OSCE MEDIATORS TO MEET IN VIENNA
Baku Today
Sept 27 2005
The next meeting of OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs mediating the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict is due in Vienna on Tuesday. Foreign Minister Elmar
Mammadyarov was informed of the date for the meeting during the UN
General Assembly’s 60th session held in New York.
Mammadyarov said the venue and format of the next round of talks on
the conflict settlement should be determined at the meeting.
“Then it will become clear whether we will meet on the level of
foreign ministers or the co-chairs will visit Baku and Yerevan.”
Touching on prospects for the peace talks, Mammadyarov said there are
still opportunities to continue the negotiating process. Azerbaijan
should continue the talks while strengthening its military power,
he said.
“The stronger Azerbaijan’s economy, policy and army are, the more
beneficial it is for the country.”
Mammadyarov said that Azerbaijani and Armenian foreign ministers
agreed to keep the proposals that were not approved in the previous
Moscow and Kazan meetings confidential.
“Baku’s position of principle is to grant the highest status of
autonomy to Karabakh provided that Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity
is protected,” he said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

DEPUTY FM CLARIFIES RUSSIAN MEDIATOR’S STATEMENTS
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Sept 27 2005
Baku, September 26, AssA-Irada
Deputy foreign minister Araz Azimov told journalists on Monday that
there are no grounds for Yuri Merzlyakov, Russian co-chair of the OSCE
Minsk Group mediating the Armenia-Azerbaijan Upper Garabagh conflict,
to be concerned over the increase in Azerbaijan’s military expenses.
Such statements mean interference in Azerbaijan’s internal affairs,
Azimov said. “The increase in the budget is normal. The budget will
be raised as much as needed.”
The deputy foreign minister said the move is based on Azerbaijan’s
national interests.
“This is Azerbaijan’s internal affair. The decision was made by the
country’s leadership and government agencies and no one is allowed
to meddle in this”, he said.*

HISTORY CAN NOT BE FOOLED AROUND WITH, BECAUSE IT MIGHT COME BACK TO HAUNT US
VHeadline.com, IL
Sept 27 2005
“History can be always be distorted or manipulated to suit the ends
of those who want to put forward their erroneous viewpoints”
Oscar Heck’s story of the conversation with an Haitian Taxi-driver
and his call for reparations by the White or European colonial powers
needs a rebuttal, which will at at the very least brings to the fore
all of the issues concerned.
That story of President Hugo Rafael Chavez of Venezuela being in real
danger and the overthrow of President Bertrand Aristide of Haiti,
got me thinking enough to do my research and point out the many facets
of the issue.
If we go back in biblical times and even before that, slavery has
been the normal attitude of conquerors. If we go back to beginning
of the Islamic period, we will note that slavery began in earnest
after 632 A.D. When an Arabian Caliph sent an agent named Mohammed
Ali to Africa to capture and bring back slaves to Arabia soon after
the 7th century. The Arabs did not consider Africans as humans,
but only as chattel
The beginnings of slavery date back to the period of the Muslim
conquest and forced conversion of Assyrian Christian Mesopotamia,
Zoroastrian Persia, the Christian Kingdoms in Aram (Lebanon and Syria),
Asia Minor, Jewish Palestine, Coptic Christian Egypt, Christian Nubia
(Sudan), Algeria, Morocco, Christian Carthage (Tunisia) and Libya,
and reached into the heart of darkest Africa, through the lands of
the Tauregs and into Timbuktu, Nigeria, Musabenbeque (Mozambique),
Zanzibar (which came under the Al-Busaid dynasty of Oman till January
1964), Somaliland, Cote d’Ivoire and into Uganda.
If we go even further, the countless Muslim invasions of Hindustan
(India), the first by Mahmud of Ghazni from Afghanistan into the
territory of Raja Dahir, followed by the Moghal (Mongol) invader
Taimur-the-Lame into Hindustan where they forced the conversion to
Islam of thousands upon thousands of Hindus there, does not speak
well of Islam.
It was in Africa that all the big Arab slave markets began, and they
traded with Portugal, Spain, Holland, France and Britain. On the
South-East African coast the biggest slave trader was a Principe
Henri of Pondoland, an African Christian who traded in slaves with
the Portuguese. The U.S. came into the slave trade much later after
its independence in 1783. Even in the case of New France, the Governor
Louis de Buade, sieur de Frontenac, comte de Palluau et Forest was the
first to bring African slaves to far North America in November 1689,
which was considered a great triumph of France. In most of Africa
Tribal Chiefs did big business by capturing neighboring tribes and
selling them as slaves to Arabs or Europeans.
This has been the bugbear of the unknown Africa, and has been denied by
many of today’s Africans themselves, but there is historical data that
can prove all of this to be true. Arab Dhows can still be found hugging
the East African coast in search of slaves in this very day and age.
There never has been any doubt that Spain created the Amerindian
slaves in the Americas, and later brought in African slaves to work
in the gold mines of the Spanish colonies in America.
Nor is there any doubt that the British and other colonial powers
brought African slaves to the Americas and the Caribbean, having
bought them from Muslim (Arab) slave-traders on the West African coast,
but the British also brought in indentured slaves from India.
These were people who were kidnapped and brought to Demarara (later
British Guiana) and Trinidad & Tobago. Go to Java, and other parts of
Indonesia and see the many Buddhist Temples, which are now derelict
because of the Islamic conquests and forced conversion to Islam. It
should be noted that no history book on Asia and Africa blames the
Arabs outright for their enslavement of the African people. The
reasons are evident. Many of the African and Asian countries are
Muslim, or have alliances with Islamic states and it would not serve
their interests to expose it.
Thus the blame for slavery is conveniently laid at the feet of the
European colonial powers.
It was Islamic conquests after the 7th century that brought about a
great influx of slavery. Of course it was Salau-ud-Din (Saladin) the
Kurd who captured 20,000 Christian men, women and children pilgrims
on their way to the Holy Land and sold them into slavery.
