Author: Emil Lazarian

GOOD CAUSE FOR LIFE IN A SMALL CAR
By Karla Pincott
Sunday Herald Sun (Australia)
November 19, 2006 Sunday
FIRST Edition
LIVING in your car is usually a sign that you’ve hit rock bottom,
but for two young Californian women it was the way to snare some
money for pet charities.
And this was no roomy van, either. University of Southern California
students Dolce Wang and Anna Grigoryan spent five days in the US
version of a Holden Barina to win the Chevrolet Aveo Livin’ Large
contest.
During that time they ate, drank, slept, worked, partied, held events
and broadcast every minute of it to the world by webcam from the car.
They beat teams from several other universities in scoring the most
votes as having “lived largest” in the Aveo. They were allowed to
leave the car to attend classes and exams, and for 10-minute bathroom
“bio breaks”. But otherwise they had to be in continuous contact with
the car. During the five days parked in the university square, they
competed with the other teams in daily challenges such as shooting
a video or mounting a charity food drive — for rewards such as an
in-car massage.
They also held and performed in a concert, hosted a drive-in film
festival with movies produced by fellow USC students, decorated the
vehicle as an elephant for Halloween, and sported fancy dress —
including an inflatable fat suit that put even more stress on the
snug conditions.
Ms Grigoryan said they enjoyed most of their time in the car. “We
got our front yard going, our backyard, master bedroom, dining
table-cum-office (the dashboard),” she said. “Having only 10 minutes
for bio breaks led to us washing our hair in the bathroom sink or
pretty much just cutting it to reduce the mass.”
Ms Wang and Ms Grigoryan were judged by online voters to have been
the most entertaining team and won an Aveo each, plus one for their
university. Each of the young women is donating the cash value of
their car (about $15,000) — Ms Grigoryan to a group of families in
Armenia and Ms Wang to an organisation that funds a school in Ghana.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

THE 25 GREATEST SONGS YOU’VE NEVER HEARD
Newark Star Ledger, NJ
Nov 19 2006
They weren’t singles. They weren’t hits. But they should have been.
>From bluesy ballads to brilliant pop, Star-Ledger music critics pick 25
of their favorite obscure songs, including some of the most criminally
overlooked tunes of the last century. Using this list, you can put
together an eclectic-but-entertaining CD mix that will make you seem
the musical expert (copyright issues notwithstanding). CD availability
is listed at the end of each entry, although many of these songs can
be downloaded legally from iTunes and other Internet sources.
BRADLEY BAMBARGER
“He Calls That Religion,” The Mississippi Sheiks: A country-blues
fiddle band from the Delta, the Mississippi Sheiks had their biggest
hit for Okeh with 1930’s “Sitting on Top of the World,” covered
by Howling Wolf, Bob Wills, Cream and Bob Dylan, among others. But
their funniest, most pungent tune was recorded two years later in
Paramount Records’ Grafton, Wisc., furniture factory; it deplores
a philandering minister — “He calls that religion/ but I know he’s
going to hell when he dies.” Available on “Stop, Look and Listen,”
a 1992 Sheiks anthology (Yazoo).
“I’m Not Your Fool Anymore,” Tom Waits and Teddy Edwards: This jazzy
lament was written by the late L.A. saxophonist Edwards. Another of
his collaborations with Waits on vocals, “Little Man,” is included
on the singer’s new set of rarities (“Orphans,” see review Page 6),
but not this superior love-lorn number. As Edwards and a trumpeter
weave woozy lines around a supple rhythm section, Waits guts it out —
“I used to lie awake at night, cry the whole night through/ But now
I’ve found somebody new, to take the place of you.” Then he croons
his best falsetto as if persuading himself — “It’s all over, it’s
all over … I’m not your fool, not anymore.” Available on Edwards’
1991 album “Mississippi Lad” (Gitanes/Verve).
