Author: admin

PanArmenian News
Jan 13 2005

RUSSIAN EXPERT CONSIDERS THAT RUSSIA CAN LOSE IRAN AS A STRATEGIC
PARTNER

13.01.2005 17:59

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ When commenting on the results of the talks between
Iran and Russia over the Caspian problem, well-known Russian expert
R. Safarov expressed opinion in an interview with Iran.ru that “if in
the near future the state of affairs does not change, Russia’s
positions in the Caspian region will weaken with every day.” “It
seems to me that there is a tendency towards the weakening of
Russia’s position, a trend of inadequate attention towards the issue
in question by the Russian leaders,” Rajib Safarov says. Iran’s and
Russia’s positions over Caspian issues do not coincide on principal
matters, he considers. “What Russia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan
suggest does not fit Iran at all,” the expert continues. Safarov
considers the supposition that Iran “has not place to go from Russia”
“evidently erroneous.” “Unfortunately, I have to state that at
present the Russian leaders do not have a long-term program of
deepening and expanding the Russian-Iranian cooperation.”
Establishing the fact of good relations Russian functionaries, in the
expert’s words, do absolutely nothing to flavor those relations.
“However, politics is an inconstant value. New actions are necessary
for maintaining the proper level of relations. From that point of
view, unfortunately, the first symptoms of the crisis in the
Russian-Iranian relations are available. And what is most
irreparable: if in the near future Russia does not suggest Iran any
new, breaking initiatives, there is large probability that it will
lose Iran as a very important strategic partner maybe forever,” says
R. Safarov.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PanArmenian News
Jan 13 2005

AZERI EXPERT INDIGNANT AT US AID TO KARABAKH

13.01.2005 15:06

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ As reported by Kavkazsky Uzel, the US Agency for
International Development (USAID) has confirmed the allocation of $15
million to Nagorno Karabakh. The aid will be provided via a
Washington-based Armenian Assistance Foundation, while the USAID will
arrange the organization issues. The USAID is the largest donor
partner of the US State Department. “In the opinion of independent
expert Mubariz Ahmedoglu, USAID taking such a step again confirms
that US official structures are the main donors of American
Armenians’ assistance to Nagorno Karabakh.”

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EurasiaNet Organization
Jan 13 2005

TURKEY, RUSSIA CELEBRATE TRADE TIES WHILE PROBING AN EXPANSION OF
GEOPOLITICAL CONTACTS
Mevlut Katik 1/12/05

Turkey and Russia celebrated rapidly expanding bilateral trade during
a visit by a massive Turkish trade delegation January 10-12 to
Moscow. The visit also generated several significant political
developments, including an announcement that Turkey would explore
cooperation with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and a Russian
commitment to consider the lifting of an embargo against Turkish
Cypriots.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan led the Turkish
delegation, comprising 52 MPs and 600 business executives. The size
of contingent underscored the fact that Russia has emerged as
Turkey’s second largest trade partner after Germany, in part because
of Turkish imports of Russian natural gas via the Blue Stream
pipeline. Bilateral trade volume in 2004 was estimated at $10
billion. The figure could skyrocket to $25 billion by 2007, Erdogan
said. The centerpiece of the visit was the opening of a Turkish Trade
Center in central Moscow.

Erdogan’s press office hyped the visit as “probably the busiest …
made by one our [Turkey’s] leaders.” The January 12 statement went on
to say that Turkey’s “economic ties with Russia are ripe for growth,”
adding that Ankara expected “an influx of Russian capital.” Russian
President Vladimir Putin reciprocated the enthusiasm expressed by
Turkish leaders. Putin met with Erdogan at least four times during
the three-day visit, including a private dinner at the presidential
residence outside Moscow.

Only sketchy details have emerged on trade talks conducted during the
visit. Turkish officials let it be known in advance that they would
seek a discount on the price of Russian natural gas supplies. Russia
currently provides about two-thirds of Turkey’s natural gas needs.
According to the Interfax news agency, Russia agreed to expand gas
exports to Turkey, but provided no details. There was likewise no
information on the price that Turkey would pay.

