Dutch interest Eurovision Song Contest high

esctoday.com, Netherlands

Dutch interest Eurovision Song Contest high
Thu 24 Mar 2005 13:40:29

Source: esctoday.com
Written by: Sietse Bakker

The Dutch interest in Glennis Grace and her Eurovision Song Contest
participation is almost unusually high. While contestants usually
have to fight for some attention, Glennis Grace her agenda is almost
completely full. Meanwhile, the amount of Dutch journalists will be
higher than recent years.

Charts and polls

My impossible dream is likely to enter the charts around the 10th
position, which is unusually high for a Dutch Eurovision Song
Contest entry. The single of My impossible dream contains the
song, the instrumental version and an uptempo remix. Meanwhile,
the Netherlands tops the esctoday.com BigPoll 2005 (semifinal vote)
with Iceland closely behind. The website ESC Statistics placed the
Netherlands second, with Greece as top favourite.

Busy agenda

The past weeks, Glennis Grace already appeared in several television
programmes. The popular lifestyle programme Life & Cooking
pays attention to Glennis and the Eurovision Song Contest every
week. Tonight she will record the Dutch edition of Top of the pops,
tomorrow she can be seen on the kids channel Nickelodeon. On the 4th
of April she will fly to Kiev for a sneak preview of the preparations,
on invitation of magazine Privé. 25th of April Glennis will perform
on the Rainbow Experience Amsterdam, a gay event for more than 20,000
visitors. During the football match Netherlands-Armenia she will sing
the Dutch national anthem acapella.

Draw

During Tuesday’s draw for the running order, the Netherlands came
out of the bowl as ninth. “I wouldn’t have mind a 22nd start position
(…) but the ninth spot was also my position in the Dutch final. At
the end, it’s just like a marathon”, Glennis wrote on her official
website. “No matter the position, to win, you have to run faster than
the others”. Glennis considers Greece to be the favourite for victory.

–Boundary_(ID_KXGnpjAthmu/xttcKj8tsQ)–

Moscow Lashes Out at West Over Kyrgyzstan Protests

Cybercast News Service, VA

Moscow Lashes Out at West Over Kyrgyzstan Protests

By Sergei Blagov

CNSNews.com Correspondent
March 24, 2005

Moscow (CNSNews.com) – Accusing the West of meddling in yet another
former Soviet state, Russia has voiced concerns about the ongoing
violent protests in Kyrgyzstan, where authorities are warning they
may use force against protestors contesting election results.

Both Russia and the United States have military bases in the Central
Asian country.

In a telephone conversation with European Union foreign policy chief
Xavier Solana, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov criticized what
he called Solana’s “counterproductive public statements that can be
used by Kyrgyz opposition to increase tensions.”

He was referring to a statement by Solana on Monday to the effect
that in some parts of Kyrgyzstan, recent parliamentary elections did
not meet international standards.

Criticism also came from the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe (OSCE), which called the elections seriously flawed, and
from U.S. Senator John McCain, who said the balloting was riddled
with irregularities.

Solana reassured Lavrov that the E.U. favored a “political settlement”
to end the standoff.

Russia suspects Western influence played a role in protest-driven
transitions to democracy in Ukraine last year and in Georgia in 2003.

Protests began after a first round of parliamentary elections on 27
February and grew after a 13 March run-off.

The opposition charges that President Askar Akayev’s administration
helped to fix the vote, to pack the 75-seat chamber with supporters
ahead of presidential elections in October.

Kyrgyz police on Wednesday dispersed hundreds of opposition supporters
trying to enter government buildings in the capital, Bishkek. Earlier
this week, protesters took control of regional administrations in
two southern cities, Osh and Jalal-Abad.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov accused the Kyrgyz opposition of
inciting lawlessness and urged protesters to seek political dialogue.

Ivanov also emphasized that the two countries have a collective
security agreement.

Kyrgyzstan is one of five ex-Soviet Republics which in 1992 joined
Russia in a body called the Collective Security Treaty Organization
(CSTO). The others are Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan.

In late 2001, the U.S. opened an air base near Bishkek as part of
the post-9/11 war against Islamist terror. Two years later, Russia
also established an air base in the country.

A Russian task force is there to provide air power for a contingent
of ground troops known as a rapid-reaction force. This group could
eventually total more than 5,000 troops from Russia, as well as from
other CSTO allies.

Earlier this week, Russian officials said the situation around the
airbase remained calm.

Akayev said on national television Wednesday the problems had to be
resolved through negotiation.

He rejected calls for his resignation and condemned the protests,
but said there could be a review of voting results in some regions.

The 60-year-old president has promised to leave office at the end of
his third term, in October. He has ruled the country of five million
people since independence in 1991.

Meanwhile, senior officials have threatened a clampdown. Speaking
shortly after police broke up protests in Bishkek, Keneshbek
Dyushebayev, the newly-appointed Interior Minister whose predecessor
was fired, said police may use live ammunition if necessary.

“Such methods will never be used against peaceful law-abiding citizens,
those who do not storm buildings and seize power,” he said.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for restraint, and the State
Department said it endorsed an OSCE call for immediate talks between
the government and the opposition.

Kyrgyzstan borders China, which has teamed up with Russia in the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization, an attempt to draw Central Asian
states into a regional security grouping.

China’s response to the crisis in Kyrgyzstan has been restricted to
calls for “peace, stability and development in Central Asia.”

