Author: Frangulian Shushan

Moreover / Fun house
By Sayed Kashua
Ha’aretz, Israel
April 21 2005
Thursday evening, Jerusalem: Homes
Bethlehem Road, about 100 meters before the train tracks, on the
left. These are the directions I got from Danny. “There’s no way
you’ll miss it.” Music blares from Bethlehem Road. There was no way I
could have missed it. I push open the gate and enter a spacious
garden that leads to a big, beautiful Arab house. I didn’t know that
there were still places like this left in the middle of the city.
Some of the guests are sitting in the garden. The rest fill the large
living room that has been transformed into a crowded dance floor.
Tables have been set out on the porch with an array of good wines,
tempting cheeses and crackers. Everyone is speaking English. It’s a
party thrown by The Financial Times. This is Danny’s last day at
work. Two days from now, he and his wife will be flying back to the
United States.
“Tfaddal, please,” Danny says in Arabic, in which he is fluent. He is
Catholic, the son of diplomats if I’m not mistaken, but was born in
Israel. On the porch, one can admire the garden and the house and
have something to drink. My friend and neighbor Sami has that
familiar sad expression on his face. I’ve already learned to identify
it, the expression that says “They demolished a house today.”
“You need to find another line of work,” I say in an effort to cheer
him up. Sami smiles. “He has a stall in the shuk (market) and eight
kids,” he says. “I managed to get a two-week stay of the demolition
order from the judge in order to file an appeal. But I’m not
optimistic about the chances.” He once told me that the worst thing
he’d ever had to witness in his life was the demolition of a house.
“They’re emptying out the eastern part of the city,” he says, shaking
his head. “Every week, at least two or three houses are being
destroyed, and no one reports on it. It’s not news anymore. It’s
routine.”
Danny comes outside, half dancing. He introduces his wife. Her father
is Palestinian, her mother Korean. “That’s why we’re leaving,” he
says. “I’m an American citizen but I was born here and according to
American law, for my children to be Americans, they’ll have to be
born there.” His wife has a Jordanian passport and according to the
law there, citizenship is determined in accordance with the father’s
citizenship. “If I want my kids to have any identity, I have to
leave.”
“You’re leaving an amazing house,” I say. Danny nods and says that he
rented it fairly cheaply from an old Armenian man because the
Armenian only wanted to rent it to Christians. “The owner died not
long ago,” he adds. “His children live in America and they sold the
house to Jews for $3.5 million. They sold another 10 lots in the
area, too, all to Jews.” He shrugs and goes back inside where they’re
playing an old Algerian Rai hit song.
Sami’s voice echoes in my ears, blending with Cheb Khaled’s “Didi.”
“I’m representing this family from Silwan that received a demolition
order, didi wah. A totally weird case. During the trial, I ask them
to produce papers, the judge agrees and all of a sudden the city
engineer says that `King Solomon’s Gardens’ is an archaeological
site, that the king used to stroll there. I look at the maps and see
that there are 88 Palestinian houses slated for demolition there.
Didi wah.”
I leave the house on Bethlehem Road. The clock in the car says it’s
midnight – still early, that is. The band Fools of Prophecy is
performing at The Lab on Hebron Road. “It will be fiiiiiiine,” a
chirpy voice sings and the crowd goes wild. “It’ll be all
riiiiiight.” The band bids the audience goodnight and the lead singer
says that life is a journey and we’re all a part of this journey. I
head home.

FOREIGN TRADE IN 2004
Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
16 April 05
The volume of foreign trade of NKR in 2004 in actual prices totaled
61559.5 million drams, including export of goods 20734.4 million
drams and import 40825.1 million drams. The balance of trade was
negative; trade deficit totaled 20090.7 million drams. The volume of
foreign trade in 2004 grew by 38.2 per cent against 2003, 85.8 per
cent against 2002, 2.2 times against 2001. Export increased by 33.4
per cent, 2.8 times and 7.1 times respectively. In 2004 the volume of
foreign trade with CIA countries totaled 50325.5 per cent which forms
81.7 per cent of the whole foreign trade turnover, and with other
countries 11234.0 million drams or 18.3 per cent. The value of goods
exported to the CIS countries totaled 14307.5 million drams, the value
of goods imported from these countries – 36018.1 million drams. The
value of goods exported to other countries totaled 6426.9 million, and
imported goods – 4807.0 million. In the structure of NKR foreign trade
turnover the share of Stepanakert totals 83.8 per cent. A major part
of goods exported from Karabakh are base metals and precious metals,
precious and semi-precious stones and manufactured metal products
and precious and semi-precious stones. Imported goods are mainly food
materials and food products. NKR BALANCE OF PAYMENTS IN 2004 According
to preliminary data, the deficit of the current account balance of
NKR in 2004 totaled 9708.2 million drams. The study of the combined
capital accounts of the balance of payments shows that the foreign
transactions of the republic were mainly of commercial character. The
deficit of balance of trade in 2004 totaled 18457.7 million drams,
increasing by 38.1 per cent against 2003. In 2004 the picture of the
financial accounts of the NKR balance of payments in 2004 was the
following: direct investments in the economy 1964.2 million drams,
investment portfolio liabilities 215.5 million drams, the assets of
other investments 55927.9 million drams, other investment liabilities
58523.9 million drams. FOREIGN CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATES In 2004 the