Russia, at the same time, expressed interest in other Turkish energy
spheres, especially electricity. “The Russians are interested in
power stations that work with natural gas, coal and hydropower,” said
Turkish Energy Minister Hilmi Guler. The minister added that Russian
companies were interested in participating in energy-related
privatization tenders, and were ready to explore the feasibility of
laying down cables on the Black Sea floor to export electricity.

In addition to energy, Turkish and Russian officials confirmed that
talked about developing military-technological ties. They did not go
into specifics, and no agreements were announced.

Beyond the trade talks, several statements by both Turkish and
Russian officials could have a profound impact on regional
geopolitics. While in Kazakhstan on a one-day visit January 12, Putin
welcomed Turkey’s interest in establishing trade relations with the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which included Russia,
China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Putin
described Turkey’s interest as “unexpected,” Interfax reported.

Meanwhile, Putin indicated that Russian policy may soon shift on the
Cyprus issue, which has served as an obstacle in Turkey’s path toward
European Union membership. The Russian president said he would start
advocating for the lifting of an international embargo on the
Turkish-controlled sector of the divided island. “We do not think
that the political isolation of Northern Cypriots is fair,” Putin
said.

Erdogan and Putin also reportedly probed for an understanding on
Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. [For background see the
Eurasia Insight archive]. The normalization of Turkish-Armenian
relations would potentially hasten Turkey’s European Union accession
process. Russia, as Armenia’s strategic ally, could be in position to
facilitate a rapprochement. The normalization issue, in turn, is
connected to the long search for a lasting Karabakh settlement, as
Turkey has long supported Azerbaijan in the peace process.

Political observers suggested that existing geopolitical conditions
were exerting considerable force on Turkey and Russia to expand their
political and economic ties. For Turkey, Russia potentially could
help remove several obstacles still standing in Ankara’s European
Union membership drive, namely the Cyprus and Armenia questions. In
addition, in the wake of the diplomatic row between the United States
and Turkey over Iraq, the Turkish government apparently welcomes the
diversification of its foreign policy – mainly for economic purposes.
Even though, Ankara has worked hard to repair its relationship with
Washington, there appears to be some lingering concern over whether
the United States will address Turkish security concerns in Iraq.
[For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive]. During
a January 11 visit to Turkey, a top US military leader, Gen. John
Abizaid, offered assurances that Washington would address the issue
of Kurdish militant activity in northern Iraq, without offering a
specific action blueprint. [For additional information see the
Eurasia Insight archive].

For Russia, closer relations with Turkey could potentially help
Moscow slow the steady erosion of its influence in the Black Sea
Basin. Over the past year-plus, Russia has seen pro-Western
governments come to power in Georgia and Ukraine. [For background see
the Eurasia Insight archive].

Many pundits gave Erdogan high marks for his recent performance. Over
the last month, Erdogan’s government has finessed the European Union
into agreeing on the accession issue, taken steps to restore the US
relationship, and now opened new channels of commercial and political
communication with Russia. “Turkey’s foreign relations have always
been very pragmatic and mostly rational, especially with its eastern
neighbour Russia,” said Firdevs Robinson, the editor of the British
Broadcasting Corp.’s Central Asia and Caucasus Service. “Erdogan is
continuing this tradition with an important additional element. He is
using Turkey’s economic potential as well as his personal charm. He
is seen as `a leader that keeps his word.'”

Editor’s Note: Mevlut Katik is a London-based journalist and analyst.
He is a former BBC correspondent and also worked for The Economist
group.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

“Inconsistent” foreign policy damages Azeri-Turkish ties – opposition daily

Azadliq, Baku
13 Jan 05

Text of Xayal Sahinoglu report by Azerbaijani newspaper Azadliq on 13
January headlined “Relations between Baku and Ankara have become cool”
and subheaded “Fuad Mustafayev: ‘Relations between Turkey and
Azerbaijan have cooled because the foreign policy priorities have not
been set correctly'”

As a result of the foreign policy conducted by the incumbent regime,
Azerbaijan is about to lose Turkey as its strategic ally. To recap,
relations between the two sides began to deteriorate in the wake of
[Azerbaijani President] Ilham Aliyev’s certain irresponsible statement
on the Cyprus problem. This trend was confirmed once again when
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan did not discuss the
Karabakh issue with Vladimir Putin on his visit to Russia.

