Armenia's Isolation

[Siamanto]

You keep saying well-being. That means to be well off. Cash flow is crucial here and GDP per capita is one of the the primary criterions. I would give priority to GDP over the education index if I had to define the "well-being". "Development" is different however. When finding the development index GDP and education could be viewed as equal.

style_images/master/snapback.png

I have used the expression "well being" in only one post! In any case, AT NO TIME, I have compared Armenia's well being, I have only compared Armenia with its neighbors based on well defined indexes/indicators. Please, let's not read more than what it's said. Read the lines, not between the lines! Thank you!

I was simply reminding you that:

"A country's well being - or anything of importance - is not - and should not be - solely based on a SINGLE criterion whatever that is. Basing an assessment on multiple criteria is similar to hedging in risk management!"

You were putting too much emphasis on GDP or "current income."

 

 

 

 

I would give priority to GDP over the education index if I had to define the "well-being".

style_images/master/snapback.png

Off topic! I did not compare the well being! Anyway, what would be a good model of "well being?" What would be be the indicators/parameters?

 

 

 

 

 

"Development" is different however. When finding the development index GDP and education could be viewed as equal.

style_images/master/snapback.png

GDP, education among others aspects! The Human Development Index is well documented and available to the public!

I will have to go with well known indexes: it's safer!

 

 

 

 

 

That just means that humans in Armenia are more developed than in Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan, with education being the primary contributor to Armenia's lead in HDI.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Would you care to tell us the weight of education - and other components - in the HDI? Thank you!

You seem to make statements based on your understanding and opinions. Can you please show the numbers and how the final rank is computed? Thanks!

 

 

 

 

 

It is simple. If your people are well educated and have high Human Development Index they leave the country if you don't create enough jobs (increase the GDP). And the article is correct in that sense.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Yes! But, again, you're not answering the question! The question was:

How did you conclude FROM THE DATA PRESENTED IN THE Human Development Index report that

That just means that Armenia exports good human capital, which is very bad.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

 

 

 

 

The shocking thing about the article is not that it doesn't have truth in it. It is the level of hostility of the author (her BS-ed sources,  general ignorance) that makes me personally question her motives. Also, not being a specialist on Caucasus she tried to portray her material as if it was a result of a deep analysis and not just random selective interviews.

style_images/master/snapback.png

You finally see what we were trying to prove! Congratulations!!

 

 

 

 

 

That's just an estimate (notice est. in the end).

style_images/master/snapback.png

I believe that the growth estimates are on track and the GDP estimates should be quite accurate. Corrections should be minimal and would have little - or no - impact on the rank, be it positive or negative!

[Siamanto]

Siamanto, fair arguement on your part. OK, current GDP is not what I meant for potentialities. But the GDP difference between Armenia and Azerbaijan is really small.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Yes, the difference is less than small! Please keep in mind that our goal - in this thread - was to show that the article above is biased and is pro-Jurkish propaganda!

 

 

 

 

On the other hand, Azeris have oil that they only need to sell without any hard work. Of course, there is the pipeline issue hampering the sale of oin on their terms, but even then that is a potentiality that can be cashed today (or is it called selling short? I am not sure if this term is correct).

style_images/master/snapback.png

Not this again!!!

First of all, the Azeri proven Oil Reserves are negligible: as much as Italy, HALF of Romania, less than Thailand etc.

IT REPRESENTS 0.0005% of World Oil reserves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

World Oil Reserves

Second of all, that may be a poisoned gift! A diversified economy is far more stable and preferable.

Third of all, all the pipeline/political issues!

Most of all, I'm tired of discussing this!

 

 

 

 

That aside, what I mean by other standards is unemployment rate, social inequality (I am not sure if there is an appropriate index for this), outmigration rate, percentage of people living under the poverty line, overall economy outlook which is negatively affected by lack of substantical natural resources and dual blockades, telecom monopoly, etc..

I will try to find indicators or other numbers as much as I can. I would appreciate if Armen could do that as I am too lazy But once I have the data I could analyze and report

style_images/master/snapback.png

More than once, I have said that we have still a lot to achieve! When there's a problem, you assess it and solve it!

For instance, yesterday Azat had to deal with an urgent "disaster." He did not panic, complain and...he simply did what's needed to be done! Period!

Another concern would be the gap between the rich and the poor. Anyway, without comparative data, it would hard to assess.

 

 

 

 

 

At least we have gotten to a point to itemize the existing problems in Armenia after which hopefully some of these can be addressed and solved. What makes me upset though is the seeing things as "glass half-empty" phenomenon amongst many Armenians both in and outside of Armenia (is this is sign of national depression?). Some of the issues such as the 50% poverty, outmigration etc are easily solved specially with a small population such as in Armenia with such a small reproduction rate. I am not going to enlist how - most of you know, job creation, investment etc.

