Category: News

Armenian government amends bill on procedures for holdings demos
Mediamax news agency
26 Apr 04
YEREVAN
Armenian Minister of Justice David Arutyunyan today presented
amendments and changes to the bill “On procedures for holding
meetings, rallies, marches and demonstrations” adopted by the
parliament in the first reading.
David Arutyunyan said that the government had taken into account most
of the proposals received from international organizations. In
particular, the minister said, about 90 per cent of the notes made by
the OSCE office in Yerevan were taken into consideration while
preparing the bill for the second reading.
It is expected that the voting for the bill “On procedures for holding
meetings, rallies, marches and demonstrations” in the second reading
will take place in the Armenian National Assembly on 27 April.
On 22 April, the special representative of the secretary-general of
the Council of Europe, Natalya Vutova, said that the bill “On
procedures for holding meetings, rallies, marches and demonstrations”
adopted by the Armenian National Assembly in the first reading did not
correspond to Article 11 of the European convention on freedom of
assembly. Vutova said this referring to the preliminary conclusion by
the Council of Europe Venice Commission.

Armenian opposition holds consultations with ruling coalition
Interfax news agency, Moscow
26 Apr 04
YEREVAN
A dialogue between the Armenian opposition and the coalition of three
pro-government parties began in the Armenian parliament on Monday [26
April].
The meeting was held at the initiative of parliament Speaker Artur
Bagdasaryan, Interfax was told.
Among the parties taking part in the consultations are the opposition
Justice faction and the heads of the parliamentary factions of three
pro-government parties (the Republican Party of Armenia, Orinats
Yerkir [Law-Governed Country Party] and Dashnaktsutyun).
Viktor Dallakyan, a representative of the Justice faction, told
reporters before the meeting: “The opposition has provided the
coalition with a package of demands which include halting political
persecution and violence against opposition activists, releasing all
opposition activists who are currently in prison, suspending the
criminal case against the opposition Justice bloc, ensuring the
security of peaceful rally participants, and providing live air time
on Armenian Public TV to opposition leaders.”
The opposition is also demanding that “all those who were involved in
the rigging of the presidential and parliamentary elections held in
Armenia in 2003 and those involved in the dispersion of the rally held
in front of the Armenian parliament on 13 April [2004]” be punished,
Dallakyan said. In addition, they are demanding that the parliament
adopt the opposition’s initiative to hold a referendum on confidence
in the republic’s authorities, he said.
Dallakyan believes that if these demands are fulfilled, the tension
will be defused in Armenia. The opposition will not object if its
demands are fulfilled step by step, he stressed.
[Passage omitted: reported details]

Glendale News Press
LATimes.com
April 26 2004
GREG KRIKORIAN
‘With great pride’

GUSD Board of Education’s first Armenian-American president seeks to
open dialogue with parents, get artificial turf installed at high
schools
By Gary Moskowitz, News-Press
NORTHEAST GLENDALE – Greg Krikorian recently became president of
Glendale’s Board of Education, making him the first Armenian-American
president of the school board.
Krikorian was elected to the board in 2001. He was the board’s clerk
in 2002-03 and, prior to Tuesday’s board meeting, was the vice
president. Krikorian moved into the position based on the board’s
policy of rotating its officers each year.
He replaced Pam Ellis, who is now a board member alongside Chuck
Sambar. Lina Harper is now the board’s clerk, and Mary Boger is the
vice president.
Krikorian, 41, was born and raised in Hartford, Conn. He lives in
Glendale with his wife, Christine, and their five children, Armen,
Gyaneh, Haig, Seran and Shant. Their four school-age children attend
Toll Middle and Balboa Elementary schools.
Krikorian is a co-founder of Cal-Conn Enterprises Inc., a
Glendale-based publishing and marketing firm.
The News-Press recently interviewed Krikorian about taking on the
role of president of the school board.
NEWS-PRESS: How does it feel to become president, and what can the
community expect from your leadership?
