Author: Kalantarian Kevo

American Thinker, AZ
Oct 2 2005
Killing from Qur’anic Piety: Tamerlane’s Living Legacy
October 1st, 2005
Osama bin Laden was far from the first jihadist to kill infidels as
an expression of religious piety. This years marks the 600th
anniversary of the death of Tamerlane (Timur Lang; `Timur the Lame’,
d. 1405), or Amir Timur (`Timur’ signifies `Iron’ in Turkish). Osama
lacks both Tamerlane’s sophisticated (for his time) military forces
and his brilliance as a strategist. But both are or were pious
Muslims who paid homage to religious leaders, and both had the goal
of making jihad a global force. Santayana was correct when he told us
that those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat
it.
Tamerlane was born at Kash (Shahr-i-Sebz, the `Green City’) in
Transoxiana (some 50 miles south of Samarkand, in modern Uzbekistan),
on April 8 (or 11), 1336 C.E. Amir Turghay, his father, was chief of
the Gurgan or Chagtai branch of the Barlas Turks. By age 34
(1369/70), Timur had killed his major rival (Mir Husain), becoming
the pre-eminent ruler of Transoxiana. He spent the next six to seven
years consolidating his power in Transoxiana before launching the
aggressive conquests of Persia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and then
attacking Hindustan (India) under the tottering Delhi Sultanate. [1]
Grousset [2] contrasts Jenghiz Khan’s `straightforward planning’ and
`clean sweeps’ with the `higgledy-piggledy’ order of Timur’s
expeditions, and the often incomplete nature of the latter’s
conquests:
Tamerlane’s [Timur’s] conquering activities were carried on from the
Volga to Damascus, from Smyrna to the Ganges and the Yulduz, and his
expeditions into these regions followed no geographical order. He
sped from Tashkent to Shiraz, from Tabriz to Khodzhent, as enemy
aggression dictated; a campaign in Russia occurred between two in
Persia, an expedition into Central Asia between two raids into the
Caucasus…[Timur] at the end of every successful campaign left the
country without making any dispositions for its control except
Khwarizm and Persia, and even there not until the very end. It is
true that he slaughtered all his enemies as thoroughly and
conscientiously as the great Mongol, and the pyramids of human heads
left behind him as a warning example tell their own tale. Yet the
survivors forgot the lesson given them and soon resumed secret or
overt attempts at rebellion, so that it was all to do again. It
appears too, that these blood soaked pyramids diverted [Timur] from
the essential objective. Baghdad, Brussa (Bursa), Sarai, Kara Shahr,
and Delhi were all sacked by him, but he did not overcome the Ottoman
Empire, the Golden Horde, the khanate of Mogholistan, or the Indian
Sultanate; and even the Jelairs of Iraq ‘Arabi rose up again as soon
as he had passed. Thus he had to conquer Khwarizm three times, the
Ili six or seven times (without ever managing to hold it for longer
than the duration of the campaign), eastern Persia twice, western
Persia at least three times, in addition to waging two campaigns in
Russia…[Timur’s] campaigns `always had to be fought again’, and fight
them again he did.
Timur’s campaigns are infamous for their extensive massacres and
emblematic `pyramids of heads’. Brown [3] cites `only a few’
prominent examples:
As specimens of those acts mention may be made of his massacre of the
people of Sistan 1383-4, when he caused some two thousand prisoners
to be built up into a wall; his cold- blooded slaughter of a hundred
thousand captive Indians near Dihli [Delhi] (December, 1398); his
burying alive of four thousand Armenians in 1400-1, and the twenty
towers of skulls erected by him at Aleppo and Damascus in the same
year; and his massacre of 70,000 of the inhabitants of Isfahan in
(November, 1387)…
Timur was a pious Muslim, who may well have belonged to the
Naqshbandi Sufi order. [4; also see my earlier essay, `Sufi Jihad’,
for a discussion of Sufism and jihad.] Grousset [5] emphasizes the
important Islamic motivation for Timur’s jihad campaigns:
It is the Qur’an to which he continually appeals, the imams and
[Sufi] dervishes who prophesy his success. [emphasis added] His wars
were to influence the character of the jihad, the Holy War, even
when- as was almost always the case- he was fighting Muslims. He had
only to accuse these Muslims of lukewarmness, whether the Jagataites
of the Ili and Uiguria, whose conversion was so recent, or the
Sultans of Delhi who…refrained from massacring their millions of
Hindu subjects.
The Turki chronicle Malfuzat-i-Timuri, a putative [6]
autobiographical memoir of Timur, translated into Persian by Abu
Talib Husaini, illustrates these driving sentiments, complete with a
Qur’anic quotation : [7]
About this time there arose in my heart the desire to lead an
expedition against the infidels, and to become a ghazi; for it had
reached my ears that the slayer of infidels is a ghazi, and if he is
slain he becomes a martyr. It was on this account that I formed this
resolution, but I was undetermined in my mind whether I should direct
my expedition against the infidels of China or against the infidels
and polytheists of India. In this matter I sought an omen from the
Qur’an, and the verse I opened upon [Q66:9] was this, `O Prophet,
make war upon infidels and unbelievers, and treat them with
severity.’ My great officers told me that the inhabitants of
Hindustan were infidels and unbelievers. In obedience to the order of
Almighty Allah I ordered an expedition against them.
Timur’s jihad campaigns against non-Muslims – whether Christians in
Asia Minor and Georgia, or Hindus in India – seemed to intensify in
brutality. Brown [8] highlights one particular episode which supports
this contention, wherein Timur clearly distinguished between his
vanquished Muslim and non-Muslim foes. After rampaging through
(Christian) Georgia, where he `devastated the country, destroyed the
churches, and slew great numbers of inhabitants’, in the winter of
1399-1400, Timur, in August 1400,
…began his march into Asia Minor by way of Avnik, Erzeroum, Erzinjan,
and Sivas. The latter place offered a stubborn resistance, and when
it finally capitulated Timur caused all the Armenian and Christian
soldiers to be buried alive; but the Muhammadans he spared.
The unparalleled devastation Timur wrought upon predominantly Hindu
India further bolsters the notion that Timur viewed his non-Muslim
prey with particular animosity. Moreover, there are specific examples
of selective brutality directed against Hindus, cited in the
Malfuzat-i-Timuri, from which Muslims are deliberately spared:
My great object in invading Hindustan had been to wage a religious
war against the infidel Hindus, and it now appeared to me that it was
necessary for me to put down these Jats [Hindus]. On the 9th of the
month I dispatched the baggage from Tohana, and on the same day I
marched into the jungles and wilds, and slew 2,000 demon-like Jats.
I made their wives and children captives, and plundered their cattle
and property… On the same day a party of saiyids, who dwelt in the
vicinity, came with courtesy and humility to wait upon me and were
very graciously received. In my reverence for the race of the
prophet, I treated their chiefs with great honour…On the 29th I again
marched and reached the river Jumna. On the other side of the river I
[viewed] a fort, and upon making inquiry about it, I was informed
that it consisted of a town and fort, called Loni… I determined to
take that fort at once… Many of the Rajputs placed their wives and
children in their houses and burned them, then they rushed to the
battle and were killed. Other men of the garrison fought and were
slain, and a great many were taken prisoners. Next day I gave orders
that the Musalman prisoners should be separated and saved, but that
the infidels should all be despatched to hell with the proselyting
sword. I also ordered that the houses of the saiyids, shaikhs and
learned Musulmans should be preserved but that all the other houses
should be plundered and the fort destroyed. It was done as I
directed and a great booty was obtained…[9]
On the 16th of the month some incidents occurred which led to the
sack of the city of Delhi, and to the slaughter of many of the
infidel inhabitants…On that day, Thursday, and all the night of
Friday, nearly 15,000 Turks were engaged in slaying, plundering, and
destroying… The following day, Saturday, the 17th, all passed in the
same way, and the spoil was so great that each man secured from fifty
to a hundred prisoners – men, women, and children. There was no man
