Author: Kalantarian Kevo

INTERNATIONAL WATCHDOG SUGGESTS REFERENDUM ON AZERI BREAKAWAY REGION’S STATUS
Mediamax News Agency
Oct 11 2005
Yerevan, 11 October: The International Crisis Group (ICG) has published
a new report on the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict,
which suggests determining the final status of Nagornyy Karabakh in
a referendum on self-determination.
The ICG proposes that the referendum should be held “after the return
of displaced Azerbaijanis to the districts of Nagornyy Karabakh where
they used to be in the majority and after an international conference
establishes that Nagornyy Karabakh meets international criteria of
statehood, including the appropriate protection of the rights of the
minority,” Mediamax news agency reports.
Meanwhile, the ICG suggests that such an assessment be given five
years after the signing of the peace agreement.
The ICG suggests that all the participants in the referendum should be
given an opportunity to “choose among an adequate range of possible
solutions, including merger with Azerbaijan or secession from it,”
Mediamax reports.
The International Crisis Group considers that “the referendum should be
held with the compulsory participation of Armenians and Azerbaijanis
from Karabakh, on conditions determined in negotiations under the
leadership of the OCSE and under the principle that the results of
the referendum should be recognized by all sides”.
The International Crisis Group suggests that Nagornyy Karabakh remain
part of Azerbaijan until the referendum, “although in practice it will
be self-governing and enjoy internationally-recognized transitional
status”.

OFFICE OF THE NAGORNO KARABAKH REPUBLIC IN THE USA
1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036
Tel: (202) 223-4330
Fax: (202) 315-3339
E-mail: [email protected]
Web site:
NKR REPRESENTATION LAUNCHES DAILY NEWS SECTION OF ITS WEBSITE
PRESS RELEASE
October 11, 2005
WASHINGTON, DC – The Office of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic in the United
States today announced the launch of a new section of its website
, where NKR-related news articles from various international
sources (including Armenian, Azerbaijani, U.S., Russian, and European) are
posted daily.
Articles are grouped under three main topics: Security & Foreign Affairs,
Politics, and Economy & Society. The material covers political and economic
developments in Nagorno Karabakh (Artsakh) and other countries of the South
Caucasus, official statements and speeches. Important articles on Azerbaijan
appear in a separate category. Special attention is given to the current
developments in the Nagorno Karabakh peace process.
Visit and make the Daily News your
destination for English-language news on Nagorno Karabakh.
* * *
The Office of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic in the United States is based in
Washington, DC and works with the U.S. government, academia and the public
representing the official policies and interests of the Nagorno Karabakh
Republic.
This material is distributed by the Office of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic
in the USA on behalf of the Government of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic. The
NKR Office is registered with the U.S. Government under the Foreign Agent
Registration Act. Additional information is available at the Department of
Justice, Washington, D.C.

ARMENIA-NATO PARTNERSHIP
By M. Alkhazashvili
The Messenger, Georgia
Oct 11 2005
Armenia has expressed its desire to join the NATO Individual
Partnership Program (IPAP). Armenian ambassador to NATO Samvel
Mkrtchian stated at a joint seminar of the Armenian National Assembly
and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Yerevan that he hopes Armenia’s
IPAP will begin in 2006.
According to experts, Armenia’s wish to join the IPAP is indicative
of all the geopolitical changes that have been occurring in the
region. Traditionally pro-Russian, Armenia’s interest in cooperating
with NATO is interpreted by some as evidence that the U.S.A. has
strengthened its influence in the Caucasus. It is noteworthy that
IPAP programs in both Georgia and Azerbaijan began this year.
Armenia hopes that it will be able to learn about state security
systems quickly and reach out to its European neighbors. However
the Armenian ambassador to NATO Samvel Mkrtchian criticized Georgia
and Azerbaijan for having unrealistic expectations concerning NATO
membership.
“We are not as powerful as our neighbors, but we will do our best to
reach our goal. We sign the contracts that we are able to fulfill.
Georgia and Azerbaijan have taken on a huge responsibility. In the
given situation, they find it rather difficult to carry out their
obligations,” Mkrtchian stated, according to Khvalindeli Dghe.

PRESS RELEASE
Department of Armenian Studies, Haigazian University
Beirut, Lebanon
Contact: Ara Sanjian
Tel: 961-1-353011
Email: [email protected]
Web:
HAIGAZIAN UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ARMENIAN STUDIES
invites you to a lecture on
‘Turkish-Armenian Dialog: Problems and Potential’
[in Armenian]
by
Gerard J. Libaridian
(University of Michigan, Ann Arbor)
Tuesday, 18 October 2005, 7:30 p.m.
Haigazian University Auditorium, Mexique Street, Kantari, Beirut
Please accept this message as a personal invitation.
N.B. Prof. Gerard Jirair Libaridian is a historian, currently teaching
at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He specializes in Armenia, the
Caucasus, and the Near East. His most recent publications include
‘Modern Armenia: People, Nation, State’ (2004) and ‘The Challenge of
Statehood. Armenian Political Thinking since Independence’ (1999). He is
currently working on two new books: one on Mountainous Karabakh and
another on the ideology of Armenian liberation, 16th-19th centuries.
From 1991 to 1997, Libaridian served as a high-ranking member of the
administration of Levon Ter-Petrossian, the first president of the
post-Soviet, independent Republic of Armenia. He was deeply involved, in
that capacity, in the negotiations by Armenia with both Turkey and
Azerbaijan.
Haigazian University is a liberal arts institution of higher learning,
established in Beirut in 1955. For more information about its activities
you are welcome to visit its web-site at <;.