exchange rates of 1 US dollar, 1 RF ruble and 1 euro was 532.1, 18.5,
660.7 AM drams against 578.7, 18.8, 653.3 AM drams respectively. In the
months of January – March the average exchange rates of 1 US dollar,
1 RF ruble and 1 euro was 476.5, 17.1 and 625.4 drams respectively.
AA. 16-04-2005
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Baku to provide security guarantees to Karabakh Armenians – Azeri official
Turan news agency
18 Apr 05
Baku, 18 April: The Karabakh talks held in London on 15 April were
the continuation of the Prague process, Huseyn Huseynov, a member
of the Azerbaijani delegation at the talks, told a news conference
today commenting on the results of meetings of the Azerbaijani and
Armenian foreign ministers with the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group.
Asked why the co-chairs met the ministers separately, Huseynov said
that “[Armenian Foreign Minister] Vardan Oskanyan does not want to
meet [Azerbaijani Foreign Minister] Elmar Mammadyarov for reasons
that are not clear”.
As for the co-chairs’ calls on the Armenian and Azerbaijani peoples
to get prepared for compromises, Huseynov said Azerbaijan is ready
to recognize the Karabakh Armenians as its citizens and provide them
with all rights.
“Nagornyy Karabakh is an integral part of Azerbaijan. So, the
Azerbaijani public has to recognize the Armenian population of this
region as its citizens,” Huseynov said. He added that one should work
with the Karabakh Armenians, ensure their security and improve the
economy of the region in order to reintegrate them into Azerbaijani
society.
Huseynov said the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan cannot be
a topic for discussions and compromises. So, under compromises,
one should understand preparing the public for coexistence with the
Armenian population after a peace deal is signed, he said.
Huseynov also said another round of talks within the Prague process
would be held in Frankfurt on 27 April. But he avoided questions about
the format of the meeting. Huseynov did not answer either whether
the leaders of the two counties were going to meet in mid-May. He
only said that the presidents would decide on that themselves.

Armenian National Committee of America
888 17th St., NW, Suite 904
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: (202) 775-1918
Fax: (202) 775-5648
E-mail: [email protected]
Internet:
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 18, 2005
Contact: Elizabeth S. Chouldjian
Tel: (202) 775-1918
FORTY-FIVE U.S. REPRESENTATIVES CALL FOR
PRO-ARMENIAN PROVISIONS IN FOREIGN AID BILL
— Reps. Pallone and Radanovich Lead Bipartisan Effort
WASHINGTON, DC – Congressmen Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and George
Radanovich (R-CA) were joined today by forty-three of their U.S.
House colleagues in formally calling on the leadership of the House
Foreign Operations Subcommittee to support pro-Armenian provisions
in the fiscal year 2006 foreign aid bill, reported the Armenian
National Committee of America (ANCA).
This bipartisan expression of support, addressed to the panel’s
Chairman Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) and Ranking Member Nita Lowey (D-NY),
strengthens the hand of pro-Armenian members of the Subcommittee,
most notably Armenian Caucus Co-Chairman Joe Knollenberg, Steve
Rothman (D-NJ), Mark Kirk (R-IL), and John Sweeney (R-NY). Rep.
Sweeney, who is a new addition to the panel this year, is one of
only two Members of Congress of Armenian heritage.
The letter specifically calls for setting an earmark of at least
$75 million for Armenia; maintaining the President’s request for
equal levels of Foreign Military Financing for Armenia and
Azerbaijan at $5 million each; an additional $5 million in direct
aid to Nagorno Karabagh for fiscal year 2006, and; keeping in place
the Section 907 restriction on aid to Azerbaijan. The full text of
the letter is provided below.
“We very much appreciate the leadership of Congressmen Radanovich
and Pallone in urging the Foreign Operations Subcommittee to
support provisions in the foreign aid bill of special importance to
Armenian Americans,” said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian.
“We also value the advocacy for pro-Armenian issues from within
this panel by Armenian Caucus Co-Chairman Joe Knollenberg, the
leadership of Chairman Jim Kolbe and Ranking Democrat Nita Lowey,
and the support of Steve Rothman, John Sweeney, Mark Kirk, Jesse
Jackson, Jr., Carolyn Kilpatrick, Chaka Fattah, and our other
friends.”
The names of the forty-five signatories are as follows: Gary L.
Ackerman (D-NY), Thomas H. Allen (D-ME), Robert E. Andrews (D-NJ),
Xavier Beccerra (D-CA), Howard L. Berman (D-CA), Michael Bilirakis
(R-FL), Eric Cantor (R-VA), Michael E. Capuano (D-CA), Dennis A.
