Author: Chakrian Hovsep

IT IS FORBIDDEN TO SWIM IN SEVAN “FREE OF CHARGE”
A1+
[04:29 pm] 05 September, 2006
“Dilijan” national park will have 36600 hectares territory instead
of the former 28000 hectares. The Ministry of Environment intends
to hold discussions on the territorial enlargement with the Dilijan
community and a few rural communities. The new borders of the park
will be established after the discussion.
Vardan Aivazyan, Minister of Environment , assures that this project
implemented within the framework of SORFECO&ONF international program
will enhance eco-tourism in “Dilijan” and will give a chance to have
profit from other sources besides timber.
“Eco-tourism and agro-tourism are universally accepted in the world
practice. We have much work to do in the territory of the park. The
impassable roads will be cleaned. Cottages will be built in certain
places,” announced the minister during his meeting with journalists
today.
Asked the question whether the development of eco-tourism in Dilijan
will be like that of Sevan (that’s to say whether there will be illegal
buildings and illegal levies), Mr Aivazyan said, “Nothing will be
built in the reserve area where no economic activity is permitted.”
As for the 2000 – 3000 AMD taken from the visitors in Sevan, the
Minister of Environment Protection once more reminded the rights of
visitors, “They may take money only when they do any service. The law
on Sevan says that any person has the right step into water area. So
you are free to swim free of charge as much as you want.”
Mr. Aivazyan claims that Dilijan will not suffer much because of the
program as international organizations having great experience in
this sphere are involved in the program.
In comparison with the minister, Ashot Davtyan, head of “Dilijan,”
is not yet sure what outcome the program might have on the national
park as they haven’t had such an experience so far.
We shall try not to harm nature but as this is our first experiment
we cannot anticipate positive results,” says Mr. Davtyan.
“Dilijan” got the status of national park in 2002.
Before that, it was a reserve which implies the absence of economic
activity. Many rare trees such as beech, maple, have preserved in
that area.
The head of the park notes that today Dilijan is one of the
well-preserved forests in the country. “I don’t want to boast on this
score. It is determined by the fact that Dilijan has had gas since
1994 which made it possible to preserve the forest.”

THE STORY OF A DECLARED BRIBE
Lragir.am
05 Sept 06
The Ministry of Environmental Protection cancelled the license of
Global Gold Mining Company to explore the mine of Marjan, stated
Vardan Aivazyan, the minister of environmental protection September
5. He said the license was cancelled because the company failed to
implement the contract liabilities on exploration of the mine.
The license gave rise to a real scandal. Vardan Aivazyan is said
to have demanded a bribe of 3 million dollars from the leadership
of Global Gold Mining, namely the manager of the company, American
Armenian businessman Van Grigoryan. There was information that their
talk was recorded and the tape was extended to the president of
Armenia. It was mentioned that John Evans did it. The minister of
environmental protection announced that he did not demand a bribe,
therefore there can be no recording. The U.S. Embassy also refuted
the fact of a recording. However, only some sources state that
the U.S. ambassador handed the recording to the president. Other
sources said that the recording was extended to Robert Kocharyan by an
authoritative American Armenian businessman, who has close relations
with Van Grigoryan. With regard to this Victor Soghomonyan, the speaker
of Robert Kocharyan announced that he did not know anything about
this recording. It is notable that the speaker did not announce that
the president did not get such a recording, he only said he did not
know anything. Consequently, either he hinted that president could
have got such a recording or Robert Kocharyan does not have secrets
from Victor Soghomonyan.

DARCHINYAN AND HUSSEIN IMPRESS IN SPARRING
Paul Upham Contributing Editor
SecondsOut
Aug 5 2006
Vic “Raging Bull” Darchinyan
By Paul Upham: IBF/IBO flyweight world champion Vic “Raging Bull”
Darchinyan and training partner Hussein Hussein engaged in an
impressive eight round sparring session on Tuesday morning at the
Team Fenech Gymnasium in Sydney.
“It’s always great sparring Hussy,” said Darchinyan 26-0 (21). “We
know each other so well and can work on our technique and stamina
without hurting each other.”
The two 30 year-old flyweights have being training alongside each other
since after the 2000 Olympic Games, where Darchinyan represented his
native Armenia.
“Sparring Vic is much different to the other sparring I get,” said
Hussein 29-3 (22). “He makes me work so much harder.”
Darchinyan faces 26 year-old Glenn Donaire 16-2-1 (9), a Filipino
based in Los Angeles, on October 7 in Las Vegas, USA at the Mandalay
Bay Events Center. It will be the main support bout to Diego Corrales
vs. Joel Casamayor III at lightweight on Showtime.