GREG KRIKORIAN: I am extremely humbled to be here and serve this
community. I initially wanted to join the board because I felt there
was a need to have a parent who was also a businessperson on the
board. My business background helps add long-term vision to
supporting our schools. People can expect from me a leader that will
pool resources and knowledge of our colleagues to come up with a
vision and set policy for our kids. We are planning not just for
2005, but also for 2010. I realize that what we do as a board is a
team approach, and that team includes parents, staff, teachers, the
community and students.
NP: Why is it significant that you are the first Armenian-American
president of the board?
GK: I think having me on the board, and especially as president,
provides a mentor for all 10,000 or so of our Armenian kids. It’s a
social responsibility. [Former mayor] Larry Zarian opened up the door
for all cultures. I think that I represent the entire community, not
just Armenians, and hopefully I can help open the door for other
communities as well. The challenges that all minorities go through
and the need to work harder and assimilate and become better
citizens, I take this on with great pride.
NP: What are some specific goals you have for the school district in
the next year?
GK: One thing I’d like to do is invite students and their parents to
lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance at board meetings, which would
bring parents to district headquarters more often. Technology is
something we need to hunker down on. We are in a financial crisis
with state budget cuts, and we need to be prudent with how we
purchase. We have started piggybacking with other districts on
technology spending, but we are still all over the place with it and
need to step back a little. I also want to see artificial turf
installed at Moyse Field and at CV High. I think it’s time, and if we
can partner with local businesses to purchase the fields, the initial
cost would balance out our long-term field maintenance costs in seven
years.
I want to raise the bar a little on nutrition and fitness. We could
continue to offer healthier foods for our kids and we could
strengthen our physical education programs by partnering with local
groups like AYSO and Little League to give our kids more chances for
extra activities.
NP: Because of the state budget deficit, the district is reducing its
spending by about $7 million for the 2004-05 school year. Why does
the board continue to spend money on outside consultants for
evaluating things like technology spending?
GK: When you hire consultants, it helps you fine-tune your spending
and slim down. There are people in our workforce being paid up to
$100,000 in some cases who should have the expertise to not need
consulting but, in some cases, you really need it to reduce spending
in the long term.
NP: This board voted to approve spending as much as $3.1 million in
reserve funds each year for the next three years. If you are planning
ahead for the future of the district, what is the plan to replenish
those reserves?
GK: We are required to save a certain amount of money, but reserves
are there for times like these. If we didn’t use reserves right now,
we would have to lay people off. That’s why we are also consolidating
and filling vacant positions. We’ve committed to spending reserves
for the next three years, and at that point, we would start building
our reserves back.
NP: Do you have other goals for the next year that people should be
aware of?
GK: I would like to start giving a “State of the Schools” address
every fall to inform the community about the status of our schools.
I’d also like to host a vendor fair, where local businesses could get
involved in the bidding process for purchasing, plumbing, roofing and
providing supplies for our schools. I plan to be more visible in the
community by creating a “Board Member in Your Neighborhood” monthly
event, where I could meet with people at schools or over coffee in
the mornings.

US general hails Armenia’s plans to sign partnership accord with NATO
Mediamax news agency
26 Apr 04
YEREVAN
“The United States hails Armenia’s intention to sign the Individual
Partnership Action Plan with NATO,” the deputy commander of the US
European Command, Gen Charles Wald, said in Yerevan today.
Gen Wald said that the signing of the Individual Partnership Action
Plan with NATO “will contribute to the expansion of Armenia’s
cooperation with the alliance members both on a multilateral and
bilateral basis”.
The US general said today that “the United States is not going to
build military bases on the territory of any of the South Caucasus
countries”. According to him, the United States is successfully
cooperating with all the Caucasus countries and Russia in the struggle
against international terrorism. However, this does not mean that the
USA is considering the issue of its military presence in the region.
Charles Wald expressed gratitude to the Armenian authorities for their
readiness to send military specialists to Iraq to take part in the
post-conflict reconstruction of this country.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenian speaker urges more powers to parliament, rejects opposition charges
Arminfo,
23 Apr 04

YEREVAN
The fact that during the 12 April opposition rally police deployed its
units in the building of the National Assembly and also surrounded it
by barbed wire showed that someone aimed at making “the opposition
direct its anger” at the speaker of parliament. This was announced by
Armenian Speaker Artur Bagdasaryan at a news conference today.
