October, 2006
Our general imagination of the Yerevan circus is formed the moment
the ticket-collector nervously tears the tickets of the audience. Then
follows the hustle and bustle and endless queue.
The circus administration has been concerned about the reconstruction
of the arena since the Soviet times.
They hung various multi-colored balloons from the ceiling in attempt
to make the general atmosphere more attractive. Neither the orchestra
nor its site has changed. The only change we fixed immediately was
that recorded music was switched on during the breaks to entertain
the audience.
The show was to start at 5 p.m. but it was cancelled for half an
hour because of the hawkers. One can buy anything he wishes inside
the building – from food to toys.
finally, the show started. It was announced that besides the Armenian
entertainers and performers there would also be guests from Russia
and Ukraine. The start was promising. The Ukrainian equilibrist Gayane
greatly impressed the audience.
But the second performer’s attempts to roll five loops at a time
were doomed to failure. The loops kept falling all the time. When the
assistant gave her 25 loops, she made great efforts to roll them at
least twice but in vain.
The continuation was still worse.
The appearance of the animals on the arena was completely spoiled. The
horses made such an impression as if they were in the circus for the
first time. One of them even tried to hit one of the front sitters.
At that moment someone shouted from the audience, “We had better go
to the zoo instead of the circus and watch the animals as long as we
wished. Then there was a break for 15 minutes.
The performers earned 500AMD per a circle on a “trained”
horseback. Soon a large queue was formed, and the administration
added the time of the break for another fifteen minutes.
P.S.
We shall try to find out from the circus administration in the nearest
future what factors such a low-quality show was determined by and
what problems the Yerevan State Circus faces nowadays.

THE MOSCOW PROPOSALS ARE ADMISSIBLE
A1+
[12:36 pm] 31 October, 2006
The meeting of the Armenian and Azeri Foreign Ministers will be held
in Brussels, on November 14.
The key issues of the discussion will be the proposals made by the
OSCE Minsk group in Moscow.
Azeri FM Elmar Mammadyarov didn’t divulge the essence of the
proposals. “It is too early to speak of them.
They contain 8 – 9 elements we formerly referred to while defining
the question.”
He claims that both the Armenian and the Azeri sides maintain that
they proposals still need further working out. Elmar Mammadyarov says
the date of the two presidents’ meeting is not fixed yet. Everything
depends on the meeting of November 14.

ABOUT THE IDENTITY OF EUROPE : WHY IT IS A PROBLEM ? (2)
by Hans-Peter Geissen
Turquie Europeenne, France
Oct 31 2006
“The role of Islam in the emergence of the Christian Humanism and the
enlightenment was largely omitted and forgotten : Islamic theology
could not take place in Christian Europe as no Muslims had been
allowed to survive…”
Hans-Peter Geissen lives in Koblenz (Germany), at the confluence of the
Rhine and Moselle rivers. Interested in all what concerns faunistics
(data about animal species) of the Midrhine region, he is the author
of many scientific publications on these issues. He bent on the Turkish
issue with a very specific approach so as “to prevent a self-definition
of Europe on the grounds of historical or religious mythologies.”
Enlightenment Christian Humanism and Enlightenment, in one way
or another, redirected the view on humans and society from a
theological determination -however theoretic- to a variety of
reasoning and imagination. An increasing spectrum of philosophies,
arts, sciences and practices emerged, in which theology was but one
of many disciplines. Again, there can be only a rough overview with
a special focus.
The role of Islam in the emergence of this was largely omitted and
forgotten, Islamic theology could not take place in Christian Europe
as no Muslims had been allowed to survive. A Jewish one survived in
some niches mainly in Eastern Europe (especially Poland-Lithuania).
Both took place in the Ottoman realm. However, the Islamic
“Counter-Enlightenment” had largely ended the development of sciences,
while a quite efficient state centralism inhibited the development
of alternatives.
Nonetheless, as far as religious tolerance and pluralism was concerned,
European thinkers had to point to the Ottoman sphere, wether Rousseau
or Voltaire, Lessing or Goethe, or the English Deists. There the
example was given that it was possible. Secularism in the meaning of
respecting different beliefs and an autonomous sphere of theologies
did not emerge directly from Islam, but was hardly thinkable without.
The other side of the coin was autonomy of state and law from
religion. Quite necessarily, it had to act anticlerical. Insofar,
there was no room for Islamic rule, too. With respect to the state,
it tended to support absolutism. As to society, the language was
detected as a unifying factor defining political bodies, leading to
nationalisms. This, together with liberalism, became the ideology of
the emerging bourgeoisies.
