Author: Chatinian Lara

ARKA News Agency, Armenia
May 4 2007

ARMENIA PLACED 142ND AMONG 195 COUNTRIES IN PRESS FREEDOM RANKING

YEREVAN, May 4. /ARKA/. Freedom House, human rights organization,
included Armenia in the list of the countries with restricted freedom
of press.
Washington ProFile reports that Armenia is places 142nd among 195
countries in Freedom House’s ranking.
Freedom House points out precipitous deterioration of the situation
with media freedom in Latin America countries and former Soviet
republics.
The United States shared 17th place with Estonia. Lithuania was
placed 29th and Latvia 31st.
Ukraine was 112th and Georgia 120th – both were considered partially
free. The remaining post-soviet countries have not free press.
Armenia found itself together with Moldova (144th), Kyrgyzstan (147),
Azerbaijan and Russia (164), Kazakhstan and Tajikistan (166), Belarus
(186), Uzbekistan (189) and Turkmenistan (191).
Turkmenistan’s freedom has outdone only that of South Korea.
Myanmar, Cuba and Libya are topping Freedom House’s black books.
Press freedom leaders are Finland and Iceland. They are followed by
Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Luxemburg, Switzerland, Andorra,
Netherlands, New Zealand and Lichtenstein.
German was 16th, Great Britain 31st, France 39th, Poland 46th, Israel
61st, Turkey 105th and Saudi Arabia 178th. China and Iran share 181st
rank.
74 countries’ media was recognized fully free, 58 states’ media
partially free and 63 not free.
It means 18% people in the world live in countries with restricted
freedom of press, 39% in the countries with partially free media and
43 with restricted. M.V.-0—

THOUSANDS OF ANTI-GOVERNMENT PROTESTORS RALLY IN ARMENIA

Agence France Presse — English
May 3, 2007 Thursday 5:52 PM GMT

Several thousand opposition supporters rallied in central Yerevan
on Thursday ahead of parliamentary elections in this former Soviet
republic.

"Our aim is to get those in power out," Aram Sarksyan, a former prime
minister and head of the Republic party, told the crowd.

"We realise they’ll do everything to keep their posts because they
know that they will go to court if they don’t," Sarksyan said.

Police estimated the number of opposition supporters at the rally on
Freedom Square in the centre of Yerevan at around 5,000. Organisers
said 13,000 people attended.

The protest was organised by the New Times and Republic parties,
as well as the Impeachment bloc, a coalition of opposition groups.

Organisers said the next protest would be on May 10.

Armenia is set to hold parliamentary elections on May 12.

VOTING TURNOUT ESTIMATED TO REACH 55-60% ON MAY 12

ArmRadio.am
03.05.2007 16:44

The voting turnout during the parliamentary elections of May 12 in
Armenia will reach 55-60%, the Head of "Sociometer" Center Aharon
Adibekyan stated in Yerevan today.

Mediamax reports that Aharon Adibekian publicized today the data of a
survey, held on April 28 in 10 regions of Armenia /excluding Yerevan/,
in which 1650 respondents participated.

According to the data of the survey, during the parliamentary
elections of May 12, 34% of the votes will go to the Republican
Party of Armenia, 32% – to the "Prosperous Armenia" Party, 12,8% –
"Orinats Yerkir", 11,2% – " Dashnaktsutyun", 7% – "National Unity",
4,8% – People’s Party, 4,2% – "Heritage" Party.

Aharon Adibekyan noted that 19.5% of the respondents refused to name
the party, for which they are going to vote.

The next survey of "Sociometer" will be held on May 5 all over
the country, in which 2100 respondents will take part, however,
its data, in accordance with the electoral legislation, cannot be
publicized and will be used in official views. In this connection,
Aharon Adibekyan spoke for the revocation of the legal provision,
which forbids the publication of data of public opinion polls a week
prior to the elections.