“Live With Me,” The Twilight Singers: While singer/guitarist Greg
Dulli is a compelling songwriter himself (first with the Afghan Whigs,
now with his Twilight Singers), he is also a master of interpretation
— usually taking his favorite pop songs down to the dark end of
the street. This blues-drenched cover of a recent Massive Attack
song features vocals from frequent Dulli ally Mark Lanegan (of
Screaming Trees and Queens of the Stone Age), whose sequoia of a
voice transforms what was a sleek romantic overture into a desperate,
soul-deep plea. Available on the new iTunes-only EP “A Stitch in Time”
(One Little Indian).
“Mother of Mine,” Djivan Gasparyan: One of Armenia’s most famous sons,
the 68-year-old Gasparyan is a virtuoso of the duduk. An ancient
double-reed, oboe-like instrument made of apricot wood, the duduk
makes a mournful sound in his hands. Gasparyan is also an affecting
singer; this quiet, almost a cappella tune starts with lonely duduk,
then has only low harmonium as backing. “Mother of Mine” doesn’t come
with a translation from Armenian, so it could be a tribute or a lament
for her passing. Regardless, his voice is almost impossibly tender
and moving, the song feeling as if it could go on as long as he has
breath. Available on Gasparyan’s Michael Brook-produced masterpiece
“Moon Shines at Night” (All Saints, 1992/Rykodisc, 2005).
“Nun Wandre, Maria,” Peter Pears and Benjamin Britten: Viennese
composer Hugo Wolf — who went insane and died from syphilis at
age 43 in 1903 — wrote this song, the saddest Christmas tune ever,
to an old Spanish poem translated into German. His desolate minor
key darkens Joseph’s beseeching words of “now onward, Mary” on the
hard journey to Bethlehem. As recorded live for the BBC in 1971,
Pears’ middle-aged tenor is full of plaintive character, enabling
the English singer to divine the song’s emotional core in a way
that eludes others. As a composer himself (and Pears’ life partner),
Britten is the ideal piano accompanist. Available on a 2000 anthology
that also includes Britten-led performances of Schubert (BBC Legends).
{the remainder is omitted}
ndex.ssf?/base/entertainment-1/1163914247186420.xm l&coll=1
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AT HISTORY’S CROSSROAD: THE MAKING OF THE ARMENIAN NATION
Christopher J. Walker, The Weekly Standard
The Weekly Standard
November 27, 2006 Monday
The Armenians
>>From Kings and Priests To
Merchants and Commissars
by Razmik Panossian
Columbia, 442 pp., $40
In Xenophon’s Anabasis–“The March Up-Country”–there is a description
of the Armenian people. We learn of the clans and their chiefs. We
are also introduced to the popular custom of drinking beer through
a straw. Xenophon was writing in 401 B.C.
Today you can take a plane to Yerevan, capital of the Republic of
Armenia, not so far from the region that Xenophon was describing,
and you will meet the descendants of those whose lives were drawn
by the ancient writer. You’ll learn that Armenians have lived
there continuously, rising to establish great dynasties, falling
to subsistence, exile, or mass death, before becoming post-Soviet
citizens. In this fascinating and important book, Razmik Panossian
traces the connections across the centuries from the experience of
the past to the reality of the present. He delineates the course of
the roots that have fed the stems, leaves, and flowers visible today.
Modern Armenia is a child of World War I. When the great empires
of Europe and Asia collapsed in 1917-18, having hammered each other
prostrate in warfare, a host of nation-states took their place. One
of these was Armenia, which emerged as sovereign in May 1918–more
than a year after Czar Nicholas II’s abdication had set in train the
process towards the state’s independence.
In a sense, though, Armenia’s independence had been maturing for
centuries, and that course is charted here. We learn how the new
nation took shape: the processes of development, differentiation,
learning, understanding, and self-knowledge that stirred the spirit
of the people. Armenia, like other national cultures that developed
into states, had been clogged for centuries by the dark weeds and
oppressive mud of other people’s empires, before it found a current
with which to swim to the clear surface.
Until World War I, Armenia was divided between the empires of Turkey
and Russia. Its crises with its empires came relatively late. The
people were regimented and treated with disdain by their rulers,
but there was no emergency until the late 19th century. By this time
the population was on the way to emancipation and self-knowledge,
and had outgrown the restrictive bureaucracies that governed them. A
desire to loosen the bonds of empire was a natural corollary.