 

The lack of substantical natural resources never stopped the Japanese becoming the second economy in the world, perhaps it was their positive outlook on the future and innovative developmental solutions, I don't know. And in the mean time, countries like Iran, Nigeria which have oil have not necessarily gotten anywhere (please don't bring up "blaming everything on US" position either with Iran).

 

And finally, the blockade. Again, Turks are never going to let Armenia prosper if it was up to them with or without that blockade.

 

Good thread though, thanks for all the good comments, guys, this is just my outlook on things, one positive thinking Armenian here

 

Shnorhavor Nor Tari!

style_images/master/snapback.png

That's a more positive and a "healthier" view and approach! I agree!

 

Shnorvahor Nor Dari!

[Armen]

I would appreciate if Armen could do that as I am too lazy

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Nothing is impossible Susun jan. That will be 50$ per hour. I accept checks and money orders

[Armat]

Stratfor.com

 

Armenia: The Crush of Global Pressures

December 28, 2004  1815 GMT

 

style_images/master/snapback.png

Thanks Armen ,sometimes we need a wake up call to act correctly.Objective reasoning is what we need.Yes it feels like our history is repeating again.Our best way out is to join EU.

[joseph parikian]

Does any one have the number of turks that left turkey since 1922

If Europeans alow turkey to join them i bet you more than half the population

will move to europe

======================================================

From Cnn com

 

 

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/europe/12/16/eu.turkey.gaddafi.reut/story.gadhafi.jpg

 

Gadhafi warns Turkey threatens EU

Friday, December 17, 2004 Posted: 3:51 AM EST (0851 GMT)

 

 

 

Gadhafi: EU entry is militants' "Trojan horse."

 

 

 

SPECIAL REPORT

 

 

 

ROME, Italy (Reuters) -- Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has said it would be dangerous for the European Union to admit Turkey as a member state, calling the accession bid a "Trojan horse" for Islamic militants like Osama bin Laden.

 

"As far as the Islamic world is concerned -- including the Islamic extremists, even bin Laden -- they're rejoicing over the entry of Turkey in the European Union. This is their Trojan horse," he was quoted as saying by the Italian media.

 

"I'm saying only what will happen with the entry of the horse into Troy," he added in comments published on the day EU leaders met in Brussels to discuss whether to begin accession talks with the secular but overwhelmingly Muslim Turkey.

 

Gadhafi made his comments in an interview with RAI television, which is due to be aired on Friday. A transcript was printed on Thursday in Italy's La Repubblica daily.

 

The Libyan leader said that he did not care whether Turkey was admitted, explaining that he was "only saying what will be the consequences."

 

In a broad interview, also covering subjects from Afghanistan to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Gadhafi said he hoped to begin joint work with EU leaders soon on the issue of combating illegal immigration.

 

He said he would invite "interested" European heads of state for a summit in Tripoli, as his country ends decades of isolation. "The date is not yet established, but we are working seriously," he said.

 

Libya pledged to abandon its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs last year, prompting the United States to agree to lift its trade embargo earlier this year.

 

The United States has not, however, dropped Libya from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism, which bars Tripoli from receiving U.S. arms exports, controls sales to Libya of items with military and civilian uses and limits U.S. aid.

 

Gadhafi complained that Libya had still been poorly compensated for abandoning the weapons programs, and appeared to request assistance from the international community in setting up a civilian nuclear power program.

 

"Their reaction has been good, in terms of words, but there's been nothing concrete," Gadhafi said.

 

When asked what kind of compensation he was looking for Gadhafi said: "Transforming atomic (programs) to civilian use, after we decided to abandon military (program)."

 

He did not necessarily see new hope for the Middle East peace process following the death of Yasser Arafat, who Gadhafi called by his nom de guerre, Abu Ammar.

 

"I know the Americans and the Israelis said that Abu Ammar was the problem when he was alive. Ammar is dead. Will peace be realized?" Gadhafi asked.

 

"No. I turn the question to those who said the problem was Abu Ammar. Now the ball is in their court.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/12/16...y.gaddafi.reut/

Edited December 30, 2004 by joseph parikian

[Sasun]

Yes, the difference is less than small! Please keep in mind that our goal - in this thread - was to show that the article above is biased and is pro-Jurkish propaganda!

Well, I was not arguing otherwise. I know the article is biased against us, though not necessarily for Turkey's sake. So we don't have a disagreement on the article. All I want is for us to get a realistic look and neither underestimate nor overestimate Armenia's place.

Not this again!!!

First of all, the Azeri proven Oil Reserves are negligible: as much as Italy, HALF of Romania, less than Thailand etc.

IT REPRESENTS 0.0005% of World Oil reserves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

World Oil Reserves

I have nor argument with the nubmers, but apparently that amount of oil is not too negligible for the West to build pipelines.

I would prefer that Armenia had half of that amount of oil anyway.

[Sasun]

The dawning problem is one that Armenian President Robert Kocharian

has foreseen. In October 1999 there was a paramilitary attack against

the Armenian Parliament that resulted in the deaths of several members

of the country's mostly pro-Russian political faction; Russia took

advantage of the situation to send special forces troops in and cement

its political influence in the small country. The attack and Moscow's

reaction to it shook Kocharian's view of the Russians as a dependable

ally. After all, if the Russians could not prevent its most ardent

supporters from harm, and would take advantage of Armenian instability

to strengthen its grip, was Russian protection really worth it?

This analysis, although logical, doesn't seem right. I think that Russia's continuous weakening is one of the reasons for Armenia's change in foreign policy. And the other reason is Kocharian's foreign policiy doctrine of balancing between powers which was set when he came to power, not after parliament shootings happened.

 

Winds of change are blowing in Armenia. Russia is more

strategically distant than ever, and the West's strategy of triggering

soft revolutions a la Georgia and Ukraine has proven reliable.

Armenia's next presidential elections are in 2006.

 

Winds of change are blowing in Armenia; it is not clear whether

Armenia will survive them.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

What is meant by this? Armenia may not survive? Survive in what sense, it may disappear? That's not apparent at all. Or power may change? Quite possibly, at least Kocharian has not announced of plans to extend his presidency. But what does it have to do with survival? Rose revolution may not even be necessary, if Russia indeed becomes so weak then Kocharian would willingly go for a more pro Western orientation. And besides, Armenians are more mature than that to go for a rose revolution. Georgia was too weak, and Ukraine was not really a rose revolution, rather a country split which made it possible for the West to manipulate.

 

Anyway, let's hope the gloomy outlook will not realize for Armenia.

Edited December 30, 2004 by Sasun

[Harut]

... and the next presidential election is in 2008, not 2006.

[Sasun]

... and the next presidential election is in 2008, not 2006.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Good point Harut.

Armen, I hope you are not paying $799 a year for the subscription of this journal.

Edited December 30, 2004 by Sasun

[Sasun]

Oh, and one more point which further shows the superficial understanding in the article.

 

Moreover, for Armenia to truly make a go at Westernizing, it would

have to bury the hatchet with Turkey and Azerbaijan, which would mean,

at a minimum, withdrawing the bulk of its forces -- volunteers -- from

internationally-recognized Azerbaijani territory. In addition to that

being a non-starter at home, it would enrage the Armenian diaspora,

endangering the one international advantage that Armenia enjoys; the

diaspora's economic support is the only thing that keeps the Armenian

economy in its pseudo-functional shape.

 

Assuming we would have to withdraw and all that (not necessary in my opinion for a pro Western Armenia - example, perpetual foes Turkey and Greece part of the same military pact yet at times almost at war). The author does not understand why Diaspora is supporting Armenia. There is no conflict of interest between ARmenia and Diaspora, only a minor disagreement over the Genocide recognition issue but there is a overall a very good understanding of the practical needs and maneurability of Armenia. Nonetheless, whatever is in the interests of Armenia will be supported by the Diaspora. It will never happen that Armenia withdraws troops from around Artsax and diaspora gets angry and abandons Armenia. That would not make sense.

[Harut]

volunteer forces? today?

[Harut]

first and foremost, one needs to be pro-armenia, then pro-west, pro-russia, etc... and even than, those not as orientations, but merely tools for achieving the goals of the first... Edited December 30, 2004 by Harut

[Armen]

Good point Harut.

Armen, I hope you are not paying $799 a year for the subscription of this journal.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Sasun, it's from Groong. Stratfor.com is always very superficial in its analysis. But doesn't it ring a bell that first ISG predicted a hard year for Armenia (I posted that in Armenia thread), than these NY Times articles and now this ... Noone takes Stratfor seriously but Armenia is going to be pressured politically this year and Stratfor is right about that. The Ukrainian events come to mind. And the pressure is going to be on different levels starting from me and you reading the NY Times articles.

[Sasun]

Sasun, it's from Groong. Stratfor.com is always very superficial in its analysis. But doesn't it ring a bell that first ISG predicted a hard year for Armenia (I posted that in Armenia thread), than these NY Times articles and now this ... Noone takes Stratfor seriously but Armenia is going to be pressured politically this year and Stratfor is right about that. The Ukrainian events come to mind. And the pressure is going to be on different levels starting from me and you reading the NY Times articles.

style_images/master/snapback.png

That is true Armen, certain pressure is accumulating definitely. Another indicator of that is that Oskanian has started to talk about a phased solution, which makes one wonder why we didn't agree to the phased solution of Ter-Petrosian. Perhaps this one is better than the previous one, that we should come to see later.