UNITED JAVAKHK ALLIANCE LEAVES ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR DESTABILIZATION OF SITUATION IN REGION ON CENTRAL AUTHORITIES OF GEORGIA AND THEIR FAWNERS IN JAVAKHK

Noyan Tapan
Armenians Today
May 03 2007

AKHALKALAK, MAY 3, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. The United Javakhk
democratic alliance made a statement on April 30 by which he condemned
the April 24 illegal arrests of alliance members Artur Poghosian and
former Mayor of Akhalkalak Nairi Iritsian. The statement authors
demanded to immediately set free Artur Poghosian being illegally
kept in one of investigation isolation cells of Tbilisi, to quash
the absurd criminal actions brought against him and other Javakhk
Armenian figures and to stop deepening frightening of Armenians of
the region by involving force structures.

"The alliance informs the society that in the case of opposing the fair
and universal resoluteness of Armenians of Javakhk, immediately not
setting free the illegally arrested people, continuing violation of the
indisputable language and religious rights, the whole responsibility
for destabilization of the situation will be left on the central
authorities of the country and their fawners in Javakhk. The alliance
re-affirms its own resoluteness to struggle for protection of the
constitutional rights of the whole population of Javakhk and to
support democratization of Georgia and to stimulate stability in the
South Caucasian region and the integration processes," is said in
the statement.

According to the information submitted to Noyan Tapan, a committee
on protecting Artur Poghosian was founded in Javakhk on May 1.

HATRED FACTOR IN TURCO-ARMENIAN RELATIONS
View By Sedat Laciner (U.S.A.K.)

Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
May 2 2007

‘Feelings’ generally are not taken into considerations in International
Relations studies. Almost every school of thought in IR agree that
permanent friendship and enmity is something impossible.

However, Sociology and Psychology of International Politics recently
show that feelings and institutionalization of feelings are getting
more and more important in nation-to-nation relations. In this context,
Turco-Armenian relations show a clear example for the importance of
feelings in politics;

***

One of the surprises awaiting Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan was
Armenians in his visit to Lebanon last year. During his visit to
Lebanon to negotiate Turkey’s contribution to the United Nation’s
International Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Mr. Erdogan was exposed to any
kind of insult and curse of the Armenians. "Animals are not Welcome"
slogan was on the banners under the photograph of the P.M.

Erdogan. It was so normal to burn the Turkish flag in those events.

Unfortunately, no Armenian leader there criticized these kinds of
events nor tried to prevent them.

Last week, on 24 April demonstrations Armenians once more burnt the
Turkish flag in Athens, Greece. They insulted Turkey and Turks. In
Georgia we saw the same picture; ultra nationalist Armenians living
in Javakhk insulted Turkish flag. The Armenians first spread the flag
on the ground, and then all of them jumped over the Turkish flag,
and finally they burnt it. Then they went to church and held a divine
service. Again, no Armenian elite or leader criticized these kinds
of events nor tried to prevent them. Moreover, it was so meaningful
to make a ‘spiritual ritual’ in the church after insulting a nation
and that nation’s flag.

***

I encounter almost everyday the Armenians’ hatred towards Turks. My
e-mail inbox is full of Armenian insults against myself, Turkish
people and the Ottoman Empire. Nowadays, it is something normal
for me to receive e-mails like these. E-mails, which claim that my
articles are baseless and I am trying to twist the truth, are only
‘moderate criticizes’ among these Armenian posts according to me!

However, some e-mails that I receive are so full of hatred and insults
that I could not read till the end. In addition, the writers of these
mails are not ignorant and illiterate people. They are lawyers,
doctors, engineers or academicians living in the North America or
in Western Europe. Some e-mails are even more interesting; starting
so restrained and you feel that he or she has a compromising or
a constructive attitude, but suddenly everything changes and that
polite and elegant person could not control his senses. You see that
grammatical mistakes increase as the insults against your personality
and Turkey rise. It shows that being so restrained and polite in the
beginning that person cannot control himself as he/she comes to the
chapter of the so called ‘genocide’.