He said that the subtext of the action was political and was a result
of his statement at a recent press conference denouncing the arrests
on political grounds in the republic. “Despite that I will stick to my
earlier remarks,” he said.
He said that power wielding posts should be political. The speaker
told the news conference several times that the Armenian parliament
and its chairman have limited powers. They have no levers to control
the law-enforcement agencies. There is no political control over the
latter. Therefore, he said the National Assembly should be given more
powers.
Commenting on accusations made by the opposition that he had turned
the parliament building into barracks by allowing the deployment of
the police units who dispersed the opposition rally on 12 April ,
Bagdasaryan gave an emotionally charged reply: “The speaker has no
control over police units which ensure the security of the National
Assembly.”
[Passage omitted: reiterates the point]

Turkey should own up to responsibility for Armenian genocide
Daily Stanford
By Seepan Parseghian
Guest Columnist
Friday, April 23, 2004
By SEEPAN PARSEGHIAN
Adolf Hitler said it all those years ago. The National Socialist Party
was planning one of the most horrific events of the 20th century, and
Hitler only looked back once. That moment came when one of Hitler’s
generals asked if he was afraid they would be punished for what they
were about to execute. He casually shrugged off the concern, asking in
return: `Who today remembers the annihilation of the Armenians?’ The
Jewish Holocaust ensued.
On Monday, Holocaust survivor Gloria Lyon spoke on campus as part of
Holocaust Memorial Day. Listening to Lyon share her painful experiences,
I realized that she was not only a symbol of enduring strength and
survival, but was also a product of a grossly overlooked historical
event: the Armenian genocide of 1915.
Eighty-nine years ago, the Young Turk party that was ruling the Ottoman
Empire orchestrated the first genocide of the 20th century. The Allied
powers were preoccupied with the supposed `war to end all wars.’ The
Young Turk party had ousted the last royal sovereign of the Ottoman
Empire, Sultan Abdul Hamid II, from leadership and had risen to power on
a democratic platform. After their victory, the Young Turks decided to
adopt nationalistic ideals, presenting the idea of pan-Turkism to the
Turkish citizenry.
The Armenians, already segregated from the Turkish population in millets
(religious communities), were an obstacle to the formation of a
pan-Turkish nation. They became the victims of severe oppression and
bigotry, according to American officials who were present in Turkey at
the time. Without a democracy protecting them, the Armenians were left
defenseless under the dictatorial swords of leaders who wanted to rid
the empire of them. Behind the smokescreen of World War I, the Young
Turk leaders Talaat, Enver and Cemal Pasha saw an opportunity to do so,
and so carried out the extermination of 1.5 million Armenians under the
cloak of deportation.
There to witness the Armenian genocide unfolding were U.S. Ambassador to
the Ottoman Empire Henry Morgenthau and U.S. Consul in Harput, Turkey,
Leslie Davis. Both Morgenthau, a graduate of Columbia Law School, and
Leslie Davis, a famous American humanitarian, observed firsthand the
systematic murder of the Armenian race in 1915.
In his memoirs that were later published as `Ambassador Morgenthau’s
Story,’ Morgenthau noted, `When the Turkish authorities gave the orders
for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a
whole race; they understood this well, and, in their conversations with
me, they made no particular attempt to conceal the fact.’ In `The
Slaughterhouse Province,’ Davis reported the disappearance of the
prominent figures of the Armenian community in Harput on June 23, 1915.
After prodding Turkish soldiers with inquiries of the whereabouts of
these Armenian leaders, Davis was told that they had been rounded up and
taken to a desolate location to be `done away with.’ Left without
leadership and manpower, the Armenian elders, women and children of
Harput were deported three days later to the Syrian Desert, where they
were tortured. Davis’ description of these tortures is too graphic to be
included in this op-ed.
The Turkish government denies that the Armenian genocide ever occurred.
