Author: Ekmekjian Janet

ARMENIA: VIOLATION OF FISHING BAN THREATENS LAKE SEVAN
Marianna Grigoryan
EurasiaNet, NY
Nov 1 2006
Armenian scientists are charging that violation of a ban on fishing for
whitefish poses a severe challenge to the eco-system of Armenia’s Lake
Sevan, the largest alpine lake in the Caucasus and one of Armenia’s
best-known natural landmarks. In response, the government has pledged
to tighten the ban as of mid-November, but local villagers remain
skeptical, saying that their livelihoods depend on the fish.
Lake Sevan’s famous whitefish, or sig, helped Armenians overcome
food shortages during the energy crisis of the early 1990s, but have
since become threatened with extinction from over-fishing. Unclear
environmental policies on the fish and a lack of economic alternatives
for local fishermen have further complicated matters.
In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences’s Institute of Hydroecology
and Ichthyology and a group of Russian scientists determined that the
number of Lake Sevan whitefish had decreased by 17 times compared
with 1983 levels. While in the mid-1980s the lake contained more
than 11,000 tons of whitefish, supply now stands at only 625 tons,
according to the findings.
To correct the problem, the Ministry of Environmental Protection
introduced a year-long ban on commercial fishing of whitefish in
February 2006, but little attention has been paid to it, fishermen
and scientists say. Blame is placed on the hard-scrabble economic
conditions in the villages surrounding the 1,360-square-kilomter lake.
“Let them give people jobs and we will not fish,” said Garik Avetisyan,
a middle-aged fisherman. “What shall we do? Die or what?
If there’re no fish, [our] families will die.”
Scientists, many of who favor a long-term ban on fishing for whitefish,
say that the difficult living conditions will only grow worse if the
whitefish population does not increase. In that case, large-scale
commercial fishing may soon become impossible, too. The period from
November through December, when the whitefish spawn, is particularly
critical, they say.
“Only one generation of whitefish remains in the lake today, instead
of several generations in the past,” said Boris Gabrielyan, deputy
director of the National Academy of Sciences of Armenia’s Institute
of Hydroecology and Ichthyology. “The whitefish is not given time to
spawn and propagate. It is not allowed to do that.”
“Our ongoing research this year shows that the situation has become
worse as compared to last year,” Gabrielyan continued. “If poaching
continues at the same pace, whitefish will vanish as a commercial
fish type. Whitefish resources have been exploited to an inadmissible
degree.”
Meanwhile, as the whitefish population declines, the lake’s eco-system
is beginning to change. Gabrieylan charges that the increased presence
of organic materials on which the fish feed is turning the lake into
a swamp.
The Ministry of Environmental Protection has dismissed the claim,
however.
“There can be no discussion about swamps. There is no such thing,”
Artashes Ziroyan, head of the ministry’s Bio-Resources Management
Agency, said. “True, the amount of whitefish in the lake is not
considered sufficient, but together with colleagues from the interior
ministry and other departments, we will manage to preserve the
whitefish [population] during the period of the fishing ban.”
Despite the ban, whitefish and its caviar can still be found in
markets and shops.
In Yerevan, which is the largest market for whitefish, prices for
the fish have risen by at least several hundred percent in the last
few years. Whitefish now sell for between 300-500 drams, or roughly
$0.68 – $1.14, per fish in the capital’s markets, and rank among
shoppers as one of the most popular fish.
“The fish is a very useful product,” Amalia, a seller at one of
Yerevan’s markets, explained to her customers. Although formerly
whitefish was affordable for nearly everyone, she continued, that
situation has changed within the past few years. “It is in short
supply. That’s why prices for it have gone up.”
Commenting on the situation this summer, Minister of Environmental
Protection Vardan Ayvazyan argued that the declining whitefish
population is not “an environmental problem,” and suggested that
the ministry can do little in the face of persistent fishing by
economically deprived residents.
“In many cases, our orders are not obeyed, and no minister can say
that during his time in office the control of fishing at Lake Sevan
was good,” Ayvazyan told reporters at a press conference. “In reality,
there is a great problem of poverty [there]. Don’t you pity these
people [who live there]?”
Ministry officials say that they will work with the interior ministry
to monitor the lake regularly and watch for whitefish fishermen.
Illegal catches are usually seized, with a report then issued to
the media.
But along the lake itself, some fishermen show little concern about
the ministry’s promises. “There is no ban,” they say, smiling. “There
is a way around everything.”
Nonetheless, young fishermen pushing a metal boat out onto the sky-blue
lake say that they know the whitefish is under threat.
“When we fished whitefish three or five years ago, we pulled 300-400
kilograms of it with just two sweep-nets,” said 24-year-old Garik
Stepanyan, who has been fishing Lake Sevan for six years. “Now I have
11 sweep nets and if I catch 100 whitefish a day, I will consider
that a good day.”
Even with stricter enforcement of the ban, local fishermen say that
they will continue to fish. Other options for economic survival
are few.
“We know that it is not allowed to fish whitefish,” commented
43-year-old Tigran Khugoyan, a fisherman from the village of Noratus
on the lake’s western shore. “But if your child is hungry and there
is no job, the lake and fishing remain your only hope.”
Editor’s Note: Marianna Grigoryan is a reporter for the Armenianow.com
weekly in Yerevan.