who took less than twenty. The other booty was immense in rubies,
diamonds, pearls and other gems; jewels of gold and silver, ashrafis,
tankas of gold and silver of the celebrated `Alai coinage; vessels of
gold and silver; and brocades and silks of great value. Gold and
silver ornaments of the Hindu women were obtained in such quantities
as to exceed all account. Excepting the quarter of the saiyids, the
`ulama and the other Musulmans, the whole city was sacked. [10]
Timur left Samarkand with a large, powerful expeditionary force
destined for India in April, 1398. By October he had besieged
Talamba, 75 miles northeast of Multan, subsequently plundering the
town and massacring its inhabitants. He reached the vicinity of Delhi
during the first week of December having forged a path of
destruction- pillaging, razing, and massacring- en route through Pak
Patan, Dipalpur, Bhatnar, Sirsa, and Kaithal. Prior to fighting and
defeating an army under Sultan Nasir-ud-din Mahmud Tughluq on
December 17, 1398, Timur had his forces butcher in cold blood 100,000
Hindu prisoners accumulated while advancing toward Delhi. [11]
Srivastava describes what transpired after Timur’s forces occupied
Delhi on December 18, 1398: [12]
The citizens of the capital, headed by the ulema, waited on the
conqueror and begged quarter. Timur agreed to spare the citizens;
but, owing to the oppressive conduct of the soldiers of the invading
force, the people of the city were obliged to offer resistance.
Timur now ordered a general plunder and massacre which lasted for
several days. Thousands of the citizens of Delhi were murdered and
thousands were made prisoners. A historian writes: `High towers
were built with the head of the Hindus, and their bodies became the
food of ravenous beasts and birds…..such of the inhabitants who
escaped alive were made prisoners.’
Timur acquired immense booty, as well as Delhi’s best (surviving)
artisans, who were conscripted and sent to Samarkand to construct for
him the famous Friday mosque. Leaving Delhi on January 1, 1399 for
their return march to Samarkand, Timur’s forces stormed Meerut on
January 19th, before encountering and defeating two Hindu armies near
Hardwar. [13] The Malfuza-i-Timuri [14] indicates that at Hardwar,
Timur’s army
…displayed great courage and daring; they made their swords their
banners, and exerted themselves in slaying the foe (during a bathing
festival on the bank of the Ganges). They slaughtered many of the
infidels, and pursued those who fled to the mountains. So many of
them were killed that their blood ran down the mountains and plain,
and thus (nearly) all were sent to hell. The few who escaped,
wounded, weary, and half dead, sought refuge in the defiles of the
hills. Their property and goods, which exceeded all computation, and
their countless cows and buffaloes, fell as spoil into the hands of
my victorious soldiers.
Timur then traversed the Sivalik Hills to Kanra, which was pillaged
and sacked, along with Jammu “…everywhere the inhabitants being
slaughtered like cattle.” [15]
Srivastava summarizes India’s devastated condition following Timur’s
departure: [16]
Timur left [India] prostrate and bleeding. There was utter confusion
and misery throughout northern India. [India’s] northwestern
provinces, including northern tracts of Rajasthan and Delhi, were so
thoroughly ravaged, plundered and even burnt that it took these parts
many years, indeed, to recover their prosperity. Lakhs [hundreds of
thousands] of men, and in some cases, many women and children, too,
were butchered in cold blood. The rabi crops [grown in
October-November, harvested around March, including barley, mustard,
and wheat] standing in the field were completely destroyed for many
miles on both sides of the invader’s long and double route from the
Indus to Delhi and back. Stores of grain were looted or destroyed.
Trade, commerce and other signs of material prosperity disappeared.
The city of Delhi was depopulated and ruined. It was without a master
or a caretaker. There was scarcity and virulent famine in the capital
and its suburbs. This was followed by a pestilence caused by the
pollution of the air and water by thousands of uncared-for dead
bodies. In the words of the historian Badaoni, `those of the
inhabitants who were left died (of famines and pestilence), while for
two months not a bird moved wing in Delhi.’
The 13th century chronicler, Bar Hebraeus (d. 1286), provided this
contemporary assessment of how the adoption of Islam radically
altered Mongol attitudes toward their Christian subjects:
And having seen very much modesty and other habits of this kind among
Christian people, certainly the Mongols loved them greatly at the
beginning of their kingdom, a time ago somewhat short. But their love
hath turned to such intense hatred that they cannot even see them
with their eyes approvingly, because they have all alike become
Muslims, myriads of people and peoples. [18]
Bar Hebraeus’ observations should be borne in mind when evaluating
Grousset’s uncompromising overall assessment of Timur’s deeds and
motivations. After recounting Timur’s 1403 C.E. ravages in Georgia,
slaughtering the inhabitants, and destroying all the Christian
churches of Tiflis, Grousset states : [19]
It has been noted that the Jenghiz-Khanite Mongol invasion of the
thirteenth century was less cruel, for the Mongols were mere
barbarians who killed simply because for centuries this had been the
instinctive behavior of nomad herdsmen toward sedentary farmers. To
this ferocity Tamerlane [Timur] added a taste for religious murder.
He killed from Qur’anic piety. {Note: Curiously, the 1970 English
translation omits the word `coranique’ in translating `Il tuait par
piete coranique’ (p. 513 of the original L’Empire Des Steppes), so
that the phrase becomes, `He killed from piety’ as opposed to
Grousset’s original, `He killed from Qur’anic piety’}. He represents
a synthesis, probably unprecedented in history, of Mongol barbarity
and Muslim fanaticism, and symbolizes that advanced form of primitive
slaughter which is murder committed for the sake of an abstract
ideology, as a duty and a sacred mission.
Tamerlane’s barbarous legacy is still with us, 600-years later, in
the heinous acts of jihad terrorism being committed by contemporary
jihadists. Bin Laden, Zarqawi, the Sufi Basayev, and the Shi’ite
Mugniyya – inspired by Islamic teachings conveyed through prominent
contemporary Muslim religious leaders – have continued the practice of
mass killing from `Qur’anic piety’.
Dr. Bostom is an Associate Professor of Medicine, and the author of
the forthcoming The Legacy of Jihad, on Prometheus Books (2005).
Notes
[1] E.G. Browne. A Literary History of Persia In Four Volumes, Vol.
3. The Tartar Domain (1265-1502), Cambridge University Press, 1928,
pp. 180-206; Rene Grousset. L’Empire Des Steppes. Attila,
Gengis-Khan, Tamerlan. Paris: Payot, 1952. [Translated as The Empire
of the Steppes, by Naomi Walford, New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers
University Press, 1970, pp. 409-465.
A.L. Srivastava. The Delhi Sultanate, p. 222.
[2] Rene Grousset. The Empire of the Steppes, pp. 419-420.
[3] E.G. Browne. A Literary History of Persia. p. 181.
[4] Beatriz Forbes Manz. The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane, Cambridge
University Press, 1989, p. 17.
[5] Rene Grousset. The Empire of the Steppes, pp. 416-417.
[6] For conflicting views regarding the apocryphal nature of this
work, see E.G. Browne. A Literary History of Persia. pp. 183-184, and
Elliot and Dowson, A History of India, Vol. 3, pp. 389-394.
[7] Elliot and Dowson, A History of India, Vol. 3, pp. 394-395.
[8] E.G. Browne. A Literary History of Persia. p. 196.
[9] Elliot and Dowson, A History of India, Vol. 3, p. 429
[10] Elliot and Dowson, A History of India, Vol. 3, pp. 432-433.
[11] Elliot and Dowson, A History of India, Vol. 3, pp. 445-446.
[12] Srivastava, The Delhi Sultanate, pp. 222-223.
[13] Srivastava, The Delhi Sultanate, p. 223.
[14] Srivastava, The Delhi Sultanate, p. 223.
[15] Elliot and Dowson, A History of India, Vol. 3, p. 459.
[16] Srivastava, The Delhi Sultanate, p. 223.
[17] A.L. Srivastava. The Delhi Sultanate, p. 224
[18] The Chronography of Bar Hebraeus. Translated from Syriac by
Ernest A. Wallis Budge, Oxford University Press, Vol. 1, 1932, p.
354.
[19] Rene Grousset. The Empire of the Steppes, p. 434.; p. 513 of the
original French, L’Empire Des Steppes. I want to thank Ibn Warraq for
pointing out the omission of the word `coranique’, i.e., Qur’anic in
the French to English translation by Walford.
Andrew G. Bostom

ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
September 30, 2005 Friday
Armenians of Russia may take part in all-Armenian moves
By Tigran Liloyan
YEREVAN
Ara Abramyan, the head of the World Armenian Congress and of the
Union of Armenians of Russia, met with Armenian leaders in Yerevan on
Friday and discussed with them prospects for cooperation of these
organizations with the republic’s authorities.
Armenian President Robert Kocharyan said the Union of Armenians of
Russia had done a great deal to coordinate ties of Armenian
communities in Russian regions with the mother country. This will
give them an opportunity more actively to participate in all-Armenian
actions – forums, congresses, conferences and economic programmes,
the Armenian president believes.
The parties discussed proposals of representatives of the Union of
Armenians of Russia for their activity in Armenia, their
participation in various functions on a national scale, the
presidential press service reported.
At the request of the guests, the president summed up the state of
things with the settlement of the Karabakh conflict and prospects for
normalization of relations with Turkey.
Armenian Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan also spoke highly of the
activity of the Union of Armenians of Russia to consolidate the
Armenian diaspora and channel its potential for the implementation of
the programmes of importance to all Armenians. He is convinced, “The
activity of the Union of Armenians of Russia sets an example to all
other Armenian communities.”
Abramyan and the Armenian prime minister discussed the possible use
of the potentials of the World Armenian Congress and of the Union of
Armenians of Russia in the Armenian government’s programmes aimed to
carry out the republic’s social and economic tasks, the governmental
press service noted.