Salau-ud-Din also invaded Nubia and forced Christian monks to convert
to Islam or die. While most converted, one named Maurice would not,
and he was skinned alive on orders of Salau-ud-Din that is the Black
St. Maurice whose statue graces the Cologne Cathedral. Is this not
the great Salau-ud-Din who Muslims think of as an Islamic warrior?
Remember along the coasts of the Maghreb (North Africa) the Corsairs
did a thriving slave trade by attacking European and American shipping,
capturing the crews, which they then sold as slaves. But it was
Stephen Decatur of the U.S. Navy that foiled the Corsair raiders
and soundly defeated them. Then there is the Othman Turks whose
fleets attacking the Mediterranean coast of Europe captured and sold
thousands of Europeans into slavery. There was a big slave markets
in Tripoli, Libya, in Meknes, Morocco, in Tunis, Tunisia (Carthage),
Algiers, Algeria, all countries conquered and colonized by Arab from
the Islamic invasion of the 7th century. Also the capture by Muslim
pirates of the niece of the Empress Josephine (Beauharnois) of France,
who was returning from a convent in Martinique who later sold her to
the Sultan of Othman Turkey. Slavery was part and parcel of Islamic
society and we cannot get away from it. A perfect example of this,
is the Holy City of Meknes in Morocco, within whose walls were buried
alive some 20,000 white Christian slaves.
Neither Islamic society nor those who support them want these truths
to be known.
There are still slave markets in Arab countries, where one can bid
and buy a slave of any nationality. The present forced conversion
Christians to Islam in the Sudan by the Arab regime in Khartoum is
an on-going affair. In Marseilles, France alone every year almost
4,000 girls disappear. This is where there are gangs operating the
slave markets from Arab and African countries. To talk of European
colonialism of the past and forget the slavery of the present is to
be duplicitous.
We can only deal with the present, because there is not much of the
past that we can really remember.
We see no cry for justice and reparations asking Muslim countries
to make reparations for their enslavement of Europeans and others,
from those that now expect the former European colonial powers to
pay for their past sins. Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Tunisia,
Morocco, Algeria and other Islamic states are just as guilty of the
enslavement of millions of people, if not more so than all the European
colonial powers put together. Are we to overlook Arab slavery, while
we only make it a point to remember the sins of Europe? No country
conquered by an Islamic force can ever remember its history beyond
the Islamic period. This is the religious brainwashing that has gone
on for centuries in the Middle East, Maghreb (North Africa), darkest
Africa and the Balkans.
Perhaps it is worth remembering that even the Othman Turks were past
masters at religious brainwashing, more so than all the communists
in Europe.
It is time to take serious overview of past history to get an honest
judgment of its reality vis-a-vis the Moors in Spain, the Arabs in
all of the present day Middle East and Africa, the Othman Turks in the
Balkans. Of course the Turks were in occupation of Bulgaria, Rumania,
Albania, Serbia, Croatia and Hungary for centuries and forced people to
convert to Islam or die. Why do think there is a Muslim Albania, Bosnia
and Herzegovina today, but by Turkish Islamic conquest centuries ago.
Do not forget the Turks still occupy Constantinople, which is part
of the Greek nation. Let’s not forget the Armenian genocide of 1915
-21 by Othman Turkey in which 1,500,000 people died. There is also
the Abyssinian genocide carried out by Italy in the mid1930s, both
of which have been conveniently forgotten by historians.
We cannot therefore judge the European colonial powers, if we do not
include Islamic invasions and slavery.
If we do not, then we cannot arrive at an honest judgment of all the
issues involved. We can deliberately pretend forgetfulness or omit
the facts that expose the reality of our time by selective amnesia,
but sooner or later it will catch up with us.
History can not be fooled around with, because it might come back to
haunt us.

THE “CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS” PARADIGM AND ITS CRITICS: A FINAL APPRAISAL
by Professor Michael C. Geokas
Hellenic News of America
Sept 27 2005
April 1, 1995 [PUBLISHED IN: Balkan News (Athens) May7-13, 1995]
>>From Samuel Huntington, one of the most distinguished and well-known
authorities on the State and its interests, we have seen “The Clash
of Civilizations,” an elaborate post-Cold War paradigm. Huntington
asserts that civilizations (defined by language, history, religion,
customs, institutions and by the self identification of people),
are both real and important, and that the differences among them,
which have been solidified through the centuries, are more fundamental
and enduring, than ideological or economic differences, as causes of
future conflict. Thus, civilizational conflict he states, is destined
to be the latest and inescapable phase of conflict in the modern world.
Additionally, whereas nation states, will continue to be powerful
actors in the affairs of the world, the clash between civilizations
will in effect dominate global politics and the (cultural) fault
lines between them, will constitute the battle lines of the future.
Some of Huntington’s critics (the magnificent seven) have been
vigorous in their attempts to discredit the civilization paradigm,
by insisting that the pervasive power of modernity and the inherent
weakness and inevitable erosion of tradition, will soon culminate
into a universal civilization, as the final and dominant determining
factor in global affairs. Professor Fouad Ajami has offered the most
brilliant, most eloquent and the most compelling “scalpel dissection”
of Huntington’s paradigm.
For this writer, Huntington’s civilizational paradigm is an ambitious
construct. However, it contains at least two very significant
classification errors, as well as the intriguing omission of a
monumental factor which promises to be overwhelming ingredient
in determining the future course in world affairs well into the
21st century and beyond: the population explosion in Asia, Africa
and Latin America. Most importantly, Huntington’s paradigm cannot
serve as a model or guide to help us comprehend post-Cold War global
political events.
ERRATA First, Huntington failed to realize and properly record that a
“Clash of Civilizations” has already been inaugurated by the conflict
between the Confucian and the Japanese civilizations, in the ‘China
Incident,” and between the Japanese, and Confucian plus Western
Civilizations, in the “Pacific Rim,” as part of World War II. As
expected from a civilizational conflict, involving sharply defined
cultural fault lines, the latter clash started with spectacular fury,
with an abrupt, surreal, unprovoked and devastating attack from the
air, at Pearl Harbor. This conflict was subsequently fought with
electrifying and ferocious naval and air battles, which included the
spectacle of the notorious kamikaze attacks, unique in the annals of
modern warfare. It included dogfights with Japanese pilots wearing
no parachutes, because it was considered disgraceful for them to
be captured alive by the enemy. The conflict was also fought with
enormous ferocity from island to island in the Pacific, with the
Japanese garrisons fighting against all odds, until the bitter end,
with very few survivors each time.