Especially, some of my Armenian readers confirmed my analysis that
hatred against Turks and Turkey are getting stronger among the second
and third Armenian generation after the Tehcir. A few days ago,
Noobar Janoian was saying in his mail "The hatred toward the Turks is
embedded in us". Not only Janoian but lots of Armenians think that
they have that hatred against Turks in their blood. Narek Mesropian
defines the situation as,

It is in our blood to hate the Turks, However, we hate Bulgarians
and Greeks also, The Jews like Turks, but they hate Arabs, The Arabs
in turn, are not in favour with the Turks, And the level of hatred
is rising.

While hatred is so common and profound, it leads to the formation
of its own story too. Stating this, I do not want to say that
the Armenians did not experience difficult times both in 1915 and
afterwards. However, not only the Armenians but also the Turks and
other Muslim societies experienced similar difficulties. I am surprised
when I listen to the similarities between experiences of the Turkish
ancestors and the Armenian ones; slaughter of children, torture made to
the people by attacking the villages and many other inhuman experiences
and so on. It is possible to hear the similar stories from the Turks
of Eastern Anatolia and in other regions of Turkey. These experiences
of Turks are not being echoed in the international arena because Turks
do not write their experiences down and prefer to forget them. However
the Armenians preferred just the opposite and made anything possible
not to forget even a minute of that period. Armenians made the clashes
with the Turks as the base of the Armenian identity. This is why the
Armenians have possibility to express their sorrows stronger than the
Turks. Naturally, some myths get into the experiences as well in this
process. For instance, while telling his families emigration story,
Mr. Janoin gives an example of these myths:

"Only my mother survived and that was a miracle. My grand parents
were from Siiert, and they spoke Arabic at home (they did not know
Armenian) you know why? Because in the rural areas were the Armenians
were minorities were treated like slaves, and they did cut their
tongs if they dared and spoke Armenian."

It is possible to criticize the Ottoman Empire; however it is the
last civilization that can be blamed of preventing the minorities of
speaking their own language. It is evident that Armenians published
books and newspapers in their own language and they had their own
churches and schools in the Ottoman Empire. Moreover, there is another
fact that the Armenians were strongly involved in the Ottoman economy,
particularly trade and banking, together with the Greeks and Jewish
people. This is why the rumors on the prevention of Armenian language
exaggerate the realities. However, the hatred increased and encouraged,
in time creates its own stories and after a while you cannot differ
the truth and made up-stories from each other.

***

When we compare Turkish perspective with the Armenian’s since 1915,
we see that Armenians trying to keep their memories fresh to remember
their pain. In a way, it seems like every time they are tearing a
wound once more that is going to heal. They do not let it to heal.

They begin to derive pleasure from this situation and building their
identity on this pain. However, this is something unhealthy. Even the
Jews, who built their identity on victimization, do not keep their
pain this much alive. Without forgetting and leaving their pain in
the past, a society cannot have a healthy and normal life. For this
reason nations refer to their great victories and positive sides.

Even if they don’t have great victories they glorify their existing
successes. In this context, the way that Armenians have chosen is
so exceptional.

When we look at the Turkish side we see an approach that is built
on forgetting. Since they think that keeping memories of pain alive
would make it impossible to live in this geography, they not only
tried to forget their bad experiences with the Armenians but also
with any other ethnic groups as well. Maybe this is the reason why
Armenians try to keep their memories fresh. They see this kind of an
attitude of the Turks against themselves and they cannot understand
the real reasons behind this. According to Armenians, Turks insult
them by forgetting everything.

***

In this framework, it is not possible to discuss the situation with
objective variables from where we stand. It is impossible to take
steps by ignoring the psychological dimension of the Turco-Armenian
relations. Maybe compromising way would be Armenians to forget a
little and Turks to remember a bit.

ECHMIATSIN-SHUSHI MARATHON SYMBOLIZES OUR UNITY

Yerkir
01.05.2007 16:24

YEREVAN (YERKIR) – A marathon called "The victorious march continues"
started today at St. Echmiatsin. The marathon, organized by the ARF
Supreme Body of Armenia, is dedicated to the 15th anniversary of the
liberation of Shushi.