Not only does it deny the historical facts surrounding this systematic
massacre, but it has also taken extensive steps to manipulate those
facts into historical fallacies. Discrediting the personal memoirs of
educated American foreign servicemen like Morgenthau and Davis has been
a financially and politically strenuous task for the Turkish government
to accomplish. It has provided millions of dollars to American scholars
like Princeton Prof. Bernard Lewis, University of Louisville Prof.
Justin McCarthy and UCLA Prof. Heath Lowry, who discredit scholarship of
the Armenian genocide.
Further, Turkey has extensively lobbied in Washington to suppress
American recognition of the genocide. As The Washington Post reported in
Oct. 2000, for example, when House Resolution 596 – a bill seeking
American recognition of the Armenian genocide – was on the Congressional
floor, the Turkish government immediately threatened to pull out of a
$4.5 billion deal in which it would purchase 145 advanced Bell-Textron
attack helicopters from the United States. House Res. 596 failed.
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert told The Washington Post that the
resolution `would have enjoyed support among the majority of the house.’
The U.S. government has yet to officially recognize the Armenian
genocide. The gunsmoke of World War I hid the genocide of the Armenians
from the world, and today a thick cloud of political and social
malpractice by the Turkish regime has reached the same effect.
The government of Turkey must take responsibility for its 1915 crimes
against humanity, not only for humanity’s sake, but for its own future
as well. As Turkish historian Taner Akcam, now at the University of
Minnesota, states, `If and when the government of Turkey acknowledges
its past wrongs and recognizes the Armenian genocide, it well then be
able to ensure a democratic future.’
Had the Turkish regime done so in 1915 and paid the according price in
reparations and compensation, Hitler would have taken the annihilation
of the Armenians into account, and would have been forced to at least
reconsider carrying out his Final Solution. Lyon could possibly have
spoken not of Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen on Monday, but of the
prosperity of the European Jews during the World War II era.
Tomorrow, on the 89th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, it is time
for Turkey to recognize the wrongs of carrying out the Armenian
genocide, in order to restore the progression of its own societal
development. This will convincingly allow Turkey to encourage the
advancement of human culture and morality.
Seepan Parseghian is a freshman. You can send him your questions and
comments to [email protected].

23/02/2004- ANKARA ET LE GENOCIDE ARMENIEN
Analyse/opinion par Yves TERNON, historien.
Le Figaro – 20/04/2004
Au sommet de Copenhague, en 2002, l’Union européenne a pris rendez-vous en
décembre 2004 pour l’ouverture de négociations sur la candidature de la
Turquie. Le délai est court et il est occupé par une offensive médiatique du
gouvernement turc qui laisse à entendre que la Turquie, ayant rempli les
conditions requises, est prête à entrer dans l’Europe. En fait, le débat est
ouvert et chacun, opposant ou partisan à cette entrée, de présenter ses
arguments.
A Copenhague, la Turquie a été invitée à remplir les critères définis en
1993, en particulier à respecter les droits de l’homme et les minorités et à
relever son économie. La condition posée est le respect de tous les
critères, non seulement dans la lettre mais aussi dans l’esprit. Plusieurs
membres de l’Union semblent se satisfaire de quelques avancées. La
suppression de la peine de mort, des concessions faites sur le papier à la
minorité kurde mais non appliquée sur le terrain et surtout le règlement de
la question de Chypre seraient des preuves suffisantes de la bonne volonté
de la Turquie.
Dans toutes ces analyses, on escamote un point fondamental, qui figure
pourtant dans la résolution en quinze points adoptée le 18 juin 1987 par le
Parlement européen. Celle-ci subordonnait l’admission de la Turquie dans la
Communauté européenne à plusieurs conditions précises, dont la
reconnaissance du génocide arménien. Dix-sept ans après, cette résolution
n’a pas été appliquée. L’obligation faite à la Turquie est restée sans
effet. Elle garde cependant tout son sens. Le 26 février 2004, le rapport du
député suédois Per Gahrton, adopté par le Parlement européen, réitère sa
position «telle qu’énoncée dans sa résolution du 18 juin 1987». Il demande
donc au gouvernement turc de reconnaître le génocide arménien. Ce ne sont là
cependant que des recommandations et le Parlement européen ne dispose
d’aucun pouvoir de décision sur les négociations d’adhésion d’un État à
l’Union. Les députés n’interviennent qu’au terme du processus pour ratifier
l’adhésion ou y apporter leur veto, mais il est alors bien tard. La décision
d’ouvrir les négociations dépend des chefs d’État et de gouvernement
européens, dont certains s’expriment déjà ouvertement en faveur de la
candidature turque.
