Author: Chakrian Hovsep

IS THE CREMATORIUM HALF-FULL OR HALF-EMPTY?
By Carlin Romano
The Chronicle of Higher Education
September 22, 2006 Friday
The Chronicle Review; Pg. 13 Vol. 53 No. 5
As fall-term courses begin in comparative literature and comparative
law, three leaders — let’s not dignify them by speaking of “world”
leaders — look poised to join the syllabi of “comparative genocide,”
a less-taught but urgently needed staple on university curricula.
Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, after nodding to civilized
opinion by releasing Chicago Tribune foreign correspondent Paul Salopek
“on humanitarian grounds,” has ordered his janjaweed savages back
into action to strafe and massacre Sudanese villagers of Darfur.
“What happened in Rwanda,” a refugee, Sheik Abdullah Muhammad Ali, told
New York Times reporter Lydia Polgreen recently, “it will happen here.”
Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadi-nejad, shortly to enjoy the hospitality
of the world’s largest Jewish city during his visit to the U.N. —
try a knish while you’re there, Mr. President — continues to play
for time to acquire nuclear weapons while declining to withdraw his
judgment that Israel should “be wiped off the map.”
China’s reactionary President Hu Jintao, a longtime colorless Communist
apparatchik who, like Putin in Russia, is slowly dragging his country
back to totalitarianism after brief spasms of liberalization, continues
to add missiles to the thousands already pointed at Taiwan. (If you
think that unpublicized crisis hardly simmers like the other two,
just wait till China’s shortsighted trading partners permit it to
get even richer and more powerful, and past its 2008 summer Olympics.)
Those are just so-called elected leaders. The self-anointed capos
of Islamic Jihad, to mark the fifth anniversary of 9/11, promised
to extend their own brand of mass murder from Europe and the United
States to Israel and conservative Arab states.
What to do? Can we eliminate love, laughter, or any other human
impulse as enduring as the hunger to kill all one’s enemies?
The seemingly endless examples of genocide cited throughout Why Not
Kill Them All? The Logic and Prevention of Mass Political Murder,
by Daniel Chirot and Clark McCauley (Princeton University Press,
2006), threaten to overwhelm the book’s subtitle before one reaches
the “prevention” part.
Except for Ahmadinejad and other Holocaust deniers, most people know
and think of Hitler’s murder of 6 million Jews and others as the
quintessential case. But what a trail of tears once you go comparative.
Stalin’s elimination of millions of kulaks and others in the 1930s
purges. Mao’s Great Leap Forward that led to as many as 40 million
deaths between 1956 and 1960. The Khmer Rouge’s massacre of some 2
million Cambodians from 1975 to 1979. The 1994 slaughter of Tutsis
by Hutus in Rwanda. The ethnic cleansing of Kosovo in the 1990s. The
Indonesian killings of Communists and leftists in the 1960s. The
Japanese “Rape of Nanking” in 1937-38. The Armenian genocide
perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire in 1915. The German massacre of
the Herero tribe in 1904 in what is now Namibia.
And it’s not all somebody else. Under the flexible yet sensibly
explained notions of “genocide” and mass political murder that the
authors propose, Americans must also look in the mirror as they
confront some actions, among them the U.S. attacks on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, and the joint U.S. and British firebombings of Dresden and
other German cities.
To the authors’ credit, they take a broad view on how many angels need
to be machine-gunned off the head of a pin to say “genocide,” and they
stretch back historically. There’s the forced 1838 expulsion of the
Cherokees from the southeastern United States that led to thousands
of deaths. The St. Bartholomew Day’s massacre of Protestants by
Catholics in 1572. Genghis Khan’s 13th-century bloodlettings. William
the Conqueror’s extermination of Yorkshire gentry in 1069. Caesar’s
vengeance against the Germanic Eburon tribe in 53 BC. They even
contemplate Yahweh’s commands to the Israelites to massacre the
Midianites and Amalekites.
Chirot, a professor of international studies and sociology at the
University of Washington, and McCauley, a psychology professor at
Bryn Mawr College who also directs the University of Pennsylvania’s
Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict, believe
“mass killing is neither irrational nor in any sense ‘crazy.'”
Genocide is a largely “rational” policy decision that can, in
principle, be combated and blocked by counter measures.
“Rationality,” they concede in their introduction, “is a very slippery
concept, but in general we believe that most political massacres
are quite deliberate, are directed by or at least approved by the
authorities, and that they have a goal, even if the actual murderers
can take advantage of momentary passions and a lust for killing that
appears in such events. The rationale behind such actions may be based
on false information, on essentializing prejudice, or on reasoning
that is more self-interested than logical, but this does not lessen
the fact that the perpetrators believe that mass killing is the right
thing to do.”
Also fundamental to the authors’ approach is the conviction that
mass political murder, for all the examples that they produce,
“is rare in relation to the kind of power imbalance that makes such
killing possible,” that we should be surprised “that there are not
more of them.”
Is the crematorium half-full or half-empty? Chirot and McCauley
represent the “half-empty” optimists.
