alpha

MJ, There used to be a great enthusiasm in Diaspora when Hayastan Hamahaykakan Himnadram was created, and a lot of money was donated to them. They undertook projects of great national significance and have successfully accomplished it. While its true that many Armenians in US Diaspora look at Republic of Armenia as “mythical country”, but their support on individual basis is humongous. Both in government (US Diaspora has provided the necessary expertise in establishing a very successful doctrine of foreign policy in Armenia), and in business world (Hovnanian and Tufekchian are great examples) there have been number of individuals who have contributed greatly to nation building process. My point in my previous post was mainly referring to lack of organized structures to coordinate efforts of Armenian Americans. In contrast to Diaspora in Russia, the Diaspora in US lacks structure and leadership to unite all capable forces. (I can’t come up with a reasonable answer to this) The traditional parties, which have become anachronisms from past failed to evolve into pan-Armenian structures. There used to a lot of enthusiasm in the first couple of years of independence among Diaspora Armenians, but unfortunately the euphoria died very soon. (some of it can be blamed on policies of Ter-Petrossian who in his speech once arrogantly addressed to Diaspora Armenians, “We are going to build this country with or without your help, but when we finish building it then would be too late for you to participate”. Diaspora for them was just a financial resource and nothing else). I meet a lot of Armenians in my professional life who seem eager to participate in nation building process, but there is a lack of uniting body that will gear their efforts in right direction. I look at power and organizational structure of Jewish organizations with great envy and ask myself the question “why can’t we have the same”. It shouldn’t be shocking to you that American Israel Public Affairs Committee ranks 4th in Fortune list of most powerful lobbies in Washington. Recently Congress made president to reluctantly sign a document claiming Jerusalem as a capital of Israel. It takes a step for a journey, so I challenge you, my capable compatriots, to come up with an idea of organizational structure. Let’s move beyond having a Forum (which to me in many ways resembles a little dysfunctional think tank), and put our efforts into creating something that will combine our efforts. Certainly there is no shortage of professionals in Armenian Diaspora of US, there might be only lack of financial resources.

In contrast to wealthy Diaspora in West, Diaspora in Russia is more active both in investing in economy of Armenia and in defending the rights of Armenians living in Russia. I believe this can be mainly attributed to the failure of traditional structures of Western Diasporan organizations, mainly the 3 traditional parties. A lack of credible leader that could serve as a uniting force, like Ara Abrahamyan in Russia, is also a contributing factor to this phenomenon. Union of Armenians of Russia has been a staunch defender of the rights of Armenians in Russia, and has actively lobbied in Russian parliament for it. Their influence in Russia in many respects is synonymous to the influence of Jewish lobby in United States. While the Diaspora in West has a great potential of giving Armenia a competitive advantage in the region, it has failed to adapt to changed reality after the Cold War and independence. Many members of this Forum have mentioned about inevitability of assimilation of Armenian Diaspora into host culture. I strongly believe that creation of effective structures will not only delay this process, but might even prevent it (an example of Jewish Diaspora should serve an inspiration for us). As members of Diaspora how do you envision the most effective organizational structures to be? Many will claim that “Hayastan” Hamahaykakan Himnadram can serve a structure uniting all capable individuals, but up until now it has served as a channel to transfer funds. UNION OF ARMENIANS OF RUSSIA CONSIDERING 70 PROGRAMS CONNECTED WITH ARMENIA AND ARTSAKH YEREVAN, September 25 (Noyan Tapan). Seventy programs connected with Armenia and Artsakh are currently under the consideration of the Union of Armenians of Russia (UAR). Among them, in particular, are the program for the operation of the Gyumri glass works with local raw materials and the program for the construction of small hydros. Vice President of the Union of Armenians of Russia Vladimir Aghayan said this at his September 25 news conference. The news conference was devoted to the arrangements within the framework of the UAR days in Armenia and Artsakh to be held on October 9-13. Aghayan pointed out that besides the investments programs the UAR is going to make investments in the development of the social sphere and education. Thus, for example, the program for computerization of schools in Yerevan, as well as in the provinces of Armenia and Stepanakert is already being implemented. A complex program for the development of borderline territories of Armenia is ready too. As part of the social program, 123 families of refugees and azatamartiks (freedom fighters) will be provided with dwellings, etc. As part of the arrangements, the UAR delegtaion will also visit Stepanakert taking a cargo of humantiarian aid there. © Copyright 2001, Noyan Tapan News Agency. All Rights Reserved, All reproduction prohibited.

The fact that NY Times has an Israeli and Jewish bias is undeniable. Even though NY Times has a readership that goes beyond the boundaries of Tri-State area, yet it remains primarily a NYC newspaper. Considering the fact that Jews compose a significant percentage of population it shouldn’t surprise you the Jewish bias of NY Times. Every metropolitan newspaper has a little tilted bias toward an ethnic group that is represented in greater numbers in a given region. Those of you who follow LA Times for many years should have noticed that it has a little Armenian bias. In 92-93 during the peak of Artsax war, while Washington Post was calling the actions advancing Armenian army as “occupation of Azerbaijani lands”, LA Times was interpreting it as “liberating of Armenian territories”. In addition it shouldn’t come to surprise that Jews have a significant role in shaping public opinion in US, by having controlling role in major news organizations and NGOs. That is one of the reasons why Israel gets disproportionately more media coverage. No other country gets as much front-page news coverage as Israel. After all the size of that country is only the size of Maryland. I praise Jewish intellectuals for achieving to such prominent roles that enables them to have a significant impact on shaping public opinion in the only remaining superpower. We, Armenians, have a lot to learn from them. The following article that appeared in today’s NY Times is an interesting perspective on an Israeli bias of the above-mentioned newspaper. Web Site Fuels Debate on Campus Anti-Semitism By TAMAR LEWIN Web site started last week by a pro-Israel research and policy group, citing eight professors and 14 universities for their views on Palestinian rights or political Islam, has opened a new chapter in a growing debate over campus anti-Semitism. In a show of solidarity with those named on the Web site, nearly 100 outraged professors nationwide — Jews and non-Jews, English professors and Middle East specialists — have responded to the site by asking to be added to the list. The Web site, Campus Watch (www.campus-watch.org), with "dossiers" on individuals and institutions and requests for further submissions, is a project of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, whose director, Daniel Pipes, has long argued that Americans have not paid sufficient attention to the dangers of political Islam. The professors who were named include two from Columbia, Hamid Dabashi and Joseph Massad, and one each from Berkeley, Georgetown, Northeastern, the University of Michigan, the State University of New York at Binghamton and the University of Chicago. Those named have differing interests, and differing academic status: John Esposito of Georgetown, for example, is interested primarily in political Islam, and considered a leading scholar in the field, whereas some others are young professors known mostly for criticizing Israel. The appearance of the Web site, just a day after Harvard's president, Lawrence H. Summers, made a widely publicized speech on campus anti-Semitism, is another indication of the tensions on campuses over the developments in the Middle East. Some of those who asked to be added to the site said they were showing solidarity in opposing what they see as an assault on academic freedom. Others were more interested in showing that mainstream Middle Eastern scholars shared the views criticized on the Web site. Mr. Pipes said the Web site was no threat to free speech. "We're engaged in a battle over ideas," he said. "To bring in this notion of academic freedom is nonsense. No one is interfering with their right to say anything they want." The response from Judith Butler, a comparative literature professor at Berkeley, circulated on the Internet, providing boilerplate for many other professors: "I have recently learned that your organization is compiling dossiers on professors at U.S. academic institutions who oppose the Israeli occupation and its brutality, actively support Palestinian rights of self-determination as well as a more informed and intelligent view of Islam than is currently represented in the U.S. media. I would be enormously honored to be counted among those who actively hold these positions and would like to be included in the list of those who are struggling for justice." Those named on the site said they were heartened by the support. "It's a new genre springing up, and I'm especially glad that it includes Jewish scholars," said Professor Dabashi, who heads Columbia's department of Middle Eastern and Asian language and cultures. "This is about McCarthyism, freedom of expression. It's very important that it not be made into a Jewish-Muslim kind of thing. I am most concerned for my Jewish students, that they might feel that they shouldn't take my class, that the atmosphere would be intimidating, or that they couldn't express their opinions." He and others named on the site have been deluged with negative e-mails. Many academics see Campus Watch as an effort to chill free speech about the Middle East, and are particularly perturbed by the "Keep Us Informed" section, inviting the submission of "reports on Middle East-related scholarship, lectures, classes, demonstrations and other activities" — in other words, they say, inviting students to turn in their professors. "It's that whole mode of terror by association, with the cold war language of dossiers, and we're watching you," said Ammiel Alcalay, a Hebrew professor at Queens College. "It's not so intimidating for people like me, with tenure, but it makes graduate students and untenured professors very nervous, and makes it even harder to talk about Israel." Mr. Pipes said he had hoped the Web site would inspire new dialogue on Middle Eastern policy. "We weren't trying to rile people," he said. "For me, `dossier' was just a French word for file. Maybe that word could be changed, if it is obscuring our argument, which is that Middle Eastern studies at most universities present only one interpretation, a left-leaning one that offers only groupthink on the subject of terrorism and intolerance." He said the site was getting 3,500 hits a day, and had received hundreds of negative responses, including about 88 from academics asking to be added to the list — a reaction he took as further evidence that the field of Middle Eastern studies is monopolized by one viewpoint. Many academics say that Campus Watch has added to a sense that those in the field of Middle East studies are under siege. "Last year, Martin Kramer wrote a book arguing against federal funding for Middle Eastern studies in universities, and that scared people," said Lisa Anderson, dean of Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs, and soon to be head of the Middle East Studies Association. "Daniel Pipes and Martin Kramer are part of the same group. Meanwhile, there's concern that the rhetoric around the Arab-Israel conflict is becoming increasingly associated with anti-Semitic sentiments, and that's scaring people too." The universities on the Campus Watch site include Harvard, Columbia, Stanford, New York University and Berkeley, and others less prominent, where Middle Eastern tensions have erupted, including Concordia College in Montreal, where a recent fracas forced the cancellation of a speech by former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.

This is an interesting topic that in some respect touches upon the points raised by MJ. http://dardz.virtualave.net/29/29_2.htm

Rubo, Allow me to disagree with your statement that “This phenomenon was prevalent during Soviet times in Armenia since the system stifled human creativity to take initiative. Everything was government’s fault. After the independence this attitude still is present among our people. Not a week passes before I read another story about the government didn’t do this or that.” First and foremost if you had lived in Soviet Armenia you’d know that it was the most entrepreneurial part of the Soviet Union. There were even private business enterprises under the name of state ownership. It’s not a secret that salaries in Soviet Union were low and it was virtually impossible to live on salary. The term “koxmnaki yekamut” was a common occurrence. I’d argue the opposite that under the Soviet system many Armenians were pushed to take initiative and find other ways to supplement their income. You also forget the fact that besides the harsh economic reality there are other factors that need to be considered. Let’s look back at not so distant history. These people, whom you call reactive, are the ones that gathered in front of Opera House in 1988 and demanded reunification of Artsax with Armenia. These were the people that stood up in front of Soviet tanks when they were entering Yerevan. These are the people, Mr. Diaspora Armenian, who first time in the last 1,000 years of Armenian history have fought and won the war. Even teenagers are proactive in Armenia since many Armenian kids learned to become electricians in 1992-93, when they were getting electricity from nearby hospitals or places that had few hours of electricity. However times have changed. Many feel deceived and have no energy to fight the injustices. They have endured cold winters and loss of wealth accumulated for many years. They are just tired of fighting. The reason why people blame state is because state structures are corrupt. In 1996 they have tried to fight the corrupt structures and elected Vazgen Manukyan. They have stormed the building of National Assembly trying to change the system. However, the mini coup was not successful and people again felt silenced and deceived. You can’t blame these people for being tired to fight the system. They have been through too many ordeals.

Armenian Architecture is one of the most interesting subjects to do research on. Personally I have been interested in Armenian Architecture for many years, and my library has some impressive collections about the topic. It’s true you can’t find a lot of information about the subject in web, but if you live in Southern California region Glendale Library should have some great books about the subject. If you need any more info about the subject send me a personal message I will try to help you. Most of the books available about Armenian Architecture are either in Armenian or Russian. Here is the list that might be helpful. “Haykakan Tchartarapetutyan Patmutyun” by Varazdat Harutyunyan published by Luys in 1992 in Yerevan. “Armyanskie Portali” by Shmavon Azatyan published by “Sovetakan Grokh” in 1987 in Yerevan “Haykakan Renessanci Tchartarapetutyun@” by Hrayr Isabekyan published by “Hayastan” in 1990 in Yerevan “Lori – Patmutyan Karakert Ejer@” by Garnik Shakhkyan published by “Hayastan” in 1986 in Yerevan “Documents of Armenian Archtecture – Sanahin” by O. Kh. Ghalpaktchian and Adriano Alpago-Novello published by “Edizioni Ares” in 1980 in Milan At the end the words of a great Russian poet Gogol came to my mind, “Tchartarapetutyun@ nuynpes ashkharhi taregrutyunn e. Na khosum e ayn jamanak erb lrum en yev verger@ yev avandutyunner@”

Finally the energy sector has been privatized, but as the example of leading industrial countries shows privatization will not solve the problem. State shouldn't just get rid of a burden by simply transfering the assets to some other entity. Getting rid of a sector that's a financial drain on state budget, yet is the pillar of country's development will only increase the problems. If the management of the entity has long history of successfully managing electricity sector, than the country can trust management of such a vital sector, but if it's an offshore company with shady connections than its nothing but a crime against state. The article in today’s NY Times portrays the result of privatization in Britain. It clearly did not the energy woes of Great Britain. The changes should be structural not simply transfer of ownership. British Reopening the Debate Over Privatization By SUZANNE KAPNER ONDON, Aug. 28 — Sizable losses by one of Britain's largest nuclear power companies have reopened debate here over the limits of privatization. The company, British Energy, is the latest example of the problems Britain has had with its privatization program. Facing declining energy prices and tough regulations, British Energy has lost millions in the last two years. Last October, the Railtrack Group, which owns the nation's railroad tracks, signals and stations, was declared insolvent and effectively renationalized through a public-private partnership. In addition, the former air traffic control monopoly has struggled since it was privatized last year. In the 1980's, under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Britain started turning state-owned entities into private companies, often by selling shares to the public. Private business, the thinking went, would be more efficient than the government at running businesses and providing services, and opening industries to competition seemed like the ideal way to pass savings on to consumers. Analysts say that for the most part, that thinking holds true. They maintain that most of Britain's privatized industries — ranging from telecommunications to coal and steel — have worked. But they also say that the recent trouble underscores important lessons that will serve as a bellwether not just for Britain, but for other European countries in the process of privatizing their industries. "We've learned that not everything is right for privatization," said Philip Collins, director of the Social Market Foundation, a research institute here. For British Energy, which was privatized in 1996 and produces 20 percent of the country's electricity, the limits came largely in the form of regulation that put nuclear generating companies at a disadvantage to other energy producers. Nuclear plant owners are required to pay a share of a climate control tax intended to limit carbon dioxide emissions, even though they do not produce the gas. And they also pay higher rates on property leases than fossil-fuel plants do. British Energy has been lobbying for exemption from the tax and for revised property rates, which if changed could result in savings of £100 million (about $154 million) a year, analysts said. Partly as a result of these restrictions, British Energy is losing money at its eight plants in Britain. Over all, the company lost £39 million ($59.9 million) in the most recent fiscal year, after losses of £23 million the year before. The financial situation took on fresh urgency this week, when the company shut down two reactors in Scotland after problems with gas circulators were discovered. Two other plants in England are closed for scheduled maintenance. The total cost of the shutdowns could approach £80 million, the company said, though insurance will probably pay some of it. Such losses are unsustainable, analysts said, especially if British Energy is to put away enough money to shoulder the cost, estimated at £14 billion over the next 15 years, of taking older plants off line. The problems at British Energy come amid a broad review of the nation's energy policy. Although electricity prices initially fell sharply, recent results have been mixed. A report by Credit Suisse First Boston estimates that since 2000, wholesale electricity prices, the prices at which British Energy sells its power, have dropped 36 percent, yet domestic retail prices remain flat — a poor scorecard for a free-market system that is supposed to benefit consumers. Advocates of privatization said there was typically a lag between changes in wholesale and retail prices. But even free-market advocates agreed that the government would probably have to act if British Energy was to remain solvent. Analysts said renationalizing the company would be an embarrassment, particularly after the Railtrack debacle. But there are less direct ways the government can help. One option is to transfer some reactor contracts from another company, British Nuclear Fuels, to British Energy, bolstering its revenue. The two companies said they were discussing such a proposal. But if wholesale electricity prices remain low, additional steps may be needed. "It's almost inconceivable that the government would let British Energy go into receivership," Roger Reynolds of Credit Suisse First Boston said. Eamonn Butler, director of the Adam Smith Institute, said that for free-market advocates, the solution is to limit politicians' involvement. But for others, issues of free markets are inextricable from matters of social justice. "Whose responsibility is it when a commercial company doesn't provide for things that are socially necessary in the public realm?" Mr. Collins of the Social Market Foundation asked. "Where there are public goods at stake, a private market on its own hasn't delivered." He and others suggest that the solution lies in public-private partnerships, like the model being tested with the railway system. In such a case, the company remains private, but the money it earns is put back into the services it provides. The Railtrack model is being scrutinized, analysts said, by Germany and the Netherlands, both of which are restructuring their rail systems. Still, there is no guarantee that joint ownership will work, Mr. Collins said, mainly because it removes a pillar of free-market efficiency — "the threat of bankruptcy."

I guess I don’t have a moral right to have an opinion about this topic, since I am one of the deserters of the army, however I have strong opinions about it. First and foremost whoever has been in army garrisons of Armenian army will testify that it’s a complete disaster. The “dedavshina” system inherited from Soviet Army has prospered and reached new heights. The military policeman are acting like real thugs and instead of reinforcing laws they are engaged in bullying new recruits and demanding some kind of monetary payout The food and living facilities are below any standard. Most young people that get out of there have some kind of stomach disease. The fundamental problems of Armenian army are derived from lack of professionals among Generals and under funding. If there was a way to implement a system where a person can pay his way out of the army it should also be taken into consideration. I think the fee should not be astronomical number like $10,000 but something in the vicinity of $2-3,000. Everyone who wants to avoid serving in the army should pay as much as it takes to maintain decent living conditions for 2 army recruits in the army. If the amount is too high it will simply increase already high level of corruption. The system of pardoning deserters should be done very carefully in order not to promote such activity. I know I might sound like a hypocrite, but people like me who have deserted the army should be derived of Armenian citizenship. It will alienate many people and will push them to obtain a citizenship of a country they fled to, but it’s one of the fundamental requirements of being a citizen of Armenia, participate in defending its borders and security. Although it’s the most organized army in former Soviet Union, but it has a long way to go to reach western standards. I think Armenian army can be modeled based on the example of Israeli Army, where the smartest ones are recruited and gone through special training. It’s a great privilege and an honor to serve in the elite unit of Israeli army (synonymous to getting into an Ivy League school in US). They get great technical skills.

I don’t know what are the credentials of Mr. Aivazian, but his articles are very far from being considered relevant by serious political circles. First of all I do not agree with his assessment of the following, “We should now consider the strategic thinking of the immediate parties to this conf1ict (IPCs), Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabagh, and Turkey, and compare it to the thinking of the Minsk Group (MG). The term strategic thinking refers here to the calculations and prognoses of the parties to the conf1ict about the long-term threats to their national security and ensuing long-term priorities of their foreign policies. Historical-chronological approach IPCs -the conf1ict has a century-old history and will continue after the Minsk Group plan is implemented. MG -the conf1ict started in 1988 and will finish with the implementation of the proposed peace plan. Territorial approach IPCs -the conflict is about the entire territory of Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as that of eastern Turkey. MG -the conflict is limited to Nagorno-Karabagh and the adjacent territories. Security guarantees Armenia and Artsax -security guarantees are needed for both Nagorno-Karabagh and Armenia, in particular, Siunik. Azerbaijan and Turkey -security guarantees are needed for Nakhichevan. MG -security guarantees are needed for Nagorno-Karabagh.” First and foremost Turkey is not a part of a conflicting sides. It is merely a regional power interested in solving the conflict, similar to Russia and Iran. It has its strategic interests and just like any other country has actively pursued it. Mr. Aivazian’s assessment of Armenia as a wedge between Turkophone people and his ideas of Pan-Turkism is completely out of touch with modern political reality. Modern Turkey aspires to become part of European Community and sees its future in the West not in East. At times it seems like Turkey wants to burn its past an reinvent itself as a European power. There is a great internal struggle going on in Turkey in the last 50 years, between pro Western technocrats who live mainly in more industrialized Western Turkey and nationalist religious traditionalists who exert a great power in Eastern regions of the country. The same internal struggle is existent in Armenian political spectrum, between nationalists (Dashnaks and their supporters) and liberals (HHSH, Republican and Peoples parties just to name a few). Armenian nationalists hold the well being of people living in Republic of Armenia captive to their nationalistic ideas. Nationalists are sponsored by so called “azgaserner” who live in warm and cozy corners of the world. It’s not the children of these sponsors who’d go to war if their nationalistic agenda fails, and it’s not their well being that’s been threatened. Ter Petrossian’s doctrine of keeping Diaspora out of Armenian politics in the long run would’ve served the well being of people living in Armenia. If people of Armenian descent have nostalgic feelings toward Armenia and want to make it economically stronger and powerful, they are more than welcome to invest in the economy and create mutually beneficial trade relationships. However they should not have any say in how the government is run unless they relocate there and become citizens of Republic of Armenia. It’s partly a blame of these nationalistic circles that Nagorno Artsax conflict has lasted for so long. Mr. Aivazian calls for a compromise solution to Artsax conflict, but at the same time calls for its independence. What’s the compromise that Azeri side gets from this? They are not getting anything, but loss of territories of Republic of Azerbaijan. International community will not endorse separatism and tolerate change of borders in Caucasus region. It needs cohesive and peaceful existence of three Caucasian states in order to safely transport energy and other resources from Central Asia. Mr. Aivazian calls for military pact with United States and Russia as a guarantee for the safety of Artsax. Why would US and Russia agree to this? First and foremost Russia will not agree to share power with US in the region. Second of all US will avoid being directly involved in the region and will try to implement its policies through its close NATO ally, Turkey. He writes about safety of Armenia through alliances with countries that merely have secondary interests in our region. (Remember what happened in WW I when Russian forces were pulled). Safety and peaceful existence of Armenia can continue only when Armenia develops normal relations with all its neighbors. In order to do that we need to drop our nationalistic agenda and stop using history (in case of Turkey), or Armenian minority (in case of Georgia and Azerbaijan) to gain leverage in our relations with our neighbors. If Turkey succeeds in its efforts to become a member of EU, than we can have a EU member neighbor and a great economic partner. It’s to the benefit of all parties of the region to cooperate. As to the problem of Nagorno-Artsax, wide autonomy within Azerbaijan that satisfy both sides. I think my previous posting was clear about how I envision the Nagorno Artsax Autonomous Republic to be.

MosJan isk du Dqi Norik@in andzamb chanachel es. On moi rodstvennik.

I thought the topic of discussion was the possible solution of Artsax problem, which has been hampering the normal development of our Republic. Aren’t there any views on this topic that are worth a discussion?

The stalled peace process doesn’t benefit either of conflicting sides. It hinders foreign direct investment, impeding economic development of both countries. The only people that benefit from the statues quo, not peace nor war, are the defense ministry officials in both countries, because disproportionately high amount of GDP is allocated to them. Furthermore the status quo has enabled them to take under their control the most profitable sectors of the economy and to shield them from foreign competition by increasing the risks of doing business in the region. If the current trends continue Armenia will be deprived from it’s most valuable asset, human capital. The most able and talented ones have and are leaving the country in the hopes of better life. The people of Republic of Armenia have endured a lot of difficulties in the last 10 years and deserve to live in a prosperous and developing country. Why should they carry the burden of nationalistic agenda of Diaspora. The nationalistic agenda has never brought anything positive to any country. In the recent history we saw how it has caused a breakup and devastation of the most prosperous country of the Eastern Block, Yugoslavia. If we look back in Armenian history, the loss of the independence of the First Republic can also be attributed to nationalism. Instead of minimizing their claims and establishing normal relations with its neighbors the Dashnak government went to war in three fronts. The result was loss of half of the territory of Republic, Kars, Surmalu, and Artsax. Had they been more realistic in their assessment of the world order they could have averted some of the losses. We must learn from history, but sadly we don’t. Armenian side should take into consideration the prevalent mood of the current world order, which promotes territorial integrity of states, unless the breakup is done in a peaceful and mutually acceptable ways for both sides (like Czechoslovakia, or Soviet Union). The international community will not tolerate change of borders in the name of self-determination. Separatism is not tolerated in the current world order. Wilson’s idea of self-determination and his 14 points have caused enough havoc in the past 85 years and we don’t want to continue talking about them. Let’s get back to the roots of our “national movement”. Why did we go to Opera Square in ’88. Was it for territorial gains or for the improvement of lives of Artsaxi Armenians? We need to face the fact that we are given 29 thousand sq. km of land and we need to make that land as prosperous as we can. We also need to take example from other countries. Hungarian minority of Romania is a perfect example of how the mother country can help its ethnic brethren in neighboring country. Hungarians living in Transylvania are allowed to visit Hungary and get their education for free in Hungarian universities. They also successfully maintain their cultural activities in Transylvania. Would they want to be a part of more prosperous Hungary, sure they would. Has there been an injustice done to them. Of course it has been. However they don’t risk the prosperity of Hungarians in Hungary and launch a separatist movement. The solution of the current problem I see in demilitarization of the conflict region. Artsax becomes a part of Azerbaijan with very high level of autonomy. It becomes a federal subject of Azerbaijan, but the Artsaxi laws should take dominance over Azerbaijani ones in the territory of Artsax. The laws violating the constitution of Azerbaijan can be contested by Azeri Mejlis, and be revised by reaching a compromise with Artsaxi Azgayin Khorhurd. The borders of Artsaxi Autonomous Republic should include the current borders of Artsax, and occupying territories, excluding Aghdam and Fizuli. The Azeri refugees should be able to return to their homes on limited basis. The ethnic balance of the newly formed federal republic should be maintained. The president of the republic should be elected from the Armenian community of the Republic and the Vice-President from the Azeri. The Parliament of the republic should have 51 representatives from Armenian community and 50 from Azeri. Armenia should serve as a guarantor of the security of Artsax, similar to Turkey being the guarantor for the security of Nakhichevan. Artsaxi Armenians should be able to have a dual citizenship of Armenia and Azerbaijan. The residents of both communities should have the right to do trade with Armenia and Azerbaijan without paying any import-export fees. This will help to rebuild the economy. Artsaxi Armenians should also agree to disband their armed forces and should only be permitted to have militia (similar to Palestinian militia units). If both sides compromise this conflict is very much solvable. Its just there is not much political will in both countries.

Sip, allow me to disagree with you about your assessment of books. They are not only means of transforming information, but also they help shape people’s analytical skills about various topics. Books enrich your vocabulary and improve ones communication skills. The only way I preserve my knowledge of Russian is reading Russian literature, so in a way I can attest from my own example that books help in shaping ones communication skills. Plus reading is not only confined to books. I am a big news junkie and consumer of magazines. You can learn a lot by reading reputable and interesting magazines. I am sure you have flipped through National Geographic. Don’t you think it gives a lot more than watching Discovery Channel or History Channel?

I guess the Lincy Foundation can become the first Armenian Venture Capital Fund. It has the necessary capital and connections for that. The link below from Aravot.am discusses some of the shortcomings associated with banking sector of Armenia. This link is in Armenian so you have to use Armenian fonts so you can read it. http://www.aravot.am/2001/aravot_arm/Novem...mber/24/u02.htm [ November 26, 2001: Message edited by: alpha ]

My humble input for the geek show The available capital after tax cuts will not lead to investments by corporations, since in this ailing economy the risk is not justified by projected returns. Fed is lowering the cost of credit, but it’s not working because there are not many people who want to buy credit. Current slowdown has been caused by rosy expectations and glut of inventory. I think there has been over extrapolation of demand which has caused major inventory glut. As inventory starts to clear the warehouses, that’s what the latest reports show, the true survivors will emerge, and failing companies like Xerox or Lucent, which have major liquidity problems will become major targets of acquisitions. In some ways it’s good for the long run because it will get rid of the inefficient part of the economy. Consumer confidence will increase if consumer debt decreases. You can not ask American consumer to spend when unemployment is lingering, it’s burdened by debt and faith in future is not bright. The investment will be stimulated by giving money not to corporations, but to people who will spend the money and will create demand for goods and services. The cost of credit is so low right now that if there is a viable project out there the available capital will not be a major hindering factor. It’s natural that stock market has declined, because the fixed costs such as insurance and security cost, has dramatically increased. These are not value added expenses that corporations undertake, therefore will increase the cost of their products and services. This directly impacts their cash flows and thus their stock prices. The goal should not be “high stock prices” we had that in late 90’s, but stock prices that accurately reflect discounted cash flows.

Do you think it's a feasible idea to have an Armenian Venture Capital Fund, similar to Jerusalem Venture Capital Fund based in New York. I believe introduction of western investment banking culture and venture capitalism will help in promoting growth in Armenia. There are a lot of people who are interested in investing in Armenia and they just need a vehicle that will gear their money toward profitable investment projects. "Hayastan" fund does some part of it, but it's a non-profit organization and does not have a lot of expertise in choosing viable business investments. Instead of having individual investors like Hovnanian, Tufekjian or Krikorian invest in various projects, consolidating their activities will result in better efficiency. It will also be an affective tool to fight bureacracy and corruption that has been rampant in the country.

Original Section 907 Title IX: Other Provisions - Amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to remove Czechoslovakia, Estonia, East Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Albania, Bulgaria, Poland, Yugoslavia, Romania, and the Soviet Union from the list of Communist countries to which assistance is prohibited. Makes a provision of the Federal criminal code that prescribes penalties for financial transactions with foreign governments in default on obligations to the United States inapplicable with respect to obligations of the former Soviet Union. Amends the SEED Act of 1989 to authorize the President to conduct SEED activities in any East European country similar to those being conducted in Hungary and Poland (with specified exceptions). Authorizes the President to furnish administration of justice assistance to East European countries under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Includes Albania, Bulgaria, the Czech and Slovak Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and states that were once part of Yugoslavia in the definition of "East European countries" for purposes of the SEED Act. Amends the Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 1990 to extend certain provisions granting refugee status or permanent residence to nationals of the independent states, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Prohibits U.S. assistance under this Act (other than title V) or any other Act to the Government of Azerbaijan until the President reports to the Congress that such government is taking steps to cease all blockades and uses of force against Armenia and Nagorno-Artsax. AMDT.2686 AMENDS: S.2532 SPONSOR: Sen Kerry, (introduced 07/02/92) Conditioning aid to Azerbaijan on that country's demonstrated steps to end blockades and other offensive actions against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabach. TEXT OF AMENDMENT: CR S9862 STATUS: Jul 2, 92 Proposed by Senator Pell for Senator Kerry. Jul 2, 92 Amendment SP 2686 agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.

The Newly passed amendement To amend the FREEDOM Support Act to authorize the President to waive the restriction of assistance for Azerbaijan if the President determines that it is in the national security interest... (Introduced in the Senate) S 1521 IS 107th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 1521 To amend the FREEDOM Support Act to authorize the President to waive the restriction of assistance for Azerbaijan if the President determines that it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES October 9, 2001 Mr. BROWNBACK introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A BILL To amend the FREEDOM Support Act to authorize the President to waive the restriction of assistance for Azerbaijan if the President determines that it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. WAIVER OF RESTRICTION ON ASSISTANCE TO AZERBAIJAN. Section 907 of the FREEDOM Support Act (Public Law 102-511; 22 U.S.C. 5812 note) is amended-- (1) by striking `United States' and inserting `(a) RESTRICTION- United States'; and (2) by adding at the end the following: `( WAIVER- The President is authorized to waive the restriction in subsection (a) if the President determines that it is in the national security interest of the United States to do so.

Armenia has changed a lot in the last couple of years, and I wouldn’t say towards better. You might see many restaurants and cafes and a lot of changes on the streets. There are more tourists in the center of the city than natives. However the country is decaying slowly, but surely. It is living through moral collapse. The number of prostitutes is probably greater in Yerevan that in Los Angeles, and they are in every corner. It’s so funny you can see drugstore, whorehouse (bardak), church next to each other in practically every corner (by the way there is some logical connection to this three). By the way every criminal with connections to state apparatus (xoroshi goxakan) now has a church build next to his house (tsaxik Rubo in Davitashen, Dodi Gago in Sevan highway on the way out of Yerevan, and the list goes on and on) I think the number of churches is an indication of the following statement, “we couldn’t make it in this lifetime so we hope things are better in afterlife” The center of city is full of strip clubs. If you have been in Tijuana it reminds a lot of Revolution Avenue in TJ. The smart and capable ones want to leave Armenia. The people are very confused and earning a living is extremely difficult. Trust me if US embassy wanted they can empty Armenia in a month (by granting tourist visas). Economic hardship is one thing, but moral decay is just shocking to me. It’s my city and I love it dearly, but seeing it in this dreadful condition is just heart breaking. But you know what, foreigners won’t notice those changes, and only the ones to whom that city is so dear can silently weep and remember the glorious days of “Gisherayin Yerevan”.

MJ, I agree with you with some points, but allow me to have my reservations on others. I will try to answer to you in classical MJ style – point by point. 1. I think at the time when the 907 was brought together it might've been a positive political statement, however it has outlived itself; Why has it outlived itself? The blockade of Armenia from East and West is still continuing? The point of Prop. 907 was lifting the blockade. 2. From the pragmatic and practical perspective it has been an empty declaration - it has never been enforced, and there have been enough loopholes in the resolution for the executive branch to go around it with a great easy, which has always been done; It’s true that there are enough loopholes in Prop 907 for executive branch to go through it, but it’s better to have something in place even with many loopholes than nothing at all. If it’s just an empty statement than why is government so anxious to get rid of it. Empty statements do not get as much attention as Prop. 907 is getting. Obviously there must be something more to it. 3. From the moral and humanitarian perspective it has been a totally bankrupt resolution in view of the sufferings of the Azeri refugees living in tents, giving birth in rail carriages, growing children in inhumane conditions, etc, at least since the establishment of the ceasefire; The suffering of Azeri refugees has nothing to do with Prop. 907. It’s a direct result of ineptness of Azeri government. They make their people suffer for propaganda reasons. While Azeri refugees are living in tents and Azeri government is not letting them settle in other areas of the country, Armenia has helped Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan in assisting them in finding housing, although most of them chose to immigrate to Krasnodar and Stavropol. 4. From the perspective of the future Armeno-Azeri relations it promises only more hate continuing from generations to generations, which is nothing for Armenia or Karabagh to be happy about; I don’t understand how does Prop. 907 solve the issue of historic hatred. Only economic development will solve this issue. Unless the blockade is lifted there can be no economic development of Caucasus. So in other words Prop. 907 is a mechanism to force Azeri government to lift the blockade and stop hindering the economic development of Caucasus. 5. From the PR perspective it has been a total disaster for Armenians; How? How is Prop. 907 a disaster. In contrary it’s a victory for Armenian lobby and amongst senators who are undecided on this issue can show how powerful is Armenian lobby, thus making them think twice before voting. 6. From the political perspective it has been totally meaningless measure; Will you please elaborate on this. I don’t understand how can something be meaningless if it gets so much attention. Meaningless matters are ignored by State Department, not actively lobbied. 9. From the point of view of the American politics it has been a very harmful thing for it to appear as an even-handed moderator, and has limited the American influence on Azerbaijan around he negotiations table (not that the role of Russia and France has not been diminished for other reasons). American influence on Azerbaijan is enormous. It just made Azeris become more pro American than Texans are (I hope you understand the metaphor). It’s not like they have another choice. Their support comes from Turkey, and Turkey is financed by US. Since the collapse of Turkish economy the relations of Azerbaijan and Russia have improved. Why? Because Turkey became a less reliable partner.

Recently a lot has been talked about abolishing Proposition 907, which prohibits direct governmental aid to Azerbaijan unless it lifts the blockade on Armenia. While the limitations of this proposition are obvious (it hinders development of Caucasus), yet it provides leverage to Armenian side in negotiations with Azerbaijan. With Prop 907 on place the negotiations are not simply between Republic of Armenia and Republic of Azerbaijan, but more like between Armenians and Republic of Azerbaijan. It’s an indication of power of Armenian Diaspora, with which Azerbaijan should encounter. Naturally the famous quote of a poet comes to mind, “Ov hye joghovurd ko prkutyun@, ko miasnakan uji mej e”. Prop 907 is a show of a “Miasnakan Uj”. Just like in business in politics also it matters a great deal who you know and who is supporting you. In this case Armenian Diasporan organizations who are supported by powerful individuals and organizations are a major force in shaping the policy of a superpower in the Caucasus region. Armenian Assembly is an organization that can modify its stance to accommodate American interests, while promoting Armenian interests. Recently it has admitted that it won’t stand on the way of lifting Prop 907 if some preconditions are met. Being an organization which realistically assesses current situation I salute their move, and hope that ANCA will join them too. ANCA – supported by Dashnaks should take an example from Armenian Assembly and realistically assess current world politics. What’s your stance on Prop. 907, and role of Armenian lobbying on this matter? Do you think their activities have been successful?

It’s quiet disappointing to have a diplomat with Armenian heritage to head an institute (Baker Institute) that promotes policies that promote the agenda of our archenemy, Azerbaijan. One of recommendations of Baker Institute is the following: Increased multilateral efforts to promote conflict resolution on the status of the territory of Naborno-Artsax should be pursued. Greater efforts should be made to implement arms control agreements in the region, and financial levers should be utilized to discourage a renewal of hostilities.The repeal of Section 907 of the U.S. Freedom Support Act which limits U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan should be considered as an inducement to Baku in return for cooperation in conflict resolution negotiations with Armenia. At the same time, Armenia should be encouraged to enter into meaningful negotiations with Azerbaijan to resolve the Naborno-Artsax issue peacefully. It’s understandable that he is an American diplomat and should first of all defend the interests of US; however there are examples among American diplomats, notably Kissinger, who tried to bring together the interests of the country he represents and the country of his forefathers. He would have earned more respect amongst his compatriots if he had a more pro-Armenian stance. The examples of Armenian diplomats in Russia, Andranik Migranyan or Arsen Chilingarov, show that pro-Armenianism can earn political dividends.

It seems like the heated privatization process of energy networks in Armenia is entering it's final stage. Instead of considering econimic factors the not so competent government of Armenia is giving in to Russian pressure and is inclined to sell the energy networks to UES, a Russian company which is almost bankrupt. That company doesn't even have audited financial statements. During the era of multinational corporations the government is not taking into consideration the expertise of the bidder and financial statements, but the country where it's located. Do you think the privatization of energy network will lead to another debacle like the privatization of Armentel did? What's a possible solution for such a vital sector of economy that is in dire need of investment? Here is an article from AZG ARMENIA GIVES IN TO RUSSIAN PRESSURE The Russian ITERA group announcement to suspend supplies of Russian natural gas to Armenia was not unexpected. Similar announcements had been made in the past as well, especially at the beginning of the year, when the first international tender for privatization of four energy distributor networks was nearing the final stage and at the end of March the Armenian government was supposed to announce the winner, one of the three competing companies, either US AES Silk Road, Swiss-Sweden ABB or Spanish Union Fenosa. The Russian ITERA, which was also bidding for the networks, was dropped out of the tender at that very stage, which prompted several parties- the Communists, the People's Party of Armenia and some other minor ones to start staging rallies to demand cancellation of the decision to sell off the networks. As there was already the precedent, it was not difficult this time to predict what has caused the ITERA to once again remind that Russia, the main supplier of both nuclear fuel and gas for energy generation, was the dominant force in the Armenian energy sector. The news about suspension of gas deliveries was dismissed, gas inflow has not been completely cut, but its volumes are being gradually decreased. Russia seems to have reached the desired impression and influence, making the Armenian government to clear way for another Russian company, RAO UES to be eligible to bid for the networks. Now a notorious parliament member Arshak Sadoyan and the leader of pro-Russian Democratic Party Aram Sargisian (not to be confused with former prime minister) will not be criticizing the authorities for selling out the networks. Now Mr. Sadoyan must feel quite satisfied as out of all the bidders, only the Russian company has remained and there is virtually no doubt that it will take hold of the networks, as the AES Silk Road and ABB have officially notified the government about their decision to pull out and the Union Fenosa is most likely to also withdraw from the tender. The ongoing privatization process has proved that the Western companies are not excited by the Armenian networks, and second, the Armenian authorities, for a recurrent time, have given a political solution to a purely economic issue, which, however, was not easy to avoid. It was becoming clear, event at the start of the year, that the issue of the networks' sale, was going to develop from an economic issue in a global strategic one. The government then found itself in a dubious position. On the one side, the Russian factor and huge, $117 million debt, accrued in the last ten years and on the other side, the pressure coming from the World Bank, USAID and the European Bank for Reconstruction an d Development (EBRD). The first two have been acting in the role of main advisors to the government, having secured significant sums of money and staffers, the EBRD was planning to purchase 20 percent of shares. The World Bank was the most persistent of the three, putting forward its preconditions that the tender should be open and transparent, that it should become "an exemplary" one to attract other foreign investors. The World Bank also made disbursement of the last, the so-called "floating" $20 million tranche of the SAC-4 credit conditional on the networks' privatization. Now the Bank continues keeping silent, which looks like disappointment. As regards the economic efficiency of the deal, the authorities explained that the sale would reduce huge losses, something near $40-$50 million a year in the sector, which are ascribed to outdated equipment and lack of money for its upgrading. Today it is not difficult to suppose that handing the networks over to Russia, in which 75 percent of shares still belong to the state, will rather become a deal to cover Armenia's debt to Russia. In any case, the government's behavior provides enough reasons to think that it is tending towards it. To recap, the situation became critical in mid-summer when Russia began insisting on return of energy debts. The issue was formulated very clearly, either the debt or the power grid. The question actually got its solution during Russian Putin's visit to Armenia in mid-September. Privatization of the networks reminds the sale of Armentel to Greek state-owned OTE which used to say that taking over Armenia's outdated telephone network for $142 million was rather a political move than an economic one to demonstrate Armenian-Greek friendship. There is no need to remind what was the outcome and how dear it cost Armenia. By Gayane Mukoyan

MJ I thought we post on this board for serious discussions not name calling. Why do you think you are so omniscient and others should just bow down to your views? Offending people who are trying to make reasonable arguments will not facilitate constructive debates. I have noticed in the last few days that you took the initiative of offending Azat and Anshnork? May I ask why? Can we go back to constructive debates just like we did a few months ago? This kind of cheap name calling is one of the reasons that so many people have quit posting. Please don’t do that. By the way have you ever been wrong? If you have than have you ever admitted that your views might not be so correct?

MJ, will you please specify what do you mean by "the environmentalism in its current form belongs to the category of Religion". I thought environmentalism is about clean air and preservation of natural habitat.