Après l’entrée, le 1er mai, des dix nouveaux membres, le dossier turc
deviendra la plus important de l’agenda européen. Il apparaît donc
nécessaire, aujourd’hui, à l’occasion de la dernière commémoration du 24
avril 1915 avant le rendez-vous de décembre, de lancer un ultime appel à la
conscience de l’Europe et de lui rappeler la signification du mot
«génocide». La destruction planifiée des deux tiers des Arméniens de
l’Empire ottoman en 1915 et 1916, un meurtre de masse planifié par le comité
central du parti union et progrès, ne fut pas un événement mineur.
Les faits sont là. En 1915 et 1916, les Arméniens de l’Empire ottoman ont
été victimes d’un génocide. Sous le prétexte fallacieux d’une trahison et
d’un complot, le Comité union et progrès a décapité l’élite arménienne de
Constantinople, le 24 avril 1915, puis effacé toute présence arménienne dans
les provinces d’Anatolie orientale, par le massacre sur place des hommes et
la déportation des femmes, des enfants et des vieillards. Cette déportation
n’était qu’un des moyens de la destruction: les convois ont été décimés, les
déportés tués ou enlevés. Dans un second temps, de juillet 1915 à décembre
1916, le reste de l’Empire ottoman a été vidé de sa population arménienne, à
l’exception des Arméniens demeurant à Smyrne et à Constantinople. La plupart
des déportés ont été mis à mort au terme d’un long exode de camp en camp
jusqu’aux déserts de Mésopotamie. Pendant vingt mois, les Arméniens n’ont
plus eu le droit de vivre dans l’Empire ottoman. Les témoins ont, par
centaines, rapporté les faits. Des procès ont établi la responsabilité du
gouvernement et des milices de l’Organisation spéciale.
Depuis, les travaux des historiens ont établi, au-delà d’un doute
raisonnable, les preuves du génocide et, en particulier, de l’intention
criminelle des dirigeants turcs de l’époque. La question arménienne est
restée, même après sa solution finale, une priorité pour la Turquie. Toute
référence à l’Arménie disparaît du traité de paix signé à Lausanne en 1923
et il fallut la création d’un droit pénal international entre 1945 et 1948
pour que la Turquie soit invitée à rendre des comptes sur ce génocide
qu’elle avait effacé de l’histoire imaginaire qu’elle s’était aménagée dans
les années 1930.
Les nations sont confrontées à un phénomène singulier, caractéristique du
crime de génocide: le négationnisme. En Turquie, c’est un négationnisme
d’État. Voici un État qui prétend être une démocratie et qui administre,
avec arrogance, la preuve du contraire en refusant de qualifier de génocide
un épisode de son passé proche. Voici un gouvernement qui retourne
impudemment l’évidence en accusant les victimes de ce génocide d’avoir
perpétré un génocide contre les Turcs…
Je ne suis qu’un historien qui, depuis plus de trente ans, examine le crime
de génocide, dans sa complexité, dans ses différences et ses similitudes
selon les cas observés. Je suis cependant en mesure de mettre en garde les
États contre une complaisance envers le négationnisme. Masquer un génocide,
refuser la qualification de cette infraction du droit international, rejeter
l’évidence, c’est participer à sa continuation.
Les États de l’UE feraient bien de se souvenir de cette exigence éthique
avant qu’il ne soit trop tard, car la Turquie ne reconnaîtra pas le génocide
arménien si elle devient, sans que cette condition soit satisfaite, membre
de l’Union. Une phrase, une petite phrase, clairement formulée – «La Turquie
reconnaît le génocide de 1915-1916 et demande pardon au peuple arménien» –
et ce pays, malade de son passé, rentre dans le concert des démocraties.