As Panossian informs us, a Catholic Armenian order of monks based in
Venice, known as the Mechitarists, was instrumental in pushing forward
much of the process of emancipation. From the early 18th century,
members of this order acted in a startlingly modern and critical
fashion, ably separating Catholic concerns from matters connected
with Armenian history and education. They retrieved the history
and language of the Armenians, collecting texts, sifting facts,
and building up a clear picture of the nation.
The people in the homeland were fortunate here, for the order was
quite possibly acting heretically. Compare the situation with Catholic
Hapsburg influence on the Czech nation. Compare the situation with
that of the Czechs, whose language and identity were being abolished
by agents of God and Emperor. The Jesuit Antonin Konias boasted
of burning 60,000 books in the Czech language, including the Czech
Bible. (The true figure is closer to 30,000–still huge.) Henceforth,
Latin, and then a bastardized form of German, were imposed on the
Czechs. Lands were confiscated and leading families were compelled
to leave. The peasantry, denied their reformed faith and resenting
the imposition of Catholicism, largely relapsed into paganism. Only
later, through the agency of antiquarians and historians of language,
did they start to relearn their own language and rediscover their true
identity–not as Jesuit-driven Hapsburgers, but as the Czech nation.
The perils that the Czechs had endured under the Hapsburgs attended
Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1894-96, then those in Russia in
1903-05, and most seriously in Ottoman Turkey in 1915-16, when the
Armenian population from the Aegean coast to the Russian border was
driven out or exterminated in a totality and cruelty so vast as to
make the charge of genocide a valid one. (Anyone who questions the
reality of the Armenian genocide should read U.S. consul Leslie Davis’s
dispatches from Kharput.) Is there a thread running through empires,
which tends to make them, sooner or later, attack or destroy their
own subject peoples?
Razmik Panossian writes at length on the origin and nature of
nationalism, though one regrets his omission of the views of Hans Kohn,
an able and enlightened writer on the topic. Panossian discusses the
difference between the constructivists (who believed that national
identity is a construct) and the primordialists (who believe it was
always there, waiting to be discovered). From the facts he presents,
and from his use of the word “retrieve” in the context of Armenian
national identity, it would seem that he prefers a qualified version
of the primordialists–which certainly makes most sense in the light
of historical facts.
The process of becoming a modern and aware member of a national
group–a nation in the modern sense–seems best summed up in T. S.
Eliot’s words: To recover what has been lost / And found and lost
again and again. Intense theories about the construction of nationality
appear rather less smart and modern when one recalls that the Armenian
writer Grigor Tatevatsi, writing almost exactly 600 years ago,
declared that “a nation is divided from another nation by region, by
language, and by canon law.” His text was reprinted in Constantinople
in 1729. Maybe some of the disputes about modern nationalism amount
to little more than a barrowful of medieval scholasticism.
In the light of the facts of rule by empires, any general study of
the topic should consist less in theorizing about the development of
national identity than in exploring the dynamics within empires that
lead them to oppress and crush national communities. In other words,
we should study the empires more than the subject nationalities,
since the problem lies with them. The question to answer is: Why are
empires such a uniquely bad way of organizing human society? Why,
in their collectivity and tendency towards monopoly, do they end up
looking like the Soviet Union of about 1974?
It is odd that some new version of empire is championed as the way
forward today by thinkers such as Philip Bobbitt and Robert Cooper.
And it is hard to see how nations like Armenia might fit into such
a scheme, divided as the country was until 1918 between two empires,
each, to a greater or lesser extent, destructive. Poland was not better
off divided among three empires than as a unitary state. There was a
farcical situation in New Caledonia, the Pacific territory over which,
in colonial times, Britain and France perpetually quarreled.
This led to the requirement that the native people speak French one
day, and English the next.
Examples spring to mind from the Baltic countries. In Lithuania,
in 1861, the czarist governor Muraviev had said he looked forward
to a time 40 years hence when there would be no trace of Lithuania
or Lithuanians. The czarist authorities actually dynamited Catholic
churches in Lithuania. The Lithuanian language was forbidden. Anyone
caught even coming out of church with a Lithuanian prayer book was
punished. In Estonia and Latvia, the native people sought freedom
from both Germans and Russians, but the Russian paternalistic fanatic
Pobiedonostsev, a modern Grand Inquisitor representing the power
of extreme orthodoxy, declared that no czar possessed the power to
diminish his own authority!
