MJ

I will comment on some of the statements of Boghos, and some of my comments may serve as partial answers to Rich. quote:Originally posted by Boghos:But I disagree with you on their influence on Armenian independence. That was almost exclusively a combination of Soviet and domestic (ie non-diasporan) events. That there had been a pro-independence movement, or at least increased sovereignity pursuance, in Soviet Armenia is beyond doubt. That the Soviet grip was reasonably strong, albeit with some important concessions over time on language instruction for example, to mention just one element, is also clear. In other words Armenia and the Soviet Union were not static, quite the contrary. Not trying to downplay the importance of Armenian nationalist movements it appears to me that Armenian independence was more a result of the center´s weakness rather than an autonomous event. Sectors that were already pro-sovereignity had already been occupying more room on the streets and offices. They soon were handed a state. Up to this point the ARF didn´t play any significant role, if anything it opposed much of what was going on. Further on it established a modest position in the ROA and as such it remains. Armenia has been the most remarkable Republic in USSR with passionate movement for independence – however with a very small number of “separatists.” Armenian “separatists” have dominated the Siberian concentration camps and have been role models for the activists of other Republics, including those from the Baltic Republics and the Ukrainian. They have even been the legends of the concentration camps. I can attest to this from my personal interaction. (In case one gets carried away, I have not “spent” vacation in any of these camps. Just have known personally many major activists/{former political prisoners} of other Republics). On their capacity, inside Armenia, these young men have been admired, however have been viewed as romantics. They indeed were romantics, but the type that our nation needed very much. However, it is absolutely true that Armenia achieved independence due to the collapse of USSR. Even if the entire Armenian nation would have become “separatist,” it would’ve made no difference if the center would not collapse. However, there are two overwhelming contribution of these small groups of Armenian “separatists,” or as they were called “ankakhaganner:” a. they are the ones who have established the modern school of Armenian political thought as we know it, and they have been the ideological spring on the renewed national consciousness and liberation from the traditional Armenian mental and psychological slavery; b. they are the ones who have implanted the mentality that we can and should take our destiny into our own hands, and we can achieve positive results only under such circumstances; As far as ARF is concerned, it entered Armenia not as a force supporting the separation of Armenia from USSR, but totally the opposite – as a force to resist that process. In the same spirit as in 1918, they publicly declared that the Independence of Armenia was premature and adventurous, and it is inspired by the enemies of Armenia, frequently hinting on Turkey. If challenged, I may provide further details. quote:As to the ARF and Karabagh, that is perhaps what you are referring to, I think that this card is overplayed but I´ll leave to other people to discuss this matter. Bear in mind that there is a big difference in the ARF appeal as a historically nationalist body and its actual role in the conflict. Furthermore the role of certain ARF factions in the beginnings of the Armeno-Azeri conflict will eventually come to light and that may not be a nice picture. It is true that the ARF´s reputation for culture preservation in the diaspora is the strongest one. I am not quite sure what that represents in practical terms. On the other hand they have proposed a certain monopoly of Armenianism that is neither reasonable nor healthy to the diaspora as a whole. The role of ARF is significantly taken out of any realistic proportions in the context of the defense and liberation of Karabagh. ARF has not organized or, at least, has not initiated any new movement in Karabagh. It has “bought out” the existing formations. There have been only two, however admirable and remarkable, ARF members from Diaspora, that have come to Karabagh to fight for it. (There have been total of 14 Diasporans fighting in Karabagh – all of them incredible guys. 10 of them have been former ASALA members (the Monte wing), and two independents.) The volunteer formations had self-organized in Armenia earlier than ARF came to the stage, and they were under a different flag. These guys were (thank God) apolitical people by in large – just solders to defend the country. It made absolutely no difference for them who pays for the bullets that they needed so that to go and fight. ARF turned to have deeper pockets than anybody else there, and pulled some of the fighters under its flag. This is still good, but let’s put things into a proper context. Additionally, the population of Karabagh never accepted the idea of partisanship, and dismissed any attempts of ARF to turn the fight for defense and liberation of Karabagh into a political capital. It has to be noted that the formations being financed by ARF, by in large, fought as honorably as any other formations - not more than others and not less. I am being a little careful, here because I don’t know what Boghos is referring to while mentioning “certain ARF factions. “ I have no further comments on ASALA, nor I think they deserve being talked this much about.