It is a manifestation of the cooling of Azerbaijani-Turkish relations
that Erdogan did not discuss the Karabakh conflict when he visited
Russia, Fuad Mustafayev, deputy chairman of the People’s Front of
Azerbaijan Party [PFAP], said. The authorities are to blame for the
current state of affairs in bilateral relations, Mustafayev said. The
wrong foreign policy of the incumbent regime creates additional
problems for Azerbaijan, he said.

“Relations with Turkey, Azerbaijan’s strategic ally, have cooled
because the foreign policy priorities have not been set
correctly. Over the past few years, Azerbaijan’s foreign policy course
has been uncertain. The authorities suddenly declare Arab countries a
foreign policy priority, but then turn to Central Asia and
Russia. Such a foreign policy is bound to create problems for
Azerbaijan. It is the result of this policy that the Turkish prime
minister did not discuss with Russia, which is an interested party, a
very important issue for the region,” he said.

Mustafayev also linked the inconsistency of the authorities’ foreign
policy with the emergence of the issue of reopening the
Turkish-Armenian border on the agenda of the Moscow talks. “If the
authorities take populist steps trying to take advantage of the
problem instead of steadily defending our interests in settling the
Karabakh conflict, we have no right to hope that some country would
defend our interests. Although the Azerbaijani people may want Turkey
to demonstrate that it is Azerbaijan’s friend in the Karabakh
conflict, the authorities’ foreign policy does not allow this to
happen.”

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

REPRESENTATIVES OF ARMENIAN DELEGATION TO PACE TRY TO ENLIST SUPPORT
OF EUROPEAN COUNTERPARTS IN KARABAKH PROBLEM, CONTACTING WITH THEM
THROUGH E-MAIL, SHAVARSH KOCHARIAN STATES

YEREVAN, JANUARY 13. ARMINFO. Representatives of Armenian delegation
to Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe try to enlist the
support of their European counterparts when discussion of the draft
report of David Atkinson on Nagorny Karabakh in PACE by electronic
correspondence. Member of Armenian delegation to PACE, representative
of the opposition Justice bloc Shavarsh Kocharian stated talking to
ARMINFO.

“It is difficult to enlist the support of European parliament members
in the Karabakh problem sitting here in Armenia, that’s why the
members of the Armenian delegation are trying to use personal contacts
with representatives of European delegations, contacting with them
through e-mail”, Shavarsh Kocharian thinks. A certain work is carried
out with European colleagues during the sittings of the PACE
commissions as well. The deputy also assured that when discussion of
the draft report for Nagorny Karabakh in PACE the representatives of
the opposition and pro-power forces in the Armenian delegation will
come out with common positions. At the same time Shavarsh Kocharian
stressed that the draft report of David Atkinson regarding Nagorny
Karabakh is the failure of not the Armenian parliamentary delegation
to PACE, but the foreign policy of Armenia.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Al-Jazeera, Qatar
Jan 12 2005

Armenian ‘genocide’: Probe sought

As Armenians prepare to mark the 90th anniversary of what they
believe was a genocide of their people by Ottoman Turkish forces, a
leading Turkish historian has called for a multi-national inquiry
into what happened.

Armenia says 1.5 million of its people died between 1915 and 1923 on
Ottoman territory in a systematic genocide and says the decision to
carry it out was taken by the political party then in power in
Istanbul, popularly known as the Young Turks.

Turkey denies genocide, saying the Armenians were victims of a
partisan war during World War One which also claimed many Muslim
Turkish lives. Turkey accuses Armenians of carrying out massacres
while siding with invading Russian troops.

“I think we historians, Turkish, American, French, British and
Armenian, must come together and form a commission to investigate
this issue objectively,” Yusuf Halacoglu, head of the Turkish
Historical Society, told Reuters on Wednesday.