Cardoza (D-CA), John Conyers Jr. (D-MI), Jim Costa (D-CA), Jerry F.
Costello (D-IL), Joseph Crowley (D-NY), David Dreier (R-CA), Anna
G. Eshoo (D-CA), Barney Frank (D-MA), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Eleanor
Holmes Norton (D-DC), Rush D. Holt (D-NJ), Michael M. Honda (D-CA),
Steve Israel (D-NY), Darrell E. Issa (R-CA), James R. Langevin (D-
RI), Stephen F. Lynch (D-MA), Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), Carolyn
McCarthy (D-NY), James P. McGovern (D-MA), Michael R. McNulty (D-
NY), Martin Meehan (D-MA), Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Grace F.
Napolitano (D-CA), Devin Nunes (R-CA), Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ),
Collin C. Peterson (D-MN), Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA), Adam B. Schiff
(D-CA), Joe Schwarz (R-MI), Clay E. Shaw, Jr. (R-FL), John Shimkus
(R-IL), Mark E. Souder (R-IN), George Radanovich (R-CA), Stephanie
Tubbs Jones (D-OH), Diane E. Watson (D-CA), Henry Waxman (D-CA),
and Jerry Weller (R-IL).
#####
Text of Congressional letter on the FY06 Foreign Aid Bill:
April 8, 2005
The Honorable Jim Kolbe
Chairman
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations Appropriations
H-150, The Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Nita Lowey
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations Appropriations
1016 Longworth
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Kolbe and Ranking Member Lowey:
Thank you for your leadership on the Appropriations Subcommittee on
Foreign Operations. As you prepare the FY2006 Foreign Operations
Appropriations bill, we write in support of Armenia and US-Armenia
relations. We request that you include the following items in the
FY2006 bill.
Economic Assistance to Armenia:
The dual blockades of Armenia by Azerbaijan and Turkey continue to
impede Armenia’s economic well-being. Despite the dual blockades
by Azerbaijan and Turkey, Armenia continues to implement economic
and democratic reforms, which have met success. While Armenia
continues to make important reforms, as long as Armenia suffers
from blockades on its east and west borders, continued and robust
U.S. assistance to Armenia is necessary to help minimize their
impact. Our assistance has provided an important positive effect
and will continue to do so when provided at appropriate levels.
For fiscal year 2005, $75 million was provided for Armenia.
Maintaining this level of support is critical. Therefore, we
request you include language ensuring that not less than $75million
in Economic Support Funds is appropriated for Armenia in fiscal
year 2006.
Maintain Parity in Foreign Military Financing (FMF):
The President is to be commended for maintaining U.S. policy of
military aid parity between Armenia and Azerbaijan by requesting $5
million in FMF for both countries in his FY 2006 budget request.
By allocating equal levels of military and security assistance to
both nations, the U.S. government will preserve its credibility as
an impartial and leading mediator in the continuing sensitive peace
negotiations for the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Given the
ongoing Azerbaijani blockades and threats to renew military
aggression against Armenia and Karabakh, it is critically important
that the Administration continues to promote balanced short- and
long-term policies that elevate regional cooperation and reduce the
risk of conflict in the South Caucases region. Therefore, we
support the President’s symmetrical FMF request of $5 million for
Armenia and Azerbaijan, and request that you include the same
allocation in the FY 2006 bill.
Assistance to Nagorno-Karabakh:
We thank you for your continued support for assistance to Nagorno-
Karabakh. This support is in our country’s interests and helps
alleviate the conditions of the Nagorno-Karabakh people. We agree
with the USAID Administrator who has testified before Congress
about the importance of continuing the work of the agency in
Nagorno-Karabakh. It is important for Congress to maintain a
strong position on this funding to ensure that these programs
continue. Therefore, we request you include language directing
USAID to spend $5 million in fiscal year 2006 for programs in
Nagorno-Karabakh.
Section 907:
Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act remains a fundamental
element of U.S. policy toward the South Caucases. Because
Azerbaijan continues its blockade of Armenia, Section 907 is
necessary. As you know, the FY 2002 Foreign Operations
Appropriations Act provided a limited and conditional waiver to
Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act in order for the U.S. to
effectively combat terrorism. Specifically, Secretary of State
Colin Powell asked for flexibility to counter terrorist elements
and organizations operating within Azerbaijan. We strongly support
Section 907 and will oppose any further changes to this law. We
request that you join us in opposing any changes to Section 907 in
the fiscal year 2006 bill.
We appreciate your consideration of these requests.
Sincerely,

Turkish Press
April 16 2005
Press Scan
BUSH ENSURES TURKEY NOT TO TALK ABOUT ”GENOCIDE”
VATAN- Turkey has accelerated its lobby activities in the United
States before April 24th which was declared as the 90th anniversary
of so-called Armenian genocide. Meanwhile, President George W. Bush
of the United States ensured Turkey that he would not talk about
”genocide”.