Even the Japanese civilian non-combatants, refused to surrender
and fell to their deaths from seaside elevations. Finally, when the
end came, it was from the air and was “unimaginable, irresistible,
[and] mushroom shaped.” Thus, the “Pacific Rim” conflicts before and
during the World War II, involved the clash of three civilizations,
the Confucian, Japanese and Western, especially its North American
subdivision. Even “the China Incident” was fought with great ferocity
(rape of Nanking and the indiscriminate bombardment of civilians) as
befitting to civilizational clash of arms. However, despite the fact
that the “Pacific Rim” conflicts fit Samuel Huntington’s paradigm
as the “right key in a door lock,” both of them were in effect
wars between nation states, that happened to belong to different
civilizations and not the other way around. These nation states fought
for their calculated crude interests.
The second significant error of Samuel Huntington’s is found in his
classification of contemporary civilizations, when he contradicts
his own obligatory definition. If indeed a civilization is defined
by common objective elements such as: language, history, religion,
customs, and institutions and subjectively, by the people’s
self-identification, then especially the Greeks, do not belong to
the Slavic-Orthodox-Moslem, civilization.
Orthodox-Christians they are, but Slavic people, they are definitely
not, and their differences from Islam, are too blatantly obvious to
deserve mentioning. But even the line of demarcation between Western
and Orthodox Christianity plus Islam, as suggested by William Wallace
(Map I), is fallacious, artificial and unsupported by the facts. This
line is also prejudicial, because it is based on the unresolved
Schism of Christianity, less than a millennium ago. On this issue
Jeanne Kirkpatrick is right on target. To exclude Russia and other
Orthodox Christians from Western Culture and to lump them together
with Islam, is to fly in the face of reality. Thus, instead of being
perpendicular, this demarcation line should be almost horizontal
(Map II), extending from the Black Sea to North Korea, separating
Christian people (including the Armenians) from those of the Islamic
and Confucian Civilizations.
THE GREEK CONNECTION History has already classified Greece as a
Western subcivilization, albeit with a special twist, due to her
exotic language, the non-Catholic branch of its Church and other
striking elements. Greece is in effect an outpost of Western Europe,
closely adjacent to the World’s most notorious cultural fault line,
that between Europe and Islam. In addition, Greece is the acclaimed
birthplace of Western democracy. Only in the city state of ancient
Athens and in the United States so far, has democracy lasted for as
much as two hundred years.
With a population of about 250,000, Athens produced works of
literature, sculpture and architecture that stand as models,
inspiration and wonder to this day. There is a superbly valid reason,
why the torch for the Olympic games originates in Olympia in the
Peloponessus and why the Greek Olympic team, holding that striking
blue and white flag, is always the first to enter the stadium, for
the Olympic opening ceremonies.
The fall of Constantinople in 1453 followed by almost 400 years of
Ottoman rule, eclipsed the normal evolution of a nation state. With
the revolution of 1821, promulgated mainly by Greeks of diaspora
living in Europe, a nation state was born about 170 years ago and
has been under parliamentary rule for 140 years of its existence,
in very sharp contrast to its neighbors to the east of the fault line.
During the “Western Civil Wars,” World War I and II and the Cold
War, Greece sided persistently and unequivocally with the victorious
members of the Western family of nations. Specifically, the Greeks
were celebrated participants in World War II, who fought in Greece,
in El Alamein, and in Italy. They enjoy the enviable distinction of
having defeated one of the fascist partners in 1940, of contributing
to the defeat of the second and of having defeated the Communists as
well, under the Truman doctrine, which was highly symbolic for the
Birthplace of Democracy.
Linguistically, the Greeks are unique indeed because their language
has only enriched other European languages. Thus, a cornucopia of
nomenclature of Greek derivation is found in Western dictionaries
and at least 68 per cent of the terms in Medicine are of Greek
derivation. The exotic nature of the Greek language is the reason
for the phrase, “its all Greek to me.”
There has never been a “kin country” syndrome among the Greeks, because
religion alone is not enough of a factor of kinship. The Greek Orthodox
Patriarchate is not the “Vatican” of Orthodox Christendom. As the
Turks have found to their sharp disappointment with the 150 million
fellow Muslim Turkic-speakers beyond their northern border, they
could not be their cultural Mecca, and they even failed to be their
“privileged partners.”
Most importantly, in complete alignment with the rest of Europe, Greece
has made the second demographic transition, with a low fertility rate
(1.4) and low natural increase of her population (0.1% annually), and
has embraced similar family planning methods, again in contrast, to her
Middle-Eastern neighbors on the other site of the fault line. Turkey
and other nations of the Middle East, have high fertility rates,
from 2.9 to 7.9,and natural increase from 1.5 to 5.0.
The Western character and strong subjective identification of the
Greeks is aptly illustrated by the Greek origin people in diaspora
(about 4 million), who voting with their feet, have settled mainly in
the West (US, Canada, Australia, European Continent). They are known
to adjust splendidly and to blend easily into the Western environment.
The Greek people have been adherents to the Orthodox Church since the
split of Christianity into its two main branches. The Greeks spread
Orthodoxy to the Slavic people. Religion is the only similarity between
them. All other objective elements such as language, history, customs,
institutions, culture, traditions are completely different.
Thus, it is absurd and inappropriate, to classify the Greeks into the
Slavic-Orthodox civilization just because they are not Catholics, or
Protestants. It is as absurd as classifying Suni and Shiite Moslems,
into separate Civilizations.
Thus, Greece is a part of Western civilization albeit with a special
twist: that of a magnificent language system, (for those who can read
the Iliad as well as Nikos Kazantzakis), a fierce individuality of
its people, and a great political and cultural heritage, which is
distinctly separate from that of the Slavic and Islamic peoples.
Greece it not even a “Torn Country.” It is a Western nation and a
European outpost at that.