BAKU: Politics Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan made astat

Today.Az

Politics Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan made a statement on the
report made out by fact-finding mission of OSCE

24 March 2005 [14:27] – Today.Az

Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan made statement on the
report made out by Fact-finding Mission of Minsk Group of OSCE,
about settling facts in the occupied territories.

It is stated in the information received from Ministry for Foreign
Affairs, that sending of Mission was possible by principal position
of Head Assembly of UNO.

“Such mission has been held for the first time, since the territories
of Azerbaijan were occupied and UNO Security Council made relevant
resolutions on the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.”

Saying that, the mission confirms the settling of the territories and
uneasiness of Azerbaijan, MFA told that, the report was drown out
on the basis of large geological material presented by Azerbaijan
side and was prepared on the base of real materials as a result of
the process. MFA states that, despite of all objective difficulties
(climate and relief, short of time, artificial obstacle to the motion
in the occupied territories etc) the Mission achieved in fulfilling
its mission generally.

“The Ministry thank to the head and members of the Mission for their
activities.” Most of the figures presented by Azerbaijan side, coincide
with the conclusion of the Mission, the statement says. For instance,
according to the initial information of Azerbaijan side, 20.000-23.000
people were settled in the occupied territories. The corresponding
indication of the Mission is more than 17.000 people. Expressing its
alarm on organized settling in the region of Lachin, Azerbaijan side
showed that, 13.000 people were settled there.

The Mission shows this figure to be 8.000-11.000 in the report of the
mission. Azerbaijan side stresses the gift of the co-chairs of Minsk
Group of OSCE to the work of the mission , the co-chairs call in
their advice basing on this report ” Not to settle in the occupies
territories and make changes in the demographic structure of the
region any more “.

They stated that: “If the situation remains like that for a long time,
this might make the peace process complicated. “They apply relevant
international organizations and ask to dislocate the settled people
from the occupied territories and to study material and finance
needs in the region for settling the internally displaced people to
their permanent territories. Azerbaijan side highly appreciates
the decision of the co-chairs of Minsk Group on remaining this
matter on the agenda. The participation of government of Armenia in
the organized settling of the occupied territories of Azerbaijan,
it must be noted that, though the Mission has not answered directly
this question, there are enough proofs in its report, as well as in
the materials presented by Azerbaijan, in the statements made by high
ranking officials of Republic of Armenia confirming the fact that,
government of Armenia directly supports the settling.

It is doubtless that, there are mutual relations and activity between
Armenia and the separatist regime. It was established in Upper Garabagh
region of Azerbaijan and it needs no additional commentary. This matter
has not been touched upon in the report of the Mission. As concerns
the Mission has not found direct proofs about the participation of
Armenia in the settling, Armenia cooperated with the separatists in
Upper Garabagh.

The attempts to remove Armenia out of the frame of this matter are
vague and it is groundless. In accordance with the international
juridical norms, Armenia as an invader is fully responsible for any
kind of activity in the occupied territory, as well as for settling
Armenians to the territories where they didn’t live in before. The
report and advice made by the co-chairs of Minsk Group of OSCE on the
basis of the report paves the way to investigating and solving the
problem after it. The Ministry expresses hope that, international
union will support it in this matter. /APA/

ANKARA: Putin to seek loyalty vow on visit to Armenia

Putin to seek loyalty vow on visit to Armenia

Turkish Press
03/24/2005 12:18 GMT

Published: 3/24/2005

YEREVAN – Russian President Vladimir Putin was expected late Thursday
in Armenia for a visit aimed at securing a vow of loyalty from Moscow’s
ex-Soviet ally.

Putin, accompanied on the day-and-a-half working visit by his wife
Lyudmilla, was due to dine with the Armenian presidential couple
before addressing the main reason for his visit on Friday.

The Russian leader will hold talks with his counterpart President
Robert Kocharian and take part in a ceremony to mark the opening of
the Year of Russia in Armenia.

The problem of the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, an ethnic
Armenian enclave in the heart of Azerbaijan, will be discussed.

And the construction of a gas pipeline between Armenia and Iran, which
is viewed unfavourably by Moscow, was also to feature on the agenda.

The Karabakh war erupted before the fall of the Soviet Union in
1988 and escalated after Armenia and Azerbaijan became independent,
ending in a ceasefire in 1994 with over one million people displaced
and 25,000 killed.

Russia co-chairs, with France and the United States, the Minsk group,
tasked by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe
with finding a negotiated solution to the dispute.

03/24/2005 12:18 GMT

Minister says “not a single” weapon smuggled out of Armenia

Minister says “not a single” weapon smuggled out of Armenia

Regnum, Moscow
23 Mar 05

An Armenian citizen, wanted by the police, is accused of trying to
smuggle arms into the USA. Meanwhile an investigation showed that not
a single weapon was smuggled out of Armenia, the secretary of the
National Security Council under the Armenian president and defence
minister, Serzh Sarkisyan, said on 23 March.

According to him, there has always been tight controls over arms depots
in Armenia and Nagornyy Karabakh. “Not a single theft has ever been
registered,” the minister noted.

To recap, Armenian citizen Artur Solomonyan and his brother Levon
Solomonyan and a few others, were detained on suspicion of arms
trafficking into the USA. Both of them have been wanted by the police
since 2001 for dodging military service.

According to the investigation, the Armenian citizen was in charge
of the international criminal gang comprised of citizens of Armenia,
Georgia and the USA.

Ukraine, Georgia discuss alliance

Ukraine, Georgia discuss alliance
By Humayun Chaudhry

Al-Jazeera, Qatar
March 24 2005

New efforts by Georgia and Ukraine to resuscitate an anti-Russian
axis may prove to be of little benefit considering the alliance’s
last experience.