Est-ce trop exiger que de demander à l’histoire de donner au politique des
leçons d’éthique?
* Historien. Il est notammant l’auteur d’Empire ottoman: le déclin, la
chute, l’effacement, Éditions du Félin, 2002.

Ottoman rule: Islamic state

Muhammed Salahetdinov,
from the materials of Badr Publishing House
Kavkaz-Center 2004-04-27 00:21:56
By mid-13th century the dynasty of Abbasid Caliphs ceases to exist. At
the same time the process of collapse is being observed in the Seljuk
state, which the Abbasid Caliphate used to be a part of. Osman, son of
Ertogrul, takes over for his father and becomes a ruler in one of the
provinces located between the cities of Bursa and Ankara. Osman sees
how separated the Islamic world is and how it is being torn to
pieces by the enemies attacking from all sides, and by internecine
wars inside, and wishes to fix this unattractive situation. He takes
actions aimed at the formation of a state system that will be supposed
to unite the Muslim world in the future, which will be based on
Islamic principles commanded by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).
In 1299 he invites prominent Islamic scholars and says to them, `I
have enough power and might for Jihad, and I am charging you with the
task to mobilize all your knowledge to form the social system of
Muslim community based on Islamic principles’.
And that was the time when the process of creation of new society
started, which was supposed to continue the relay race of the Islamic
rule of Ummah (Muslim nation worldwide) based on the Koran, Sunnah and
Ijtihad (decisionsmade by Muslim elders in the spirit of the Koran and
Sunnah).
The process of expansion of the state was under way, when methods of
Javaat, enlightenment, diplomacy and armed confrontation are used. The
life of citizens and the structures of the state system are built by
the eternal laws of the Most High on the new vast expanses of the
state. As a result, new state entity gets a status of a Caliphate
founded on the institution of Shura (Council). In this state the
authority of Sheikh al-Islam becomes indisputable for the rulers as
well for the subjects. Starting from the period of rule of Selim I,
who subdued the entire East Anatolia, Armenia, Kurdistan, Northern
Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and Hijaz, Ottoman rulers stick to the
principle that regional and provincial rulers must demand that the
subjects obey the orders of the Caliph, who in turn coordinates his
orders with the Sheikh al-Islam, who determines whether the orders
agree to the Islamic canons. The Shura (Council) known as Divan
Humayuni, consisting of ministers, influential people, and prominent
Islamic scholars was the legislative body representing justice. One of
the graphic confirmations is this episode from the Ottoman
history. Caliph Muhammad Fatih (Mehmet the Conqueror, Sultan Mehmet
II) oppressed one of his fellow believers, who in turn appealed to a
Judge with a complaint. The Judge appointed the day and subpoenaed
both claimant and the Caliph to court, where the Caliph had to obey
the Court. So, Islamic Shariah draws no distinctions among people: the
rulers and the subjects are all equal before the justice.
It must be mentioned that in the dynamic and multinational state all
nationalities: whether Turks or some other Muslims, Christians or Jews
wereOttomans first of all. They were a part of one flexible entity,
which was beyond such things as ethnic background, religion or
nationality. Flemish diplomat and scholar Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq
described his visit to the camp of Sultan Suleiman in 1555: `The
Sultan’s headquarters was filled with his assistants including higher
officials. None of those present showed any superiority, but everyone
was trying to show their virtues and bravery; none was bragging about
his birth, for here honour is in accordance with the post and the
nature of duties thereof. Thus there is no fight for seniority;
everybody knows where he belongs and the functions he is supposed to
perform. Sultan himself is the one to assign duties and posts, and to
evaluate the merits and the levels of claims that his subordinates
might have, without looking at the wealth or importance».
`Each person has the opportunity to be promoted. Top posts are often
held by children of shepherds. And they are proud of their birth
instead of being ashamed. Our method is different from theirs; we have
everything depending on the birth and all higher posts are distributed
solely in this connection’.It is a know fact that Hayreddin Pasha
At-Tunisi was an ordinary servant, but he became Governor of Tunisia
and was granted the seal of the Caliph of Istanbul for his
efforts. Egyptian Province sent an inquiry to the capital (Istanbul)
requesting to send an economist to organize a program for the
region’s economic development. Armenian Christian Nubar Pasha
was the one to be sent.