Yet another testimony on globalization and "American Imperialism" - yeah, yeah... __________________________________________________ The Costs of Bursting Bubbles NY Times September 22, 2002 By STEPHEN S. ROACH LONDON - A year after terrorism dealt a seemingly lethal blow to America, talk of resilience and economic recovery is in the air. The nation’s inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has risen for four consecutive quarters following a mild downturn in the first nine months of 2001. While the estimated 3.2 percent growth rate over the past year is subdued when compared with the more vigorous rebounds of the past, the hope is that it’s a down payment on bigger and better things to come. But while Sept. 11 was a defining event for America, it was not a defining event for the economy or the financial markets. That role belongs to the stock market bubble of the late 1990’s that finally popped in March 2000. There was far more to the excesses of the 1990’s, however, than an asset bubble. The bubble expanded high enough, and for long enough, to have infected the behavior of consumers and businesses alike. The equity bubble helped to create other bubbles - most notably in the housing market and in consumer spending. Their continued existence poses a serious threat to lasting expansion - and yet, puncturing them raises the grave risk of deflation. This suggests the economy will prove as challenging to America’s political leadership as any other issue in the year ahead. There is good reason to believe that both the property and consumer bubbles will burst in the not-so-distant future. If they do, there is a realistic possibility that the United States, like Japan in the 1990’s, will suffer a series of recessionary relapses over the next several years. Yet denial remains deep, just as it was when the Nasdaq composite index was lurching toward 5,000. Few want to believe that this economic expansion may be built on such a shaky foundation. The evidence in support of a housing bubble is compelling. The 27 percent increase in inflation-adjusted American house prices since 1997 represents the sharpest five-year increase since 1945. This surge is about three times the increase in real housing rents over this period. (The divergence of home prices and rents, which usually move in tandem, is one measure of the speculative element of the housing market.) As their property values rise, hard-pressed consumers have been quick to extract purchasing power from their homes, taking advantage of low interest rates to refinance their property and use the savings to buy cars, furniture, appliances and other luxury goods. Thus the ever-expanding property bubble has become central to the culture of excess that is now driving the United States economy. The consumer-spending bubble will undoubtedly be the last to pop. Short of savings and long on debt, an aging American population must begin to come to grips with the looming realities of retirement. Yet it must now do so in an era of defined contribution pension plans whose performance has been battered by a devastating bear market in equities. We all know that Americans are addicted to shopping. Yet we also know that, if they want to retire with any kind of financial security, they must increase their savings and rein in their spending. What might cause the consumer-spending bubble to burst? It’s hard to say, although several realistic possibilities come to mind - a spike in oil prices, a surge of white-collar layoffs or a collapse of the property bubble. Any one of those developments could send a wake-up call to the American consumer, thereby denying the United States and the broader global economy its main source of support. But it gets worse. The saga of the post-bubble United States economy doesn’t stop with the bursting of the housing and consumer bubbles. Since these events are likely to occur when inflation is already running at a very low rate, they could push the United States into a period of outright deflation - a decline in the nation’s overall level of prices for goods and services. This is a rare and worrisome condition for most economies. The impact of deflation would be most acute for wage earners and debtors. To stay profitable, companies would have to cut jobs or wages, eventually inhibiting consumer purchasing power. And the fixed obligations of indebtedness would have to be paid back in deflated dollars, squeezing overextended borrowers all the more. America is already on the brink of deflation. Our broadest price gauge, the G.D.P. price index, recorded just a 1 percent annualized increase in the second quarter of 2002. That’s the lowest inflation rate in 48 years. Prices of goods and structures - covering nearly half the economy - are already contracting at an annual rate of 0.6 percent. Only in services, where price statistics are notoriously unreliable, are prices still rising. The hows and whys of America’s deflationary perils will long be debated. Two sources seem most likely. First, the bubble-induced boom of business capital spending led to an overhang of new information technologies and other forms of capital equipment in the late 1990’s. The result was excess supply, a textbook recipe for lower prices. Also at work are the unmistakable effects of globalization. The modern-day American economy now has a record exposure to global competition. In the second quarter of 2002, America imported a third as many goods as it produced, well in excess of the 20 percent ratio prevailing at the onset of the last recovery in the early 1990’s. Significantly, more and more of these goods are coming from highly competitive Asian producers who have much lower cost structures than their American counterparts. Moreover, with the exception of Korea, every major Asian economy is now in the throes of its own deflation. Consequently, courtesy of ever-expanding trade relations with Asia, America is now buying more and more from countries like China and Japan that are already in deflation. The growing share of these increasingly cheap foreign goods helps drive down prices of products made at home, thereby deepening deflationary pressures. History tells us that when major asset bubbles burst, deflation is often the result. That was true of the United States in the 1930’s and Japan in the 1990’s. Most are quick to claim that America is not Japan - that its more flexible, dynamic economy stands in sharp contrast to Japan’s economic inertia. But the United States is already a lot closer to the deflationary edge than most concede - and it could go further. Deflationary risks can never be taken lightly in a post-bubble economy. Yet that’s precisely what American investors and policy makers now seem to be doing. If the housing and consumer bubbles pop, then the risk of outright deflation will only increase. It’s time to stop pretending this can’t happen in the United States. Stephen S. Roach is chief economist and director of global economics at Morgan Stanley.

Another one... __________________________________________________ Globalization, Alive and Well NY Times September 22, 2002 By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN If one were having a contest for the most wrongheaded prediction about the world after 9/11, the winner would be the declaration by the noted London School of Economics professor John Gray that 9/11 heralded the end of the era of globalization. Not only will Sept. 11 not be remembered for ending the process of global financial, trade and technological integration, but it may well be remembered for bringing some sobriety to the antiglobalization movement. If one thing stands out from 9/11, it’s the fact that the terrorists originated from the least globalized, least open, least integrated corners of the world: namely, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan. Countries that don’t trade in goods and services also tend not to trade in ideas, pluralism or tolerance. But maybe the most important reason why globalization is alive and well post-9/11 is that while pampered college students and academics in the West continue to debate about whether countries should globalize, the two biggest countries in the world, India and China - who represent one-third of humanity - have long moved beyond that question. They have decided that opening their economies to trade in goods and services is the best way to lift their people out of abject poverty and are now focused simply on how to globalize in the most stable manner. Some prefer to go faster, and some prefer to phase out currency controls and subsidies gradually, but the debate about the direction they need to go is over. “Globalization fatigue is still very much in evidence in Europe and America, while in places like China and India, you find a great desire for participation in the economic expansion processes,” said Jairam Ramesh, the Indian Congress Party’s top economic adviser. “. . . Even those who are suspicious now want to find a way to participate, but in a way that manages the risks and the pace. So we’re finding ways to ‘glocalize,’ to do it our own way. It may mean a little slower growth to manage the social stability, but so be it. . . . I just spent a week in Germany and had to listen to all these people there telling me how globalization is destroying India and adding to poverty, and I just said to them, ‘Look, if you want to argue about ideology, we can do that, but on the level of facts, you’re just wrong.’ “ That truth is most striking in Bangalore, India’s Silicon Valley, where hundreds of thousands of young Indians, most from lower-middle-class families, suddenly have social mobility, motor scooters and apartments after going to technical colleges and joining the Indian software and engineering firms providing back-room support and research for the world’s biggest firms - thanks to globalization. Bangalore officials say each tech job produces 6.5 support jobs, in construction and services. “Information technology has made millionaires out of ordinary people [in India] because of their brainpower alone - not caste, not land, not heredity,”said Sanjay Baru, editor of India’s Financial Express. “India is just beginning to realize that this process of globalization is one where we have an inherent advantage.” Taking advantage of globalization to develop the Indian I.T. industry has been “a huge win in terms of foreign exchange [and in] self-confidence,” added Nandan Nilekani, chief executive of Infosys, the Indian software giant. “So many Indians come and say to me that ‘when I walk through immigration at J.F.K. or Heathrow, the immigration guys look at me with respect now.’ The image of India changed from a third-world country of snake charmers and rope tricks to the software brainy guys.” Do a majority of Indians still live in poor villages? Of course. Do we still need to make globalization more fair by compelling the rich Western countries to open their markets more to those things that the poor countries are best able to sell: food and textiles? You bet. But the point is this: The debate about globalization before 9/11 got really stupid. Two simple truths got lost: One, globalization has its upsides and downsides, but countries that come at it with the right institutions and governance can get the best out of it and cushion the worst. Two, countries that are globalizing sensibly but steadily are also the ones that are becoming politically more open, with more opportunities for their people, and with a young generation more interested in joining the world system than blowing it up.