EU issue

Halacoglu, who endorses the mainstream Turkish view of the events and
rejects the genocide claims, said setting scholars to work together
was all the more important for his country because the genocide issue
threatened to complicate Turkey’s entry talks with the European
Union.

The genocide issue might
complicate Turkey’s EU entry

The European Parliament and France, home to Europe’s largest Amenian
community, have both urged Turkey to recognise the killings of
Armenians between 1915 and 1923 as genocide.

Armenians this year mark the 90th anniversary of the events on April
24 and Turkey is to start EU entry talks on 3 October

Halacoglu said the commission would ideally work under the auspices
of the United Nations or another international body to help ensure
impartiality and to encourage all states concerned to open up their
archives to the panel.

He was due to discuss his research on the period on Wednesday with
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul and said he hoped for official Turkish
backing for a commission.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Newsday, NY
Jan 12 2005

Dangerous Alliance

by SELCUK GULTASLI

What the decision reached at the December 17 European Union (EU)
summit means will be clarified in the upcoming months. We will see in
a short time what kind of direction the Cyprus issue will take,
whether the screening process will begin before or after October 3,
and whether or not surprises like the so-called “Armenian Genocide”
will be included in the negotiations framework document or in the
updated accession partnership document that will be prepared by the
EU Commission.

We will be able to check how much Turkey will come to the agenda, and
how much opposition parties will exploit possible membership during a
referendum process on the EU’s Constitution approval, that will start
in Spain on February 20.

We will grasp them in time. As a matter of fact, a “constructive
ambiguity,” one of the consistent EU attitudes towards Turkey,
strongly marked the December 17 summit. It is “ambiguous” because the
summit produced a result that it could constantly find alternative
ways among several layers of ambiguity and does not bind itself to
any concrete target. It is “constructive” because Turkey was not
offended, and the ground for it to draw closer to European standards
with the goal of possible EU membership, was strengthened. It is
because of this ambiguity that the Turkey issue sometimes will be
seriously debated with good intentions on several fronts in Europe,
and sometimes it will be a source of populist altercations. These
signs have become immediately observable in Europe, which has
awakened to a new year.

For example, British Minister of State for Energy Mike O’Brien last
week criticized Michael Howard, the Jewish leader of the Conservative
Party, for not allowing British Muslims to support the party, and was
he immediately bombarded with a barrage anti-Semitic criticisms.
O’Brien sought the votes of British Muslims through the support for
Turkey’s EU membership by the Labor Party, of which he is a member,
in an article that he wrote to a Muslim weekly newspaper, and was
harshly criticized as a result of this.

Thank God there are no serious problems in Britain and the
conservative leader did not make any concessions on his support for
Turkey while lambasting O’Brien. As a matter of fact, all political
parties in Britain agree on Turkey’s future membership. On the other
hand, it is difficult to say the same for the two locomotives of the
EU, Germany and France.

If Cyprus will be an important front in EU-Turkish relations in 2005,
another front, where perhaps a long-term struggle will take place,
will be a dangerous alliance of the German Christian Democrats and
French conservatives. The alliance that they might call a “holy”
alliance is of a dissolute character in terms of Turkish and EU
values.

Nicolas Sarkozy, who is the new boss of French President Jacques
Chirac’s party, the Union for the People’s Movement (UMP), declared
last week that he is ” in complete agreement” with German Christian
Social Union Party leader Edmund Stoiber, who has turned his
anti-Turkey EU membership stance into one of the main principles of
his policy, that is, to block Turkey’s possible membership. News
agencies reported that French and German conservative leaders have
signed a memorandum of understanding, that is to say, they are bound
to cooperate on issues they agreed upon through their signatures.

Chirac, implying last week that he might run in the 2007 presidential
elections, increases the importance of the French front on Turkey
even more. Despite several drawbacks, the 2007 presidential race,
that most likely will be a contest between Chirac, who supports
Turkey’s future membership, and Sarkozy, who wants to halt Ankara’s
march towards the EU, is the harbinger of an intensive French debate
on the Turkey issue in the short and the medium term. When the fact
that a large part of the French people oppose Turkey’s membership is
taken into consideration, it could be foreseen that Sarkozy will use
this issue frequently against Chirac.