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
September 30, 2005, Friday
ARMENIA IS INTERESTED IN A RUSSIAN MILITARY BASE ON ITS TERRITORY
Source: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, September 28, 2005, p. 5
On September 27, at a joint press conference with Tarya Halonen, the
president of Finland, Robert Kocharyan, the president of Armenia,
said Armenia is interested in the location of Russian military base
on its territory. “The presence of a Russian military base in Armenia
is meant for security and is part of the Armenian security program,”
Kocharyan said. He denied the information that Russia imposes its
military presence on Armenia. “Armenia is interested in the location
of a Russian military base on its territory, because the country is
situated in a troublesome region where conflicts are not rare. Russia
and Armenia have a mutual agreement on the subject, which is recorded
in a treaty,” noted President Kocharyan. However, he said at present
there would be no further strengthening of Russian military presence
in Armenia.

age/027-670-271-9-39-903-2
0050921IPR00563-28-09-2 005-2005–true/default_en.htm
Enlargement – 29-09-2005 – 16:55
European Parliament postpones vote on protocol to Ankara Agreement
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan – MEPs postpone vote on
extending customs union
The Parliament postponed voting on approval of the protocol extending
Turkey’s association agreement with the EU to the ten new member states.
MEPs feared that the Turkish declaration that the protocol does not mean any
form of recognition of Cyprus would form part of the ratification process in
the Turkish parliament and thus gain legal force.
 
Nevertheless, in a political resolution voted afterwards, Parliament notes
“the Commission and the Council take the view that Turkey has formally
fulfilled the last conditions for starting the accession negotiations on 3
October 2005.”
 
At the request of the EPP-ED group, Parliament voted 311 votes in favour,
285 against and 63 abstentions to postpone the vote on Parliament’s approval
of the protocol extending Turkey’s customs union with the EU to all its new
members, including Cyprus. The vote to postpone has no legal consequences in
terms of the starting date for accession negotiations. Stumbling blocks were
the Turkish declaration that the signing of the protocol to the Ankara
Agreement does not mean any form of recognition of Cyprus and the Turkish
refusal to admit vessels and airplanes from Cyprus. A majority of MEPs first
wanted guarantees from the Turkish authorities that the declaration was not
going to be part of the ratification in the Turkish parliament, fearing that
it would then have legal implications.
 
Nevertheless, in a political resolution adopted afterwards by 356 votes in
favour, 181 against and 125 abstentions, Parliament noted the Commission’s
and Council’s view that access negotiations with Turkey can start on 3
October. But by the end of 2006, the Commission must assess if Turkey has
fully implemented the protocol. If not, this could lead to halting the
accession negotiations. During the negotiations, which are open-ended and
will not automatically lead to Turkish EU membership, Turkey should be kept
under permanent scrutiny and pressure to ensure that it maintains “the pace
of the necessary reforms”.
 
Parliament also said it considered Turkish recognition of “the Armenian
genocide … to be a prerequisite for accession”.
 
MEPs deplore that the Annan plan for a settlement of the Cyprus question has
been rejected by the Greek Cypriot community and hopes that Turkey will
maintain its constructive attitude in finding an equitable solution.
Meanwhile, the Council should keep its promise and reach an agreement on the
financial aid and trade package for northern Cyprus.
 
On other issues, MEPs voiced their concern about the criminal proceedings
against Turkish author Orhan Pamuk, about article 305 of the penal code
which criminalises “acts against the fundamental national interest”, about
the restrictions on foreign funding for associations, and about the “Law on
Foundations” concerning religious communities.
 
Parliament wants each negotiation session at ministerial level to be
preceded by an assessment of the fulfilment of the political criteria, both
in theory and in practice, “thus exerting permanent pressure on the Turkish
authorities to maintain the pace of the necessary reforms”. Also, a full
programme of clear targets, timeframe and deadlines should be fixed for the
fulfilment of the political criteria. The Commission and the Council should
report annually to the European Parliament and the national parliaments on
the progress made by Turkey in this respect. MEPs reiterate that the
accession negotiations are an open-ended process and will not automatically
lead to Turkey joining the EU, even if the objective is Turkish EU
membership. Finally, Parliament underlines that the EU’s capacity to absorb
Turkey is an important consideration as well, and needs to be monitored by
the Commission during the negotiations.
 
Debate on opening of accession negotiations with Turkey
 
Speaking on behalf of the Council,  Britain’s Minister for Europe, Douglas
ALEXANDER said the strategic case for opening negotiations with Turkey was
convincing, but it was necessary to be scrupulous in ensuring all the
requirements were met before Turkey could join.
 
Turkey had met the two conditions laid down by the Council in December, and
its declaration stating that it had not recognised the government of Cyprus
had no legal effect.  The negotiations would be the most rigorous yet, and
Turkey would not accede imminently.  The Turkey which would join would be a
different Turkey, and the EU might also be different by then too. Progress
so far had been encouraging, and the conditions for opening talks had been
met, he said.
 
Enlargement Commissioner Oli REHN agreed that the formal conditions set out
by the Council for opening negotiations had been met.  He also stressed that
the talks would be the most rigorous yet undertaken.  There were good signs
– such as the Turkish government’s recognition that there was a Kurdish
issue and that the conference on the Armenian question would finally go
ahead – but also bad signs – such as the uneven implementation of freedom of
expression rights. “Both Europeans and Turks should work to build a
relationship based on mutual trust, ” he said, pointing out that the common
goal would be accession but that by their very nature the talks were open as
to the result they would achieve.
 
British speakers during the debate on Turkey
 
Roger KNAPMAN (IND/DEM,UK) said that he opposed political union with Turkey
as much as he opposed it with France, Germany or Italy. “But what of the
euro-fanatics whose ardour suddenly cools when they reach the Bosphorus? It
is not hypocrisy, but fear, fear that public support for the whole EU
project will collapse if Turkish membership were seriously pursued.”  For
this reason, he said, he was happy to see the EU plough ahead with
negotiations, destroying itself in the process.
 