SITTING OF BSEC COUNCIL OF FOREIGN MINISTERS TO BE HELD IN MOSCOW
ArmRadio.am
01.11.2006 10:21
The 15th sitting of the Foreign Ministers Council of the Black Sea
Economic Cooperation Organization (BSECO) member states will be held
in Moscow today.
Armenia will be represented by Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian. The
meeting will be chaired by RF Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey
Lavrov. Participants of the sitting will sum up the results of Russia’s
presidency over BSECO, particularly the results of meetings of the
Ministers of Emergency, Energy, Transport, Information Technologies
and Communications.
The Foreign Ministers will be presented information about the activity
of BSEC structures – BSEC Parliamentary Assembly, BSEC Council of
Foreign Ministers, Black Sea Bank for Trade and Development, the
International Center for Black Sea Research.
Georgia and Russia have agreed to arrange the meeting of the Foreign
Ministers of the two countries.

ITB STARTS PROVISION OF “MULTICURRENCY” DEPOSIT SERVICES
Noyan Tapan
Oct 30 2006
YEREVAN, OCTOBER 30, NOYAN TAPAN. Since October 1, the International
Trade Bank (ITB) has provided a service of new kind – “multicurrency”
deposit service. Noyan Tapan was informed from ITB that the peculiarity
of this type of depositing is that by signing one contract with the
bank, the customer has the opportunity to deposit his/her savings in
one or three currencies (Armenian dra ms, US dollars and euros) at
the same time. This allows to protect one’s savings from devaluation
and inflation thanks to exhanging the money saved in one currency
for another. There are three types of multicurrency deposits at the
bank: time, cumulative and cumulative with the opportunity of partial
repayment. The term of time deposits is 365 days, the term of two
other deposits is 365-730 days.

REFUGEE ISSUE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PROCEEDING FROM REALITY
PanARMENIAN.Net
30.10.2006 17:18 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Nagorno Karabakh’s condition is beneficial as
compared to the other unrecognized states. It has a security zone or
“seized territories”, Chief of the Department of CIS Countries of
the Russian Institute of Strategic Research, Candidate of Historical
Sciences Alexander Skakov said in an interview with PanARMENIAN.Net. In
his words, it would be hard to preserve the current status quo, since
the powers interested in its violation are too influential. “Azerbaijan
is rapidly gaining financial, economic, military and demographic
resources and Armenia should reckon with it. A serious choice between
war and compromise should be done. Neither of the sides is ready to
choose,” he remarked.
The Russian analyst considers that in future with the presence of good
will it can be possible to speak of the formula of “peace and status
in exchange for territories”, that is of the establishment of a new
border of independent Karabakh. “I perfectly know that Stepanakert
will not compromise over Lachin and Kelbajar, but there are other
regions which are not so problematic to cede. As for the refugee
issue, there are well known approaches to exchange of population,
territories and material compensations. Modern history records no
single case of complete return of refugees.
When resolving it one should proceed from reality but appeal to the
graves of the ancestors. It’s possible to achieve progress with good
will and mediation. Of course, it does not mean that the problem of
Nagorno Karabakh may be settled in 2006 or 2007. The process will be
long. Talks always take more time than war does,” Alexander Skakov
underscored.
He also remarked that the sides should stop appealing to history. Each
side has its arguments. To decide who is right one should be not
only a historian but also an impartial specialist of the issue. “Now
it resembles dialogue of two deaf people. No one in the West or in
Russia is intends to of into details. The ethnic right to the territory
confirmed by history is not absolute and obligatory for us. Proceeding
from the logic of ethnic right for territory Russia should demand
Crimea from Ukraine and give Eastern Prussia to Germany. European
states, not to mention the U.S., experience the same problems. Similar
situation is the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-Ossetian conflicts,”
the expert said.