So they outline the multiple psychological and social causes of mass
political murder — convenience, revenge, general fear of defeat,
fear of pollution by an “inferior race,” greed — distinguishing
those factors while acknowledging that they often mix in specific
cases. They assert, for example, that the “most intractable cause of
genocidal killings emerges when competing groups … feel that the
very presence of the other, of the enemy, so sullies the environment
that normal life is not possible as long as they exist.”
The book’s novel thrust, however, is the confidence that we possess
social cures for this disease. Almost all take the form of engagement
with one’s enemies. Historically, as Chirot and McCauley point out,
marriage outside the “us” group long tempered hostilities between
“us” and “them.” Commercial relations, they note (without mentioning
Thomas Friedman’s “McDonald’s thesis” about capitalist democracies
not waging war against each other) inhibit the stirring of genocide.
Spreading Enlightenment ideas and emphasizing individual rights over
communal identities help, as do “objective examinations of the past”
such as “truth and reconciliation” commissions. The famous cold war
“hotline” between Washington and Moscow is just one concrete example
of how keeping in touch can work.
“Developing exchanges with other groups,” Chirot and McCauley
write, “lessens the chances that any conflict will reach genocidal
proportions. Codes of honor, moral teachings, and formal rules to
govern conflicts have the same effect.”
Given such counterforces, the authors state early on, “we plan to
show that there is no reason to despair.”
Maybe. Scholars will pick apart their reasoning for years. For the
general public, political activists, and officials, the lingering
question is whether leaders or followers can or do think rationally
about such an issue. Did “codes of honor” inhibit men like Hitler
and Stalin? Chirot and McCauley reply that genocidal followers
typically think less fanatically than leaders. Farsighted policies of
engagement can thus stem genocide from the bottom up rather than the
top down. “Those who want to set forest fires,” the authors write in
a rare punchy image, “will always be around, but if they have less
material to work with, they are more likely to fail.”
For all that, they warn, “no single method seems to us to offer a
comprehensive solution.” They also state bluntly that the world has
been retribalized on a very large scale” in the 21st century, and, as
a result: “The future holds more genocidal episodes. …Today’s world
seems poised for a whole new set of massacres, perhaps religiously
based, that will combine the horrors of 20th-century, state-sponsored
killing with the faith-based ideological intolerance of the great wars
of religion that bloodied many parts of the world in earlier eras.”
Few university-press books organize a topic so persuasively that, in
a just world, they should contribute to the founding of a discipline,
or at least a staple course. Why Not Kill Them All? does just that.
As the children of foreign elites attend our universities, the thought
that they might read this book, or take such a course, comforts. It
does not completely reassure.
Chirot and McCauley offer important wisdom — that is, when you
think about mass murder rationally. But such conversations outside
the academy are few. The ones we know, such as Wannsee, didn’t quite
resemble a pro-and-con Ivy League seminar.
“Can’t we all just keep talking?” Rodney King might ask. Only if
the would-be mass murderers — the Ahmadinejads and Hus and Hassan
al-Bashirs — let us.
Carlin Romano, critic at large for The Chronicle and literary critic
for The Philadelphia Inquirer, teaches philosophy and media theory
at the University of Pennsylvania.

Turkish Daily News , Turkey
Sept 23 2006
Kretschmer blasts military for disrespect of legal order
Saturday, September 23, 2006
‘They [the military] consider themselves the guardian of the
fundamental tenants of the Turkish Republic and express their views
on all almost every aspect of public life that they consider relevant
from the perspective of a very wide concept of national security,’
says Kretschmer
ANKARA – Turkish Daily News
The top representative of the European Union in Turkey, only weeks
before the end of his mission in the Turkish capital, yesterday
focused on the controversial role of the Turkish military in
politics, with harsh remarks criticizing security organs for having
“played their own games outside the control of the civilian
authorities, disrespecting the legal and institutional order.”
Outgoing Ambassador Hansjoerg Kretschmer, head of the European
Commission Delegation to Turkey, delivered his remarks yesterday in
Ankara during the launching of “Almanac Turkey, 2005– Security
Sector and Democratic Oversight,” the first of its kind in Turkey, by
a leading Istanbul-based think tank, the Turkish Economic and Social
Studies Foundation (TESEV).
“The debate about early elections and all the debate about the
modalities [of] how to elect the next president of the republic
reflected, in my view … a lack of respect for the grand national
assembly and the government,” Kretschmer said, in an apparent
reference to debates on whether Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoðan
— whose willingness to move to Cankaya Palace is already known —
would be an appropriate president for the secular establishment since
his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) has its roots in
political Islam.
‘Guardians of fundamental tenants of the Turkish Republic’
“In a democracy the ultimate decision rests with … the people,
which must have power to define this service. It is they who decide
which kind of state they want to have, which role the state should
play and how much money they wish to pay for security. In other
words, the state is at the service of the people. It is not an end in
itself,” Kretschmer said.
“They [the military] consider themselves the guardian of the
fundamental tenants of the Turkish Republic and express their views
on all almost every aspect of public life which they consider
relevant from the perspective of a very wide concept of national
security. Education, religious instructions, cultural rights,
university issues, just to mention a few… These expressions of
[their] views have of course more weight than the legitimate
expression of the views of individual citizens.”