What these few examples show is that nationalism–local pride–is often
little more than a common-sense response to the actions of empires:
an expression of ordinary local folk against an Orwellian nightmare of
giganticism; a struggle to retain a human face, an identity grounded
in town or neighborhood, when confronted by a governmental monster
grinding towards political monopoly. We saw this in the last months of
the Soviet empire (with Lithuania again in the forefront), and we have
been witnessing it in the steady maintenance of Tibetan nationalism
against the bullying nastiness of the Chinese empire. The British
in Ireland also edged into imperial terrorism, by acts of collective
punishment and, from 1831, by compelling children to speak English,
forcing a cruel contraption into the mouths of kids unable or unwilling
to do so.
Panossian’s book is a warning against the return of empires, and a
plea for localism. Few people in the world have endured more from
the lack of localism, and from the intrusion of grandiose, secretive
political conglomerates, than the Armenians. They, and other small
nations, look for a world order, perhaps untidy, of many voices.
Their history is an argument against big government. We are
reminded that the Armenian people have always worked hard, and been
self-supporting, and that from that work ethic has come a devotion
to their heritage.
Even the merchants, active across the world in late medieval and early
modern times, favored patriotic activities, building churches and
keeping in mind the historical, ecclesiastical, and cultural legacy of
their people, especially their unique alphabet. Financial success only
denationalized some of those in the Ottoman capital. The record of the
generous and patriotic Armenian capitalist extends to the present day.
Panossian’s study of the background to modern Armenia has a further
value. He informs us of the activities of the Indian Armenians,
who pioneered Armenian journalism in the 1770s and contributed a
major history of the homeland; this was when the monks in Venice
were working hardest. Their enterprise had been made possible by
the privileged position that Armenian merchants had been granted in
Iran in 1604. Local educational establishments were also set up in
the Caucasus. Enterprising and patriotic Armenians established an
academy in Moscow in 1815.
All these activities predated the arrival of American missionaries, and
Panossian proves the falsity of a malign theory about the Armenians,
proposed by Elie Kedourie and repeated by Maurice Cowling, that by
accepting modernization from U.S. missionaries (who first arrived in
1829), the Armenians prepared for their own disasters. The introduction
of Western values into an Eastern society, so the theory goes, created
an impossible marriage, and the Eastern society was driven to murder.
The Ottoman campaigns of extreme violence of 1894-06 and of 1915-16
were, in effect, a lengthy Armenian suicide. (Armenians in the Russian
empire lie outside this curious metaphysic.) Besides being constructed
around a spineless concept of political responsibility, the theory
ignores the point that development came from many more directions,
and at an earlier date, than just from American missionaries. Change
was more nuanced, and the Turks themselves had been moving towards some
modernization: scientific education, printing, and so forth. The ruling
elite was not terminally reactionary. So this theory is disproved by
historical facts, and cannot stand up by reason of its scant regard
for basic knowledge.
Two points need more extensive treatment than what Panossian offers
us. The presence of the Kurds in historic Armenia requires explanation:
Kurdish tribes, as Sunni Muslims, were introduced into western Armenia
by the Turkish sultan, following his victory over the Persians at the
Battle of Chaldiran in 1514. Their purpose was to guard the frontier
against the Shiite nation. This mandate lapsed with a treaty in 1639,
but the Armenians were thereafter compelled to share their land with
a privileged ethnicity, which was re-privileged in 1891 when the
sultan, sensing a spirit of Kurdish revolt, nipped it in the bud by
creating loyal Kurdish regiments, turning their threats towards the
Armenians. A brilliant and cynical imperial ruse.
The book could also benefit from a stronger awareness of the
international political situation. Though the Armenian nation has
never been large, the homeland is located on a pivotal part of the
earth’s surface, which has led to an excessive interest in Armenia by
outside powers that do not share the usual Armenian characteristics
of culture and self-limitation.
There is, perhaps, a third point: that the author himself shows some
of the partisanship that has divided the worldwide Armenian community
for almost 90 years. His fondness for the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation, which has shown genuine and dedicated service and activity,
leads him to downplay the legacy of the scholarly and cautious Ramkavar
party: less noisy, more conservative, but with a deep understanding
of Armenia’s history, culture, and options.
A word about this book’s physical appearance. Columbia University
Press has done a fine job in producing a volume that, besides making
public a valuable text, is easily usable and attractive. The design
of the book and its evocative jacket owe something to Shaker art,
and something to the English Arts and Crafts movement–a classic of
book-making, an item for anyone who values fine books.
Christopher J. Walker is the author, most recently, of Oliver Baldwin:
A Life of Dissent.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS INEFFECTIVE IN SOLVING KARABAKH ISSUE – AZERI LEADER
ANS TV, Azerbaijan
Nov 17 2006
[Presenter] The inefficiency of international organizations in
searching for a peaceful solution to the Karabakh problem diminishes
Azerbaijan’s confidence that the problem will be solved. Given this,
the situation in the region might become tense, Azerbaijani President
Ilham Aliyev said at the 8th summit of Turkic-speaking states.
He also said that any man-made problem would not foil the
implementation of the Kars-Tbilisi-Baku railway project. Ayaz
Nizamioglu reports from Antalya.
[Nizamioglu] The inefficiency of international organizations in
searching for a peaceful solution to the Karabakh problem diminishes
Azerbaijan’s confidence in the resolution of the conflict. Given this,
the situation in the region might deteriorate, Azerbaijani President
Ilham Aliyev said at the summit of Turkic-speaking states.
The president said that although international organizations like
the UN, the Council of Europe and the Organization of the Islamic
Conference have proved that Armenia is an aggressor and that
Azerbaijani territories are occupied, Armenia has taken no heed of
this. As a result, Armenian-occupied Nagornyy Karabakh is an area of
criminal activities by criminal groups, which poses a threat both to
Azerbaijan and the entire region.
The uncontrolled self-styled regime is being used for drug trafficking
and funding of terrorism. The president said that Azerbaijan believes
in the resolution of the problem at the international level. Saying
that the problem should be viewed seriously, the Azerbaijani president
cited as an example the khanate of Iravan and added that this khanate
was historically Azerbaijani land. But it is now under Armenia’s
control. Azerbaijan is loyal to the principle of inviolability of state
borders recognized by the international community. Later, the president
spoke about political and economic relations between Turkic-speaking
states, as well as energy and transport projects being implemented in
the region. Mr Aliyev spoke about the Kars-Tbilisi-Baku railway project
and stated that no man-made problem can prevent the implementation of
this project. This big project which will link Turkey to Central Asia
via Azerbaijan will definitely be implemented. Aliyev also noted the
importance of strengthening political relations between Turkic-speaking
countries and called for meetings to be held more frequently.
Other heads of state are now addressing the summit. The summit will
be held behind closed doors later. At the end, the presidents are
expected to sign a joint communique.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ROBERT KOCHARIAN: ARMENIA STRIVES TO FORM A KNOWLEDGE-BASED ECONOMY
Noyan Tapan News Agency, Armenia
Nov 17 2006
YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 17, NOYAN TAPAN. Not having rich natural resources,
Armenia strives to ensure the sustainable development of its economy by
developing the human capital and forming a knowledge-based economy. The
Armenian President Robert Kocharian stated this in his speech at the
Bertelsmann Foundation in Berlin on November 16.
According to him, there is no field of the Armenian life that has
not undergone serious reforms since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
This process was made difficult by the war imposed on the country,
blockade, energy crisis, to which Armenia responded by accelerating
the changes and increasing the efficiency of governance.
The president said that diligence and enterprise are peculiar to
the Armenian people. Among the important goals of the government
are the creation of favorable conditions for businessmen and the
protection of investments. As a result, 85% of GDP is now formed in
the private sector, including 40% – by small and medium business. “We
are especially proud of this index. The middle class in the process
of formation. This seriously affects the society’s perception of its
future,” R. Kocharian said.