Hussein, who has previously challenged for the WBC flyweight world
title and WBC interim flyweight world title unsuccessfully, will
return to the ring on September 22 in Bankstown. He is then scheduled
to fight in Dubai in the first week of November.
“You have two of the best flyweights in the world working together
and it helps both of their careers,” said co-trainer Billy Hussein.
“Sitting here watching them spar is like a front row seat at a world
title fight.”

IT’S NOT FUNNY, IT’S HORRIBLE
Melik Avanyan
Lragir.am
05 Sept 06
The anxiety of the consolidated criminal is becoming obvious. The
“spiritual leader” of the criminal corps Serge Sargsyan did not
stand, and displayed this anxiety September 1. Maybe he did not mean
to display it but there is no other way out. He had to address a
preventive message to his brothers. Whereas we, the ordinary people,
saw quite another thing.
The information that the president of Armenia discussed something
with the president of Russia would hardly alarm an ordinary man.
Whereas, such an ordinary information made Serge Sargsyan burst. This
is very strange; meanwhile, he is known to be an experienced person,
he has even been to Monte Carlo. Whereas he was scared enough.
It is interesting what scared him. The “pack of criminal” he gathered
inside the Republican Party bends before him seeking eternal power
under “their own shadow”. Whereas, suddenly “some analist, not quite
sober” tells the public that “in brief, Serge is bluffing”, nobody
believes in his presidential future except for him, even Russian
President Putin. Serge could not bear any more, he said it was funny,
but he said this sadly.
And it is not accidental. Serge Sargsyan himself does not believe
this happy future either. He understood the impossibility of these
sweet wishes before the extraordinary assembly of the Republican
Party when he announced to everyone that he had never considered
running for presidency. It was such a time, he could lose the post
of the defense minister. Therefore, he went so frank.
Whereas the problem is not only the presidential ambitions. There is
a more serious problem Serge Sargsyan has to solve until the change
of power in Armenia. He needs to save himself from the threat of
appearing in prison because the Armenian public has seriously taken
up the “declassification” of the criminal, the “reverend father” of
which is Serge Sargsyan. This is the problem Serge Sargsyan is looking
for a solution under the slogan “the next president of Armenia”.
Therefore, such trifling information scared Serge Sargsyan. He
could not bear any more, and started shouting abuse against all his
opponents and accused them who wish to get to the “top of power”. He
had to justify himself by every possible means and he burst. And it
appeared rather curious. As if the “top of power” is heavenly manna
for Serge Sargsyan. As if only he can strive for it, and let the others
“graze their grass and keep their hands off the holy of holies”.
In fact, man measures the world by his own bushel. If someone did not
stop at anything to get to the “top” of power and considered this
power as a “source of living for free” at the expense of others’
sacrifice and hardship, he will hardly accept other motives of
other people. Otherwise, it will be necessary to recognize his own
harmfulness and crime. And if for someone the state is a bottomless
well, and the public office is a mechanism of neglecting the will of
people, it is difficult to understand this man. Everyone who points
out this circumstance is but his personal enemy.
Bu the problem is not merely perception. The problem is Serge
Sargsyan’s awareness that “free living” is over. And not only did
it end, but also there is threat that he will face the judgment of
past and present. It is true that he hopes to protect himself with
a higher post, but he has difficulty to believe this already. All he
can do is to slander everyone and everything. This is the last hope
of every wreck, the beginning of the end.

A BITTERSWEET FAREWELL: AZNAVOUR IN TORONTO
Richard Ouzounian
Toronto Star, Canada
Sept 4 2006
`Before Aznavour, despair was unpopular,’ said poet Jean Cocteau of
the legendary singer, now on is farewell tour
MARSEILLE, FRANCE-Charles Aznavour stands behind the large bar in
his studio and pours himself a pre-lunch glass of port. He pauses as
a memory lights up his eyes.
“Edith Piaf. When she was trying not to drink, she would always order
Melon au Porto. She asked them to leave the bottle on the table and
kept pouring more and more of it over the fruit. When she finished,
she’d smile and say `I love to eat melon; it always makes me feel
so good.'”
The earthy laugh that rings out belongs to a much younger man than
the 82-year-old singer, who’s getting ready to begin the farewell
tour that brings him to Toronto’s Hummingbird Centre on Sept. 15.
“I am saying goodbye to all the parts of the world where I sing
in different languages,” he says. “I have already done the German
countries. The English-speaking ones are next, then the Spanish,
then the Japanese.”
But he leaves the door open to performing in his native country, in
his native tongue. “In France, I will sing until it’s time to stop
and that’s when the voice gets shaky.” He raises his glass of port.
“It hasn’t happened yet.”