Andrew DUFF (ALDE, UK) said “It is extraordinary that those who have
profited so much from EU integration in terms of prosperity, security and
liberal democracy should not refuse to extend these prizes to Turkey.” He
said the EU’s absorption capacity was a real issue, with the need for a
settlement of the constitution ahead of Turkish or Croatian entry.  He also
argued that the Cyprus issue and instability in the Balkans could not be
resolved if the EU refuses membership to Turkey, and called for a stepping
up of trade relations with northern Cyprus.
 
Roger HELMER (NI, UK) said there were powerful reasons in favour and against
Turkey’s accession to the EU.  The key condition, he said, should be
“democratic accountability”, Mr Helmer felt that Turkey’s accession would
“dilute the influence” of his constituents in terms of self-determination
and he therefore opposed Turkish membership of the EU.  Mr Helmer welcomed
the proposal from Angela Merkel on privileged partnership for Turkey as it
would incur fewer costs for Turkey.  Mr Helmer wished the option of
privileged partnership could also be made available to the United Kingdom.
 
Geoffrey Van ORDEN (EPP-ED, UK) stated that “last Christmas the Council
voted for Turkey”.  The conditions laid out at that time had been met and
Turkey was therefore ready to start negotiations.  Mr Van Orden warned
against the separatist dissidents still at large in Turkey that risked
undermining Turkish secularism and unity.  He stated that Turkey should be
treated in the same way as all other candidates for accession.  Mr Van Orden
stated that the Cyprus question should be treated separately from the
accession negotiations.  However, he recalled that the people of Northern
Cyprus had voted in favour of the Annan plan on reunification and that Greek
Cyprus had rejected.  He said the EU had done little to support
Northern Cyprus.  Mr Van Orden welcomed the imminent opening of negotiations
and recognised that the talks would last many years.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Inside Higher Ed
News
Friday, Sept. 30, 2005
tan
Freed Scholar Speaks Out
Four months ago, Yektan Turkyilmaz was a doctoral student in cultural
anthropology at Duke University, well-regarded but little known outside his
field. Then, on June 17, authorities at the airport in Yerevan, Armenia
ordered him off a plane and placed him under arrest, confiscating nearly 100
books and CDs of research he had done as the first Turkish scholar ever
granted access to the National Archives of Armenia.
Over the summer, Turkyilmaz became a cause célèbre
<; among scholarly groups that believed the smuggling charges against him (supporters say he was the first person Armenia has ever charged with illegally exporting books) to be a pretext for what they considered a crackdown on a researcher studying a politically sensitive period in the country's tangled history with Turkey. Major scholarly associations and human rights groups, as well as academic and political leaders in the United States and throughout the world, urged Armenia to drop the charges against him. After a short trial last month, a court found Turkyilmaz guilty <; of trying to take books out of the country illegally, but suspended his two-year sentence and released him. He returned to Duke early this month to get back to his studies and his research. In an e-mail interview with Inside Higher Ed, he discusses his detainment, why he thinks he was arrested, and the implications of his situation for his career, his profession and beyond. Q: In court, you apparently acknowledged breaking the Armenian law unknowingly. Does that mean you believe your arrest was legitimate,or did the government have another motive? A. Yes I did acknowledge that I unknowingly broke a `law,' an obscure law which applies to the: `Contraband of narcotic drugs, neurological, strong, poisonous, poisoning, radioactive or explosive materials, weapons, explosive devices, ammunition, fire-arms, except smoothbore long barrel hunting guns, nuclear, chemical, biological or other mass destruction weapons, or dual-use materials, devices, or technologies which can also be used for the creation or use of mass destruction weapons or missile delivery systems thereof, strategic raw materials orcultural values.' But I am convinced the book charges were just a pretext for my arrest. KGB officials (Armenia's police are now formally known as the National Security Service, but everyone, including they themselves, still call them the KGB) were certain that I was a spy. The first day one of the KGB agents told me that their endeavor was to clarify - given that Armenia's ceasefire with Azerbaijan had ended very recently - that I had not been involved in espionage on behalf of the Turks (they do not differentiate between Azeris and Turks!). That is why they arrested me. The interrogators' questioning in the initial few days of my arrest was entirely devoted to my research, my political views and connections with Turkish intelligence and state officials. The concept of `scholar' is meaningless to them. According to them, as the investigator put it, `all scholars are spies.' All my friends and contacts in Yerevan (most of whom have nothing to do with the books found in my suitcases) have not only been interrogated by the KGB but were also harassed and threatened. They were all told that I was a Turkish spy. My friends who were at the airport with me were threatened not to let anyone, especially my family, know about my arrest. (When my sister contacted them via phone they denied that they were with me at the airport! For that reason my family did not know about my situation for 15 hours.) My case was a violation of academic freedom and the right to research. Investigators went through every bit of my research material. They looked one by one at almost 20 thousand images saved on the CDs and on my laptop. I was asked to prove that I had permission to reproduce every single image and also that they contained no `state secrets' even though I had official permission to do research in the archives. They posed questions about my political ideas, dissertation topic, why I had learned Armenian, if I personally would have had enough time to read the material I had reproduced at the libraries and the Archives, my relations with Turkish military and intelligence, etc. The staff at the libraries and archives where I was conducting research were not merely questioned about their personal connection with me, but also forced to testify against me. They asked one librarian `how dare you take a non-Armenian guy to `our' national Archives?' I am also informed that, they had been forced to confirm that I got permissions to conduct research at their institutions not through legal procedure (implying that I bribed them to get permission to do research!). It was only later, when the Armenian secret service could find no basis for their claims, that the issue of legally purchased, second-hand books in my possession came into the picture. Q: Do you think you were detained for political reasons? If so, why? A: I am convinced that not only my arrest but also my release were political decisions taken by (few but) very high ranking Armenian officials. I believe this Cold War-era conspiracy was organized, or at least encouraged, by those who have no wish to see cooperation and improved relations between Turkey and Armenia. KGB officials' mentality - a mixture of the Soviet way of thinking and nationalism with xenophobic overtones - played a crucial role in making the decision to detain me. Unfortunately, in today's Armenia (like many other ex-Soviet republics), there isn't adequate political control over KGB. I should also underline that there is an ongoing fight between pro-democracy advocates and pro-Russia Soviet-style rule. For me, it is relieving to know that I have received a good deal of support