AMONG THE INTELLECTUALOIDS
Immanuel Kant for Dummies
By James Bowman
American Spectator
Oct 30 2006
The most fundamental of all the liberal principles handed down to us
from the Enlightenment and the very cornerstone of our civilization
is the “categorical imperative” of Immanuel Kant: namely, that one
cannot act on that maxim which one cannot will to be universal. In
other words, if it’s OK for me to do it, it has to be OK for everybody
to do it. If it’s not OK for everybody to do it, then it’s not OK
for me to do it either. This principle is so deeply ingrained in us,
along with the contempt we feel for what we call ” hypocrisy” when
people violate it, that we take it for granted. I was having dinner the
other night with a learned and cultured man, an internationally famed
historian of somewhat conservative tendencies, when the conversation
turned to the North Korean nuclear test. “What I just can’t get past,”
this man said, “is that we are saying it’s OK for us to have nuclear
weapons, but it’s not OK for the North Koreans or the Iranians.”
Glen Suarez of London writes in a similar vein to the Times: “How can
we condemn North Korea for seeking to acquire nuclear weapons when we
possess them and say that we wish to upgrade them? How can Tony Blair
condemn the North Korean regime for ‘disregarding the concerns of
neighbours and the wider international community’ when he and George
Bush did the same when invading Iraq?” Neither of these men mention
Kant, but of course it was the Kantian principle they were appealing
to as an absolute bar against efforts by leaders in America or Britain
to prevent potential terrorist states or backers of terrorists from
acquiring nuclear weapons or doing other things which might pose a
threat to their countries.
A moment’s thought will show us that the Kantian principle cannot
apply in international relations, at least not unless we are prepared
to adopt a thoroughgoing pacifist and (I would say) suicidal policy
by disarming and disbanding our armed forces and refusing to fight
against those who wish us harm. So long as we admit that a nation has
the right to defend itself, we must also admit that it is necessary
to adopt a different standard for ourselves and for our enemies. It
is OK and probably unavoidable for us to bomb them, for example, while
it is very definitely not OK for them to bomb us. Leave aside for the
moment the question of whether or not it can be right to bomb them, if
we are to fight them at all and so preserve ourselves, our people and
property and our way of life, we must be prepared to do things to them
that we should not hesitate to deplore if and when they did them to us.
The Kantian principle really has its origins in the revolutionary
Christian notion that it is wrong for us to consider ourselves ahead
of other people. We should put our duty to others first — or at least
treat them no worse than we treat ourselves. Under the old Christian
dispensation, it was recognized that this kind of saintliness had to
be reserved for, well, saints, and those who chose to live lives that
were not of this world. They belonged, to use the Augustinian imagery,
to the City of God rather than the City of Man.
But the Enlightenment began with the idea that that kind of saintliness
ought not to be reserved for a special few but ought to be expected
of, even required of, everybody. That’s hard enough to live up
to in our personal lives. To live up to it in matters of war and
peace and international relations is impossibly utopian — unless,
of course, you’re a pacifist and are prepared to give up the right
of self-defense.
****
The Nobel Prize for literature given this year to the Turkish novelist
Orhan Pamuk caused some of his fellow Turks great annoyance.
“The prize was not given to Pamuk for being a writer, nor to his
works,” said the conservative Kemal Kerincsiz who advocated prosecuting
Pamuk “for directly insulting the Turkish nation” over the wish to
acknowledge genocide practiced by the Turks against the Armenians
in 1915. When Pamuk was prosecuted (he got off on a technicality),
he denied that he had insulted Turkey. “But what if it is wrong?” he
said. “Right or wrong, do people not have the right to express their
ideas peacefully.” Ah! But in an honor culture of the sort that still
holds sway in Turkey and other historically Islamic nations, the insult
is not dependent on right or wrong. This is a question subordinate to
that of honor or dishonor, and the charge itself, irrespective of its
truth or falsity, brings dishonor on the nation. In such a culture,
it remains true as it once was in ours, that if a bad act is not made
public to the shame of the doer, then it didn’t really happen.
I wonder, too, if Mr. Pamuk’s profession makes him vulnerable to this
kind of misunderstanding. The novelist almost by his very existence
must privilege the individual psyche over the demands of the group
when they come into conflict. A novel without psychological reality
— as opposed to the honor culture’s demand for conformity with which
that reality is bound to come into conflict — is not really a novel at
all. Novels and novelists naturally belongs to our Western, post-honor
world, which is why there are so few novelists in the Islamic one
and why those there are, like Mr. Pamuk or the late Naguib Mahfouz
are so often in trouble and even risk their lives merely to continue
doing what we take it for granted novelists should do — that is,
in Mr. Pamuk’s own phrase “to express their ideas peacefully.” It
sounds reasonable to us, but not to those whose world-view is formed
by honor in this basic, even primitive form.
James Bowman is a resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy
Center, media essayist for the New Criterion, and The American
Spectator’s movie critic. He is the author of the new book, Honor:
A History (Encounter Books).
art_id=10555