I think this one is worthwhile, too. __________________________________________________ Europe Has One Voice. And Another and Another NY Times September 22, 2002 By TIMOTHY GARTON ASH OXFORD, England WHAT is Europe’s position on Iraq? The answer is: A)nobody knows, and there isn’t one. “Unfair!” the leaders of the European Union will cry. Hasn’t the European Union’s Mr. Foreign Policy, Javier Solana, just been in Washington to coordinate Europe’s position with the vice president and the national security adviser? Hasn’t the union’s external relations commissioner, Chris Patten, spoken eloquently on the subject? Didn’t the union’s foreign ministers, meeting three weeks ago in Hamlet’s town of Elsinore, make a statement calling for United Nations inspectors to be allowed back in? Yes. But who is listening? Meanwhile, the larger countries of Europe all want to speak for themselves. France’s president, Jacques Chirac, has called for a United Nations ultimatum to Iraq, but in a form that dismays the Bush administration. It would omit authorization of the use of force, reserving that question for a second resolution to be considered later. And if Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, wins his election in Germany today, it may partly be because he has taken a position even more distant from America’s: he has told the crowds that he will not “click his heels” to Washington and let peaceloving Germany participate in an American-led war against Iraq. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain has been working closely with Washington in preparation for military action against Saddam Hussein. What we hear are three different voices from the three leading powers of Europe. Many positions, and therefore none. Some Americans may be surprised, since recent commentaries have portrayed an increasingly clear divide between Europe and the United States. Others may think of “Europe” as the nations on the Continent, with Britain as something quite different, but it would be hard to imagine a serious European foreign and security policy without Britain. In the last decade, the Europeans are supposed to have grown closer and learned from their confusion during the Persian Gulf war in 1991 and over Bosnia. The European Community has become a European Union, which claims to have a “Common Foreign and Security Policy,” agreed on by the foreign ministers and heads of government of its 15 member states, and a “High Representative,” Mr. Solana, to carry it out. Europe, we are assured, is increasingly speaking with one voice. So why the cacophony? “The European Union is 15 individual states,” Mr. Patten said in an interview. “Foreign policy goes right to the heart of what it means to be a sovereign state. The wonder is that we manage to develop common positions on as many issues as we do.” There are some solid achievements of European policy. Stabilizing and reconstructing the Balkans is now largely Europe’s work. The world has Mr. Solana and Mr. Patten - and George Robertson of NATO - to thank for the fact that it doesn’t have a crisis in Macedonia as well as in Iraq. Europe also contributes far more aid to poor countries than the United States does. But when it comes to the prospect of armed confrontation, Europe splits and splutters. Robert Kagan has argued, in an article in the American journal Policy Review that caused much discussion in Europe this summer, that this Hamlet-like approach reflects a deep transatlantic difference in the attitude to power. Europe, he said, is Kantian, multilateralist, legalistic and driven by economics; America is Hobbesian, unilateralist, realist and driven by national interest. There is some truth in what Mr. Kagan acknowledges to be a deliberate caricature. EUROPEAN publics have been increasingly reluctant to spend money on the military since the end of the cold war. If you ask what it means to be European today, one of the most prevalent answers still goes something like this: to move beyond the power politics of sovereign, competing, bellicose nation-states that brought Europe to ruins in 1945. But quite as important is the fact that there really is no single, common European attitude. “Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus,” writes Mr. Kagan. But actually, the British are quite martial and the French are quite Martian. Certainly over the period from the end of the Vietnam War until the Sept. 11 attacks, the British have been more ready to see their soldiers come back in body bags than Americans have been. The French still have the remains of a post-revolutionary universalist project, outdone only by the American one. Britain and France are deeply conscious of being former world powers. Both have their own interests and traditional alignments in many parts of the world, including the Middle East. Both are desperate to keep their places at the top table of world politics. This means articulating, especially for domestic consumption, a distinctively French or British position, but also trying not to lose out with Washington. Germany is gradually redefining itself as a “normal” nation-state. “Normal” here translates as more like France and Britain. Over Iraq, and in the heat of the election, Chancellor Schröder talked of “a German way” in foreign policy - a phrase that grates on the ears of anyone who recalls the old German Sonderweg, or “special way.” His justice minister even reportedly compared President Bush’s methods to those of Hitler. Meanwhile, Italy and Spain, whose conservative governments are now reflexively pro-American on many matters, are keen to insist that Europe’s big three is actually a big five. What’s more, by 2005 the European Union will contain not 15 but probably 25 member states. Most central and east European candidate states are small, but have special interests in two crucial regions: the Balkans and the former Soviet Union. Poland is a big country, the Spain of central Europe, and aspires to make Europe’s big five a big six. European policy may now be better coordinated, but there will be a lot more to coordinate. For the next few years, at least, the centrifugal and centripetal tendencies will probably balance each other out. WHAT could bring Europe closer to speaking with one voice? Perhaps a clear and common enemy. After all, the Soviet Union was the great negative external integrator of Western Europe for 40 years. But who is there now? For some Europeans, especially on the left, the lead candidate is now the United States. If you ask “Why do we need a European superpower?” they reply, “to counterbalance the overmighty and cowboy-like U.S.” This is a real motive. But it comes up against several obstacles. For a start, as we are again seeing over Iraq, Britain will never unambiguously choose Europe against America. Then there are Spain and Italy, at least under their current governments, and pro-American Poland. In fact, every European country is torn between worry about the United States and fascination with it. Anyway, what sense does it make to define yourself against the country with which - for all the differences - you have so many values in common? There is a fine dialectical answer: Europe must be strong enough to stand up to America so it can work more closely with America. But that subtle logic seems unlikely to rally and weld together the electorates of 25 very different consumer democracies. The ever closer cooperation of these old and new democracies has made Europe a better place than it has ever been in its long history - peaceful, increasingly prosperous and free, its countries and regions deeply intermeshed, yet still richly diverse. Today’s Europe is in many ways a super place, but not a superpower.

quote:Originally posted by aurguplu: your position is clear to me, and my position is clear to you. i shall post no more on this unless & until i see something radically different than already posted. Ali, I'll give myself the liberty of violating your request not to respond to you. Your position is not clear to me. Moreover, I think your position is not clear even to yourself, and it will remain so until you acquire courage to face the issues. And unless you do so, you are no different in my eyes from the Young Turks nor from your current government, the actions of which were correctly characterized by Arpa as cowardice. In such case, I see no incentive to engage with you on the subject, since you are bringing literally nothing but double-talk to this table. It is a waste of time. Now, the business week has started, and I cannot afford giving focus to this forum.

I just realized that I have forgotten how to spell the word “vomiting.” I guess it is because I had not felt that way for long time. Sorry.

Kaan, First, welcome to the Hye Forum, where there is an "in" but no "out." There are indeed Armenians who are obsessed with the Jews. They are a very small but very loud minority - as everywhere else. Throughout history, a lot of people have seen Jews as "conspiracy;" This is a very easy way out of complicated situations - if there is something you cannot explain and it is beyond your comprehension, blame Jews or allege Jewish conspiracy, or at least a Freemason conspiracy. Lately, it is being replaced by "American conspiracy." Clearly, this has not been invented by Armenians. How has it arrived to the Armenian scene, however? I think in four different ways: 1. Jews have brought it themselves by their complacency in the massacres of Armenians in the late 19th century and through their opposition to the Armenian Independence; 2. A lot of Diaspora Armenians are born and raised in Arab countries where they have been treated very well; 3. The Russian counter-intelligence services have been very consistent for decades cultivating the idea of worldwide "Jewish conspiracy;" 4. The shameless position of the government of Israel on the subject of the Armenian Genocide. I cannot think of any other serious reasons. P.S. I just noticed that you have placed this thread under the Genocide subforum. Any particular reason? [ September 23, 2002, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: MJ ]

Ali, I have to confess that I, personally, am tired and have some kind of reaction of vamiting reading the same story over and over as if from a broken recorder. Maybe someone else would have desire to respond to you. Just one commetn: Turkey has a very simple way to put end to the Armenian Genocide "industry."

I am sure it is not. I suspect it was Harutiunian. But I wouldn't bet my life on it. He lives in LA, btw, or at least, he used to live in LA until 1994. Unfortunately, there are more things that I have forgotten than I remember. (:

quote:Originally posted by Sip: quote:Originally posted by MJ:... Unfortunately, there are more things that I have forgotten than I remember. (: Now how could you possibly know that? smilies/tooth.gifThere are more inaccessible sectors on my "hard drive" then the opposite...

Boghos, As I mentioned above, I am not much informed in ASALA matters.

It has been 11 years Armenia enjoys relative independence. I think it has been hell of a decade which would stand tall among other decades in the entire Armenian History, though I am sure there would be many who would disagree with this notion. It is not my intent to provide here chronology of the establishment of this accomplishment nor it is the providing of a summary – just few reflections. After the loss of sovereignty in the early 12th century, Armenia practically had disappeared from the face of the Earth. It had gotten practically eliminated as a result of systematic oppressive policies of the Byzantine Empire. Then came a period of centuries of grayness and total disintegration of the national consciousness and disappearance of national aspirations. This is a period when the Armenian lands under the control of the Byzantine Empire gradually came under the control of the Ottoman Empire. It was only in mid 19th century that renewed national aspirations came to the stage. At that time new aspirations of Armenian Sovereignty became possible first as a result of the activism of the founders of the Social-Democrat Hnchagian Party or its prototype. Then, shortly, ARF and Armenakans-Ramgavars followed the example. Initially, all of these political organizations held clear-cut goals of liberation of Armenia, though had not much understanding of how to achieve it. Undoubtedly, the main expectation was that Europe and Russia, due to their aspirations to get rid of the “sick man of Europe” would help the process. Clearly, it was a naïve expectation, and I would even claim from today’s distance that it was an adventurous expectation. [This was a period when the interests of Armenian Independence came into a conflict with another oppressed Ottoman minority – the Jews. As attested by Y. Avron, the founders of Western Zionism where actively engaged with the Sultan to persuade him to grant the Jews sovereignty on the territory of then Palestine. There is not much testimony on the subject, but for all practical purposes, the offices of the Western Zionism were put in service of the Ottoman Empire as its PR arm in the European arena. As documented, the founder of Western Zionism (Hertzel) once has claimed, “What is not good enough for Jews should be good enough for Armenians,” claiming that Armenians had to settle for something like cultural reforms. Apparently, the Armenians aspirations were deemed as being competitive to those of the Jewish Sovereignty. This is a an interesting topic which is not sufficiently studied, and perhaps it is the lack of coherent knowledge in this reason why there exists small but loud Armenian minority hyperventilating on the subject in a very repugnant and unprofessional manner. But this is not the subject of my current note.] The tragedy of Armenians was that the mentioned above political organizations, more exactly the Hnchagian and Dashnaktsutiun parties, had no idea how they were going to accomplish the task at their hands. In a region and era infected by revolutionary aspirations, and in an era when the militant leftism was a form of protest of the oppressed throughout the whole Europe and Russia, Armenian parties also got infected with leftism (with the exception of the Armenakans) and ascribed to the formula of terrorist actions as a way of compelling the Ottoman Empire to “comply.” The trouble was that the leftism (which is a predominant orientation of the politically and socially active Armenian Diaspora to these days, in my view) contaminated the very purpose of the liberation of Armenia. In about 15 years period of time, by 1905, the agenda of the liberation of Armenia was gone. I qualify this as an act of betrayal by the Armenian Political Parties, primarily by the ARF, as the Hnchagians practically did not survive - just made a little of a noise, by such actions as the “Bank Ottoman.” The half-heartedness or the mixed agenda and the adventurousness of the Armenian Political Parties was a contributing factor in the massacres of 1980-1910 and the Genocide. The weakening of the Ottoman Empire in the result of its entry into the WWI provided with an opening for the Armenian Independence. In the spring of 1918, the self-organized Armenian detachments of the late Russian Army stopped the advancing Turkish Army by demolishing it at Sardarabad, Bash Abaran and Gharakilise. The Armenian political leadership of the time forbade the military to pursue the remaining units of the Turkish Army, then, and did not allow the advancement of the Armenian Army into Eastern Anatolia. It was this time when Armenia found itself in a situation that the Independence started to knock its doors. Interestingly enough, the ARF leadership refused to assume Sovereignty and made few loud declarations on how this Independence was “forced” to us. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why they never put their heart into the task of building of the Republic and gave it away so easily while plundering it meanwhile. The independence of Armenia was established by the efforts and authority of one person – Aram Manugian. Though formally a member of ARF, he was a nominally partisan person and infinitely devoted to the country. His authority was so high that anything that he would say would be unequivocally accepted by the people and would generate unparalleled excitement and lead to obedience. However, Manugian’s health was shattered since the times of the defense of Van. After his premature death, the ARF Bureau fully assumed the role of the leadership of the country and the decline of the Republic started, even though it was much supported by the Western Powers. For example, only the USA has given Armenia financial aid in the amount of $50 mln (this is an astronomical figure for that time). It is known also that Armenia has received much other assistance from Europe (grain, etc). BTW, when Armenia declared its Independence in 1918, Turkey was the first country to recognize it. Seems that everything was in favor of Armenia – Turkey was very much weakened, the Armenian intelligential was flawing into homeland from all over the world, the Armenian Army was considered the most powerful, trained an disciplined in the region, etc. How could one loss independence in such circumstances? Well, it requires special skills which apparently the Armenian Revolutionary Nationalism was not short of. The thing is that ideologically and by geopolitical mentality, the ARF was no different (never was different – up to our days) from the Armenian Communists. That’s why the entry of Armenian Bolsheviks with the 11th Red Army at the time was just a change of hats. So, anyway, the end of the Republic as we new it came on December 1st, 1920. It is not the place and time here to go into the details. Just would like to make a point that what has happened on this day is much misunderstood. The republic of Armenia did not loss its de-jure independence on this day. There was only a change of regime. Armenia stayed formally independent till 1923, when it becomes part of the Caucasian Federation. Only in 1930 it has become part of the USSR – this is when the USSR has been established. This is a very important observation. In this period (October, 1921), the hands of the government of Bolshevik Armenia were twisted by Russia so that to make it sign the four-lateral treaty with the Turks. As of today, this is the only document which regulates the relations between Armenia and Turkey. For all practical purposes, this treaty manifests itself as loss of Armenian Sovereignty to Russia and Turkey. I would not concentrate here on the resistance of the Southern regions of Armenia under the command of Garegin Nzhdeh, nor would concentrate on the rebellion of the northern regions of Armenia in 1930, which have taken these regions practically out of the control of the Soviets for two weeks. Basically, other than these events, until1965, Armenian national aspirations had totally disappeared, and it is conveyed that once Winston Churchill has characterized Armenians as a nation which had forever disappeared from the political history of the world. However, this is the period one for the first time in almost 1000 years, Armenians managed to build local intelligentsia – a remarkable one, and gained world recognition in many areas of science and other noble human endeavors. Meanwhile, the National Aspirations in Armenian Diaspora were totally absent other than the Sunday attendance of Church ceremonies. That is until ASALA appeared. The thinking of the average Armenian consumerist is that ASALA came to the stage to bring the Armenian Cause to the forefront. The big question is to whose forefront? I am not much informed in ASALA matters, have never studied the details surrounding its “mystery,” since I have always (at least from the age of my political maturity) felt this group being repulsive. I think that what ASALA did was to bring the memory of the Armenian Genocide to the forefront of the consciousness of the Armenian Diaspora. Interestingly enough, the National Aspirations started to rise in Armenia effective 1965. The unparalleled manifestation of it was the establishment of the Armenian United Party (in 1965) by Haigaaz K., Sergey Zatikyan, and Shahen Forgottenhislastname, with an explicit agenda of Independence of Armenia. This was an unparalleled phenomenon in the history of Soviet Union, and definitely in the history of Armenia in the post-First-Republic era. At this time, as attested by Libaridian, the younger Armenian members of ARF were being reprimanded or expelled from ARF for organizing demonstrations of protest demanding recognition of the Genocide in front of the Turkish Consulate. Additionally, the members of the Armenian United Party, who were being executed by KGB or sent to the Siberian Camps (some of them being my former close friends), where being qualified as traitors and Turkish agents in the official publications of ARF such as the periodical called “Hairenik.” Finally, in 1991 history gave us another opportunity. Armenia attained Independence by default-however at a very high cost. One of the devastating phenomena observed in the years of Armenia’s Independence has been the horrendous decline of the lifestyle of its residents. It has been especially shocking because it has happened within a couple of years - people were not used to it. However, I find it very hard to accept that the economic decline and the other social sufferings of our nation resulted from the Independence or the “corrupt government,” per se. I think when we make judgments on this subject we have to keep in mind that even if the Soviet Union continued to exist, in the economic sphere it would have not made much difference. The thing is that even before the independence of Armenia its traditional markets were lost and the transportation routs were paralyzed. The sources of capital investments had disappeared, and the only chance Armenia might have had to obtain capital investments was from the International Monetary institutions, which would have been possible only in the circumstances of sovereignty. And indeed, Armenia become one of the most significant recipients (per-capita, perhaps) of monetary and other economic help from the Monetary Institutions and from the US. One has to also notice that from Delhi to Warsaw, from Moscow to Johannesburg, there is not a single functional economy in the region. How could the Armenian economy function in such a region? It has already been 11 years, once may say, and there is not much progress. I would say that there have been only 11 years and significant achievements have been accomplished. True, the population of Armenia is demoralized to some degree. Who can blame them? However, those of us who have seen these people in 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, and one (I am deliberately referencing these years year-by-year), know the moral strength of these people, their devotion, their resilience, and their sense of humor. Give them just time and give them just a little bust. Since I am starting to feel sleepy, I would like to finalize my not by congratulating all with the Independence of Armenia and by urging to cherish it. Remember that this is the last chance that history has given us. To the people of Armenia I would like to say, “You are the face and the hope of this nation. You are the future. Be proud of it and be confident. Cherish Armenia and be strong to withstand all the challenges. Be sure that it is impossible not to love you and not to be proud of you.”

quote:Originally posted by Accelerated:If I'm not mistaken I think that would depend on my mass and acceleration. Well... you have to be aware, though, that when measured in Minkowski's Metric, when you spin too fast, your mass also decreases, and all you may be capable of doing might be just radiating some quantum energy... quote:btw. I hope you dont mind me using your one-liners in impressing the members of the opposite sex. Naturally, if querried, all due credit will go to you....Be my guest. You are allowed even to impress Khodja.

Well, your diagnosis of our Prophet is something that I cannot argue with... But I have to bring to your attention that when you think the Earth is spinning around you (whether being intoxicated or not), spinning yourself in the opposite direction would not have a balancing effect...

quote:Originally posted by Accelerated: quote:the people of questionable character and qualitiesLOL, that would be me . MJ, you do realise, thats the nicest thing anyone has called me at this forum .You know, Jugg, sometimes I think you share a lot of features with Khodja. You seem to also think that the Earth is spinning around you...

Again... I don't disagree with you. On the other note of yours, I think , it is hard to write something qualitatively new in here. There has not been a major issue that has not been discussed or analysed in the Hye Forum over the last 2-2.5 years. The history has not evolved much since to provide us with some new insights. (Perhaps this is the primary reasons why this forum has gone so much down, lately.) The older people feel tired to go over the same things time and time again, they become irregulars at the forum, which opens a void to be filled by the people of questionable character and qualities, unless some capable younger person with great entusiasm and "sufficient militancy" "takes over" to do some cleaning and organize some "thinking." This is something that happens all the time in real life (outside the Internet domain), too. Any time there is a disconnet between the "generations," it opens void - look at Armenia, for example.

Thoth, I don't particularly disagree with you. However, my optimism has somewhat faded away since the start of these discussions in mid 2000 in the Hye Forum. I have become especially pessimistic and disinterested after the 9/11 , which has made any expectations of reformation of the Turkish society, that I might had, disappear. So far as the existing and potential Middle-Eastern terrorism on individual and state levels are going to be paramount concerns for the Western [Civilization] Countries, Turkey is going to be needed on the capacity of the experienced political prostitute, which is going to feed its arrogance further. Therefore, I think all the attempts on a "large-scale" to be fruitless. All this does not preclude however to have normal relationship on a personal level, and I hope you are convinced that I am not a perpetuator of hatred nor I like the hateful people from any of the sides. I just think that at this juncture in history, to think that we can accomplish any meaningful progress with Turkey is naïve, though I do still see a possibility of declaration of the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey. But it would be such a lukewarm recognition that would even insult my intelligence, per se. One important, in my view, think that I would like to add here is that unfortunately our Armenian brethren don’t understand how they have damaged the cause of the meaningfulness of the recognition of the Genocide [by anyone] by disgustingly overplaying that “hand.”

I don't know much about the "Genocide business," and I am not a supporter of that "business" nor a "shareholder." I think it would be good for Turks to admit the Genocide. It would make them a better nation. It might also be good for us, to an extend, since Turkey is Armenia's neighbor. However, I don't understand why, other than for reasons of being a good neighbor, it should be our concern to see Turkey declare recognizing the Genocide? What is it for us? Turkey taking responsibility for it, i.e. paying up? I think this notion/expectation is ridiculous. Turkey cannot pay even its current debts and will go bust in no time, if (primarily) the US and the International organizations stop injecting the means that make possible Turkey's existence as we know it. However, I agree with your last notion that the unrepentant is prone to do it again, and that is the only concern that I have in the context of their recognition. But the thing is that what one can expect [from all that is apparent], even if/when Turkey declares accepting committing the Genocide, it will be just an idle declaration with no consequences for us, and definitely with no consequences for Turkey. And in this sense, the presumed declaration of the recognition of the Genocide by Turkey will not prevent them from repeating it again, if the history gives them another chance - I have come to this conclusion through the last couple of years of my presence in this forum, and I think I have expressed myself in this context in a dedicated thread. I mean, what value does the declaration of the recognition of the Genocide by Turkey have, if there is no repentance but "context and a context after an explanation." Finally, how stupid we should be to believe that Turkey is going to "treat" Armenia(ns) better after the declaration of its Genocide recognition, if until it cannot treat properly its own nation? P.S. Your "retraction" was too late. I already had posted my reply. Don't feel that have to delete it, now. [ September 21, 2002, 06:25 AM: Message edited by: MJ ]

I guess you should think again.

quote:Originally posted by THOTH:MJ - much thanks for bringing this to our attention - but why do you consider this a pleasent development. Its much the same from Turkey...is it because of the frank tone from the Armenian side? Turkey'sposition is no call for optomism IMO...though peerhaps there is the ever so slightest aknowledgement of something to be sorry for.... Winston, In my view, Turkey, Turkey's position, Turks' views are irrelevant in the context of the Genocide, unless we ourselves are hesitant whether it has happened or not. What I find being pleasant is the execution of the State Policy. I recall last time the Armenian State stepped in, France recognized the Genocide.

I got this email from some friends, today. I think it is a pleasant development. Interestingly enough, both sides of the argument sound to familiar to this forum, wouldn't you say so? PRESS RELEASE Permanent Mission of Armenia to the United Nations Contact: xxxxxx Tel: xxxxx E-mail: xxxxxx Web: http://www.un.int/armenia STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF TURKEY TO THE UN, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF REPLY (First reply) 18 SEPTEMBER, 2002 Mr. President, During his address to the General Debate on the 16th, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia, H.E. Mr. Vartan Oskanian, announced that his country will continue to work for the recognition of 'Armenian genocide', probably implying those who have fallen under conditions of civil strife, deprivation, havoc and unspeakable misery wrought by the First World War. Mr. President, We share a very long, almost one thousand years of commonly forged history with the Armenians. For more than nine hundred years, the Turks and other Muslim races of Anatolia have lived peacefully, and side by side with Armenians in the towns and villages of Anatolia. The terrible events in question correspond only to a thin slice in this long continuum... The Turks and Armenians should not allow this slice, however accursed and infamous it may be, to obscure the inherent richness of their shared history... Nor should we allow that particular era to rob us of a better future... Yet, Mr. Oskanian would not like to see that this wartime tragedy engulfed Armenians and Turks alike-, that the already unsustainable civil order was further worsened by outright rebellion conducted and promoted by armed Armenian gangs determined to ease the way of invading Tsarist Russian forces-, that the Armenians were by no means the only victims of this tragic era. Mr. President, Turkey does not wish to denigrate the suffering of the Armenians nor do we wish to belittle their feelings of loss. But, speaking of this era, one should not gloss over the fact that no less than 2 million Muslims were perished under similar conditions, under the same sun! This is not a chapter of history with which we can play the numbers game. Even one dead person is too many! Two is unbearable, be it Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian, Georgian or Circassian. All the peoples of the region had to go through enormous suffering. Thousands of Caucasian people had been forcefully uprooted and had to flee the Tsarist army. We cannot, we must not pick among the dead! We must remember all of them. Mr. President, The Turkish government has made available thousands of documents relating to Ottoman Armenians, dating back four centuries. The discourses and deliberations of the Ottoman Council of Ministers from 1914 to 1922 are among these documents. We invite Armenian scholars to go through these pages. Let me say this: to this day, the allegation that there was a premeditated, planned and duly executed scheme to annihilate the Ottoman Armenian population remains unsubstantiated. The Republic of Armenia should have no part in this smear campaign, propagating only one version of what took place in history. Sensible, impartial, dispassionate historians know that there are many sides to historical questions. Mr. President, Turkey has never blamed thousands of innocent Armenian individuals who perished in that era. But we blame the so-called nationalist revolutionaries who expected that war would further their aims. The Armenians of today must see the direct responsibility of the senseless, militant, and radical Armenian leadership of the day who began the action. To forget what happened to other is befitting only to a latter-day chauvinism. Thank you, Mr. President. STATEMENT BY THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF ARMENIA TO THE UN, AMBASSADOR MOVSES ABELIAN IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF REPLY (First reply) 19 SEPTEMBER, 2002 Mr. President, I wish to exercise my right of reply to the statement made by the representative of Turkey yesterday at this Hall about the Armenian Genocide. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Armenia in his address to the General Debate of the 57th Session said the following: “…We extend our profound appreciation to all those governments, legislatures, and international bodies that have recognized the Armenian Genocide, and pledge our cooperation to all those that are currently in the process of reaffirming the facts of this crime against humanity. As a signatory of the Convention on Genocide, the Armenian Government places a high priority on the struggle to prevent future genocides and to stand up against all attempts to deny past genocides...” Mr. President, Indeed, I would like to thank the representative of Turkey for understanding the message correctly and for once again bringing the issue of the Armenian Genocide to the attention of this high body. In this regard, allow me to make a few comments: The twentieth century began for Armenians with a tragedy of genocide and mass deportations in the Ottoman Empire in 1915-1923, which was a deliberate premeditated ultra-nationalist objective of wiping out the Armenian community of Ottoman Turkey. The first genocide of the twentieth century unfolded in full force and continued until it consumed the lives of 1.5 million Armenians. Mr. President, Armenian Genocide is an undeniable and incontrovertible fact, and this is absolutely clear not only for us, but for a large number of countries, which have officially recognized and condemned the crime of Genocide committed against the Armenian people. Yet, Turkey spares no effort to deny this shameful event of its past. There is nothing new about accusations, falsifications and inventions the Turkish government is presenting in its futile attempts to refuse or to justify what the international law defines as Genocide. The representative of Turkey made reference about scholars and unsubstantiated evidence of the Armenian Genocide. The issue of the Armenian Genocide is not something that needs to be proven. The historians and scholars have done their job and extensive and well-documented evidence on the Armenian Genocide is available in many - Turkish, Russian, British and American archives. It is regretful that the Turkish Government has preferred deliberate and willful ignorance to the sober and impartial approach. The Armenian Genocide showed that this inhuman crime could be committed: the impunity of the genocide policy by the Ottoman Empire built up new brutalities. The most striking evidence is the rhetorical flourish by Hitler about his plans for the invasion of Poland in 1939: “…Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians”. These words are embodied in the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C. Mr. President, I would like to particularly stress one more point, which is of special relevance to the United Nations. In 1948 this very organization adopted the Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide. Mr. Rafael Lemkin, author of the term ‘genocide’ and one of the co-authors of the Convention, emphasized the need of the international community for such a convention by necessity “to prevent from happening again that what had happened to Armenians during WWI, and to Jews during WWII”. Regretfully, Turkey, being one of the parties to the Convention, does not want to acknowledge that denial is a continuation of genocide, some even noting it is the final act of genocide. Mr. President, Turkey’s continuing denial of the Genocide of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire has been only intensifying our aspirations for historical justice. The pointless diversions, accusations and distortions by Turkey have no bearing on the Armenian Genocide, its international recognition, or its scholarly examination. They do, however, make a point about the evil of genocide and the vileness of its denial. Instead of condemning the criminals of the Committee of Union and Progress in charge of the Ottoman government during World War I, Turkey embraces them today. Instead of distancing itself from the murderous policy of genocide, Turkey untiringly seeks to justify it. It is a destructive policy that in no shape or form can be construed to be a step toward healing, reconciling, understanding, or improving relations between Turkey and Armenia. There are better ways of dealing with the painful past: It is called coming to grips with the truth of the matter. As President Kocharian said in this Hall two years ago addressing the Millennium Summit: “Penitence is not a humiliation, but it rather elevates individuals and nations”. In its resolution of 1987 the European Parliament referred to the fact that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide must be viewed as a profoundly human act of moral rehabilitation towards the Armenians, which can only bring honor to the Turkish Government. Indeed many nations have founded their spiritual and moral resurrection, on the search for validation trough truth, on facing their own past squarely. Thank you, Mr. President. STATEMENT BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF TURKEY TO THE UN, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF REPLY (Second reply,UNEDITED VERSION) 19 SEPTEMBER, 2002 Mr. President, I do not wish to indulge myself into a prolong debate as I see that if this … I expect my Armenian colleague to question at least some aspects of his arguments. I will just say this: it is well-known, at the end of WWI, the Armenians, reminding the victorious powers that they did also fight as belligerents, …(inaudible), wanted to be represented in the Paris and Sevres conferences. And I would like [to quote] Mr. Aharonian himself at the Paris Peace Conference, from the Papers relating to Foreign relations of the United States in 1919 printed by the Government’s office in Washington: Mr Aharonian, an Armenian leader himself, says that “at the beginning of the war our nation not only forgot all grievances against Tsarist rule and rallied wholeheartedly to the Russian flag and scarf of Allied [powers], but our fellow country-men in Turkey and all over the world ...(inaudible) to the government of the Tsar”. The archives of the Russian Embassy in Paris prove this, Mr. Aharonian says…: “Armenian legions at their own expense did fight, side by side, with Russian troops under the command of the Russian generals”. Indeed, in the very words of a eminent scholar, someone who our Armenian friends do not like much quoted, but who is quite eminent indeed, no one other than professor Bernard Lewis says: “What happened to the Armenians was the result of a massive Armenian armed rebellion, which began even before the war broke out and continued at a larger scale. Great number of Armenians, more than 60,000, joined the Russian forces invading Turkey. The Armenians wanted to benefit from both …: on the one hand, they speak with pride of their struggle against Ottoman despotism, while on the other hand, they compare their tragedy with the Jewish genocide.” And, Mr. President, lastly, with regard to the process of achieving international recognition, I would like to quote the Spokesperson for the British Foreign Office, on 14 April 1998: “The British Government has condemned the massacres ...(inaudible), but in the absence of unequivocal evidence, that... (inaudible) the Turkish specific decision to eliminate the Armenians under their control at that time, the British Government has not recognised those events as indications of genocide. Nor do we believe it is the business of Governments of today to review the events that... over 80 years ....(inaudible)”. I would like to conclude my statement with saluting memory of all those perished – Turkish, Armenian and others at this very tragic moment of our shared history. Thank you, Mr. President. STATEMENT BY THE PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF ARMENIA TO THE UN, AMBASSADOR MOVSES ABELIAN IN THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF REPLY (Second reply) 19 SEPTEMBER, 2002 Mr. President I apologize for taking the floor again. I would like to make a few additional comments on the remarks of the representative of Turkey. I would like to remind the representative of Turkey, that Armenian Genocide began with the “Kristalnacht”. That was the night of April 24, 1915, the first day of Genocide, when more than 300 Armenian intellectual were brutally murdered by the Turkish authorities, thus signaling the beginning of mass annihilation of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Mr. President, It is not my intention to go trough the archives in this General Assembly Hall, but allow to make only one reference: the ambassador of Germany, representative of a Government allied with Turkey, as early as July 1915, reported: “…the manner in which the relocation is being carried out demonstrate the government is really pursuing the aim of destroying the Armenian race in Turkey.” And by January 1917 his successor reported: “The Policy of extermination has largely been achieved, the current leaders of Turkey fully subscribe to this policy”. And it is based on those and other facts, that back in 1919 the Kemalist court tried and convicted a number of high-ranking Young Turk officials for their role in what the Turkish government then called the “massacre and destruction of the Armenians”. The unfortunate habit of the Turkish government to deny the Armenian Genocide continues to manifest itself in an unending stream of falsifications. If Turkey today encounters difficulties in building normal relations with its neighbors, perhaps it is because it has such an inconsistent, and untenable view of the past and of the historical record as understood by the rest of the world. This sadly contorted effort to argue that the evidence on the Armenian Genocide is questionable is but a reflection of the length to which the Turkish government is prepared to go in order to press upon the world its fictive denial of the truth. The sanctimonious lecturing on the historical events surrounding World War I is an offense to any informed individual. Mr. President, For the descendants of the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide it is utmost importance to engage in introspection, to face and learn from their history, to question how such violence could have occurred, to examine what was there that led them down to the road to genocide, and to find some redemption trough appropriate acts of contrition - beginning, but not ending, with a knowledge and acceptance of the truth. If they are unable or unwilling to deal with the truth and instead try to maintain a righteous self-image, then they may again be placed on a path toward the victimization of other groups. Thank you, Mr. President. [ September 20, 2002, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: MJ ]

