A criticial evaluation of the bill on electoral reform

L’Express (Port Louis, Mauritius)

OPINION
March 17, 2005

Rama Sithanen
Port Louis

Government has submitted proposals to amend the Constitution so as to
modify the electoral system.

The two objects of the Bill are to introduce a very small dose of
proportionality to the voting system and to provide for a minimum of
7 women to be represented in a Parliament of 80 Mps. This first paper
critically appraises the Bill while the second one will offer a
compromise pathway to move the process forward provided the political
will exists and rational thinking prevails.

The four problems of our FPTP electoral system are known.It often
produces a huge disproportionality between votes polled and seats
obtained by parties.In 1987,the MMM captured 35 % of seats with 48.1
% of votes while the MSM/LP/PMSD took 65 % of seats with 49.9 % of
votes.A difference of only 1.8 % in votes produced a huge gap of 30 %
in seats.At times it amplifies this unfairness when one alliance
obtains 100 % of seats with around 55 % of votes,thus leaving no
representation at all to another party with 40 % of votes.This is the
famous 60-0.There is also the likelihood of a party winning more
votes losing the election. Fortunately it has not happened in
Mauritius.It occurred twice in New Zealand which had the same FPTP
system as us.This provoked outrage and instability.As a result,the
electoral formula was changed and New Zealand today has a mixed
system. However we had two near misses in 1967 and 1987 when winners
could have become losers.Finally,women are severely underrepresented.
with only 5.7 % of female MPs in Parliament

There are two lethal flaws,eight major defects and two technical
problems with the proposals contained in the Bill.

Major defects

1. The low number of PR Mps

Sachs,Ahnee and Tendon reached the conclusion that there is need for
30 PR Mps if the objective of reform is to introduce an element of
fairness in the system, as they were tasked to keep the 70 FPTP
seats.The split would be 70 % FPTP and 30 % PR seats.In Germany and
Russia it is 50/50 between the two components of the mixed system.In
New Zealand which has changed from FPTP to a mixed formula,the share
of PR Mps is around 45 %.Lesotho recently switched from FPTP to a
mixed system and it has 66.6 % FPTP and 33.3 % PR seats. The 14 PR
seats out of a total of 80,as proposed by Govt, will account for only
17.5 % of seats. As it is a very low percentage,its effect will be
very marginal and will hardly affect the degree of unfairness of the
system. It means that a party with 45 % of the votes could end up
with only 6 seats out of 80 or 7.5 % of all seats while one with 51 %
could end up with 92.5 % of seats. In 1995, the MSM would have
obtained only 3 seats with 20 % of the votes.While 3 is certainly
better than nothing, it is a far cry from what anybody would consider
a fair and a just system.This anomaly arises also because of the
method chosen to allot the 14 seats.

2. The unfairness of the parallel method

Govt proposes to attribute the 14 PR seats on a parallel basis.There
are broadly two ways of alloting PR seats.The parallel mode
distributes PR seats regardless of what happens in elections at the
constituency level.As a result the party which has most Mps at the
FPTP mode also takes the lion share of PR seats.This leads to a
widening of the difference in seats between the winner and the second
party.In 1995,with the FPTP,the LP/MMM alliance had a 60 seat margin
over the MSM.With the proposed system, the gap, instead of narrowing,
would have risen to 66 seats.How can this be fair ? It is so unfair
that it is not used in advanced democracies like Germany, New
Zealand, Italy, Wales and Scotland.Instead,they employ the
compensatory mode which corrects partially for the unfairness in the
results at the constituency level.Sachs and Collendavelloo have
recommended the compensatory mode to apportion the PR seats and have
categorically rejected the parallel system. Lesotho,a SADC
country,which recently evolved from FPTP to a mixed system,also has a
compensatory formula.The difference between the two modes is
huge.With the parallel mode,the MSM would have won only 3 seats or
3.7 % of all seats while polling 20 % of the votes in 1995. A
compensatory formula would have given 14 #to the MSM.It is
fairer.This is why the parallel system is called ‘panadol to cure
cancer’. The combination of a low number of PR seats and its
attribution by a parallel mode will hardly make any difference to the
degree of unfairness of the current system. Evaluating 30 PR seats
along a parallel mode, Sachs concluded that ‘it is precisely the
smallness of its impact that reduces its attractions for present
purposes’.And now Govt is suggesting 14 PR seats!

3. Appointing PR Mps from among Best Losers

In theory,there are two ways of returning PR MPs.These are the Party
list and the Best Loser system.However the Best Loser system is so
poor and so dangerous that there is no country in the world that uses
it to return PR Mps.Yet this is precisely what Govt is
proposing.Simply unthinkable.All countries use Party lists. From
Germany to New Zealand,from Wales to Scotland, from Italy to Lesotho,
from Hungary to Bolivia, from Japan to Venezuela. Even countries with
low democratic credentials like Mexico, Russia, Armenia,Ukraine and
Macedonia use party list. Surely all of them cannot be wrong. It
would be an unmitigated disaster to return PR Mps through a Best
Loser system in a plural and multi faith country like Mauritius.Sachs
has well articulated this danger when he states ‘its capacity to
impact negatively on innnerparty relationship,its propensity to
intensify communal tensions and .its unacceptable potential for
destabilisation of national unity’

A Best loser system will provoke bitter intra party infighting during
elections as candidates from the same party will use
communal,casteist,racial,religious and other below the belt arguments
against their own colleagues.This is patently against party interests
and social cohesion.If fairly homogenous countries like Germany and
New Zealand refuse to use Best loser system to return PR MPs,one
wonders how a plural society like ours can even contemplate such an
eventuality.Already social cohesion is weak,fragile and vulnerable.
Incentivising and rewarding ethnic,communal and racial electioneering
is tantamount to pouring fuel on fire.This must be the height of
irresponsibility.

4. Very unfair to women

The proposal is extremely unfair to women on four counts. First, it
guarantees only 7 seats out of 80 to women. For a cohort that
accounts for 51 % of the population,a representation of 8.75 % is
hardly a favour. If anything, it is insulting. Second, the Bill is
eloquently silent on the 62 constituency seats.Women will thus have
only a given share of 17.5 % ( 14 seats out of 80) of the total
seats; however there is nothing for them in 77.5 % of the seats ( 62
FPTP seats out of 80). Simply amazing.Third they can only enter
Parliament if they lose the elections, thus carrying the stigma of
being second best Mps.This is dreadful,especially when better and
simpler avenues exist for women to become MPs. Fourth, these very few
women will have to fight it out vehemently, if not viciously, on the
basis of race, ethnicity, caste and religion to have a chance to be a
Best Loser since only the most successful unreturned women candidates
would be the lucky ones.

5. Winners could become losers

Surprisingly,there is a major flaw at clause 10 of the Bill
concerning the method to return the 4 ‘communal’ best losers.In the
current system, there are two sets of four best losers.The first set
of four seats is attributed to the four most successful unreturned
candidates hailing from underrepresented communities,regardless of
parties while the second set of four seats corrects for any party
imbalance that could have been caused by the appointment of the first
set of four Best Losers.Thus if the first set of four seats is
attributed to the second most successful party, the second set of
four seats should be awarded to the most successful party so as not
to change the election results. The second set of 4 Best losers acts
as a guarantee that the will of the people cannot be changed and that
winners cannot become losers after the allotment of the 8 Best Loser
seats.

Surprisingly,the Bill proposes to abolish the second set of 4 Best
Losers while retaining the first set of four seats. According to
clause 10,the 4 ‘communal’ best loser seats will be allocated to the
most successful unreturned candidates belonging to the appropriate
community, regardless of parties.By eliminating the second set of
four best loers, the Govt is opening the door for a winner to become
a loser,following the allocation of these 4 seats. Consider a tight
race with one party taking 32 seats and another 30.If each is
entitled to 7 PR seats out of the 14,that would give a tally of 39
against 37. The winner still has a majority of 2 seats. However as
the four Best Loser seats are attributed to underrepresented
communities irrespective of political parties,the second most
successful party may take all 4 seats.Thus it would have 41 seats
against 39 for the actual winner. A winner has been transformed into
a loser.This is totally unacceptable.There is a similar problem with
clause 11 (b) in case a vacancy arises. Here also a winner could
become a loser. It is precisely to avoid such anomaly that we have
two sets of 4 Best Losers.This is the problem when people with little
knowledge in electoral system try to design reform without heeding
the advice of experts in the field.

6. A very complicated system

Electoral experts argue that one of the most important features of an
electoral system is its simplicity,its familiarity and its ease of
understanding.The new proposal must be one of the most complicated
electoral systems in the world. Already few people understand how the
Best Loser system works in practice. Often the Electoral Commission
has had to ask for a ruling from the Supreme Court to award some Best
Loser seats.Now we will have three types of best losers.One for
women,one for men and women and one for ethnic underrepresentation.
Extremely complicated,especially when simpler formulae exist and have
been recommended by electoral specialists.

7. Very high eligibility threshold

Even if one understands the absolute need in a multi faith country to
discourage single issue political formations,many electoral experts
would argue that a 10 % threshold to be eligible for PR seats is on
the very high side. It will penalise many parties.The international
trend is around 4 % to 5 % of national votes,even in plural
societies. My simulations show that a 5 % national limit would still
discourage openly communal parties.

8. Inconsistency with no threshold for a Best Loser seat

The rationale for a very high 10 % threshold to have a PR seat is to
make it difficult, if not impossible, for openly communal parties to
enter Parliament and to encourage broad church formations.Yet there
is no such deterrent to become eligible for a Best Loser seat. As a
result we could have a ridiculous situation where a national party
with 9,99 % of vote is denied one PR seat while a communal one with
less than 1 % of vote could obtain a Best Loser seat.This is totally
unfair.In 1995, Beeharry, a Muslim from a single issue party,was
awarded a Best Loser seat even if his party won a very insignificant
percentage of national vote. Soodhun, a Muslim from a mainstream
party,was denied one seat while his party,the MSM, polled 20 per cent
of the national vote.To add insult to injury,Beeharry garnered only
4405 votes while Soodhun collected 7416 votes (68 % more ). How can
we accept such unfairness, especially when the solution to avoid such
anomalies is very simple ?

Lethal flaws

1. Reject what experts propose and propose what experts reject

Any electoral specialist would be deeply shocked by the contents of
the Bill. They are fundamentally flawed,completely opposite to best
international practices,totally contrary to what electoral experts
have recommended in the Sachs report, very wide apart from the
proposals of the Select Committee and wholly antagonistic to what an
eminent world constitutionalist and electoral expert has recently
advised on this very Bill. Assume someone has a heart problem.He
consults a world known cardiologist who diagnoses the ailment.Not
only does the heart specialist prescribe the right medication but he
also informs the patient of the worst remedy for the disease. However
the patient decides to consult someone who is not even a nursing
officer and the latter recommends exactly what the eminent doctor has
thoroughly rejected.Yet the patient accepts it.

Government set up an Independent Commission chaired by Albie Sachs to
make proposals on the best way to cure the defects of the FPTP
system.It also appointed a Select Committee to that effect.Not only
has the Sachs Commission proposed the best formula (the famous Model
C),but it has also categorically rejected what it considers to be the
worst solution ( Model A).What is surprising is that Govt rejects
what the experts have recommended and endorses a solution that is
worse than the one turned down by the specialists.Sachs and
Collendavelloo have unreservedly thrown out the proposal to have 30
PR Mps along a parallel mode,appointed from among best losers. They
have given very robust reasons to support their recommendations.Yet
the proposal of Govt is to have 14 PR Mps along a parallel formula
,returned from among best losers.Simply amazing.

2. Include discriminatory practice in the Constitution

Sections 3 and 16 of the Constitution prohibit discrimination on many
grounds,including sex.Under the pretext of positive
discrimination,the proposal will include discrimination on the basis
of gender in our Constitution.This is a violation of the fundamental
clauses of our Constitution and represents a very dangerous
precedent.The more so as there is no need to tinker with the Supreme
law of the Land if we follow best international practice to ensure
better political representation of women. In countries like South
Africa,Germany,Norway, Italy, Sweden,Denmark, Mozambique,
Argentina,Bolivia,to name a few, political parties provide for gender
fairness.Gender discrimination does not feature in the Constitution.
Sachs,one of the best Constitutionalists in Africa,concluded that

“we endorse the view that the major responsibility for correcting the
massive gender imbalance rests with the parties’.

Technical problems

1. Wrong formula to compute PR seats

The formula at 5 (3) (c) of the Bill to determine the number of
proportionately elected members per party is not in line with best
international practice.The share of votes cast in favour of a party
must be divided not by the total number of valid votes cast at the
election but by the total number of valid votes minus the votes of
parties not eligible to PR seats (those which have not polled at
least 10 %). Assume Party A polls 50 % of votes and Party B 35 % and
there is no other party with 10 % of votes.The share of Party A in
the 14 PR seats is not 50 % but 55.5 % ( 50 % of 90 %).The
denominator has to be adjusted.This is how it happens in most
countries. Otherwise it is impossible to allocate all 14 PR seats.

2.Which formula to allot PR seats

The Bill is silent on which mathematical formula will be used to
attribute the 14 PR seats. There are two broad formulae.The highest
average and the largest remainder methods.One has the feeling that
the D’Hondt formula would be used.It is the least proportional as it
favours the largest party as opposed to St Lague which is neutral
between large and other parties.Other countries use the Hare or the
Droop formula.The exact mathematical formula should be clearly spelt
out to avoid any confusion later on.

Central Michigan University (press release), MI
March 17 2005

CMU HOSTS THIRD ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL

MEDIA CONTACT:
Mike Silverthorn, (989) 774-3197

PROGRAM CONTACTS:
Mark Poindexter, (989) 774-3713
Kathy Simon, (989) 774-3713

A critically engaging drama directed by Africa’s most highly
acclaimed director will highlight the third annual Central Michigan
International Film Festival March 31 through April 10.

`Moolaadé,’ directed by Ousmane Sembene from Senegal, tells the story
of the protection a woman gives to young girls who want to avoid the
painful, dangerous procedure of `female circumcision,’ commonly
practiced in Africa.

`Moolaadé is a complex drama that has been getting an enthusiastic
reception at the festivals where it has been shown,’ said Mark
Poindexter, broadcast and cinematic arts faculty member and director
of the festival. `If audiences see no other film at the festival this
year, they should see Moolaadé. Sembene is a brilliant storyteller,
social observer and satirist.’

The film festival will bring 30 films from 15 different countries to
the CMU campus and the Mount Pleasant community. More than 70
screenings will be shown at Celebration! Cinema in Mount Pleasant,
Broadway Theatre in Mount Pleasant and the Park Library Auditorium at
CMU.

Other highlighted films include `Baadasssss!’ a pseudo-documentary
about the making of Melvin Van Peebles’ Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss
song; `James Journey to Jerusalem,’ an Israeli film; and `Vodka
Lemon,’ a critically acclaimed Armenian comedy.

The film festival features documentaries, dramas, comedies and
thrillers from the United States, France, United Kingdom, Canada,
Afghanistan, Brazil, China, Cuba, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico and
Senegal. For a complete listing of films, show times and locations,
visit the Web site at

`The goal of the festival is to bring films that are artistically,
culturally and politically important to an area where people might
not otherwise get a chance to see,’ said Poindexter.

The festival also will include a screening of the CMU Film Society
short video competition winners on March 22. The screening will take
place at Park Library Auditorium at 7 p.m. and include a speech from
Richard Brauer, director of `Barn Red,’ one of the festival’s
featured films. A second screening of the winners will take place at
the Broadway Theatre at 7 p.m. April 2.

Tickets, which cost $4 per film per person or $20 per 10 ticket
books, are available at multiple locations:
– Central Michigan Life, Moore Hall 436, (989) 774-3493
– Celebration! Cinema, 4935 E. Pickard St., Mount Pleasant
– CMU broadcast and cinematic arts department, Moore Hall 340
– Art Reach of Mid-Michigan, 319 S. University, Mount Pleasant
– Art Reach Gift Shop and Gallery, 111 E. Broadway, Mount Pleasant
– Broadway Theatre, 216 E. Broadway, Mount Pleasant
– Java City, CMU Park Library

All shows are first come, first seated until capacity is reached.

Organizing sponsors are the College of Communication and Fine Arts,
CM Life and the Film Society.

Co-sponsors include Celebration! Cinema, Saginaw Chippewa Indian
Tribe, CMU Libraries, Kopy Korner, CMU Office for Institutional
Diversity, Art Reach of Mid-Michigan, Michigan Council for Arts and
Cultural Affairs, and the French cultural program `Tournees,’ which
was made possible with the support of the Cultural Services of the
French Embassy and the French Ministry of Culture (CNC).

RIA Novosti, Russia
March 17 2005

MOSCOW TO HOST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, “ISLAM FOR PEACE”

MOSCOW, March 17 (RIA Novosti) – An international public political
conference, “Islam for Peace”, will gather in Moscow, April 21.

The forum will be dedicated to the 60th anniversary of victory in
World War II, and will concern combat against extremism and
terrorism, Kamilzhan Kalandarov, one of the conference organizers,
said to a news conference in Moscow. He is president of the
all-Russia public organization Khak (Justice).

The conference will bring together muftis of Russia’s North Caucasian
republics, leaders of all religions and denominations established in
Russia, State Duma members, spokesmen of ministries and other federal
offices, and delegates from unrecognized republics in the post-Soviet
area-Abkhazia and Transdniestria. CIS countries will be represented,
too, in particular, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Tajikistan and
Ukraine. Guests will come from Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

It took Russia’s Muslim elite and human rights organizations five
years to prepare the ground for the conference, which aims to assist
government agencies in preventing and combating extremism, terrorism
and xenophobia, and to promote peace and stability in Russia, Mr.
Kalandarov said with emphasis.

Khak projects enjoy support from the United Council of Russian Muslim
Boards against Extremism and Terrorism. The council comprises the
Central Muslim Board, led by Sheikh Talgat Tajuddin; the Muslim Board
for European Russia and the Russian Muftiyyate, both led by Sheikh
Ravil Gainutdin; the Coordination Center for North Caucasian Muslims;
and the International Islamic Mission.

UNITED ARMENIAN FUND
1101 N. Pacific Avenue # 301
Glendale, CA 91202
Tel: 818.241.8900
Fax: 818.241.6900

18 March 2005

UAF Shipped to Armenia
$24 Million of Aid in 2004

Glendale, CA -The United Armenian Fund contributed to Armenia during the
fiscal year 2004 over $24 million of humanitarian assistance, consisting
primarily of medicines and medical supplies, according to the latest audit
of its financial statements.

The UAF spent less than 1% of its total revenues on administrative expenses,
allocating the remaining 99% to assisting the people of Armenia and
Karabagh, according to the audit.

During its 15 years of operations, the UAF delivered to Armenia a grand
total of $400 million worth of relief supplies on board 132 airlifts and
1163 sea containers.

The U.A.F. is the collective effort of the Armenian Assembly of America, the
Armenian General Benevolent Union, the Armenian Missionary Association of
America, the Armenian Relief Society, the Diocese of the Armenian Church of
America, the Prelacy of the Armenian Apostolic Church of America, and the
Lincy Foundation.

For more information please contact the U.A.F. office at 1101 North Pacific
Avenue, Suite 301, Glendale, CA 91202 or call (818) 241- 8900.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Statesman, India
March 18 2005

LABOUR OF MOURNING:Commemoration Of Holocaust Should Not Be Routine
Affair

By PRASENJIT CHOWDHURY

In this season of Holocaust remembrance, we get a `celebration” of
the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. The lesson of
history is that there should not be yet another instance of a crime
against humanity though we have since seen Stalin’s purges, the
killing fields of Rwanda and ethnic cleansing of Bosnia, the
liquidation of nations, not to speak of Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib
and numerous civil wars. History does repeat itself. But in
remembering the Holocaust and the tales of survival, we want to
uphold the triumph of human sprit.
The whole exercise has been reduced to `the labour of mourning’.
Ritualisation of mourning is all very solemn but the pitfalls are far
too evident in recent instances of genocide. The empire of kitsch
built around one of the direst hours of humanity has often reeked of
making art out of bloodstains.

Glut of films
Not alone Auschwitz, but Holocaust literature has taken hold of our
collective imagination; a whole glut of films, documentaries and
dramas have come up. The Holocaust has become the subject of
countless works of art as individuals and communities seek to
memorialise victims and make sense of a senseless event. When Roman
Polanski’s The Pianist was having to tackle such an inherently
sensational subject such as the extermination of Polish Jews, in its
adaptation of classical keyboardist Wladyslaw Szpilman’s
autobiography by screenwriter Ronald Harwood The Dresser, there were
people to judge the `personal’ and professional credentials of the
filmmaker. For making a film that deals with basic survival, the
critics were quick to point out that Polanski is himself a famous
survivor. His mother died in Auschwitz, his father was confined in a
separate Nazi concentration camp, and Polanski grew up in the Krakow
ghetto.
The post-war German state’s relations with the Third Reich, Hitler
and Holocaust are carefully codified in law. The Federal Republic
still defines itself by its difference from and rejection of what
went before. This results in peculiarities like the exception from
the constitutional guarantee of free speech, under which it is
illegal to deny that Holocaust happened, or even that the number of
victims was smaller than commonly believed. Commemoration of the mass
destruction of Germany’s Jews has become a routine affair.
Only a few years back, the publication of Daniel Goldhagen’s American
bestseller Hitler’s Willing Executioners stressed how much of a
problem the Holocaust remained for the new Germany. The thesis of the
book is that ordinary Germans took part in the killing of Jews not
because they were obeying orders, were afraid of the consequences of
resisting or were too hypnotised by Hitler’s `demagoguery’. Goldhagen
set out to demonstrate that Germany in 1933 was a `society pregnant
with murder’ because violent anti-Semitism was so deeply rooted in
the consciousness of ordinary people that all Hitler needed to do for
the annihilation to proceed was give the starting signal. The
dynamics of oppressed-oppressor, victor-victim relationships have
been the bane of historical contentions as the ritualisation has
revolved around the good-Nazi-bad-Nazi theme.

Moral `imperative’
The Israeli journalist, Tom Segev, in his book The Seventh Million
describes a visit to Auschwitz and other former death camps in Poland
by a group of Israeli high school students, some from secular
schools, some from the religious ones. All of them were prepared for
the visit by the Israeli ministry of education, fed with a staple of
books and films on the subject and including meetings with survivors.
On their arrival in Poland, they were not sure whether they would
emerge from the experience as `different people’? The students were
`prepared’ to believe that the trip would have a profound effect on
their `identities’ as Jews and as Israelis.
In February 1994, Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List resurfaced with
interviews with survivors, photographs of perpetrators, fresh
evidence and memories with a certain regularity. Prior to that
cinemas were showing Europa, Europa, the story of a Jewish boy who
survived the war by passing for a German; Korczak, Andrzej Wajda’s
film about the Warsaw ghetto; Shoah, nine hours of interviews with
Holocaust witnesses and Sophie’s Choice, the story of a woman forced
by the Nazis, to choose between her son and her daughter. The quality
and abundance of such films, not to mention the documentaries, the
journalism and the novels (even Martin Amis has written about the
Holocaust) and the attention they get, prove that nobody really finds
them either peculiar or obsessive. On the other hand, filmmakers and
writers on the Holocaust feel that there is a moral `imperative’ to
return to that subject again and again.
Today, films such as Schindler’s List and Viktor Klemperer’s diaries
– stories of Jews cheating death and good Germans helping them – are
replacing the guilt-obsession of Werner Fassbinder and Heinrich Böll
in the 1960s and the 1970s. Klemperer settled in East Germany where
his diaries were unpublished because of their unflattering comparison
between national socialism and communism. Spielberg has made films
about Japanese concentration camps (Empire of the Sun) and Nazi
concentration camps but not about Soviet concentration camps, they
fail to catch somehow the `collective’ imagination.
`It is foolish’, writes Primo Levi, the Italian-Jewish writer, `to
think that human justice can eradicate’ the crimes of Auschwitz. `The
destiny of the Jewish people, whom no earthly power has ever been
able to eradicate’ – so speaks a character in Jean-Françoise
Steiner’s novel about a revolt in Treblinka. Such sentiments lead to
self-delusion. There are clashes of remembrance and opinion now that
we have an enormous body of memoirs and studies describing the
experience of the concentration camps. `After Auschwitz’, wrote
Theodore Adorno famously, `to write a poem is barbaric’. It means to
`squeeze aesthetic pleasure out of artistic representation of the
naked bodily pain of those who have been knocked down by rifle
butts’.
The shrewder among us may have guessed what we’re getting at. Many of
us know that Stalin killed by means of mass murder and concentration
camps, at least twice as many people as Hitler – not because he was a
`worse’ or `more unique’ dictator but because he was in power much
longer. His crimes occurred within a decade of the Holocaust,
sometimes in precisely the same Polish and Ukrainian villages.

Monuments and museums
Stalin not only managed the Katyn massacres (the order to kill 15,000
Polish officers, the documents of which were locked until a few years
back) but also the purges in Russia and the artificial famine in
Ukraine, the murder of one in ten Balts, the execution of most
intellectuals living in the Soviet Union, and the near liquidation of
the Crimean Tartars. While the state of Israel has been able to build
monuments and museums to Hitler’s victims, the Poles and Balts and
Ukrainians remained under Soviet rule for another 50 years, unable to
speak out, unable to move to America or Britain, unable to write
books and make films.
Iris Chang, the Chinese-American writer of a bestseller titled The
Forgotten Holocaust of World War II on the 1937 rape of Nanking
pointed out how a culture also needed to be deemed as heirs of its
very own Holocaust. The instance of Bangladesh in the throes of its
making comes into mind. The Nanking massacre, during which tens of
thousands of Chinese were slaughtered by Japanese troops, was a
hideous event. The brutal lives and violent deaths of countless men
and women from Africa and China who were traded as slaves must not be
forgotten. The mass murder of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire cannot
be denied. And what about the communal riots, the organised butchery
of man against man?
If collective guilt gives us a moral duty not to let the terrible
tragedy of Holocaust pass by our memory, it is imperative as well to
focus on other tragedies as compulsively. We mourn not because
rituals demand it, not because we must but because we should.

(The author is a freelance writer)

AzerTag, Azerbaijan
March 17 2005

OFFICIALS OF AZERBAIJAN AND CHINA MEET IN AN ENLARGED FORMAT
[March 17, 2005, 11:49:05]

After the official welcoming ceremony, an enlarged Azerbaijan-China
meeting took place.

Sincerely greeting President Ilham Aliyev, President Hu Jintao
congratulated, on behalf of the Chinese people and government, the
Azerbaijani delegation and the people of the country on the occasion
of upcoming Novruz bayram.

Addressing President Ilham Aliyev, the Chinese leader said: `Your
visit to China is very important event in the history of
Azerbaijan-China relations. Your visit will serve strengthening
mutual understanding between Azerbaijan and China, and become a
symbol of all-round development of the bilateral relations.’

Mr. Hu Jintao noted China was aware of the President Ilham Aliyev’s
purposeful policy towards economic growth in the Azerbaijan,
improvement of people’s social conditions, and expressed satisfaction
with strengthening of Azerbaijan’s leading position in the South
Caucasus. The Chinese President advised that his country would
provide 15 million yuans assistance to Azerbaijan.

President Ilham Aliyev for his part expressed gratitude to his
counterpart for the invitation to visit China noting `Azerbaijan
attached a great importance to this visit’. `This visit will bring
political, economic and cultural relations between our two countries
up to a new level,’ he said. The President expressed confidence that
Azerbaijan’s leadership would continue to encourage Chinese business
circles in making investments in various sectors of the country’s
economy. He also expressed confidence that the two countries would
support each other in the framework of international organizations.

The parties also exchanged views on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict
over Nagorno-Karabakh. Mr. Jintao noted China unambiguously support
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and touching in this connection
upon Taiwan issue, said `we stand for peaceful resolution of
conflicts, on the base of international legal norms, particularly, in
accordance with the UN Charter. The Chinese leader thanked the
Azerbaijani leadership for the support as for the Taiwan problem.

Speaking of Azerbaijan’s most painful problem, the conflict with
Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, President Ilham Aliyev highly
appreciated China’s support of the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan at the international level

The parties also exchanged view on a number of bilateral and regional
issues.

Turkiye, Turkey
March 17 2005

ARMENIAN AMBASSADOR: `THE ARMENIAN DIASPORA CREATED THE GENOCIDE
ISSUE’

Armenian Ambassador to the European Union Viguen Tchitechian said on
Tuesday that the genocide issue had been created by Armenians living
abroad in the diaspora. Speaking to the European Parliament’s
Interparliamentary Cooperation Commission meeting in Strasbourg,
Tchitechian said that he did believe a `genocide’ had occurred, but
added that the responsibility for this should not be put on the
shoulders of modern Turkey and the Turkish nation. Stressing that
some 3 million Armenians were living in Armenia, while some 5 million
others were living abroad in the diaspora, Tchitechian stated that
the diaspora had made the matter into a problematic issue. /Turkiye/

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

IRNA, Iran
March 17 2005

Iran slips back in Corruption Perception Index

London, March 16, IRNA-Perceptions of the degree of corruption in
Iran as seen by business people, academics and risk analysts
marginally grew last year, according to the latest report by
Transparency International on Wednesday.

In its new index, Iran slipped down to 87th with a Corruption
Perception score of 2.9 in its league of 146 countries compared with
78th with a score 3.0 in its league of 133 countries in 2003. Most of
the fall was due to countries previously not included.

Amongst other Persian Gulf countries, Oman also dropped back from
26th to 29th, Bahrain from 27th to 34th, Qatar from 32nd to 38th,
Kuwait from 35th to 44th and Saudi Arabia from 46th to 71st, while
the UAE moved up from 37th to 29th.

Falls by other neighboring countries included Armenia from joint 78th
with Iran to 82nd, Russia from 86th to 90th, Pakistan from 92nd to
129th, Turkmenistan from 124th to 133rd and Azerbaijan also from
joint 124th to 140th.

Iraq, whose post-war reconstruction was highlighted as being in
danger of becoming ‘the biggest corruption scandal in history’, also
dropped from 113th to 129th.

At the top of the index, Finland retained its first-place ranking
with the cleanest Corruption Perception score of 9.7, followed by New
Zealand, Denmark, Iceland and Singapore.

The UK also held onto its 11th place ranking, although its score fell
back from 8.7 to 8.6, behind Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Austria,
and the Netherlands. The US was placed 17th, with the same ranking
and score as in 2003.

Transparency International, based in Berlin and London, is a non-
governmental organization with more than 85 independent national
chapters around the world devoted to combating corruption. The index
is the third it has produced since 2002.

Launching the latest report, its chairman Peter Egan said that
corruption in large-scale public projects was a ‘daunting obstacle’
to sustainable development.

“Corruption wastes money, bankrupts countries and costs lives,” he
warned.

AzerTag, Azerbaijan
March 17 2005

AZERBAIJANI AND CZECH PARLIAMENTS INTENDS TO CLOSELY COOPERATE
[March 17, 2005, 19:38:59]

Ian Vidim, head of the parliament committe on defence and security
issues of the Czech Republic, met on March 17 with his Azerbaijani
colleague – vice speaker of Milli Majlis Ziyafat Askarov, reported
azerTAj correspondent.

Having underlined a friendly ties between two countries, Ziyafat
Askarov said that MP’s are sucessfully collaborated in the frame of
international organizations, as well as NATO Parliamentary Assembly.
He noted that today Azerbaijan is the most developed country of the
region. But the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno Karabakh conflict,
occupation of 20 percent of the country’s territories and one million
of refugees and IDPs ousted from their homelands seriously impede
this development. The aggressor, Armenia ignores the resolutions
adopted by the United Nations, the Council of Europe Parliamentary
Assembly related to the problem.

Ian Vidim said that both country having a large potential for
expanding a mutual relations. There were some agreements for
developing a economical and trade relations between Czechia and
Azerbaijan. He noted that Czechia is support a peacefull settlement
of the problem over Nagorno Karabakh.

Belmont Citizen-Herald, MA
March 17 2005

Teach in Armenia this summer
Thursday, March 17, 2005

Volunteers seeking international high school level experience are
invited to apply to a three-week summer school opportunity in
Yerevan, Armenia, sponsored by the Cambridge-Yerevan Sister City
Association. The group will depart from Logan International Airport,
Boston, on June 28, returning to Boston July 21. Airfare, home-stay
accommodations, meals, transportation and tours will be provided in
program costs.

People with conflict resolution workshop skills; computer
education; English as a second language; sports; team building;
diversity and tolerance program experience; environmental education;
media; rule of law; ethics; government; student senate; human rights;
value clarification; peer leadership; free market economy; or project
ideas and activities which promote civil society are encouraged to
apply.

Class size is approximately 15 Armenian high school students
with strong English language ability and six students from local high
schools, including Belmont High School. Students are selected in an
open, merit-based competition, and enrollment in the summer school is
free. Volunteers are selected on the basis of application, sample
lesson plan, passport approval, and recommendations. Where distance
precludes a personal interview, a telephone interview will be
arranged.

Your commitment will include teaching two hours a day for 2 1/2
weeks; submitting lesson plans or outline prior to departure; and a
three- to five-page summary of your teaching experiences upon return.
Sightseeing and learning about life in Armenia while summer school is
in session are included. Some knowledge of Russian or Armenian is
helpful, but not necessary as all students in the program speak
English.

For more information contact Joanne Hartunian, program manager,
at 617-484-0776.