In line with the theme of yesterday’s meeting, the ambassador,
whose mission in Ankara will finish at the end of next month,
emphasized that civilian control of the armed forces is a key issue
for Turkey’s future as well as a key issue for Turkey-EU relations.
“It is an important element in the section of political criteria in
Turkey’s accession process,” he said.
Þemdinli: ‘tip of an iceberg’
Opening his remarks about the Þemdinli case, Kretschmer described
the incident — in which two noncommissioned officers and a former
member of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) were involved
in the bombing of a bookstore that left four people dead — as the
“tip of an iceberg, as indicated by the subsequent confession of a
retired general.” He was referring to Lt. Gen. Altay Tokat’s
statements in which he indicated that he had ordered the bombing of
state property while on active duty in the Southeast in the ’90s.
“Security organs [are] somehow playing their own games, outside the
control of the civilian authorities, disrespecting the legal and
institutional order. The Copenhagen political criteria require
democracy, rule of law, human rights, respect for and protection of
minorities, but they also require stable institutions which are
guarantees of all these elements,” Kretschmer continued.
The EU has already voiced its expectation that the ongoing judicial
process concerning the Þemdinli case would continue in line with the
principles of the supremacy of law and independence of the judiciary.
The initial prosecutor of the case was sacked after he suggested in
his indictment that Land Forces Commander Gen. Yaþar Buyukanýt — now
chief of general staff — was involved in an organized effort to
derail Turkey’s EU process.
“In my view, the big challenge for Turkey during the accession
process is to create such stable institutions, able to deliver their
services — including security — to the citizens of the country in a
way respectful of democratic principals. Then it can be hoped that
the security organs, the security sector, will be put in to its
appropriate provision as a service provider, fully controlled by the
institutions and indirectly by the people of Turkey,” Kretschmer
said.
Turkey, which began membership talks with the EU last year, has
over the past few years carried out a slate of far-reaching reforms
to bring itself in line with the bloc’s standards of democracy, many
of them aimed at limiting the military’s powers and its role in
politics.
Kretschmer argued that the reforms were “only a beginning” and
asked the government to “show courage” in exerting civilian control
over the armed forces and “exercise its legitimate authority without
the threat of being controlled.”
The Turkish army has swayed politics for decades. It carried out
three coups — in 1960, 1971 and 1980 — and in 1997 forced the
resignation of the country’s first Islamist-led government under
Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan.
The military, which sees itself as the self-appointed guardians of
the country’s strictly secular system, also remains wary of the
ruling AKP, an offshoot of Erbakan’s Welfare Party (RP), which was
banned after being ousted from government.
‘EU insistent on Article 301’
Kretschmer also expressed pleasure over novelist Elif Þafak’s
acquittal on Thursday of charges that fictional characters in her
novel “The Bastard of Istanbul” had insulted Turkey’s identity by
referring to killings of Armenians during Ottoman rule in 1915.
“To me it’s not yet clear whether Article 301 will even be
modified, because there have also been different voices from within
the government,” he noted, voicing the bloc’s insistency over need
for abolishment or at least rearrangement of the controversial
article which makes it a vague crime to insult “Turkishness.”
Erdoðan pledged on Thursday to consider amending Article 301 but
said the issue was a sensitive one.
A rise in nationalism ahead of next year’s general elections has
split the ruling AKP over whether to make the change, at a time when
support for EU membership is waning.
–Boundary_(ID_3cygdirwJGtcQ2Gk5PjLrQ)–

Controversial Monument Poses Diplomatic Challenge to Tbilisi
Civil Georgia, Georgia
Sept 23 2006
Plans to erect a monument to Armenian Gen. Gurgen Dalibaltyan in
predominately ethnic Armenian-populated Georgia’s southern city of
Akhalkalaki have triggered Baku’s angry reaction.
Gen. Dalibaltyan a native of Akhalkalaki district, who is currently
80 years old, will reportedly be honored for his contribution in
fight against Azerbaijani’s troops in Nagorno-Karabakh in early 90s.
Local officials in Akhalkalaki say that funding to erect the monument
comes from “the Armenian sources,” according to the Imedi television
stations.
A spokesman of the Azerbaijani Embassy in Tbilisi Elkhan Polukhanov
said on September 23 that the move will be perceived to be
“non-friendly” by Azerbaijani authorities.
“At first we want to know whether there is a relevant authorization
by the Georgian state agencies on creation of this monument… The
monument will definitely bring negative elements in relationship
between the two states – Georgia and Azerbaijan, which is in
a condition of war with Armenia,” Elkhan Polukhanov told Imedi
television.

“ARMENTEL” DENIES
A1+
[07:49 pm] 22 September, 2006
“ArmenTel” claims that he does not “invent” bills of imaginary
phone calls. The company has made a statement in answer to suchlike
accusations saying, “We would like to inform the society in general
and our subscribers in particular that no imaginary phone calls are
ever registered in their bills. The calls are registered not only in
the billing system of “ArmenTel” but also in the international station
and finally in the phone system of the country where you have phoned”.