THE DEMOGRAPHIC IMPERATIVE However, the most stupendous omission of
Samuel Huntington’s and of his critics (except Kishore Mahbubani),
concerns the overwhelming role that the demographic changes of the
world population, (projected for the 21st century), will undoubtedly
have on future world affairs.
The population explosion (vide infra) and brisk urbanization will
further erode tradition, and will boost modernity and the power of the
nation state. By 2015 nearly 56 per cent of the global population will
be urban, and there will be by 2010, 26 mega-cities with more than
10 million, most of them in developing countries. This significant
omission is understandable. We live in a world of intense and pervasive
specialization in science, and political scientists and professors
of government are no exception, in having difficulties to handle an
issue that necessitates a genuine multidisciplinary approach. Thus,
with one exception, the entire group of discussants, have neglected
the most crucial factor, that will determine to a significant degree,
the course of world affairs, in the next century.
Huntington refers to demographic changes only in passing and does not
seem to grasp their overwhelming impact on any post-cold War paradigm,
including his own.
POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND CONSEQUENCES.
Europe’s population (minus the previous USSR) will grow very little
by 2025, from 513 (1993) to 524 million (2025) and 18.4 of that
population will be over 65.
The population of the Middle Eastern countries and territories (Gaza
and West Bank) of 264,715 million in 1993, is projected to be about
576,426 million in 2025 (high estimate).
The Islamic nations included 980 million people in 1989 and are
expected to nearly double to 1.9 billion by 2020, accounting for 23
per cent of the world’s total.
The population of Africa was 677 million in 1993 and is projected to
be 1,552 million at 2025.
Asia’s population of 3,257 million in 1993 is projected to reach 4,946
million in 2025. China alone with 1,178.5 in 1993, is projected at
1,546.3 million for 2025.
North America’s (US and Canada) population of 287 million in 1993 is
projected at 371 million at 2025.
Latin America’s population of 460 million in 1993,is projected to be
682 million at 2025.
Former USSR’s population was 285 in 1993 and is projected at 321
million, at 2025.
Oceania’s 28 million people in 1993 are projected at 39 million
at 2025.
Thus the Western countries (Europe and North America) are projected
to have about 887 million people by 2025, (20 per cent of them over
65) whereas Africa, Asia and Latin America combined, are projected
to have 7,761 million, and a much younger population at that. This
enormous population imbalance between Western and non-Western nations,
will impart fundamental changes in the world arena.
The demographic forces now in motion will yield a world where
the US and other Western nations will no longer be able to shape
the political agenda, the culture or the direction of the global
community. Inescapably, the center of political, economic and
military power will move to a new non-Western area, bringing with
it an assertiveness of wide scope and significance. The mammoth
differences in demographic power will have serious consequences
for Western countries. Moreover, this population imbalance coupled
with differences in religion, culture, history, and traditions, will
provide the stage for a possible conflict between nation states or
groups of states, of the same or different civilizations.
The potentially controlling role of the demographic forces has been
appreciated by Kishore Mahbubani, who states that “simple arithmetic
demonstrates Western folly.” The West has 800 million people, and
the rest make up 4.7 billion.
In the national arena no Western society would accept a situation
where 15 per cent of its population legislated for the remaining 85
per cent. But this is what the West is trying to do globally.”
Kishore Mahbubani’s population arithmetic adjusted for the year 2025,
will be even more compelling for the emerging power of the non-Western
civilizations.
There can be no amount of exclusive technology or alliance that will
help a static and aging Western society, with 20 per cent of its
population over 65, (with its enormous expenses for health care and
other demands of its welfare policies), that will compensate for such
remarkable differences in sheer numbers and vitality of populations.
It is the demographic imperative, of population explosion and
urbanization (in addition to the modernizing imperative of Jeane J.
Kirkpatrick), coupled with the steady weakening of the Western
Societies through their own folly, that will facilitate conflict.
The West is caught into a self-made web of: low fertility rates,
excessive egalitarianism and radical interpretation of democracy, an
overwhelming emphasis on individualism, which translates into profound
selfishness (and away from altruism and childbearing), and palpable
arrogance, (even among intelligentsias); excessive liberalism and
permissiveness with almost total lack of discipline, especially among
the young, (who receive an abundance of contradictory signals from
their societies), a rigid and inflexible constitutionalism, flagrant
consumerism and hedonism and drug abuse; an incessant hollow call for
respect of human rights despite its miserable failure to protect its
own citizens from criminals and from other elements of social decay.
Whereas the “Western Ideas,” in Samuel Huntington’s litany of
“individualism, liberalism, constitutionalism, human rights, equality,
liberty, the rule of law, democracy, free markets,” sound magnificent,
the demographic forces now at work and on track and their predictable
consequences, will make the West less and less relevant, by sheer
population volume, by the global redistribution of economic power,
and by technology transfer. For instance, the rapidly increasing
economic power of the East Asian States, including China, and their
huge populations and internal markets, will eventually lead to
enhanced military power (including an atomic arsenal and the means
to deliver it), to cultural assertiveness and to profound political
influence. The only partial exception to this scenario will most
probably be the United States, due to strong credentials as part
of the Pacific Rim family of nations and due to the volume and high
quality of brain power and high technological standing.
ISLAM >>From all civilizations, Islam represents a special case and
stands out alone. Islam is much more than a religion. Indeed, it is
a complete way of life. The Sharia governs virtually every aspect of
human life and Moslems believe that the word of God was given word
by word to Muhammad 1400 years ago, who in turn copied it in the Koran.
Furthermore, Islam is an expanding faith and the maintenance of a
worldwide Muslim community is one of the goals of Islamic life. A
specific example of this is the pilgrimage to Mecca, which serves to
demonstrate to each pilgrim the vast reach of Islam and the communality
of its adherents. Many Westerners believe that Islam represents the
only veritable ideological competitor of the West at the end of the
20th century and beyond. Here again the demographic imperative appears
to be controlling, especially in the southern and eastern perimeter
of Europe, where the Europeans sense [the] Islamic ideology on the
march, in what is called Islamic fundamentalism.