With President Mikhail Saakashvili visiting Ukraine, Georgia has been
spearheading efforts to revive GUUAM, the acronym for members Georgia,
Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova.

Along with Ukraine’s President Viktor Yushchenko, their joint interest
has been to use it as an economic and political mechanism, tying
the members closer to Europe and the West while reducing Russia’s
traditional dominance.

More economic than political

Valeri Chalyi, director of international programmes at the Ukrainian
Political and Economic Studies Centre, told Aljazeera.net that the
drive to revive the association was more economic than political,
for now.

“Orientation towards the European values is among the priorities of
the GUUAM members”

Valeri Chalyi, Ukrainian Political and Economic Studies Centre

“The attempt at resuscitating GUUAM has been connected to what is being
seen as the new opportunities for economic and security interaction in
the Black Sea-Caspian region. They have been frozen in recent times,”
he said.

Chalyi said the political priority of GUUAM’s revival was the
transportation of energy, attraction of new investments and the
political consolidation of GUUAM members.

The expansion of GUUAM was a key plank in talks between Yushchenko
and Saakashvili on Thursday.

Relations with EU

Chalyi thinks Saakashvili and Yushchenko’s interest in GUUAM is linked
to relations with the European Union.

“Orientation towards the European values is among the priorities of
the GUUAM members,” he said.

“By virtue of its geopolitical situation, economic potential and
clear orientation to the European model of development, Ukraine has
interest in being a leadership force for the organisation.”

However, Jonathan Cohen, programme manager for the Caucasus region
for Conciliation Resources, a London-based organisation specialising
in conflict resolution, says that the GUUAM originally failed when
it was set up in 1997 “because its framework made it impossible to
resolve problems of interstate cooperation, namely, its relations
with the CIS”.

The Commonwealth of Independent States emerged after the break-up of
the Soviet Union in 1991.

GUUAM’s failure

Cohen said GUUAM withered after members failed in the late 1990s to
create a regional free-trade zone, increase mutual trade turnover
and realise ambitious energy projects.

Russia maintains military bases in all the GUUAM countries

“Now, Ukraine and other members of the GUUAM stand a chance for
revitalising its authority, although the position of both Uzbekistan
and Azerbaijan is still uncertain.

“The project could be revived in the context of attracting under
its aegis other countries outside the post-Soviet space,” he told
Aljazeera.net.

The EU and Washington’s attitude to the organisation in the late 1990s
was that it had nothing to offer and the US administration had taken
a strong tilt towards Russia at the time.

Political winds

After governments were toppled in Georgia and Ukraine, GUUAM’s
ability to muster political credibility has not been forthcoming;
former alliance members still seem to be uncertain of where they
stand with its revival today.

Neither Yushchenko nor Saakashvili has managed to persuade Azerbaijan
or Uzbekistan to rejoin the union, potential new member Armenia was
ruled out, and Moldova has stated no interest in a reunion.

Russia has military bases in all GUUAM countries and retains political
influence with the countries Russian minorities (including in
Trans-Dniester, a tiny self-declared Russian-led republic in Moldova)

Russia’s overreaction

“Russia tends to overreact to developments in those republics”

Jonathan Cohen, Conciliation Resources

“The former Soviet republics pose little threat to Russia and its
interests itself,” says Cohen, of Conciliation Resources.

“Russia tends to overreact to developments in those republics. Since
the elections in Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova, Moscow has tended to
imagine threats emanating from virtually everywhere.”

He added: “Shadowboxing may cost Russia and its positions in the CIS
dearly. It should probably pay no attention to GUUAM, and its political
deadlock will once again constrain any alliance’s ability to act.”

Cairo: The lodgers’ discontent

Al-Ahram Weekly, Egypt
March 24-30 2005

The lodgers’ discontent

Yasmine Fathi registers the effect of a bestselling novel on a
downtown apartment building

In one of the most restless parts of Cairo — 34 Talaat Harb Street,
to be precise — residents of the by now famous Yaqoubian Building
had been idling away the years in relative oblivion, unaware of the
media attention Alaa El-Aswani’s eponymous bestselling novel was
about to force on them. “It’s a novel of which the hero is a place,”
the author explains. When they are turned into films to be shot on
location — written by Wahid Hamed and directed by his son Marwan,
The Yaqoubian Building, said to be the biggest production to date in
Egyptian cinema, will star such household names as Adel Imam and Nour
El-Sherif — the hullabaloo such novels can generate is evidently
irksome.

“But this has precedents,” El-Aswani goes on, all too aware of the
negative impact the film has made on the residents in question: “A
novel about the River Drina by the Yugoslav author Ivo Andric, for
example; also a good half of Naguib Mahfouz’s work — Sugar Street,
Meddaq Alley…”

The choice of downtown Cairo, he says, has its roots in his
upbringing: “That’s where I’m from — its upper middle-class
echelons. So it’s where I grew up, attending the Lycée Français.
Traditional, grassroots neighbourhoods make up the world of Naguib
Mahfouz, downtown Cairo makes up mine.” He first came to know the
building, he recounts, through his father’s office — later
transformed into his own dentistry practice — one of its flats: “It
also has a striking name that attracts attention. But it must be
noted that, in the novel, the building is a technical device, nothing
more.”

Yet, as the responses of both historical and recently arrived lodgers
show, even a technical device can prove profoundly problematic: “We
are talking about people whose place of residence no one has heard
of, and suddenly there are cameras and two to three interviews a
day.”

