Author: Badalian Vardan

ARE BRIDGES SAFE?

A1+
[07:03 pm] 01 November, 2007

Yerevan bridges are over loaded currently. The repair of Yerevan
streets and underground passages shifted the traffic jams onto the
bridges, which have not been repaired for many years.

Frunze Basentsyan, head of the Department of "Construction, Municipal
Improvements and Economy" of Yerevan Municipality informed "A1+"
that there was no unsafe bridge in Yerevan causing the trouble of the
society and they should not bother with the repair of the roads in
Yerevan as well. 26 bridges function today in Yerevan. Mr Basentsyan
ensured he was aware of the state of each bridge. He only said that
the bridge in Shengavit community caused some problems since it was
rather old.

An estimate was made on the repair works of the bridge, which
was involved in the list of the constructions to be repaired next
year. The total amount of the bridge repair is 1 milliard 270 million
drams. But until the state budget is confirmed, Mr Basetsyan cannot
say whether the repair of the bridge will be carried out or not. "It
does not depend upon us. It is a very serious and huge program. If
the budget is confirmed involving this program, they will announce
a competition and choose the constructing organization to repair the
bridge", says Basentsyan.

It should be reminded that 3 bridges have been repaired in Yerevan
during the last years.

DEBATE GOOD FOR THE SYSTEM
Lee H. Hamilton

Washington Times
Oct 31 2007

We certainly have a quarrelsome Congress. In recent weeks its members
have been arguing about funding children’s health insurance, whether
to assert that the Turks committed World War I-era genocide against the
Armenians, and what sort of energy policy should guide the nation. Then
there’s the ongoing issue of the Iraq war, the constant debate over
how to fix our health-care system, and any number of other dust-ups
and outright policy brawls that seem to take place every time you
look in on a committee room or chamber on Capitol Hill.

A lot of people don’t like this. Pretty much every time I address
an audience, someone complains, "I’m sick and tired of all the
bickering. Those guys are always fighting." And everyone around
will nod.

Most people are uncomfortable with disagreement and debate. As
individuals, this is fine; but as citizens, I would argue that we
should not only get used to it, we should be pleased by it. It has been
a constant in American politics, and let us hope it always will be.

Extensive debate is written into the very structure of our
congressional system. At every level, from subcommittees through
committees to the floor of each chamber and then to the conference
committees that bring members from each house of Congress together,
there is the presumption of discussion, debate, disagreement and
even argument. Our Founders understood the importance of conflict in
the system, both as a way for all views to be represented, and as a
process for building common ground among them.

For the fundamental fact of our democracy is that Americans, despite
all that unites us, nonetheless have much that divides us: different
philosophies, different prospects in life, different backgrounds,
different communities, different ways to define what is in our
self-interest, what is in our community’s interest, and what is in
our nation’s best interest.

It’s true that these divisions can be exacerbated by special interests,
the media and politicians all seeking to exploit them to their own
ends, but that doesn’t mean the initial differences don’t exist. They
do. And it is Congress’ job to sort through them as it strives to
find the majorities it needs to move forward on legislation. If there
weren’t conflict, Congress wouldn’t be doing its job.

There are certainly times when the conflict built into our system
gets out of hand, and the people involved become mean-spirited or
angry. But overall, disputation and debate are not a weakness of our
democracy, they’re a strength. They lead to better, more sustainable
decisions. They help to build majority support for a proposal. And they
are part of how we talk to one another as we search for common ground.

Let me give you an example. Over the years in Washington, there has
been much discussion about whether the nation ought to have a single
director of national intelligence. I was initially quite skeptical
about the value of reorganizing our intelligence community to impose
such a position. Then, however, I served as co-chair of the September
11 Commission. We had long, sometimes very pointed debates about how
our intelligence system was working, and by the end I’d come to the
conclusion that the only way to obtain the sharing of intelligence
information our country needs was to centralize authority in a single
directorate. In other words, I changed my mind because of our debates.