The seven countries of North Africa including Egypt, had 155 million
people in 1993 and are projected at 280 million at 2025, with a
doubling population time of 28 years. Moreover, the 15 countries of the
Middle East (including Egypt and Israel) will surpass an aging Europe,
with their youthful population. Thus, the fear of population decline
in “Fortress Europe,” which has been debated in France for decades
is now coming into a sharp focus. Many Europeans have justified fear
that migration from developing countries, including North Africa and
the Middle East, will increase to unacceptable levels.
It seems that population, like nature abhors a vacuum and is compelled
to move from high-growth to low-growth areas, especially if there is a
pull factor of economic advantage. At the G-7 meeting in Tokyo in 1993,
it was stated that uncontrolled migration may be more threatening and
destabilizing than terrorism or the spread of nuclear weapons. Whereas
nobody would anticipate a holy war of Muslim countries from North
Africa and Middle East, as a crusade in reverse, this time by the
Muslim crescent, the potential for great upheaval and disorder at
Europe’s interface with Islam is real.
HAVE A BETTER IDEA? YES I DO.
The “Clash of Civilizations” post-cold War paradigm cannot serve as
the model to help us understand central developments in the future
of world politics. Instead, the nation states, old and new, will
continue to be the main actors in world affairs, with their “acting”
having at times, a civilizational component.
Conflict between (and within) nation states of the same or of different
civilizations will continue to occur as a result of various factors
acting alone or in combination such as: ubiquitous nationalism,
simmering land disputes, competition for scarce water and energy
resources, age-old tribal frictions, religious fundamentalism,
regional and international terrorism, attempts for regional hegemony,
pressures from refugee populations and from large waves of migrants
towards developed countries.
However, the most powerful, all pervasive underlying factor for future
conflict, will be the demographic forces of population growth and
urbanization. This will bring the gradual, inexorable translocation
of economic, political and military power (and the ability to risk
military conflict and to tolerate combat losses), away from Western
societies and toward the nation states of the Islamic, Hindu and
Confucian civilizations. The aging populations of the Western powers,
and their inability to accept large combat losses in serious conflict,
(except in dire need of self-defense), will be in sharp contrast with
the exploding and youthful people of other civilizations.
Edward Luttwak has recently provided us with a brilliant analysis on
the existing impotence of the great Western powers to influence the
course of world events through intimidation, backed up with military
action if necessary, due to the demographic imperative of one, two
and three child families. He discusses “the War of all Mothers” and
the Italian “mamismo” (mothering) and their political consequences,
in the form of a powerful constraint in the use of force, by the low
fertility Western powers.
He emphasizes that in the future, only nation states with a high
fertility rate and large families will be able to initiate and to
sustain conflict and to tolerate significant combat losses. The West
he says, will have to rely more and more on volunteer armies and on
robotic weapons and will delay and avoid conflict, as much as possible,
because of the new family demography.
On the other hand, atomic weapons (and the means of delivering them)
are expected to proliferate among some high fertility rate nation
states and their deterrent effect will be lost for the West. Thus,
the emerging picture for the future of world politics is complicated
and largely unpredictable, due to a mosaic of labile factors,
but specifically because of the looming consequences of population
explosion and urbanization, coupled with the information explosion,
in Asia, Latin America and Africa.
In my view, an all-embracing post-Cold War guiding paradigm based
on civilizational fault lines, is unrealistic. Instead, the “tug of
war” between tradition and modernity will continue inexorably, in
a large number of global locations. The nation states shall remain
the key actors in world affairs, albeit in a new order dictated by
demographic forces.
Finally, the International Conference on Population and Development,
in Cairo, last year, was indeed a valiant attempt to slow down the
projected population explosion within the 21st century, through family
planning and other measures, from 5.67 billion today, to a sustainable
7.27 billion by 2015. Most probably however, the long-term outcomes
of this effort, will be modest at best, due to the fact that Western
countries have long completed their second demographic transition,
whereas nation states of Islamic and some of the other non-Western
civilizations, have a long way to go, in achieving their own
demographic transition and population control.
Michael C. Geokas, M. D., M. Sc., Ph.D.(McGill), Emeritus Professor
of Medicine and Biological Chemistry, University of California, Davis.
SOURCES:
1. Huntington S.P. The Clash of Civilizations. Foreign Affairs,
72(3):22, 1993;
2. Huntington S. P. If not Civilizations What? Foreign Affairs
72(5):186, 1993;
3. Ajami Fouad. The Summoning, But they Said, We Will not Hearken.
Foreign Affairs 72(4): 2, 1993;
4. Kirkpatrick Jeane J. and others. The Modernizing Imperative,
Tradition and Change. Foreign Affairs 72(4):22, 1993;
5. Mabbubani K. The Dangers of Decadence, What the Rest Can Teach
the West, Foreign Affairs, 72(4): 10, 1993;
6. Kagan D. Pericles of Athens and the Birth of Democracy, New York:
Free Press, 1991;
7. Rouleau E. Challenges to Turkey. Foreign Affairs 72(5):110, 1993;
8. 1993, World Population Data Sheet, Population Reference Bureau,
Inc. Washington D.C.;
9. Beedham B. Islam and the West, Economist, 332(7875), August 6,
1994:44.
10. Luttwak E. Where are the Great Powers? Home With the Kids.
Foreign Affairs, 73(4):23, 1994;
11. Inoguchi T. The Coming Pacific Century? Current History 93(579):25,
1995;
12. Conelly M. and Kennedy P. Must It Be the Rest against the West?
The Atlantic Monthly, 274(6): 61-91,December 1994.

PRIMATE, CHURCH LEADERS VISIT ARMENIA
Solange De Santis
Staff Writer
Anglican Journal
Sept 27 2005
Looking for support and greater dialogue with Canadian churches,
the Canadian diocese of the Armenian Orthodox Church invited a group
of church leaders, including the Anglican primate, Archbishop Andrew
Hutchison, to visit Armenia in late August.
Throughout 70 years of Soviet rule, the Armenian Orthodox Church was
repressed and it is now “trying to rebuild,” said Archbishop Hutchison
in an interview, noting that the trip was completely sponsored by
the Armenian church.