from the pro-democracy politicians and large segments of the Armenian society, which is very important. I think the basic reason why they targeted me is that they could not put me in any of their nationalist, primordialist categories. I was like a UFO to them: a citizen of Turkey of Kurdish origin, student in the US, critical of the Turkish official stance on controversial historical issues, an admirer of the Armenian culture, collector of old Armenian books and records, speaker of the language, a researcher who has visited Armenia several times without any worries and concerns, a foreigner who is vocal about his ideas, etc. A story too good to believe, because for them, the world can never be that colorful. For the people who were interrogating me, you are either Armenian-Armenian with the `full' meaning of the word, or Turkish or anything else. If I were a conventional `Turk,' as they would have rather preferred to see me as, I believe, I may not have had any troubles. I think, my endeavor to cross boundaries was deemed as a threat by the people who decided on my arrest and by those who interrogated me. Q: Is there reason, legitimate or otherwise, why the Armenian government would view your scholarly work with alarm? Can it be perceived as `anti-Armenian"? A: My work is not only about the history of the region but also about historiography. Therefore, I don't think that it favors any nationalist historiography including the Armenian version. In that sense my work is critical not only of the Turkish nationalist historiography but also of the Kurdish and Armenian counterparts. Hence my work can neither be called pro- or anti Armenian. That question itself is based on nationalist anxieties, which I try to analyze and move beyond in my scholarship. There are some Armenian circles that do not sympathize with the usage of Armenian resources by the Turkish scholars. This, too, is a nationalist (if not racist) stance that we as academics need to challenge for a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of the past as well of today. Q: Most scholars characterize the deaths of some 1.5 million Armenians during World War I as a genocide, but relatively few Turkish scholars do so. What is your take on what happened? A: It is very clear that almost the entire Armenian population of eastern Anatolia was subjected to forced migrations and massacres beginning in the early months of 1915. Q: Do you think your treatment by Armenian authorities will undercut Turkish willingness to explore the treatment of Armenians under Ottoman rule? A: That may be the message people will likely take away. But I think we should be stubborn and should not give up. Q: Were you aware, while you were being held, of the breadth of the effort on your behalf, both from other academics and from leaders in the political world like Bob Dole? A: To some extent I was. I knew that my friends would realize why I could be detained and also that they would support me to the end. I was getting some kind of information from the outside, but it was not always very accurate. Here, I would like to take the opportunity to thank especially my colleagues, Turkish, Armenian and American, who have demonstrated an exemplary and meaningful solidarity. One upshot of my case, I believe, is that unprecedented number of scholars, intellectuals and activists from both groups came together, united around a common cause. It was really great. I am grateful to all of them who have signed the open letter to [Armenia's] President Kocharian and hope that my case has opened up further space of dialogue and cooperation between the critical intellectuals studying the controversial and painful pages of the history of the region. I would also like to present my gratitude to the entire Duke community, especially to President Brodhead, to Provost Lange and, of course, to my heroic adviser Orin Starn, and to the department of cultural anthropology. I want to mention three other names who were crucial in the process, Prof. Ayse Gul Altinay (who orchestrated the `global' campaign for my release) of Sabanci University, Istanbul/Turkey; Prof. Charles Kurzman of UNC, and Prof. Richard Hovannissian of UCLA. Their support was invaluable. I am also extremely grateful to the American politicians who got involved. Bob Dole's intervention was really crucial. I thank him very much. Q: Did you ever consider yourself to be in true danger? A: Yes I think I did, especially after the first week. Q: Do you envision returning to Armenia to continue your research? Can you complete your dissertation without going back? A: This is really a very tough question. I should first underline the fact that for me there is no difference between Istanbul and Yerevan. I feel at home when I am in Yerevan. I love walking on the streets (especially Mashtots) of the city, or sitting at the lovely cafes around the opera building. I have very close friends over there. However, there is also this bitter experience I have gone through. It is very sad for me to know that there are people in Armenia who do not want me to do research in the country. I know that those people are a minority, yet they are powerful. They still keep their old isolationist way of thinking which they have recently blended with a xenophobic brand of `Armenian patriotism.' Whoever it is behind the provocation against me, there is no doubt that they have damaged the image of Armenia in the international arena. As a scholar, I have been deeply disheartened by this incident. But there are also people like the director of the National Archives of Armenia, Mr. Amatuni Virabian, who from the first day of my arrest, understood what was happening behind the scene and diligently supported me. I received considerable support from pro-democratization Armenian intellectuals. I also know that majority of the people in Armenia eventually understood that the officials made a big mistake and also that I was not an enemy of the Armenian people. I don't want those who have tried to intimidate independent researchers through my own case to win over those who have been seeking and struggling for improved relations and scholarly cooperation between the two countries and communities. Therefore I will definitely go back. I think I have compiled enough material to finish my dissertation. That is, it is not a must for me to go back to Armenia for my dissertation fieldwork research. Q: Should your case make scholars wary of studying contentious subjects? Do you have advice for other researchers contemplating exploring such a topic? A: Caution, they have to be really very cautious. They should be very careful about the laws and procedures especially about permissions necessary for research. No signal of danger should be overlooked. It might be a good idea not to be publicly very visible. I also recommend them to always back-up their work and if possible to download it to the internet. Q: What are your career plans for after you have your doctorate? Do you envision entering the academy, and if so, any idea in what country? A: I am willing to pursue an academic career in the U.S. where I can attain a free environment necessary for my studies. Finally, I want to emphasize that I am not angry or bitter. I want to put everything aside and concentrate on my work. I am an academic not a politician, notwithstanding the fact that I was caught in the middle of a fight among hostile political actors. - Doug Lederman
© Copyright 2005 Inside Higher Ed

Pan Armenian News
CYPRUS MAY VETO BAKU-EU COOPERATION
30.09.2005 04:54
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Threatening with veto upon EU-Azerbaijan cooperation
within New Neighborhood Policy Greek Cyprus urged Azerbaijan to sever ties
with the unrecognized Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The response of
official Baku is expected no later than early October, Day.az reports.