The marathon will continue until May 9. Five hundred young ARF members
will pass to each other the torch lit today in Echmiatsin. On May 9,
Artsakh archbishop Pargev will light Shushi’s St Kazanchetsots church
candles from the torch.

"The liberation of Shushi has a great significance, and this beautiful
event symbolizes the unification of our two parts and the idea of
unifying our lands," ARF Supreme Body of Armenia representative Armen
Rustamian said. "This victory was an outbreak in our liberation war."

General Artur Aghabekian, addressing the youth, said, "You are
replacing those who died for the liberation of our villages and ended
in the liberation of Shushi on May 9."

Today, the young participants of the marathon reached Yerablur, laid
flowers on the grave of Vigen Zakarian, passed the torch to the youth
of Masis, who will carry on the marathon.

KURDISTAN IN THE MAKING: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR TURKEY IN NORTHERN IRAQ
By Mehmet Kalyoncu

Balkanalysis.com, AZ
May 1 2007

Nowadays, amid the current presidential and nearing parliamentary
elections, Ankara is preoccupied with the question of a cross-border
operation against Kurdish PKK militants who have found refuge in
northern Iraq. A provocative comment came from one of the Kurdish
leaders in Iraq, Massoud Barzani: "if Turkey interferes with Kirkuk,
then we will interfere with Diyarbakir."1 Baghdad’s apparent tacit
approval of his comments have strained nerves in Ankara more than
ever as the Turkish military keeps a wary eye on developments in
Northern Iraq.2

The provocative attitude of Barzani’s Kurdish Regional Government, and
Baghdad’s failure to confront it, are also coinciding with heightened
terrorist activities from the PKK in Turkey’s southeastern border area
with Iraq. This has had the effect of blurring the distinction between
the PKK threat to Turkey and Kurdish state formation in Northern Iraq,
creating the impression that the two are naturally conducive to each
other. In fact, they are not. The two are indeed interrelated, but
will reinforce one another only if Ankara gets involved in northern
Iraq militarily and isolates itself from the region economically
and diplomatically.

The PKK threat is likely to be used by the Kurdish leaders as leverage
against Ankara so long as it does not recognize the legitimacy
of Kurdish state formation in northern Iraq. The PKK would seek
to garner Kurdish popular support for the idea of the so called
"Greater Kurdistan" in the southeastern Turkey as well as within
the Kurdish Diaspora in the European capitals through alliances,
with other diasporas traditionally not so friendly with Turkey.

The PKK threat is, however, destined to die out, provided that
Ankara fully engages in diplomatic and economic relations with the
Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) and Baghdad, tries to make sure
that the KRG is not dominated by a particular clan or family but is
controlled by alternating governments through democratic elections,
and carries out multilateral but not unilateral military operations
against the PKK camps in Northern Iraq. At the end of the day, the
formation of a Kurdish political entity in Northern Iraq may even
serve Turkey’s deliberate diffusion into the Middle East, if handled
properly by Ankara.

A Hostile and Unpredictable Kurdish Government is a Threat- Not
Kurdistan

A democratic Kurdistan on good terms with Turkey can be a reliable
ally in the Middle East. As a matter of fact, for Turkey, which
is now all for more involvement in the Middle East, Kurdistan with
a democratic government could be even vital to Turkish interests,
provided that its leadership is available and accountable to the
average Kurd, and hence subject to alteration through a democratic
election process. The real challenge seems to be securing the Kurdish
Regional Government’s future against the absolute domination of
a particular clan, which is the Barzani clan at the moment. This
clan has traditionally proven unpredictable and exhibited a mostly
confrontational behavioral pattern.

Ankara can never have a stable and predictable relationship with the
Barzani leadership, at least so far as past experience would seem
to indicate. The relations between the two have frequently swayed
between cooperation and confrontation. Turkey provided a safe haven
for some half a million Iraqi Kurds during the First Gulf War, in
addition to 1.5 million Kurds escaping Saddam Hussein’s campaigns
in the 1980s- most notably, the 1988 chemical attack in Halabja. In
the early 1990s, Ankara granted the Kurdistan Democratic Party leader
Massoud Barzani the right to seek refuge in Turkey, which it did not
give to his rival, Jalal Talabani, the leader of the Patriotic Union
of Kurdistan. Nevertheless, the Ankara-Barzani alliance did not last.