ILHAM ALIYEV: AZERBAIJAN NO TO MAKE CONCESSIONS WITH RESPECT TO ITS TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY
ArmInfo News Agency, Armenia
Oct 30 2006
The negotiation process for the Karabakh conflict settlement passes
now in a so-called Prague format which may enable its peaceful
resolution, the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, said in an
interview to the some Mass Media, accredited in Russia, the “Trend”
Azeri Agency reports.
According to I. Aliyev, it is difficult to say in advance about
the future of the negotiation process as the negotiations have been
lasting for 10 years with no result. The reason for this, according
to Aliyev, is a “”non-constructive position of Armenia which violates
the international legal norms”. “The position of Azerbaijan rests
upon the international norms and principles, recognized by the world
community. The territorial integrity of Azerbaijan is not a subject
of negotiations. Armenia has to release the Azerbaijan’s territories
without delay and unconditionally which is prescribed by four
resolutions of the UN Security Council. This is the basic principle
Azerbaijan follows unconditionally, while the position of Armenia
is based upon its wishes, expectations and dreams. It thinks that
only a foreign support gives it a ground to think about separation
from the Azerbaijan’s structure and joining of Karabakh lands to
Armenia, which it occupied as a result of temporary advantage during
operations. This will not happen. Therefore, the Armenian authorities
have to understand that Azerbaijan will not make any concessions with
respect to its territorial integrity”, I. Aliyev said.
According to him, Azerbaijan has already suggested all it may go to
make. There is a positive world practice with respect to autonomies.
Availability of the issue of national minorities does not mean
withdrawal from the structure of one state and creation of another
state. “It is difficult to say in advance what will happen in case
of futility of negotiations. At least, if this round of negotiations
ends without any results, Azerbaijan will revise its strategy and
tactics without fail”, I. Aliyev said.

OSCE ATTACHES IMPORTANCE TO POSSIBILITY OF IMPLEMENTATION OF LONG-TERM OBSERVATION MISSION IN RA
Noyan Tapan
Oct 26 2006
YEREVAN, OCTOBER 26, NOYAN TAPAN. The OSCE attaches great importance to
holding the 2007 and 2008 state elections corresponding to democratic
standards and to sending invitations for implementation of the
long-term observation mission. Francesco Bascone, the Ambassador
of Italy to the OSCE said about it at the October 25 meeting with
RA NA Speaker Tigran Torosian. At the meeting at which OSCE Yerevan
Office head, Ambassador Vladimir Pryakhin and Ambassador of Italy to
Armenia Marco Clemente were present, it was spoken about discussions
of the Electoral Code and the coming state elections. As Noyan Tapan
was informed by the RA NA Public Relations Department, at Francesco
Bascone’s request, the NA Speaker presented in details the process of
discussions on the EC draft amendments and terms of adoption. It was
mentioned that it is envisaged to adopt the EC in December, during
the last four-day sittings of the autumn session. Touching upon the
issue of invitations addressed to international organizations for
implementation of the observation mission during the coming elections,
NA Speaker Tigran Torosian explained that it is possible to send
invitations only after appointing the elections day and assured that
Armenia is the first one interested in holding elections corresponding
to democratic standards and in participation of as many observers
in those elections as it is possible. OSCE Yerevan Office head,
Ambassador Vladimir Pryakhin assured that in the opinion of the
Venice Commission and OSCE experts, there is no need of experts’
conclusion for the EC draft, and the draft may be adopted as soon
as it is ready. F.Bascone expressed satisfaction with the process of
the EC reforms and wished success in the process of holding elections.