Zaman Online, Turkey
April 16 2005
US Armenian Lobby Prepares Show of Power
By Anatolia News Agency (aa)
Members of the US Congress belonging to the Armenian lobby will
reportedly organize a large-scale meeting next week in Congress Hall
to commemorate the alleged Armenian genocide.
According to the remark of the Armenian National Committee of America
(ANKA) which gathers the radical Armenian organizations under the
roof, some Congress members and the notables of Armenian society will
make speeches about the so-called genocide. Observers expect a
proposal for the recognition of the so-called Armenian genocide to be
submitted to the US House of Representatives. They think that such a
scheme could be accepted after discussions in May in sub-committee.
However the observers indicate that it is not expected that the Chief
of the House of the Representatives Dennis Hastert will submit the
proposal to the agenda of the general assembly. According to ANKA,
160 Congress members wrote to US President George W.Bush requesting
him to use the term “genocide” in his April 24 statement reached 160.
Diplomatic observers in Washington, however, note that it is not
expected that Bush will use the term.

A1plus
| 12:52:55 | 16-04-2005 | Politics |
MAJORITY NOT DETERMINED YET
The RA President forms the National Security Council and appears as its
chairman – this amendment is provided by a draft of changes to the acting
Constitution. To date a National Security Council is functioning in Armenia;
however it was not formed on the basis of a concrete constitutional clause.
Presently the Security Council is ruled by the President, while the Defense
Minister is its Secretary.
Should the formation of the Security Council be fixed by the Constitution?
We addressed this question to 100 citizens April 8-12.
22% of the respondents consider that there is no need in it but they could
not explain why. 43% of those surveyed found difficulty in answering. 35%
hold the opinion that the Council should be formed on the constitutional
basis. `The appropriate body should be engaged in an appropriate activity’,
one of the citizens said.
To note, half of the respondent consider that the body should not be
necessarily headed by the President
Karine Asatryan

Alain Manoukian posts operating profit
Les Echos – France
Apr 14, 2005

French clothing and footwear chain Alain Manoukian has posted an
operating profit of 0.1m euros for 2004, as well as a reduction in its
net loss to 2.8m euros, from 10.7m euros in 2003. Turnover fell by 8.2
per cent, to 134.3m euros.
The group expects to return to net profit this year, after cutting the
number of its products, reducing the proportion of discount items, and
increasing supplies from China, India and Turkey. Part of the decline
in turnover was the result of the sale of seven loss-making stores in
2004, which is expected to reflect positively on its operating profit
this year. To return to growth, the group aims to expand outside
France, possibly in China, where it has six franchises.

Al-Ahram Weekly, Egypt
14-20 April 2005
Al-Ahram: A Diwan of contemporary life (592)
As a ruler
Professor Yunan Labib Rizk To mark Mohamed Ali’s 200th anniversary of
his assumption to the throne, Professor Yunan Labib Rizk moves to
part four of this nine-part series, selecting a study which focuses
on Mohamed Ali’s assimilation into Egyptian society, his political
ambitions and the primary principles of his rule

Mohamed Ali: The Man and his Psychology, the Ruler and his Policy was
the title of another study Al-Ahram newspaper published in its
November 1949 issue commemorating 100 years since the death of
Mohamed Ali Pasha. The author, Jacques Tager, a scholar of Syrian
origin, was the curator of the library of Abdeen Palace, the author
of The Translation Movement in Egypt in the 19th Century and Copts
and Muslims, and co-author of Ismail as Portrayed in Official
Documents. Although he had close connections with the palace, Tager
never compromised his scholastic integrity. In the following article,
apart from the slightly ingratiating tone of the concluding paragraph
he remains strictly objective. One striking characteristic of Tager’s
approach is his tendency to pose questions without providing
conclusive answers. These questions remain pending to this day, and
will probably remain so.
“History has passed diverse judgments on the age of Mohamed Ali.
Historians have offered contradictory opinions on the character of
the man and his rule. Some have praised him to the skies, others have
criticised him harshly; indeed, attacked him vehemently. Foremost
among the criticisms leveled at Mohamed Ali was that he failed to
adopt the forms of Western civilisation and to apply to the letter
the political and social principles that prevailed at that time in
advanced nations. However, to begin with, was Mohamed Ali inclined to
imitate the West at all costs? Was it his intention to overturn the
system of government and replace oriental principles with others over
a period of 20 to 30 years without preparing the people for this
transition?
“Through an examination of the personal papers and memoirs published
by King Fouad and by His Majesty King Farouq I and of the documents
housed in the Abdeen Palace archives we should be able to clarify
many obscurities and paint an accurate portrait of Mohamed Ali, the
man and the ruler.