When reminded that he embarked on a tour several years ago that was
supposed to be his last, he quips: “Singers are like politicians.
They say something today and they say something else tomorrow. We
are all liars.”
Then he puts his glass down to make a point. “Except in my songs. I
never lie in my songs.”
Those songs – hundreds of them – have formed the backbone of his
career. English audiences know him best for numbers like the achingly
nostalgic “Yesterday When I was Young” and the romantic “She,” but
his work contains more colours than Joseph’s biblical coat.
Politics, religion, ecology, war, ethnic cleansing, divorce,
homosexuality, alcoholism, despair – there’s hardly a topic he hasn’t
explored in the past eight decades.
He has several homes around the world – Marrakesh, Geneva, Paris –
but every summer he returns here to his retreat near the Mediterranean,
a short drive from Marseille in the south of France.
The house is gated, but when you ring the bell it is Aznavour’s
distinctive growl that answers.
The rambling structure is decorated in the classic Provencal
colours of yellow and blue. There’s a large pool in the distance
where grandchildren splash happily in the bright August sunlight,
but inside his cool, dark studio, it’s work, not play.
Yes, the large zinc bar – it’s from a 1920s bistro – stands ready to
offer refreshment as needed, but the rest of the room is dominated
by a giant piano, holding the unfinished sheet music for a new
Aznavour song.
Posters on the wall point to key moments in his life – his triumphant
return to the Olympia in Paris, the 1960 film Tirez sur le pianiste
he made with Francois Truffaut – and there’s a comfortable chair he
sinks into with his glass of port as he commences the long journey
back to the beginning.
“It all started,” he recalls, “when a little Armenian boy of 3 stepped
through a curtain and recited a poem about a beautiful woman and her
perfumed kisses.
“Maybe,” he smiles, “I haven’t changed that much in all these years.”
He was born Vaghang Chalnough Aznavourian on May 22, 1924 in Paris
to a pair of Armenian expatriates who were waiting for a visa to
the United States. It never came and they settled in France. His
father was a singer and restaurateur who kept going broke because
he insisted on providing free meals to all the Armenians and artists
visiting his restaurant.
“We were always moving,” Aznavour remembers, “always going to a new
apartment and a new job that was going to be the one that lasted. It
was good training for a life in show business.”
>>From an early age, he wanted to be an actor and a singer. His father
would take him to endless talent competitions, where he would always
wind up second to “a tall, blue-eyed handsome guy. I was short, I was
dark, I had a hooked nose. Who would listen to me sing `I love you’?”
Those insecurities would plague Aznavour for many years. Even today,
the 5-foot-3 singer says, “My stature was not the stature of a star.
I hate that word anyway. Look up to the heavens. Many stars die there
every day.”
World War II and the German occupation of Paris put showbiz dreams on
hold while young Aznavour worked as a black marketeer. He shrugs. “I
was young and when you’re young, everything is an adventure.”
He teamed up with another singer, Pierre Roche, and they began to
acquire a certain popularity in the heady climate of post-war Paris,
even drifting into the inner circle of his idol, Edith Piaf.
“What was she like? She loved good food. She loved to drink with
other people, not alone. Sometimes, of course, she would call you
up at 3 a.m. and tell you to come over so that she’d have someone to
drink with.”
His face grows severe. “But not drugs. Never drugs. They say she
did heroin, cocaine. I never saw that. She might have taken some
prescription drugs she grew too fond of, but not the hard stuff,
not Piaf.”
When asked what he learned from her, he generously says, “I have
learned something from everyone. Maurice Chevalier taught me panache,
Charles Trenet lyricism, Al Jolson energy and Piaf, of course,
passion.”
************** `I have grown older and wiser, and my public have
grown older and wiser with me’
Charles Aznavour, 82 **************
He took that passion across the Atlantic, where Piaf promised him and
Roche she would find them work. They wound up in Montreal in 1948,
spending several years at clubs like Cafe Society and Le Faisan d’Or.
“It was starting to be a very swinging place,” he recalls. “A richness
of two different cultures that lived side by side but never crossed
over. A tension, maybe, but an excitement too.”
By now, Aznavour had broken up with Roche and begun writing songs,
darkly personal documents that weren’t like anything anyone else
was singing.
The first, “J’ai bu,” told of a man who boasted drinking himself
senseless to forget the pain of life and a later number “Je haïs
les dimanches” attacked the whole bourgeois culture on which France
was based.
“They called me the first existential songwriter,” he boasts proudly.
“I always said `Je’ not `vous’ and everyone thought my songs were
autobiographical, even when they weren’t.”
He sips deeply from the port. “And then a funny thing happened. The
songs grabbed hold of me. They may not have been my life when I wrote
them, but they soon turned out that way.”
