A PERCENTAGE GAME IN NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
Yerkir, Armenia
Oct 30 2006
Editorial
During the last session of the parliament, it became clear that the
election campaigns have been launched not only as “charities” but
also there are attempts to secure seats in the National Assembly by
altering the Election Code.
And now people — who once were rivals — seeing common interests start
to cooperate. National Assembly’s Armenian Revolutionary Federation
faction has turned down NA member Victor Dallakian’s proposal to amend
the Election Code so that all the members of the Assembly would be
elected under the proportional system.
Speaking at the National Assembly, Armen Rustamian said that a
sharp change in the election system is impossible as there is no
political concurrence in the parliament currently. Hrair Karapetian,
the faction’s leader, in turn, said that while the ARF has always
been for the 100 percent proportional system, even when in opposition,
“today, we favor the present system because when the Election Code was
discussed a year ago, the coalition parties had no common approach.”
“That’s why we accepted a compromise and backed a system under which
90 deputies are to be elected under proportional system and 41 from
single-mandate constituencies.”

ARF’S HAY DAT COMMITTEE OF GREECE PROTEST REACHES ITS GOAL
Yerkir, Armenia
Oct 27 2006
Following a proposal by Member of European Parliament Panayotis
Peghlidis, who suggested at the September session of the
European Parliament that the Armenian Genocide should not become
a precondition for Turkey’s admission in the European Union, the
Armenian Revolutionary Federation’s Youth Organization of Greece
launched a protest campaign. E-mails and fax messages signed by
individuals pointed to a united position and activism.
After receiving the protest messages, Mr. Peghlidis requested a
meeting with the ARF’s Hay Dat committee. The meeting was held early
this week at the MEP’s office and was also attended by the ARF Youth
Organization representatives.
At the meeting, Mr. Peghlidis clearly affirmed that he and the PASOK
party have always defended the stance that Turkey should admit to
the Armenian Genocide, then pointed out that at this stage, due to
political reasons they do not consider it right to raise the issue.
He also said the PASOK members have voted in favor of the call for
Turkey to recognize the Armenian Genocide.
The members of the Hay Dat committee and the Youth Organization
detailed our position why recognizing the Genocide should become a
precondition for Turkey’s admission in the Union.
At the end of the meeting, Mr. Peghlidis promised he would pass the Hay
Dat committee’s concerns to the party chairman, Mr. Yorgho Papandreu.
The issue is being closely watched by the ARF Hay Dat committee.

BEFORE ELECTION IT IS NOT CLEAR WHO IS GOVERNMENT AND WHO IS OPPOSITION
Lragir, Armenia
Oct 30 2006
Samvel Nikoyan, member of the Council of the Republican Party and
Alexan Karapetyan, deputy leader of the National Solidarity Party,
started their October 30 debate at the Hayeli Club like real gentlemen
and with a sense of humor: one let the other start first.
“We’ll let everything go except power,” Samvel Nikoyan said. “And
money,” added Alexan Karapetyan. In fact, it became clear over what
issues the government and the opposition will never come to a peaceful
compromise, and what it takes the opposition to be happy.
And the debate was over the Electoral Code.
Alexan Karapetyan repeated that a 100 percent proportional eelction
code is preferable, after the election the political forces assume
political responsibility and it has been 15 years they are ready
for it. Like all the other Republicans, Samvel Nikoyan thinks that
we are not ready for a 100 percent proportional system, and besides,
there is political agreement on 90 seats for the proportional system
and 41 for the majority system. The next painful issue is the order
of setting up electoral commissions. Alexan Karapetyan stated that it
is wrong to include the parliamentary groups in the commissions. “The
majority of the People’s Deputy Group became Republicans. It appears
that the Republican Party has two representatives to the commissions.
You use these seats into trade. The People’s Deputy is a button
for you to push.” Samvel Nikoyan proposed looking forward. This is
already past.
Alexan Karapetyan has a negative opinion on the charity stepped up by
the political parties. First because they break the electoral code and
the law on the political parties, and besides “there is no guarantee
that the same will not occur during the elections.” And if Alexan
Karapetyan also adds that such steps are taken under the auspices of
the president, “nobody can break the law and get away with it if he
is not protected by the president.” Samvel Nikoyan disikes this kind
of charity because “I fear that the political and ideological battle
will move onto the sphere of distributing seeds to farmers.”
Samvel Nikoyan made a peculiar statement. According to him, it is
difficult to tell before the election who is opposition, who is
pro-government, and therefore it is wrong to accept an equal number
of representatives of these forces to the electoral commissions. For
instance, Samvel Nikoyan thinks that the Republican Party and the
ARF Dashnaktsutyun will become rivals before the election. But the
Republican Party and the ARF Dashnaktsutyun will remain government,
won’t they? Samvel Nikoyan declined to answer this question.

WHAT HAPPENED TO ADVISERS TO PRESIDENT
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir, Armenia
Oct 30 2006
Robert Kocharyan has a number of advisers (in 2003 many political
parties got less than 5 percent, and besides, most people cannot
imagine themselves in the role of opposition), at least there are
a number of people who advise the president. Although in this case
we deal with the classic theory on the correlation of quality and
quantity, nevertheless, we will state without evoking this theory
that out of this quantity two advisers are distinguished for their
public statements. One is Garnik Isagulyan, the other is Vahram
Nersisyants. And by an amazing coincidence the two advisers “featured”
the TV channels on Saturday. It was also interesting that both had come
onto the stage to edit or deny their previous statements. For instance,
Garnik Isagulyan stated that he had not stated that “after quitting
office President Robert Kocharyan will influence the political thought
in Armenia with a higher status.” But it is possible even to understand
Isagulyan’s behavior. He is adviser to president on national security,
and a straightforward thinking and predictable behavior may lead to
a rather vulnerable situation.
Therefore, his vocation makes Garnik Isagulyan maneuver.
Vahram Nersisyan, who is economic adviser to president, is a
different issue. He is a man, who has successful experience of work
in international financial organizations. And he should have realized
that from an economic aspect, given the importance of flexibility,
predictability and consistency is encouraged. Vahram Nersisyan was
hosted at the National Press Club, where he stated with pity and
pain in his voice that they “had thought the revaluation of the dram
would reduce the price of certain imported products, but it did not
happen, and the reason was the lack of competition.” In other words,
the adviser to the president confirmed that there is monopoly or
collusion in the sphere of imports of certain goods, because otherwise
it is difficult to explain the lack of competition. It goes without
saying that in this case the government should battle monopoly and
collusion. And since Vahram Nersisyan is the economic adviser to the
head of state, this statement was a surprise, although a pleasant one
in the sense that if the existence of monopolies is admitted on a top
level, they have surely decided to wage a real anti-monopoly battle.
Meanwhile, the public expected that some time later they would see
the result of this battle and would see that the revaluation of the
dram, besides cropping their income, would cause the prices of some
products to go down. But how could Bibilical Susanna know that only
old men were waiting for her? How could the society know that instead
of waiting for the anti-monopoly battle they should have waited for
a refutal of statements about it, or excuses. And since the society
did not expect it, it was definitely a surprise when the same Vahram
Nersisyants, who had been so sincere several weeks ago, explained to
the public on the Public Television on October 28 why the price of
sugar did not go down but on the contrary, it went up. The adviser to
the president not only pointed to the curve of the growth of the price
of sugar on the international market and simultaneously pointed to the
curve of the growth of the price of the same product on our market,
using one to explain the other.
It is clear that Vahram Nersisyants explained the growth on our
market by the growth of the price on the world market. Although it is
possible that our officials will become confused in their efforts to
excuse themselves that very soon they will lose the logical tie not
only between their previous and present statements but also between
the words uttered at the moment. But for the time being let’s return
to the non-logic that Vahram Nersisyants offered to the public as
an explanation of the growth of the price of sugar. Meanwhile, it
is very easy to prove that this explanation is illogical, to put
it mildly. Even if we assume that the wholesale price of sugar has
grown, with at least 20 percent revaluation of the dram the price
of this product could at least remain the same. In other words, if
the importer could not cut the price because now he buys at a higher
price, he could keep the price low because the revaluation of the dram
enables him to do. Perhaps in this case it is unnecessary to continue
the debate over the words of the adviser to president, and perhaps it
is only worthwhile to mention that even if the price of this product
goes up on the international market, in Armenia they could cut the
price because the growth of the price on the international market
was less than the revaluation of the dram in Armenia.
But we should try to understand Vahram Nersisyan. He advises the
president because it is his job but this does not mean that the
president cannot advise him. And perhaps Robert Kocharyan used
his right and advised the adviser to give advice rather than news
conferences. If the news conference were a good thing, the president
would give news conferences.

OPPORTUNITIES OF GETTING CONFIDENCE FOR THE GOVERNMENT
Lragir, Armenia
Oct 30 2006
In a public poll conducted by the Gallup Institute 37 percent of
respondents think that first the government must create jobs to
enjoy the support of the society. 21 percent think that it should
enhance democracy, 18 percent point to raising salaries and pensions,
15 percent mention legitimacy of election. 7 percent think that the
government should keep their promises, 8 percent think they can get
people’s support if they make sufficient anti-corruption efforts. 4
percent of respondents think that in order to enjoy the support of
the public the government should conduct a correct policy. 3 percent
think the government should aid the homeless and the elderly people
and another 3 percent think that the taxes should be cut. 2 percent of
respondents think the government should reach unification of Armenia
and Nagorno Karabakh to get the support of the public. 17 percent of
respondents gave other answers, and 9 percent declined to answer.
At the same time, 39 percent of respondents said they are not
interested in political events, 30 percent indicated average interest,
and 31 percent said they are highly interested in politics.
The poll was conducted from July 31 to August 10. 1200 adult residents
of Armenia took part in the poll.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

SHORT POLITICAL ACTIVITY MAY OCCUR IN NOVEMBER
Lragir, Armenia
Oct 30 2006
Garnik Isagulyan, adviser to president on national security was
hosted at the Azdak Club on October 28. It should be noted that
Garnik Isagulyan’s previous news conference was at the same Azdak
Club on May 20, 2006. After a pause of five months he stated to the
public that the political situation in Armenia is calm and there is
nothing extraordinary. According to him, nothing will spark political
activity in Armenia until the election. Isagulyan forecasts a little
activity in November, which will last till New Year. “Everything is
very calm. Of course, this has its reasons, and unfortunately, this
affects the reputation of the country and generally all the processes,
and this is the fault of certain people,” says Garnik Isagulyan. He
says this is the fault of “the political organizations which have been
unable to realize over these years that the political opposition, the
political dialogue or the political debates involve definite problems,
and they stepped up their activity against definite persons.” In
speaking about this, Garnik Isagulyan says they had better go to the
regions and underpin their political party, which they failed to do.
“In this connection, it is difficult to try to establish a new
political situation based on these worn out activities in the
Republic of Armenia. I think this may produce a negative effect in
the pre-election stage and during the elections, because if there
is no fair competition, if there is no struggle, the outcome of the
elections becomes clear beforehand, and the same problems will occur
involving electoral fraud, etc,” says the adviser to Robert Kocharyan.
Naturally, he uses the phrase “worn-out activities” to describe the
activities of the political parties which criticize the government.
Meanwhile, Garnik Isagulyan avoided assessing the activities of the
pro-government political parties, meanwhile, his political party,
which is called “National Security”, could also be listed among them.
Isagulyan did not speak much about his own political party either. He
only says they will run in the parliamentary election, but he declines
to say what his political party does to improve the political
situation. Isagulyan only says that they are doing something, and
the results will become visible in the end.

THE DANGEROUS GAMES OF A NEW “TURKMENBASHI”
Haik Aramyan
Lragir, Armenia
Oct 30 2006
NKR President Arkady Ghukasyan’s statement that he is unlikely to run
a third term running not to ruin the reputation of NKR as a democratic
country, first appeared to most people as a diplomatic farce. People
who know the NKR president know that Ghukasyan started to think about
his career long ago, and the idea of prolonging his presidency has
been carried along with the incessant efforts to find an alternative
to his personality.
Arkady Ghukasyan’s personal concern can be understood. In the
current political situation it is highly difficult for any figure in
Karabakh to find a worthy place in the government of Armenia. It is
not accidental that so far these efforts have been in the trajectory
of relations with the Armenian Diaspora. They even say that the deep
conflict between Ghukasyan and Naira Melkumyan, his brother-in-arms
not long ago, now the chief executive officer of Armenia Foundation,
stems from the aspiration of both figures to the post of the chief
executive officer of the foundation.
One way or another, unfortunately for the people of Karabakh, the
question of the alternative to Arkady Ghukasyan remained up in the
air. And it is not accidental that in a very short period the NKR
government got down to the rapid adoption of the NKR Constitution.
This hastiness to appoint the day to the referendum on the
Constitution, the formal way of writing the text and the debates in
the parliament gave rise to anxiety and caused to be watchful. The
circumstance became clear that Ghukasyan has lost the hope of finding
an alternative occupation for himself and has decided to go all the
way and remain at the post of president at any price.
Realizing how complicated his plan is, considering its danger prom
the aspect of the NKR national interest, Ghukasyan decided to put
responsibility for the consequences of his unthoughtful action on the
society, and even the people of NKR. After declaring that he would
not run a third term, Ghukasyan launched the option of the “demand
of the working class” when “the masses beg Ghukasyan to remain at the
post of president and not to leave them in such a difficult time”. At
the same time, they have also thought about the ideological basis of
this “request” by circulating without excess modesty the thesis of
“the foreign political irreplaceability of Ghukasyan for Karabakh”.
This option is originally vicious considering that in the years of
Arkady Ghukasyan’s office Nagorno Karabakh appeared overboard of the
talks over settlement. Moreover, any leader who make head or tail of
international diplomacy should have realized that “turkmenbashism”
is a monstrous idea for a young and still unrecognized state.
Apparently, either Arkady Ghukasyan is unable to grasp the ABC of
diplomacy or by the end of his presidency he takes a step which is
known only to him, and he cannot state it publicly.
In this case, it is interesting to know the opinion of President
Kocharyan on the actions of his “superdiplomat” subject in Nagorno
Karabakh, when he watches him make the law comply with his own
interest. Or maybe Kocharyan personally “imposed” the right for
arbitrariness on Ghukasyan. Even though the accusations of “usurping
the talks” against the Armenian president are justified, they overlook
one circumstance: over these years Robert Kocharyan has unintentionally
“concealed” President Ghukasyan’s diplomatic nude. If someone else
was the president of NKR, Armenia and the international community
might have had a different approach to the participation of NKR in the
talks. If he has concealed over all those years, he may conceal now,
especially if there is a serious reason for it. Why, some people may
ask. For instance, in order to create a precedent of decision making,
when the presidents of Armenia and Karabakh deny responsibility for the
fate of Karabakh and make antinational decisions “under the pressure
of the people of Nagorno Karabakh.”
Today they are threatening and misleading the public, ruining the
international reputation of NKR, tomorrow they will make people accept
the “defensive decision” on the settlement. And the presidents will
say later that we didn’t want, you compelled us.