“First, however, I would like to clarify the following points:
whether Mohamed Ali assimilated into Egyptian society, his political
ambitions and, thirdly, his major principles of rule. The more light
we shed on these points the easier it will be for us to understand
the man and his psychology and the ruler and his policy”.
THE ASSIMILATION OF MOHAMED ALI: “Mohamed Ali was Macedonian by birth
and died Egyptian. However, throughout his life he contended with
major political issues as a member of the Ottoman ruling class. This
situation should come as no surprise, for at the beginning of the
19th century the subject peoples of the Supreme Porte were
internationally recognised as bearing the same nationality: Ottoman.
“True, some Ottoman subjects in Christian Europe, influenced by the
principles of the French revolution, fought to attain their
independence. This did not apply to the Muslim subjects apart from
occasional instances in the lands on the fringes the Empire, such as
North Africa and the lands of Nuba. In these cases, the people would
take advantage of their rulers’ weakness or preoccupation with
important affairs to withhold payment of taxes, compelling the sultan
to assert his power and launch a disciplinary campaign against the
rebel leaders. Once the Ottoman forces won, the people would throw
off the yolk of their rebel leaders and life would return to normal
under Ottoman rule.
“Ottoman governors in those days were always moving from one post to
another, from Crete to Baghdad to Beirut to Egypt, as the firmans of
investiture dictated. It was not theirs to choose their destination
nor did they evince a desire during their terms of governorship to
involve themselves in their subjects’ affairs.
“Mohamed Ali arrived in Egypt at the head of an Albanian regiment
whose task it was to drive out the French and suppress insurrection.
He did not feel that he had arrived in a foreign country, for there
were Ottoman officials in place to administer government affairs,
maintain order and defend the country.
“Some historians have compared Mohamed Ali to Ali Bey the elder and
held that Ali Bey was the first of the two to aspire to impose his
absolute rule over Egypt. If this was the case, there was a vast
difference between their approach. Ali Bey intended to conduct the
affairs of the country exclusively through the Mameluke overlords,
whereas Mohamed Ali cast his lot with the Egyptian people and
appealed to them for their aid in eliminating the Mamelukes.
“His critics also said that Mohamed Ali changed his position after
coming to power. Although he created a peasant army he only thought
of recruiting Egyptians after failing to organise his Albanian forces
into a modern army and realising that he could not form Nubian
regiments. Although he appointed Egyptians to senior administrative
posts, he only did so after having been in power for 30 years and
then only for reasons pertaining to his own interests. In addition,
these Egyptian appointees were not treated equally as their Turkish
peers. They also said that he relied on Armenians and Macedonians in
diplomatic affairs and that he gave no consideration to training
Egyptians in the art of diplomacy. Finally, they held that his
personal retinue consisted entirely of Turks, Armenians and other
foreigners, the only exception being a sole Egyptian, his personal
physician Nabarawi, and he only appeared in court towards the end of
his reign.
“These criticisms were only leveled at Mohamed Ali after the
principle of the nation state gained ground in the orient, the very
principle that had once been fought in Europe as vehemently as the
West fights communism today. In addition, Turkish rulers habitually
scorned their Arab subjects and refused to let them have a voice in
government. We recall, too, that Ibrahim Pasha renounced his project
of creating an Arab empire after the fires of rebellion flared in
Syria and the Arabian Peninsula. Is it fair, therefore, to censure
Mohamed Ali for not acting differently from his Turkish-speaking
peers? Is it fair to blame him, who knew nothing of Egyptian history
or the Egyptian people when he arrived, for not having let the
Egyptian people participate in the revival of their country from the
moment he took power?
“It was Mohamed Ali who ignored the opinion of his court and set his
mind on creating a new army consisting of Egyptian fellahin. It was
he who deafened his ears to the skepticism of his Turkish commanders
and gradually raised the ranks of Egyptian soldiers until the Turks
came to realise that they did not hold a monopoly on military rank
and the art of war. Moreover, Mohamed Ali persisted in this in spite
of Egyptian attempts to evade conscription and schooling. He had to
be strict in order to ensure that Egyptians enrolled in the schools
but he fed them, clothed them and paid for their tuition and
accommodation at the expense of the state, which ultimately meant out
of his own pocket.
“Commentators might object that Mohamed Ali assembled Egyptians in
the schools and army because he was desperate for soldiers, officers,
engineers, physicians and other such civil servants. However, he
could just have well stacked the schools he constructed with his
Mameluke Turks. After all, did he not send those Turks on study
missions to France and Italy, once in 1813 and a second time in 1818,
to school them in the modern sciences? When he founded the
engineering school in the citadel he filled it with Turkish youths
only to be surprised by the disappointing results. In contrast, it
was students like Othman Noureddin and Niqola Masabki who shined
above others as the first technical cadres to emerge from those
schools.