As Aznavour became increasingly successful, his life grew equally
complicated. He married and divorced twice and nearly lost his life in
a 1957 car crash. And he continued to be dogged by doubts about his
personal inadequacy even while he was filling the Olympia Theatre in
Paris three times a night, starring in successful films and touring
around the world.
Some of his best songs of the period tap into this despair. His 1964
“Hier Encore” (later translated into “Yesterday When I Was Young”)
paints a picture of man with no lovers and no friends who concludes
“j’ai gâche ma vie” (“I wasted my life”).
“Yes, that was me back then,” he admits. “Not a pretty picture. Mon
ami, don’t let them tell you fame is everything. I have been there.
When it’s all you have, fame is nothing.”
Aznavour credits two things with changing his life. He married his
third wife, Ulla Thorsell, in 1968 (they are still together) and he
shifted the focus of his songwriting to include more social issues.
“When I looked outside myself, I found that the world was in much
worse shape than I was,” he says sardonically.
He began addressing issues of urban violence, homosexuality and racial
inequality in his songs and found that it liberated him.
“If a man is curious about the world he lives in, he must learn. If
he learns, he must see, and if he sees, he must write. That is how
I feel.”
One of the areas this led him into was a deeper exploration of his
Armenian roots and the Turkish genocide that destroyed so many of
his ancestors. “When I was young,” he reveals, “my parents never
told us much about the Armenian holocaust. It was years later when
I discovered how horrible it had been.”
In 1975, he was asked to write a song for a movie called Armenia. The
film was never made, but the song “Ils sont tombes” with its moving
tribute to “the children of Armenia,” began a new chapter in his life.
“Our dead people have the right to have a grave,” he says, “even if
it is only in our hearts.”
Over the past 30 years, he has participated in numerous concerts
for his homeland, started a foundation to aid the victims of the
1988 earthquake that killed 50,000 and, in 2002, starred in Ararat,
Atom Egoyan’s film that explored the legacy of the Armenian holocaust.
“Let me make it clear,” he insists, “I do not hate the Turkish
people. My dream is to go to Turkey and sing there, but they tell me
it is not safe for me; one crazy man with a gun is all it would take.
“Look, one crazy man with a gun is all it takes anywhere.”
Aznavour finds himself deeply troubled by the religious wars that
beset the globe these days. “I respect every religion. The husband
of one of my daughters is Jewish; the husband of another daughter is
Muslim. We all live in peace with this. Why can’t the world?”
He puts down his empty glass.
“I’m anxious to meet my audiences one last time. When I was a young
man, I sang foolish songs, but I have grown older and wiser and my
public have grown older and wiser with me.”
With such a long and full existence, is there anything he would do
over again?
“I regret nothing. Not even my young anger. I have done more than I
ever expected …
“I would not change anything in my life. Even the bad moments have
been constructive. Love disappears? Well then, you say goodbye.”
Charles Aznavour will make his farewell Toronto appearance on Friday,
Sept. 15 at 8 p.m. at the Hummingbird Centre. Tickets are available
through hummingbirdcentre.com or by calling 416-872-2262.
–Boundary_(ID_0EdGS63e+BZHMzXsE44z 8Q)–

Eurosport, France
Sept 2 2006

Darchinyan’s Punch is Pound for Pound Power
Promoter Gary Shaw is finding it very difficult to get a unification
world title bout for his charge Vic “Raging Bull” Darchinyan. Such is
his power that it is not a stretch to suggest he will be a pound for
pound top ten contender over the next twelve months.
By Paul Upham: While promoter Gary Shaw is finding it very difficult
to get a unification world title bout for him, IBF/IBO flyweight
world champion Vic “Raging Bull” Darchinyan just wants to keeping
fighting and knocking opponents out.
His brutal stoppage wins over Diosdado Gabi in March on ShoBox and
Luis Maldonado in June on Showtime Championship Boxing in the USA
have marked him as a boxer not to be messed with. Such is his power
that it is not a stretch to suggest he will be a pound for pound top
ten contender over the next twelve months.
“Vic has been devastating this year,” said co-trainer Billy Hussein.
“All of America and Mexico have seen what Vic is made of now. He has
got a lot of power and I think a few of the boxers at flyweight are
running scared.”
Shaw tried unsuccessfully to entice undefeated WBO champion Omer
Narvaez 22-0-2 (15) into a match with the “Raging Bull” on October 7.
Despite flying all the way to Argentina from his home in New Jersey,
Shaw was turned down flat by Narvaez and his team.