“The church survived and a core of the faithful survived. It is a
Christian country surrounded by Muslim countries. The borders to
Azerbaijan and Turkey are closed and the border with Georgia is not
as free-flowing as it might be,” said Archbishop Hutchison.
In Canada, he pointed out, the Anglican church has aided Armenian
churches by providing space for new Armenian congregations and
Archbishop George Carey visited Armenia when he was Archbishop of
Canterbury.
The delegation also included Archbishop Brendan O’Brien, president
of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops; Archbishop Sotirios,
Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Canada; and Richard Schneider, president
of the Canadian Council of Churches.
The hosts were Bishop Bagrat Galstanian, primate of the Armenian
church in Canada, and his assistant, Deacon Hagop Arslanian.
While in Armenia from August 24-31, the group met with His Holiness
Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, at the
Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, a cathedral complex near the capital
of Yerevan that is the center of authority for the worldwide church.
Last year, the Canadian parliament acknowledged the genocide of 1915,
during which 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Turkish forces,
and “that means a great deal to them,” said Archbishop Hutchison,
who participated in a wreath-laying at a memorial for genocide victims.
The visit coincided with the 90th anniversary of the genocide and the
1600th anniversary of the invention of the Armenian alphabet, he noted.
The group also met with political leaders and visited major historic
and religious sites.
The primate discussed with the Armenian church two possible projects
for the Anglican Church of Canada: a bursary to support a theological
student studying in Canada and advice from Canada’s well-developed
military chaplaincy to support a new chaplaincy in Armenia.

SO DID THE ARMENIAN CONFERENCE HURT OUR COUNTRY’S INTERESTS?
The New Anatolian
Sept 27 2005
View: Ilnur Cevik
The controversy-riddled Armenian conference was held over the weekend
despite all kinds of obstacles. No one expected any earth-shattering
results, but even the fact that such a conference could be held in
Turkey and the quality of the debate, even though a bit fiery at times,
shows our country is edging towards accepting free debate as part of
our culture.
The court order demanding the cancellation of the conference was
by-passed with the help of Justice Minister Cemil Cicek, with
organizers switching the venue from Bogazici to Bilgi University .
This was a purely academic occasion yet it was turned into a political
controversy thanks to Turkey ‘s ultranationalist conservative
establishment.
The conference was entitled “The Ottoman Armenians During the Collapse
of the Empire,” but in essence it was designed to debate what had
really happened in eastern Anatolia on Ottoman Empire territory just
before and during World War I. It was designed to make an academic
evaluation of what really happened; to filter the facts from the myth.
Did the Armenians collaborate with invading Russian forces? Did
they set up militia groups to attack Turkish villages and
commit atrocities? Did Turkish bands attack Armenian villages in
retaliation? Were the Armenians forced out of their settlements and
made to migrate to other parts of the empire? What happened to them
during this exodus? Did tens of thousands of Armenians perish in the
process? And, above all, who’s responsible for all this?
Bogazici, Bilgi, and Sabanci universities and their academic
staff should be praised for supporting the organization of such a
conference. This isn’t only because the Armenian issue should be
discussed in earnest, without the usual nationalist slogans, but
also because they served the cause of freedom of speech and showed
how things are starting to change for the better in Turkey despite
efforts by the conservative establishment to turn the clocks back.
It also served to show to academics at universities what liberals like
us (the International Herald Tribune on Sept. 22 described me as a
“liberal voice”) suffer when they want to bring out the truths on many
issues, not only on the Armenian claims but also on the Kurdish issue,
domestic corruption, and irregularities.
The tomatoes and eggs thrown at journalist and columnist Cengiz
Candar and former Deputy Prime Minister Erdal Inonu by a handful of
ultranationalists and ultra “left-wing” militants of the Workers Party
(IP) while they were departing from the conference, was the least
that these people could do to us liberals.
Turkey ‘s liberals are making headway thanks to Turkey ‘s quest to
join the European Union. If it weren’t for the EU accession talks,
scheduled to start on Oct. 3, even the government may not have opposed
the court ruling to block the conference. We hope the freedom-loving
and liberal-minded people of Europe realize this. We also hope that
they also realize what could happen to liberals in Turkey if we fail
to make progress for full EU membership. Tomato attacks by such mobs
would be the least of our worries.
Turkey hasn’t lost anything but has gained from this Armenian
conference. We’ve shown that we have nothing to hide and most of us
can face the challenges of history in a mature manner. The cat is
now out of the bag and we all have to start debating these issues
in earnest without falling into any nationalist pits. Let’s hope
those who had the courage to organize this conference also show the
courage to debate Turkey ‘s Kurds and its domestic corruption and
irregularities with the same boldness.

WOUNDS OF HISTORY: TURKEY’S FAILURE WITH ITS KURDS
By Jonathan Power
Khaleej Times, United Arab Emirates
Sept 27 2005
THIS is the edge of tomorrow’s Europe, at least if Turkey gets its
way. A desolate, mud-built, village, close up to the Syrian border,
reduced to rubble by the Turkish army battling the terrorists of the
Kurdistan Workers’ Party, is slowly being repopulated by a brave few.
The families are understandably nervous.
The PKK has recently restarted its insurgency, breaking a five year
truce, angry with the government’s slow delivery on its promises
to allow Kurdish in the primary schools, full scale broadcasting in
Kurdish and to invest in economic development. “This violence is what
we don’t want”, says one man, living with his extended family under
nothing more than a homemade canopy.
Five minutes drive from the river Tigris that watered downstream
the first of humankind’s civilisations, we engage in what seems to
be almost surreal conversation. On the one hand, the grandfather,
who has fathered twelve children, explains how they make a living
with their herd of sheep out of what appears to be a stony, barren
land without a blade of green grass to be seen. On the other, he says,
although in their hearts they feel Asian they want to enter the Europe
Union. “Europe will give us peace and give us Kurds our rights”,
he says. “And give us food and jobs” adds one of his sons.
