MJ

quote:Originally posted by circassian: Here it comes from all quarters. This really is bordering on ridicule. I guess nobody is really interested in talking. When you are done with your childish accusations about me , when you have alienated me enough from anything to do with armenian , you are going to accuse me of being a denialist. Hmmm , consensus politics , anyone ? Yes, Circassian. Those may be found. But do you have an appropriate mandate from the Turkish Government to build consensus? From our side, we don't have such mandate. All we can do is to discuss and understand the problem, and try to figure out how to go from here. Building a consensus with real implications will be the prerogative of the government. But what we could do with you is, first to recognize the facts. The consensus starts there. So, it is your move.

I think not only your liras, but also everything in your upper compartment is worthless and corrupt. I have seen a lot of cowards in my life, who make big speaches in partisan clubs, but lie on the battlefield pretending dead when it is time to fight. And then, they come to the Internet to "fight a war of words." Nothing more, nothing less, but disgust...

At the end of the day, when the psychopat idiots are gone, normal people of both nations would sit together and figure out things with common sense and rationality. But things cannot come together, if we are denied even our history. After all, that's almost all we are left with.

quote:Originally posted by circassian: Hmmm , so it's settled then . It's now officially acceptable to hate the Turk & to perpetuate a racist indoctrination of young generation of armenians. What a perfect way to treat a human being with a bias & prejudice ; as long long as the people you hate so deeply are Turks , it's all OK and acceptable. p.s Dubya refused to use the G word. So did Clinton & so did Reagan. Even if you have an armenian origin president in the office i doubt very much he/she would easily reverse the situation. Dear Circassian, No, it is not officially acceptable as evidenced by the state policy of the Republic of Armenia. It is not OK to treat Turks with bias and prejudice. As we go, our young people, at least the overwhelming majority of them, will be exposed to a different outlook in life, and they will learn to conduct themselves better. As it concerns to W. or his refusal or none refusal to use the G. word, it doesn't really matter. It doesn't change the facts, nor it has any implications one or another way, other than raising the awareness of the Turkish people. And I agree with you that the American foreign policy doesn't depend on the ethnicity of the president, his partisan affiliation, etc. As you might know, we have had Armenian dynasties on the Bysantian throne, however they have destroyed Armenia, and made possible the Turkish invasion of the region, by the way. In my view, the Genocide is not our problem. Whether the world recognizes it or not, doesn't make much difference (other than psychological) for us. However, it is the problem of the Turkish people and their vehicle for achieving respect for their Human Rights and liberties in Turkey. The recognition and the condemnation of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish public, and I don't care about the Turkish government, is the step that Turkish society has to take for its own sake. So that one can expect that others will respect Turkish people and treat them without prejudice or bias, one has to see that respect coming towards them from their own Turkish government, first. And the Turkish people have to be able to face the darkest chapters of their history, so that to elevate themselves from that heavy burden of their past. To summarize, the road to the liberation of Turkish people passes through the recognition and condemnation of the Genocide of Armenians. P.S. Since in an earlier instance you have been referred to as "Feliz," I would like to ask if you are the Feliz that I have met in another forum few months ago? [ April 26, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Economy ARMENIA FACED WITH DILEMMA A two-year long marathon for the privatization of Armenia's power distributing networks was supposed to come to an end April 19 by disclosing the tender packages, but the government had to put it off until April 23. Instead thousands of people, led by political forces, opposing the privatization, gathered on Thursday in a Yerevan square in another attempt to stop selling off the country's power grid. The rally will continue today in front of the government building. However, there are some concerns over this date as the finale, as this was not the first time when the government had to postpone the tender in two last years. The privatization of networks has turned from an economic question into a geo-political one. No one doubted that some political forces would raise clamor about the networks' privatization. The government aim was to make the deal as transparent as possible and prove its expediency, along with provision of serious economic substantiation. However, until now the government's explanation was the following: "if the networks are not privatized the World Bank will not allocate SAC loans," giving thus reasons for endless speculations. The fresh example of it is prime minister Andranik Margarian's answer to a parliament member Arshak Sadoyan's question during a recent question and answer parliament session. The prime minister restricted himself to the following: " It is not you that have to tell me what I must do, I will decide it myself," which was followed by "you are afraid of giving an explanation to the people." Energy minister Karen Galustian cannot be located either, as he is on constant business trips, but the finance and economy minister turned out to be more available and said last week that " it is illiterate to consider the power distributing networks as having strategic importance." The idea of selling off the networks was actually born in late 1999, when Vazgen Manukian was the prime minister. After a 1999 September visit to Washington where he met with World Bank President James Wolfensohn, he announced several times not only about the necessity of selling off the networks, but also about making changes to several Armenian laws and strengthening the Armenian Development Agency. Actually, privatization of the networks was one of the issues that was supposed to be presented to potential investors at an international conference on Armenia investments, first planned to be held in London, but later transferred to New York for May 10-11, 2001. Since the idea of international tenders in Armenia has become distorted in the eyes of the public, the World Bank set a condition before the government- to conduct the entire process of privatization as transparently as possible. These are the arguments of the World Bank, whereas the forces, opposing the deal, say that the World Bank assisted the government with the aim of paving way for US AES Silk Road to become the winner of the tender. When looking deeper into the entire process of the networks privatization, one sees that it was advancing at a high speed before October 27, 1999 killings and slowed down, as many other projects, after it. And it is not excluded that the networks would have been long ago privatized if the bloodbath in the parliament had not occurred. When Vazgen Sargisian's brother Aram came to succeed him, the networks were removed from the list of enterprises, subject to privatization in 1998-2000 and was brought back to the parliament in the form of a special law by prime minister Andranik Margarian, who was appointed to replace the sacked Aram Sargisian. The law on privatization was adopted last July 28, but until now it has not been thoroughly discussed to find out what the deal will give Armenia. The strongest circulated argument against selling off the networks is that "the foreigners will raise the energy tariffs," but the government has not said whether it is true or not. To find it out, let us look through the Law on Energy. Actually, the retail sale of energy is a strictly regulated area, in which both the tariffs, volume of investments and expected returns are defined by an independent body- the Energy Commission. The Commission has many levers, fixed by the law, not only to supervise, but also dictate its will in the market. Even if we imagine that the Commission does not exist, and we look at this sector from a business point of view, it becomes evident that none of the investors or owners will desire to raise the price of its product knowing in advance that the consumption volumes will decrease because of the people's low solvency. "The Armenian authorities have sold themselves to international organizations and selling the networks to the US AES Silk Road will be destructive," this is being circulated as another main argument against privatization. But when we log to AES Internet pages we see that this company has, before coming to Armenia, "captured" such countries as Great Britain, Australia, the Netherlands, Ireland, China, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, India and many others. Moving ahead we see that it has also "captured" some former Soviet republics-Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldavia and Ukraine. "The World bank's aim is to ruin Armenia's power grid," is voiced at mass rallies. Leafing through the lists of loans provided to Armenia by the World Bank, we shall see that it allocated $13.8 million in 1994 for reconstruction of Armenia's power grid and another $21 million worth loan in 1999 for raising the efficiency of power distributing networks. The question arises- why did the World Bank allocate such huge sums if it strives to ruin the Armenia's energy system. Of course, the efficiency of the loans' usage is another question. After all this we have to conclude that this deal has also been spoiled. The issue of networks selling has demonstrated the incompetence of Armenian political circles. The failure of the government to conclude the deal would become the final verdict on Armenia's further investment policy and no matter how hard we try to persuade the world that we have adopted free market policy and that our doors are open to all foreign investors, no one would believe us. Gayane Mukoyan

Too bad. Zealousy and incompetence lead nowhere. But our fellow compatriots on the other side of the fence are not unique on this capacity. If the Armenian economy revives, and develops further, the energy demand would increase. Then, most likely, much like in California, the existing transmission/distribution network may not suffice to deliver power. I wonder what plans/means do they have for investing in the upgrading of the Armenian transmission/distribution network? Additionally, due to its geographic location, the Armenian high-voltage lines may be of very high value, if they may be utilized on a capacity of interconnect. DO these protesters thing that they have the capacity of capturing the value of the interconnect? [ April 23, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by sukhjeet: i know this great armenian girl, and i thought i'd impress her w/that. -sukh I know...

This is a quite nationalist approach; I'm not talking about attacking each other, I'm talking about diplomacy. Which part of it is nationalistic, OZ? I think we should revise this issue to clarify: Armenian Government knows that Turkey has no doubt about the massacres and crimes of Ottoman Empire. Only disagreement is the usage of the term “Genocide”. You haven’t given any explanations, yet, as why it is not Genocide. Turkish government has not agreed that it has committed massacres. If it has, [lease show me the declaration. As a matter of fact, many in the government claim that, instead, Armenians have committed massacres. If their purpose is recognition of genocide, they should go Lahey (Hague) Justice Court. It is how it works between civilized countries. Turkey is a member of UN and recognizes the decisions of Hague. Until the independence of Armenia, Armenia couldn’t go to Hague, since it was not a member of the UN. As you may know, last year, the president of Armenia presented the case to the General Assembly of the UN. In 1985 the Human Rights Commission of the UN has already condemned the Genocide of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey. The International Justice Court in Hague is just another element of the UN structure. Per its own recognition, when even one of the parties denies the charges, the matter may be studied by the court, itself. However, as they indicate, Court’s general practice is that the study of the matter takes normally up to ten years. So, it is a long process, therefore it has to be prepared. Additionally, the parliaments subject to discussions are of UN member countries, and operated under the auspices of the UN. There is nothing wrong in pursuing the mater in these parliaments, since these countries (including Turkey) have signed the UN resolution on the Genocide, and the Hague Court operates within the same framework. As I have promised, I will study the charter of the International Court of Justice at my earliest opportunity, and will clarify if Hague has jurisdiction on a matter that has taken place before the formation of the UN, and even the League of Nations. Regardless of the jurisdiction of the Hague Court, the Parliaments of the member countries have the jurisdiction and the competence to give a political assessment to a crime against the humanity. However, Armenian Government (or Diaspora) tries to persuade foreign parliaments to recognize the genocide. And why shouldn’t it do it, in principle? On the other hand, the Armenian Government does not try to do it. Armenian government has made its declaration at the UN General Assembly. The Armenian Government has no jurisdiction or leverages to influence the Parliaments of Foreign countries. Such an attempt from the Armenian government would be qualified as interference in the internal affairs of foreign countries. Under the best scenario, Armenian government may send a note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of that Country. They are lying to their own people, foreign parliaments cannot force Turkey to recognize the genocide; it is an internal affair of Turkey. It is correct that foreign countries cannot force Turkey to recognize the Genocide. But nobody is lying. As a matter of fact, the only liar here is the source of information from which you acquire your knowledge. Additionally, as recognized by the UN, including Turkey, Genocide is a crime against humanity, therefore it is not an internal affair of any country. Armenia knows it very clearly, but also enjoys continuing its policy; probably because of different purposes. Again and again, you make this false accusation. The only policy that Armenia conducts in the region is that of friendly relationship between all countries of the region. There is one purpose in the persuasion of the recognition – recognition of a crime. Everything else, whatever it may or may not be, is an expected consequence, not a purpose. As you can see, nationalist groups both in Turkey and Armenia are taking the advantage of the situation and cultivating hatred in people's mind. This may be true, however, on the subject of the condemnation of the Genocide, there is not disagreement between any of the forces in Armenia or in the broader Armenian Society. The nationalists and the moderates alike are similarly minded on this subject. This is why I’m calling it as an aggressive policy. Well, then you are giving a new meaning to the word aggressive. How can the effort of a victim to see justice be qualified as ‘aggressive?” I'm sure one day we will find a solution for this problem but I have no idea who will clean this ultra-nationalism and racism mess from our people's mind after then. The only party who can clean the ultra-nationalistic and racist ‘mess’ from Armenian minds is the government of Turkey. As it pertains to Human Rights, we are not talking about perfectionism here, but rather on the most rampant violations of the most basic Human Rights of people living in Turkey.

So you also think it shuld be left to the historians, and the politicicians don't have to deal with it?

1. Kaghtsr hreshtak; 2. Kaghtsravenik kaghtsr hreshtaki hamar Good luck, man.

The Economist April 21, 2001 U.S. Edition Crossroads in Artsax? AT LEAST until this month, when prospects suddenly brightened for the settlement of a bitter 13-year-old feud between the Armenians and the Azeris, western talk of a rosy future for the southern Caucasus sounded like a sick joke. Now there really is fresh hope of a lasting peace. In diplomatic theory, the region's three small states--Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan--were supposed to provide a natural thoroughfare between Europe and Asia for gas and oil from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. In practice, more than a decade of conflict has turned the region into a patchwork of poorly-observed ceasefire lines, minefields and dead ends--preventing humdrum local trade, let alone big international deals. Few ends are deader than Talysh, a community of Armenians surrounded on two sides by troops guarding a ceasefire line at its most north-easterly point in Nagorno-Artsax, a disputed Armenian-held territory that is internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan. The villagers' freshwater supply, the river Indzhachai, is now out of reach on the front line. In the old days, the Azerbaijani town of Ganje and all its business opportunities were just 50km (30 miles) away. Now the nearest metropolis is Armenia's capital, Yerevan, a twisting and circuitous eight-hour drive to the west. After six years of worsening strife, when the two sides took turns to bombard, shell and ethnically cleanse territory with scant regard for civilian life, some locals may have been grudgingly thankful, in 1994, when the losing Azerbaijani side cut its losses and agreed to a truce. But economic development has been frustrated by the lack of a long-term settlement. Things look better, though, after a five-day conference that ended earlier this month at Key West in Florida, bringing together Presidents Heidar Aliev and Robert Kocharian of Azerbaijan and Armenia respectively, the American secretary of state, Colin Powell, and senior French and Russian officials. The State Department said "substantial progress" had been made after international peace-makers relayed proposals between the Armenian and Azeri leaders, who later flew to Washington to see President George Bush. More talks are planned for Geneva in June; there are hopes that at a further meeting in Moscow the two Caucasian presidents may even sign a binding accord. The contours of a possible deal are becoming clear. The Armenians would give Azerbaijan back six of the seven regions they captured. Nagorno-Artsax and the adjacent Lachin region that links it to Armenia would be granted self-governing status. Azerbaijan would be compensated with an internationally protected road, linking it to its isolated enclave of Nakhichevan. If the logjam were at last to break, it would be a rare example, these days, of co-operation among the big powers. The Bush administration has been energetic in the Caucasus, even as it vows not to micro-manage the Balkans or the Middle East. It seems willing to accept Russia as a partner in diplomacy; for its part, Russia may have been persuaded that it has more to gain from co-operation than from wrecking. Meanwhile, the Kremlin has begun to repair relations with Azerbaijan, which had, until recently, been among the most Russophobic of ex-Soviet republics. If the Azerbaijani position has become less rigid, that may be because Mr Aliev, a 77-year-old veteran of the Soviet Politburo, wants to bequeath a settlement to his son and heir-apparent, Ilham. France's president, Jacques Chirac, has also been involved in negotiations. And, intriguingly, the senior American negotiator at Key West, Carey Cavanaugh, said Iran was being kept informed of developments too. So the region may finally emerge from its morass of sputtering conflict and closed borders. Not before time: the combined GDP of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia is a pitiful $10 billion a year; and the talented from all three countries have been steadily emigrating. But to win a lasting peace, you have to persuade people like the villagers of Talysh of its virtue. So far the region's leaders are adopting the Soviet practice of keeping their citizens in the dark. Talysh was captured and recaptured during the Artsax war; three-quarters of its 600 houses are still in ruins. The inhabitants, most of them old, scrape a living from their animals and pensions of around $12 a month. Securing peace will mean persuading such people that the benefits of a settlement, such as the possibilities of trade with Azerbaijan all around them, outweigh the perceived risks, such as the return of people they see as enemies to live among them. That job has barely begun.

US considering naming special Mideast envoy By Janine Zacharia WASHINGTON (April 20) - The US is onsidering resurrecting the position of special Middle East envoy, a sign the US may be deepening its mediation role in the region, diplomatic sources and people familiar with the discussions in Washington say. The administration is said to be weighing two people for the job of Middle East envoy: Edward Djerejian, a former ambassador to Israel and Syria, who now serves as director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Texas; and Richard Haass, director of policy planning at the State Department. State Department and White House officials are discussing whether the position should be folded into the State Department's Near East Affairs Bureau or if it should have the status of a presidential envoy, as did the post held by Dennis Ross during the Clinton administration. "It's very likely that in the not-too-distant future they are going to name a senior envoy whose role will expand or contract depending on how much work there is to be done," said an administration source in Washington. The official cautioned, however, that discussions are in a preliminary stage and that no final decision is expected for several weeks. Word of the possible appointment accompanied several signs this week that the US is stepping up its involvement in the region. President George W. Bush telephoned Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on Wednesday and yesterday called Syrian President Bashar Assad. Administration officials said both leaders agreed with Bush on the need to exercise restraint. While Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have been in contact with Middle Eastern leaders, until now most of the day-to-day diplomacy has been handled by US diplomats in the region. Powell's swiftly issued and strongly worded statement following the IDF's incursion into Gaza also seemed to signal that the US is planning on becoming more engaged, analysts said. And Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Ned Walker told reporters in Amman this week: "We are actively engaged with the parties individually. We will be more engaged in the future." A State Department spokesman left open the possibility of the appointment, but said nothing has been decided. "As the secretary aid in his confirmation hearings, if we ever reached a point in the process with the parties that it was determined that we needed an expansion of our efforts, he and the president would consider naming a Middle East envoy. At present we've got nothing to announce." One Arab diplomat said he would be surprised if such a position is created. "Frankly, judging from the administration's thinking, I would doubt it." During his visit to Damascus yesterday, Walker discussed Israeli-Palestinian fighting and Israel's strike on a Syrian radar station in Lebanon with Foreign Minister Farouk Shara. "We want to see restraint. We want to make sure that this violence does not escalate further," Walker was quoted as saying. Djerejian discussed his possible appointment with administration officials during a visit to Washington last week, one official said. Haass has been the primary architect of Powell's current drive to revamp sanctions on Iraq and has overseen his recent statements on the Middle East. Powell would like to see the position - if it is created - remain fully under the auspices of the State Department. A final decision, however, is not likely to be taken until William Burns, currently US ambassador to Jordan and now slated to replace Walker, takes up his new job in July. Sources close to Sharon were not enthused at the prospect of Bush appointing a new special envoy. "Our position, and the Bush administration's position until now, has been that the two sides need to engage with each other," one official in Jerusalem said yesterday. "Our concern with a Middle East envoy is that the Palestinians will again talk around us to the Americans, and not feel that they have to deal with us directly." He stressed that Israel has nothing against Djerejian, but that the very existence of the position is a disincentive for the sides to deal directly with each other. Analysts say, however, that such an appointment may be inevitable given the enormity of problems in the region. "They are going to have to put a point man for this stuff at this point," said Judith Kipper," co-director of the Middle East studies program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Djerejian's selection would require the job to carry the rank of presidential envoy, given his seniority in the diplomatic corps, observers say. A spokesman for the Baker Institute declined to comment. Djerejian threw himself into public view last week when he unveiled to the press recommendations developed by the Baker Institute on US energy policy. In that presentation, he also offered his views on what US policy should be toward the Arab-Israeli conflict. And while in Washington, he also hosted a panel on the role of national security advisers in the creation of foreign policy. A known expert on Syria and Lebanon, the heightened tensions along Israel's northern border could be one of the reasons the administration may choose him. A fluent Arabic speaker and someone close to the Bush family, Djerejian was considered one of the top "Arabists" at the State Department. During the previous Bush administration, he worked closely with secretary of state James Baker to set up the 1991 Madrid multilateral peace conference. While Djerejian has acknowledged that the Palestinian issue is the political core of the Arab-Israeli conflict, he firmly believes that there can be no viable comprehensive peace without a deal between Syria and Israel. He told The Jerusalem Post in an interview last year that Clinton "pushed too far, too fast" at Camp David without doing the necessary groundwork ahead of time, and that he missed at least two historic pportunities to broker a peace between Israel and Syria, and Israel and Lebanon. When Clinton created the position of special Middle East envoy in 1993, Djerejian was serving as ambassador to Israel. But after only a few months on the job, Djerejian felt pushed aside by Ross and resigned.

Not so long ago, we had a conjecture in this forum, that the early Armenians have been brought to this earth by some alien ships, which have subsequently abandoned them on the Earth.

And their current company...

I have found that most of the people who come from Europe/Latin America/Middle East/Western Africa/Armenia are having this same feeling. Unless you are immersed in your work, life in the US is indeed boring. There is no passion for life, but just passion for making money. However, the US provides the fastest venue for learning and professional growth.

Just how "stupid" they think God is?

Harut, I don't see how does this article imply your conclusion.

Dear Boghos, I stand ready to revisit this issue anytime.

quote:Originally posted by oz: I don't have any discrimination in my beliefs. That's very brave of you.

Dear Boghos, Judging from the reaction in this thread, it seems like the categories "single" and "Armenian women" don't go together.

Much like in Culcuta, they are "preserving" and "saving" our nation.

1- MJ, I still have no idea about the agreement. Can you send a copy to me? Its a little bit confusing becouse in 1921 Armenia was an independent republic, how can we decide your internal affairs? Unfortunately, I don’t have access to an electronic copy of the agreement. I am puzzled as why none of the involved governments have made such a copy available in the internet. I can acquire an Armenian hard copy of it, which I have studied in the past for long time, but that wouldn’t help much. Referring to the independence of Armenia in 1921, you have hit the nail on the head. Indeed, at the time of signing the Russo-Turkish Treaty (March 17, 1921, I believe), Armenia was practically independent. First of all, the Caucasian Federation was not formed, yet, and obviously, neither was the USSR. So the Socialistic Armenia was indeed independent. Moreover, two months later after the capitulation of the government of the first Republic of Armenian under the ultimatum from the Russian and Turkish Armies (December 1st, 1920), on February 7th,1921, Armenian under the command of General Garegin Nzhdeh had rebelled, had overthrown the Armenian Communists, had defeated the Russian Red Army detachments, and had reestablished the independence of Armenia under a new leadership. The Russo-Turkish Treaty has been signed under these circumstances. Two foreign countries have come together, and have bargained on the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of a third country. Much like it has taken place some 20 years later between the Germans and USSR on the subject of Baltian countries (Ribentrope-Molotov Treaty, I think, 1939). This is why I have qualified the Russo-Turkish Treaty of 1921 as an outrageous, in fact, case study, of state vandalism and barbarianism. The rebels have successfully deflected all Russian attempts to take over Armenia for almost 6 months. After resolving their issues at the Polish front, and demolishing Kol’chak’s White Guradia in Syberia, Russians have thrown all those Armies at Armenia. In the summer of the 1921, the Russian Armey has succeeded in taking over Armenia one more time. The Kars Treaty has been signed under these circumstances. According to the paragraph 15 of the earlier Russo-Turkish Treaty, Russia has taken the obligations of making sure that all the paragraphs of that Treaty are properly executed, and as of today, it remains the guarantor of that Treaty. Perhaps, I have to appeal to some Armenian Academic circles to find out if any of them has an English Electronic copy of the Treaty. 2- As long as Armenian Governments aggressive policy continues I'm not expecting an official announcement of condemnation. It doesn't mean that we don't recognize all horrible things happened to your people. We just need to improve our diplomatic relations to say it loud. We are not refusing diplomatic relations, simply, Armenian Government prefers to communicate with other countries rather than us. Let’s just agree that this statement of yours is not your most sincere argument. In what way is Armenia’s Policy aggressive in the region? As recognized by all major International Powers, Armenia conducts a very balanced foreign policy in the region. How can a tiny Armenia, the economy of which is pined almost at the ground zero be aggressive towards Turkey? IS there any rationale in your last argument? 3- Yes, there is a law that describes genocide, as I mentioned briefly in my previous postings. I think you can find it. No. I don’t know about that low. Please help me to find it. Additionally, if Turkey has not committed Genocide, it has nothing to fear of. Proving of a charge of a Genocide is a very high threshold, and it requires an uphill battle from our side. 4- Since there is a suspicion on these letters honesty, I don't see any point to discuss them here. In fact, as evident, I have not questioned the authenticity of the letter. I have admitted that it is authentic. I have just brought to your attention the professional dishonesty of Mr. Fein, who is an American lawyer hired by the American Turkish lobby, and the naivety of those who have read this letter without carefully analyzing what Bristol is referring too, and by taking the letter out of context, the ATAA and other organizations have attempted to deny the Genocide, by using a totally irrelevant document. So much about the professional integrity of Mr. Fain and the leadership of ATAA. And don’t worry, we will meet in the court some day, unless the Turkish Government demonstrates a greater wisdom, and accepts what is undeniable. As a matter of fact, given that the Genocide was not a mere historic event, and it was not an ethnic or religious Genocide, but it was a political Genocide, i.e. Genocide conducted due to political motivations, it is quite appropriate to have it addressed at the political courts of the world - that is at the Parliaments of different countries. And we are always open to discussing the topic of the further development of our relations. As far as I understand, so is the government of Armenia. The only partu standing on the way of the materialization of this discussion, by your own recognition is the government of Turkey.

Boghos, As we have discussed before, and you have brought up once, we have a very parochial Diaspora. And our philanthropist are the outcome of that parochial mentality. Every single provincial small town in the US has at least a couple of dozens of churches – almost more than the number of operating churches in Armenia. That becomes possible because they don’t build fancy churches, but quite modest. They don’t spend much money on the buildings, but rather they spend their money on preaching the Gospel, and enhancing the spirituality of the faithful. Clearly, where there are fancy churches and golden artifacts, there can be no God in those places. This is one of the major reasons why I am disgusted by the Armenian Church (as an institution). As to Armenia and building monumental churches there, I think it is a border-line moronizm. They can easily lease facilities for two evenings a week, for their ceremonies, and may just have smaller facilities for conducting the daily rituals. That would cost much less, and they can bring together such facilities on every corner of Armenia. This would, obviously, serve much better the true purpose of the church, than constructing all those monumental buildings, which raises a question in my mind as what is the real purpose here? As to the Yerevan State University, indeed, financially it is in a dire condition. Unfortunately, the arrogance and the stupidity of the University leadership, along with the arrogance and stupidity of some of the Diasporan Armenian leadership has resulted in the establishment of the obsolete American Armenian University, which is something at the level of an average American Community Colleague. It may take 50 years from this university to reach the level of professionalism, and to build the traditions comparable to those of the Yerevan State University. Instead of investing the money in the Yerevan State University, and restructuring it, so that to make a world class University out of it, for which there were enough foundations, their inability to come to an agreement on the principles from both sides has resulted in the dilutions of national resources. If we are not our worst enemy, tell me about it… [ April 21, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by oz: I’m not in a position to make a serious comment about Albanians or Chechens but I can say that I believe in freedom. Oz, Do you also believe in freedom of Karabagh Armenians?

quote:Originally posted by oz: International Court of Justice Also known as Lahey or Hague http://www.icj-cij.org/ OK. I know of it only under the name of Hague. I will reply to you later on this subject.