“If Narvaez doesn’t want to fight me, I can’t force him,” said
Darchinyan 26-0 (21). “He is scared. He doesn’t want to lose his
world title to me. Who would not want fight on a big card in Las
Vegas on the Showtime television network?”
30 year-old Darchinyan will now face 26 year-old Glenn Donaire 16-2-1
(9), a Filipino based in Los Angeles, on October 7 in Las Vegas, USA
at the Mandalay Bay Events Center. It will be the main support bout
to Diego Corrales vs. Joel Casamayor III at lightweight on Showtime.
“I saw one of his fights on tape,” said Darchinyan, “Glenn is a hard
puncher. His right uppercut is probably his best punch. So I am
working hard to get ready for the fight. I want to put on another
great show. I want to be impressive so that it is easier for my
promoter Gary Shaw to make really big fights for me.”
“I have no doubt Donaire will be a tougher opponent than either Gabi
or Maldonado,” said Hussein. “He saw Vic beat up his mate Gabi and
asked for a shot at him. He’s very dangerous and I know he will come
to fight on the night.”
The Armenia born Australian citizen, who represented his native
country at the 2000 Olympic Games, will leave Sydney on Wednesday and
fly to Las Vegas where he will join his trainer Jeff Fenech, who is
currently working with former undisputed heavyweight boxing world
champion Mike Tyson. Known at one time as the ‘baddest man on the
planet’, 40 year-old Tyson is currently preparing for a farewell
world tour of exhibition bouts with Fenech in his corner.
“As a boxer he was a great fighter,” Darchinyan said of Tyson. “I
have met him a few times and he is a good person. He is a quiet
person. I am hoping he can help me. I have good punching power now,
but hopefully Mike will be able to give me a few more ideas on ways
to knock my opponents out.”
Billy Hussein is expecting Darchinyan to become one of the biggest
names in boxing over the next two years.
“He is a flyweight, but he has unbelievable power,” he said. “I can
see Vic moving up and winning world titles in three or four weight
classes. The more people see him, the more they will want to see him
again. He is going to be a massive attraction in the USA over the
next few years.”
With his reputation confirmed as the biggest hitting flyweight boxer
in the world, Darchinyan is now finding other world title holders are
reluctant to step into the ring with him. He hosted the Sydney media
at his new restaurant business, “VIC’S CAFÉ” in The Italian Forum on
Norton Street, Leichhardt on Wednesday and revealed his plans for
many more world titles.
“I’m going back to America to show that I am a worthy champion and to
keep my record in one piece,” he said. “People will see that I am the
best flyweight. If Gary Shaw cannot get me fights for the WBC, WBA or
WBO world titles at flyweight, I will move up in weight and win them
at junior bantamweight.”
If Darchinyan has any say in it, he will continue his charge to more
world titles by adding another knockout to his resume on October 7.
“I know this fight will be another knockout win for me,” said
Darchinyan. “I don’t think I will win by knockout. I know I will win
by knockout. Donaire comes to fight and he punches hard. But not hard
enough to beat me.”
Paul Upham
Contributing Editor
photo: ort_sto956088.shtml

OhmyNews International, South Korea
Sept 3 2006
Fly the Flag for Martyrdom
[Opinion] As more terror arrests unfold in Britain, it’s time to
rethink this terrorism thing
The anti-terror raids continue in the United Kingdom. In barely two
weeks, close to 50 people have been detained, a few have been
released but many have already been charged under terrorism laws
passed after heated debate in the past year. It remains to be seen
what will become of the latest string of mass arrests.
If past experience is anything to go by, we should expect a raft of
commentary on the subject of terrorism reflecting the political
spectrum of views in the days to come. It appears though that, in
recent times, the venomous, usually violent and hysterical, attacks
on the Islamic faith in the wake of such events have waned, a
development for which we are all immensely thankful.
In many ways, the discussions of terror and its ramifications for
society have become a whole lot more cool-headed and encouragingly
plural in the diversity of opinions and remarks witnessed. But does
that mean it has become any more insightful, perceptive or rigorous?
I am afraid not. More and more the notion, preferred by the political
establishments of the leading Western nations, that terrorism is
wholly reactionary, that is: that its perpetrators are interested
only in rolling back winds of democracy now blowing across the Middle
East, sounds hollow to our ears, even mildly irritating. So also is
the assertion that the phenomenon is inspired by cultural conflict,
i.e. that Mr. or Mrs. Terrorist aims simply to “undermine our way of
life.”
But I reserve my deepest contempt for a thesis popularized years ago
to dignify despotic regimes in the so-called communist world, such as
the Khmer Rouge, by Noam Chomsky and kindred intellectual spirits,
and now resurrected to deal with the “novel” species of terrorist
action. This argument can be summarized as follows: “for all causes,
roots, motivations, means and goals of terrorism, look to the
‘foreign policy’ of the West.”