A few kilometres away is another larger, more prosperous, village
that escaped the war unscathed. The villagers grow wheat and lentils,
and although they say the water is of poor quality every house has a
television and half the men of the village, as they converse with me
in a large circle, show me their mobile phones. The refrain is the
same, even from the young men who hover standing at the back: “We
don’t want to fight again. We Kurds want Europe to accept Turkey. We
feel deep in ourselves Asian, but now we want to be European”.
But how can modern Europe swallow all this? The poverty, the ignorance
(girls are rarely educated out here), and now the renewed bubbling and
boiling of war. This is not the civilisation of contemporary Europe,
and probably not even of ancient Mesopotamia.
This is life almost, if not quite, at its most elementary and
unsparing.
The Turkish government, as one senior official told me, “seems never
to miss a chance to shoot itself in the foot”. Desperate as it is to
cement on October 3rd the agreement of the EU to begin its negotiations
for entry, it has this year seen not only the police beating up women
demonstrators, the indictment of Turkey’s best known novelist, Orhan
Pamuk, for writing that the Armenian accusations of Turkish genocide
in the days of the Ottoman empire need to be looked at openly but,
most importantly, the bureaucratic go-slow on implementing what was
promised to the Kurds, and thus providing the kindling for a renewal
of the insurgency.
Some of the country’s liberal voices are driven to wonder what
is really going on behind the scenes. Inur Cevik, who was once a
prime minister’s senior aide and now publishes the English language
newspaper, The Anatolian, and who is described by one senior European
ambassador as someone who “is pretty damned true”, tells me that he
is convinced that parts of the army are conniving with the PKK to
restart the fighting so as to derail the Turkish approach to Europe.
But, for all the ineptness of the Turkish government that gives
rise to such conspiracy theories, the likelihood is that these are
rogue elements.
Moreover, apart from the fact that the high command of the Turkish
army is firmly pro Europe, as their mentor Ataturk would have expected
them to be, the PKK itself is also split on Europe. The PKK appears
to realise that an anti-European stance is not popular in this
southeastern corner of Turkey.
Neither, for all its romantic allure, is their occasional talk of a
united Kurdistan. Once again the militants of the PKK are split.
Kurds are impressed with the degree of political and economic autonomy
that the Iraqi Kurds have won during the recent negotiations on the
Iraqi constitution, but they are also aware that it is a precarious
autonomy and that the government of that province is still, despite
elections, essentially feudal, dominated by two families.
Most of the country’s Kurds want to be European and are neither
seriously tempted by the PKK or a united Kurdistan. But Turkey still
doesn’t know how to bring its Kurds up to the starting line. And
in making this grave mistake it is probably delaying the chances of
Turkey of entering as quickly into the Europe Union as it wants to.
Jonathan Power is an eminent foreign affairs commentator and can be
reached at [email protected]

UES TO BUY ARMENIAN
St Petersburg Times, Russia
Sept 27 2005
IN BRIEF
MOSCOW (Bloomberg) – Unified Energy System, the national power utility,
will buy Armenia’s electricity network from Midland Resources Holding
for an undisclosed sum, RIA Novosti reported.
Armenia’s government approved Midland’s request to sell its 100 percent
stake in Armenian Electricity Networks to Interenergo, an offshore
venture UES has with Russian nuclear energy monopoly Rosenergoatom,
RIA reported.
Interenergo agreed in June to pay $73 million to “borrow” Midland’s
shares for 99 years, the Russian newswire said.
The Guernsey-based company paid $40 million for the stock, RIA
reported, without giving details of that transaction.

‘NO’ TO ISLAMIST TURKEY
By Frank J. Gaffney Jr.
Washington Times
Sept 27 2005
On Oct. 3, representatives of the European Union and the Turkish
government of Islamist Recep Erdogan will meet to determine if
Muslim Turkey will be allowed to seek full membership in the EU. It
will be best for Turkey, to say nothing of Europe and the West more
generally, if the EU answer under present circumstances is: “Thanks,
but no thanks.”
The reason Europe should politely, but firmly, reject Turkey’s bid
should be clear: Prime Minister Erdogan is systematically turning his
country from a Muslim secular democracy into an Islamofascist state
governed by an ideology anathema to European values and freedoms.
Evidence of such an ominous transformation is not hard to find.
~U Turkey is awash with billions of dollars in what is known as
“green money,” apparently emanating from funds Saudi Arabia and other
Persian Gulf states withdrew from the United States after September
11, 2001. U.S. policymakers are concerned this unaccountable cash
is laundered in Turkey, then used to finance businesses and generate
new revenue streams for Islamofascist terrorism. At the very least,
everything else on Mr. Erdogan’s Islamist agenda is lubricated by
these resources.
~U Turkey’s traditionally secular educational system is being
steadily supplanted by madrassa-style “imam hatip” schools and
other institutions where students are taught only the Koran and its
interpretation according to the Islamofascists. The prime minister
is himself an imam hatip school graduate and has championed lowering
the age at which children can be subjected to their form of radical
religious indoctrination from 12 years old to 4. And in 2005, experts
expect 1,215,000 Turkish students to graduate from such schools.
~U Products of such an education are ill-equipped to do much besides
carrying out the Islamist program of Mr. Erdogan’s AKP Party.
Tens of thousands are being given government jobs: Experienced, secular
bureaucrats are replaced with ideologically reliable theo-apparatchiks;
4,000 others pack secular courts, transforming them into instruments
of Shari’a religious law.
~U As elsewhere, religious intolerance is a hallmark of Mr.
Erdogan’s creeping Islamofascist putsch in Turkey. Roughly a third of
the Turkish population is a minority known as Alevis. They observe
a strain of Islam that retains some of the traditions of Turkey’s
ancient religions. Islamist Sunnis like Mr. Erdogan and his Saudi
Wahhabi sponsors regard the Alevis as “apostates” and “hypocrites”
and subject them to increasing discrimination and intimidation. Other
minorities, notably Turkey’s Jews, know they are likely next in line
for such treatment — a far cry from the tolerance of the Ottoman era.