According to Iraqi Kurdish writer Kamal Said Qadir, "switching
alliances is part of the Barzani family political culture, intertwining
survival and power with Kurdish nationalism. Between 1980 and 1988,
Massoud Barzani allied himself with Iran in its fight against
Saddam, even as the revolutionary authorities in Iran turned their
guns on Iranian Kurds. After long hostility to Turkey, in 1992,
he allied with Ankara in its fight against the Kurdistan Workers’
Party (Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan, PKK); in 1996, he allied with
Saddam Hussein against rival Kurdish leader (and current Iraqi
president) Jalal Talabani. In the wake of Iraq’s liberation in 2003,
Barzani has portrayed himself as a U.S. ally. For how long, though,
remains unclear."3 Barzani’s recently confrontational attitude toward
Ankarawas thus not contrary to his attested behavioral pattern when he
recently threatened to interfere with Diyarbakir, Turkey’s southeastern
province, in case Turkey interferes with Kirkuk, which he claims to
be a truly Kurdish city.

However, Opportunities Still Exist

Despite Ankara’s not so friendly experience with Massoud Barzani,
Turkey and the Kurdish entity in Northern Iraq, be it defined as
a state within clearly defined borders or an autonomous regional
government, could develop mutually beneficial relationship in this
chronically unstable region- so long as the Kurdish leadership turns
truly democratic as opposed to being run by a dictatorship led by a
particular family or clan. According to Richard Holbooke, a former US
Ambassador to the UN, "despite their history, Turkeyand Iraqi Kurdistan
need each other. Kurdistan could become a buffer between Turkey and
the chaos to the south, while Turkey could become the protector of a
Kurdistan that, though still technically part of Iraq, is effectively
cut loose from a Baghdad government that may no longer function. In
addition, Turkey has a major economic opportunity in northern Iraq;
already, more than 300 Turkish companies and substantial investment
are a primary engine of Kurdish growth."4

Due to either this approach being favored by the United States, which
has so far acted unilaterally in the region with almost no regard
for Ankara’s concerns, or fearing possible nationalist unrest from
the Turkish public, Ankara has so far reflexively disregarded the
possibility of accommodating the process of Kurdish state formation
in Northern Iraq. However, such a process, so long as it is guided
by democratic values and remains somewhat predictable, may not be
detrimental to Turkish national interests in the region after all.

Full engagement with the current Kurdish state-building process in
Iraq from the very beginning would help Turkey gain confidence, not
only in its own Kurds, but also in all Kurds of the region- the very
constituency targeted by the PKK and other separatist entities. In so
doing, Turkey can build leverage against the possibly hostile Kurdish
government(s) now and then in Northern Iraq, and the central government
in Baghdad. In this regard, Turkey should take the lead in the region
by helping the Kurds of Northern Iraq to modernize their community,
establish institutions and help democracy take root in the new Kurdish
state entity.

Turkey’s support to the Iraqi Kurds should also aim to create a broad
middle class which would also develop an economic interdependence
between Turkey and the Kurdish Iraqi state. Economic engagement
could start with taxing the already ongoing trade between Turkey’s
southeastern cities and the cities in Northern Iraq. Such an engagement
should also aim to carry Kirkuk oil to the global markets through
Turkish pipelines. In addition to pursuing full diplomatic and economic
relations with the new Kurdish state, Ankara should mobilize civil
society organizations in Turkey to be proactive in the making of
the new Kurdistan, so that the ties between the Turkish and Kurdish
publics remain strong, even if disruptions may occur occasionally
between the governments.

Is the Military Option a Viable One?