As applied to terrorism, I find this perspective one of the laziest
framework of analysis ever advanced for any phenomenon in the social
universe.
Surprisingly, the only rebuttal establishment figures seem to be able
to proffer is that terrorism “pre-dates the Iraq war,” or as British
Cabinet Secretaries are wont to put it: “9/11 happened before Iraq.”
As if “Iraq” or “Afghanistan” or indeed Palestine and Lebanon are the
only foreign policy issues someone bent on grievance can adjure for
the purpose of castigating “Western foreign policy.” Critics of the
West if they are so inclined can go as far back as the colonial era
to unearth samples of possible Western wrongdoing. With regards to
the United States, they can mention the support of the CIA for the
Shah of Iran’s less than saintly SAVAK, which dedicated to rooting
out communists introduced some of the elements of repressive rule
still in use by certain members of the Iranian security agencies.
They can point to corporations in Germany and France that helped
Saddam acquire his deadly biological and chemical warfare capacity,
and thus, at least, were complicit in the murder of all those Halabja
Kurds, Marsh Arabs and Iranian infantry. They can point to Britain’s
longstanding security alliances with several Gulf States and her
continuing efforts to arm the House of Saud.
If you want to find fault with the foreign policy of the West, you do
not need a PhD in international relations. It is a layman’s job.
The perversity of the logic which assumes for western foreign policy
the complete cause of terrorism lies, in actual fact, in its complete
“emptiness.” For a start, we have to admit that terrorism is not
limited to the Islamic variant. So that, Tamil suicide bombers cannot
possibly be reacting to “Western foreign policy.” Joseph Kony who
professes himself a Messiah of the Jungles is an obvious East African
terrorist whose appalling deeds can clearly not be linked to “Western
foreign policy.”
The Millenarian Japanese sect that poisoned the Tokyo subway had no
anti-western grievance to nurse, nor even a Western audience to
ponder the meaning of its acts. Having thus agreed that terrorism
across the world comes in different shapes and sizes, we are forced
to focus solely on Islamic terrorism to justify our stance that
Foreign policy is the causal agent in the dynamic of international
terrorism.
It is here that the logic completely falls apart. Why should it only
be “Western foreign policy”? Presumably, Russian foreign policy is
behind Chechnya? Indian foreign policy is behind Kashmir; and
Philippine foreign policy is behind the Abu Sayaf insurgency in the
southern archipelagoes, and its vicious manifestations in central
Manila? Yet all these nations will strongly protest that these issues
are matters of “domestic policy” and some will indeed balk at the
idea that some notion of “foreignness” is in operation.
Indeed, China, unlike Russia, so abhors that notion that the
Government simply refuses to acknowledge the possibility of foreign
influence on the Muslim Xingjian secessionists who have frequently
resorted to the deliberate civilian targeting we usually refer to as
“terrorism.” Malaysia, increasingly the target of South Asian
regional terrorist movements, often adopts the same insular approach.
Are we then to conclude that the “foreign policy” of every country,
in so far as it involves Muslims is likely to incur the wrath of
international terrorists regardless whether that country designates
the matter as internal or external? When faceless Islamists blow up
resorts in Egypt, Turkey or apartment buildings in Saudi Arabia, as
they invariably do, is it of any use to devise a long chain of causal
linkages until “Western foreign policy” is reached?
And even if we were to accept that logic, that international
terrorists will avenge the lives of any Muslims endangered by the
foreign policy of any country, in what category should we place
Darfur? Here, we have a supposedly Islamic regime that kills other
Muslims, admittedly of a different color, in their thousands. Where
are the bombs going off in Sudanese chanceries abroad? What happens
when different Islamic regimes clash? As was the case with Iran and
the Taliban? How does our international terror “foreign policy”
analysts determine their loyalties, and, even more crucially, how
does that translate into violent action abroad.
I find the whole scheme of argumentation ridiculous.
But perhaps, we can narrow it down further and speak precisely of
Western-born Muslims who participate in terrorist activities against
the West. Surely, I would agree that these people are “radicalized”
by “Western foreign policy”? Why else would they do what they do?
Surely, only a blind fool (where blind is metaphorical) will argue
that “Iraq and Afghanistan and Palestine and Lebanon” play no role in
the decisions these people make to commit mass murder?
Perhaps I am very thick, but I remain unconvinced. I still do not see
why it should be those particular contexts, alone, that trigger such
would-be terrorists. I am not persuaded that they cannot similarly be
enraged enough by the massacres, of Muslims, going in Darfur to mount
attacks on Sudanese Chanceries in Britain, Germany and France. Or on
the offices of the Arab League — which opposes international
peacekeeping missions to arrest the humanitarian disaster. After all,
have we not seen U.N. offices blown to smithereens in Iraq?