The Company claims that the issues published in the press do not
correspond to the reality.
“There were cases when subscribers visited the service centers of
“ArmenTel” claiming that they did not make the calls registered in
their bills. Nevertheless, it turned out that they really made those
calls. Even if there are misunderstandings, we solve them in favor
of the subscribers.
DEAR SUBSCRIBERS,
“ArmenTel” is one of the largest companies of the country which
makes great investments for the development of the telecommunication
infrastructures.
And the statements of some newspapers that “ArmenTel” which makes
investments of 30 billion USD annually can add the bills of the
subscribers for a few thousand drams is at least strange”.

ERDOGAN WELCOMES SHAFAK’S ACQUITTAL
PanARMENIAN.Net
22.09.2006 15:39 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has
welcomed the acquittal of renowned Turkish novelist Elif Shafak in the
case for which she was accused of insulting Turkishness. PM Erdogan
told reporters on Thursday that he was happy that Shafak was acquitted
in the controversial case. Recalling that he phoned Shafak yesterday to
congratulate her on the birth of her baby daughter, Erdogan stated that
he exchanged his views with her on the case. Erdogan also signaled an
amendment on the much debated Article 301 of the Turkish Penal Code,
under which many well-known Turkish writers and authors had been
tried or sued. In response to a question on whether the government
thought of an amendment on the controversial article, Erdogan pointed
out that it would be possible provided that the ruling and opposition
parties reach an agreement, reported Zaman.

“OWNERS OF HISTORY”
A1+
[04:47 pm] 22 September, 2006
First RA Prime Minister Vazgen Manoukyan informed in “Mirror” club
today that he did not participate in the demonstration of the 15th
anniversary of Independence as he was not invited. First RA President
Levon Ter-Petrosyan and first RA Foreign Minister Raffi Hovannisian
were not invited either.
“They feel like they are the owners of history”, Vazgen Manoukyan said.
Let us remind you that former Minister of Defense Vagharshak
Haroutyunyan and former Foreign Ministers Vahram Papazyan and Alexander
Arzoumanyan had not received invitations either. As for medals and
awards many people got in connection with the 15th anniversary of
independence, Vazgen Manoukyan said that although the process of
award-giving itself is a positive phenomenon, “for today’s authorities
the medals are a way of forming their team and not the reflection of
objective reality”.

VARDAN OSKANYAN: THE FUTURE OF ARMENIA-DIASPORA RELATIONS DEPENDS ON
NEW GENERATION OF DIASPORA ARMENIANS
ARMINFO News Agency
September 20, 2006 Wednesday
The future of Armenia-Diaspora relations depends on the new generation
of the Armenians residing abroad, said Foreign Minister of Armenia
Vardan Oskanyan commenting on the 3rd All Armenian Forum Armenia-
Diaspora at the request of ArmInfo. The forum was completed, Wednesday.
He disagreed with the statements of some forum participants from
Diaspora that the forum has become a regular assembly of high-flown
words and good wishes. After the first Forum in 1999, much has been
done, even the things that seemed impossible in 1999. The present
Forum, particularly, discussed the program of village development
in Armenia. A special fund has been created which will become part
of the All Armenian Foundation “Hayastan” in 6-7 months. Due to it,
the telethons will now bring much more than $9-10 million.
As regards the relations with Diaspora on the whole, Vardan Oskanyan
said our past transferred from generation to generation is gradually
fading. “If we fail to become interesting for the new generation and to
show that we are still competitive in the region in the sphere of both
economy, democracy and information, we’ll lose it,” the minister said.

SADOYAN DIDN’T COME TO THE MEETING
A1+
[06:06 pm] 19 September, 2006
Today Arshak Sadoyan, NA deputy and member of “Justice” faction called
a meeting opposite the Commission Regulating Public Services (CRPS).
The deputy fixed the date and time of the meeting in accordance with
the consultation in CRPS, where the application of ArmenTel on price
changes is presently under consideration.
Arshak Sadoyan’s invitation to the meeting was accepted by a few
residents of Northern Avenue whose number didn’t outnumber 15 – 20.
But Sadoyan was not among them. He had entered the hall of CRPS a
bit earlier after saying, “I thought there will be public hearings
that’s why I invited people here. But it turned out that they will
have an ordinary discussion.” The citizens waited for the deputy for
a long time but in vain.

TRAINER MANUEL GABRIELYAN: “I WANT TO SEE NIKOLAI VALUEV BECOME LIKE LEMESHEV”!
EastsideBoxing.com
19 Sept 2006
19.09.06 – ESB exclusive interview by Izyaslav “Slava” Koza, photo ©
boxen.com: Last month Oleg Maskaev stopped Hasim Rahman in the 12th
round of their WBC championship fight, to capture that very title. For
the first time in professional boxing history, only a fighter from the
former Soviet Union could claim to be the best in the division since
the other three belt holders also hailed from different republics of
the former state. However, the question of which of these fighters
will rise to be the “heavyweight champ” is still in doubt.