The same thing is constantly taking place in Congress. Some issues are
extremely difficult to resolve. They take years of wrangling, arguing
and debate simply for members to find enough common ground so they
can move forward. It helps to look past the often messy process and
judge Congress by the end results. The minimum-wage bill that passed
earlier this year; how best to shape our homeland security system;
how to structure children’s health insurance – all of these have been
subject to heartfelt and sometimes quite contentious disputes over the
years, but in the end, Congress reaches a conclusion and we move on.

Indeed, I believe that we are stronger for the sometimes difficult road
Congress has to travel as it searches for solutions to the challenges
that confront us. For a strong debate means that all sides get a chance
to be heard and have their arguments weighed. It means that there is
less chance that power will be concentrated to the point of stifling
our voices. Keep in mind that the most efficient and conflict-free
political system is a dictatorship.

So let’s not expect Congress to be free of disagreement and
contention. The better approach is to manage the debate so it is
civil, inclusive, serious and constructive. Yes, Congress sometimes
has trouble managing itself, but that is a far better problem than
if our system allowed for no conflict at all.

Lee H. Hamilton is director of the Center on Congress at Indiana
University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for
34 years.

WHERE DID THEY GET SO MUCH MONEY?

A1+
[08:40 pm] 30 October, 2007

Driving knowledge is not enough to drive cars in Yerevan streets. One
needs to be a skillful driver to avoid potholes, to avoid car crashes
during the traffic jams. "We do not mind any construction of the
roads, but why don’t they repair one road first then the other one,
instead of destroying all roads together".

"There is no road to drive to the Zeytun, the roads are being
constructed in Monument and in Komitas, only Nor Nork 9 Masive is
left", said Edward Hovhannisyan, head of the "Achilles" center of
protection of drivers’ rights NGO.

He wonders where the Government gets money to repair all the
streets. "Lincy Foundation allocated money for repairing the roads
in Monument, and what about other streets? 2007 was so decisive in
this regard and they started to carry out constructions and repairing
works in the capital. Money was allocated to the Government and it
should be spent. Where did they get so much money?"

Reporters without borders (press release), France
Oct 30 2007

Two newspaper editors to be prosecuted for disturbing the peace

Reporters Without Borders condemns the arrest of two opposition
newspaper editors – Nikol Pashinian of Haykakan Jamanak and Shoger
Matevossian of Chorrord Ishkhanutiun – along with some 10 supporters
of former President Levon Ter-Petrosian during an opposition march in
Erevan on 23 October.

After being freed the next day, the two journalists learned at a
press conference given by the police that they are to be prosecuted
under articles 258 and 316 of the criminal code for `disturbing the
peace’ and `violence against an official.’ The charges carry a
maximum sentence of a month in prison and a fine equivalent to 50
times the minimum monthly wage.

`We call on the Armenian authorities to drop the charges against
Pashinian and Matevossian and to show more tolerance towards
opposition journalists,’ Reporters Without Borders said.

According to the Yerevan Press Club, the police confiscated the
camera of photographer David Jalalian of the newspaper Haik when he
went to the police station where the opposition members were being
held. The camera was finally returned but some of his photos had been
deleted by the police.

e=24192

GALUST SAHAKIAN: "SPECULATING OCTOBER 27 EVENTS IS TERRIBLE IMMORALITY"

Noyan Tapan
Oct 30 2007

YEREVAN, OCTOBER 30, NOYAN TAPAN. The RA authorities have not
hindered the organization of the rally of the opposition on Ocotber
26 in any way, neither have they prohibited anybody to take part in
that rally. This statement was made by Galust Sahakian, the Deputy
Chairman of the Republican Party of Armenia, at the press conference
held on October 30, who also mentioned that those, who initiated the
"Golden Autumn" annual music festival, organized on the same day did
not have such a goal either, and that the Republican Party of Armenia
has nothing to do with the organization of the festival.

When journalists reminded Galust Sahakian of the fact that it was
"Ardini Studio" headed by his son Armen Sahakian, which was involved
in the organization of the "Golden Autumn", he said that he gives a
positive mark to such events and, however "when fixing the day of the
music festival, nobody knew that a rally will be held on the very day."