The option of a military operation against the PKK camps in Northern
Iraq might seem tempting, but is in fact highly risky, not only for
Turkey but also for regional stability. The military might of Ankara
of course cannot be compared to that of the PKK rebels, or even its
possible allies in Baghdad. Based on that comparison and the record
of 16 successful cross-border operations, some may tend to think that
it would take only hours to annihilate the PKK threat. However, it
is no longer 1992, when the PKK was encircled by Barzani’s peshmerga
units from the south, thereby helping the Turkish military to succeed
quickly. Today, a military operation with some 40,000 troops against
the PKK is no different from a scenario in which a conventional
military power goes after a non-conventional enemy with high mobility,
which would most probably retreat back and diffuse into the Kurdish
civilian settlements. Once the Turkish military forces are tempted
to chase the retreating fighters, it may be far too late for Ankara
to realize just how far it has had to go into northern Iraq by the
time the world media will have already condemned the operation as a
Turkish invasion of Iraq.

The Last Thing Turkey Needs: A Hostile Kurdish Diaspora

Another risk associated with Ankara’s non-accommodating approach to
the Kurdish state being formed in Northern Iraq is the likelihood that
it would create a hostile Kurdish Diaspora in the Western capitals,
and provide a medium for them to be lured by other anti-Turkish
diasporas. Given Turkey’s bitter experience with the Armenian and
Greek diasporas, the last thing Turkey needs is a hostile Kurdish
Diaspora. However, the present attitude of Ankara toward the Kurdish
state formation in a restructuring Iraq is likely to only create
another hostile diaspora, this time a Kurdish one, mainly located in
the European capitals.

It is to the best interest of Ankara to recognize that it cannot afford
to ignore the ongoing modernization of Kurds in Western capitals
and the expediting role of transportation and digital communication
to help them organize. Most probably no later than a decade will
proliferate Western educated Kurdish leaders who will be pursuing a
Kurdish "independence" cause. A la Qubad Talabani who represents the
Kurdish Regional Government in Washington, who is up for establishing a
Kurdish Congressional Caucus and a Kurdish-American Business Council,
and who interestingly called for an amnesty for the PKK, 6 which is
listed as terrorist organization by the US State Department.

Similarly is it inevitable that there will grow a second- and
third-generation European Kurdish community which will be attached
to the imagined "Kurdistan." It should not be difficult for Ankara
to understand that such a flourishing diaspora would easily find
financial and intellectual support in Europe, given certain European
states’ certified support for the PKK. According to Soner Cagaptay
of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, in the recent
past Greece, Bulgaria and Russia, in addition to Syria, Iran and
Israel have supported the PKK in one way or another.5 In addition,
the Danish government has long turned a blind eye to the Kurdish
Roj TV broadcasting from Denmark, despite Ankara’s concerns over
the TV channel being used as an outlet for the PKK to convey its
captured leader Abdullah Ocalan’s messages, and to instigate the
Kurds in Turkey to make uprisings and provocations. Similarly, the
Belgian government has long provided protection to Fehriye Erdal, a
PKK member and the assassin of prominent Turkish businessman Ozdemir
Sabanci, despite Ankara’s continuous efforts to bring her to justice.

After all, not only should Ankara avoid making foes of those who
could be friends, but also recognize the opportunities attached to
the challenges unfolding in Northern Iraq.

1 "Barzani haddini asti, bu sozlerin bedeli
agir olur", Zaman, April 10, 2007, available at
rno=525763 2 "Barzani’ye
destek Verdi: Karisanin elini keseriz", Zaman, April 14, 2007,
available at =527509

3 Kamal Said Qadir, "The Barzani Chameleon", Middle East Quarterly,
Spring 2007, available at

4 Richard Holbrooke, "Opportunity for Turks and Kurds?" Washington
Post, February 12, 2007, p.17

5 "Dr. Cagaptay: ABD, Turkiye’nin K. Irak’ta kisa sureli operasyon
yapmasina goz yumar", Zaman Amerika, 12 Nisan 2007, p.3

6 "Qubad Talabani calls for amnesty for PKK," Turkish Daily News,
(KurdishMedia.com), June 14, 2006. See speech on "Amnesty for
the PKK"< B00Bc>at
the Center for Strategic and International
Studies< g/index.php?title=Center_for_Strategic_and_Interna tional_Studies>(CSIS),
June 13, 2006, cited at
d_al-Talabani