DIVERSITY’S OPPRESSIONS: WHY IRAQ HAS PROVEN TO BE SO HARD TO PACIFY
By Thomas Sowell
Opinion Journal from the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
Oct 30 2006
Iraq is not the first war with ugly surprises and bloody setbacks.
Even World War II, idealized in retrospect as it never was at the
time–the war of “the greatest generation”–had a long series of
disasters for Americans before victory was finally achieved.
The war began for Americans with the disaster at Pearl Harbor,
followed by the tragic horror of the Bataan death march, the debacle
at the Kasserine Pass and, even on the eve of victory, being caught
completely by surprise by a devastating German counterattack that
almost succeeded at the Battle of the Bulge.
Other wars–our own and other nations’–have likewise been full of
nasty surprises and mistakes that led to bloodbaths. Nevertheless,
the Iraq war has some special lessons for our time, lessons that both
the left and the right need to acknowledge, whether or not they will.
What is it that has made Iraq so hard to pacify, even after a swift
and decisive military victory? In one word: diversity.
That word has become a sacred mantra, endlessly repeated for years on
end, without a speck of evidence being asked for or given to verify
the wonderful benefits it is assumed to produce.
Worse yet, Iraq is only the latest in a long series of catastrophes
growing out of diversity. These include “ethnic cleansing” in the
Balkans, genocide in Rwanda and the Sudan, the million lives destroyed
in intercommunal violence when India became independent in 1947 and
the even larger number of Armenians slaughtered by Turks during World
War I.
Despite much gushing about how we should “celebrate diversity,”
America’s great achievement has not been in having diversity but in
taming its dangers that have run amok in many other countries.
Americans have by no means escaped diversity’s oppressions and
violence, but we have reined them in.
Another concept whose bitter falsity has been painfully revealed in
Iraq is “nation-building.” People are not building blocks, however
much some may flatter themselves that they can arrange their fellow
human beings’ lives the way you can arrange pieces on a chess board.
The biggest and most fatuous example of nation-building occurred
right after World War I, when the allied victors dismembered the
Habsburg Empire and the Ottoman Empire. Woodrow Wilson assigned a
young Walter Lippman to sit down with maps and population statistics
and start drawing lines that would define new nations.
Iraq is one of those new nations. Like other artificial creations
in the Balkans, Africa and elsewhere, it has never had the cohesion
of nations that evolved over the centuries out of the experiences of
peoples who worked out their own modi vivendi in one way or another.
Tito’s dictatorship held Yugoslavia together, as other dictatorships
held together other peoples forced into becoming a nation by the
decisions of outsiders who drew their boundaries on maps and in some
cases–Nigeria, for example–even gave them their national name.
Even before 9/11, there were some neoconservatives who talked about
our achieving “national greatness” by creating democratic nations in
various parts of the world.
How much influence their ideas have had on the actual course
of events is probably something that will not be known in our
generation. But we can at least hope that the Iraq tragedy will
chasten the hubris behind notions of “nation-building” and chasten
also the pious dogmatism of those who hype “diversity” at every turn,
in utter disregard of its actual consequences at home or abroad. Free
societies have prerequisites, and history has not given all peoples
those prerequisites, which took centuries to evolve in the West.
However we got into Iraq, we cannot undo history–even recent
history–by simply pulling out and leaving events to take their course
in that strife-torn country. Whether or not we “stay the course,”
terrorists are certainly going to stay the course in Iraq and around
the world.
Political spin may say that Iraq has nothing to do with the war
on terror, but the terrorists themselves quite obviously believe
otherwise, as they converge on that country with lethal and suicidal
resolve.
Whether we want to or not, we cannot unilaterally end the war with
international terrorists. Giving the terrorists an epoch-making
victory in Iraq would only shift the location where we must face them
or succumb to them.
Abandoning Iraqi allies to their fate would ensure that other nations
would think twice before becoming or remaining our allies. With a
nuclear Iran looming on the horizon, we are going to need all the
allies we can get.
Mr. Sowell is the Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow on Public
Policy at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently,
of “Black Rednecks and White Liberals” (Encounter Books, 2005).
e.html?id=110009170

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.

WINERIES OF ARMENIA INCREASED PURCHASE OF GRAPES IN 2006 BY 10,9%
ArmInfo News Agency, Armenia
Oct 30 2006
The wineries of Armenia have increased the volumes of grapes purchase
in 2006 by 10,9% to 106,055 thsd tons against the last year’s 95,592
thsd tons, the Head of the Department of Crop Production of RA Ministry
of Agriculture, Garnik Petrossyan, told ArmInfo correspondent.
According to him, the growth of purchases is conditioned on a
favourable harvest of grapes this year, as well as on extension of
the Armenian wineries’ foreign markets. The leader for purchases is
the Yerevan Brandy Company, to the share of which fell 28 thsd tons of
grapes. The next are the Yerevan “Ararat” winery, which has purchased
15,048 thsd tons of grapes, the Proshyan winery, 6,250 thsd tons,
the Armavir “MAP” winery, 6,030 thsd tons and other wineries.
The average purchase price for 1 kg of grapes in 2006 varied within
130-145 drams and has not nearly changed as compared with 2005, G.
Petrossyan said. He added that, according to on-line data, the harvest
of grapes in 2006 made up 175 thsd tons against 164 thsd tons in 2005.