Armen

"THOUGHTS ON THE 90TH ANNIVERSARY ACTIVITIES" ARAVOT DAILY'S INTERVIEW WITH JIRAIR LIBARIDIAN Aravot Daily (Yerevan) June 28, 2005 QUESTION: The 90th Anniversary of the Genocide was marked by a number of activities in Armenia and in the Diaspora. You participated or observed many of them. Do you have any thoughts about these activities? ANSWER: This certainly was a special year. I think we can talk about it more openly now that the main activities are over. It is heartening of course to see our people and our young generations continuing to respect the memory of the victims of the Genocide in an increasingly organized and unified way. I do have questions in my mind, nonetheless, regarding some aspects of this process. The silent march to Tzitzerkaberd, the main event in my view, has been one of the most solemn, dignified and moving experiences any person could live through since the monument was erected in 1967. It is a collective spiritual experience, a form of communion with the victims. Some of that solemnity and dignity was lost this year, it seems to me; with banners and slogans, at times it seemed as if it was a political demonstration. I think there are more appropriate places for that. The show of respect for the memory of the victims, which is the purpose of the march, and the contemplative nature of the monument require a more serene presence. I am not sure also that billboards marking the anniversary in the main streets of Yerevan were appropriate. Billboards advertise or sell things. Do we need to advertise or sell the Genocide? More generally, we have to think of the direction in which we in Armenia and the Diaspora are going as far as our relations with the international community are concerned. Is the Genocide our only concern in our relations with our neighbors, with other countries? If that is the case, then why not demand that countries like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Russia recognize first their responsibility in creating the conditions for a genocide before they recognize that of the Ottoman Empire? Furthermore, is a country "pro-Armenian" if it recognizes the Genocide? The current atmosphere lends to that view. What if France, for example, recognized the Genocide but pressured Armenia to make concessions on Artsax that Armenia cannot make on its own? What will we tell France? That it is not pro-Armenian? Is it possible that this single issue may blind us to what else is going with regard to a number of others we have to settle with the international community. There is also the danger that the Genocide issue may be used by other powers-just as the "Armenian Question" was historically-to settle their own accounts with Turkey, accounts that have little to do with the Genocide, thus reducing the memory of our victims to an element in their games, an element that would be used and abused, picked up and dropped at their will, not ours? Doesn't that make us vulnerable to dangerous manipulations? Doesn't that mean turning over the key to our policy making -to our sense of success and failure, in fact our agenda-to others who have no compunction manipulating us? At the end, the question is: Is the "victim" psychology and the political program that ensues from it the way we as a state and as Diaspora want to relate to the world? However righteous and even comfortable that may make us feel, we must at least ask the question. The world may or may not owe us something. But it certainly will not give us everything we want. Historically, it has given little. QUESTION: Is there an alternative strategy? ANSWER: I think we have come a long way since independence in Turkish-Armenian relations. Changes in Turkey on the societal level and even failed attempts at establishing dialog have contributed to an atmosphere within which increased dialog with Turkish citizens may be equally, if not more productive. We have to recognize that ultimately it is the people of Turkey we have to address on this issue. It is their historians and scientists, their teachers and journalists, and their young generations who we must help to come to terms with their history. In the long run, it is the more effective way. It is not the easiest task. But if we are serious, it is the people of Turkey that must understand and assess their history. That would be true recognition. That requires an understanding on our part as to why it is that not only successive governments of Turkey that have denied the Genocide, but also Turkish society by and large. That requires recognizing changes in Turkish society that have been opening opportunities for us in the last two decades or so. That requires recognition of the value of the policies of independent Armenia's first administration that did not define Turkey as an enemy and created an environment for a critical view of Turkish history and political structures from within. That requires recognition of the efforts of a number of Armenian scholars who have been in a dialog with their Turkish scholars for a number of years now. But I am not sure this is convenient to many on our side. I am certain that we have much to gain by framing the issue of Genocide recognition as a problem for Turkish society and democracy and little to gain by making it a European or Western issue. The most recent events in Turkey testify to the validity of such a strategy. Over thirty scholars supported by three universities, one of them a state university, took it upon themselves to organize a conference on the Armenian Question. Some in the government intervened and made it difficult for the scholars to meet. Nonetheless, we must recognize that we have entered a new phase in our relations with Turkey since independence and that new phase has also coincided with changes in Turkey. We must adjust our direction. QUESTION: The 90th Anniversary activities included an International Conference in Yerevan in which you participated. Any comments on the Conference? ANSWER: Yes, I participated in the deliberations on the second day, since I had to attend a workshop on Security and Democracy in Tzaghkadzor the first day, a workshop that had been decided upon before I received the invitation. I was asked to chair the last session, on the Turkish-Armenian relations. From what I could observe that day, the conference had a large number of high quality, international participation with many dignified presentations, particularly touching upon the international dimensions and the legal aspects of the question of Genocide. A number of questions were raised and hopefully will become subject to public debate. The conference did have some problem areas. The participants included high level international figures with their concerns, as well as academic, public and political figures with theirs. Combined with a very large audience, it was impossible to pursue lines of thought and sustain debate in a manner that satisfied the participants or the audience. Nonetheless, it was commendable that the issues were framed beyond the confines of the Armenian case. The participation of international figure such as former President Lech Walesa of Poland and Juan Mendez, Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General on the Prevention of Genocide, and of internationally recognized scholars, especially legal experts, gave much weight to the Conference. QUESTION: There were a number of issues raised during the session you chaired which were not properly explored. Professor Richard Hovannisian, for example prefaced his presentation with a statement that recent events vindicated the position of Armenia's first Foreign Minister-- his son Raffi Hovannisian--with regard to Turkey. Professor Rouben Safrastyan argued that the policies of President Ter-Petrossian were misconceived since Turkey's policy toward Armenia being of a "coercive" nature. Do you agree? ANSWER: First, I find Professor Hovanisian's personalized comments inappropriate for an international conference on the Genocide, as I made clear at the end of the session. Raffi is a person with many qualities, continues to contribute to Armenia's political life and he will continue to do so. He is not the issue in question. On a technical level, with regard to Raffi's tenure as Foreign Minister, it is clear that if a Minister disagrees with a President, who is the elected official constitutionally responsible for foreign policy and has the right to define policy, then for a minister to conduct policy contrary to that defined by the president is unacceptable in any government. I ascribe that incident to youthful enthusiasm. As for Professor Safrastyan, it is not clear to me when he started thinking in the direction he stated. Rouben was part of my analysis group; he was the senior expert on Turkey. He fully participated in the discussions we had, contributed to policy making and even accompanied me twice I believe when I went to Ankara for negotiations. I do not remember him having any reservations or raising any objections regarding the policy that was decided and conducted. If he had any objections he could have raised them then and may be we would have benefited from his expertise. It is possible, of course, to revise one's views; but in that case it would have been better for him to acknowledge his role in the policies he is now criticizing. If a person is in a position where he can make a difference and does not do so, one would have to question his behavior. I have difficulty evaluating his later criticism and question his reasons for his earlier silence or his criticism today. More importantly, the assessment of the first administration's policies toward Turkey-by Professors Hovannisian and Safrastyan or by others-requires a more serious and responsible analysis than was offered by any of the participants. Armenia's policy then and in its essentials now is based on the principle that the ultimate security and prosperity of a country, especially one with Armenia's characteristics, depends on normal relations with all of its neighbors. I think that the history of this republic proves that. Neighbors provide the most likely threats or the most likely opportunities. The purpose of foreign policy is to minimize the first and reach out to the second. All else ensues from this principle, all else is a matter of tactics. Simple principles guiding foreign policy have practical consequences. One does not only have enemies but also makes them. This implies that we must take responsibility for our actions and inactions, for our words and for our silences. For our policies. If our policies don't make a difference because Turkey will be an enemy eternally or because the only fact that counts is that its predecessor state, the Ottoman Empire, committed genocide, then we should not think about policy, then freedom to think and to elect and independence become irrelevant. That is an escape from responsibility. What would that have meant for an Armenia whose economy had collapsed with the USSR, an Armenia in an energy crisis, under a full blockade from Azerbaijan and involved in the Artsax war? Now let us assume for a moment that we had based our policy on a completely different principle. Let us assume that we had brought Genocide recognition to the forefront of our policy and treated Turkey as the eternal enemy because it had not recognized the Genocide; and that we poured all our energies into that battle. What would have been the result? It is true that we were unable to achieve our ultimate goal, relations were not normalized as a result of our policy. Under the circumstances, it was not to be easy. Yet, we must also take responsibility for that; it is not all Turkey's fault. Our occupation of Azerbaijani territory, especially beginning with Kelbajar was the major factor in that failure. Whatever our reasons for doing so, the fact remains that we took such action which was seen as deeply suspicious and reprehensible from Turkey's point of view. And should our policy be assessed only by the standard of full success, i.e., the establishment of normal relations? Isn't it important that under the circumstances Turkey showed much restraint during the war when its ethnic cousins were losing the war with dire consequences for hundreds of thousands of their citizens? Perhaps more important is the example of the wheat supply situation in Armenian in the fall of 1992, when the Abkhaz war interrupted the only open rail link that brought wheat to Armenia. At that time Armenia produced only 40% of the wheat it consumed annually; and even that was endangered because of the economic disruptions. Turkey could have refused our request to open the Kars-Gyumri rail line to bring in the 100,000 tons of wheat the European Union had pledged to Armenia. Turkey did not refuse our request and the border was opened for that purpose. It became possible to pass the horrible 1992-1993 winter without famine in Armenia. Would that have been possible if our policy had been different? Is famine what the victims of the Genocide would have wanted us to condemn our people to with the possible loss of Artsax as a consequence? The unfortunate fact is that such views are being expressed by historians who should know the history of the First Republic and who should be able to situate policies and actions in the context of history and not in the abstract world of wishful thinking. No, I do not agree with my colleagues. As deeply as the issue of Genocide recognition touches us all deeply and angers us, the existence of the state of Armenia and the survival, security and prosperity of the living-especially those living in that state and Artsax-- remain the highest value. I don't think the victims of the Genocide would have wanted it differently. New martyrdom is not the only or even best way to respect the memory of those who perished. QUESTION: One other issue came up during that last session which you chaired. The secretary of the HH Dashnaktsutyune, Kiro Manoyan, thought this conference was an improvement over the one you had organized ten years ago on the 80th Anniversary, since his party was absent then and was represented now. ANSWER: That was more amusing than serious, I thought, since his comment raised more questions than it answered. Ten years ago, when we had initiated the idea of an international conference on the 80th Anniversary and organized it, there were no parties represented in the conference, since we did not see the Genocide as a party issue. On the other hand, no party other than his was invited to this one. I do not have an answer to this one.

INEFFICIENT FIGHT AGAINST TRAFFICKING WILL WORSEN US-ARMENIA RELATIONS Pan Armenian News 18.06.2005 02:54 /PanARMENIAN.Net/ The US State Department 5th Annual Report on fighting trafficking included Armenia in the second group of states in a special list of control of struggle against trafficking, as the country did not manage to provide enough proof of efficiency of fight against human trafficking. It was stated by Ambassador John Miller, the Director of the US State Department's Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons in the course of an interactive press conference organized at the US Embassy in Yerevan. In his words, Armenia adopted a national program of actions for fighting trafficking, however there is no sufficient proof that the program is being implemented. Specifically, there is no evidence that the law on trafficking was applied to those guilty. Moreover, all sanctions were either conditional or much milder than those provided for the crime. As noted by the report, only 1 out of the 16 accused was sentenced in compliance with the article 132 (anti-trafficking), the remaining 15 were indicted for pimping, which provides for milder punishment. Mr. Miller said there are reports that representatives of the Office of Public Prosecutor of Armenia and frontier guards are involved in human trafficking. "We hope the Government of Armenia will make every effort to prove the contrary," he said. As noted by Jennifer Strong Tamli, the person responsible for the report on Armenia, there is no concrete evidence that representatives of law-enforcement bodies are also involved. In his turn J. Miller said, "I would be surprised if any of the persons present here had not known about it." In his words, another report (a current one) will be published in 2006. However, he hoped that when the final report is ready next June Armenia will move from the special control list to the second group that includes countries with progress in combating human trafficking. "Otherwise, the consequences will tell on the US-Armenia relations," Miller said. "The US is ready to work with Armenia, where a serious problem of trafficking is available, as it is a source country," he said. In Miller's words, the UAE and Turkey are the basic destination countries of Armenian women and children. "The phenomenon is present in any country irrespective of the degree of development, however the US pays much attention to trafficking, as slavery has left its trace in the US history," Miller emphasized.

RA GOVERNMENT SUPPORTS TRAFFICKING A1plus | 21:23:03 | 17-06-2005 | Social | "Armenia is a source country from where women and girls are trafficked mainly to the Arabian Emirates and Turkey with the aim of sexual exploitation", said US State secretary chief advisor, head of the Human Trafficking Combat and Monitoring office, Ambassador John Miller during today's interactive TV-press conference organized by the US Embassy to Armenia. According to Mr. Miller, the basis of the office report were the calculations of the UN according to which in the Arabian Emirates and Turkey there are about 1000 Armenian prostitutes. The majority of them are victims of trafficking. By the way, According to the calculations of the Armenian Investigating Journalists Association President Edik Baghdasaryan, in the Arabian Emirates and Turkey there are not 1000 but about 5000 Armenian prostitutes. Mr. Miller was greatly surprised by the facts and demanded proof on what was said. According to the report of the US State secretary chief advisor, The problem of trafficking is so serious in Armenia that is has been included in the special control list, "The RA Government did not represent sufficient proof that the efforts directed to the combat against trafficking have been enhanced. The Government has not carries out investigation of the Prosecution which was accused of supporting the traffickers. The Prosecution bodies have supported those organizing trafficking, and the border-guards, taking bribes, have secured the free transportation abroad." Stating that the RA Government does not fully correspond to the criteria combating trafficking, Mr. Miller mentioned that in our country the punishments for this kind of deeds are too mild. Besides accusations, John Miller was not able to represent names of victims of trafficking or clear-cut cases, but he tried to explain the difference between those who take up prostitution on their own initiative and the victims of trafficking. Try as he did, we did not manage to find out the proportion of the trafficking victims in the number of one thousand prostitutes. In the end we asked Mr. Miller how much money was spent by the office to prepare the report without any facts and full of accusations. "Hundreds of thousands. 8 people worked on the report", answered Mr. Miller.

Baron xmbapet, hachord anqam Hayastan ayceles ne anshushd bid bsagvim. I badiv qun aycelutean...Dun miayn esse erb guqas...

Agheg em, baron qlxavor hramanadar. Ancnagan harc me guzeq tal? Hrameceg xndrem...

What is that? "Convict" is a title for generations to come. Don't you know that?

Damn, never noticed that ...

A drunk cowboy on his drunk horse rides into a bar, shoots the drunk barman, picks up the first drunk "lady" and rides away

TMNT, in that case our state was fabricated by Russians.

Nope. Warm wine is something an Estonian guy tought me. You put a little bit of mint (mexaki serm) in wine and warm it up a little bit. If the weather is chilly it is perfect! Try it, you won't regret. I am sure Armat knows this. Actually, after drinking it I started to treat my lap-top like a girl

Sip, taking into account your special, kind-hearted attention to this subject I think you have a strong urge to get into serious happy trouble

what a pickture perfect day in San Diego today, 75.2F, 24.3C mildest eva breeze and enjoying warm wine in my patio entartaining my Tala (girl)

http://www.uefa.com/fanzone/Polls/Pop_Up.h...&action=RESULTS

It does not mention them because the Assyrian question was never exployted for geopolitical purpose by big power. Or maybe I don't know about it.

TMNT, I don't have energy to take that tiresome and hopeless journey deep into the specifics of Jewish-Palestinian conflict and especially its historical part. Just take a notice that lately each and ever thread ends up being about Jews and everything that surrounds them. Your response was way off topic in the first place. The fact that an article mentions Jews somewhere does not mean that you have to derail the whole discussion.

Armjan, I don't think this is something that guy does not want to experience. Consider where is he from You don't wanna see a happy, cheerful face when he come out of jail, do you?

TMNT, you did not read the article attentively. He is talking about this issue in historical perspective (19th, 20th century). In this context Jews were once a stateless people. Also, he is emphacising the concept of stateless peoples being explaited by superpowers more than anything else in the article.

Gams, you're getting back to this topic on a daily basis now. Are you considering something along the same lines. Like "Bill-e goghtsav Suzy-in"? Remember you're in Huston (TX)

Belmont Citizen-Herald, MA June 16 2005 Jazz from Armenia Thursday, June 16, 2005 Armenian jazz vocalist Datevik Hovanesian and her trio will be performing favorites and some new pieces at the Armenian Library and Museum of America (ALMA) in Watertown on Sunday, June 26 at 7 p.m. An internationally renowned jazz singer, educator, recording artist and arranger, Hovanesian has been called the "First Lady of Jazz" in the former Soviet Union. She has performed in over 30 countries in concert halls, prestigious international jazz festivals, television and radio, master classes and workshops. She also specializes in ethno-jazz music. Her latest CD, "Stage To Stage," is the collection of her live jazz recordings over the years with outstanding musicians, some of the songs combining Armenian folk and jazz. The musicians accompanying Hovanesian are all very well known in the world of jazz: pianist/composer Bob Albanese, bass player Joe Fitzgerald and drummer David Mead. Belmont resident John Baboian, a jazz guitarist and professor at Berklee College of Music in Boston, will join the group as a special guest. This event is organized by Amaras Art Alliance, which will allocate a portion of the proceeds to its Hovanness Badalian Music Fund. Admission price is $20. ALMA is located at 65 Main St., Watertown. For more information call 617-733-7162 or 617-489-5298 (Russian), or visit www.Amarasartalliance.org.

Hindustan Times, India June 16 2005 Stateless peoples pose conundrums for great powers Daniel Schnieder (IANS) New Delhi, June 16, 2005 There are, in this world, 'inconvenient nations'. These peoples - often oppressed and bound by language, culture and sometimes religion - are the unfinished business of modern history. When the wave of nationalism swept the world in the 19th and 20th centuries and the old empires were carved up, these peoples were left stateless. In some cases they were divided up, thrown in with nations that not only didn't share their values or ethnicity but sometimes also sought their annihilation. The list of the inconvenient nations is mostly a familiar one - Jews, Armenians, Kurds and Palestinians in the Middle East. Some are less celebrated - Tibetans and Chechens - and the Taiwanese are relative newcomers to the group. All of these peoples occupy vital pieces of geography. Their frustrated national ambitions create political tinderboxes that could trigger war or deepen existing conflicts. Already some of these conflicts intersect with the global war against Islamic extremism. Others could complicate the coming contest for power between China and the US. Through sheer persistence, some of these peoples have won statehood - modern Israel and Armenia, with the Palestinians on the verge. Even then, the boundaries of these states remain contested and their security at risk. Granting all of these inconvenient nations statehood poses serious challenges to the existing order in the world. For the US, the country most likely to be an ally of change, they pose a particular conundrum. In recent years, President George W. Bush's administration has embraced with great fervour its role as an agent of transformation through the spread of democracy worldwide. Invariably, democratic rights have fed the growth of nationalism. At the same time, the US is the guardian of a status quo that largely serves its interests. Historically, American administrations have resisted demands for change in boundaries that challenge the principle of territorial integrity. Inherently conservative, the US has been uncomfortable with the radical fervour of nationalists unwilling to compromise on their aims. Great powers have always responded schizophrenically to the inconvenient nations. They have manipulated stateless peoples' aspirations for self-rule for their own purposes, but then abandoned them when ambitions for statehood got in the way of larger interests. In the Middle East, the British, French and others used the desires for nationhood of Jews, Armenians, Kurds and Palestinians to pick apart the Ottoman Empire. During and after World War I, in which the Turks sided with Germany, the allies backed independence for most of those peoples to encourage anti-Turkish revolts. As soon as the allies could build their own empires in the region, those promises were betrayed. In East Asia, the Central Intelligence Agency fed arms to Tibetans rebelling in the 1950s against Chinese invasion. But the conquered Tibetans were largely forgotten when the West turned to wooing China. The Taiwanese also have been victims of US fickleness. The US defended Taiwan as a base for the Chinese who lost the struggle against Chinese communists. But when native Taiwanese used democracy in the past decade to assert their desire for a separate identity, Taiwan became an awkward impediment to partnership with Beijing. To understand the passions and persistence of the inconvenient nations, look at "the Armenian question," as it has been known since the 19th century. The Armenians are an ancient Christian people who once were spread from the Russian-controlled Caucasus down into the Ottoman Empire, what is now modern Turkey. During the latter half of the 19th century, the mistreatment of Armenians by the Ottoman Turks became a prominent issue in international politics. Things only got worse when the Young Turks, the architects of modern Turkey, overthrew the Ottoman rulers during World War I. They then carried out what is considered by many to be the first modern genocide, killing and driving out most Armenians from Turkey. Still there was hope for a homeland. Amid the chaos after the Bolshevik revolution, Russian-ruled Armenia, a small part of historical Armenia, declared its independence and received the support of President Woodrow Wilson, the champion of national self-determination. Under a 1920 treaty with the World War I allies, Turkey was compelled to recognise Armenian independence and to cede part of what had been its Armenian-populated areas to the new state. But the Armenians were betrayed when Turkey repudiated the treaty, seized Armenian cities and then made a deal with the invading Russian army which brought Armenia back under the control of the Soviet state. The Soviets, who also claimed to champion self-determination, preserved an Armenian republic within their modern empire. But Stalin, making deals with the Turks, cynically stripped away some Armenian-inhabited territories and placed them under the administration of an Azeri Turkish republic within the Soviet Union. Seven decades later, the Armenians rose to seize back their independence. In 1988, a movement for the return of the Armenian-populated territory of Nagorno-Artsax from the Soviet republic of Azerbaijan signalled the beginning of the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991. The struggle intensified when Armenia won its independence from the Soviet Union and nationalist passions quickly fanned into a white hot heat, drawing Armenians from their scattered diaspora in places such as Beirut, Paris and Los Angeles. In a short but fierce war, Armenians regained control of Artsax, which they hold tightly to this day. Today, the Armenian question simmers quietly. Although Russia and the US support Armenia, both press for the return of Artsax to Azerbaijan and encourage Armenians there to accept autonomy within Azerbaijan. Although the boundary lines of Artsax were the product of Stalin's pen, the great powers insist that they are now inviolable international frontiers, never to be altered. The defence of principle, however, is a convenient cloak for a more basic interest: access to Azerbaijan's rich oil fields. The Kurds next door to the Armenians were also promised statehood out of the rubble of the Ottoman Empire. They too are an ancient people whose common identity stretches back more than 2,000 years. Most of the 20 million Kurds live in a mountainous area straddling Iran, Iraq and Turkey - countries that have all crushed Kurdish nationhood. In the modern era, Kurdish nationalism has been encouraged-and abandoned-by both the US and the Soviet Union. When Washington needed to topple Saddam Hussein, the Kurds regained favour, providing a base for operations against his government. Today, when the US seeks to rebuild Iraq as its own bastion of influence, Kurdish aspirations for separation and self-rule are again inopportune. For the great powers, inconvenient nations are, by their nature, irritating. They are single-minded, often undeterred by those who advise caution or patience. Even as clients, they are hard, if not impossible, to control. There is some hope these days that globalisation will help diminish the authority of nation-states - replacing their influence with multinational corporations and other trans-national entities - and therefore also diminish the inconvenient nations' drive for self-rule. But nationalism is hardly a diminished force. Witness the spiralling tensions between Chinese and Japanese in recent months, fighting and re-fighting issues more than a half-century old. And French and Dutch voters recently rejected a new constitution that would more completely merge those states into a unified Europe. Some in the Bush administration, meanwhile, argued that the spread of democracy also would cool nationalist flames by giving minorities such as the peoples of the inconvenient nations more clout in their current countries. But to the contrary, the more people are free to express their will, the more nationalism seems to gain fervour. Kurds in Iraq vote virtually without exception only for Kurds and are no less determined to eventually be independent of the Arab state. More than other great powers, Americans find the idea of a nation defined by ethnic identity disturbing. As a country built by immigrants, America explicitly rejects any ethnic definition of citizenship. The passions of peoples that seek to separate themselves from others are often seen as irrational, somehow less acceptable than our patriotism. Indeed, Americans are remarkably blind to their own bellicose nationalism, garbed as it is by the assertion of the universality of American ideals and of self-defence against possible attack. "Since most Americans don't realise that they do have a nationalism and that it is so strong, perhaps it does make it more difficult for Americans to appreciate and understand the force of other peoples' nationalism," said Anatol Lieven, author of America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism. History, however, tells us that the inconvenient nations will not go away. No wave of globalisation can sweep their passions into a dusty corner forever. And the desire for freedom will not conveniently stop short of national self-determination.

I guess if anyone proposes a feasable alternative route many and many people will willingly provide money to save that forest.

ROTATION OF ARMENIAN PEACEMAKERS IN IRAQ TO TAKE PLACE IN MIDDLE OF JULY YEREVAN, JUNE 15. ARMINFO. Rotation of Armenian peacemakers in Iraq will take place in the middle of July, Head of General Staff of Armenia's Armed Forces, Colonel-General Mikael Harutyunyan informed journalists today. In his words, he has always communicated with peacemakers in Iraq. "Our fellows serve normally and perform their duties, and the division command is pleased with them. Our peacemakers have excellent relations with local Armenian community", Harutyunyan noted. To note, 46 Armenian servicemen are in Iraq at present, of them 30 drivers, 3 doctors, 10 sappers, 1 communication officer, a platoon commander and an officer performing general command. Harutyunyan also informed that Armenian peacemakers in Kosovo also are honored best references from the direction of command.

Thank you Anoushik jan but I am not worthy of such words.

20 year old Sergey Khachatrian takes the first prize in Queen Elisabethe's International Music Contest in Belgium! http://www.azg.am/IMAGE/200510732.jpg http://www.azg.am/?lang=AM&num=2005061111

No, you will never be able to make fun of money.