And notwithstanding the fact that two other Yaqoubian buildings exist
— one in Heliopolis, one in Beirut — both hullabaloo and negative
response have invested this one with a peculiar sense of importance.

According to lawyer Fikry Abdel-Malek, the agent of the building
since 1961, Nishan Yaqoubian, an Armenian, had the six-story
construction built in the 1930s; the bottom floor, Abdel-Malek adds,
consisted of the Yaqoubian’s huge silverware store. In the 1940s
ownership of the building was transferred to Dekran, Nishan’s son:
“The building was occupied by Armenian, Italian, and Greek lodgers as
well as prominent Egyptian figures.”

The latter have included Zaher Abdel-Rahman, governor of Marsa
Matruh, Mahmoud Talaat, governor of Damietta, and the famous actor
Zaki Rostom. The Yaqoubian family divide their time between Egypt and
Switzerland, and this is why it has been in the care of Abdel-Malek
for over 40 years: “Dekran and I maintained contact throughout this
time — until one day I received a furious call from him about the
book… I hadn’t heard of it, so I bought it and started reading it.
I was appalled.”

In contrast to the gritty realism with which El-Aswani imbues the
building, older lodgers remember it in glowing terms. “In the old
days,” one Greek resident who would rather remain anonymous
reminisced, “the building was very elegant — beautiful. I inherited
the apartment from my father, and I’ve been living here since 1962.”
She has not yet read the book, but she has “heard rumours” that it
speaks disparagingly of her neighbours: “Which is wrong. This has
always been a clean building, with a spick-and-span reputation.”

Magdi Shaker, an Egyptian who has lived in the building for the last
12 years, agrees: “The author might claim that all he says is the
product of his imagination. Well, he should realise that this
imagination of his has hurt a lot of people…” Drugs, prostitution,
women discussing sex on the roof — according to Abdel-Malek, all
this undermines the reputation of the building: “El-Aswani gathered
every social disease into our lodgings.”

Yet, to listen to him speak, at least, such was far from the author’s
intention. “Some residents,” he explains, “spotted similarities
between themselves and the characters, and so they decided to take
both me and the production company to court. It’s terribly silly.
None of the characters in the book are real, it’s a work of fiction
in which I’ve used my imagination, for I am a writer,” he exclaims,
“and this is what writers do.”

Many however believe they have plenty of evidence that El- Aswani was
depicting them in person. Abdel-Malek, for example, believes the
character Fikry Abdel-Shaheed to be him: “He is the agent of the
Yaqoubian Building; everyone knows I’m the agent of the Yaqoubian
Building. All that El-Aswani changed is half of my last name. And he
says that I’m an alcoholic womaniser who would do anything for money
— there goes my reputation.” (In response to this line of thinking,
El- Aswani points out that there were four lawyers in the building,
all named Fikry. “Nor did I mean any one of them, as it happens.”)
Yet such characters as Zaki El-Desouqi and Hatem Rasheed, Abdel-Malak
insists, are similarly libelled.

For their part Yasser and Rami Khela believe the character Malaak to
be identical with their late father. The brothers were aware that
El-Aswani was writing a book on the building, but had paid little
attention at the time. “Until one day,” Yasser recounts, “I read a
newspaper review of the book and found my father’s name in it — a
sleazy opportunist, apparently.” Nor is there any doubt about the
character’s identity: “He had the gall to use the full name, Malaak
Khela, and he described him as a tailor, which he was.”

According to the elder brother, Rami, Malaak Khela had at one point
shared an apartment with Zaki El-Desouqi and Alaa El-Aswani: “Each
had a room, which was turned into an office.” Disputes erupted, he
recounts, when, in 1989, El-Aswani decided to take over the reception
area as well as his room, building a wall around it to prevent the
other two from claiming it: “My father sued him and we’ve been
enemies ever since.”

The character, the brothers believe, was conceived by way of revenge.
“He basically says that our father performed illegal activities,”
Rami explains, “that he was the kind of person who could sell his
mother…” One anecdote they find particularly enraging: In the book
Malaak fabricates a Christian Science Monitor article about “a great
Egyptian tailor” and puts it up on the wall. “This article exists,”
Yasser explains. “It is real, it was published, and my father did put
it up on the wall of his office.”

Typically, El-Aswani downplays the similarities between the two
Malaaks, pointing out that the name of Rami and Yasser’s father was
Malaak Makhael and that he was widely known as Mikha: “Maybe Khela is
their fourth or fifth name — it’s a fact of which I had no
awareness.” And rather than being a tailor, he claims, Khela senior
owned a factory. Though he concedes that there was a legal dispute
between him and Malaak, El-Aswani insists their relationship remained
strong.

“Besides,” he adds, “there was another Malaak who worked in the
ground-floor shop — why should they assume that I mean their
father?”

Nor is this all they assume, indeed: other family members are
similarly defamed. “The character Malaak just happens to have a nasty
brother called Abskharon,” says Yasser. “What a coincidence that my
uncle’s name is also Abskharon.” The brothers are deeply upset by the
book. “What do I tell my friends?” asks Rami. “How do I face fellow
merchants? Should people avoid arguing with authors for fear of being
defamed in their books?” And Yasser agrees: “My mother has not
stopped crying since she heard the news. My father was a respectable
man, widely loved. He really does not deserve any of this.”

As a writer of fiction, however, El-Aswani contends, he cannot be
held accountable for people’s reputations: “If I was writing a
documentary about the building and I made up stories then I could be
held responsible. But this is not a documentary.”