/01/kurdistan-in-the-making-challlenges-and-opport unities-for-turkey-in-northern-iraq/

PRESS RELEASE
Armenian Center for National and International Studies
75 Yerznkian Street
Yerevan 0033, Armenia
Tel: (+374 – 10) 52.87.80 or 27.48.18
Fax: (+374 – 10) 52.48.46
Email: [email protected] or [email protected]
Website:

The Armenian Center for National and International Studies

World Public Favors Globalization and Trade but Wants to Protect Environment
and Jobs

April 26, 2007, 14:00 GMT
Contact, International Findings:
Steven Kull, 202-232-7500
Christopher Whitney, 312-451-1040

April 26, 2007, Yerevan, 19:00
Contact, Armenia Findings:
Stepan Safarian, 37410-528-780
Syuzanna Barseghian, 37410-274-818

Yerevan — The Armenian Center for National and International Studies
(ACNIS) today convened a roundtable discussion to present the results
of the fifth in a series of reports based on a poll of worldwide
opinion on key global issues. The report was devoted to globalization
and trade. The meeting brought together citizens, members of leading
think tanks, analysts, and media representatives.

ACNIS director of research Stepan Safarian delivered opening remarks.
"Armenia, just like the rest of the world, is not immune from the
effects of globalization," he said. "Having already recognized the
positive results of globalization, Armenian society is now seeking
protection from its adverse consequences: issues of environment,
working conditions, and job security." ACNIS analyst Syuzanna
Barseghian then presented survey results.

Majorities around the world believe economic globalization and
international trade benefit national economies, companies, and
consumers. But many think trade harms the environment and threatens
jobs and want to mitigate these effects with environmental and labor
standards.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and WorldPublicOpinion.org, in
cooperation with polling organizations around the world, conducted the
survey in countries representing 56 percent of the world’s population:
China, India, the United States, Indonesia, France, Russia, Thailand,
Ukraine, Poland, Iran, Mexico, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia,
Argentina, Peru, Israel, Armenia–and the Palestinian territories.

This is the fifth in a series of reports based on the global poll’s
findings that analyze international attitudes on key issues. Not all
questions were asked in all countries.

Support for globalization is remarkably strong throughout the world.
Seventeen countries plus the Palestinian territories were asked if
"globalization, especially increasing connections of our economy
with others around the world, is mostly good or mostly bad" for their
country. In every case positive answers outweigh negative ones.

"These findings clearly show that publics in both the developed
and developing worlds view globalization and international trade as
net positive forces," says Christopher Whitney, executive director
for studies at The Chicago Council on Global Affairs. "This may
strengthen the political will to further deepen trade through market
liberalization."

The highest levels of support are found in countries with
export-oriented economies: China (87%), South Korea (86%) and Israel
(82%). In the United States, 60 percent think globalization is mostly
good and 35 percent call it mostly bad.

There is an even stronger consensus around trade’s positive impact
on national economies. Respondents in 14 countries were asked
whether trade was good or bad for their economy. In all of them,
majorities reply that it is good. The highest levels of approval are
in China (88%), Israel (88%), South Korea (79%), and Thailand (79%).
The highest negative views, though still held by minorities, are found
in the United States (42%), France (34%), Mexico (27%) and India (27%).

Majorities in nearly all of the countries polled also consider trade
good for their country’s companies, consumers and their standard
of living.

But respondents around the world express concern about the effect of
trade on the environment. In four countries, the idea that trade is
bad for the environment is the most common view: France (66% bad, 29%
good), the United States (49% bad, 45% good), Argentina (46% bad, 27%
good), and Russia (44% bad, 25% good). Opinion is divided in Armenia
(36% bad, 37% good,), Mexico (41% bad, 41% good), and South Korea
(49% bad, 47% good).