~U In the name of internationally mandated “reform” of Turkey’s
banking system, the government is seizing assets and operations of
banks run by businessmen associated with the political opposition. It
has gone so far as to defy successive rulings by Turkey’s supreme court
disallowing one such expropriation. The AKP-dominated parliament has
enacted legislation that allows even distant relatives of the owners
to be prosecuted for alleged wrongdoing. Among the beneficiaries of
such shakedowns have been so-called “Islamic banks” tied to Saudi
Arabia, some of whose senior officers now hold top jobs in the
Erdogan government.
~U Grabbing assets — or threatening to do so — has allowed the
government effectively to take control of the Turkish media, as well.
Consolidation of the industry in hands friendly to (or at least cowed
by) the Islamists and self-censorship of reporters, lest they depart
from the party line, have essentially denied prominent outlets to any
contrary views. The risks of deviating is clear from the recently
announced prosecution of Turkey’s most acclaimed novelist, Orhan
Parmuk, for “denigrating Turks and Turkey” by affirming in a Swiss
publication allegations of past Turkish genocidal attacks on Kurds
and Armenians.
~U Among the consequences of Mr. Erdogan’s domination of the press
has been an inflaming of Turkish public opinion against President
Bush in particular and the United States more generally. Today,
a novel describing a war between America and Turkey leading to the
nuclear destruction of Washington is a runaway best-seller, even in
the Turkish military.
~U This data point perhaps indicates the Islamists’ progress toward
also transforming the traditional guarantors of Mustafa Kemal
Ataturk’s legacy of a secular, pro-Western Muslim state: Turkey’s
armed forces. Matters have been worsened by Mr. Erdogan’s skillful
manipulation of popular interest in the European bid to keep the
military from serving as a control rod in Turkish politics.
At the very least, over time, the cumulative effect of having the
conscript-based Turkish army obliged to fill its ranks with products
of an increasingly Islamist-dominated educational system cannot be
positive for either the Europeans or the Free World beyond.
Especially as Mr. Erdogan seeks to put into effect what has been
dubbed a “zero-problem” policy toward neighboring Iran and Syria,
the military’s historical check on the gravitational pull toward
Islamofascism is likely to recede.
Consequently, the EU’s representatives should not only put on ice
any invitation to Turkey to join the European Union next week. They
should make it clear the reason is Mr. Erdogan’s Islamist takeover:
The prime minister is making Turkey ineligible for membership on the
grounds that the AKP program will inevitably ruin his nation’s economy,
radicalize its society and eliminate Ankara’s ability to play Turkey’s
past, constructive role in the geographic “cockpit of history.”
It is to be hoped this meeting will serve one other purpose, as well:
It should compel the Europeans to begin to address their own burgeoning
problem with Islamofascism. Both Europe, Turkey and, for that matter,
the rest of the world, need to find ways to empower moderate Muslims
who oppose Islamists like Turkey’s Erdogan. Oct. 3 would be a good
time to start.
Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy
and a columnist for The Washington Times.

TURKEY’S CHRISTIAN MINORITY DECRIES PREJUDICE
By Selcuk Gokoluk
Reuters
09/26/05 12:52 ET
ANTAKYA, Turkey, Sept 26 (Reuters) – At a conference aimed at
showcasing religious tolerance in this EU candidate nation, leaders
of Turkey’s tiny Christian community said on Monday they face constant
prejudice from the Muslim majority.
Turkey is more than 99 percent Muslim and its Christians are mainly
descendants of Greeks and Armenians who stayed after the fall of the
multi-ethnic, multi-confessional Ottoman Empire in the 1920s.
Ankara is under pressure from the European Union to bolster the
freedoms of its non-Muslim citizens as it prepares for the historic
launch of EU membership talks next week.
Patriarch Bartholomew, the Istanbul-based titular head of the world’s
300 million Orthodox Christians, said his church still suffered
from petty restrictions rooted in the distrust and hostility of the
Turkish authorities.
“We have difficulty understanding the mentality which sees our rituals
as a show of force and our visits (around Turkey) as missionary
activity,” the Patriarch told delegates attending the “Meeting of
Civilisations” conference.
Turkish nationalists have long viewed the patriarchate as a tool
of ancient foe Greece, even though Bartholomew himself is a Turkish
citizen. He addressed the conference in Turkish.
“We are upset by the efforts of those who try to make politics out
of the patriarchate and our community … Our patriarchate is only a
religious institution and is interested only in its religious duties,”
Bartholomew said.
He complained he had not been allowed to perform religious rituals in
the past two years at the church of Saint Nicholas — the prototype
for Santa Claus — in the Mediterranean town of Demre on his feast-day
on December 6.
The church is a museum, but in the previous 20 years Bartholomew said
he had been able to conduct rituals there.
SUSPICIONS
The spiritual leader of Turkey’s small Armenian community, Patriarch
Mesrob II, echoed Bartholomew’s criticisms.
“Unfortunately our being different from the majority is not always
seen as an asset,” he said, adding his church too had to combat
wrongful ideas and prejudices against it.
Both Bartholomew and Mesrob appealed for greater understanding and
empathy from their Turkish fellow-citizens.
Officially, Turkey is strictly secular but Islam is closely tied
up with the national identity — the flag bears the Islamic star
and crescent moon, for example — and many feel non-Muslims are not
real Turks.
In a sign of how sensitive religion can be, one Turkish lawmaker has
condemned the Antakya conference as an attempt to distract attention
from the “exploitations and massacres conducted by the United States
and Israel in our region”.
“Our Muslim nation’s patience and awareness is being tested by these
meetings, dialogues, conferences and parks of religion,” Mehmet Silay,
who represents the Antakya region, said in a statement issued before
the conference began.
Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, whose ruling Justice and Development
Party (AKP) has Islamist roots, told the 700 delegates the world’s
Muslims had also faced increased prejudice and discrimination since
the 9/11 attacks on the United States.
“Islamphobia is a crime against humanity, just like anti-Semitism,”
said Erdogan, a practising Muslim.
Located near the Syrian border, the town of Antakya — known as
Antioch in ancient times — was chosen as the venue for the week-long
conference because of its rich religious heritage.
The area contains Turkey’s oldest mosque and is also the place where
Jesus’s followers were first called Christians. Antakya is still home
to small Christian and Jewish communities.