Until these unification fights are made, or other fighters come forward
and take those belts away, it is important to look at and consider
some of the differences between the four ex-Soviet champs, rather then
simply lumping them all together. When it comes to Nikolai Valuev there
are three major factors that need to be considered. Firstly the man
is the biggest heavyweight among the four fighters, and while bigger
is not always better (which is yet to be decided in Valuev’s case)
sometimes perception is even more important then reality, especially
with fans and spectators..
Secondly, although most Soviet fighters are usually well skilled
amateurs, in Valuev’s case he had to learn on the job so to speak. Part
of the irony is that while the other three champs do have that amateur
Soviet pedigree, Valuev is the only one who has an exclusively ex
Soviet trainer in Manvel Gabrielyan who will be the focus of this
interview. The other part of the irony leads us into point three
since had Valuev been a well schooled amateur he might not have a
chance to chase the great Rocky Marciano’s tremendous undefeated
career record of 49 wins, since he would have no chance for many
fights at the lower level.
Thus the third important factor is Valuev’s stellar record of 44
victories and no defeats. While some fans could and have argued that
Valuev’s level of opposition is not strong enough and thus why it’s
not really that great accomplishment, there is a point regarding this
that I have yet to see mentioned. While this is a reasonable argument
to some degree, the fact of the matter is neither Ross Purritty,
Mo Harris, or Corey “T Rex” Sanders were elite fighters when they
not only beat but stopped the other three champions via TKO. While
I am not trying to discredit the other men I am trying to say that
staying undefeated and, controversy or no, not folding under the
pressure to some hungry young underdog is not easy. So many elite
fighters can attest to this, that while it is true that gushing over
an undefeated record is not always wise, neither is discrediting
someone because their level of opposition is not up to a fan man’s
standards. For a man who was never expected to amount to anything,
straight from his first days of fighting in post Soviet Russia, to
the first article written about him on this site, his accomplishments
are and will forever be quite impressive.
In part this is because as I have always written Valuev is a hard
worker and extremely serious about his profession. Whatever you
think of or whatever his skill level may be he won’t lose because
of undertraining issues, or child support problems, or music albums
that need to be recorded. Still the other more significant element
of Valuev’s success undoubtedly belongs to the man answering most of
the questions in the following interview.
Very often in the boxing game the “man behind the man” is never paid
his dues in terms of attention even though his fighter will be the
first to bow down in praise for personal success. I am glad that
to some degree this interview gives Manvel Oganesovich Gabrielian
the attention and respect that someone of his character undoubtedly
deserves.
ESB: Good Evening Manvel Oganesovich! Thank you for your time. First
of all can you give us some impressions about our country?
M.G.: Good Evening. Thoughts? I liked the country and thought it very
beautiful. The people were also all very warm and friendly.
ESB: Which of the three cities that you visited did you like the most
and why?
M.G.: I liked Los Angeles the most. There we trained well, ran,
the ocean was nearby, and overall it was just interesting. We didn’t
really get a chance to see the other two cities because we were always
on the move, promoting the fight. So I liked Los Angeles the best.
ESB: Nikolai seemed upset with the fact that he didn’t have enough
time to train while you were here. Do you agree with him?
M.G.: Of course. We had very little time allotted to us for training,
and were mostly trying to promote, and promote the fight. We could
only train twice there, so it was definitely not a lot.
ESB: Many fans who saw a photo of Nikolai while you were here,
have said that he has never looked better in the last five or six
years. Is it true that he is preparing even harder for his first
major bout in America?
M.G.: Not really. For every fight we prepare in almost the same way
from a physical standpoint. We train very hard regardless of whom we
are fighting. In that sense it doesn’t matter who the opponent will be.
ESB: So you don’t agree that he looked that much better?
M.G.: Maybe because he was in a suit and not his training gear.
ESB: No no, I was referring to a photo somebody took of Nikolai when
he finished running in L.A. To be honest he did look very strong and
well conditioned.
M.G.: Well it could be the result of our training in Armenia, which
went very well. It’s a very well known camp there. So maybe that
is the reason, but for now, there is much work to be done, and I am
saying that as a trainer. He is not yet in the kind of shape I want
to see him in. Like versus Beck for instance. However, come fight
night he will be ready and that I guarantee.
ESB: O.k. well what did you think of the Peter Toney fight?
M.G.: Yea we were there. To be honest, I felt very bad for Toney,
because he fought beautifully. However, I do also think that he
wasn’t ready for that fight. He didn’t train well. He trained but he
didn’t train like a professional. He didn’t have the deciding punch,
and I know he has those combinations and the necessary punches in
his arsenal, but I just didn’t see them.
ESB: But you still thought he w…?
M.G.: (interrupting) Yes, Yes of course! I am 100% certain of that
(laughing). Cedric Kushner, who was sitting behind me, even asked who
I thought won and I pointed at Toney. I am absolutely sure that he won.
Peter didn’t do much more then hit Toney in the back of the head.
ESB: Did you see Maskaev’s fight?
M.G.: With Rahman? Yea I have the tape and am analyzing it
now. The fight was tough and was fought on an almost even footing
throughout. Rahman didn’t have enough stamina, and also Maskaev
outsmarted him tactically and grabbed the initiative and did not let
go. Hasim Rahman is not the type of boxer who can make the mistakes
he did in that bout.