If Sarkozy comes to power in France in 2007 and the Christian
Democrats in Germany in 2006, Ankara might come up against a very
strong alliance. What is worse is that the alliance will easily find
the nucleus of a privileged partnership formula it demanded in the
final resolution at the December 17 summit.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

The Herald, UK
Jan 12 2005

Hatred, murder and denial are all horrors of the `final solution’

IAN BELL

Auschwitz: The Nazis and the “Final Solution”BBC2, 9.00pm
Shameless Channel 4, 10.00pm

The old Nazi was having difficulties with the concept of guilt, far
less the idea of repentance. He was evasive about his actions, all
those years ago, stricken by the convenient amnesia that afflicted so
many who shared his creed. But, yes, he had been a part of it: he had
murdered.
So what had been his thoughts? What had he felt? “Nothing. I only
thought, aim carefully so that you hit properly.” Then he slipped,
revealingly, into the present tense. Emotion had deserted him,
“because my hatred towards the Jews is too great”.
The hatred that had enabled him to shoot innocent people in the back
and watch their bodies tumble into pits had been based on nothing
more substantial, it turned out, than the belief that certain Jewish
traders had once cheated his farming family. A Holocaust in exchange
for a few pfennigs: his “unshakeable conviction” concerning Judaism
remained, nevertheless.
Sadly, a court of law had clearly failed to arrive at a more
appropriate conviction. Hans Friedrich, formerly of the SS, looked
very like someone’s favourite grandfather. The world’s abhorrence
troubled him; the idea that barbarism had once been a duty caused his
eyes to fill. But the old man left you with the clear impression
that, given the order, he might just do it again.
Such was one of the justifications for Auschwitz: The Nazis and the
“Final Solution”. The disease is never eradicated. Sixty years after
the liberation of the death factory, a place where 1.1 million people
were eradicated, genocide remains the distinguishing feature of the
species. No other animal does it. Other creatures kill to survive. We
do it because of the lies we choose to believe.
Laurence Rees has produced a series that will comfort few, none of
them sane. With a wealth of new documentation from eastern Europe, he
has set out to demonstrate how the fascist project mutated from a
quest for conquest into purest nihilism. These were people who set
out, with bureaucratic precision, to starve millions of Russians to
death simply to equip the Wehrmacht. These were men who settled on
Zyklon B, crystallised prussic acid, as an exterminating gas because
mass murder, face-to-face, had begun to trouble even the SS.
These were atrocities committed by little people. Hitler, Himmler and
the rest provided the impetus, but the practical business of
slaughter was placed in the hands of thousands of ordinary Germans,
citizens of a country that prided itself on its “civilisation”. The
first task of Auschwitz was the processing of 23,000 Polish political
prisoners: half of them were dead within 20 months. When Germany
invaded Russia, three million Soviet prisoners were taken: two
million were dead within nine months. “One becomes indifferent in the
midst of all that,” said one Polish survivor. “Today it’s your turn,
tomorrow it will be mine.” Rudolf Huss, camp commandant, discomfited
by the sight of blood, acquired another sort of indifference. “I must
admit,” he recorded, “that this gassing had a calming effect on me.”
It was a long time ago. Is there still a need to remember? During the
First World war, Turkey did away with 1.5 million Armenians and still
refuses to confront the fact. Plotting his “Final Solution”, Hitler
inquired of a crony: “Who remembers the Armenians?”
An easy elision from such thoughts to Shameless is impossible. Let’s
just say that Kev and Veronica’s first attempt at foster parenting –
“the fish aren’t swimming” – was funny, farcical and, finally,
poignant. Having little Eric pass out after snacking on the “Hashy
Birthday” cake wasn’t a good start, but as Veronica put it: “We can
do this, Kev. We can be good parents. From now on we’ve just got to
try really hard not to kill him.” They just about managed it.
Frank (David Threfall), the world’s worst father, was more
philosophical. Parenthood is all about passing something on to the
next generation, he said at the bar. “Mind you, they only end up
hating us, so what’s the f****** point?”
Very true.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Calgary Sun (Alberta)
January 12, 2005 Wednesday
FINAL EDITION

