Les politiques ottomane et républicaine au Kurdistan à partir de la comparaison des milices Hamidiye et korucu : modèles institutionnels, retribalisation et dynamique des conflits
The parallel drawn between the militia established by the late Ottoman regime in the 1890’s, the Hamidiye, and the one established in the 1980’s, the korucu, is a commonplace of works on the Kurdish issue since the 1990s. The author aims to develop a more systematic comparison between both institutions. Addressing successively the issues of the internal organisation, the tribalisation of the resources, and the relationship with Kurdish nationalism, the author points out that both militia are fundamentally different. In particular, the Hamidiye is a military corps accumulating resources by predation, as opposed to the korucu, which are much more local units under state control, drawing resources from the state and contraband more than from predation.
The politics of unity: Hamidian policy in Eastern Anatolia
The era of viewing the Hamidian period in Ottoman history as simply one of reaction has long passed. Writers such as Bernard Lewis, Roderic Davison, Niyazi Berkes, and Stanford Shaw, to name only a few, have demonstrated that most of the changes begun in the first three-quarters of the nineteenth century continued throughout the Hamidian period.' Indeed, it has been shown that the reforms, or western-oriented changes, were of such a nature that slowing their pace could be accomplished only with great difficulty and stopping them was virtually impossible. Given the fact that substantive and far-reaching reforms and changes continued to take place throughout Abdulhamid's reign, we must nevertheless recognize that the Hamidian period was in many ways markedly different from the years immediately preceding it. On the one hand it was a logical culmination of seventy five years of change and on the other an apparent reaction against that change. Reform continued yet the regime was notorious for its virulent anti-westernism and despotic government. This paper is concerned with investigating a particular manifestation of the distinctiveness of the Hamidian period; the drive for Muslim unity. The subject will be approached through an examination of relations between the central government and the Asiatic provinces, specifically those in eastern Anatolia, from 1878 to 1908. The Hamidian period has achieved the reputation of being the most despotic and centralized era in modern Ottoman history. That it was despotic and that centralization was a major goal cannot be debated, but upon investigation it becomes clear that centralization, like reform, was subordinate to unity and survival. The centralizing tendencies and the despotic nature of the government were in no way distinctive to the Hamidian regime, being either a continuation of previous policy or a logical development of earlier reforms and changes. What is distinctive to the Hamidian period as opposed to that of Selim III, Mahmud II, or the Tanzimat, is that these aspects of Ottoman government as well as the whole policy of reforms, were consistently subordinated to a higher felt need, that for unity among the Muslim population of the Empire. In terms of policies and priorities, 1878 represents a fundamental shift in the Ottoman self-view.2 It was impossible to reform the Empire along the lines established by the Tanzimat reformers, lines Abdulhamid accepted as valid or at least unavoidable, without a strong central authority. It was impossible to establish this authority in any degree of permanence without some cooperation from the provinces, particularly from the local notables. The latter, however, had never been included to any significant degree in the process of westernization experienced by the bureaucrats in Constantinople
Genotypic diversity in field isolates of Babesia bovis from cattle with babesiosis after vaccination.
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether particular genotypes of Babesia bovis were common to field isolates obtained from cattle properties in Queensland where the B bovis vaccine had apparently failed.


DESIGN
A comparative study of polymerase chain reaction genotypes in different populations of B bovis.


PROCEDURE
Two polymerase chain reaction assays were applied to analyse DNA extracts of B bovis vaccine (K, T and Dixie strains) and 27 field isolates from 24 properties where disease outbreaks had occurred despite the use of the vaccine. To evaluate the stability of the genotypes identified, 11 of the field isolates were inoculated into experimental cattle that had either been previously vaccinated with T strain or not vaccinated.


RESULTS
No particular genotype of B bovis was responsible for the problems observed in previously vaccinated herds. None of the isolates had genotypes identical to the vaccine strains used. No geographic trends among the genotypes were observed. Isolates that originated from the same property also had different genotypes. Blood passage of the 11 field isolates in either previously vaccinated or nonvaccinated cattle did not alter the original genotype.


CONCLUSION
No particular genotypes identified by the Bv80 and BvVA1 polymerase chain reaction assays could be associated with vaccine failures.