“Consider, too, that Mohamed Ali demonstrated an interest in Egyptian
culture. He created a study mission of Egyptian students who had been
raised in Al-Azhar or the primary schools. And when he founded the
schools of medicine, engineering and administration he ensured that
many Egyptians were enrolled. Or should we forget that he decreed
that Arabic should be the primary language of education in these
schools and went to great lengths to make this possible, bringing in
translators from Syria to translate the Italian and French textbooks
into Arabic and founding the printing press in Boulaq to publish the
Arabic schoolbooks. Could he not have made things easier for himself
by instructing students in Turkish and having books and teachers
brought over from Istanbul? Obviously he could have, but decided not
to and instead to instill Arabic culture in the emerging generation
of educated Egyptians.
“He then instituted a measure that was instrumental in promoting the
rise of the Egyptian people: he selected educated Egyptians from
within the civil service and appointed them as directors of
provincial directorates. Yes, directors had to follow policy
directives issued from above, but they still had broad, almost
absolute, authority within their directorate. They had to be prepared
to assert their influence at any moment, take rapid and firm measures
to punish delinquencies, maintain public security, collect taxes, and
other such matters. At the same time, we should remember that the
Egyptian peasant had been out of power for centuries and that their
morale had long since been eroded by the severe and cruel rule of
foreigners. How could Mohamed Ali turn to the humble, wretched and
submissive peasant long accustomed to trembling before his rulers,
place the rod of authority in his hand and tell him to use it against
those who had once terrorised him with their cruelty?
“Political observers once mocked this bold innovation. They scoffed
at the image of the Egyptian director quaking before his supercilious
Turkish employees and they maintained that Mohamed Ali only employed
Egyptians when he gave up on the Turks or found a way to cut the
exorbitant salaries he was paying them. It is sufficient to put paid
to this image to point to the fact that the rise of Egyptians to the
highest ranks of the military is what led to the insurrection of 1882
and the beginning of the national independence movement in Egypt.
“As regards his personal retinue, Mohamed Ali came to Egypt as a
middle aged man who only learned to read and write after the age of
45. In addition, he was a stranger to the country and only spoke his
native tongue. Finding himself, at first, cut off from his
surroundings, he relied on his children and handed them some general
posts. Then he called upon some of his intellectual friends and
placed them in positions of responsibility as well. No one at the
time objected to this practice or found it odd, for anyone who held
Ottoman nationality could reside in any part of the empire he pleased
and work or invest his money with no obstruction from the local
rulers. In addition, the chief magistrate and chief notary, two of
the most highly revered posts in Ottoman provinces, were appointed
directly by the sultan from among officials in Istanbul.
“Then too, Mohamed Ali wanted to establish relations with foreigners,
which is why he engaged several Armenians because of their ability to
speak Turkish, French and even English. Such appointments were only
natural because Egyptians could not speak those languages. However,
Mohamed Ali availed himself of all opportunities to reach out to
Egyptians and by the end of his era they appeared in the khedival
court. In addition, unlike all Ottoman viceroys before him, he
refused to reside behind the walls of the citadel and, therefore,
built palaces in Cairo, Alexandria, Beni Soueif, Esna, the Fayyoum
and other areas of the country. This was only one of many signs of
his desire to mix with his people.
Nor should we forget that Mohamed Ali only left Egypt five times, and
for short periods. The first of these was to the Hijaz to supervise
military affairs there and the pilgrimage; the second was to Syria in
1834 to address the tensions there; the third was an inspection tour
of Crete in 1838; the fourth was to Istanbul in 1845 to visit the
Sultan and the last was his voyage in 1848 to Italy for the purpose
of medical treatment.
“He would always tell his guests and retinue that he loved Egypt more
than any other spot in the world and never wanted to leave it. In
1840, at the peak of the clash between him and the combined forces of
the sultan and European powers, he could have pressed his good
fortune and fought the tyranny of the powers to the end. However, he
opted to relinquish his kingdoms abroad in exchange for the assurance
that his children would inherit the throne to Egypt so that he could
rest in the assurance of the future of this country”.
HIS POLITICAL AMBITIONS: “Let us pause a moment to ask whether
Mohamed Ali sought total independence, which was the claim reiterated
by foreign consuls at the time of the clash between him and the
sultan, or whether his objective was to secure dynastic succession to
the throne of Egypt and autonomy under the empire. Mohamed Ali never
explicitly stated his position on this matter. Rather he operated as
circumstances permitted. Sultan Mahmoud could have won Mohamed Ali’s
affection and made him the strongest pillar of the Ottoman Empire. In
fact, when the sultan asked him to fight the Wahabis and the Greeks,
Mohamed Ali humbly and willingly obeyed. The sultan intended to
reward him, however Khasraw Pasha, Mohamed Ali’s most formidable
enemy, intervened and succeeded in sowing discord between the sultan
and Mohamed Ali.