POLITICAL DIVA;
IRON LADY YULIA TYMOSHENKO DRIVING ORANGE REVOLUTION

BY PAUL STANWAY, CALGARY SUN

She is the Belinda Stronach of Ukrainian politics, and then some.
Blond, beautiful, wealthy, and a staunch defender of free-market
economics.

But the comparisons end there.

Yulia Tymoshenko’s past is as clouded as Stronach’s is untroubled.

Dubbed the “Joan of Arc of the Orange Revolution,” the fiery
Tymoshenko is either loved or hated, depending on your political
outlook.

As Ukrainian politician and journalist Yuri Boldyrev recently put it:
“She doesn’t do middle-of-the-road. She is an iron lady.”

Even her background has become a matter for debate. Officially,
Tymoshenko was born in 1960, in the eastern industrial city of
Dnipropetrovsk, a Russian-speaking arsenal of Soviet totalitarianism
amid a sea of Ukrainian farming villages.

It was once the power base of Leonid Brezhnev, and after independence
served the same purpose for pro-Russian Ukrainian president Leonid
Kuchma.

Depending on who you talk to, Tymoshenko may have been born into
privilege or into poverty. She is either of solid Ukrainian stock, or
maybe half-Armenian.

What is not in question is that she owed her education and her rise
through the government bureaucracy to the old Communist party.

A Ph.D-level economist, by the early 1990s she was running United
Energy Systems of Ukraine, one of several monopolies set up by the
Kyiv government to import energy.

Along the way, Tymoshenko amassed a fortune that has been variously
estimated at between $4 billion and $11 billion.

According to author Matthew Brzezinski, whose 2001 book on the
economic pillage of the former Soviet empire, Casino Moscow, devotes
an entire chapter to Tymoshenko, there is evidence of kickbacks from
United Energy to the Kyiv government.

Making a vast fortune when the average Ukrainian was struggling to
make ends meet doesn’t seem like a good way to endear yourself to the
masses.

And it didn’t. As head of United Energy, she was reportedly protected
by an entire platoon of former Soviet special forces bodyguards.

Tymoshenko was elected to the Ukrainian parliament in 1996, but it
wasn’t until 2000, as a member of Viktor Yushchenko’s short-lived
administration, that the blond bombshell began to develop a
reputation as an economic reformer.

Knowing where all the bodies were buried, she stuck it to her former
colleagues in government and the monopoly industries (recovering $2
billion in “misdirected” funds), and developed a reputation as an
anti-corruption crusader.

When she was briefly arrested on charges of smuggling natural gas
(while head of United Energy), it was widely believed to be a
political move designed to discredit her.

Her husband was also arrested on charges of defrauding the state, and
there was a suspicious car accident in which she was nearly killed.

Discrediting or bumping off critics had become a trademark of
President Kuchma’s increasingly unpopular regime (Yushchenko’s
poisoning being the most infamous), and being a target did wonders
for Tymoshenko’s street cred.

By the time of last year’s disputed presidential election, it was the
fiery Tymoshenko who led street protests against the widespread vote
fraud.

Many in Ukraine’s independent media credit her with being the
backbone of the revolution.

In one of the more memorable moments of that confrontation, she
placed carnations on the shields of riot police and urged them to “be
on the side of the citizens of Ukraine.”

It was Tymoshenko who was subsequently allowed through police lines
to negotiate a peaceful stand-off.

As a result of all this, she has been widely tipped as Ukraine’s next
prime minister, but her strident opposition to the country’s vested
interests and still-powerful bureaucracy might be a problem if
Yushchenko’s first priority is national unity.

And there’s also the question of that colourful business history.

Whether she’s for real or just for herself is, so far, anyone’s
guess.