He underlined the necessity to improve tax and customs administration
and conduct the fight against corruption.
He also underlined the necessity to further develop financial services
in Armenia, for which good prerequisites have been created by the
efficient banking system. In this connection he expressed gratitude
to Germany for providing technical assistance to Armenia.
“While we see a serious growth in direct foreign investments in
Armenia, we know that we’ll have greater achievements in the near
future,” Robert Kocharian noted. He reminded that according to a joint
research by “Wall Street Journal” and the Zharangutyun Foundation
last year, Armenia was in 17th place among the open economies in the
world. In the last 6 years, the average annual growth of GDP has made
12.2%. Last year, foreign investments made 500 million USD.
The president attached importance to the Poverty Reduction Program
developed by the government, international financial organizations
and the civil society of Armenia. Armenia’s experience in this
field is used by the World Bank to develop similar programs in other
countries. Another program that may cause new system changes is the
program on development of the country’s rural regions, in which the
government tries to involve the Armenian Diaspora as well.
R. Kocharian said that one of the important achievements is that the
share of information technologies in Armenian GDP is now 2%. “At the
same time, we realize that it would be impossible to make use of this
advantage without making serious changes in science and education.
For this reason Armenia started its active participation in the Bologna
process,” he noted. In his words, a comprehensive strategy is now being
developed in order to make reforms in fundamental and applied sciences.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ROBERT KOCHARYAN: NKR PEOPLE HAS PROVED ITS RIGHT FOR EXISTENCE
Public Radio, Armenia
Nov 17 2006
RA President Robert Kocharyan delivered a speech at the Bertelsmann –
the greatest and most influential political fund of Germany.
Speaking about the relations with neighboring countries, Robert
Kocharyan said, in particular: “We think that neighbor countries
should build their relations without any preconditions, without
associating these with the demands of a third country. Armenia
attaches great importance to regional cooperation. We think that the
settlement of conflicts itself should be conceived as a precondition
for establishment of cooperation.
Moreover, regional cooperation should be a tool for establishing an
atmosphere of trust targeted at the settlement of existing conflicts.
Tuning to the Karabakh issue, Ra President said in particular, “It is
obvious that the unsettled conflicts prevent the normal development
process of the South Caucasus. That is why we stand for the peaceful
resolution of the Karabakh conflict.
The OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs are trying to bring our positions
closer. Unfortunately, despite active negotiations, there are no
bases for optimism.
Our position is that the people of Nagorno Karabakh has realized its
right for self-determination. Nagorno Karabakh has never been part of
independent Azerbaijan. Through effective state building the Nagorno
Karabakh Republic has proved its right for existence. It periodically
holds democratic parliamentary and presidential elections. We
observe the development of civil society. The contemporary generation
considers itself the embodiment and defender of this country. There
is no single circle of the nations that will easily drop the 15-year
independence. No one intends to do it in case of Karabakh.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

GALUST SAHAKYAN IS GOING TO DEMAND EXPLANATION FROM TIGRAN TOROSYAN
Lragir, Armenia
Nov 17 2006
The leader of the Republican faction Galust Sahakyan stated November
17 that he has a draft electoral code providing for 76 parliament
seats under the proportional system and 55 under the majority system.
However, he will not circulate it because the leader of the Republican
Party Andranik Margaryan announced that there is political agreement
on the 90/41 correlation and it will not be broken.
Andranik Margaryan also announced that Tigran Torosyan’s decision to
cancel the voting to the law on expropriation was right. Meanwhile,
Galust Sahakyan announced that he would demand explanation from
Tigran Torosyan as soon as he returns to Armenia. In answer to our
question whether Andranik Margaryan’s statement would eliminate the
desire to demand explanation Galust Sahakyan said his statement and
the statement of the prime minister do not contradict. “We are not
going to fight with Tigran Torosyan. I wanted to say that it is wrong
to yield to the opposition.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

DRAFT STRATEGY OF NATIONAL SECURITY WAS DISCUSSED AT THE ACADEMY
Lragir, Armenia
Nov 17 2006
The Draft Strategy of National Security rounded up the defense minister
Serge Sargsyan and the Council of the National Academy of Sciences
at the round hall of the Academy on November 17, or Serge Sargsyan
rounded up the scientists and academicians for the draft strategy
of national security to discuss it. It fitted into the logic of the
ceremony of public debates on the process of adoption of this document.
The defense minister Serge Sargsyan opened the ceremony, saying that
like in the discussion at Yerevan State University, he again expects
serious debates and proposals on the improvement of the document. To
make the proposals definite, the defense minister conveyed the
importance of the document to the academicians. Perhaps the scientists
perceived it and in their speeches they highlighted its importance to
a degree that all of them spoke longer than 5 minutes provided for
by the bylaws. However, considering that their views and proposals
were invaluable, they can be forgiven for speaking long.
The content of their speeches made their long speeches feel like
a wink.
There were rather valuable thoughts in the speeches that counted over
a dozen. For instance, the scientists believed that the draft strategy
should include a provision on the even development of Yerevan and
the regions, because the present difference threatens the national
security. The academicians were dissatisfied that the document does
not dwell duly on Islam and East Asia among our external political
priorities. For instance, Vladimir Barkhudaryan offered to specify
how to battle corruption threatening the national security, and Azat
Yeghiazaryan mentioned that it is necessary to clarify the mechanism
of achieving social justice and specify the requirements that the
government should meet to deserve the trust of the population of
Armenia. Academician Alexander Manasyan stated that Armenia needs
doctrines of food, energy, cultural and information security.
After the speeches the minister of defense summed up the discussion
and invited the scientists, who are mostly retired, to present their
proposals in written form and promised if not to accept them fully, at
least to discuss them at the meeting of the task force on the Strategy
of National Security he heads. Serge Sargsyan also gave explanations
on some proposals of the scientists. Certainly, he did not speak
about corruption, the mechanisms of sustaining social justice and
establishing government-society confidence. Instead he logically
explained why the Strategy starts with Georgia. “If we ask someone
which of our neighbors we should start with, will it occur to anyone
to say Iran or Azerbaijan? Of course,Georgia, because they are our
closest neighbor, and we must begin with our closest neighbors and
express our attitude,” Serge Sargsyan says. He also mentions that
Iran and the countries of East Asia have not been ignored, in fact.
In answer to the observation about the priorities of the foreign
political problems in the document of strategy the minister of defense
stated that the Armenian government considers the physical security
of the small nation as core and primary in terms of security.
“China, Russia, the United States may not discuss such a problem,
whereas there are only three million people in our country. Average
armies can cross the territory of our country in a single day. This
is the reason. And the major threat for our physical existence is the
external threat. Therefore, I do not know if we did the right thing
or the wrong thing, at least we tried to draw up this document in
this way,” Serge Sargsyan says.
He also says that Armenia is not pro-American or pro-Russian, but
conducts a balanced foreign policy, which is based on the public
interest and is based on a complementary principle, so this principle
is stressed in the document.
“The goal of the foreign policy is to find and combine the interests
of the country and people, and if these interests contradict,
the foreign policy should have more than one pole. This is what we
meant,” the defense minister says. The meeting with the scientists
marks the end of the stage of public debates on the draft strategy of
national security. It included debates at Yerevan State University
and the National Academy of Science. On November 27 the National
Assembly will discuss the document and extend it to the president
of Armenia. If the president approves the document, it will be sent
to the government. Serge Sargsyan informed the scientists as well
that the Strategy will not be adopted as a law because the law is
for everyone, whereas the document is not.
“This is a strategy for the government, this is a political document,
and, in fact, it is going to become the only document which will
underlie the plans of our actions,” Serge Sargsyan says, adding that
the opposition or the NGOs do not have to establish their actions on
the Strategy of National Security.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

STATE CRIME COMMITTED UNDER THE SLOGAN OF “BAD FAVORS”
Haik Aramyan
Lragir, Armenia
Nov 17 2006
While NKR President Arkady Ghukasyan has left the country again to
raise money for Nagorno Karabakh from the Diaspora, his adviser Arman
Melikyan stated that everyone who does not believe Ghukasyan and is
skeptical about his statement that he will not run a third term is
mistaken. Melikyan assured that Ghukasyan honors principles and laws,
and if he said something, he knew what he was doing.
However, the adviser failed to explain why this statement of the
president was not respected by his aides who went on more energetically
to provide the necessary conditions for the president to run a third
term. He did not explain why on November 1 the parliament majority,
silently like in a crucial plot, under the keen surveillance of
Attorney General Armen Zalinyan and with the backstage direction of
Speaker Ashot Ghulyan, voted during a record short meeting for the
final draft of the NKR Constitution.
In addition, the final draft was kept secret for the “defiant” members
of parliament not to demand again clarifying the point which had
enabled the Attorney General to manipulate the possibility of Arkady
Ghukasyan to run a third term. In other words, people knew what they
are doing and they did everything to prevent anyone from foiling their
“cause”.
We will not speak about General Isagulov, the politician, because the
adviser did not have any official information about the initiative
of the latter. He did not have information but he knew who did “bad
favors” to the president. He also knows that there are more of them
than they thought. Perhaps, they have not had an opportunity yet to
do a favor.
An interesting picture is outlining which is not new, however. It
is not the first time in Armenia and Karabakh when high-ranking
officials condemn such things as corruption, electoral fraud, while
their “brothers-in-arms” are busy doing the contrary, proving to the
society that the word of the leaders is not a decree yet. And then
other brothers-in-arms appear who say it was not the boss, the boss was
good; these are the people who do not want it to be good for all of us.
So, now the “good boss” has perhaps advised his adviser from a far
away place to calm everyone who worry that in Ghukasyan’s absence
his team carries on the policy of “bad favors”. Perhaps the boss
worries in a far place that they will not raise any money with this
fuss going on. For they need the money, and it is not important that
the adviser has to lie to the public once again. The advisers can be
appointed to other positions, far from curious eyes.
This would be funny if this were not dangerous. It appears that
the practice of our leadership to plan and commit state crimes is
upgraded to the level of a state policy, which worries the Armenian
society. It appears that the cynicism of the high-ranking officials
goes beyond appropriateness. By condemning their own plans and denying
them publicly they have mastered the methods of forcing government
officials to implement their secret decrees. And those who somehow
appeared in government agencies and, therefore, are up for every task
away from the eye of the public to stay in their offices are found
everywhere. It is only necessary to guarantee protection from the
law and ascribe everything to “bad favors”.
However, the bosses and people fond of such actions should remember
how the wily old fox gots caught, and in this case no favor is be
helpful. Otherwise, these people are the first to shout “it wasn’t me”
and fall to the feet of the new bosses. Although, advice and fables
never teach anything here. Or they teach when it is too late.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

U.S. COCHAIRMAN SAYS MINSK GROUP TO WORK TO BRING PARTIES CLOSER TO PEACE
Armenpress
Nov 16 2006
BAKU, NOVEMBER 16, ARMENPRESS: In an exclusive interview to Azerbaijani
news agency Trend, the U.S. cochairman in the OSCE Minsk Group,
Matthew Bryza, said he and two other co-chairs from France and Russia
will continue to work relentlessly to bring Armenia and Azerbaijan
closer to peace, regardless of the domestic political situation in
either country.
“We have pointed to upcoming elections in both Armenia and Azerbaijan
in 2007 and 2008 as one of the reasons why 2006 provides an ideal
window of opportunity for concluding a peace agreement between the
two countries,” Bryza was quoted by the agency as saying.
“There are, of course, many other reasons why embracing a peaceful
settlement of the conflict sooner rather than later is desirable,
starting with the positive impact such an agreement would have on
securing regional stability and promoting opportunities for economic
growth across the South Caucasus,” he added. The U.S. diplomat did not
rule out that the elections in Armenia and Azerbaijan might have an
impact on prospects for a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict.
“We hope that impact will be positive and that the population in both
countries will let their leaders and candidates for political office
know that efforts to move toward peace, stability, and prosperity
are welcomed by their publics,” he said.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress