Armen

Azat, at least it does not look gay... Azat jan, Movses jan shnorhavor! Urakh tramadrutyun dzez. Chei patkeracnum vor Amerikayum dzez nman enkerner dzerq kberem u vor Amerikan indz ays patcharov harazat kdarna. Dzer kenatse!

Your way of thinking is incomprehensable for me.

Gamavor, those who created our problem wanted us to think and, most importantly, to feal what you said in this quote. They did it specifically for that reason: so that Armenians become extreme in their essence. "Extreme" is always weak because it burns like a crazy fire. Looks at Anglos. Are they ever extreme? French became extreme and lost, Germans became extreme and lost, same happened to Russians. Turks will follow their fate regardless of our actions. Anglos, however, conqured the world piece by piece like slicing a cake. But they sliced the cake only according to their necessity. They never took what was unnecessary. This is why they always win. And they never declare that they're going to do something until they actually do it.

"Getting back what is ours", or how Judaism puts it "An eye for an eye". We have struggled all history for our faith. Starting from the battle of Avarair (which created the type of Armenian we have nowadays) all the way to Artsakh war. Now our faith is telling us that we should first deal with each other as true Christians (or at least like people who have values that were created by Christiandom) and than start dealing with everything else. That was exactly the same problem the Jews had by being a slaughtered, refugee and chosen people, when Christ came. They realy were a chose people then.

Eve, you are pure evil

Amy jan thank you sweety Garo and Nakharar thanks a lot.

Shnorhakal em Edward jan

This sequence of priorities and their rigidness will effectively make us the second Jews of this world in its full sense, Gamavor. I think we should prioritise Artsakh because there are Armenians leaving there.

Thanks QB, Anoushik jan. Maral, are you kidding me? What's that gay cake with Western Armenian cuniform inscription? Movses jan, mersi eghbayr. Es 5 tariya General em. Gone mi hat Brigadir-General sarqi sirts hovana mi qich.

What a top class manipulator you are Azat! You just remember each and evary opportunity to wash your throat with some liquer and engage in group ... mmmm ... communication. Thank you akhpers

Watch on the West A Newsletter of FPRI’s Center for the Study of America and the West Is Europe Dying? Notes on a Crisis of Civilizational Morale By George Weigel http://www.fpri.org/ww/0602.200506.weigel.europedying.html Volume 6, Number 2 June 2005 A Roman Catholic theologian, George Weigel is a Senior Fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. His book Witness to Hope: The Biography of John Paul II was published to international acclaim in 1999 in English, French, Italian, and Spanish. It has since been published in Polish, Portuguese, Slovak, Czech, Slovenian, Russian, and German. This essay is reprinted with permission from European Outlook, March-April 2005, published by the American Enterprise Institute. The essay was the basis of an FPRI BookTalk delivered by George Weigel on May 19, 2005 on the occasion of the publication of his new book The Cube and the Cathedral: Europe, America, and Politics Without God (Basic Books, 2005). America’s “Europe problem” and Europe’s “America problem” have been staple topics of transatlantic debate for the past several years. Political leaders, media commentators, and businessmen usually discuss those problems in terms of policy differences: differences over prosecuting the war on terrorism, differences over the role of the United Nations in world affairs, differences over the Kyoto Protocol on the global environment, differences over Iraq. The policy differences are real. Attempts to understand them in political, strategic, and economic terms alone will ultimately fail, however, because such explanations do not reach deeply enough into the human texture of contemporary Europe. To put the matter directly: Europe, and especially western Europe, is in the midst of a crisis of civilizational morale. The most dramatic manifestation of that crisis is not to be found in Europe’s fondness for governmental bureaucracy or its devotion to fiscally shaky health care schemes and pension plans, in Europe’s lagging economic productivity or in the appeasement mentality that some European leaders display toward Islamist terrorism. No, the most dramatic manifestation of Europe’s crisis of civilizational morale is the brute fact that Europe is depopulating itself. Europe’s below-replacement-level birthrates have created situations that would have been unimaginable when the institutions of European integration were formed in the late 1940s and early 1950s. By the middle of this century, if present fertility patterns continue, 60 percent of the Italian people will have no personal experience of a brother, a sister, an aunt, an uncle, or a cousin;[1] Germany will lose the equivalent of the population of the former East Germany; and Spain’s population will decline by almost one-quarter. Europe is depopulating itself at a rate unseen since the Black Death of the fourteenth century.[2] And one result of that is a Europe that is increasingly “senescent” (as British historian Niall Ferguson has put it).[3] When an entire continent, healthier, wealthier, and more secure than ever before, fails to create the human future in the most elemental sense-by creating the next generation-something very serious is afoot. I can think of no better description for that “something” than to call it a crisis of civilizational morale. Understanding its origins is important in itself, and important for Americans because some of the acids that have eaten away at European culture over the past two centuries are at work in the United States, and indeed throughout the democratic world. Reading “History” Through Culture Getting at the roots of Europe’s crisis of civilizational morale requires us to think about “history” in a different way. Europeans and Americans usually think of “history” as the product of politics (the struggle for power) or economics (the production of wealth). The first way of thinking is a by-product of the French Revolution; the second is one of the exhaust fumes of Marxism. Both “history as politics” and “history as economics” take a partial truth and try, unsuccessfully, to turn it into a comprehensive truth. Understanding Europe’s current situation, and what it means for America, requires us to look at history in a different way, through cultural lenses. Europe began the twentieth century with bright expectations of new and unprecedented scientific, cultural, and political achievements. Yet within fifty years, Europe, the undisputed center of world civilization in 1900, produced two world wars, three totalitarian systems, a Cold War that threatened global holocaust, oceans of blood, mountains of corpses, the Gulag, and Auschwitz. What happened? And, perhaps more to the point, why had what happened happened? Political and economic analyses do not offer satisfactory answers to those urgent questions. Cultural-which is to say spiritual, even theological-answers might help. Take, for example, the proposal made by a French Jesuit, Henri de Lubac, during World War II. De Lubac argued that Europe’s torments in the 1940s were the “real world” results of defective ideas, which he summarized under the rubric “atheistic humanism"-the deliberate rejection of the God of the Bible in the name of authentic human liberation. This, de Lubac suggested, was something entirely new. Biblical man had perceived his relationship to the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus as a liberation: liberation from the terrors of gods who demanded extortionate sacrifice, liberation from the whims of gods who played games with human lives (remember the Iliad and the Odyssey), liberation from the vagaries of Fate. The God of the Bible was different. And because biblical man believed that he could have access to the one true God through prayer and worship, he believed that he could bend history in a human direction. Indeed, biblical man believed that he was obliged to work toward the humanization of the world. One of European civilization’s deepest and most distinctive cultural characteristics is the conviction that life is not just one damn thing after another; Europe learned that from its faith in the God of the Bible. The proponents of nineteenth-century European atheistic humanism turned this inside out and upside down. Human freedom, they argued, could not coexist with the God of Jews and Christians. Human greatness required rejecting the biblical God, according to such avatars of atheistic humanism as Auguste Comte, Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche. And here, Father de Lubac argued, were ideas with consequences-lethal consequences, as it turned out. For when you marry modern technology to the ideas of atheistic humanism, what you get are the great mid-twentieth century tyrannies-communism, fascism, Nazism. Let loose in history, Father de Lubac concluded, those tyrannies had taught a bitter lesson: “It is not true, as is sometimes said, that man cannot organize the world without God. What is true is that, without God, he can only organize it against man."[4] Atheistic humanism-ultramundane humanism, if you will-is inevitably inhuman humanism. The first lethal explosion of what Henri de Lubac would later call “the drama of atheistic humanism” was World War I. For whatever else it was, the “Great War” was, ultimately, the product of a crisis of civilizational morality, a failure of moral reason in a culture that had given the world the very concept of “moral reason.” That crisis of moral reason led to the crisis of civilizational morale that is much with us, and especially with Europe, today. This crisis has only become fully visible since the end of the Cold War. Its effects were first masked by the illusory peace between World War I and World War II; then by the rise of totalitarianism and the Great Depression; then by the Second World War itself; then by the Cold War. It was only after 1991, when the seventy-seven-year-long political-military crisis that began in 1914 had ended, that the long-term effects of Europe’s “rage of self-mutilation” (as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn called it) could come to the surface of history and be seen for what they were-and for what they are. Europe is experiencing a crisis of civilizational morale today because of what happened in Europe ninety years ago. That crisis could not be seen in its full and grave dimensions then (although the German general Helmuth von Moltke, one of the chief instigators of the slaughter, wrote in late July 1914 that the coming war would “annihilate the civilization of almost the whole of Europe for decades to come”[5]). The damage done to the fabric of European culture and civilization in the Great War could only been seen clearly when the Great War’s political effects had been cleared from the board in 1991. The Naked European Public Square Contemporary European culture is not bedeviled by atheistic humanism in its most raw forms; the Second World War and the Cold War settled that. Europe today is profoundly shaped, however, by a kinder, gentler cousin, what the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor has termed “exclusive humanism”[6]: a set of ideas that, in the name of democracy, human rights, tolerance, and civility, demands that all transcendent religious or spiritual reference points must be kept out of European public life—especially the life of the newly expanded European Union. This conviction led to two recent episodes that tell us a lot about Europe’s crisis of civilizational morale and where that crisis leads politically. The first episode involved the drafting of the European Union’s new constitution-or, to be technically precise, a new European constitutional treaty. This process set off a raucous argument over whether the constitution’s preamble should acknowledge Christianity as a source of European civilization and of contemporary Europe’s commitments to human rights and democracy. The debate was sometimes silly and not infrequently bitter. Partisans of European secularism argued that mentioning Christianity as a source of European democracy would “exclude” Jews, Muslims, and those of no religious faith from the new Europe; yet these same partisans insisted on underscoring the Enlightenment as the principal source of contemporary European civilization, which would seem to “exclude” all those—including avant-garde European “postmodernists”—who think that Enlightenment rationalism got it wrong. The debate was finally resolved in favor of exclusive humanism: a treaty of some 70,000 words (ten times longer than the U.S. Constitution!) could not find room for one word, “Christianity.” Yet while following this debate, I had the gnawing sense that the real argument was not about the past but about the future-would religiously informed moral argument have a place in the newly expanded European public square? A disturbingly negative answer to that question came four months after the final Euro-constitution negotiation. In October 2004, Rocco Buttiglione, a distinguished Italian philosopher and minister for European affairs in the Italian government, was chosen by the incoming president of the European Commission, Portugal’s Jos‚ Manuel Durão Barroso, to be commissioner of justice. Professor Buttiglione, who would have been considered an adornment of any sane government since Cato the Elder, was then subjected to a nasty inquisition by the justice committee of the European Parliament. His convictions concerning the morality of homosexual acts and the nature of marriage were deemed by Euro-parliamentarians to disqualify him from holding high office on the European Commission-despite Buttiglione’s clear distinction in his testimony between what he, an intellectually sophisticated Catholic, regarded as immoral behavior and what the law regarded as criminal behavior, and despite his sworn commitment, substantiated by a lifetime of work, to uphold and defend the civil rights of all. This did not satisfy many members of the European Parliament, who evidently agreed with one of their number in his claim that Buttiglione’s moral convictions-not any actions he had undertaken, and would likely undertake, but his convictions-were “in direct contradiction of European law.” Buttiglione described this to a British newspaper as the “new totalitarianism,” which is not, I fear, an exaggeration. That this new totalitarianism flies under the flag of “tolerance” only makes matters worse. But where does it come from? One of the most perceptive commentators on the European constitutional debate was neither a European nor a Christian but an Orthodox Jew born in South Africa-J. H. H. Weiler, professor of international law and director of the Jean Monnet Center at New York University. Weiler argued that European “Christophobia"-a more pungent term than Taylor’s “exclusive humanism"-was the root of the refusal of so many Europeans to acknowledge what Weiler regarded as obvious: that Christian ideas and values were one of the principal sources of European civilization and of Europe’s contemporary commitment to human rights and democracy. This deliberate historical amnesia, Weiler suggested, was not only ignorant; it was constitutionally disabling. For in addition to defining the relationship between citizens and the state, and the relations among the various branches of government, constitutions are the repository, the safe- deposit box, of the ideas, values, and symbols that make a society what it is. Constitutions embody, Weiler proposed, the “ethos” and the “telos,” the cultural foundations and moral aspirations, of a political community. To cut those aspirations out of the process of “constituting” Europe was to do grave damage to the entire project.[7] Whether that happens remains to be seen, as it is not clear that the European constitutional treaty will be ratified by E.U. member states. But what is unhappily clear at this juncture is that Europe has produced a constitution that denies the vision of three of its most prominent founding fathers-Konrad Adenauer, Alcide de Gasperi, and Robert Schuman, serious Christians to a man, all of them convinced that the integrated and free Europe they sought was, in no small part, a project of Christian civilization.[8] Europe’s contemporary crisis of civilizational morale thus comes into sharper focus: Europe’s statesmen-or, at the least, too many of them-are denying the very roots from which today’s “Europe” was born. Is there any example in history of a successful political project that is so contemptuous of its own cultural and spiritual foundations? If so, I am unaware of it. Boredom and Its Contents The demographics are unmistakable: Europe is dying. The wasting disease that has beset this once greatest of civilizations is not physical, however. It is a disease in the realm of the human spirit. David Hart, another theological analyst of contemporary history, calls it the disease of “metaphysical boredom”— boredom with the mystery, passion, and adventure of life itself. Europe, in Hart’s image, is boring itself to death. And in the process, it is allowing radicalized twenty-first century Muslims—who think of their forebears’ military defeats at Poitiers in 732, Lepanto in 1571, and Vienna in 1683 (as well as their expulsion from Spain in 1492), as temporary reversals en route to Islam’s final triumph in Europe-to imagine that the day of victory is not far off. Not because Europe will be conquered by an invading army marching under the Prophet’s banners, but because Europe, having depopulated itself out of boredom and culturally disarmed itself in the process, will have handed the future over to those Islamic immigrants who will create what some scholars call “Eurabia"-the European continent as a cultural and political extension of the Arab-Islamic world. Should that happen, the irony would be unmistakable: the drama of atheistic humanism, emptying Europe of its soul, would have played itself out in the triumph of a thoroughly nonhumanistic theism. Europe’s contemporary crisis of civilizational morale would reach its bitter conclusion when Notre-Dame becomes Hagia Sophia on the Seine-another great Christian church become an Islamic museum. At which point, we may be sure, the human rights proclaimed by those narrow secularists who insist that a culture’s spiritual aspirations have nothing to do with its politics would be in the gravest danger. It need not happen: there are signs of spiritual and cultural renewal in Europe, especially among young people; the Buttiglione affair raised alarms about the new intolerance that masquerades in the name of “tolerance;” the brutal murder of Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh by a middle-class Moroccan-Dutch has reminded Europeans that “roots causes” do not really explain Islamist terrorism. The question on this side of the Atlantic, though, is why should Americans care about the European future? I can think of three very good reasons. The first involves pietas, an ancient Roman virtue that teaches us reverence and gratitude for those on whose shoulders we stand. A lot of what has crossed the Atlantic in the past several centuries has been improved in the process, from the English language to the forms of constitutional democracy. Yet pietas demands that Americans remember where those good things came from. A United States indifferent to the fate of Europe is a United States indifferent to its roots. Americans learned about the dignity of the human person, about limited and constitutional government, about the principle of consent, and about the transcendent standards of justice to which the state is accountable in the school of freedom called “Europe.” Americans should remember that, with pietas. We have seen what historical amnesia about civilizational roots has done to Europe. Americans ought not want that to happen in the United States. The second reason we can and must care has to do with the threat to American security posed by Europe’s demographic meltdown. Demographic vacuums do not remain unfilled-especially when the demographic vacuum in question is a continent possessed of immense economic resources. One can already see the effects of Europe’s self-inflicted depopulation in the tensions experienced in France, Germany, and elsewhere by rising tides of immigration from North Africa, Turkey, and other parts of the Islamic world. Since 1970, which is not all that long ago, some 20 million (legal) Islamic immigrants—the equivalent of three E.U. countries, Ireland, Belgium, and Denmark-have settled in Europe. And while, in the most optimistic of scenarios, these immigrants may become good European democrats, practicing civility and tolerance, there is another and far grimmer alternative, as I have suggested above. Europe’s current demographic trendlines, coupled with the radicalization of Islam that seems to be a by-product of some Muslims’ encounter with contemporary, secularized Europe, could eventually produce a twenty-second century, or even late twenty-first century, Europe increasingly influenced by, and perhaps even dominated by, militant Islamic populations, convinced that their long-delayed triumph in the European heartland is at hand. Is a European future dominated by an appeasement mentality toward radical Islamism in the best interests of the United States? That seems very unlikely. Neither is a Europe that is a breeding ground for Islamic radicalism; remember that the experience of life in Hamburg was decisive in the evolution of both Mohammed Atta, leader of the 9/11 “death pilots,” and of the pilot of the “fourth plane” of that grim day, the plane forced down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania-the one intended to hit the Capitol or the White House. The third reason why the “Europe problem” is ours as well as theirs has to do with the future of the democratic project, in the United States and indeed throughout the world. The strange debate over the mere mention of Christianity’s contributions to European civilization in the proposed European constitution was especially disturbing because the amnesiacs who wanted to rewrite European history by airbrushing Christianity from the picture were doing so in service to a thin, proceduralist idea of democracy. To deny that Christianity had anything to do with the evolution of free, law-governed, and prosperous European societies is, to repeat, more than a question of falsifying the past; it is also a matter of creating a future in which moral truth has no role in governance, in the determination of public policy, in understandings of justice, and in the definition of that freedom which democracy is intended to embody. Were these ideas to prevail in Europe, that would be bad news for Europe; but it would also be bad news for the United States, for their triumph would inevitably reinforce similar tendencies in our own high culture, and ultimately in our law. The judicial redefinition of “freedom” as sheer personal willfulness, manifest in the 2003 Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, was buttressed by citations from European courts. And what would it mean for the democratic project around the world if the notion that democracy has nothing to do with moral truth is exported from western Europe to central and eastern Europe via the expanded European Union, and thence to other new democracies around the world? So Americans should, and must, care. We sever ourselves from our civilizational roots if we ignore Europe in a fit of aggravation or pique. Our security will be further imperiled in a post-9/11 world if Europe’s demographics continue to give advantage to the dynamism of radical Islamism in world politics. The American democratic experiment will be weakened if Europe’s legal definition of freedom as willfulness reinforces similar tendencies here in the United States-and so will the democratic project in the world. Editor’s Note In 2000, Weigel delivered FPRI’s Templeton Lecture on Religion and World Affairs, speaking on Pope John Paul II and the Dynamics of History.” His lecture is posted on our website at: www.fpri.org/ww/0106.200004.weigel.popehistory.html For a complete listing of FPRI’s Templeton Lectures and links to them (1996-2004), visit: www.fpri.org/education/templetonlecture.html The 2005 Templeton Lecture on Religion and World Affairs will be delivered on September 20 by David Rosen, former Chief Rabbi of Ireland and Director of Inter-religious Affairs, American Jewish Committee, Israel. Of related interest on our website is “Religion in Diplomatic History” by Walter A. McDougall, FPRI Wire, March 1998. Notes * [1] Nicholas Eberstadt, “What If It’s a World Population Implosion? Speculations about Global De-population,” The Global Reproductive Health Forum (Harvard University, 1998; available at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/Organizations/...ion/depop.html). [2] Niall Ferguson, “Eurabia?” New York Times Magazine, April 4, 2004. * [3] Ibid. * [4] Henri de Lubac, The Drama of Atheist Humanism (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1995), 14. * [5] David Fromkin, Europe’s Last Summer: Who Started the Great War in 1914? (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), 224. * [6] Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989). * [7] J. H. H. Weiler, Un Europa cristiana: Un saggio esplorativo (Milan: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli, 2003). [8] See Robert Wendelin Keyserlingk, Fathers of Europe (Montreal: Palm Publishers, 1972).

Who "we"? Armenians? You just invented another one of those "Chinese-Armenians" jokes A nation of 1.3 bil attacks a nation of 23 mil and we are going to "bet"? Gumri (Leninakan) declares war on China. The Chinese general stuff after a week of unsuccessful discussions about the possible scale of attack from Gumri sends a spy mission to Gumri to make some preliminary findings. The mission arrives at Gumri, finds out the places of Gumri's general stuff. It appears to be a house on the outskirts of town. They arrive at the place, approach the window, look into it and see two drunk guys talking to each other: "Onnig, we declared war on China yesterday. Do you have any idea where are we going to bury all those Chinese...?" It sounds better in Gumri dialect: "Tso Onnig, etqam Chinatsi inchekh bdi taghenq or?"

Actually, this is the Armenian position as well. NK's separation cannot be discussed either in 10 or in 100 years. It is a fact.

Why is it even embarrasing for those that want to view themselves Armenian-Americans? A Georgian citizen has done this for some vague reasons. He never declared his "Armenianness" nor that his act was connected with some Armenian issues. How is this even related to Armenians? Because he has an Armenian last name....? I just hope that we stop acting like newly deflowered virgins everytime an incident like this occurs.

Why is it obviously embarassing to you?

Armjan, today I wasted 10$ because of you. Had a couple of beers hoping to get some sleep in this killing Yerevan heat.

China takes first step to revalue yuan Shifts to basket of currencies from dollar peg By Steve Goldstein & Greg Robb, MarketWatch Last Update: 10:14 AM ET July 21, 2005 WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - Bowing to intense pressure from Washington and its G-7 allies, the Chinese government on Thursday announced the first step towards revaluing its currency. In a statement the People's Bank of China said it is dropping its yuan-dollar peg in favor of one vs. a basket of currencies. The government also lifted the value of the currency by more than 2%. "The People's Bank of China will make adjustment of the renminbi exchange rate band when necessary according to market development as well as the economic and financial situation. The renminbi exchange rate will be more flexible based on market condition with reference to a basket of currencies," it said. China said it's adjusting the exchange rate to 8.11 yuan per dollar; overnight, the dollar traded at 8.2765 yuan overnight. The yen surged and the dollar slid after China announced its currency move. See full story. "It's a small move. It's a token. It is not going to have much immediate economic effect," said Robert Brusca, chief economist at FAO Economics. "But it sets things in motion," he said, noting that Malaysia has announced it will end its peg and adopt a managed float, with the MYR's value managed against an undisclosed reference basket. "The significance of this move is dependent on what China does next. They've lifted the lid on the expectations," Brusca said. Economists said the key for further movement is how the U.S. political system reacts. The United States welcomed China's move to a more flexible foreign exchange rate. "China's full implementation of its new currency regime will be a significant contribution toward global stability," Treasury Secretary John Snow said in a statement. He said U.S. officials will "monitor" China's managed floating exchange rate "as their exchange rate moves to alignment with underlying market conditions." Sen. Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, a key critic of China's currency regime, called China's move to a basket of currencies "a good first step albeit a baby step." "If there are not larger steps in the future, we will not have accomplished very much. But after years of inaction, this step is welcome," Schumer said. The daily trading price of the dollar vs. the yuan will continue to be allowed to float within a band of 0.3%, while the trading prices of non-U.S. dollar currencies will be allowed to move in yet-to-be announced bands, it said in a statement released on its Web site. Members of the U.S. Congress have long complained that an artificially low yuan has boosted Chinese exports and hurt U.S. manufacturers. The Treasury and G-7 have been concerned that China's dollar peg was limiting foreign exchange market adjustments to the large U.S. current account deficit. Steve Goldstein is MarketWatch's London bureau chief. Greg Robb is a senior reporter for MarketWatch in Washington.

How about "YES!"

Never thought there is a convenient shortcut between Yerevan's coffeehouses and the Iraqi oilfields.

Gamavor, the keyword is "confidence". I remember reading an article by a French economist about the first days of investment boom in China. Too bad I don't have it handy. The Chinese tycoons from Hong Kong, Singapour, Indonesia and Taiwan were the first ones to pour billions into China. Even in the early 1996 when China and Taiwan were very close to war, nothing happened to their money on the mainland. The level of confidence between the Beijing administration and overseas Chinese investors secured the stable flow of money. The western investors followed the Chinese diaspora into the mainland. If I remember right, only some two years ago the volume of foreign investments from non-Chinese sources prevailed over the volume of investments from overseas Chinese. I don't know how the communist administration in Beijing always managed to reassure the Chinese diaspora in safeness of their investments. Even with jailed dissidents, censored press etc. etc. the money of Chinese diaspora stayed in China and enriched them. So, whatever the politics, the athmosphere between the mainland administration and diaspora investors was business and confidence in future. Because they effectively separated politics from business. And western investors always watched the Chinese disporans as an indicator of investment climate in the country. They do it until now actually. During this period there have also been failure stories related to diasporan invesment to China. But still the positive trand prevailed. I always compare this success story to the situation in Armenia. The only answer I find is that we believe foreigners more than we believe each other and this prevents the establishment of confidence. We are more judgemental towards each other than we are of foreigners.

Sounds like one of those conspiracy theories.

They fed them the wrong kind of grass.

Thanks Sasun jan.

Eurasia Insight: CHANGE TO COME FOR ARMENIA'S CONSTITUTION? Haroutiun Khachatrian: 7/05/05 Armenia’s ruling coalition and opposition appear poised to reach a consensus on amendments to the country’s constitution. The breakthrough comes after persistent intervention by the Council of Europe and could signal an end to the opposition’s 18-month boycott of parliament. Constitutional reform is a pivotal political issue for Armenia. Overtures to western organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union have picked up pace in recent years and Yerevan appears eager to throw its lot more decidedly with the West. Making the case that the government is committed to democratic reform constitutes a key part of that process. At a June 28 press conference with Shavarsh Kocharian, a member of the opposition Ardarution (Justice) bloc, Tigran Torosian, deputy chairman of the National Assembly, announced that the ruling coalition and opposition are very close to a consensus on a draft constitution that includes provisions recommended by the Venice Commission, the Council of Europe’s advisory body on constitutional law. In a statement released that same day, Roland Wegener, chief of the Council of Europe’s monitoring mission, described the accord reached with the Venice Commission a critical step for Armenia’s ongoing democratization. The changes advocated by the Venice Commission and opposition and accepted by the government cover three main areas. Under the Commission’s recommendations, the president would no longer be able to dismiss the prime minister at will and a new prime minister would require the approval of a majority of parliament’s members. The provision is seen as essential for balancing the distribution of power between the president and the parliament. Constitutional amendments passed by the National Assembly in a first reading in May 2005 stipulated that the president may dissolve a newly elected parliament if that body twice fails to endorse presidential candidates for prime minister. The current constitution does not allow the National Assembly to be dissolved until one year after its election has passed. The election of Yerevan’s mayor presented a second key concession. Under Armenia’s current constitution, the country is divided into 11 provinces (marzs), with governors appointed by the central government. Yerevan, home to roughly half of the country’s population of 2.98 million, holds the status of a province. Apparently fearing the emergence of a powerful political rival, both Kocharian and Armenia’s first president, Levon Ter-Petrossian (1991-1998), had favored keeping the mayorship an appointed position. The third concession concerned the Council of Justice, a body that plays a key role in appointing judges. The government had initially refused to remove provisions from the draft constitution that name the president chairman of the council. The Council of Europe had recommended that such a change was necessary to establish the independence of judicial power. After final changes are made to the document and approved by parliament in late August, the proposed constitution will be put to Armenian voters this November in a national referendum. With the opposition already welcoming the government’s decision to accept the Venice Commission’s recommendations, both sides now appear optimistic about the course of political change. “It's too important that the referendum to be held in Armenia by November be crowned with success and Armenia receive a new chance for its development, [for the] extension of democracy, as a result of which the country will become a [leader] in the South Caucasus,” Noyan Tapan news agency reported Torosian as saying in explaining the decision to adopt the Commission’s proposals and work with the opposition. If the draft submitted to the Venice Commission "completely corresponds to the memorandum and the requirements publicly put forward by the opposition are fulfilled," Shavarsh Kocharian stated, the opposition would take part in the parliamentary debates scheduled for August, when the draft constitution will be up for a second reading. The National Unity opposition faction has already declared that it will abandon its boycott of parliament to do likewise. “The expected reforms . . . [are] a good ground for Armenia to be . . . able to [advance] in its development and to . . . differ from not only Azerbaijan, but, also, Georgia,” Kocharian said. President Robert Kocharian first proposed changes to Armenia’s 1995 constitution upon coming to power in 1998, but the reforms have been a start-and-stop process until now. The newfound agreement, however, came as the result of steady pressure. An earlier referendum in 2003, submitted by the government one year later than promised, failed to gain voters’ support. Past delays in advancing constitutional reform prompted the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) to include this issue as an urgent topic of discussion in its June 2005 session. In a June 23 resolution during PACE’s summer assembly, the body delivered a de facto ultimatum to Armenia for this latest draft: “The Assembly strongly believes that, for the sake of its own people and for the sake of its further European integration, Armenia cannot afford another failure of the constitutional referendum.” The document calls on Armenia to hold a referendum on an amended constitution no later than November 20005 and for the opposition to end its boycott of parliament, launched following the disputed re-election of President Kocharian in 2003, and promote the Council of Europe’s recommendations. Armenia will resubmit its draft constitution to the Venice Commission by July 7 for further discussion. However, numerous difficulties remain. Armenia’s ruling coalition must approve the changes made based on the recommendations and send the document once again to the Venice Commission for approval. Only after parliament approves the final draft document, will preparations for the November referendum begin. These include a public awareness campaign as well as work to remove irregularities from voter lists that have plagued past Armenian votes. Getting Armenians to turn out for the vote, however, could prove the ultimate test. In a recent poll conducted by the private Vox Populi organization, only 29 percent of some 624 Yerevan residents definitely planned to take part or were likely to take part in the November referendum, Armenialiberty.org reported. But for now, a lack of voter interest does not appear to figure into PACE strategy for working with the Kocharian administration. With an eye to encouraging Armenia's constitutional reform process, the assembly’s June resolution simply urges the government “to provide for the coming into force of the constitutional reform as soon as reasonably possible.” Editor’s Note: Haroutiun Khachatrian is a Yerevan-based writer specializing in economic and political affairs.

I wonder if Dodi Gago could buy one of these. He would surely call it "a house"