If these people are citizens of Western countries but identify so
strongly with Palestinians as to be willing to violently renounce
their citizenship in the cause of what, in any other circumstances,
will be a foreign pursuit, then I do not understand their
unwillingness to identify with any other cause save that cause is in
some way linked to “Western foreign policy.” After all, let’s bear in
mind that their motivation is to “avenge Muslim suffering.”
And yet, how many travel to Xingjian to fight the Han? How many are
flooding to Azerbaijan to confront the Armenian and how many to
Ethiopia to protest the latter’s incursions into Somalia?
But there are even lower depths of ludicrousness to which we can
sink. We can decide to ask why it is that only Muslims feel so
outraged by “Western foreign policy” to want to “do something about
it.” When France destroyed the Ivorien airforce for the alleged
killing of a French Soldier; when Britain descended upon Sierra Leone
to restore a an overthrown Government, when Australia backed the
Apartheid Regime of Botha in South Africa, when the United States
invaded Granada to thwart perceived Communist designs, when thousands
and thousands of Western foreign policy goals clashed with the views
of so many around the world, people naturally protested and in
certain parts of the world conflicts broke out.
Yet, African-Americans, Britons of Latin American origin and
Surinamese Dutch who invariably joined such protests often aligned
themselves with other civil society movements within their countries
of origin in the West. Is the Muslim case different? Is it a case of
Muslim identity, alone of all identities, superseding national
citizenship? If so, why?
And yet again, why should it be only specific “foreign policy”
issues? What about “world poverty,” “climate change,” “social
inequity,” “economic recessionism,” “the AIDS crisis”? Are these not
also concerns?
But even granting the dubious premise that Middle Eastern foreign
policy is of a different moral caliber, one is still at a loss why
every grievance must be directed at the West. What about such issues
as the plight of Palestinians in Arab refugee camps where they are
denied even the most basic of rights? What about the appalling
conditions in which foreign immigrants, many of them Pakistani
Muslims, live in Qatar and Dubai? What about the suppression of the
Shiite Muslim faiths, often so violently, in Sunni-dominated
countries, and of the Ahmadi and Sufi Muslim faiths in almost every
Middle-Eastern country?
When Muslim Kurds explode anti-personal bombs in Turkish resorts, are
we to twist our way backwards until we reach Kemal Atakurk and his
supposedly semi-Western reforms before having something meaningful to
say?
Do all these play as mush a part in radicalizing British and Spanish
Muslim youth as does Israeli projectiles in Qana?
I believe that the sooner we ditched this wholly worthless debate
about “foreign policy” and begun a more sophisticated dialogue the
better.
Terrorism is not an ideology. Terrorism is a political instrument
adopted by non-state actors to exert influence in a world in the
throes of techno-social transformation, where notions of state
monopoly over violence, resources and identity should have been
discredited long ago. The means to conduct terrorist action is the
only true determinant.
Those who have access to the infrastructure will use it because
terrorism is cost-efficient. It is symbolism, destruction, propaganda
and psychological warfare rolled into one. It impacts like a Frigate
mounted with radar-guided missiles at a tiny fraction of the cost.
Martyrdom-inspired terrorism is, of course, an advanced version, even
more potent. It leads its victims on the path of self-doubt, assuring
them that their cause –their will to resist — cannot possibly match
the martyr’s in moral power, nor can their claim to life contend with
the Martyr’s contempt of death. Remember how Khomeini withstood
Saddam, despite all the latter’s armament? He unleashed the Martyrs,
that’s how.
If we seek causes and roots, in my view not an entirely useful
exercise, then we should open our eyes to “structural” events
underway across the globe.
Stronger currents of globalization — long fanned by the Hajj and
other doctrinal injunctions — pervade the Islamic reality than it
does any other international social situation. That just-described
globalization implies a wider reach for Islamic political aims and
means. That is not an acknowledgement that the Islamic world has a
monopoly over grievance. Or that whatever ails the Middle East does
not ail other regions. The notion that the complex problems in this
part of the world — complex in the way that all international social
problems are — could all be wished away by the simply sanitization
of Western Foreign policy is as empty a plea as saying that we should
all simply stop being mean as a way of ushering in a new era of
universal peace.
As mentioned, Islam is cosmopolitan by its very nature, thus Muslim
grievances will be magnified beyond proportion by key actors in the
Islamic world, because they have the means to do so; and those that
desire to employ terrorism to further their political designs will
manage to do so much more easily than can your average anarchist in
Padova who similarly wants to blow up the world because (s)he is
repulsed by all the social inequity, greed and decadence currently
choking the planet. It is a question of infrastructure. It is a
question of the achievable. It is a question of politicking.