But if she’s the real deal, this political diva could be the driving
force behind any pro-market, pro-Western economic reforms undertaken
by Ukraine’s new government.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

The Times (London)
January 12, 2005, Wednesday

The long war against ‘the Infidel’ left a lasting mark on European
culture

by Michael Binyon

THE great clash of civilisations at the battle of Lepanto in 1571
captured the imagination of Europe, inspiring artists and writers for
decades afterwards. The Ottoman Turks had begun the war the previous
year, to drive and the Venetians from the eastern Mediterranean by
invading their outpost of Cyprus. More than a century after the fall
of Byzantium, Christendom was again facing defeat by its mortal
enemy.

Europe rallied to the Venetian cause. Spanish and Italian galleys
sailed for Cyprus, under the command of Don John of Austria,
half-brother of Philip II of Spain and a swashbuckling military
adventurer. To Christian Europe, the rampaging Turks seemed
invincible.

The two fleets met at Lepanto, off the coast of Greece. It took Don
John just four hours to annihilate the Turkish fleet, capturing 117
galleys and thousands of men -a brilliant victory, though one which
in the long run could not halt the Ottomans.

Titian, Tintoretto and Veronese celebrated the victory in extravagant
paintings.

Even in distant England, Lepanto was hailed as a triumph. Shakespeare
was 7 when the battle took place, and, 33 years later, the Bard made
the Venetian defence of Cyprus the setting for one of his greatest
tragedies. As Othello dies, he reminds the audience of Christendom’s
titanic struggle: “Set you down this;/ And say besides, that in
Aleppo once,/ Where a malignant and a turban’d Turk/ Beat a Venetian
and traduced the state,/ I took by the throat the circumcised dog/
And smote him, thus.”

The clash with the Muslim enemy was a common theme in Shakespeare’s
time. Henry V, courting Kate, asks her whether they should not have a
son “that shall go to Constantinople and take the Turk by the beard”.
In France, 50 years later, Racine set one of his tragedies, Bajazet,
in the court of sultan Amurat, who captured Babylon in 1638.

But warfare did not stop merchants trading, travellers exploring and
emissaries negotiating. By the 17th century French and Engish traders
had established footholds in Istanbul, along with the ubiquitous
Venetians and Genoese. Working largely through Jewish and Armenian
“dragomans” (interpreters), they exploited the trade concessions
forced upon the sultans by the need for bullion, which had flooded
Europe from South America.

The Europeans settled for co-existence. Five centuries earlier the
Muslims were seen as the greatest challenge to Christendom, and
successive Popes launched crusades. In the long run, all failed. But
while these scarred the European psyche with suspicion of the Muslim
infidel, the Ottomans were regarded differently.

Religious zeal played less of a role than commercial and political
rivalry.

Byzantium had fallen. But trade went on.

And so it had for centuries. Even as the Ottomans closed in on
Byzantium throughout the 15th century, the diminishing city-state had
made alliances and deals. The Ottomans conquered a swath of territory
that brought them up against the Slavs and the Venetians. Serbia had
been beaten at the battle of Kosovo in 1389, a date that has echoed
down its history. Periodically the Venetians and the Habsburgs raised
the battle cry against the Turks, but the clashing empires worked out
a modus vivendi. For years the French kings enjoyed an entente with
Istanbul and even while the Turks were conquering Crete, French
merchants bought carpets, spices and brocades and sold wool, clocks
and luxury goods.

Ordinary Europeans had little contact, however. The big sea power,
Portugal, clashed with Turkish forces at the entrance to the Red Sea.
But Europe was by now looking farther afield -to America, Africa,
India and China. Suleyman the Magnificent tried to conquer all the
Mediterranean, but after the heroic resistance of Malta, defended by
the Knights of St John during the long siege in 1565, made no further
forays westwards.

In the Balkans, Ottoman power reached a high point at the second
siege of Vienna, in 1683. But already the empire was decaying from
within. By the 19th century the “Sick Man of Europe” was desperately
trying to modernise its creaking empire. And by the end of the First
World War it was over.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress