ARMENIAN LANGUAGE MICROSOFT WINDOWS XP DEVELOPED
Panorama.am
19:54 22/03/2007
Be Line, representative company of Microsoft in Armenia, and prime
minsiter affiliated council on development of information technologies
have developed Armenian language Microsoft Windows XP. Government
language inspection service and 108 specialists supported the
initiative. At the moment, Be Line is working on adaptation of Windows
Vista and MS Office 2007, which the company plans to complete in 2008.
GABRIEL SARGSIAN STARTS MADRID CHESS INTERNATIONAL TOURNAMENT WITH VICTORIES
MADRID, MARCH 19, NOYAN TAPAN. The chess international tournament started on
March 17 in a small resort settlement near Madrid. 2 among the 8 participant
grand masters are women. Gabriel Sargsian (Armenia) competed just with them,
Hue Yifan (China) and Antoaneta Stefanova (Bulgaria) at the 1st and 2nd
stages and won both of them.
ARMENPRESS
ARMENIAN DEFENSE MINISTER PLEASED AFTER VISITING FRANCE
YEREVAN, MARCH 15, ARMENPRESS: Back to Armenia
after a visit to France Armenian defense minister
Serzh Sarkisian said yesterday his country’s relations
with Paris were placed on a good basis.
"Over the last time we have seen intensifying
Armenian-French relations which are becoming deeper
embracing new areas and in these conditions military
cooperation should not have remained at zero level,’
he said to Armenian journalists.
Sarkisian said the desire in Armenia and France was
to start military cooperation as well, which he said
was successful.
Sarkisian said his talks with French defense
minister and chief of staff of armed forces were
successful showing the good disposition of the French
side. The minister explained that this cooperation
will embrace cadets training and teaching French
language.
"I am very leased with my visit to France, a
country in which Armenians in general feel very well,’
he said.
042&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__interna tional_news/#
Global warming of global concern, poll shows
Eli Clifton | Washington, United States
15 March 2007 10:31
Climate change is of real concern in all parts of the world, but there
is disagreement over whether the problem is urgent enough to require
immediate, costly measures or whether more modest efforts will be
satisfactory, according to an international poll released on
Wednesday.
The poll, conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and
WorldPublicOpinion.org in cooperation with polling organisations
around the world, was carried out in 17 countries containing more than
55% of the world population, although not all questions were asked in
all countries.
Twelve countries were asked whether steps should be taken to address
climate change.
Ninety-two percent of Australians favoured measures to combat global
warming, making it the country with the largest majority of its
population believing immediate action should be taken to reverse
climate change.
Surprisingly, China, whose environmental policies are often
criticised, and Israel were the next most inclined to favour such
measures, with 83% of their populations in favour of immediate actions
to reverse trends in global warming.
The lowest level of support for taking steps to address global warming
was found in India, with 49% of the population supporting immediate
action while 24% were opposed.
Arguments against the validity of global warming as a scientific fact
did not fare well, with fewer than one in four people in any country
endorsing the statement "Until we are sure that global warming is
really a problem, we should not take any steps that would have
economic costs."
Countries with the highest percentages favouring inaction included
India (24%), the Russian Federation (22%) and Armenia (19%). Countries
with the smallest percentages favouring inaction included Argentina
(3%) and Thailand (7%).
Important threat
In a separate question, asked in 10 countries, strong majorities in
all of the countries said climate change is an important threat, with
small minorities calling it unimportant.
The highest percentage of climate-change sceptics were in Armenia
(16%) and Israel (15%).
Majorities called climate change a "critical" issue in Mexico (70%),
Australia (69%), South Korea (67%), Iran (61%), Israel (52%) and India
(51%).
Larger numbers agreed climate change is "critical" in Armenia (47%),
China (47%) and the United States (46%), while Ukraine was the only
country split about whether the problem is "critical" (33%) or
"important but not critical" (33%).
In five of 12 countries polled, the most common view was "Global
warming is a serious and pressing problem. We should begin taking
steps now even if this involves significant costs." These included
Australia (69%), Argentina (63%), Israel (54%), the US (43%) and
Armenia (37%).
The most commonly held view in another five countries was that "The
problem of global warming should be addressed, but its effects will be
gradual, so we can deal with the problem gradually by taking steps
that are low in cost."
Proponents of the "go-slow" and "low-cost" approach included the
Philippines (49%), Thailand (41%), Poland (39%), Ukraine (37%) and
India (30%).
The polls were split between those who favoured less expensive
measures and those who believed the problem merits action involving
significant cost in China (low cost, 41%; significant cost, 42%) and
Russia (low cost, 34%; significant cost, 32%).
Equity
The poll attempted to address the issues of an equitable approach to
climate change by asking sample groups in five developing countries —
China, India, Argentina, Armenia and Thailand — "If the developed
countries are willing to provide substantial aid, do you think the
less-developed countries should make a commitment to limit their
greenhouse-gas emissions?"
In all five countries, majorities said they should, but most
significant responses were observed in China (a 79% majority), and in
India (48% agree, 29% disagree).
All five of these countries have ratified or accepted the Kyoto
Protocol to curb greenhouse-gas emissions, but are not defined as
industrialised countries under the treaty.
Their developing country status under Kyoto means they are not legally
obliged to cut emissions of carbon dioxide or other pollutants, but
could be eligible for various schemes and funds that pay developing
countries to reduce carbon emissions. Just last month, a report
released by the United Nations called attention to the rising flow of
greenhouse gases released by the economic powerhouses of India and
China.
By 2009, says the International Energy Agency, China will have
overtaken the US as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases that are
energy-related.
Aid
Three developed countries were asked the same question about providing
aid to less-developed countries to reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases. Respondents in all three showed high levels of support for such
programmes: 64% of US citizens, 84% of Poles and 72% of Ukrainians.
All three countries are considered industrialised countries under the
Kyoto accord, but the US has refused to ratify it, arguing that it
would be too costly to the US economy and that large developing
countries such as China and India are unfairly exempted.
The following countries were included in the poll: China, India, the
US, Indonesia, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, Poland, Iran, Mexico, South
Korea, the Philippines, Australia, Argentina, Peru, Israel, Armenia
and the Palestinian territories.
An additional poll released on Thursday by the Yale University School
of Forestry and Environmental Studies reinforces the Chicago Council
on Global Affairs poll, finding that 83% of US citizens now say global
warming is a "serious" problem, up from 70% in 2004.
The recent poll data suggesting an increased awareness that global
warming requires immediate action comes on the heels of a report
released last month by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
— the leading international network of climate scientists — which
confirmed the scientific evidence behind global warming and urged
prompt action to slow and reverse the dangerous build-up of
heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. — IPS
ARMENIAN ‘GENOCIDE’ BILL SUBMITTED TO US SENATE
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
March 15 2007
A bill on so called Armenian genocide has been presented to the Upper
House of the US Senate, APA’s US bureau reports.
The bill has been drawn up by Democrat Richard Durbin and Republican
John Essington. Senators John Kerry, Edward Kennedy and Joe Lieberman
also signed the bill. It is interesting that supporter of the bill,
presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and Joseph Bidenin
have not signed the bill this time. 21 of 100 senators declared their
support for the bill.
The mentioned bill was submitted to the Lower House of the US Congress
on January 30.
VOLUME OF NKR EXTERNAL TURNOVER INCREASED BY 19.1%
DeFacto Agency, Armenia
March 12 2007
In 2006 the volume of the Nagorno-Karabagh Republic external turnover
increased by 19,1 %, as compared with 2005, making 64 milliards 990,
2 millions drams, or $ 158 millions 511, 4 thousand.
According to the information DE FACTO Agency received at the NKR
National Statistic Service, the volume of export had increased by
18,6 %, while the volume of import – by 19,3 %. Beginning with 2000,
the volume of external turnover has increased over 5 times.
Last year the volume of external turnover with CIS countries made 63
milliards 221, 4 millions drams / $ 154 millions 134, 8 thousands/,
or 97, 2 %, with over countries – 1 milliard 768, 9 millions drams /
$ 4 millions 376, 7 thousands/, or 2, 8%.
In 2006 the considerable part of export and import made mineral raw
materials and ready foodstuff.
SHAW: ICJ’S SERBIAN GENOCIDE VERDICT DOES NOT IMPROVE THE STANDING OF THE COURT
Selcuk GultaªLi Brussels
Today’s Zaman, Turkey
March 10 2007
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling on Bosnia has created
waves of intense debate, not only in Bosnia and Serbia but all over
the world.
As the ICJ cleared Serbian state of genocide, both Bosnian victims
and many scholars criticized the verdict as being political.
Professor Martin Shaw of Sussex University, one of the leading
experts of the issue, has strongly condemned the decision and
accused the ICJ of "engaging in the systematic denial of the Bosnian
Genocide." Professor Shaw answered our questions:
In your article "The International Court of Justice: Serbia, Bosnia
and Genocide," posted on the opendemocracy.net Web site, you argue:
"It is not too strong to say that in this case, the International
Court of Justice has engaged in systematic denial of the Bosnian
genocide." It is quite a tough statement.
Clearly the International Court of Justice did recognize that
genocide occurred at Srebrenica and indicted Serbia with its failure
to prevent the massacre there. This is important. However, while the
court recognized that acts that could constitute genocide had been
committed by Serbian nationalists across Bosnia throughout the years
1992-1995, it produced unconvincing, inconsistent legal reasons for
saying that genocide had not generally occurred. Thus I argue that
the court denied the full scale of the Bosnian genocide — because
it recognized genocide at Srebenica, this was a partial denial of
the Bosnian genocide, but a serious failure nonetheless.
Is this verdict a purely technical one or a political one? How one
can make that distinction?
The court argued its verdict in legal terms. However, because of the
unconvincing character of its legal arguments, one is bound to ask
whether political factors influenced the verdict.
If the decision was not taken not on purely legal grounds, what are
the other considerations?
Clearly the court could have wanted to avoid a verdict that would
have provoked further political conflict inside Serbia, where the
situation is currently delicate. But we cannot be certain that this
sort of consideration influenced the verdict.
Anthony Dworkin, also writing for opendemocracy.net, has criticized
your approach and implies that genocide is something serious and
cannot be applied wherever you like. He also argues that the Serbs’
intentions regarding the Bosnians were far from clear.
I agree that genocide is a serious charge. This is why it must not
be applied lightly — nor must it be rejected or minimized without
good reason. I think the Serbian intentions to destroy the Bosnian
Muslim and Croat communities, in the areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina that
the Serbian nationalists controlled or conquered, were very clear and
consistent from the widespread policies of expulsion, murder and rape
that they adopted from 1992 onwards. And they were, and still are,
largely successful — only a small number of non-Serbs remain in the
so-called Republika Srpska inside Bosnia.
As you said in your article: "Yet in relation to the Srebrenica
massacre, the ICJ ‘sees no reason to disagree’ with the finding of
the [International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia] that
these acts constituted genocide." How can one possibly explain this?
It seems to me that this is a compromise verdict. The court upheld
the Bosnian claim that genocide was committed at Srebrenica, but in
other respects upheld the Serbian view that genocide had not been
committed. So both sides gained something.
Do you think the confidence in the court will now be in jeopardy with
the latest verdict?
This kind of verdict does not improve the standing of the court.
How do you think the verdict will contribute to the healing process
in the region?
I think the verdict will not help much since it is inconsistent and
enables both sides to stick to their original positions, saying they
have won something.
Do you think this verdict has once more punished Bosnians who were
victims and rewards the Serbian state by clearing it from the "crime
of crimes," i.e., genocide?
It is too strong to say that this has rewarded Serbia, since clearly
there are some serious indictments of it and there is more pressure to
yield Ratko Mladic to the Hague. But the Serbian state has certainly
escaped the more serious consequences that could have followed if
Bosnia’s case had been fully successful.
Have Bosnian Muslims interpreted the verdict as yet another decision of
the West against Muslims? How do you react to the Bosnians’ evaluation?
I think this is too simple. This was an international court with judges
drawn from a wide range of countries. And it does still reinforce
the prevailing view that the Serbians were the main criminals in the
Bosnian war and the Muslims the main victims.
Muslims in Europe, citing the cartoons of the Prophet of Islam
and the war in Iraq, argue that this verdict will not help in the
dialogue between civilizations. Do you think the verdict can have
such implications?
Genocide should not be an issue between civilizations. Muslims were
victims in Bosnia, but they were also victims in Iraq when Saddam’s
regimes massacred Kurds, and they are victims there today when Sunni
militias kill Shia, and Shia militias kill Sunnis. Muslims can be
perpetrators of genocide as well as victims; Christians can be victims
as well as perpetrators. From a human point of view we have to stop
all genocide — whoever commits it and whoever is the victim.
Another popular question among Muslims is if the Bosnians were
Christians and the Serbs Muslims, would the verdict be the same?
International courts and authorities often avoid recognizing genocide
whoever the victims are — look at Rwanda, where the UN turned away
from helping the Tutsis, who were mostly Christians. This weakness
of international institutions is not to do with anti-Muslim ideas.
Turkey has been accused of the Armenian "genocide" with no court
decision and you have referred to the events of 1915 as genocide in
your book "War and Genocide: Organized Killing in Modern Society?" Do
you think the court decision can create a jurisprudence for similar
cases? If Turkey goes to international arbitration, for example,
do you think it can be exonerated?
The International Court of Justice decision arose because Bosnia took
a case against Serbia to the court. In relation to the events of 1915,
no such case can now arise: this is now a matter for history rather
than law. However, just as Serbia will not be a healthy society until
it recognizes the Serbian state’s responsibility for genocide in Bosnia
and Kosovo, so Turkey will not be a healthy society until it abandons
the denial of the Ottoman genocide against the Armenians. Nearly
a century on, it should be possible for modern Turkish democracy to
fully acknowledge that this crime was committed, and to say that Turkey
today is a society in which this kind of policy will never again arise.
I don’t think I can answer your question about international
arbitration, as I don’t know enough about it. I’m not sure in any case
that the issues arising from the Armenian genocide are necessarily
issues between modern Turkey and modern Armenia, although if both sides
favored that, it could help. The ICJ decision by itself is only one
decision in the international jurisprudence of genocide, and needs
to be seen with other decisions by the tribunals and the new ICC.
Do you think it is wise to legislate laws to punish the deniers of
genocides or to legislate on historical events?
No, in general I think that it is better to deal with genocide denial
through argument and education than through law.
–Boundary_(ID_YMYzSXTIe+Nts2zLQwb26A)–
Panorama.am
17:43 10/03/2007
Artashes Geghamyan already thinks about the presidential election
Leader of the opposition party `National unity’, Artashes Geghamyan,
already will run for presidency in Armenia in 2008. During the meeting
of the active members of the party he mentioned that the thinking of
several forces regarding that whether the party will enter the
parliament, is absurd.
`I declare that the `NU’will enter the National Assembly of new
convocation with a triumph, moreover, it will triumph during both
parliamentary and presidential elections’, A. Geghamyan said.
It should be noted that the parliamentary elections in Armenia will be
conducted on May 12.
Source: Panorama.am
Agence France Presse — English
March 9, 2007 Friday 3:18 PM GMT
10th suspect charged in Turkey over murder of journalist
An Istanbul court on Friday charged a 10th suspect over the murder of
Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, Anatolia news agency
reported.
Osman Altay had been questioned by police last week over the January
19 killing and was subsequently released by a court, but the
prosecutor in charge of the investigation appealed and secured an
arrest warrant in his name.
It was not immediately clear what charges were laid against Altay by
the court which remanded him in custody pending trial.
Police were looking for another suspect who had also been questioned
and released last week, the NTV news channel reported.
Among the 10 suspects is the alleged assailant, a 17-year-old a
jobless secondary school graduate, who, officials say, has confessed
to gunning down Dink, 52, outside the offices of his Turkish-Armenian
weekly Agos in Istanbul.
Prosecutors have yet to complete their indictment on Dink’s murder.
Dink was branded a traitor by nationalists for urging open debate on
World War I massacres of Armenians under the Ottoman Empire which he
labeled as genocide, a label that Ankara fiercely rejects.
He was given a suspended six-month sentence last year for "insulting
Turkishness" under a penal code article that has been used to
prosecute a number of intellectuals and raised alarms about freedom
of speech in Turkey.
PanARMENIAN.Net
Barrier dividing Nicosia demolished
09.03.2007 17:58 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Greek Cypriots have demolished a key section of the
barrier dividing the island’s capital city, Nicosia. The Green Line
has separated Cyprus’s Greeks from the Turkish population since 1974,
when Turkish troops occupied the north. The work in Ledra Street began
under cover of darkness and had not been publicised in advance. But
the Greek Cypriot authorities say Turkish troops must pull back before
people can cross in either direction.
Ledra Street – a pedestrianised shopping area – would be the sixth
crossing point on the divided island. The street was cordoned off to
allow heavy equipment and demolition crews to move into position. A
small crowd watched the action, applauding when work on tearing down
the barrier began. "This is a show of goodwill on our side to
contribute positively to opening Ledra Street," government spokesman
Christodoulos Pashardes told state television.
It used to be a bustling road in the heart of Nicosia’s commercial
district but for more than 40 years it has been blocked by a large
wall and a viewing platform overlooking the demilitarised strip
separating north from south. The structures have been replaced by
plastic barricades. In December the Turkish Cypriot authorities
dismantled a controversial footbridge on Ledra Street, which was built
in 2005. It had angered Greek Cypriots, who said it encroached into
the UN buffer zone separating the two sides. The Green Zone is policed
by United Nations troops, amid barbed wire and dilapidated buildings
with sand bags still sitting in the windows. Cyprus was partitioned
after a Turkish invasion in 1974, which came shortly after a Greek
Cypriot coup backed by the military junta ruling Greece at the
time. Shortly before joining the European Union in 2004 the Greek
Cypriots rejected a United Nations plan to reunify the island. First
the disused ordnance and derelict buildings will have to be made safe
and then UN forces will have to establish a checkpoint to police the
crossing, reports the BBC.
Nicosia was the only divided capital city in the world after the fall
of the Berlin Wall.