We should learn to see terrorism as a criminal enterprise and attack
it as ruthlessly as we will any other such criminal activity that has
the capacity to cause so much devastation. Else, we will soon
discover that groups, of all sorts, similarly claiming to hold some
grudge against East, West, North and/or South, are embarked
forcefully on the terrorism business, and succeeding mightily in
fueling useless disputes amongst their victims over their motives.
Terrorism is what it is; let’s deal with it.

PanARMENIAN.Net
Hope for Revenge Suicidal for Azerbaijan
01.09.2006 16:01 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Hope for military budget and revenge is a bad and
suicidal hope. Azerbaijan has always been stronger than Karabakh in
personnel and hardware, but you all know the results of the previous
war imposed by Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabakh President Arkady Ghukasian
said in an interview with Azat Artsakh newspaper. In his words, the
Azeri authorities should stop misleading their public and start
natural direct contacts with Stepanakert. `We can really solve many
problems if we sit down at the negotiating table’, he said.
`Karabakh people do not hate Azeris, while the situation in Azerbaijan
is quite the opposite. The Azerbaijani authorities are actively
cultivating hatred towards Armenians. One proof: in Azerbaijan the
Nagorno Karabakh conflict is presented as Armenian-Azeri conflict,’ he
said.

Armenpress
THREE MO” TENORS PERFORMING IN ARMENIA
YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 1, ARMENPRESS: A famous American
musical group called Three Mo’ Tenors is giving two
concerts in Yerevan, one today and the other on
September 2 and will give a concert for residents of
Armenia’s second largest town of Gyumri on September
3.
Music experts say more people are becoming
interested in classical music because it is being
presented in new ways by new groups. One such group is
Three Mo’ Tenors. Three Mo’ Tenors present concerts
that celebrate many kinds of music. Their first
concert was presented in New York City in the summer
of 2000. Since then, they have performed in many
cities in the United States and the world.
A tenor is the highest natural adult male singing
voice. Three African-American singers perform as Three
Mo’ Tenors. They are Victor Trent Cook, Rodrick Dixon
and Thomas Young. They sing seven different kinds of
music — opera, songs from Broadway shows, jazz,
blues, soul, spiritual and gospel.
Three Mo’ Tenors are trained in classical as well
as other kinds of music. Victor Trent Cook received a
Tony Award nomination in 1995 for his performance in
the Broadway musical “Smokey Joe’s Cafe.” He has also
performed in other Broadway shows.
Rodrick Dixon has sung in concerts in the United
States, France and Italy. He has appeared on Broadway
in the musical “Ragtime.” Thomas Young has performed
in major concert halls and opera houses in twenty
countries. He has also performed in theater and as a
jazz singer. By the way admission to concerts,
organized by the US embassy in Armenia is free.

Armenpress
DEFENSE MINISTER LASHES OUT AT PARTY FELLOW FOR LACK
OF DISCIPLINE

YEREVAN, SEPTEMBER 1, ARMENPRESS: “A political
party is not a pack of wolves and is not obliged to
hasten and defend a party member on every occasion,’
Armenian defense minister Serzh Sarkisian retaliated
to a question why the governing board of his
Republican Party urged its members not to defend a
party member who is contesting the post of a Yerevan
district prefect in elections scheduled for October
28.
The governing board of the party by a vote of 61
against 3 decided yesterday not to defend Arman
Sahakian, a party member. The board also called on its
members warning they would be subjected to
disciplinary punishment if defy the decision. Arman
Sahakian, a former deputy Yerevan mayor, is the son of
Galust Sahakian, who is head of the Republican Party’s
parliament faction.
Sarkisian, who joined the party recently and was
elected chairman of its governing board, argued today
that every party member must understand that the party
has its own, independent interests, there are party
regulations and discipline. ‘If he (Arman Sahakian)
decided all alone without consulting his party, even
ignoring his party, to run for the post why should the
party defend him?,” Sarkisian said adding he had no
intention at all now to defend Sahakian.
The influential defense minister also shrugged off
persistent rumors accusing nature protection minister
Vartan Ayvazian of demanding a $ 3 million bribe from
a US-based mining company, describing these rumors ‘
irresponsible.” Sarkisian argued later it may emerge
that these accusations were simply a slander.
Sarkisian was also asked about the Prosperous
Armenia party of Gagik Tsarukian, seen as the main
rival of the Republican party in 2007 parliamentary
elections, but the minister shrugged off such
speculations saying only the outcome of polls can show
the real potential of any party.