Commenting on the observations made by Levon Ter-Petrosian, and the
Chairmen of the People’s and Hanrapetutiun (Republic) parties of
Armenia during the rally with regard to the October 27, 1999 tragic
events, the Deputy Chairman of the Republican Party of Armenia said:
"They should have raised the issue of October 27 7-8 years ago,
why do they raise it now, when they have a problem on coming to
power? Speculating the October 27 events for political purposes,
in the characterization of Galust Sahakian, "is a terrible immorality."

THE ARMENIAN PSYCHE: TRANS-GENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION
by Dogu Ergil

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Oct 28 2007

Many Armenians, especially those living in the diaspora, are euphoric
about the adoption of a resolution by the US House Committee on
Foreign Affairs labeling what happened to a number of Armenians in
the last decade of the Ottoman Empire as genocide, implicating the
modern Republic of Turkey as well. Armenians took this as "victory"
because they had become perennial mourners of a tragic past and a third
party they valued had now endorsed their victimhood. They work very
hard to get this result because every validation further reinforces
their collective identity shaped by victimhood born out of a "chosen
trauma." And the Armenians did not have to go out of their way to find
this trauma. They were decimated and bereft of the land they lived on
for millenniums by the Turks. It does not matter whether it was today’s
Turks or those of 1915. They could not punish their wrongdoers, and now
others are doing it for them, at least by acknowledging their crimes.

How does this mechanism work? When a traumatized group cannot reverse
its feelings of resentment, animosity, helplessness and humiliation
towards a chosen "enemy," it cannot effectively go through the work
of mourning. Consequently, it transfers these unfinished psychological
tasks to future generations. Such transmissions may take place through
deliberate official policies and formal education, or it may take place
unconsciously in the family environment during child rearing. When
the group’s historical narrative is passed onto the child with the
stories of ancestors that have experienced a massive trauma and
severe losses, children of the next generation(s) are given serious
tasks that link them up with the group’s history which is learned
as the sole truth. They are obligated to complete the mourning
by reversing pain, shame and humiliation. This is done by turning
humiliation into accusation, helplessness into assertion and hatred
into lasting political and diplomatic strategies that would harm the
"enemy." This trans-generational transmission connects the members
of the group mentally and emotionally and carves out an identity out
of a traumatic reading of history.

Traumatized groups, who may not have the "power" to turn their
passivity into assertiveness, may idealize victimhood. Victimhood is
defined as: "A state of individual and collective ethnic mind that
occurs when the traditional structures that provide an individual
sense of security and self-worth through membership in a group are
shattered by aggressive, violent political outsiders. Victimhood can
be characterized by either an extreme or persistent sense of mortal
vulnerability."

When victimhood is acquired as a state of mind, not only does it
become the foundation of group identity but it also deafens the
traumatized group to the apology offered by the perpetrators or their
descendents. In order to accept such an apology and to forgive the
descendents of their ancestors’ enemy, the group would have to abandon
its shared sense of "idealized victimhood." But then, this is also
a traumatic process because its identity is shaped by victimhood.

A chosen trauma may assume new functions as it passes from one
generation to the next. In some generations when: 1- the perpetrator
or its descendents insist in denying their past wrongdoings; 2- the
group is still under domination; 3- the group has not acquired enough
power and leverage to overcome its helplessness and humiliation,
it may sustain its shared and idealized victimhood. Or a subgroup
may appear amongst the wider traumatized group that may be called
"avengers." Avengers carry no feelings of guilt for the wrongdoings
and brutalities they commit against the perpetrator or better,
their descendents, because their victims are the source of the
"original sin."

In the light of this analysis, it seems seeking peace of mind and
a diplomatic peace with Turkey by the Armenians — especially those
living in the diaspora, who have little connection with the needs of
citizens of the Republic of Armenia — will not be that easy until
and unless the mourning process is healthily concluded. Of course
there is plenty to be done by the Turks to put the minds and souls
of the Armenians to rest by re-evaluating their common past. This
has to be done not by the politicians but rather by the people who
are in direct contact, trying to connect their futures.

TIMELINE OF YHE GENOCIDE RESOLUTION
By Carla Hall, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

Los Angeles Times, CA
Oct 26 2007

Mixed reactions from Glendale

Some react with frustration, others with resignation, at yet another
delay in getting a genocide resolution.

