MJ

http://www.ftenergyusa.com/images/fte_logo.gif GasDaily May 29, 2001 Bingaman previews bipartisan tone as committee chairman Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., who is expected to become chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee next week, provided a glimpse Friday of his legislative agenda after he is handed the gavel. And the outlook may not be all that different than what many had predicted with Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, at the helm. Aside from the issue of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, not much separates the two senators. The spotlight turned to Bingaman last week after Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont announced that he was departing the Republican Party to adopt the political label of independent. Upon Jeffords’ exit from the party, the Democrats will control the Senate, 50-49. In a conference call Friday sponsored by Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, Bingaman, who was first elected to the Senate in 1982, said he plans to press forward with energy legislation, although he said it would not make sense to rush legislation that would affect policy for the next 20 years. “If we can get agreement to do so, I hope we can move ahead on energy legislation here this summer and maybe over the period of the fall as well because there’s a lot of different issues that should be addressed,” he said. In March, Bingaman and other Democrats authored the bill, Energy Security Tax Incentive Act of 2001, which has a number of similarities to the Bush administration’s proposal released last week (GD 5/18). A senior economist on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Shirley Naff, assured analysts at Deutsche Banc that Bingaman will adopt a bipartisan tone as chairman. “I think there is an impression that there’s going to be some dramatic change in approach to energy policy and I don’t think that’s correct,” Naff said. “Sen. Bingaman has always had the view that energy policy is not partisan and he will proceed in a very bipartisan fashion to address the various issues before the energy committee.” Naff also sought to dispel news stories that electricity price caps in California would be on the top of Bingaman’s agenda. “I think there have been press reports that the senator is a proponent of price caps to address the California situation,” she said. “I think we need to clarify that.” While the federal government should address the “out-of-control” wholesale power prices, Bingaman would only support temporary measures to help the markets function better, the staffer said. “That does not mean that there’s any suggestion of re-regulation, certainly not on Sen. Bingaman’s part,” Naff explained. “But he does feel strongly that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should be enforcing the current law, which requires just and reasonable prices at the wholesale level. This issue is of serious importance from an economic standpoint for that entire region. So we’re hoping that with the two new FERC commissioners … that the FERC will move to establish some rational order in the wholesale market and reduce pressure for legislation.” Naff disputed the perception that Bingaman is not a strong advocate of market-based solutions for energy issues. “For anyone who followed the [electricity] restructuring debate in the Senate last year, it was pretty clear he was actually more pro-market than Sen. Murkowski,” she said. In answering questions during the conference call, though, Bingaman somewhat contradicted Naff’s assertion that he was not a supporter of price caps. “The Federal Power Act … does require the [FERC] to ensure that rates for wholesale power are just and reasonable. It’s clear to me they have not been just and reasonable in California in recent weeks and months,” Bingaman said. “The [FERC] has the responsibility to step in and deal with that situation. They can do so to the extent that they impose limits on what can be charged.” In order to encourage power plant development in the state, he said FERC can impose rates of return at a high enough level that anyone who is investing in a power plant or anyone who owns a power plant is ensured a very good rate of return. “I don’t think we’re suggesting that the caps be unreasonably low and we’re not suggesting that they be at such a level that they would discourage investment in additional capacity.” Bingaman noted that the only legislation currently pending that would apply a legislative remedy is a bill sponsored by Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Gordon Smith, R-Ore., that would order FERC to impose either a cost-based or a regionwide price limit on electricity sold in the western United States. “Clearly, this is a fast-changing situation. We should not be writing into law any kind of price cap. I do think we should be calling on FERC, though, to carry out its responsibilities under the law. FERC is much better able to step in and take action on a temporary basis and then change that action when circumstances require. We have two new FERC commissioners … I am very optimistic that they will step up to this responsibility and that we will not wind up having to pass any additional legislation.” As for other energy issues, Naff said Bingaman remains a major supporter of oil and gas development. “There have been various reports that have suggested that when Sen. Bingaman becomes chairman of the committee that he will be opposed to any oil and gas development in Alaska. That’s very much not the case.” She said Bingaman’s stance against drilling in ANWR is a position shared by a majority in Congress. “He does very much support moving forward to construct a natural gas pipeline to develop the Arctic gas from the North Slope and, in fact, was instrumental in getting the environmental community to come on board and be constructive in that process,” Naff said. “He stands ready to quickly address whatever needs to be done as far as changes in the law or permitting issues that we can help streamline the construction of that pipeline.” Bingaman mentioned the explosion on El Paso Natural Gas in his home state last year that killed 12 people and applauded the gas industry’s response to the disaster and its willingness to make pipeline safety a high priority. “That’s a place where some of the industry representatives have worked with us to find a solution to that. More can be done both by the government and by industry to find a solution.” Regarding global climate change policy, he said the United States should work hard toward reaching some conclusions. He was pleased with Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham’s testimony before the committee last Thursday in which Abraham said the White House has set up a task force to begin looking at the climate change issue. Abraham predicted the task force would formulate a position on climate change in a month or two. The senator said he was a firm supporter of the benefits of nuclear power, which currently generates about 20% of the country’s electricity. “I think the question as to whether we build additional nuclear power plants is an economic question and companies are going to have to make that judgment based on the economic environment they find themselves in,” he said. “But I have no problem with nuclear power. … I am confident we can produce nuclear power safely and that’s an option we need to look at very seriously.” Copyright © 2000

The French Open has started yesterday. Agasi has won the first game against Johannson.

I thought you lived in Armenia, when the Karabagh war has started and the USSR lived his break-down. I did. There were years of chaos in Armenia, but also in every soviet republic. Russian governments were changing as far as physician's change their gloves. Azeris in Nakhichevan destroyed kilometers of Turkish and Iranian border. I remember all that. In fact, I think the destruction of the Soviet borders in Nakhichevan played very well into our hands. Good that they did it. Turkey had many times concentrated its army around the border. That’s what the borders are for. There were incidents of Turkish rockets come close to Yerevan. Of course, Turkish government explained this by "military exercises", "protection of border". In some cases that was true. But that's the official line. I remember the incident. These things should not be taken out of their proportions. They happen everywhere and all the time. They are called ‘border incidents.” I'm not going into the details to bring the day by day chronique between 1989-1991. No need to. I can do it myself. But these were the hard years. USSR was breaking into pieces, and the situation was disastrous. When I'm talking about Turkey's aggression in Cyprus. I meant NATO and UN, of course. Turkey ignored its NATO partners and UN resolutions as well. Tell me about it. And who doesn’t neglect the UN resolutions? I won't define UN as only "a moral court". UN has security structures as well. Not efficient but it has. Yes, last time I checked their structures, indeed there seemed to be security structure in it, too, other than the structures providing its employees with free car parking in the center of New York. After all, I don't see why Greece should be blamed in provoking Turkey. Secondly, I don't see why Turkey got caught by provokes. It is not an excuse. By the way it's Turkey occupying the North of Cyprus, not Greece. I didn’t say Greece, right. I think I said the Greeks. Though, if politically accurate, I should’ve said the Government of Cyprus. But those were not innocent provocation right? Those were actions of the type that Azeris had committed in Baku against Armenians. Do you feel that if Armenia was in position of Turkey, it would’ve necessarily behaved differently? On your question "Do you think Turkey is really interested in the Karabagh issue?" I'd say, why not. Turkey's ambitions go further than Karabagh. Somehow, I don’t see that. I liked when recently Georgians and Azeri accused Armenian diplomacy in paranoia. Because Georgia and Turkey were holding military negotiations. What did you like about it? I'd prefer honestly to be accused in paranoia and prevent any military syndicalism, than seating around and watching "world events". I think I should also stop watching the “world events.” Though you seem kinda dude, calm relaxed about Armenia. Like if Armenia was 300 miles from the US border. What should I do? Panic? But I am not relaxed. Unfortunately, I am much disturbed – as if I live in Armenia. I also think that dealing with the everyday troubles of Armenia requires more than “kazhdodnevnaia mishinaia voznia.” These troubles have to be dealt on a large-scale basis, and the solutions should be searched outside the traditional mentality, since our traditional mentality is a recipe for more troubles. America was left already once to hold dialogues with Iran. And one of such dilogues ended-up by "Irangate scandale". How about the Russian scandals? Should one also be concerned about not leaving Russia alone with Armenia? What should we expect from Russia? Do you have any good expectations? I won't be as positive as you are about US position in the region. With the arrival of Bush, one can say there won't be any position at all. I'm not surprised that this idiot got the power in this country, with the level of education that dominates in the US. There will be some more Bushes I guess. For whatever reasons, I see the US position in the region being more positive than it has ever been. Why is it that you think that Bush is an idiot, and I don’t see it? Is it his lack of arrogance, and his simple speech that make him such an easy target? I proudly can report that I have voted for that ‘idiot’ and have been satisfied with his level of education – Bachelors degree from Yale, and MBA from Harvard. I am also very satisfied with his conduct in the office, and his performance so far, and am hopeful for more of his accomplishments. I also think very highly of the education level of Americans, if by that we don’t mean erudition. America is the cutting edge country as far as the technological revolution is concerned, or as far as the advances of the medical, biological and other sciences are concerned. America sets the tone of renovations and rationalism in the world. America is the country, which pushes forward the frontiers of human knowledge and drags along the rest of the world. It is a strong, prosperous and capable country ahead of every other country, pretty much in every significant aspect of life, business and economy. It is the leading economy of the world. All this has become possible with the “uneducated” people that it has, and its “idiot” presidents throughout history. It is the only, perhaps, leading country in the world, that has not practiced colonialism and imperialism, and has not plundered some other nation’s wealth. It is the locomotive that pulls the rest of the world. No wonder that others dislike it… But we could make a comparative analysis, if we need to… BTW, your education level doesn't seem to be 'american'. I feel some foreign influences in it. You are right. In fact, it is an alien influence, shaped by an extra-terrestrial civilization. P.S. Naira, sorry about the format of my answers. Given my time restrictions, today, this was the best I could come with. [ May 29, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Don’t forget that the context of Turkish invasion of Cyprus was provided by the Greeks, themselves. It was quite real – not made out by the Turks. And so that there are no unilateral decisions in our region, we do need collective security structures. What international organizations were you referring to in your posting? The UN? If yes, it is not a security structure, but rather a moral court or place to chat. Do you think Turkey is really interested in the Karabagh issue? And if the security structures I recommend were in place, first, Armenia and Azerbaijan would not go to war over Karabagh, and second, Turkey would not unilaterally intervene. I don’t see when was the Turkish invasion of Armenia going to happen. Do you have any serious evidence for it? Don’t be defensive about your position. I enjoy talking to you. But I don’t particularly mind the presence of Russian Army in Armenia. Under a proper model, I see no problem with it. I just don’t want Armenia to build its foreign policy paradigm based on that assumption. I do agree with you about the zones of interest. But things are changing fundamentally in our region for few reasons: 1. Russia is not what it used to be; 2. Iran is changing (very slowly, though); 3. The transportations of oil, and more importantly of natural gas, is having profound impact on revisiting the issue of the importance of our region in the eyes of West. I doubt that he old mentality of “zones of influence” may serve the region, and those (not) interested in the region for long time. Things would be sooner or later redrawn (I don't mean necessarily geographically). [ May 28, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

May I suggest you to read my posting, again, Dragon?

The dreamer I am …, Naira. But you have misunderstood me. I believe neither in the “coolness” of our neighbors nor in Russia’s role on the capacity of Armenia’s Guardian Angel. But I do believe in achieving stability through parity. The danger always exists when one of the sides achieves disproportionate influence in a particular region, which is of interest to others, too. And guess what – that is the road of Armenia to misery, and it always has been. Additionally, a dialog between Armenian and Turkish authorities exist. Sure, there are no tangible results, and it is very slow. In my view, that pace depends on the progress of the dialog between America and Iran. This is the axis around which the geopolitical transformation of our region will take place, if any. Additionally, it is not Armenia who might pronounce the realization of what I have been hinting on. Armenia may just “host” the structure of parity, and promote it through its political activism. It is up to the regional and International powers to realize it. As to the vitality of the issue of security – sure, it is vital for all countries of the region. As to USA-Mexico, I am sure that you know that USA has kicked out a lot of territories from Mexico, however they have civilized relationship, and in some ways, Mexico is taking back these territories. And, ss a matter of fact, the Turkish-Armenian issue is not fragile, contrary to Greek-Turkish issue, and the other issues you have mentioned. It is rather darn dead. The fragility assumes delicate balance. There is no balance, whatsoever, in Armenian-Turkish relations. In fact there is nothing other than irrational and artificial tension for internal reasons. I don’t exclude a possibility of Turkish aggression, however you have not provided me (I have asked for it) with a context for that potential aggression. However, what I am suggesting is not so much about thinking what do we do when that aggression takes place, but how to eliminate the pretext and the possibility of the aggression, in the first place. Let this be my illusion, but I don’t see anything that Armenia has to gain from becoming a supermilitarized base of other states, whose interests don’t necessarily coincide (at least not to a substantial degree) with our own, and who would as always, create tension, and dump us in the middle of it anytime their interests may dictate it. And I would prefer having illusions myself than feeding the nation with illusions, according to which some big uncle-foreign-state is going to serve as Armenia’s Guardian Angle. That illusion has resulted in millions of innocent Armenian lives throughout the last four centuries. Maybe it is enough?

I don't doubt a minute, if Baku will feel itself a bit in the right 'plate' it will organize a huge offensive. I also don’t doubt it. But I am confident that, if need to be, we can deal with it without any external assistance. We have done it a couple of times in history, at least. If you mean collective security structures with Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran (closest neighbors). It's impossible! At least for now. See below. In fact, I meant broader collective security pact. The one that you mentioned is not a security, at all, in my view. I also think that we should not confine ourselves in the parameters of what seems a possibility right now. So that things become possible in the future, we may need to plant the seeds today. It is not a defensive act from Turkey it is a condition imposed by Turkey for peaceful cohabitation. But not for staging aggression against us, but what in their view, however erroneous it may be, to protect their territorial integrity from whatever threats. Do you imagine, Turkey or Iran demilitarizing. Even if it will be Russia, asked by Armenia, to make these proposals. Do you really believe in it? No, I don’t believe in it. But no militarization can benefit Armenia, anyway. In fact the militarization of Armenia would mean Armenia without Armenians. But I believe that a more profound and balanced multilateral parity may be established in the region based on the principle of complimentarity and serving everybody’s interests. And I believe that, under proper circumstances, Armenia may be the base and the model-state of new collective security and stability in the region-in-large.

You lost me there, Anthony...

a significant chunk of its territory is under Armenian control Isn't this a reason for a reclamation or aggression? But from their perspective it is not called aggression, is it? Turkey demands Armenia as well to drop down Genocide recognition question. Isn't it a reclamation. No, in fact it is more of a defensive act from their side. Military agreements we need as never! Instead of building a Church for commemoration 1700 years of Christianity it could be a good deal to buy some more tanks and arms. Good girl! I would sound like a pro-militarist. I'm not afraid of that. One thing is essential for me. The way Armenia is protected. I don't think that Armenia is military capable to stand serious aggression. Therefore, we need new (collective) security structures, don’t we? I underline again, the possibility of aggression will always for Armenia. This region is very unstable. We don't know either what can happen to Iran, if once it will get shaken by political changes. Therefore, we have to do whatever possible to stabilize the region, and not to depend on Iran’s or somebody else’s domestic makeup. Armenia is situated in a very shaky environment. It should pay lots of attention to its protection. Sure, but how? By militarizing itself or trying to demilitarizing the region? I think the superpowers do indeed want tranquility in our region. That's logic. They can't say we want the war continue. At the same time they have closed eyes on terrestrial blockades of Armenia. Let’s find extra-terrestrial openings, then.

Yes, Naira, it is not easy, but, nevertheless, that’s our best strategy. Nothing is easy for us, therefore we should give up on the desire of finding easy solutions, I think. I am not quite sure about the military preferences you hint on. It would be better not to have any military preferences, or if we have to have, than to allow military bases of NATO-Russia-Iran on the Armenian terrain, which would provide the region with a new mechanism of implementation of collective regional security. As to the economy, in economy “money talks.” In this sense, what does Russia have to offer to Armenia? Contrary to your statements, I think the superpowers do indeed want tranquility in our region. It is the dominance of one or another power that introduces irritations and concerns in the other side, and as a result, “Shepki letiat, kogda les rubiat.” Therefore, some new models of regional security may be possible, and very beneficial for all. What are Armenia’s ambitions? May be that’s where some adjustments have to be made? And maybe than, the complimentarity may become a very real possibility? BTW, who has reclamations against Armenia? Azerbaijan has other problems on its plate, before it may think of aggression. If anything, it is absurd for them to talk “aggression,” since a significant chunk of its territory is under Armenian control. Additionally, aggressions have context. What would the context of the Turkish aggression against Armenia be, you think? Dear Naira, let me turn the table around, and ask: who will not allow Armenia to follow the line of diversification of its preferences? Russia? To the contrary what you claim about the underground springs and the games the Armenian government plays, I think that game is very transparent. And yes, there were Armenian Bolsheviks. Armenians are frequently more Catholic than the Pope. That has been one of our major problems throughout history. But there has never been a “red revolution” in Armenia. There has been only “red demoralization” of Armenia, and a “red invasion” of Armenia under very complicated circumstances. It was not a typo. It was my objective position resulted from my assessment of our history, and the dismissal of the made-up clichés. [ May 28, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

I just want to remind everybody that the testimonial passage subject to interpretations doesn't say "Yearni Surb Hogov Akhkatnerin."

Naira, It is not quite accurate that Turkey has not recognized the state of Armenia. It has. It has refrained from establishing diplomatic relationship, however. Additionally, the claim of Kocharian on not having territorial claims towards Turkey has no implications on the expectations of the Armenian Statehood regarding the recognition of the Armenian Genocide. Approximately half of the population of Armenia (I have no precise statistics for supporting the exact proportion) is of the survivors of the Genocide. Regarding te lands ... One of our great Western Armenian satirics of the late 19th and early 20th century, Hakob Baronyan, has writen something like this: "They say Turks are going to give our lands back. I am also giving them back. If you can - come and take it."

Dear fellow compatriots, Today is the day of the declaration of the Independence of our First Republic. Its historic significance is remarkable. That declaration has manifested realization of the centuries old dream of generations of Armenians, and has made possible the existence of today's Armenia. In my view, it is the most significant day in the history of Armenia. Congratulations to all!

Naira, I assume you meant to address your reply to me (Martin), not to Berj. Nice try, I should say, but let me disagree with you, please. From the times of Turkemenchai treaty and on, the Armenian experience with Russia has been one of a disappointment. True, it was Armenians’ initiative to bring Russians to the region, however, for the purpose of liberating Armenia, not for the purpose of replacing one yoke with another. How smart of politicians our ancestors have been is a different story, but the fact remains that Armenia didn’t obtain the promised or expected sovereignty with the help of the Russians. As to the importance of the economic ties, given that the economy of Armenia has collapsed, I guess one can downplay that issue, too, in our days. As far as protecting Armenia from aggression is concerned, I am inclined to take that comment with a little bit of humor. In fact, much of the hostility towards Armenia is motivated by it political proximity to Russia. It is hard for me to see Azerbaijan as an aggressor against Armenia for the time being, at least. This was a common mentality/psychology in the past, but the subsequent events have come to show that this type of mentality is taken way out of proportions. I think this assertion is evident, and can be supported by the current status quo. As to Turkey, it is a more complicated issue – one that requires a lot of new thinking, in my view. And Turkey’s alliance with NATO is very beneficial for Armenia, I think. After taking these two facts (as well as some others) into consideration and making a preliminary analysis, putting aside my personal preferences, my objective conclusion on this issue is that Armenia has to conduct policy of complimentarity and balance in the region. Not being a major power, it has to have a very flexible foreign policy, it should not repeat the mistakes of the past, and has to tend to become facilitator of regional collaboration, peace and stability. Who is Armenia's more important partner among major world powers? My answer is no one and everyone. Anyone with whom Armenia may share common interests in one or another area. In the cultural domain it may be one country, in the economic domain it may be another one. I don’t think it is absurd to blame Russia for its share of the Armenia Genocide. It is just a simple fact that they have abandoned Armenians helplessly in the eastern provinces of Anatolia. They could’ve done better then that. They could’ve at least helped the local population to defend itself what was to be obvious from the subsequent repercussions of the Ottomans. But their answers to the Armenian please were “We don’t have time.” They have clearly understood the destiny of these Armenians. Not much of partnership, is it? And I agree that Russia was in the middle of major cataclysms during the WWI, as you mention. But with the same token, Turkey was in the middle if such cataclysms, too. It is also incorrect, i think, to claim that Bolsheviks have never been for strong and independent Armenia. In fact, in 1919 they have been for it, under a certain scenario. But the Armenian government has not been able to play its cards. But let me ask you: Was the Russian Empire for strong and Independent Armenia? As far as Karabagh is concerned, Lenin and other Bolsheviks have not done anything different than what the Russian Empire has done – as a matter of fact, the Karabagh problem has been created by the Russian Empire, among others. The Bolsheviks have just continued the policy of the Russian Empire in Caucasus. You say “As the matter of fact, Russia was pulled into a long-lasting bloody civil war, where Russians suffered as well under Bolshevik totalitarianism.” This sounds very much unison with the Turkish dismissals of the Armenian Genocide, according to which there was a civil was, and Muslims like Christians have suffered in it. In fact, the numbers of suffered Muslims is greater than those of Christians... It is hard not to mix Bolsheviks with the Russians, as much as some may want to prevent it, and as much as I understand, perhaps, the pretext of your advice. Socialism/communism and the revolutionary movements were characteristic to the entire Europe at the time. In fact, these movements have started in Germany and France. For quite some time, it has been believed that these movements may be materialized first in Germany – something that even the books of the History of CPSS have taught us. However, subsequently it has been recognized that it has much greater chances in the most backward country of Europe, where the nationalism has been rampant, and its territorial-imperialistic structure has been most vulnerable to such revolutions due to the compact residence of national minorities on the terrain of their ancestral homeland. While socialism and communism were indeed not Russian phenomena, its Bolshevistic form of manifestation was purely Russian phenomenon, and what came to rule for decades was a purely Russian form of totalitarianism. As a matter of fact, the Bolshevism has been the remedy of the Russian Empire to preserve its dominance on the same traditional domain. The history of the victory of the Bolsheviks, under the circumstances when they were in reality an absolute minority in Russia, and the embracing of the Bolshevik rule by the old Czarist Guard of the Russian Empire has one explanation only – the Russian nationalists came to understand that the Bolshevism was the only way to preserve, moreover, to strengthen their empire. Be gentle with me, please. [ May 28, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Dear Naira, Let me first remind you the renowned statement of General-Governor Golitsin of Caucasus of the time: “We need Armenia without Armenians.” As to never abandoning Armenia, the Genocide of Armenia in the Eastern provinces of Anatolia has resulted from the abandonment of the Armenians by the Russians. There are very telling eyewitness accounts about this. It is true that Russia has been the primary party assisting Armenia in launching the Nuclear power station, contrary to the opposition of USA. However, primarily, that assistance has been manifested through providing Armenia with a line of credit to purchase nuclear fuel from Russia, i.e. the loans that are being given to Armenia for the purpose of functioning the nuclear plant are used to pay Russia to purchase fuel, and plus, Armenia makes (not very regularly though) interest payments on that loan. What I want to say is it is hard to see the Russian military presence in Armenia as partnership. The partnership is possible only amongst the equal. As to the protectionism, I think it is incorrect to call the party who creates the need to be protected in the first place protectionist, if that party is who has cornered Armenia and deprived her from other alternatives. The logic of Russian protectionism of Armenia reminds me someone killing the parents of a kid, and than adopting the orphan and claiming credit for providing the orphan with living. Don’t forget that the implementation of the Sevres Treaty was sabotaged by Russia, only, and it was Russia who pulled Turkey out of the deep hole and inspired and financed its expedition towards Armenia, meanwhile attacking Armenia from two other fronts – the North and the South of Armenia. Also remember that the problem of Karabagh, as well as the Azeri-Armenian problems by in large, have been created by Russia in the first place. [ May 28, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by Harut: did you notice that many Armenian names (girl names) end in NE: Gayane, Lousine, Marine, Heghine, ......... does this ending mean anything? thanks Yes, "ne" has meant to mean female gender. There has been an attempt by some prominent Armenian poets, such us Teryan, Charents, etc, to introduce "Ne" into Armenian language as the female version of "Na." Clearly, it has failed.

Just bringing the thread to the forefront.

Dear Ruzanna, To the best of my recollection, there is no instance in the Bible suggesting that Mary has had other children after the birth of Jesus. However, the theologians indeed have such opinion. It is very possible that such information is conveyed by one of the non-canonical scriptures.

Apparently, there are two polar approaches in resolving the Armenian-Turkish knot: 1. Armenians drop any claims, whatsoever, and friendship is established; 2. Turks return the historic Armenian lands and pay retribution for the Genocide. The implicit presumption associated with the first solution is that Armenia grows so week, that it drops not only the claims, but also forgets any aspirations. As to the Diaspora – it totally assimilates in a generation or two, and the numbers of those interested in the Armenian Cause become even more negligible. The presumption associated with the second solution are based on a premise that the economic problems of Turkey become so overwhelming, that when accompanied with the external pressure on the grounds of its criminal history, Kurdish “rebellion,” and the current violations of Human Rights, Turkey disintegrates and the enforcement of the Sevres Treaty becomes a renewed possibility. In my view, neither of these “solutions” has serious merit, and are just based on anger or arrogance from one or another side. Both feelings – the anger and the arrogance make both nations pay very high cost, and it benefits neither side. The issue has become a race of survivability qualities – which nation is more survivable. I don’t know who is more survivable, but the history shows that Armenians are quite survivable. Those who pursue the resolution of the knot not for the purposes of obtaining emotional satisfaction from the corresponding exclamations would perhaps recognize that there might be a whole host of solutions somewhere in between the two poles mentioned above. Formulation of those middle-of-the-road alternatives, in my view, raises one important question – package deal or a stage-by-stage deal. The package deal requires that the mutual demands be formulated and agreed upon in advance, while the stage-by-stage deal may assume that the deal may be formulated as we go, and meanwhile, we can achieve some small results in improving the mutual relationship. Clearly, the problem at hands is of much larger scale than the one of Karabagh. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that its resolution may involve much greater degree of details, thus making the achievement of any tangible results along the lines of the resolution very torturous and long process. However, I think the principles of the resolution may already be discussed at this stage. The discussion assumes recognition of the problem from both sides – if there is no problem, then there is nothing to resolve. However, as it appears, the recognition, or at least the declaration of the recognition of the problem from the Turkish side has become hostage to the outcome of the resolution. Where does this lead, you think? [ May 28, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

ARMENIA SETS NEW SCHEDULE FOR ENERGY PRIVATIZATION. The Armenian government on 24 May set a deadline of late November 2001 for completion of a new international tender to privatize four state-owned energy distribution networks, RFE/RL's Yerevan bureau reported on 24 May. A previous attempt to sell off those networks ended in failure last month when the last two shortlisted bidders pulled out (see "RFE/RL Newsline," 23 April 2001). Disbursement of the final tranche of a new World Bank $50 million Structural Adjustment Credit is conditional on the successful privatization of the four networks. LF

Turkish Daily News May 25, 2001 ARMENIANS TO BUY UP TURKISH VILLAGES An article in the American press stating that for reasons of economic hardship, 11 villages in Turkey were being sold off has prompted the Armenian lobby to call on Armenians to buy up the villages, the Anatolia news agency reported yesterday. The California Courier newspaper told its Armenian readers, "This is the opportunity the Armenians who had been kicked out of their country in 1915 have been waiting for. Eastern Anatolia and therefore its villages belong to Armenia." The article said the Turkish army had invaded and occupied Armenian territory and that the rightful owners have no choice but to buy up the land as the first step in reclaiming their birthright. The price quoted was $ 14 million. Stating the Turkish government would not allow the sale, the article urged Armenians to get others to buy up the land for them. The Washington Post and New York Times reported the sell-off of 11 villages in the Southeast.

Armenpress: Economic 24 May, 2001 IMF AND WORLD BANK APPROVE LOANS FOR ARMENIA YEREVAN, MAY 24, ARMENPRESS: The Board of Directors of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has approved a strategic program for reduction of poverty volumes in Armenia deciding May 21 to allocate an $87 million worth loan. The loan will be disbursed in three equal tranches in three years to the Central Bank of Armenia which will be directed to the enlargement of state foreign reserves and to the fund for stabilization of prices. Speaking to reporters on Wednesday Armenia's economy and finance minister Vartan Khachatrian said the approval of the loan program was the result of a serious work conducted by the government. The indices of economic progress, particularly, the macroeconomic situation in the recent months, submitted by the government to the IMF were approved and praised. The minister also said that the Board of Directors of the World Bank approved May 22 a $50 million worth SAC-4 loan, which is supposed to be used for improvement of business-friendly environment. This loan will be given for a period of 40 years repayment at 0.75 percent interest rates with a ten years grace period. The World Bank loan is composed of three tranches, the first tranche of $15 million will be received as soon as the loan program is approved by the parliament, the second tranche will be disbursed in September or October and the last, the so-called "floating" tranche of $20 million will be disbursed only after the government's success to privatize energy distributing companies. Hence, Armenia will get a total of $140 million worth loans. The minister said that the negotiations with the IMF and World Bank had concluded and whether these two lending organizations would provide new loans was dependant on Armenia's future economic indices. FINANCE AND ECONOMY MINISTER SATISFIED WITH HIS MINISTRY'S PERFORMANCE ARMENIA ABLE TO REPAY ITS DEBTS TO RUSSIA, MINISTER SAYS IRAN-ARMENIA TRADE VOLUME HITS $1.3 BILLION OVER PAST 10 YEARS WORLD BANK CONSIDERS NEW YORK BUSINESS FORUM TO BE SUCCESSFUL SWITZERLAND HURRIES TO EXTEND HELPING HAND TO ARMENIA INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE ON ARMENIA TO BE HELD IN YEREVAN YEREVAN, MAY 23, ARMENPRESS: An international economic conference, entitled Eurasian Economic Cooperation: Situation and Prospects, Armenia as a Bridge between Eastern Europe and Middle East is to be held in Yerevan June 14-17. The conference's goal is to promote Armenia's economic rehabilitation and development. The conference is being organized by the Armenian government and by the Union of Domestic Producers. Businessmen from around 25 countries, also a 20-member team of Russian law-makers are expected to attend the conference.

Armenian Azeri exiles to proclaim own state - Cuxursaad, Baku paper says Zerkalo 24 May 20 BAKU Text of I. Umudlu report by Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo on 24 May entitled "Second Azeri state?.. It is essential!" Setting up of representative bodies is the first step This is not a new idea. The first such attempt was made in early 1990, but the Goyca-Zangazur Democratic Republic and the Iravan [Yerevan] government-in-exile, proclaimed on the territory of the Azerbaijani Republic, suspended their activities after a short while. At present the problem is again on the agenda and work has started on it. An initiative group for holding a constituent congress of the political representative office-in-exile of the Iravan and Zangazur population held its regular meeting yesterday [23 May]. Yesterday's meeting discussed principles for determining the composition of the consultative board under the future organizing committee. An organizing committee is expected to be formed soon. The legal basis for raising the issue has been drawn up by the centre for strategic research. This is as follows: Azerbaijan is not authorized to resolve the problems of the population of the districts ceded to Armenia until the decision recognizing Iravan as the capital of the Armenian Republic and the decision by the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic to cede Zangazur and other districts to Armenia, are annulled. In their opinion, in line with its constitution Azerbaijan is the successor of the Azerbaijani Democratic Republic [1918-20] which, in turn, is the successor of the Iravan khanate, Kars and Aras-Turkic Republics. The committee-in-exile will list the resources left there, a census of the exiled population and elections for parliament. The parliament will in turn form a government and the proclaimed state will be named Cuxursaad (Western Azerbaijan). The citizenship issue will be resolved later - dual citizenship will be permitted. The next stage is to prove that the Ararat Republic [in northeastern Turkey in 1927-31] and the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic carried out genocide against them [Azeris exiled from Armenia]. An appeal will be sent to the UN, UNESCO and the Hague Tribunal for damages from the Republic of Armenia. There are plans to hold the 1st Congress of deportees from the territory of the so-called Republic of Armenia in December 2001. Some of the initiators believe that although some people see this initiative as romantic and detached from reality, work must be carried out in this direction. Others believe that we are even a bit late with this. We should have thought about this back in 1988. However, the majority believes that it is not too late now.

Iran deploys extra troops on Azeri border to counter NATO, US "threat" - paper Sarq 24 May 01 BAKU Text of E. Sabir report by Azerbaijani newspaper Sarq on 24 May entitled "Iran expects threat from Azerbaijan" "Iran is anxious about the strength of Azerbaijani Navy in the Caspian" Iran recently deployed many military units in southern Azerbaijan [northern Iran] and regions bordering [Republic of ] Azerbaijan. Political analyst Qabil Huseynli believes that the deployment of extra troops is probably connected with Iran's military doctrine or rooted in a military secret. However, if this is about the deployment of extra troops, it means that Iran has decided to increase the number of its military units in southern Azerbaijan within the framework of its military doctrine. This could be connected with both geopolitical factors and internal problems in the country. Iran has often talked about threats from the north. Iran has made an absurd claim that the strength of the Azerbaijani Navy in the Caspian Sea is growing. In addition, Iran has been making statements about the possibility of NATO forces' deployment in South Caucasus. The Iranian regime is quite anxious about the probability of the NATO forces' deployment near its borders. The deployment of extra Iranian forces is not very much connected with internal factors because Iran uses police and gendarmerie to deal with domestic political instability. The deployment of the extra military units in southern Azerbaijan is connected with Iran's new view of the geopolitical situation in the region. It seems that Iran is trying to back its hypothesis about NATO and US threat with extra military units. Finally, one should note that deployment of extra units in regions bordering Azerbaijan, is not a desirable situation for our country.

Artsax NEGOTIATIONS GRIND TO A HALT ON THE GROUND Armenian News Network / Groong May 24, 2001 By Onnik Krikorian YEREVAN, ARMENIA Attempts by international mediators to end the decade-long conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno Karabagh looked less likely to succeed after the three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group toured the region at the weekend. In the seven years since the ceasefire agreement signed in May 1994, neither side has made any appreciable attempt to promote reconciliation between its people. According to Carey Cavanaugh, the US negotiator, the "missing link" in following up reported progress in talks held between Armenian President Robert Kocharian and his Azerbaijani counterpart Heidar Aliyev in Key West last month remains public opinion at home. The latest visit by the American, Russian and French co-chairs illustrated to an accompanying group of foreign journalists the need for lasting peace. After visiting refugees who fled their homes in Aghdam eight years earlier, the delegation crossed into Karabagh from Azerbaijan in an unprecedented move across the frontline. "It was an extraordinary experience of traveling between two worlds," explains Tom de Waal, a British journalist accompanying the delegation and currently writing a book on the Karabagh conflict. "I've spent a lot of time traveling between Karabagh and Azerbaijan, and it has taken days to adjust, but suddenly we were moving between the two in just five minutes." Over the contact line that separates Karabagh from Azerbaijan, the OSCE delegation then toured the now deserted town of Aghdam to show journalists the destruction evident throughout. Despite the intact mosque, Armenians in the disputed enclave have virtually stripped the town bare. Earlier, the OSCE negotiators had attempted to persuade its former inhabitants now living in refugee shelters in Agcebedi, Azerbaijan, that peace would allow them to return, but journalists instead found them unable to forgive and forget. The same message came from encounters with Armenians from Baku and Sumgait now living in Shushi, and in the northern Armenian town of Spitak, the epicenter of the 1988 Earthquake and representative of why peace might be beneficial to the ailing Armenian economy. "There was a particular atmosphere to be found throughout the region," says de Waal. "People were quite emotional and besieged the three co-chairs with their problems. On both sides, they asked the negotiators for compensation, but a lot of contradictory messages were coming from these people." Despite belief that the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents are genuine in their attempts to reach a mutually acceptable solution to the conflict, recent statements from opposition groups in both republics stating that compromise was unacceptable were borne out on the ground. "No one has spoken to people about compromise or friendship," continues de Waal. "Although they want peace, such ideas haven't gone through their minds. They really only want peace on their terms. In Azerbaijan, they want Karabagh returned as well as the occupied territories, while in Armenia, people are unwilling to compromise on its status." However, many observers believe that both countries desperately need peace in order to ensure future economic prosperity, and some even believe that after Aliyev, there is the possibility that war could break out again. In Armenia, lack of investment and high levels of unemployment have resulted in emigration from the country believed to be far in excess of that from other former soviet republics. However, speaking to the Armenian President on Monday, he denied any direct relationship between the conflict and poverty at home. "The conflict has had a negative impact on the economy in the whole region, but poverty exists in Armenia to the same extent as it does elsewhere in the NIS. While the conflict deepens and complicates the issue, emigration is more linked to problems encountered after independence." Even so, there is no doubt that a solution to the conflict would help both republics attract investment. At the recent Armenian Investment Forum in New York, Cavanaugh was present to circumvent concerns that peace might not come to fruition, but few have attempted to explain to people living in Armenia and Azerbaijan that peace and stability might yield positive results for them as well. "The argument that peace and investment will help is correct," says David Stern, an AFP and Financial Times correspondent based in Baku who also accompanied the OSCE co-chairs. "However, I haven't heard anyone say that they need to get this over with. At the moment what they're saying is what we have and what we're being offered hasn't any guarantees. Karabagh or prosperity? What prosperity?" Therefore, if there is still a genuine attempt to find a solution to the conflict, the two Presidents must now attempt to explain why peace is important to their people. "This is a very sensitive issue," says Kocharian. "We do not want people to be disappointed if there is no settlement. If there were nothing in common however, it would be pointless to talk. The most important thing is that peace will benefit all parties to the conflict, and in the final solution, all three sides should agree on compromise. The question is the definition of that compromise, but lets just say that we hope that there won't be too many more meetings before the final one." However, despite the cautious optimism still evident in official circles, that solution still looks far away, and the task of preparing public opinion for mutual compromise will be difficult.