“Mohamed Ali decided to seize Syria, control of which province he
regarded as the reward he merited for the services he performed in
rescuing the Ottoman Empire. After constructing an enormous fleet, he
asked the sultan permission to attack Acre, stating that its
governor, Abdallah Pasha, refused to hand over deserters from the
Egyptian army. The Supreme Porte knew that Mohamed Ali wanted to
expand his borders towards Syria in order to protect his northeastern
frontier. But, instead of dissuading Mohamed Ali from his plan to
invade Acre, the sultan encouraged him, giving him to understand
unofficially that he wanted to eliminate Abdallah Pasha.
“Mohamed Ali plunged into battle, the sultan all the while certain
that this war against Acre would debilitate the Egyptian army.
Indeed, Acre put up a long and valorous resistance against the
assault from land and sea. But, when Abdallah Pasha appealed to the
sultan for aid, the sultan sent back nothing but promises until he
felt that Acre was on the verge of surrender.
“It was Ibrahim Pasha who thwarted Istanbul’s scheme, intercepting
and totally decimating the forces the sultan had finally dispatched
to rescue Abdallah Pasha. Then Ibrahim returned and conquered Acre,
after which he rerouted his Egyptian forces and, together with the
forces of the Amir Bashir, engaged the Turkish army again and beat it
into retreat. Then, in Konya, Ibrahim scored a tremendous victory,
opening the path to an assault on Istanbul itself. It was at this
juncture that European powers intervened causing Mohamed Ali to order
his officers to halt their advance and to agree to a truce that would
place Syria under Egyptian rule.
“Some historians claim that Mohamed Ali made the biggest mistake of
his career when he ordered Ibrahim to stop fighting and allowed the
European powers to settle the dispute between him and the sultan. To
this, we can only reiterate the question as to whether Mohamed Ali
truly wanted independence. If so, why did he refrain from invading
Istanbul and forcing his will on the caliph? It is our belief that
Mohamed Ali still believed that, in spite of the sultan’s antagonism
towards him, Egypt and Turkey could still cooperate on the condition
that Khasraw be removed from power. In addition, Mohamed Ali feared
Russian land forces more than Britain’s naval power. The Egyptian
navy was powerful enough to defend the eastern shores of the
Mediterranean while the Egyptian army was exhausted from its long
campaigns in Syria and Anatolia and would not be strong enough to
prevent Russian forces from attacking Istanbul and wresting away the
capital of the Ottoman Empire. To this we should add that Mohamed Ali
did not possess the means to withstand a confrontation against the
combined forces of the European powers. These powers had warned him
that they would intervene to halt his advance on Istanbul and he
feared that if he ignored this ultimatum he would not only risk
losing his Levantine possessions but Egypt as well”.
PRIMARY PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT: “We have said that historians
contemporary to Mohamed Ali criticised him for failing to implement
the social and political principles prevalent in the civilised West
to the letter. However, Mohamed Ali was an advocate of absolute rule.
He was convinced that the Egyptian people who had lived for centuries
in ignorance and destitution needed an iron hand to steer them. In
addition, Mohamed Ali loathed hollow promises. When asked his opinion
on Sultan Abdel-Mejid’s Kalkhana Plan *, he responded without
hesitation that if Egypt, which had begun to institute reforms 40
years earlier, could not put that plan into effect, Turkey, which was
behind Egypt in this respect, was even less capable of doing so.
“Mohamed Ali was a practical man above all else. Yes, he never
studied law or economy but he knew his country and his people and he
strove to better them both. Some intellectuals maintain that he
committed many grievous errors in his rule, that, for example, he
overtaxed the economy, failed to produce a new generation of educated
elites, and failed to establish a profitable industrial base. They
add that were it not for the many wars he engaged in he would have
been able to avoid such mistakes.
“We agree that the hostility which the sultan harboured towards him
and the many wars he was forced to engage in did indeed hamper his
efforts. However, it is also our opinion that these factors were the
prime impetus behind these efforts — and they were enormous. The
mistake, if anything, resides in the pace of implementation. Mohamed
Ali was an old man and keen for posterity to remember him. He was
therefore in a hurry and impatient; he wanted his projects completed
according to the deadlines he set.
“At the same time, he was not quick to anger when he learned of the
mistakes committed by officers, engineers and physicians. For
example, following the strike against Acre several ships had to be
returned to base because of construction flaws that had come to light
during the campaign. When his naval engineer, de Cerisy Bek, **
brought it to his attention that the wood that was used in the
construction of the ships should have had time to dry, Mohamed Ali
said, ‘What good are perfectly constructed ships if I can’t use them?
The ships you constructed performed the greatest service in spite of
their flaws’.
“As Mohamed Ali was perfectly aware that it would take decades to
realise the Egyptian revival, he personally oversaw the education of
his sons upon whom he would rely after his death to continue the
reforms he had introduced. He was also firm in his belief that if
Egypt were to acquire the wherewithal to attain the level of European
civilisation, it needed European teachers and technicians to build an
army worthy of his great forefathers. He was, therefore, assiduously
generous towards the foreigner experts he brought in; however, he
never abandoned the wish to see Egyptians replace the foreigners as
soon as possible.