The Ottoman Empire was the only superpower that recognized all three
monotheistic religions. Thanks to the first Sultans, the Turks revived
and reunited the Islamic world on its Asian territories, and then
thanks to the Ottoman Dynasty they brought the European lands of the
Eastern Christian world backto life. While uniting the East and the
West, the Ottomans filled the vacuum that was formed after the
collapse of the Caliphate in Asia and Byzantine Empire in Europe, in
order to be developed within the same space in the form of a new
Muslim civilization. The superpower stayed in this form all the way
until the end of the 19th century, when it reached its decline due to
various reasons. The last Islamic sovereign was Abdul-Hamid II. Muslim
scholars say it was the time of the decline of the last Caliphate.
So what were the reasons why that process had started? Such a huge and
mighty state as the Caliphate was lacking in maneuverability and
mobility when technical revolution started in Europe. And as a result,
we can now see that the European states, which are smaller in size and
have a lot less population, are ahead of the Ottoman state in the
level of technical advancement. This is the reason why the process of
Westernization (Europeanization) started, when one civilization
started replacing the other. This process was initiated by the
educational reforms. Pro-Western moods got stronger during the rule of
Abdul-Hamid, when many young people were going to the European
countries tostudy and returning with the new foreign approaches on
building the country. At that time foreign influence in the Ottoman
state was quite active everywhere. This is when the middle class was
being formed, which in turn started bringing new ideological idea of
Pan-Turkism.
Western historian Arnold J. Toynbee wrote that the loss of flexibility
caused the decline of the Ottoman system, which was most fatal in the
history of the Ottoman society. Ottomans were unable to challenge the
call of the West by rapidly changing their social institutions on
time. After resorting to self-defense, the Ottomans had to look for
salvation by using other methods. For two and a half centuries they
had to be undergoing Westernization.
The so-called Committee of Union and Progress was founded in the very
beginning of the 20th century. Lord Albert Kinross, British historian
and writer says that the members of the Committee enjoyed secret
support from organized groups of Free Masons, Jews and Donme (Jews
converted to Islam), and were more determined in their actions than
members of the Paris organization were, which the Committee merged
with in 1907. The Committee was also supported by some of the
officers, which Sultan never expected. In 1909 Sultan Abdul-Hamid I
was forced to resign and his brother Rishad was appointed instead of
him, but at the same time he was stripped of all of his
authorities. The Committee of Unionand Progress starts fully running
the country. The godly slogan of the Ottoman Caliphate `There is no
deity but God and Muhammad is His Messenger!» was replaced with the
slogan of the French Revolution: `Freedom, Equality and
Brotherhood’. And now the policies of Pan-Turkism started becoming
official in Turkey.
In practice it would mean imposing the Turkish language on other
non-Turkish Muslims. Nationalist tendencies among the Turks are now
getting stronger. Such phenomena in Europe, like searching for
national and ethnic roots, are gradually being manifested in the
political and cultural advancement of Pan-Turkism.
The end to the Islamic rule and to the Islamic influence in the state
is coming to an end. The final touch in the drama in the collapse of
the Ottoman Caliphate was the creation of the Turkish Republic in
1924, when the religious government was totally replaced by secular
one.
From: Baghdasarian

Tajik president, Eurasian Community chief discuss integration
Tajik Radio first programme, Dushanbe
26 Apr 04
The 21st session of the commission of permanent representatives of the
Eurasian Economic Community EAEC member states will be held in
Dushanbe today.
The fourth session of the EAEC integration committee’s commission on
tax, tariff and non-tariff regulation was held in Dushanbe today prior
to this session.
At this moment, the EAEC secretary-general, Grigoriy Rapota, is being
received by President Emomali Rahmonov. The integration of the EAEC
member states is high on the agenda of the meeting.
We recall that the EAEC includes Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan,
Belarus and Russia. Armenia, Ukraine and Moldova have observer status.