His belief is that the Khela brothers are suing him for the sake of
money: “It’s when they found out that the movie is costing LE18
million that they thought of suing me for LE2 million; maybe they
think I’m getting all the money. No one has the right to get into a
writer’s head, making assumptions about his intentions. This way no
one will ever write again.”

Yet Abdel-Malek and the Khela brothers are already in the process of
having El-Aswani prosecuted for libel. And the book’s being turned
into a major commercial venture has contributed to the tenor of their
rhetoric: “I have sent warnings to the director, producer and the
Ministry of Culture,” Rami declaims. “And unless they change that
character’s name and are willing to protect my father’s reputation, I
will not allow this movie to be made — over my dead body.”

–Boundary_(ID_a4JFiYR1w7Y12J4ynm+KTA)–

Cairo: The assumption

Al-Ahram Weekly, Egypt
March 24-30 2005

The assumption

To mark the 200th anniversary of the year Mohamed Ali became
exclusive ruler of Egypt, Professor Yunan Labib Rizk begins the first
of a nine-part series on the life of the founder of our modern state,
starting with his ascension

Mohamed Ali

For several weeks now the Al-Ahram history centre has been exploring
a question that we knew would be asked by anyone interested in modern
Egyptian history: How should we commemorate the bicentennial of
Mohamed Ali Pasha’s assumption to the throne in Egypt? The date on
which this occurred — 13 May 1805 — marks a turning point not only
in the history of Egypt but in the history of the entire region. For
Egyptians in particular it was when their country started to make the
transition from the middle ages to the modern era.

After having considered several ideas for commemorating this
occasion, our attention was serendipitously drawn to a set of very
relevant back issues of Al-Ahram. In November 1949, Egypt was
commemorating the centennial of Mohamed Ali’s death. Al-Ahram ‘s
contribution at the time was to gather the greatest amount possible
of new and pertinent information on this unique figure and to solicit
the contributions of prominent historians, intellectuals and literary
figures of the period. The result was a full-scale portrait of the
“Founder of Modern Egypt” and his times. We have taken the occasion
of the bicentennial of Mohamed Ali’s assumption to the throne to
present today’s readers pieces of this portrait as it appeared in
Al-Ahram over half a century ago, intervening as little as possible
for the purposes of clarification.

The epithet was first coined by Henry Herbert Dodwell, author of The
Founder of Modern Egypt: A Study of Mohamed Ali (Cambridge, The
University Press, 1931).

Al-Ahram ‘s first article in its Mohamed Ali series — “How he
ascended the throne” — was the work of the newspaper’s editorial
staff. Their account opens during that brief respite following the
end of the Napoleonic expedition, a year and a half after the
evacuation of French forces on 3 July 1801 and three months before
the final evacuation of the British forces that had helped drive out
the French, the last phase of which was completed on 5 March 1801 in
accordance with the Treaty of Amiens.

“In January 1803, Egypt was divided into three areas of influence:
Alexandria, which was occupied by a British force of 4,430 troops;
the rest of the Delta and Cairo, which were controlled by a
10,000-strong Ottoman army; and Upper Egypt, which was controlled by
the Mamelukes whose forces consisted of 3,000 cavalry men, 6,000
tribesmen and 80 French artillery soldiers who had deserted the
French occupation army and joined the Mamelukes. In any confrontation
between Mameluke and Ottoman forces, the latter were routinely
defeated because they did not trust and hence obey their leaders. The
viceroy of Egypt at the time was Mohamed Ali’s sworn enemy, Mohamed
Khusraw Pasha, who later became the grand vizier in Istanbul.”

This is one of the rare references to the desertion of French troops
to Mameluke forces. It is not clear what prompted these soldiers to
refuse to return to France with the rest of the expedition.
Conjectures have varied from the personal — the soldiers may have
taken Egyptian wives for example — to the political — that they had
volunteered to remain the eyes and ears of France in Egypt.
Regardless, it is interesting how readily they could be absorbed into
the Mameluke armies. Perhaps this is because of the heterogeneous
nature of these forces in contrast to the Albanian forces, for
example, which were bound by national-ethnic affiliations. Of course,
it helped that the French artillery officers had useful skills to
offer.

“In late June 1803, the Egyptian people, aided by the Mameluke beys
in Cairo, rose up against and killed Taher Pasha, commander of the
Ottoman garrison in Cairo, while Mameluke and Albanian forces under
Mohamed Ali took Mohamed Khusraw prisoner. In July, Ali Pasha was
appointed governor. Although he had curried favour with the British,
he was disliked by other European powers and the Egyptian people.
Meanwhile, the Albanian troops began to demand their arrears,
threatening to leave Egypt if they did not receive it. In order to
induce them to stay, Ali Pasha offered to conclude an alliance with
them against the Mamelukes. However, the Mamelukes learned of this
conspiracy, rose up against the governor and exiled him to Jaffa.”

Abdel-Rahman El-Gabarti relates a different version of the
assassination of Taher Pasha. According to his account, after being
appointed commander, he refused to meet the janissaries’ demands for
their back pay, in response to which a group of them “attacked him
with their swords and one of them cut off his head and threw it from
the window into the courtyard.”

Prior to this, the Ottoman governor waged several campaigns against
the Mameluke forces ensconced in the Delta. After having suffered
numerous defeats at their hands, he agreed to place himself under the
protection of the Mameluke emirs, which provoked the surprise and
scorn of the Egyptian people.

“The Mamelukes demanded that Khurshid Pasha, governor of Alexandria,
be made viceroy. At this time, too, Alfi Bek returned from England.
Disturbed by this development, Othman Al-Bardisi Bek summoned Mohamed
Ali, commander of the Armenian regiments, to discuss the subject.
They concluded their meaning by agreeing to an alliance.

“On 20 February, in the dead of night, Mohamed Ali and his soldiers
crossed the Nile at the banks of Old Cairo, and launched a surprise
attack on Alfi Bek’s horsemen who had camped near Giza, although Alfi
the younger managed to flee. Mohamed Ali seized control of the
village of Giza and then pursued the remnants of Alfi’s forces all
the way to Manouf. Nevertheless, he was unable to capture Alfi the
elder.

“These campaigns broke the back of the Mamelukes, which cheered the
Albanian forces and helped Mohamed Ali’s star to rise. The Albanian
commander immediately contacted the French consul and asked him to
mediate on his behalf with the sultan so that he could be granted the
governorship of Egypt. The consul hastily penned a letter to his
government stating, “I can assure you that Mohamed Ali has not
concealed his determination to reach power. However, in spite of that
commander’s sympathy towards France, I am not certain whether he
possesses the necessary ability to devise and implement a
comprehensive programme.

“In March, Mohamed Ali held a frank exchange with the French consul.
He told him point blank that he intended to break the power of the
Mamelukes. Then he shouted, “How can you put your trust in those men
who betrayed your brother, your colleague and your friend? As for us,
their sworn enemies, we expect nothing from them but treachery and
destruction.”

The acting governor of Cairo: Like other Mameluke emirs during their
short control of the capital, he was rapacious in his levies of taxes
and duties, triggering popular protests led by Al-Azhar ulama and in
which the protesters cried, “what can you take from my empty purse,
Bardisi?”

This account establishes that Mohamed Ali, who took over command of
the Albanian forces following the assassination of its former
commander, had his eyes trained on the Egyptian throne quite early
on. It contrasts sharply with the customary narrative according to
which the young commander initially expressed reluctance when
approached by Egyptian leaders with an offer to make him their ruler.

“Soon afterwards, Mohamed Ali met Khurshid Pasha secretly and
concluded a pact with him to attack the Mamelukes. On 11 March, the
Albanian forces assaulted the homes of Othman Bek and Ibrahim Bek,
forcing them to flee with their wounds. The Albanians then occupied
the Citadel. When Khusraw Pasha and Ali Pasha learned of the Albanian
victory, they fled to Istanbul.”

“Everything had gone to Khurshid Pasha’s satisfaction. However, as he
had assumed power without the authority of a firman from the sultan,
Mohamed Ali proclaimed that Khurshid’s rule was illegitimate and
seized control of the army. When Ahmed Al-Jazzar, the governor of
Akka, learned of this development, he sent an armed force to Arish to
strike a treaty with Mohamed Ali. Fearing the consequences of such a
pact, the sultan hastened to dispatch the firman Khurshid Pasha
required; however, Ali Pasha died a few days later.”

These events illustrate the extent to which Istanbul’s control over
its provinces had weakened; it could do little but assent to de facto
realities. They also establish a precedent for the events of 13 May
1805 when Egyptian leaders effectively handed Mohamed Ali the
governorship.

“Then Alfi Bek advanced at the head of his forces to Cairo and
offered a truce to Khurshid. Now mistrustful of Mohamed Ali, Khurshid
agreed and Alfi Bek secured himself inside the Citadel. Mohamed Ali
was aware of the precariousness of the situation. The Mamelukes had
surrounded the capital and threatened to starve the population while
the Albanian troops were growing restless over not having received
their arrears.”

“It was not long, however, before the Mamelukes fell into dispute
over what military strategy to adopt against the Albanians. Mohamed
Ali hastened to take advantage of this opportunity to deliver an
unanticipated strike, attacking the forces of Alfi the younger that
were camped between Tura and Old Cairo and seizing four cannons.
Then, on 23 July he seized Shalqan. At the same time, the Nile floods
forced the Mamelukes to end their siege and withdraw again to the
Fayoum. Mohamed Ali hastened into pursuit and put the forces of
Al-Bardisi and Ibrahim Bek to flight into Upper Egypt.”

“In September 1804, in deference to the desire of this force to
return to their country, Mohamed Ali decided to leave Egypt. However,
Khurshid Pasha feared that the Mamelukes would take advantage of
Mohamed Ali’s withdrawal to seize power again and tried to persuade
him to stay. Mohamed Ali agreed and took up battle again at the head
of some Albanian regiments that decided to remain in Egypt.”

“In January 1805, after re-organising his forces to which had been
added the Ottoman regiments, Mohamed Ali laid siege to Minia, then a
formidable Mameluke stronghold. After two months of ferocious
warfare, his soldiers succeeded in taking the city after inflicting
an ignominious defeat upon the Mamelukes.”

A contemporary source relates that on 13 December 1804 “it was
reported that a battle broke out between Ottoman forces and the
Egyptian emirs (the Mamelukes) in Minia, during which Saleh Al-Alfi
Bek and Murad Bek, two of the new district governors outside Cairo,
were killed.”

“After this victory Mohamed Ali decided to return to Cairo, bringing
all his forces with him and declaring that the forces that were under
his command demanded their pay. Fearful of this advance, Khurshid
Pasha took precautions to hold out against an attack. Then, as soon
as Mohamed Ali crossed the Nile, Khurshid sent a messenger to learn
of his intentions. In spite of this, Mohamed Ali marched into Cairo
at the head of his forces. Henceforward, the relations between the
two commanders were strained. There was no exchange of visits.
Instead, Mohamed Ali demanded to see the government accounts dating
from the day Khurshid assumed power. He also insisted that the
lieutenant and commander of the Citadel garrison be sent to Upper
Egypt, while he himself would remain in Cairo. Commenting on the
situation at this time, the French consul observed, ‘it appears that
Mohamed Ali has great influence with both the soldiers and the
people. All military and civilian leaders have visited him, in
violation of the orders issued by Khurshid Pasha prohibiting this.'”

“The inhabitants of Egypt had grown weary of the climate of tension
that prevailed in the country at that time and yearned for stability.
In May 1805, the French consul wrote to his government, ‘in spite of
the rumours to the effect that things have returned to normal and
that Khurshid Pasha and Mohamed Ali have resolved their differences,
I feel compelled to request instructions from the Foreign Ministry
regarding the policy I should adopt in the event that Mohamed Ali
seizes power.

“Several days later, the people, led by the ulama, rose up against
the Ottoman army which was still perpetrating crimes. Mohamed Ali
declared himself ready to defend the people and issued strict orders
to his soldiers to prevent crime and defend the rights and safety of
the people.”

The following account by El-Gabarti underscores the importance of
this event whose bicentennial we are celebrating today: “When Monday
arrived, they met in the judge’s house. A large throng of people had
gathered but were prevented from opening the gate which was shut in
their face. Therefore, all went to Mohamed Ali and said, ‘We do not
want that pasha to rule us. He has to be removed from power.’ Mohamed
Ali asked, ‘and who do you want as governor?’ They answered, ‘we will
only accept you. We want you to govern us according to our conditions
because we feel you are just and good.’ Mohamed Ali declined at first
but then accepted. A kaftan was brought in which El-Sayed Omar and
Sheikh El-Sharqawi helped him don. By now it was the late afternoon,
and the news of Mohamed Ali’s investiture was conveyed to Ahmed
Pasha. He responded, ‘I am invested governor by order of the sultan
and I will not be dismissed by peasants. I will only leave the
Citadel when commanded to do so by the sultan.’ The following morning
the people assembled again. The pasha mounted his horse and together
with a large throng carrying swords and sticks they went to Ezbekiya
Lake.

“On 10 May 1805, Mohamed Ali learned that he had been appointed
governor of Jeddah. This appointment had been issued two months
earlier, but Khurshid Pasha had concealed the news out of his need
for Mohamed Ali’s services. However, now that he felt his power
threatened by the general commander, he revealed the firman in an
official assembly. Although Mohamed Ali declared that he was willing
to depart, the Albanians surrounded Khurshid Pasha following the
recitation of the firman and demanded their arrears. Khurshid Pasha
announced he would levy a tax for this purpose, which provoked the
populace to anger.

“Upon leaving Khurshid’s camp, Mohamed Ali broadcast the news of his
departure to the people. The following day, he gathered his soldiers
and notified Khurshid that he must resign his post. The people joined
Mohamed Ali’s forces, and Khurshid withdrew into the Citadel with a
force of 2,000 men.”

“At the same time, Egyptian sheikhs and notables sent a delegate to
Istanbul with a petition to the Supreme Porte to appoint Mohamed Ali
governor of Egypt instead of Khurshid. The Supreme Porte sent a
delegate to Egypt to investigate the matter.”

“On 10 July 1805, the supreme edict arrived from Istanbul and was
announced in the Egyptian capital. It proclaimed that, in deference
to the will of the populace, Mohamed Ali had been appointed viceroy
of Egypt and ordered Khurshid Pasha to depart to Alexandria. When Ali
Pasha, Khurshid’s master of arms, learned the news he set out from
Upper Egypt at the head of a force of 3,000, which was intercepted by
Mohamed Ali.”

“While the fighting ranged between Ali Pasha and Mohamed Ali,
Al-Qubtan Pasha arrived in Egypt and decided to await the outcome of
the battle in order to determine what measures to take. The Mamelukes
tried to persuade him of the friendship between them and Khurshid.
When this failed, they staged a demonstration of their power. On 18
August, 400 Mameluke horsemen marched into the capital, preceded by
pipers and drummers in order to create the impression of a victory
parade. This, too, ended in failure, for the people rose up against
them. Moreover, when the horsemen attempted to take flight, leaving
their arms, purses and property behind them, the people intercepted
and eliminated them all.”

“Meanwhile, Hussein Al- Qubtan, who had formerly commanded a fleet
that assisted in the expulsion of the French, became embroiled in
internal conflicts between the Mamelukes and the Turks. The Turkish
admiral used every means at his disposal to put an end to the
‘Egyptian emirs’.”

“The admiral only left Egypt when Khurshid Pasha was made governor of
Salanik. However, before leaving he expressed his misgivings over
leaving Mohamed Ali at the head of the army.”

“On 27 June, Qubtan Pasha returned to Egypt, offered Mohamed Ali the
choice between the governorship of Salanik or Cyprus. He then
declared that Alfi Bek was the governor of Cairo and that Moussa
Pasha then governor of Salanik was on his way to Egypt at the head of
a powerful army to take control of the government.”

“Mohamed Ali told the admiral that he would obey his orders and leave
Egypt. However, before departing he insisted that the admiral pay
LE100,000 to the armed forces, and threatened that if the admiral
refused to do so he — Mohamed Ali — would put his own life at risk
on behalf of the soldiers and also subject Cairo to severe hardship.”