The Ottoman system The Ottoman system had already an absolutism
of sort, expressed in a sultanic prerogative and law. As well as
Christian absolutisms, however, they remained allied with religion
as the major source of law and conduct. Due to special circumstances,
the sultanic prerogative about the lifes and properties of his servants
inhibited the emergence of a Muslim, but not of a Christian and Jewish
bourgeoisy. Growing predominance of West European economies further
enhanced Christian economic dominance in the Ottoman Empire, all the
more as any activity of Muslims in the West was nearly impossible;
European antiislamism had remained largely intact in practice since the
Middle Ages, despite Enlighteners and a few exceptions, like Venice.
Quite the contrary: Humanism and Enlightenment, by rediscovering
the heritage af the Antique, were deploring the “loss” of the “Greek
World” to Muslim rule and in consequence a secular crusader movement
under the flag of “Philhellenism” emerged. It wouldn’t be impossible
to imagine Valerie Giscard d’Estaing as one of its most prominent
stakeholders today.
A major handicap of the Ottomans in dealing with the problem was
certainly the predominance of Islam in state law and bureaucracy,
reinforced at times by a respective Islamic populism. Especially in its
populist form, the “No novelties!” paradigm of Sunnitic conservatism
was certainly a strong factor slowing down necessary adaptations.
Whereas the Ottomans in fact accomodated to the major developments,
including equality of their subjects, constitutional monarchy,
industrialization, public education a.s.o., they finally succumbed
to the emerging nationalisms supported by Western movements and Russia.
In fact, conservative and even many liberal governments supported the
OE in order to prevent Russian expansion to the Mediterranean, both
Christian and “Enlightened” neo-crusaders in effect supported Russia.
The latter proceeded by several ideologies, first pan-Orthodoxy, then
pan-Slawism, some pan-Christianism (regarding especially Armenians
and Georgians), and finally Marxism-Leninism – and, of course,
military aggression.
Nationalisms and Russian expansion In the larger West, those with an
idea of geopolitics opposed the Russian expansion and, up to now,
succeeded repeatedly, if only by a hair’s breadth. Many of those
with no idea of geopolitics in effect supported Russian advance and
continue to do so. And their unifying ideology is still antiislamism.
Ironically, it were “nationalisms” that succeeded the Ottoman Empire
by means of Russian military victories and with support from Western
sources. None of these nationalisms is known to have been supported
by a majority of the respective “nations” prior to the establishment
of an independent state by foreign powers. While expanding, each
new territory had to be ethnically cleansed in order to make the
attempted nation reasonably apparent; then, languages, architecture,
and history were cleansed as well. Lastly Titoism, which L. Carl Brown,
in 1996, proposed to understand as a neo-Ottoman pluralism rather than
Communism, failed, crushed under nationalism and antiislamism while
all the Europeans stood by and looked at and shackled their heads
about: Nay, those Balkan barbarians! And indeed, how could they,
who never had looked into a mirror, recognize their own heritage,
or rather their identity?
A heritage we can hardly be happy with.
The end :
Still, we cannot draw the geographical borders of Enlightenment,
Humanism, or “Jewo”-Christianity. Obviously, they cross through
countries, they even cross individual brains. The only way to draw
reasonable geographical borders is by geographical methods.
Otherwise, we sort people, not space. Necessarily, we’ll come back
to that issue.
Some stuff for further reading :
ADANIR, Fikret (1998): The Ottoman peasantries, c. 1360 – c. 1860. –
269-310 in: SCOTT, T. (ed.): The peasantries of Europe. From the
fourteenth to the eighteenth century. – 416 S., London (Longman)
ADANIR, F. (2001): Das Osmanische Reich als orientalische Despotie
in der Wahrnehmung des Westens. – 83-121 in: KURSAT-AHLERS, E., TAN, D.
& H.-P. WALDHOFF (Hrsg.): Turkei und Europa. Facetten einer Beziehung
in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. – 235 S., Frankfurt am Main (IKO-Verlag
fur Interkulturelle Kommunikation)
ADANIR, Fikret (2003): Religious communities and ethnic groups under
imperial sway: Ottoman and Habsburg lands in comparison. – 54-886 in:
HOERDER, D., HARZIG, C. & A. SHUBERT (eds.): The historical practice
of diversity. – 278 S., Oxfort, New York (Berghahn)
AKSAN, Virginia H. (1999): Locating the Ottomans among early modern
empires. – Journal of Early Modern History 3 (2): 103-134. Leiden.