Russia absents in UN vote on human rights in Turkmenistan
Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Moscow
23 Apr 04
Russia has absented in the UN Human Rights Commission’s recent vote on
Turkmenistan, which is said to violate human rights of ethnic
minorities, including Russians, a Russian newspaper has reported. The
participation in the development of Turkmen energy sector “looks much
more attractive to Moscow than the protection of human rights of its
own citizens”, the newspaper suggested. The following is the text of
Viktoriya Panfilova’s report entitled: “The UN is no authority to
Turkmenbasy. Moscow conspires with Asgabat by refusing to support a
resolution on protection of national minorities in Turkmenistan” and
published by Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta website on 23
April; subheadings inserted editorially:
The other day in Geneva, the UN Human Rights Commission adopted a
harsh resolution condemning the violation of human rights in
Turkmenistan, with 25 countries voting for the resolution, 11 against
it, and 17 abstaining from voting. The document states inadmissible
facts of “discrimination in the sphere of education and employment of
ethnic Russians, Uzbeks, and other national minorities,” “arbitrary
arrests, incarceration, and curtailed freedom to obtain information
and self-expression.”
Symptomatically, the abstaining countries included Russia, whose
citizens living in Turkmenistan are considered people of second
quality and know first-hand what discrimination is. It seems that a
hypothetical opportunity to take part in the development of Turkmen
energy resources looks much more attractive to Moscow than the
protection of human rights of its own citizens.
The official position of Moscow was voiced by Russian Deputy Foreign
Minister Yuriy Fedotov, who declared: “Basically, we proceed from the
fact that so-called ‘country-specific resolutions’, particularly those
made by the UN Human Rights Commission, can hardly improve the real
situation.”
Russia’s ‘absolute indifference’
It is unclear how much attention Moscow paid to the fact that in
appreciation of the support he received from Russia, Turkmenbasy
Turkmen President Saparmyrat Nyyazow signed an edict on construction
of yet another fountain in place of the recently demolished Russian
Theatre of Drama in Asgabat. It seems that the Russian-speaking people
have become accustomed to absolute indifference displayed by the
historical homeland to their problems and do not count on help from
bureaucrats from Smolensk Square Russian Foreign Ministry seat or the
Kremlin.
The Russian indifferent position unties Nyyazow’s hands, and as a
result the discrimination of ethnic minorities in Turkmenistan is
worsening. Specifically, the specialists who graduated from higher
education institutions after 1993 outside Turkmenistan are to be
dismissed by 22 May of this year. Representatives of national
minorities are not allowed to hold positions in financial and military
structures, the judicial system, or the police and other security
services. In addition, teachers and doctors have been dismissed as
well. In an overwhelming majority of cases, those are Russians,
Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Armenians, and children from mixed marriages. Even if
one of the parents is Turkmen, more lenient treatment should not be
expected.
Human rights situation worsens
It stands to reason that President Nyyazow has not reacted in any way
to yet another portion of criticism on the part of the international
community. Turkmenbasy respects no resolutions, especially that they
are adopted on a permanent basis. Last November, for example, a
document condemning the violation of human rights in Turkmenistan was
adopted by the UN General Assembly. “Unfortunately, the Turkmen
government has not resolved the problems raised by the UN Human Rights
Commission. On top of it, the human rights situation in Turkmenistan
noticeably deteriorated in 2003 and early months of 2004,” Aaron
Rhodes, the International Helsinki Federation executive director, has
declared.
Sympathizing country
Notably, Ukraine proved one of the 11 countries sympathizing with
Turkmenbasy. Similar to Moscow, Kiev hopes to sign a gas contract for
25 years. It is unclear, however, whether Turkmenistan has enough gas
for everyone who wants it.
Recently, Russia itself was classified into the same group as
Turkmenistan and Belarus, drawing criticism from the UN Human Rights
Commission. Last week in Geneva, an EU resolution on Chechnya was
discussed. The EU’s main complaint is that the crimes being committed
in Chechnya have not been properly investigated. So, Moscow has no
time now for some compatriots living in the “spiritually close”
Turkmenistan.