TOO SOON FOR TURKISH DELIGHT
The Economist, UK
Sept 29 2005
>>From The Economist Global Agenda
Formal talks are about to begin on Turkish membership of the European
Union. Within Turkey and outside it, there are questions about
the predominantly Muslim country’s readiness for Europe-but also
encouraging signs.
BARRING last-minute upsets, never to be ruled out as the diplomats
continued haggling this week, Turkey is on the brink of realising
its fondest national dream: on Monday October 3rd, formal talks will
begin on Turkish membership of a European Union at whose gate it has
been waiting for 40 years.
But as so often happens, the settlement of one question-should Turkey
step all the way into the EU’s ante-room?-has quickly given rise to
a host of others. People are already asking how long rapprochement
with the EU can be sustained, in the face of opposition in Europe to
Turkey-and in Turkey to Europe.
Scepticism over the Turks surfaced again this week in the European
Parliament. The legislators, while endorsing the start of talks with
the government in Ankara, balked at ratifying Turkey’s inclusion
in a customs protocol-on the grounds that the ships and aircraft of
Cyprus, an EU member, are still barred from Turkish ports. Dominique
de Villepin, the French prime minister, had earlier said that Turkey
must recognise Cyprus in order to join the EU. Nicolas Sarkozy,
a popular Gaullist who is well placed to win the French presidency
in 2007, opposes Turkish membership. So does Angela Merkel, who
is favourite to take Germany’s chancellorship following its recent
elections, which ended in a hung parliament. Overall, just 35% of
EU citizens support Turkish membership, according to a recent poll
by Eurobarometer. Europeans are queasy about the idea of taking in a
big Muslim member, and of hordes of Turkish job-seekers overwhelming
the EU’s current members.
But the other part of Turkey’s Euro-question is even harder: how
much resistance will there be among the Turks to the changes-legal,
economic, and above all cultural-that the EU is demanding?
For Turks who want a European future, there was a dollop of hope
last weekend, when brave historians managed to hold a conference in
Istanbul to discuss the fate of the Ottoman Armenians. It was the
first time Turkish pundits were permitted to challenge publicly the
official line, holding that the mass deportation of Armenians in
1915 did not amount to a conspiracy to kill them. As participants
read out letters between the “Young Turks” then ruling the empire,
a rapt audience was left with no doubt that hundreds of thousands of
Armenians were deliberately slain.
Planned originally for May, the Armenian forum was called off then
at the behest of Cemil Cicek, the justice minister. It was nearly
scuppered anew last week, when an Istanbul court used a technicality to
order its cancellation. This time Mr Cicek offered a way out-changing
the venue. And Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister, condemned
the court ruling: the first time an elected leader had so publicly
rebuked Turkey’s courts. It was also the first time that Mr Erdogan
had so clearly given a lead to public opinion instead of pandering
to populism. The establishment media fell in behind him, decrying
the noisy nationalists who pelted the conference delegates with eggs.
Cynics, who recall Mr Erdogan’s earlier moves to appease conservatives
by criminalising adultery, see his recent outburst of liberalism as a
last-ditch effort to clinch the October 3rd date. Be that as it may,
people close to the prime minister insist he has pinned his political
fortunes on further reforms, with or without the EU. “He can’t compete
on nationalism with the ultra-nationalists, so it’s in his interest
to keep on reforming,” says a western diplomat.
This may explain some other recent moves by Mr Erdogan: he dared
to admit, in a speech in the Kurdish stronghold of Diyarbakir, that
Turkey had erred in its dealings with the Kurds. These frank words
enraged nationalists, including some members of his own party. In
the country as a whole, nationalism has been bubbling: it has been
rising since June 2004, when the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party
(PKK) ended a five-year truce.
Chauvinism has surfaced in ugly ways. There have been attempted
lynchings of Kurdish civilians outside their native south-east
region. A recent poll shows the jingoistic Nationalist Action Party,
which failed to enter parliament in the 2002 elections, would gain
seats today.
As well as countering this dark mood, Mr Erdogan must cope with
foes in the army who fear that rapprochement with Europe will reduce
their power-and who see in Turkey’s internal conflicts a chance to
restore that influence. But Mr Erdogan has rebuffed army demands
to re-introduce a draconian anti-terror law. Solving the Kurdish
problem requires more democracy, not repression, he insists. He may
have to take further risks-for example by endorsing, despite army
opposition, a deal that would coax 5,000 PKK fighters from their
mountain strongholds, both in northern Iraq and within Turkey.
The coming year will be a big test of Mr Erdogan’s leadership.
Austria, a sceptic on Turkish entry, takes over the presidency of the
EU in January. The Austrians will doubtless promote their idea of a
“privileged partnership” between Turkey and Europe, instead of full
membership. Next year will also see the retirement of General Hilmi
Ozkok, a liberal chief of the general staff. His likely successor
is the land-forces commander, Yasar Buyukanit, a more old-fashioned
type of soldier. It is to keep such secularist hawks at bay that
Mr Erdogan has ignored some demands from his pious voters, such as
boosting religious education and easing curbs on the headscarf.
Another challenge, in his dealings both with sceptical Europeans and
his own voters, is to honour his claim to be giving Turkey its first
clean government. Charges of irregularity in the sale of shares in
the state refinery, Tupras-and also in a tender for the operation
of Istanbul’s Galata port-have weakened that claim. Unless he deals
with sleaze, Mr Erdogan may lose the trust of his own citizens and
his European partners. That would be a pity, when the prime minister
has risked so much for Turkey’s European future.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