AYDIN, Mahmut (2001): Religious pluralism: A challenge for Muslims
– A theological evaluation. – Journal of Ecumenical Studies 38:
330-352. Philadelphia, Pa.
DARLING, Linda T. (2002): Another look at periodization in Ottoman
history. – The Turkish Studies Association Journal 26 (2): 19-28.
Bloomington, Indiana.
DAVID, G. (2001): Limitations of conversion: Muslims and Christians
in the Balkans in the sixteenth century. – 149-156 in: ANDOR, E. &
I.G. TOTH (eds.): Frontiers of faith. Religious exchange and the
constitution of religious identities 1400-1750. – 295 S., Budapest
(Central European University/European Science Foundation)
FAROQHI, Suraiya (1978): The early history of the Balkan fairs. –
Sudost-Forschungen 37: 50-68. Munchen.
FAROQHI, Suraiya (1997): Vom Sklavenmadchen zur Mekkapilgerin.
Lebenslaufe Bursaer Frauen im spaten funfzehnten Jahrhundert. –
7-29 in: KREISER, K. & C.K. NEUMANN (Hrsg.): Das Osmanische Reich in
seinen Archivalien und Chroniken. Neyat Goyunc zu Ehren. – 327 S.,
Istanbul, Stuttgart (Franz Steiner Verlag)
FISCHER-GALATI, Stephen A. (1959): Ottoman imperialism and German
protestantism 1521-1555. – 140 S., Cambridge, Massachusetts (Harvard
University Press), London (Oxford University Press)
FODOR, P. (2001): The Ottomans and their Christians in Hungary. –
137-147 in: ANDOR, E. & I.G. TOTH (eds.): Frontiers of faith.
Religious exchange and the constitution of religious identities
1400-1750. – 295 S., Budapest (Central European University/European
Science Foundation)
GOCEK, Fatma Muge (1996): Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire.
– 220 S., New York, N.Y. (Oxford University Press)
GOCEK, Fatma Muge (2002): Decline of the Ottoman empire and the
emergence of Greek, Armenian, Turkish and Arab nationalism. – 15-83 in:
GOCEK, F.M. (ed.): Social constructions of nationalism in the Middle
East. – 279 S., Albany (State University of New York press)
GOFFMAN, Daniel (2002): The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe. –
273 S.. Cambridge (Cambridge University Press; New approaches to
Europen History 24)
GROTHUSEN, Klaus-Detlev (1979): Die Orientalische Frage als Problem
der europaischen Geschichte: 79-96 in: GROTHUSEN, Klaus-Detlev (Hrsg.):
Die Turkei in Europa. – 271 S, Gottingen (.Vandenhoek & Ruprecht)
GROTHAUS, Maximilian (2002): Vom Erbfeind zum Exoten: Kollektive
Mentalitaten uber die Turken in der Habsburger Monarchie der fruhen
Neuzeit: 99-113 in: FEIGL, Inanc, HEUBERGER, Valeria, PITTIONI,
Manfred & Kerstin TOMENENDAL (Hrsg.): Auf den Spuren der Osmanen in
der osterreichischen Geschichte. 179 S., Frankfurt am Main u.a.
(Peter Lang, Europaischer Verlag der Wissenschaften)
HOFERT, Almut (2003): Ist das Bose schmutzig? Das Osmanische Reich
in den Augen europaischer Reisender des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts. –
Historische Anthropologie 11: 176-192. Koln, Weimar, Wien.
ITZKOWITZ, Norman (1996): The problem of perceptions. – 30-38 in:
BROWN, L. Carl (ed.): Imperial Legacy. The Ottoman imprint on the
Balkans and the Middle East. – 337 S., New York (Columbia University
Press).
KAFADAR, Cemal (1995): Between two worlds. The construction of the
Ottoman state. – 221 S., Berkeley, Los Angeles, London (University
of California Press)
KASABA, Resat (2003): The enlightment, Greek civilization and the
Ottoman empire: Reflections on Thomas Hope’s Anastasius. – Journal
of Historical Sociology 16: 1-21. London.
KIEL, Machiel (1983): The oldest monuments of Ottoman-Turkish
architecture in the Balkans: the imaret and the mosque of Ghazi Evrenos
Bey in Gumulcine (Komotini) and the Evrenos Bey Khan in the village
of Ilica/Loutra in Greek Thrace (1370-1390). – Sanat Tarihi Yiligi –
Kunsthistorische Forschungen 12: 117-138. Istanbul.