In the thriving Armenian metropolis of Glendale, reports Thursday
that House sponsors had delayed action on a resolution recognizing
the Armenian genocide prompted reactions as varied as the Armenian
population itself. Some were resigned: If not today, then one
day. Others were frustrated. "I’ve been here 30 years. We’ve been
trying and trying," said 50-year-old Gary Markarian as he stood
behind the counter of his liquor store. "Of course, we are eager to
pass this resolution, but at the same time we understand it’s not
possible for America because of foreign policy," said Rita Demirjian,
manager of Sardarabad, a bookstore filled with Armenian books and
art wares. "We are Americans too. We live here." Demirjian, 50,
an Armenian who was born in Lebanon but has lived in the U.S. for
18 years, spoke in a calm yet determined voice. She served a visitor
coffee and cookies from a nearby Armenian bakery and talked of a goal
that she and fellow Armenians vow never to abandon: securing a formal
acknowledgment by the U.S. government that the systematic killing
of as many as 1.5 million Armenians by Turks, starting in 1915,
is recognized by historians and experts as genocide. "It will not
go away. It happened," Demirjian said. By some estimates, Glendale
is home to as many as 80,000 Armenians and dozens of Armenian-owned
businesses. Not all of them shared the bookstore manager’s temperate
view. Other Armenians voiced greater disappointment and frustration
with this latest development. "It just shows that justice is a game,"
said Vazken Movsesian, an Armenian American priest from St. Peter
Armenian Church and the director of In His Shoes, a youth ministry
that is outspoken on genocide issues. Movsesian mentioned how
President Bush recently bestowed the Congressional Gold Medal upon
the Dalai Lama and did "not care one minute if he offends the whole
country of China. And then you have one word that offends Turkey and
they pull back. It’s all politics. Turkey is essentially holding the
U.S. hostage." Movsesian said that as an Armenian he was not hopeful
that the U.S. would proceed, yet as an American he hoped that it
would. "I want to believe my country can step up to the plate and say,
‘Yes, this happened.’ . . . What credibility do we have if we can’t
say, ‘Yes, this happened’?" The priest was not the only one unmoved
by the U.S. government’s concern about relations with Turkey.

"I think the biggest problem is that Turkey has been allowed to
saber-rattle time after time," said Vicken Papazian, an attorney and
activist with the Armenian National Committee here. Taking a smoke
break at a table outside his Tonir Bakery on Glendale Avenue, Narek
Avetyan was equally disappointed by this latest action. "They’re
not doing the right thing," said Avetyan, 24, who has lived in the
U.S. since 1988. "It doesn’t matter what culture you are, where you
come from: If you don’t recognize it, it will happen again someday,"
Avetyan said of the genocide. Avetyan, who was born in Armenia, had
a great-grandfather who died in the genocide. "They took him and he
never came back," said Avetyan. The weariness was evident in some
voices Thursday. "I don’t know how long it will take before someone
steps up and says that’s it," Markarian said. But the Armenian National
Committee’s Papazian was more confident that one day this resolution
would be a reality. "We’re resilient people," Papazian said. "The fact
that the timetable has been adjusted is not a devastating blow. Whether
the full House votes on this later this year or next year, we’ll be
here. There’s no statute of limitations on discussing genocide."

VISIT OF RA PRIME MINISTER TO U.S. ENDS

Noyan Tapan
Oct 25, 2007

WASHINGTON, OCTOBER 25, NOYAN TAPAN. On the last day of the visit to
U.S., on October 23, RA Prime Minister Serge Sargsian had a meeting
with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Ruben Jeffrey. Issues relating
to the current and future Armenian-American economic cooperation were
discussed during the meeting.

Immediately after the meeting, Serge Sargsian and Ruben Jeffrey
took part in the opening of the Armenian-American task force’s
sitting. In his speech the Deputy Secretary of State attached
importance to the fact of stability of Armenia’s economy and the
reduction tendencies of the rural poverty. He mentioned that the
activity of the Armenian-American task force gradually receives more
importance and includes wider range of spheres. In his response
speech S. Sargsian said that the authorities of Armenia pay great
attention to development and poverty reduction of rural areas and
do not set great hopes only on assistance of foreign states. They
undertake certain steps in that direction always keeping the rural
problems in the focus of their attention.