SYSTEM SINGER VISITS CONGRESSMAN’S OFFICE TO PUSH GENOCIDE BILL
By Corey Moss
MTV.com
Sept 29 2005
Band, meanwhile, is about to shoot a video for ‘Hypnotize.’ System of
a Down’s Serj Tankian at the rally in Chicago Photo: Armenian National
Committee of America
Singer Serj Tankian had some personal business to attend to this week
before System of a Down could shoot their next video. Personal and,
well, global.
Before the band left for the second leg of its fall tour with the
Mars Volta (see
Photos, audio and video from this story
System of a Down “B.Y.O.B.”
Mezmerize (American/Columbia)
“System Of A Down/ Mars Volta Tour Dates Announced”), Tankian
promised his 97-year-old grandfather he would do his best to convince
Congressman Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) to bring the Armenian Genocide
Resolution to a vote, an issue long close to System of a Down (see
“System Of A Down Make The Political Personal At Souls 2005”). And
he did just that Tuesday outside the Speaker of the House’s Batavia,
Illinois, office.
Tankian joined members of the Armenian National Committee of America,
the Armenian Youth Federation and his own Axis of Justice organization
in a rally and then read a heartfelt letter he delivered to Hastert’s
office in support of the pending legislation, which would officially
recognize Turkey’s slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians between 1915
and 1923.
With the resolution, which overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan
International Relations Committee, Hastert can either bring it to
the House of Representatives for a vote or let it expire.
“It’s all in his hands, he’s the man,” Tankian said of Hastert,
who spoke in support of recognizing the genocide on the House floor
in 1994. “The thing is that a similar resolution was going around in
2000 as well and he was the speaker of the House then, but at the time
[President Bill] Clinton had written a letter asking him not to bring
it up to vote, citing concerns that had to do with Turkey. In 2004
he also had the opportunity to bring another resolution to vote on
… and that didn’t happen either.
“I’m sure that there’s a lot of lobbying going on from the Bush
administration, from the military-industrial complex that sells a lot
of weapons to Turkey, and a whole host of corporate lobbyist firms
that don’t want this thing to pass, but the truth has to come out,
and more so in a democracy than anywhere else,” he continued. “So
we’re fighting the good fight.”
Hastert was not at his office Tuesday and was unavailable for comment
Wednesday (September 28).
As for that System video, for “Hypnotize,” bassist Shavo Odadjian is
returning to the director’s chair for the shoot at Van Andel Arena
in Grand Rapids, Michigan, after having also lensed the band’s
“Question!” (see “System Of A Down Find Answer To ‘Question!’ In
A Dream”).
“This will be our first live video per se,” Tankian said. “We’ve had
videos where we’ve had fans and we played live, but it’s never been
at a venue that we would actually play.”
Of course Odadjian always has something up his sleeve, and Tankian
hinted that it has to do with a helicopter shot. “I’m like, “I’m like,
‘Hey, man, I’m cool with that as long as we’re not hanging from it,’
” the singer joked.
“Hypnotize” is the first single from the second half of the double
album Mezmerize/Hypnotize, due November 22.
“This track’s pretty mellow in comparison to let’s say a ‘B.Y.O.B.’
or something like that,” Tankian said. “But I’m glad we’re going out
with this track. It’s a beautiful song.”
Tankian chose not to elaborate on the song, noting, “It means different
things to different people, even within the band.”
Guitarist Daron Malakian has said he wrote it while waiting in a
car for his girlfriend (see “System Of A Down Kick Out The Jams
On Hypnotize”).
As for the album, fans should expect something just slightly different
from Mezmerize.
“It’s got the whole melodic thing still, but it’s little more
progressive, a little more emotion here and there,” Tankian said.
“But they both come from the same sessions.”
Before Hypnotize hits stores, Tankian will appear on the new album
from Buckethead, Enter the Chicken. Along with lending his vocals,
Tankian produced the album and will release it October 25 on his
Serjical Strike Records.
“It’s a f—ing amazing record,” Tankian said. “It’s a really, really
strong, dynamic rock record, really out there, with like 12 different
singers. I just brought in a whole collection of friends to sing.”
Guests include Saul Williams, Efrem Schulz of Death by Stereo, Bad
Acid Trip and Maura Davis of Denali.
“I think it will be a breakthrough because first of all, Buckethead
mostly does instrumental stuff,” Tankian said. “And he’s never really
done a lot of stuff with pop arrangements, I don’t mean pop like
bubblegum pop, I mean like anything from progressive crazy stuff to
regular beautiful songs. And this album is going to be like that.
It’s got the whole dynamic range of everything Buckethead has ever done
and it totally transpired by accident and just ended up working out.”
Tankian also remixed Notorious B.I.G.’s “Who Shot Ya” for the “Marc
Ecko’s Getting Up: Contents Under Pressure” graffiti video game,
due November 15. “I love the way it came out,” he said (see “P. Diddy
Flips Out, RZA Promotes Graffiti In ‘Getting’ Game”).
For more on System of a Down’s double album, Mezmerize/Hypnotize,
check out the feature “Doubleheader.”

CIS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY VISITS ARMENIA
AZG Armenian Daily #174
29/09/2005
Visit
Executive secretary of CIS, Vladimir Rushailo, arrived in Yerevan
September 27 to take part in the council of CIS interior ministers. At
a short meeting with journalists at the airport Rushailo said that
he will meet with Armenia’s political leadership. They will discuss
the process of realization of Kazan arrangements, first of all
issues concerning economic integration, cooperation in the sphere of
humanities and security and stability issues in CIS. The council of
interior ministers will discuss the last issue on September 30.

Mediamax news agency, Yerevan, in Russian
27 Sep 05
Armenian president cautiously optimistic about Karabakh settlement
Yerevan, 27 September: Armenian President Robert Kocharyan today
spoke about “some hopes” for the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict.
Robert Kocharyan said this in reply to the question from a Finnish
journalist at a joint briefing with Finnish President Tarja Halonen.
The Armenian president said that “the negotiations process is rather
active at the moment”. Robert Kocharyan noted that the talks on the
peaceful settlement of the conflict have been held since 1994 and, in
fact, have never stopped.
“It is another question that sometimes we was very close to the
settlement of the problem,” the Armenian president noted.
Robert Kocharyan announced that Yerevan attached major importance to
the efforts of international organizations aimed at settling the
Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. He, however, stressed that assistance of
international organizations would become more important after signing
a peace agreement when they would assume the role of guarantors in
implementing the agreements between the sides.