KISSLING, Hans Joachim (1991): Osmanen und Europa. (Dissertationes
orientales et balcanicae collectae ). – 253 S., Munchen (Dr. Dr.
Rudolf Trofenik)
KITROMILIDES, Paschalis M. (1989): ” Imagined Communities ” and the
origins of the National Question in the Balkans. – European History
Quarterly 19: 149-192. London.
KITROMILIDES, Paschalis M. (1990) : Greek irredentism in Asia Minor
and Cyprus. – Middle Eastern Studies 26 (1): 3-17. Abingdon.
KITROMILIDES, Paschalis M. (2003) : An Enlightenment perspective
on Balkan cultural pluralism : the republican vision of Rhigas
Velestinlis. – History of Political Thought 24 (3): 465-481.
Thorverton.
KITSIKIS, Dimitri (1985): L’Empire Ottoman. – 127 S. Paris (Presses
Universitaires de France).
KONTLER, L. (2001): ~DMahometan Christianity”: Islam and the English
Deists. – 107-119 in: ANDOR, E. & I.G. TOTH (eds.): Frontiers of
faith. Religious exchange and the constitution of religious identities
1400-1750. – 295 S., Budapest (Central European University/European
Science Foundation)
KORTUM, Hans-Henning (2003): Der Pilgerzug von 1064/65 ins Heilige
Land. Eine Studie uber Orientalismuskonstruktionen im 11.
Jahrhundert. – Historische Zeitschrift 277: 561-592. Munchen.
KRAFT, E. (2003): Von der Rum Milleti zur Nationalkirche – die
orthodoxe Kirche in Sudosteuropa im Zeitalter des Nationalismus. –
Jahrbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas 51: 392-408. Stuttgart.
KREISER, Klaus & Christoph E. NEUMANN (2002): Kleine Geschichte der
Turkei. – 519 S., Stuttgart (Reclam)
KULA, O.B. (2001): Zum Turkenbild im deutschen Schrifttum vom 11. bis
19. Jahrhundert. – 47-61 in: KURSAT-AHLERS, E., TAN, D. & H.-P.
WALDHOFF (Hrsg.): Turkei und Europa. Facetten einer Beziehung in
Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. – 235 S., Frankfurt am Main (IKO-Verlag
fur Interkulturelle Kommunikation)
LOUIS, Herbert (1954): Uber den geographischen Europabegriff. –
Mitteilungen der Geographischen Gesellschaft in Munchen 39: 73-93.
Munchen. (On the geographic concept of Europe.)
MAIER, L. (2003): Die Grenze zwischen dem Habsburgerreich und Bosnien
um 1830. Von einem Versuch, eine friedlose Region zu befrieden. –
Jahrbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas 51: 379-391. Stuttgart.
MÄRTIN, Ralf-Peter (1980): Dracula. Das Leben des Fursten Vlad Tepes.
– 189 S., Berlin (Wagenbach)
McCARTHY, Justin (1996): Death and Exile. The ethnic cleansing of
Ottoman Muslims 1821-1922. – 368 S., Princeton, New Jersey (The
Darwin Press). McCARTHY, Justin (2001): The Ottoman peoples and the
end of empire. – 234 S., London, New York (Arnold Publishers; Oxford
University Press)
McCARTHY, Justin (2002): Population history of the Middle East and
the Balkans. – 321 S., Istanbul (Isis Press)
PALAIRET, Michael (1997): The Balkan economies c. 1800-1914.
Evolution without development. – 415 S., Cambridge (Cambridge
University Press).
QUATAERT, Donald (2005): The Ottoman Empire 1700-1922. – 212 S.,
2nd ed., Cambridge (Cambridge University Press; New approaches to
European History 34).
RANDHOFER, R. (1998): Antiochias Erbe. Die Gesange der
syro-antiochenischen Kirche. – Antike Welt 29: 311-324. Mainz.
REHRMANN, M. (2003): A legendary place of encounter: The Convivenzia of
Moors, Jews and Christians in medieval Spain. – 35-53 in: HOERDER, D.,
HARZIG, C. & A. SHUBERT (eds.): The historical practice of diversity. –
278 S., Oxfort, New York (Berghahn)
ROTH, Harald (2003): Kleine Geschichte Siebenburgens. – 2., durchges.
Aufl., 199 S., Koln, Weimar, Wien (Bohlau). RUSINOW, Dennison (1996):
The Ottoman legacy in Yugoslavia’s disintegration and civil war. –
78-99 in: BROWN L. Carl (ed.): Imperial Legacy. The Ottoman imprint
on the Balkans and the Middle East. – 337 S., New York (Columbia
University Press).