One way to mitigate the potentially negative impact of trade on the
environment is to require minimum environmental standards as part of
trade agreements. Large majorities in all 10 countries asked–ranging
between 60 percent and 93 percent–say that trade agreements should
include "minimum standards for protection of the environment." Those
in favor include two of the world’s largest developing economies: China
and India. The Chinese favor environmental protections by 85 percent
to 8 percent and the Indians endorse them by 60 percent to 28 percent.

There is also concern about the effect of trade on employment,
especially in more developed countries. Eighty percent of French
respondents believe trade has a negative impact on job security in
their country and 73 percent think it is also bad for the creation of
jobs there. In the United States, 67 percent consider trade harmful
for U.S. workers’ job security and 60 percent call it detrimental
for job creation.

One way to allay concerns about job losses in developed countries is
to require trade agreements to include minimum standards on working
conditions, thus avoiding a "race to the bottom" in search of lower
costs abroad. Respondents in developed countries, not surprisingly,
overwhelmingly support including such labor standards in international
trade agreements, including nine out of ten respondents in the United
States (93%), Israel (91%), Argentina (89%), and Poland (88%).

But adding labor protections to trade agreements also receives strong
support in many less developed countries that are known for low-cost
labor markets. In China, 84 percent favor them as do majorities in
Mexico (67%), India (56%) and the Philippines (55%).

This is contrary to the widespread assumption that laborers in
developing countries would oppose the imposition of higher standards
because they desire the competitive advantages derived from lower
labor costs. It is possible that the requirement of higher standards
is attractive because it generates outside pressure to improve working
conditions in their countries.

"It is clear is that publics around the world support the growth of
trade," said Steven Kull, editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org. "But it
is also clear that many are looking for ways to soften its disruptive
impact on the environment and jobs by including environmental and
labor standards in trade agreements."

For details, please see or
WorldPublicOpinion.org is a publication
of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University
of Maryland. For the Armenian version, visit

Founded in 1994 by Armenia’s first Minister of Foreign Affairs Raffi K.
Hovannisian and supported by a global network of contributors, ACNIS
serves as a link between innovative scholarship and the public policy
challenges facing Armenia and the Armenian people in the post-Soviet
world. It also aspires to be a catalyst for creative, strategic
thinking and a wider understanding of the new global environment. In
2007, the Center focuses primarily on civic education, democratic
development, conflict resolution, and applied research on critical
domestic and foreign policy issues for the state and the nation.

For further information on the Center call (37410) 52-87-80 or
27-48-18; fax (37410) 52-48-46; email [email protected] or [email protected];
or visit

OUR STRENGTH IS OUR UNITY

Azat Artsakh Daily, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh [NKR]
28 April 07

The Confederation of the NKR Labor Unions made a statement endorsing
the decision of the Democratic Party of Artsakh, the Azat Hayrenik
Party, the ARF Dashnaktsutyun Artsakh and Movement 88 to support
a single candidate on July 19. The Confederation stated that they
will also support this candidate. "Our organization, which is the
biggest in the country, upholds the idea of unity, which underlies
our activities. When the political forces and people are united,
the country takes the track for progress and democracy," runs the
statement of the Labor Unions of NKR.

AA.
28-04-2007

JOURNALIST GUIDE-BOOK ON LEGAL MECHANISMS TO RECEIVE INFORMATION IN
ELECTORAL PROCESS PUBLISHED

YEREVAN, APRIL 28, NOYAN TAPAN. The proper excercise of the mass
media’s right to receive information is an important guarantee
to promote transparency of an electoral process. Head of the OSCE
Yerevan Office Ambassador Vladimir Pryakhin stated this at the April
27 presenttaion of the guide-book "Public Elections: How to Receive
Information in Electoral Processes" envisaged for journalists.

In his words, the aim of the publication is to inform journalists
about legal mechanisms necessary to guarantee their right to get
information, which in its turn will contribute to comprehensive
coverage of electoral processes at the pre-election stage, on vote
day and after elections.

The book was compiled and published by the "Information Freedom Center"
NGO with the financial assistance of the OSCE Yerevan Office.