YEREVAN QUESTIONS RUSSIAN VERDICT ON PLANE CRASH
By Karine Kalantarian
Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
Oct 25 2006
Armenia’s aviation authorities have expressed serious reservations
about Russian investigators’ preliminary conclusion that last May’s
crash of an Armenian airliner in southern Russia, which killed all
113 people aboard, was caused by pilot error.
Citing their findings , Russia’s Transport Minister Igor Levitin said
in July that the crew of the Armenian Airbus A-320 lost control of the
plane as they made a second attempt to land at the Black Sea city of
Sochi. This conclusion was endorsed by the Moscow-based Interstate
Aviation Committee (ICA) of the Commonwealth of Independent States
which also investigated the deadliest air disaster in Armenia’s
history.
The Armenian government’s Civil Aviation Department essentially
accepted this verdict at the time. At the same time, its director
Artyom Movsisian said that although the “human factor” apparently
played a role in the crash, Yerevan believes that there are still
some key unanswered questions about its causes.
It emerged on Wednesday that Movsisian’s department has presented the
ICA with a six-page document that questions some of the conclusions
drawn by the Russian investigators. In particular, the Armenian side
complained that the Russians failed to take note of Sochi airport’s
alleged failure to “detect dangerous weather conditions” that are
thought to have prevented the plane belonging to the national airline
Armavia from landing safely on first attempt.
Armavia’s owner Mikhail Baghdasarian insists that the A-320 would
have avoided the crash had it not received a last-minute order to
veer away from the airport’s runway and make a second approach.
Baghdasarov, who is a Russian citizen of Armenian descent, has rejected
the ICA verdict and demanded an “independent inquiry.”
The Civil Aviation Department also took issue with the investigators’
implicit claims that Armavia had failed to properly train its pilots
and assess their professional level. It further urged them to drop
from their preliminary conclusions an assertion that moments before
the crash the A-320 crew found themselves in a “tense psycho-emotional
situation” due to unspecified “imperative demands to land at Sochi.”
According to rumors cited by the Armenian press, those demands were
made by some wealthy and influential passengers of the doomed flight.
There have also been allegations that a gunfight may have broken out
between crime figures that were allegedly among the victims of the
crash. The Armenian government and Armavia have dismissed the claims.
Aviation Department spokeswoman Gayane Davtian could not say when the
ICA will release its final verdict or whether Yerevan will succeed
in influencing its content. “They may publish their final findings
at any moment,” she told RFE/RL.

VICE-PRESIDENT OF OSCE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY VISITS AZERBAIJAN TODAY
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Oct 25 2006
Oleg Bilorus, OSCE Parliamentary Assembly vise-president and Ukraine
representative to the organization visits Azerbaijan today, Bahar
Muradova, the head of Azerbaijani delegation to OCSE PA told the APA.
She said that Bilorus plans to meet with Azerbaijani delegation member
and the parliament speaker Ogtay Asadov, National Academy of Science
president Mahmud Kerimov and Foreign minister Elmar Mammadyarov. He
will also visit refugee settlements, sightseeing of Baku and one of
the oil mines.
Bahar Muradova also said that the sides will discuss the cooperation
of Azerbaijan and Ukraine within OSCE PA and GUAM.
“Oleg Bilorus’ position as OSCE Parliamentary Assembly official can
influence some problems. We want to win his support in the settlement
of Nagorno Garabagh conflict,” she said.

NEW DETAILS OF CRASH OF ARMENIAN PLANE
Lragir.am, Armenia
Oct 25 2006
The news agency Regnum published an anonymous report on the crash
of the plane of Armavia Airlines on May 3 near Sochi. The anonymous
author, who introduced himself as the relative of one of the victims,
writes that a group of passengers flying in business class, i.e. they
were close to the cockpit, were leaving for Sochi for an “important
meeting”. The group had already had several drinks. Learning that the
crew decided to return to Yerevan because of the bad weather, they got
one of the pilots out of the cockpit and taking him hostage, demanded
to land in Sochi. The author writes that the panic that occurred on
board resulted in uncoordinated actions of the crew and the dispatcher.