“At this time, the chief magistrate, sheikhs and ulama of Al- Azhar
and eminent notables signed a petition appealing to the Supreme Porte
to retain Mohamed Ali in Egypt because his rule was more just than
the rule of the Mamelukes. Mohamed Ali, for his part, proclaimed to
the British consul that he feared no one, certainly not the chief
admiral, and that he was capable of repelling any foreign force that
attempted to intervene in Egypt to assist the Mamelukes.”

“Qubtan Pasha had not yet despaired of his ability to persuade
Mohamed Ali to leave Egypt through a negotiated agreement. Only when
it was too late that he decided to take the measures to remove him by
force.”

“When Al-Alfi Bek’s forces were defeated at Damanhour, Qubtan Pasha
was forced to resume negotiations with Mohamed Ali. On 20 October
1806 he returned to Istanbul taking with him Ibrahim, Mohamed Ali’s
son.

“However, in 1807, Alfi Bek died. The death of Mohamed Ali’s most
formidable adversary brought an end to all effective resistance to
his rule.”

Alfi Bek died of cholera on 10 January 1807. Before that, however, he
had succeeded in eliminating his rival Mameluke emir, Othman Bek
Al-Bardisi, whom he had poisoned. Nevertheless, Al-Alfi had won
considerable admiration among his contemporaries. Even El-Gabarti
felt remorse at the passing of the emir whose death he considered the
end of an era:

“Oh Egypt! Look at your children around you, fragmented, estranged
and outcast, while boorish Turks and Jews and depraved Albanians take
over your land and collect your taxes; make war on your children and
combat your heroes; destroy your homes and inhabit your palaces;
defile your visage and your sight and extinguish your joy and your
light.”

Clearly, El-Gabarti did not hold out the best hopes for the era upon
which he was about to embark. In his account, Al-Alfi said shortly
before his death, “Fate has decreed that Egypt be left to Mohamed
Ali.” One imagines that in conveying these dire sentiments,
El-Gabarti is not so much fearful of the advent of an age in which
Mohamed Ali would exercise exclusive rule over Egypt as he was
mournful of the passing of the age to which he himself had belonged.

ANKARA: YEREVAN – Russian President Vladimir Putin was expected late

Russian President Vladimir Putin was expected late Thursday…

Turkish Press
03/24/2005 12:18 GMT

YEREVAN – Russian President Vladimir Putin was expected late Thursday
in Armenia for a visit aimed at securing a vow of loyalty from Moscow’s
ex-Soviet ally.

Putin, accompanied on the day-and-a-half working visit by his wife
Lyudmilla, was due to dine with the Armenian presidential couple
before addressing the main reason for his visit on Friday.

The Russian leader will hold talks with his counterpart President
Robert Kocharian and take part in a ceremony to mark the opening of
the Year of Russia in Armenia.

The problem of the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, an ethnic
Armenian enclave in the heart of Azerbaijan, will be discussed.

And the construction of a gas pipeline between Armenia and Iran, which
is viewed unfavourably by Moscow, was also to feature on the agenda.

The Karabakh war erupted before the fall of the Soviet Union in
1988 and escalated after Armenia and Azerbaijan became independent,
ending in a ceasefire in 1994 with over one million people displaced
and 25,000 killed.

Russia co-chairs, with France and the United States, the Minsk group,
tasked by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe
with finding a negotiated solution to the dispute.

03/24/2005 12:18 GMT

MG not interested in settlement of NK conflict, Azeri society consid

MG NOT INTERESTED IN SETTLEMENT OF KARABAKH CONFLICT, AZERI SOCIETY CONSIDERS

PanArmenian News
March 24 2005

24.03.2005 03:06

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Azeri political scientist Mubariz Ahmedoghlu
stated that the OSCE mission report over fact finding on settlement
of territories adjacent to Nagorno Karabakh is not acceptable to
Azerbaijan. In his opinion, the mission made an honest effort,
however, «the OSCE Minsk Group in its political decision inclined
the processes in favor of Armenia – the Nagorno Karabakh government
was allegedly engaged in settling population, not the leadership of
Armenia.» In Ahmedoghlu’s opinion, the decision aims at assisting
Armenia in the talks, «to exonerate the occupier country.» «In
this case there is no one guilty as Nagorno Karabakh is not a subject
of the international law and thus cannot be called to account on the
Helsinki Convention, in compliance with which the settlement of the
occupied territories is prohibited. If the document had mentioned
Armenia, sanctions might have been imposed and pressure might have
been put upon the occupier country. By means of this report the OSCE
Minsk Group merely saved Armenia a danger. In fact, everyone knows
that a considerable part of the assistance being provided to Nagorno
Karabakh goes to Armenia. Even if «Nagorno Karabakh» was engaged in
the settlement, it is clear that it is being done by means and with
the assistance of Armenia. It is strange that knowing it, the Minsk
Group has tried to save Armenia from responsibility,» the political
scientist noted. According to Ahmedoghlu, from the point of view of
that stand of the Minsk Group the report cannot be considered fitting
the interests of Azerbaijan. Having noted the need of a repeated
raising of the issue in the UN, the political scientist said in his
opinion the document will reach the stage of discussion at the UN
Security Council, however the possible veto by Russia or the US will
be a serious message to Azerbaijan. «This means time has come to
understand that the Minsk Group is not interested in resolution of
the conflict at the current period,» Ahmedoghlu noted, adding that
«Armenia’s tactics lies in maximally protracting the talks.»

–Boundary_(ID_igdzXzWwQmKcx90Gzc2VTQ)–
From: Baghdasarian