Christian Post, CA
Dec 28 2004
Jerusalem Christian Leaders See Signs of Hope in Holy Land
Christian Church leaders in Jerusalem believe that there are “small
signs of hope” despite the violence in the Holy Land.
Christian Church leaders in Jerusalem believe that there are “small
signs of hope” despite the violence in the Holy Land, according to a
Christmas statement obtained by an Italy-based news agency.
“The two peoples of this Holy Land are still in quest of peace and
justice, searching how to put an end to hostility, bloodshed and
killings in Palestine and Israel, not least in Bethlehem itself, the
city of peace toward which all Christians in the world turn their
eyes in these days,” wrote the Christian leaders in the statement
received by Zenit News.
But despite this, the leaders agreed that “there are in these days
small signs of hope: promises that soon some political prisoners will
be released by the Israelis and hopes of renewed efforts by all sides
to resume the peace talks.”
The patriarchs and the heads of the churches of Jerusalem suggested
that the Christians of the Holy Land ask themselves “if we truly
welcome Christ into our lives and if we are true witnesses to him and
if the others see through our witnessing in our daily life Jesus the
Savior and the Prince of Peace and the dignity he gave to all men and
women” especially during the present time “amid oppressions and
humiliations imposed on so many.”
The religious leaders requested for all “Christian brothers and
sisters” to “offer our sincere thanks for all your prayers,
solidarity, and for your love to this Holy Land and to all its
inhabitants.”
“We express our thanks and joy for the coming back of the pilgrims
and look for very many more,” they said. “The churches in the world
are called to remember that the Holy Land is the land of the roots of
all Christians.”
“The future of Bethlehem itself needs a special attention,” the
letter affirmed. “Doubtless you will sing time-honored carols about
‘The Little Town of Bethlehem.’ This little town today needs a
special support in order to remain the town of peace, where faithful
believing in Jesus the Savior and the Prince of Peace can remain.
The Church leaders reported that many Christian families had already
left the Bethlehem area “because of the hardships they have
experienced not least from the building of the ‘separation wall,’ and
the incredible structure at the entrance to the city.”
“All these works have also meant many Christian families have had
their land confiscated from them,” the leaders added.
Continuing, the message went on to say “As heads of churches we
continue to endeavor to build bridges of peace and hope as we raise
our voices for justice amongst all peoples. But still, dear brothers
and sisters, we need you to play your part in your respective
countries.
“We pray and hope that the days will come when people in Bethlehem
and in all the Holy Land will live freely without the need of the
separation wall for security,” concluded the statement.
Those who signed the statement included: Lutheran Bishop Mounib
Younan, Anglican Bishop Riah Abu el-Assal, Greek Orthodox Patriarch
Ireneos I of Jerusalem, Armenian Orthodox Patriarch Torkom I
Manooghian, Coptic Orthodox Archbishop Anba Abraham, Ethiopian
Orthodox Archbishop Aba Cuostos, Syro-Orthodox Archbishop Swerios
Malki Murad, Father Pierbattista Pizziballa–Custodian of the Holy
Land, Greek Catholic Archimandrite Mtanios Haddad, Armenian Catholic
Bishop George Khazoum, Syro-Catholic Bishop Pierre Malki;,Latin-rite
Catholic Patriarch Michel Sabbah, and Maronite Archbishop Paul
Sayyah.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

EastsideBoxing.com
Dec 28 2004
Vazquez vs Simonyan for IBF Jr Featherweight Title on Dec 28th
27.12.04 – International Boxing Federation Association junior
featherweight champion Israel Vazquez defends his title under the
Sycuan Ringside Promotions banner for the first time when he meets
undefeated and No. 1-ranked contender Art Simonyan Tuesday, Dec. 28,
at the Sycuan Resort & Casino in El Cajon, Calif. The world
championship card, promoted by Sycuan Ringside Promotions in
association with Banner Promotions, will be held in the Sycuan
Showcase Theatre at the Sycuan Resort & Casino. The card starts at 6
p.m. (Pacific) with doors to the Sycuan Showcase Theatre opening at
5:30..
Also on the card will be five other fights, featuring a women’s bouts
and three boxers from the San Diego area.
The IBF 122-pound championship will be a belated birthday gift for
either Vasquez or Simonyan.
Vazquez turns 27 on Christmas Day while Simonyan becomes 29 on Dec.
27.
This is the fifth boxing card presented by Sycuan Ringside Promotions
since it burst onto the international boxing scene earlier this year.
Sycuan Ringside Promotions is considered by many to be the
fastest-growing and most dynamic promotional entity in the sport.
Sycuan Ringside Promotions made its promotional debut during
February, but already has presented world championship bouts on
premium cable networks.
Tickets for this championship card, priced at $100, $200 and $250,
are on sale 24 hours daily in the gift shop at the Sycuan Resort &
Casino. Tickets also can be ordered by calling 619-445-6002 or
619-659-3380 24 hours daily.
Vazquez, originally from Mexico City but now living in Los Angeles,
won the IBF junior featherweight championship in his most recent
bout, March 25 in Los Angeles, when he stopped Jose Luis Valbuena in
the 12th round.
Vazquez has a record of 36-3 with 27 knockouts. He has a mark of 16-1
dating back to 1999, that lone loss coming in a bout for the World
Boxing Council super bantamweight championship during 2002.
Simonyan, who was born in Armenia but now lives in Glendale, Calif.,
has a record of 14-0-1 with seven knockouts. He earned the right to
challenge Vazquez with a 12-round decision over Fahsan Por Thawatchai
in a title elimination bout May 21 in Elk Grove Village, Ill.
`Simonyan is a tough fighter and he’s strong,’ says Vazquez, `but I’m
motivated and anxious to fight.’
The undercard bouts include heavyweight Shawn Ross of San Diego
against undefeated Bernard Gray of San Francisco; heavyweight Jay
Horton of Pomona, Calif., against James Harling of Long Beach, Calif;
cruiserweight prospect Shane Johnston of San Diego against Moses
Matovu of Los Angeles; and veteran welterweight Francisco Maldonado
of El Cajon, Calif., against Mauricio Borquez of Culiacan, Sinaloa.
In the women’s bouts undefeated featherweight Crystal Hoy of Las
Vegas faces Sarah Huntman of Los Angeles.
Sycuan Ringside Promotions has many notable boxers in its stable in
addition to Vazquez, including WBO junior featherweight champion Joan
`Little Tyson’ Guzman, IBF lightweight champion Julio `The Kidd’
Diaz, former World Boxing Association cruiserweight king Orlin `Night
Train’ Norris and highly regarded welterweight Antonio Diaz.

PINR – The Power and Interest News Report
Dec 28 2004
”Democracy in the Former Soviet Union: 1991-2004”
Over the last decade and a half, an unprecedented initiative has
taken place in the Former Soviet Union (F.S.U.). In all 15 republics
that made up the U.S.S.R., the introduction of Western-style liberal
democracy and its principles became the dominant political modus
operandi since 1991. Today, it is useful to assess the initial
results of this important development, and draw conclusions in order
to gauge the significance of such a profound change. The overall
outcome of democracy’s introduction has been very mixed, and although
a few success stories exist, the rest of the process has quickly
fallen prey to old habits that refuse to part with the past.
Democracy as a Political Tool
The introduction of democracy to the F.S.U. itself has taken place in
an unprecedented environment of unipolarity, with the dominant
Western democratic United States as the most powerful state in the
world — politically, economically and militarily. Never before in
known history has there been a single state that could wield such an
incredible amount of power, nor has there ever been a state that was
so secure geopolitically in its preeminent place among the world’s
nations. Even the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 had a
limited dampening effect on the United States, as its economy and
society rebounded within a year after the strikes.
U.S. actions since 1991 can be characterized as the logical course of
action in a unipolar world, moving from a mix of unilateral and
multilateral approaches towards a more unilateral stance on issues
that involved the safety and security of the country. While the
United States could consider itself safer in a new unipolar world
than ever before, it still required the absence of potentially
threatening political/military entities. Ensuring that states shared
Western norms and values became one of the main U.S. policies in the
post-1991 world. The spread of democracy in the newly independent
states of the F.S.U. was a key way to counter any potential
neo-Soviet entity from emerging and challenging America. The key
belief underlying the policy that promotes democracy is the notion
that liberal democratic states do not threaten each other the way
pairs of non-liberal states do. Historically, since the early 19th
century, democratic states enjoyed pacific, fruitful and secure
relations.
This has certainly been the case between the United States and its
European and Asian allies during the Cold War. The demise of the
Soviet Union presented Washington with an unprecedented opportunity
— to introduce the concept of democracy and a market economy to its
former enemy. Such a policy worked once before, when the United
States fostered and built Western liberal democracies in defeated
Germany and Japan after WWII. At present these nations are U.S.
allies and trade partners, though they can still disagree on certain
political and economic issues.
In 1991, U.S. policymakers considered an option that if all 15 states
of the F.S.U. were to become democratic, then the only possible
threat they could present to the United States would be in economic
terms, and not military/ideological ones. If democracy were to take
root in these countries, then the U.S. position around the world
would be further solidified as the leader of the market-oriented,
pacific liberal democracy.
In hindsight, such a concept made political and economic sense.
Soviet people, starved for political freedom, eagerly embraced
democratic values in the first years after the fall of the U.S.S.R.
The majority of the population had vague concepts of how democracy
should really work, but there was hope that once the democratic
“flood gates” would open, the ensuing flow of political freedoms
would usher in a new order of the day.
What did not happen from the start, and what is only now slowly
becoming apparent, is that civil society in the F.S.U. lacked proper
education on even basic democratic principles. Newly found political
freedom roughly translated into free elections for the majority of
the people, but they knew next to nothing about other principles that
are so crucial to a vibrant, working democracy. The importance of
properly prepared civil society was demonstrated repeatedly in U.S.
and U.N. efforts at establishing the rule of law in post conflict
societies around the world after 1991. In countries as diverse as
East Timor and Bosnia, properly prepared civil society was the
keystone that determined the success or failure of a given
international mission. Its importance was crucial to the F.S.U. as
well, but there, democracy became a process that was largely
instituted from the top-down, with the masses sidelined in crucial
decision-making or policy-setting agendas.
Almost all of the former Soviet states had a long and rich history of
autocratic executive rule. The notion of parliamentary-style
democracy, with checks and balances on the executive, legislative and
judicial branches of government, was a totally foreign and unfamiliar
concept. While many Soviet people for decades secretly wished for
their authoritarian Communist government to either fall or change,
most had no idea what would be able to effectively replace it. The
ephemeral concept of free elections, proportionate representation and
a leadership responsible to the people was just that — a desired
notion with no real grounding in the immediate post-Soviet reality.
Soviet people were used to the mass showcasing of their collective
desires, as millions would take to the streets in
government-organized demonstrations during Soviet rule. Many tapped
into that “training” during the democratic protests in 1991 and 1993,
when reactionary political challenges threatened the slowly emerging
democratic societies. Yet, one of the key concepts of Western
democracy was not properly introduced — that of the elected
leadership’s responsibility to its electorate. Used to trusting and
relying on non-elected Communist officials for decades, millions of
former Soviet people carried this “trust” with them into the new and
unknown post-1991 era. Thus, the F.S.U.-style mix of new
“democracies” that emerged on the international arena are as
different from each other as they are from the Western world.
Present Political Picture
Three of the most Western-leaning states in the F.S.U. were the
fastest to shed their Soviet “skin” to launch the process of
democratic reorganization. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania spent the
least amount of time in the U.S.S.R., as the three states were
absorbed by Moscow only in 1940. While five decades of Soviet rule
had a tremendous effect, these Baltic states were part and parcel of
Northern Europe, itself a democratic area for a long time.
Even during Soviet rule, these three states stood apart from the rest
of the republics socially, economically and historically. And while
numerous post-Soviet problems still remain to be solved, these states
have been more successful at becoming Westernized. Their refusal to
associate with the past is exemplified by their desire not to be part
of the Commonwealth of Independent States, a loose political
affiliation of the former Soviet republics with Russia at its center.
Consequently, countries with culturally engrained importance of
authority had the most difficult time making the transition to fully
functioning Western-style democracy. Central Asian republics
exemplify this trend — only one out of the five states has elected a
new head of state after 1991. Three of them — Kazakhstan,
Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan — are headed by the men who were in
charge of these republics in Soviet times. Having changed their
titles from the first secretary of the communist party to prime
minister/president was largely the extent of democracy in these
states.
Tajikistan experienced a vicious civil war from 1992-1996, and Russia
is effectively keeping the country together with economic and
military influence. Only Kyrgyzstan has experienced a relatively fair
and peaceful transition to democratic rule. The power of the
executive in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan is
disproportionately stronger vis-à-vis real or perceived opposition.
There, ruling communist parties and functionaries, in charge of the
state’s economy and finances, quickly reorganized themselves,
assuming new titles draped in nationalistic flags. “New” political
entities appeared virtually overnight. Yet, whatever civil groups and
political opposition that slowly developed in the last decade of
Soviet rule quickly found itself sidelined and incapacitated,
existing as a showcase of a “multi-party” political system.
Historically, autocratic rulers have governed the lands of Central
Asia. Tribal and clan connections still play a significant role in
the political, social and economic interactions amongst the
populations, but are now effectively utilized to maintain the ruling
elite in power, not to successfully mobilize any significant
opposition. Turkmenistan stands apart even amongst other Central
Asian republics in the degree to which the executive has a dominant
role in the country. Its leader has cultivated a Stalin-like cult of
personality, wiping out any hint of opposition to his autocratic
rule. According to Turkmenistan’s leadership, the people are not yet
ready for real democratic reforms, and will be potentially granted
that opportunity in the yet-to-be-determined future.
While neighboring countries point to the near-extreme situation in
Turkmenistan, no real opposition can successfully challenge the
executive in those states either. In Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, the
executive branch has overwhelming power that maintains a nominal
existence of opposition that is capable of mounting only limited
political challenges.
Belarus is closer on the authoritarian scale to Turkmenistan than any
other post-Soviet state. Its leader retains a firm hold on the
political, social and economic life of the country. Just recently,
Belorussians “freely” voted the government of President Alexander
Lukashenka in for the third consecutive term. Much can be said about
a country where the security apparatus is still called the K.G.B., as
it was during the Soviet days, and where opposition is silenced
through physical intimidation.
While Lukashenka himself was elected to office democratically in the
first years of post-1991 political freedoms, he has since done
everything possible to not allow real democratic reforms and
principles to take root. While the people can hold small-scale
protests against the government, they can do little else against a
strong security apparatus with carte blanche from the capital. A
similar situation exists in Armenia, where a democratically elected
executive allows for opposition to exercise its rights, yet retains a
firm hold on the country’s political, economic and military
decision-making. While Armenia does have a capable civil society, it
is many years away from achieving its full potential that would be
able to effectively mount a challenge to the wide-reaching
presidential powers.
Azerbaijan and Moldova have also experienced a limited amount of
democratic freedoms, but there the changes have been handed from the
top down, and no capable challenge can be mounted to the executive
powers. In Azerbaijan, power recently passed from Aliyev-senior, in
charge of the republic in Soviet times, to his son, Aliyev-younger,
in one of the few such power transfers around the world. This type of
regime change can hardly be characterized as democratic, and yet
Azerbaijan is considered a multi-party democracy.
Profits from oil sales strengthen Aliyev’s hold on power, a situation
not likely to be challenged in the near future. Azeri opposition is
also kept in check, even as it tries to vocalize its discontent for
the ruling elite. Moldova remains split between the secessionist,
Russian-speaking, authoritarian Trans-Dniester region and the rest of
the country. Democracy did not usher in a peaceful post-Soviet
transition — in fact, a secessionist civil war started as soon as
the country became independent from the Soviet Union and embarked on
the process of Westernization. While there are attempts to finally
unify the country, the process has stalled time and time again due to
mistrust that both sides — especially non-Western Trans-Dniester —
feel for each other.
Future Trendsetters?
The progress of democratic reforms in the last three post-Soviet
states merits much closer attention, as these states are now setting
the trend for the possible future course of post-Soviet democracy. In
Russia, vibrant civil society exists, born in the Soviet times of
political repression and reared in the last fifteen years of
non-Communist rule. Numerous citizens’ groups and political parties
make themselves heard on a daily basis on a variety of issues. Some
civil society groups have even thrown a gauntlet to the government,
openly defying the military draft that sent soldiers into the
prolonged and bloody Chechen conflict. Yet, currently, even such
valiant efforts fall short of effecting real political change.
Democratic reforms in the Russian Federation have gone to great
lengths to strengthen the executive, first as a post-1991 safety
alternative against resurgent communist and nationalist trends, then
as the only viable option capable of holding the country together.
Once-vibrant political opposition in Russia has seen its real power
diminish over the last seven years. Pro-executive political parties
now enjoy overwhelming support, with Russia becoming a one-party
state where President Vladimir Putin controls the media, as well as
economic, military and political processes. On the surface, Russia is
perhaps the only state where political processes resemble those of
Western Europe or the United States. In reality, Putin’s political
party enjoys the preponderance of power that is unlikely to be
effectively challenged in the near future.
At present, there are only two post-Soviet states where real
democracy has a chance of limited success. At the end of 2003, the
people of Georgia gave their government a strong vote of no
confidence after a decade of corruption, crime, civil wars and
declining living standards. Following mass non-violent protests, they
peacefully forced the executive out of office in what came to be
known as the “Rose Revolution.” The new, young, Western-oriented
leadership promised wide-ranging reforms aimed at reaching Georgia’s
full economic, political and social potential.
Georgians exported their experience to Ukraine, where a repeat of
2003 is currently taking place, with the third round of presidential
elections most likely to usher in pro-Western Viktor Yuschenko as the
new leader of the country. In Ukraine, people went out into the
streets to protest the bitterly divisive presidential elections that
were marred by massive voting irregularities in favor of the
incumbent leadership aiming for closer ties to Russia. Ukrainian
civil society showcased its persistence, with month-long protests
taking place in Ukraine’s major cities.
As in Georgia, the democratic opposition was able to mobilize itself
to the extent not seen in the post-Soviet republics since the August
1991 hardliners’ coup against Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev.
While the third voting round will be able to bring the democratic
opposition to power, it will be faced with the gargantuan task of
unifying a country that was virtually split in half by somewhat
diverse visions of Ukraine’s future in the F.S.U. and the world.
While Georgians and Ukrainians were capable of efficiently mobilizing
and channeling their opposition fervor, it is unlikely that similar
protests can be held in other former Soviet republics to remove the
entrenched executives from positions of power.
Conclusion
The concept of democracy was introduced into the F.S.U. with
extremely varying results. By 2004, some states became one-party
autocratic systems with only a semblance of opposition. Such states
have multi-party parliaments and revised constitutions, while the
real power rests with former communist apparatchiks. Other states
walk the thin line between a one-party state and potential
multi-party democratic systems.
Still, others have been able to make the transition and to
approximate Western-style democracy as much as possible. These select
few states experienced revolutions “from below,” when the people rose
in popular revolt against corrupt governments, challenging the
“top-bottom” distribution of power and political freedom. All 15
post-Soviet states are official democracies. Thus, the U.S. goal of
democracy promotion in the F.S.U. can be considered successful, with
major caveats to that explanation.
While the U.S. was capable of steering certain democratic processes
to their rightful conclusions — such as offering support for
opposition in Georgia, Ukraine and in 1991-1996 Russia — the process
of democratization was left to its own, local devices in many other
newly independent states. American interests of the day dictated the
course of action, such as the need for Central Asian military bases
after 2001 or access to oil reserves, often moving the plight of
democracy to the political background. As a result, the uneven spread
of democracy in the F.S.U. created a collection of pacific states
vis-à-vis their policies towards the United States. Nominally or
fully democratic, they are in no position to challenge Washington
effectively. On the other hand, they all can be courted or considered
as allies, based on American foreign policy needs.
The last decade and a half brought momentous changes to large parts
of the globe. While many of these changes were positive, the U.S. has
not been successful in fostering and aiding civil society capable of
making educated and informed decisions in many former Soviet states.
Instead, it acquiesced to “democratic” changes handed from the top by
governments and executives associated with old and fallen regimes.
Thus, a new brand of post-Soviet democracy was created. It is yet
unclear how the future development of such democracy will unfold.
However, it would be prudent of the U.S. government to take the
lessons of post-Soviet political transitions into consideration as it
continues to promote political processes in diverse regions of the
Middle East and South Asia that are historically unprepared to bring
the concept of democracy to Western-style fruition.
Report Drafted By:
Yevgeny Bendersky
The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an analysis-based
publication that seeks to, as objectively as possible, provide
insight into various conflicts, regions and points of interest around
the globe. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and
interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. This
report may not be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast without the
written permission of [email protected]. All comments should be
directed to [email protected].
;report_id=249&language_id=1
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Tasks clear for coming year
Yerkir/arm
24 Dec 04
Summarizing the ARF activities for this year, Hrayr Karapetian,
National Assembly’s ARF faction secretary said that there have been
three major directions on which the faction presented initiatives in
the National Assembly this year. First of all, it is the package of
laws regarding the social sphere, namelyth e law on minimal
consumption basket.
Karapetian says: `Note that all previous parliaments
unsuccessfullytried to adopt such a law, but only this one
succeeded. It is becoming a precedent for this law to be reflected in
the budget of each year, and the size of the minimal wage will be
raised in accordance with rise of the overall budget. This mainly
concerns socially insecure layers and simultaneously regulates the
activities of the government.’
He also outlined the laws on taxes. It is no secret that shadow
economy tells upon the budget income and laws should be designed so
that to bring the shadow economy into light. Karapetian said that over
47 billion drams of extra income were provided due to recovered money
from the shadow economy.
The faction also prioritized the adoption of the law protecting the
interests of small and medium entrepreneurs. And due to the consistent
action of the faction the budget credit for the latter business have
increased by 300 million drams.
As to national security issue, the new law on `State financial
maintenance’ is unprecedented. The faction has also prioritized
anti-corruption legislation and the law on `Lobbying’ which will be
discussed at the next session.
In addition, the law on `Fight against terrorism’, which has passed
the first reading and was send to European experts, will be discussed
at the next session.
The Electoral Code has been agreed on principle points, and the
faction hopes that its recommendations will help to avoid violations
during the elections.
Over 500 letters with requests and complaints on various issues were
received by the parliament in 2004. The secretary says most of them
were addressed and appropriate solutions were maximally provided. Yet,
the secretary believes the parliament’s work has not been satisfactory
and a new program for 2005 is being developed.
Karapetian also said that some instability arose in regards to the
deposits issue at the end of the year, which, as Karapetian believes,
will not cause serious conflicts within the coalition. He also said
that the opposition tried to speculate on this issue, but failed.

Wish for planned future
Yerkir/arm
24 Dec 04
The year is coming to an end. Following the tradition, we would like
to summarize it, mentioning the accomplishments, missed opportunities,
and outline future steps.
The logical question would be: how is it possible to plan the
future?There is a tradition to take guesses on the future, dream of
the future, make plans for the future, but hardly possible to plan
it. Of course, planning the future is extremely difficult, but not
impossible.
If a nation is on a high level of development, self-organization and
self-consciousness, it can make its future more predictable; make it
more definite and planned.
Today’s changeable world, geopolitical developments demand that states
strain their best to act in a planned way. And the highest degree of
planned action is a plan for national development and it
implementation.
Today our country is passing to the stage of planned development. So
let us wish the next year to be more planned and more effective in its
implementation.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Karabakh’s parliament passes 2005 budget
Artsakh State TV, Stepanakert
27 Dec 04
Presenter over video of National Assembly discussions On 27 December
the NKR Nagornyy Karabakh Republic National Assembly held its last
plenary session in 2004. The main issue on the agenda was the 2005 NKR
state budget. The discussions started with the speech of the NKR
finance minister, Spartak Tevosyan. He presented the final version of
the document. After the speech of the NKR finance minister, the heads
of the Democratic Union Zham and Dashnaktsutyun factions of parliament
also presented their views about the budget. The NKR National
Assembly’s standing commission on finance and budgetary issues gave a
positive opinion about the budget. In the end the parliament adopted
the 2005 state budget.
At the end of the plenary session the chairman of the NKR National
Assembly, Oleg Yesayan, summed up the activities of parliament in
2004. In particular he said the following:
Yesayan The ninth session period of the National Assembly has been one
of the most effective rounds in the history of the NKR
parliament. During the ninth session period alone the NKR National
Assembly has adopted 45 laws. For comparison, overall the NKR National
Assembly has adopted 476 laws and the current, third parliament has
adopted 286 laws. Now each of our standing commissions has adopted
more laws than the first National Assembly overall. I do not want to
compare the current parliament with the first one, because the
conditions of the latter’s work were completely different. I just want
to show how important and busy our legislative branch is now.

IN NOV, 2004 APARTMENTS IN YEREVAN ROSE IN PRICES BY 30.5%
YEREVAN, DECEMBER 27. ARMINFO. In Nov of 2004 the average price of 1
sq/m of dwelling in Yerevan was $253.8, which is by 30.5% higher than
in the same period of 2003, and in Nov as against Oct 2004 it
increased by 2.4%.
The press-service of the State Committee of Real Estate Register
informed ARMINFO that, in the Center community the average price of 1
sq/m of apartments was $497.8, $401.5 in the Arabkir district, $242.8
in Kanaker-Zeytun, $216 in Nor-Nork, $204.5 in Avan, $195.8 in
Erebuni, $234.5 in Shengavit, $249.7 in Davidashen, $228 in Achapnyak,
$226.9 in Malatia-Sebastia, $93.8 in Nubarashen.
116 bargains on purchase and sale of private houses were registered in
Yerevan in Nov, 2004. One sq/m of premises in private houses in
Yerevan decreased by 10.8% in Nov 2004 as against the same period of
2003. The average price for one square meter of dwelling area in
private houses in Yerevan increased by 27%, including in the Center
community – $500, in the Arabkir district – $403.4, $244.8 in
Kanaker-Zeytun, $347.9 in Nork-Marash, $205.9 in Avan, $197.8 in
Erebuni, $237 in Shengavit, $251.3 in Davidashen, $230.9 in Achapnyak,
$228.9 in Malatia-Sebastia, $95 in Nubarashen.

The Christian Science Monitor
The Monitor’s View
from the December 28, 2004 edition
A Pumpkin Roll in Ukraine, World
According to a Ukrainian custom, a woman rejects an unwanted suitor by
handing him a pumpkin. So it was that pro-democracy supporters said “no” to
corruption and autocratic rule by dumping pumpkins on a street in Kiev
Sunday – and voting for the reform-minded Viktor Yushchenko for president.
These pumpkin-rolling Ukrainians, along with 52 percent of their fellow
citizens, succeeded in overturning a rigged election Nov. 21. In backing Mr.
Yushchenko in a vote that this time was far fairer, they have proven to the
world that they want to join the march of newly free nations.
And it is a forward march, despite backsliding, most notably in Russia. Over
the past 15 years, the number of electoral democracies has risen from 69 out
of 167 states (41 percent) to 119 out of 192 states (62 percent) – more
elections, more democracies, more rights.
This is according to Freedom House, a nongovernmental organization which
keeps an annual tally of the globe’s “free” nations. The group, which
announced its count last week, found that freedom progressed the world over
in the past 12 months, with 26 countries (such as Ukraine and Georgia)
showing gains, and 11 nations (such as Belarus and Armenia) registering
setbacks.
Freedom has moved ahead in some surprising regions, like the Middle East and
North Africa. There, where Saudi Arabia ranks among the worst in civil
liberties and political rights, some modest gains have been made. Egypt,
Jordan, Morocco, and Qatar showed improvement in such areas as women and
family rights, as well as press and academic freedoms.
In the last century, world wars and the cold war led to the defeat of
despots responsible for killing or oppressing millions of their own people,
and those in conquered lands.
At the dawn of this new century, global terrorism represents a different
kind of challenge. But the answer is still the same: more freedom, more
democracy, more rights.
Exactly how these freedoms come to be is still the challenge for today’s
political leaders. President Bush has tried to impose freedom militarily,
first in Afghanistan, with pretty good success, and then in Iraq, where the
jury is still out.
Ukraine illustrates what can happen when the surge for freedom bubbles up
from within. While the US and other countries helped the democratization
process by providing funds, training, and people for election monitors,
pollsters, judges, and others, the Ukrainians themselves led their own
“orange revolution.”
>From the rise of democracy in Asia and Latin America in the 1980s, to
Eastern Europe from the late ’80s on, countless examples show how important
it is to have “the people” themselves want and push for freedom.
Next month, Iraq will have its first elections, and embark on the road to
greater determination of its own destiny. For democracy to survive against
suicide bombers, Iraqis will have to want it as badly as the Ukrainians did.

Self determination right to be enclosed
By Gayane Movsesian
Yerkir/arm
24 Dec 04
The last week was significant for several remarks made by OSCE Mink
Group Russian co-chairman Yuri Merzliakov and Armenian foreign
minister Vardan Oskanian.
Both of them positively commented on the year 2004 in the context of
the Karabagh issue, mentioning the obstacles created by Azerbaijan by
having the issue of Karabagh be included in the UN agenda, as well as
the agreement to continue the so called Paris process on the level of
foreign ministers.
Both Merzliakov, and Oskanian expressed careful optimist about the
chance for progress in the Paris consultations (which are expected to
resume in January). Merzliakov said: `I almost do not doubt that
certain positive results may be achieved.’
Meanwhile, Oskanian said that the document (which should be signed by
the results of the talks) has considerable potential for fixing the
right of the people of Karabagh for self-determination. Such an
option, as of Oskanian, is discussed at the Paris talks.
`However, it is hard to say whether it will be succeeded,’ carefully
put Oskanian, adding that even in case of success, the realization of
the rightof the Karabagh people will not be immediate. He also said:
`There canbe a flexible approach to the time schedule. This issue can
be solved during talks. But we are going to fight for the right of
self-determination till the end and without that point, we will not
sign any document.’
The Azerbaijani foreign minister has so far not presented his view on
the talks, but we can expect just the opposite of what Oskanian
said. Not too long ago Elmar Mamediarov already said that Azerbaijan
will make no step back onthe issue of the territorial integrity.
It looks like the talks will really be difficult. Especially on the
backstage of the shaped political situation after the developments in
Georgia and Ukraine.
Merzliakov said: `If talks go normally, the Karabagh issue should not
cause political tensions in Armenia or Azerbaijan.’
We believe that no matter how the talks go, opposition both in
Armenia, and in Azerbaijan will find ways to criticize the authorities
for compromising on Karabagh. Unfortunately, it is already happening
in Armenia, despite the fact that the opposition has declared that
there can be no speculations on such an important national issue as
Karabagh.
It is also not excluded that foreign forces may try to manipulate the
Karabagh issue for influencing interior developments in Armenia and
Azerbaijan. The examples are obvious.
The Armenian opposition is accusing Kocharian of not being able to
solve the conflict and of remaining dependant on Moscow and Aliev is
accused by the Azerbaijani opposition of not being able to resolve the
issue and remaining dependant on Washington. In both countries, the
opposition is looking to the overthrow of power by the Georgian and
Ukrainian examples.
Some pro-western alliances are being formed in Armenia, pro-Russian
forces are being searched in Azerbaijan. The media in both countries
speak about strong opposition leaders who would be serious alternative
to the actual authorities. The newspapers of Baku openly speak about
search for new pro-Western alternatives. The same is written in the
Armenian media outlet, in concern with the US Ambassador’s meetings
with local political forces.
Thus, the year of 2005 promises to be active and exciting.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Ensuring spiritual security
Yerkir/arm
24 Dec 04
The condition for rehabilitation of spiritual feedback between
government and people is overcoming of the detachment of the nation
from it.
The link of the people to the government is the law which provides
equal rights and security.But it is necessary to make the laws serve
the people if you want the laws to carry out their function instead of
making them serve officials. In such cases people shape repulsion to
laws which is now actual in Armenia. Another condition for rise of the
spirit of state it the preservation of feedback in governing. This
means participation of the people in decision making thru governmental
and non-governmental institutions.
This is important for overcoming the gap between ruling elite and
people.In respect of this feedback, it is important to note the role
of collaboration between governmental and social institutions, where
governmental institutions provide transparent information to the
social ones. And the latter bring that information down to people who,
in turn, receive suggestions from the latter and forward them up.
Summarizing the whole thing, we can say that the role of the
government in preservation of spiritual security is about keeping
feedback with the society and regaining its trust thru collaboration
with social institutions.