WHAT GENDER ARE THEY?" ZIPLOC BAGS - male, because they hold everything in, but you can always see right through them. SWISS ARMY KNIFE - male, because even though it appears useful for a wide variety of work, it spends most of its time just opening bottles. KIDNEYS - female, because they always go to the bathroom in pairs. SHOE - male, because it is usually unpolished, with its tongue hanging out. COPIER - female, because once turned off, it takes a while to warm up. TIRE - male, because it goes bald and often is over inflated. HOT AIR BALLOON - male, because to get it to go anywhere you have to light a fire under it... and, of course, there's the hot air part. SPONGES - female, because they are soft and squeezable and retain water. WEB PAGE - female, because it is always getting hit on. SUBWAY - male, because it uses the same old lines to pick people up. HOURGLASS - female, because over time, the weight shifts to the bottom. HAMMER - male, because it hasn't evolved much over the last 5,000 years, but it's useful to have around. REMOTE CONTROL - female... Ha! You'd think it'd be male. But consider, it gives men pleasure, he'd be lost without it, and while he doesn't always know the right buttons to push, he keeps trying.

Another Armenian Radio joke came to my mind: Question: Which of the two countries is more aggressive - the US or the USSR? Armenian Radio: Of coarse the US, since it meddles with the internal affairs of USSR at all corners of the world. P.S. Wanted to also add that my previous message was addressed to Boghos.

I don't know much about Hiroshima, and I think it is hard to justify its occurrence under any scenario. However, I would like to commend you for your sober perspectives. And since you like the jokes of Armenian Radio, I would like to paraphrase one of them: "Anti-Americanism is not an opinion. It is a diagnosis..." Gotto go…

quote:Originally posted by hagarag:What MJ has stated is true and many gays and lesbians often refer to bisexuals as WEIRD BISEXUALS. It is not only heterosexuals who feel this way about bisexuals. Some gays and lesbians will shun bisexuals. Some crazy hets feel that bisexuals are passing diseases into the heterosexual community and therefore HATE bisexuals more than they hate gays. Most of this is based upon fear and ignorance. Somehow, I don't recall having said that...