ESB: Thank you. The referee in the upcoming fight will probably only
speak English. Do you have somebody in your corner who can communicate
with him?
M.G.: With the ref? We can all understand English very well. I
understand and Nikolai does too. I understand a lot myself, I even
got an A in English when I was in school. Just now I am in Germany
and have forgotten a little but I still understand a great deal.
ESB: Yea that is good, because it happens with our boxers sometimes
and they have problems.
M.G.: Of course. That is why I also study the language here so that I
don’t have any issues like that. Even at the press conference there
were moments, although there we have an interpreter, who is quite
good so we don’t have these issues.
ESB: How did you and Nikolai meet?
M.G.: In 2000 one of my students was training with him and introduced
me. His name is Lyova Kirakosyan and he fights in France and Europe
now. Recently fought for the Euro title. He was also the first national
champ among Armenian boxers in Russia. So he came to me and said,
“we have a Heavy there in Peter.” At first I refused but then about
half a year later he came again because they asked him to try and
get a trainer.
He just knew me, even as a trainer in the USSR. I had many successful
students who had won championships of Europe and so on. Then I decided
to go to Petersburg and I went and saw him on the first day. He also
had issues then, and he didn’t want to fight anymore, and there were
problems with his first trainer, and his bouts were bad, you know? So
I decided to stay and told him, “Starting tomorrow we are going to
begin working professionally.” I saw those training sessions and I
saw that he didn’t know a lot yet, and that is how we met Slav.
ESB: As you know all the champs in the Heavyweight division are
from the former USSR. However, Nikolai is the only one who has an
exclusively Soviet trainer. Do you think that is one of the reasons
behind his success?
M.G.: (laughing) Truthfully, we are very close, we are friends,
and I’ll tell you our families are close, and his four year old son
is even training with me already. It’s not necessarily the Soviet
system, it’s that we are close. That is the whole story. I can’t say
it’s the Soviet school, unless maybe because we understand each other
better. Also I mean he is a very hard working guy so I don’t really
have any issues with him.
ESB: There is a video going around now on the Internet where you are
furiously yelling at Nikolai in between rounds
M.G.: Yes absolutely. When he doesn’t fight well or do what I tell
him to do, or accomplish the goals I set out for him, I yell at him
and get very angry, and that is not exclusive to the fights but in
training too.
ESB: It is interesting because for instance Klitschko’s trainer
Steward is almost always very calm and patient with his boxer.
M.G.: (laughing) Well that is Steward and this is me.
I have that hot Caucasian (note: “Kavkazkaya”) and Armenian blood. I
cannot stand to see him get hit, or miss a punch.
ESB: Do you think that each fighter should be approached differently
in that sense or should you only be tough with them? Like we say here
without “sugarcoating” it.
M.G.: No, personally I was always a tough trainer throughout my entire
working life so far. Always. God forbid somebody broke the rules, even
if he was a champ, I would kick him out of the gym. I had one guy,
champion of the USSR, I threw him out because he violated my regimen.
See, I live their life, their routine, and I never break or violate
the rules, ever. Often you have guys who go out, party, but I will
never do that. I sleep and get up like my fighter. We are like one
person and that cannot be broken up.
ESB: When did you start training fighters in the pros?
M.G.: In 2000 I crossed over into the professional ranks.
ESB: Besides Nikolai did you train any other perspective fighters?
M.G.: Pros? Well I still to this day help train Mger Mkrtchian who
lives in St. Petersburg. Long time ago he competed in the Junior
World Championships in Istanbul. First he won then lost, cause the
Turks robbed him. Then in France I have Hamlet Petrosyan, and Lyova
Kirakosyan. Armen Khachatryan who won four bouts and then quit.
ESB: You are one of the few former Soviet trainers who train at this
level in the pro’s. Could you please tell us what the differences
are between the Soviet (Russian) and the American schools of boxing?
M.G.: To be honest, right now, I don’t see any technique or tactics
in the American school of boxing.
It all consists of who can hit the hardest and that is the guy who
will win. Besides Toney there are just no strong technical boxers
that I have seen in America. I am not talking about greats like Ali,
but just that right now I don’t see any real tactical boxing.
In our boxing dictionary we have the word “Tehnar’ (note:
Technician). I want Kolya to be a technical boxer, the most technical
boxer at this weight.
ESB: So our former Soviet guys are more technical?
M.G.: No doubt. Klitschko, Maskaev, Lyakhovich. I study and analyze
all their fights and know them by heart. By the way I met Lyakhovich a
long time ago in training. Their whole team was there. When we were in
L.A. we said hello and he asked me how I was and so on. I introduced
him to Nikolai.
ESB: I thought maybe they might have sparred with each other back then?
M.G.: No, no that was a long time ago, sometime in 96.
So, where are you calling from?
ESB: Oh from New Jersey. Bergenfield its one of our local towns here.
M.G.: We had a fight in New Jersey once. Was Ettiene from New
Jersey? No, he was from Louisiana.
ESB: It was probably against Linberger or Nelson.