After the sitting of the task force, Vardan Khachatrian, the RA
Minister of Finance and Economy, and Thomas Adams, the Coordinator
of U.S. Assistance to Europe and Eurasia, signed an agreement on
cooperation in the sphere of civil aviation, in particular, in the
sphere of safe and joint operation of civil aviation.

In the midday, the RA Prime Minister gave an interview to a
correspondent of the Reuters news agency. Amswering the question about
the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide, S. Sargsian
said that this issue is painful and important for each Armenian, and
before leaving for the U.S. he had promised to the Armenian people
to personally congratulate all people, who had their contribution
in adoption of Resolution 106 at the Committee on Foreign Affairs of
U.S. House of Representatives. Making use of the occasion, through the
Reuters agency, the Prime Minister thanked all Congressmen, who voted
for the Resolution, as well as those who were against the adoption
of that decision at that moment, but admit the fact of the Genocide.

Then S. Sargsian met with U.S. State Secretary Condoleezza Rice. A
wide range of issues was touched upon at the meeting. Touching upon
the process of democratic and economic reforms being implemented
in Armenia, S. Sargsian presented the permanent efforts of the RA
authorities in that direction. He, in particular, mentioned that after
the last parliamentary elections good bases have been created for
continuing initiatives of perfection of electoral processes in Armenia.

C. Rice on behalf of the U.S. government expressed readiness to support
Armenia if necessary to solve the technical problems emerging in the
process of organization of the 2008 presidential elections.

The parties also discussed the current process of the Nagorno Karabakh
peaceful settlement, stating the importance of possible acceleration
of that process. S. Sargsian said that Azerbaijan’s growing bellicose
statements of the recent period do not promote that process at all.

In the second half of the day Prime Minister Serge Sargsian met with
members of the Board of the Armenian Assembly of America, headed by
Hrayr Hovnanian.

Issues related to organization’s activity and further programs were
discussed, thoughts on the challenges faced by Armenia today were
exchanged.

As Noyan Tapan was informed by the RA government Information and
Public Relations Department, the visit to the U.S. finished by a
reception organized in honor of the RA Prime Minister in the evening
at the RA Embassy in the U.S. High-ranking officials of the U.S. State
Department, Defence and other Ministries, high-ranking leadership of
WB and IMF took part in the reception. Heads of American Armenian
political organizations, representatives of the Armenian community
were also present.

THE NEW ISLAMISTS
By Daniel Johnson

New York Sun, NY
Oct 25 2007

History never quite repeats itself, but – like a bad remake of a great
movie – the news sometimes feels very old. That sense of deja vu is
hard to escape in Europe and the Middle East, because these are regions
with long recorded histories, where almost anything that happens has
some kind of precedent. It is easy to dismiss the significance of
events with a weary shrug of the shoulders: "We’ve been here before."

Easy, but wrong. So, for example, it would be easy to underestimate
the importance of the Israeli airstrike against Syria on September 6.

But what little evidence that has emerged so far suggests that this
was in fact a hugely significant action by Israel. The operation not
only nipped in the bud a nuclear threat to regional security, but also
challenged America and other western countries not to shy away from
the measures that would be necessary to stop Iran’s nuclear program
in its tracks. For a second time – the first was its destruction of
Iraq’s nuclear facilities in 1981 – Israel has done a huge favour,
not only for the West but for the world. The silence of Israel’s most
vociferous critics denotes tacit consent.

It is even easier to ignore Turkey’s threat to invade the Kurdish
provinces of Iraq. When Saddam ruled Iraq, there were many reprisals
by the Turkish military against Kurdish cross-border raids and
terrorist attacks. So what is new about the present crisis? The
answer is that Iraq is now a democracy, and Turkey is now ruled by
an Islamist government. Democracies don’t go to war with each other.

When Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited London this
week, his British counterpart Gordon Brown tried to reassure him that
Turkey was still on track to join the European Union. But Mr. Erdogan
knows that this is eyewash. Islamist Turks are not prepared to make
concessions on any of the ethnic problems bequeathed from the Ottoman
era. Their hysterical reaction to a purely symbolic resolution on
the Armenian genocide which Congress hasn’t even passed yet is proof
that, nearly a century later, the massacre of 1.5 million Christians
by their Muslim compatriots is still unmentionable.

The new Islamists, indeed, are even more intolerant than the old
Ottomans, whose observance of sharia law was lax and whose oppression
of their numerous Christian and Jewish subjects was mitigated by
incompetence. Turkey is now almost 100% Muslim and increasingly
influenced by more militant, anti-Western forms of Islam. Turks
may want access to the European economy but they do not want to be
integrated into European culture. Threatening the fledgling Iraqi
democracy with invasion is reminiscent of Hitler’s bullying of
Czechoslovakia – and the response from the West has been the same:
appeasement. Sometimes, what appears to be "historic" reveals itself
to be nothing of the kind. Such a case is the recent letter from
138 Islamic scholars to the Pope and other Christian leaders. This
was presented in the media as an appeal for peace and mutual respect,
emphasizing what the "peoples of the book" have in common. This is the
line also being promoted in a major advertising campaign in London,
the slogan of which is: "Islam is peace." The only trouble with this
campaign is that it is funded by Islamists who support terrorism
against Israel and America.

In the case of the letter, what appears to be a peace offering turns
out, under scrutiny, to be an implied threat. The letter demands that
Christians accept the identity of the teaching of the Koran and the
Bible on the oneness of God and the love of neighbour. Leaving aside
the profound problem of the Trinitarian conception of the Christian
God, there is a theological gulf between Muslim and Christian doctrines
on the relationship of faith and reason – as Pope Benedict made clear
in his Regensburg lecture last year. But the ulema – the Islamic
religious authorities – have always been the main barrier to any
attempt to reconcile rationality with the literal interpretation of
the Koran.

It was they who crushed Islam’s contribution to science and philosophy
nearly a millennium ago. It is they who justify the present jihad
against the West and the persecutions of tens of millions of Christians
and others across the Muslim world.

Now these same scholars make no mention of the many passages in the
Koran that denounce Jews and Christians – or, indeed, the entire
doctrine of jihad. Their olive branch comes with the proviso that
Christians, not Muslims, are the aggressors: "As Muslims, we say to
Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against
them – so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of
their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes."

For Christians to accept this document as the basis for negotiation
would be tantamount to accepting the monstrous lie that Muslims are
everywhere under attack from the West.

Fortunately Benedict XVI is too good a theologian to be bamboozled by
such rhetoric. He has consistently said that relations with Islam must
be based on reciprocity. Without an honest acknowledgement that Islam
is not suffering persecution, that on the contrary its adherents are
everywhere persecuting other faiths with the full support of their
religious leaders, there can be no serious dialogue.

So the ulema’s offer of reconciliation proves to be an ultimatum –
the same one that Mohammed himself uttered in 632: "I was ordered
to fight all men until they say: ‘There is no god but Allah.’" The
clerics who claim leadership over Islam behave as if their faith had
stood still since the 7th century. Those who defy history are doomed
to become history.

US EAGER TO SEE S. CAUCASUS STABLE AND PEACEFUL REGION -AMBASSADOR

TREND News Agency, Azerbaijan
Oct 24 2007

Azerbaijan, Baku / Trend corr. Ê.Ramazanova / The US eager to see the
South Caucasus as the stable and peaceful region, Anne E. Derse, the US
Ambassador to Azerbaijan, said in talks with journalists on 24 October.

"US wants peaceful solution to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over
Nagorno-Karabakh," the US Ambassador said.

According to the Ambassador, the United State, which has joined the
OSCE Minsk Group, renders assistance in holding peace negotiations
and takes every effort to establish stability in the region.

"We will continue our efforts in this direction, as we understand their
importance for Azerbaijan and the whole region," the Ambassador said.

The United States does not backs or recognize the so-called ‘
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic’.

–Boundary_(ID_GULtSyC66enAVgByhgOmCg) —