SAUER, Eberhard (2003): The archaeology of religious hatred in the
Roman and Early Medieval world. – 192 S., Stroud, Gloucestershire
and Charleston, North Carolina (Tempus)
SAULNIER, Mine G. & Jacques JEULIN (2000): L’autre nom de la rose. Un
regard turc sur la tragedie cathare et l’epopee de Cheikh Bedreddin.
– 125 S., Paris (e-dite)
SCHIMMEL, Annemarie (1995): West-ostliche Annaherungen. – 132 S.,
Stuttgart, Berlin, Koln (W. Kohlhammer)
STRAUSS, Johann (2002): Ottoman rule experienced and remembered:
Remarks on some local Greek chronicles of the Tourkokratia. – 193-221
in: ADANIR, Fikret & Suraiya FAROQHI (eds.): The Ottomans and the
Balkans. A discussion of historiography. – 445 S., Leiden, Boston,
Koln (Koninklijke Brill NV)
TODOROVA, Maria (1996): The Ottoman legacy in the Balkans. – 45-77
in: BROWN, L. Carl (ed.): Imperial Legacy. The Ottoman imprint on the
Balkans and the Middle East. – 337 S., New York (Columbia University
Press).
VAUGHAN, Dorothy M. (1954): Europe and the Turk. A pattern of alliances
1350-1700. – 305 S., Liverpool (University Press).
URL of this article:

Part 1 :

–Boundary_(ID_yuGagnSaBIkQZE1DRkqPaA)–

AZERBAIJANI & ARMENIAN DMS DISCUSS WITHDRAWAL OF ARMENIAN OCCUPANT FORCES FROM AZERBAIJAN
Author: E.Javadova
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
Oct 31 2006
The Azerbaijani Defense Minister, Safar Abiyev, stated that the meeting
with the Armenian Foreign Minister had focused on the withdrawal
of the Armenian occupied forces from the territory of Azerbaijan,
Trend reports.
On 20 October, the Defense Minister of Azerbaijan, Safar Abiyev and
the Armenian Defense Minister, Serj Sarkasyan met at the Ijevan-Gazakh
section of the Azerbaijani-Armenian border. The meeting was held at the
initiative of the Personal Representative of OSCE Chairman-in-office,
Andzey Kasprzyk, with the prospect of strengthening confidence-building
measures between both parties.

ERDOGAN WON’T CHANGE KEY LAW DESPITE EU PRESSURE
Written by The Media Line Staff
The Media Line, NY
Oct 31 2006
Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has not caved in to the
European Union’s pressure to cancel article 301 of the penal code,
Reuters reports.
Article 301 makes it a crime to insult Turkishness. This article
was used against scholars, journalists and writers, including Nobel
literature prize winner Orhan Pamuk. Pamuk opposed the Turkish official
line that no preplanned massacre of Armenians took place in 1915.
Erdogan said his government had no plans to change the law.
Nevertheless, Erdogan encouraged the EU to come up with suggestions
for amending article 301, and said Turkey “will consider” them.
A poll conducted at the end of September revealed a massive decline in
the Turkish people’s wish to join the EU. The survey, published by the
Turkish daily Milliyet, showed that only 32.2 percent thought Turkey
“must certainly enter the EU.” In 2004 the figure stood at 67.5%
and last year it declined to 57.4%.

MAMMADYAROV: NO PROGRESS WAS OBSERVED IN MOSCOW AND PARIS MEETINGS
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Oct 31 2006
Azerbaijani and Armenian Foreign Ministers will discuss new proposals
of the co-chairs in Brussels on November 14, Elmar Mammadyarov,
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister told journalist, APA reports.
He said that it is too early to make public the proposals. The
negotiations will be conducted on nine items.
The minister also said that no progress was observed in Paris and
Moscow meeting of the ministers.
“The co-chairs made proposals on these items in Moscow meeting. We
agreed to discuss them. I think it is possible to work on these
proposals. But the opinion of the opposite side is also necessary. We
should analyze their proposals, too,” Mammadyarov said.
The minister also stated that the OSCE MG co-chairs will visit the
region if there is any progress in November 14 meeting. The meeting
of the presidents is possible after the meeting of the co-chairs with
both sides.
Touching upon the substitution of OSCE MG co-chairs the minister said
that Azerbaijan is satisfied with their activity.
“If we want to change the format of the negotiations we should discuss
it at the level of the organization. It will take much time.
The problem is not solved by the will of Azerbaijan or other state,”
he said.