M.G.: Yea! Kolya took him out in the first. They didn’t let me go
for that fight. Didn’t give me a visa.
ESB: Yea that was in Atlantic City about an hour or two ride from
here. Well can you talk about some of the differences between the
major schools of boxing in the USSR? Like say the Russian, or Armenian,
or Kazakh schools.
M.G.: To be honest they are very similar to each other. They all
developed together almost so they are about the same. Maybe the
exercises with combinations are different in say the Kazakh school
or the Armenian school.
My system was pretty unique I think. I had guys who achieved a lot of
success with it in their time. My number one was Artyom TerAkopyan
who became Soviet champ among juniors. He won the Soviet Cup, and
was champion of Europe among juniors. In 1988 he was the youngest
participant in the exhibition match between the Soviet Union and the
United States. He was one of the rising stars of the Soviet Union,
but after the Earthquake of 88 I lost him. (note: The Leninakan
Earthquake took place in the Spitak region of Armenia in December of
1988. An estimated 25,000 people died and many more were injured.)
However, all the schools: the Armenian, Uzbek, Ukrainian, they are
all similar. I never even noticed any major differences. All of it
was combinations and technique. That was our all.
ESB: In your opinion who is the greatest Soviet fighter ever?
M.G.: Well in my time the one I liked the most was Vyacheslav
Lemeshev. Then also Boris Kuznetzov 57 kg, and then Rufat
Riskiev. Savchenko, Rybakov, the three time European champ. Then our
Armenian guys Samson Kchachataryan, Israel Hakobokyan, Munchyan 48 kg.
Of course the most accomplished was Lagutin. However, my true idol
was Muhammed Ali. When I used to go to sleep I used to keep his
photograph under my pillow, cause I wanted to be like him, because
I was boxing back then too. I was an honored master of the USSR. So
I kept it under my pillow cause I loved him so much.
ESB: Wasn’t he in the arena when Nikolai won the title? Did you get
a chance to meet him?
M.G.: Yes he was there but it was very hard to even get close to
him. I just saw him but I couldn’t say hello. I very much wanted to
shake his hand. It’s ok though I think and hope that in America we
can see each other.
ESB: Who do you think was the best Armenian boxer during Soviet times?
M.G.: Well we had a lot of good ones but the one I liked the best was
Davit Torosyan. He lives in Los Angeles now if I am not mistaken. I
passed along greetings to my countrymen but I didn’t see any of them
there at all.
ESB: Which Soviet boxer does Nikolai remind you of?
M.G.: It’s hard to say but I personally want to see him become and
fight similar in style to Lemeshev, so that after he lands his right
nobody can get back up on their feet.
ESB: It’s interesting you know an acquaintance and I wrote an article
about him for our American readers.
M.G.: Yes he was the gold medallist at the Munich Olympics, and
then conquered Europe with his right hand, and that hand was broken
at that. I just adored him. Then we met in Germany when I served
there. Oh how I loved him, and we even became friends.
ESB: Wow you were friends with him? Can you tell us something
about him?
M.G.: By that time I remember he started drinking and came in drunk for
a fight once. This one private knocked him out but they disqualified
him and awarded the win to Lemeshev because he was an officer. It
was in Germany in 78, 79.
ESB: Was the fight against a young and inexperienced kid?
M.G.: Yes, YES! The guy was from Armenia, he was one of my buddies
too, Arkadii Arakelyan. Arkadii knocked him out and he fell but was
really drunk you know. His wife ran to the ring all in tears. Then
they said that Arkadii hit him with an open glove, but that is a lie
cause the punch was perfect, and so they gave the victory to Lemeshev
the officer.
ESB: You know I wrote about that bout, about how he fell under the
ropes and turned over but I didn’t know all the details.
M.G.: I was at that fight, I also took second place in the under
57 kg category at that tournament. (note: East German Armed Forces
tournament in Weismer, Germany.)
ESB: I definitely wanted to ask if you boxed in your younger days?
M.G.: Yes I started in 69, 70 and became an honorary Soviet master of
sports. I was multi time champ of many tournaments. Took second place
at the Burevestnik tournament, was two time champion of Armenia,
many inter Soviet tournaments, and well it would be hard to list
everything. I had 82 fights.
ESB: How many did you win?
M.G.: 64 wins and 18 losses
ESB: When did you stop fighting?
M.G.: After the tournament in 79 in Germany, I came home and won
another local tournament and then became a trainer. Right away my
students became champs in the junior ranks. In 76 I finished the
Instructor’s institute of physical culture with a degree Phys Ed
(equivalent).
ESB: Yes I wanted to ask about your education as well?
M.G.: I have it all, a diploma, master of sports, honorary trainer
of Armenia for many years already. In 87 I became the youngest such
trainer in Armenian history. Artyom won the “Friendship” tournament,
which was the toughest one, because it was like for the world
championship, and I became an honorary trainer after about only two,
three years.
ESB: So Artyom was your most perspective fighter?
M.G.: I had many guys with potential, Lyova, Ashot Sukiasyan, Armen
Hachatryan, but the one with the most potential was Artyom. Thankfully
though God gave me another Artyom in Nikolai (laughing).