“RE-COG-NI-TION”
A1+
| 17:38:53 | 03-10-2005 | Social |
The members of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation Youth Union
and students of different higher educational institutions organized
a march today to the EU office with cries “Off you go, Tur-key”,
“Re-cog-ni-tion”, “Con-dem-na-tion”.
The act of complaint was connected with the fact that today Turkey
starts negotiations of membership to the EU.
The act consisted of two phases. First they sent a letter to the
Embassy of Great Britain, and then to the EU office. “Why to the
Embassy of Great Britain? Because GB is the presiding country, besides,
being one of the efficient member-countries of EU it has opposed more
than once to the membership of Turkey”, member of the ARF YU Mkhitar
Margaryan says.
By the way, if the act has no results, the Youth Wing has decided to
organize a sit-down strike.

EU STUCK IN WAR OF NERVES ON TURKEY TALKS
By Mark John and Zerin Elci
Reuters, UK
Oct 3 2005
LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) – The start of Turkey’s historic accession talks
with the European Union was in jeopardy on Monday after EU foreign
ministers failed to overcome Austrian demands that it be offered an
alternative to full membership.
EU president Britain said ministers would try again for a deal on
Monday morning but acknowledged that the planned 5 p.m. (1500 GMT)
opening ceremony was uncertain and could well slip.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said a planned review of Croatia’s
progress towards EU entry talks had been postponed and would have to
wait until Turkey was sorted out.
“It is a frustrating situation, but I hope and pray that we may be
able to reach agreement,” Straw told a post-midnight news conference
after five hours of tough wrangling with Austria.
EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn played down the threat to
Turkey’s 42-year-old entry bid, saying: “I am confident we will have
a positive outcome and start negotiations tomorrow.”
But a Turkish official said nerves in Ankara were “extremely stretched
… Every minute that passes is making things more bitter and it
won’t be nice starting negotiations with all these bruises.”
With Austrian voters overwhelmingly hostile to Turkey entry, Foreign
Minister Ursula Plassnik waged a lone battle demanding that the EU
spell out an alternative to full membership, not only in case Turkey
did not meet the criteria but also if the EU felt unable to absorb
the vast, populous, poor Muslim state.
Diplomats said the 24 other members insisted they could not make
any change to the central principle that the shared objective of the
negotiations would be accession.
“Isolation and pressure is never going to work in politics. It’s not
going to work inside the European Union, certainly not. The Union
should have and must have a different style,” Plassnik told reporters
after three tense meetings with Straw.
Asked whether Austria was prepared to veto the start of talks, she
said it took all 25 member states to agree.
WALK AWAY?
Outgoing German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer warned his colleagues
that Turkey might walk away if the EU watered down the terms on offer
any further.
“If you want to open negotiations, you have to remember we have to
have someone to open them with,” a diplomat quoted him as telling
the meeting.
The EU has already irked Ankara by demanding that it recognise Cyprus
soon and open its ports and airports to traffic from the divided
Mediterranean island.
The European Parliament compounded Turkish irritation last week by
saying Turkey must recognise the 1915 killings of Armenians under
Ottoman rule as an act of genocide before it can join the wealthy
European family.
Fanning Turkish anxiety, French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy
cast doubt in a radio interview on whether Turkey would ever join
the EU, saying the talks might end in an enhanced partnership instead.
Douste-Blazy, who stayed away from Sunday’s meeting and was not due
to be present for Monday’s planned start of talks, told Europe 1
radio that Turkey was a long way from having the same values, laws
and human rights as the European Union.
“I think it will be very hard for Turkey because we will be asking
a lot. We’re asking it to change its laws,” he said.
Straw told reporters he did not want to contemplate the possibility
of an Austrian veto. “Clearly that would represent a failure for the
EU,” he said before the meeting. “This is a crucial meeting for the
future of the European Union.”
Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has made clear he will not
fly to Luxembourg until he has seen the negotiating mandate approved
unanimously by the EU.
EU diplomats had hoped Austria would ease its stance after voting
ended in regional elections in Styria province. Chancellor Wolfgang
Schuessel’s People’s Party lost power there for the first time since
1945 despite his brinkmanship on Turkey.
Schuessel has informally linked the Turkish issue to a demand that
the EU open accession talks immediately with Austria’s largely Roman
Catholic neighbour, Croatia.
But those talks have been frozen until Zagreb satisfies U.N. war
crimes prosecutor Carla del Ponte that it is cooperating fully in
the hunt for a fugitive indicted ex-general.
In an apparent effort to increase pressure on Austria, Straw postponed
a planned meeting with Del Ponte and the Croatian prime minister on
Monday until there was agreement on Turkey.
(additional reporting by Marie-Louise Moller)

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