“It is truly a marvel that the members of the House of Mohamed Ali
succeeded in following the legacy of the founder of their great
dynasty, leading Egypt through their wisdom to full independence.
Today, having obtained independence and freedom from all
restrictions, Egypt under His Majesty King Farouq aspires to take its
place once again among great nations, deriving inspiration towards
this end from that glorious ruler the anniversary of whose death
Egypt is commemorating today”.
FOOTNOTES
* The first of a series of reforms, known as the tanzimat, this plan
was introduced in response to European pressure and unveiled at a
large official ceremony in Kalkhana Palace in 1839. Under this
reform, the sultan ceded powers to the Judicial Rulings Council which
now had the right to pass legislation although it still had to be
ratified by the sultan. The Kalkhana reform also established the
principle that no one could be convicted without a public trial and
that Muslims and non- Muslims were equal under the law. In addition,
it called for legislation to counteract nepotism and commerce in
public offices and it recognised the need for compulsory military
conscription.
** de Cerisy Bek, who oversaw the construction of the Egyptian naval
arsenal in Alexandria, could do little wrong in Mohamed Ali’s eyes.
Mohamed Ali always spoke of him with great affection: “France sent to
me the genius who constructed a great fleet and a vast arsenal within
the space of only three years” . de Cerisy arrived in Egypt in 1829.
Before that he constructed the ships Mohamed Ali needed in the port
of Toulon. Nominated by France to construct the Alexandria arsenal,
Mohamed Ali gave him full and unrestricted authority over this task
on condition that he complete it in the shortest possible time. In
1835, a dispute broke out between him and a French officer in the
employ of the Egyptian navy. Mohamed Ali was unable to dissuade
Cerisy from tendering his resignation.

FEDERATION EURO-ARMENIENNE
pour la Justice et la Démocratie
Avenue dela Renaissance 10
B-1000 Bruxelles
Tel :+32 2 732 70 26
Tel/Fax :+32 2 732 70 26
Email : [email protected]
COMMUNIQUE DE PRESSE
pour diffusion immédiate
Contact :Talline Tachdjian
Tel/Fax :+32 2 732 70 27
GENOCIDE ARMENIEN : LA TURQUIE PANIQUE ET S’EMBROUILLE
Alors que des forces politiques sans cesse plus nombreuses en Europe
demandent à la Turquie de reconnaître le génocide des Arméniens comme
préalable à son adhésion, Ankara a pris deux initiatives concertées
afin de mettre à nouveau en doute la réalité du génocide.
D’une part, le Premier ministre turc, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, aurait
adressé une lettre au président arménien Robert Kotcharian pour lui
proposer la création d’une commission conjointe afin « d’enquêter sur
les massacres des Arméniens de 1915 ».
Simultanément, l’association des parlementaires turcs aurait écrit aux
parlementaires européens pour leur demander leur soutien au sujet
d’une telle « commission d’historiens », arguant que « jusqu’à présent
ces faits n’ont été unilatéralement présentés à l’opinion publique que
par les Arméniens » et que « la vérité objective se révèlera à l’issue
d’un travail sur les archives mené par un comité formé par des
historiens représentant les points de vues de la Turquie et l’Arménie
et ce sous la surveillance d’un arbitrage institutionnel ».
La Fédération Euro-Arménienne rappelle que Jacques Vandemeulebroucke,
député européen chargé du rapport sur le Génocide des Arméniens
(1987), Benjamin Whitaker, chargé du rapport de l’ONU sur les
génocides (1985), et les membres éminents du Tribunal Permanent des
Peuples (1984) étaient tous des personnalités et des experts
indépendants qui ont examiné le Génocide des Arméniens à travers
l’étude des archives diplomatiques occidentales, y compris celles des
alliés de la Turquie, ainsi qu’à travers la documentation abondante
que le gouvernement turc n’a pas failli de leurs procurer. Ils ont
tous conclu que c’était un génocide, au sens juridique international
du terme.
« L’objectif poursuivi par Ankara est parfaitement clair : il s’agit
d’extraire la question de la reconnaissance du génocide du champ
politique, et singulièrement des problèmes qui se posent à la Turquie
au regard de sa demande d’adhésion à l’Union européenne » a déclaré
Hilda Tchoboian, présidente de la Fédération Euro-Arménienne.
« Quant à la méthode, elle consiste à réduire ce crime imprescriptible
et international, à une question bilatérale entre l’Arménie et la
Turquie, pour éviter de répondre à la demande de la communauté
internationale, et particulièrement à celle de l’Europe » a poursuivi
Hilda Tchoboian.
« Tout cela sent la panique et la confusion. Pour y mettre fin, La
Turquie n’a qu’une chose à faire : reconnaître et réparer le Génocide
des Arméniens » a conclu la présidente de la Fédération
Euro-Arménienne.