ESB: (laughing) I read that on his birthday you gave Nikolai a bottle
of Armenian Cognac?
M.G.: (laughing) Yea, good and expensive Cognac, so that after the
fight he could down 100 grams.
ESB: (laughing) What brand was it?
M.G.: One of the expensive kind…… Ararat. Good Cognac.
Although that is after the fight now, absolutely not.
ESB: (laughing) Well what did he give you the last time it was your
birthday?
M.G.: (laughing) Me? You know what present he got for me?
ESB: What?
M.G.: Became World Champion
ESB: (laughing) Just doesn’t get any better.
M.G.: For me that was the best present he could ever give. I told
him so. Last year I turned 50 and that is when he became champ, and
that for me is the most important present I have gotten in my life,
and nothing else is necessary.
Oh and well I got myself a car, so let that be his present (laughing)
ESB: (laughing) What kind was it? Mercedes?
M.G.: No, BMW #5. I want to put 50-150 on the license plate.
ESB: Why is that?
M.G.: His weight is 150 kg and I was 50 years old (laughing)
ESB: (laughing) So how did you celebrate? Did you go to a restaurant?
M.G.: Yes we were in Armenia at the time so we went to a restaurant. We
danced, laughed, and just had fun with my friends.
ESB: Nikolai was probably there too?
M.G.: Yes of course. Our birthday’s are in the same month. Mine is
on the second and his is on the 21 of August. So we always celebrate
them together.
ESB: Not long ago I saw a picture of you sitting on somebody’s
shoulders and holding the pads for Nikolai.
Was that just a joke or do you actually train that way sometimes?
M.G.: (laughing) No that was a joke, how could you work like that? We
were in Saint Petersburg and one of Kolya’s friends picked me up on
his shoulders and said, “Manvel come on work with Nikolai.” We were
joking around.
ESB: Manvel Oganesovich can you tell us about your family?
M.G.: Slav I have a very good family. My daughter graduated from
college with a red diploma. On July 8th of this year she got married,
my beautiful girl.
Nikolai called and congratulated us, cause he just had the operation
on his knee, but he said a wonderful toast and everybody clapped in
the restaurant.
My son too. He is in his third year of college in the Phys Ed
department. My wife is great. Everything is the way it should be.
ESB: What is everybody’s name?
M.G.: Wife is Gayane. Daughter is Meline, and my son is Tigran.
ESB: Did you name them after anybody?
M.G.: No just when they were born we named them Tigran and Meline
cause we liked the names. Wife is Gayane and I am Manvel.
ESB: Great. I only have two more questions here.
M.G.: Not a problem, you can have 102. We have excellent weather here
and I am just walking around. I always take a walk around the camp
in the evening.
ESB: Oh well I don’t want to bother because I know its late there. When
do you usually go to bed?
M.G.: Oh around 12, 12:30
ESB: Nikolai too?
M.G.: Of course. Until I give him his evening massage he doesn’t go
to sleep.
ESB: When do you get up each morning?
M.G.: In the morning? 7:30 always. First we exercise, massage and
run to training. Run from training to training.
ESB: Do you want to make a prediction for the fight?
M.G.: Honestly I don’t like to do that and never have.
I will tell you this though the fight will be ferocious and
beautiful. I am preparing Nikolai for that. Since we are fighting in
America he will work fiercely and beautifully.
ESB: Did you analyze Barret’s fights already?
M.G.: Yes I watched all the tapes. We analyze all the fights. How
he was against Beck, and Rahman, and Klitschko. I analyze all of the
fights. I know them all by heart. All of his weak and strong sides. I
know him almost as if he was my student.
ESB: Manvel Oganesovich what would you want to tell the people who
will read this interview?
M.G.: Yes, well yesterday was September 11, and I want to say that,
with all my heart I sympathize with and feel for the American
people. From the bottom of my heart, my entire soul. We hate and
despise this horrible enemy, this so called “terrorist.” They are
big enemies of sports as well.
Otherwise I wish all Americans, including many of my countrymen over
there, health and happiness. We can’t wait to come and fight for you
in America. We will show you great boxing, not that Barrett Rahman
stuff but sensational boxing.
ESB: I want to thank you once again for your time. I wish you all the
best. Say Hello to Nikolai from us and we hope you come out victorious.
M.G.: No problem I am happy to help. I’ll go back and tell Nikolai
you gave him your best.
I want to thank Manvel Gabrielyan for his time as well as Heiko
Malwitz, from Sauerland Events, for setting the interview up.
–Boundary_(ID_kmWdiRofD8REbewOW6fxTA)–

CILICIA VESSEL EXHIBITED IN YEREVAN CENTER
PanARMENIAN.Net
19.09.2006 15:59 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Cilicia Armenian vessel – a copy of a trade ship
of 13th century – is exhibited in the Shahumyan Square in Yerevan. As
captain of the ship Karen Balayan told journalists, the vessel arrived
in Yerevan not on September 17, as planned, but a day later. In his
words, difficulties with delivery of the ship to Yerevan by land
caused the delay. The captain noted that the ship will be taken to
the Lake Sevan and turned into a museum later.