On the other hand, this pressure maybe temprary, in which case it would suffice for Armenia to maneuver a bit, to give promisses and postpone any real withdrawal till the pressure is gone, then forget about the phase solution like the Azeris forgot about the Key West agreement. In that sense time is in our favor, as the years pass we become more entrenched in Artsakh and the surrounding lands, and the Azeris become more psychologically accepting their loss.

But the bottom line is, just because there is a pressure we don't have to give in. Even with the huge constraints creative thinking may result in solutions to bypass the pressures or minimize them. I trust Oskanian to come up with something better than significant concessions. Perhaps keeping our lands may come at the cost of extended periods of economic mediocrity and poverty, even then I think it is worth because land is more valuable than temporary wellbeing.

[Armen]

That is true Armen, certain pressure is accumulating definitely. Another indicator of that is that Oskanian has started to talk about a phased solution, which makes one wonder why we didn't agree to the phased solution of Ter-Petrosian. Perhaps this one is better than the previous one, that we should come to see later.

On the other hand, this pressure maybe temprary, in which case it would suffice for Armenia to maneuver a bit, to give promisses and postpone any real withdrawal till the pressure is gone, then forget about the phase solution like the Azeris forgot about the Key West agreement. In that sense time is in our favor, as the years pass we become more entrenched in Artsakh and the surrounding lands, and the Azeris become more psychologically accepting their loss.

But the bottom line is, just because there is a pressure we don't have to give in. Even with the huge constraints creative thinking may result in solutions to bypass the pressures or minimize them. I trust Oskanian to come up with something better than significant concessions. Perhaps keeping our lands may come at the cost of extended periods of economic mediocrity and poverty, even then I think it is worth because land is more valuable than temporary wellbeing.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

Susun, don't you think the pressure is more about Armenia's willingness to change its overall political oreintation (liek Ukraine did), rather than concessions on Karabagh. I don't think Europe in particular would like to give Karabagh to Azerbaijan. Also, I think the U.S. has very different agenda for Azerbaijan with regard to whole Iranian thing.

[Sasun]

Susun, don't you think the pressure is more about Armenia's willingness to change its overall political oreintation (liek Ukraine did), rather than concessions on Karabagh. I don't think Europe in particular would like to give Karabagh to Azerbaijan.

I would like to think that way. Indeed why would Europe want Artsax to belong to Azerbaijan and not to Armenians? I see not reason for such a preference, or the opposite preference. I think Europe and the US are largely interested in keeping the status quo. That will create less trouble for them.

On the other hand if Oskanian is starting to talk about a phased agreement which is clearly not beneficial for us, then I am left to believe that there is a pressure on Armenia to make certain concessions. The only thing that I can think of is that the external powers (not sure if that includes Russia) would like to see a permanent settlement of the conflict, and since it is not possible without concessions from both sides they are pressure both sides to move forward and do something.

 

So what do you think Armen?

 

  Also, I think the U.S. has very different agenda for Azerbaijan with regard to whole Iranian thing.

style_images/master/snapback.png

Can you elaborate what you mean?

[kakachik77]

this is from Groong, excellent commentary on recent articles

 

STEREOTYPES ABOUT ARMENIA

 

Armenian News Network / Groong

January 11, 2005

 

By Haroutiun Khachatrian

 

 

 

During the last five months, at least four articles appeared in

leading Western newspapers about Armenia. As if agreed initially, all

four are about the emigration problem. The general scheme of all

articles is as follows: (see, for example the latest article of this

"series" entitled "For Young Armenians, a Promised Land Without

Promise" in the December 9 issue of The New York Times). People are

quoted as saying that in Armenia jobs are difficult to find, or they

are paid less than similar jobs abroad. Statements of the opposite

type are also included, e.g. young people are quoted as saying that

they will try to find jobs in their homeland, etc. However, the

general tone remains negative, the titles are as sad as this one

(giving a respective signal to the readers, most of whom do not read

more of an article than its title). And, what is more important, the

data of statistics showing the migration of Armenian workforce is no

more a problem like it was in the 90s, that emigration and immigration

have already balanced, are generally ignored.

 

Some observers in Armenia express the opinion that there is a sort

of "conspiracy" or "political order" aimed to display reality in

Armenia worse than it is (even Haykakan Zhamanak, an opposition-minded

daily, has used these terms). I believe that, in fact, some

long-established stereotypes are to be blamed, according to which

Armenia cannot be described in a way other than a week and dependent

country. As shown below, even the works of serious political analysts

are not free of these stereotypes. I take two recent materials that

appeared on the www.eurasianet.org internet edition as typical

examples of such an attitude, although many others of this type can be

shown. They are: "Armenia: the Dream of Complementarity and the

Reality of Dependency" by Michael Weinstein, and the report of the

International Crisis Group entitled "Armenia: Internal Instability

Ahead.".

 

 

STEREOTYPE ONE. ARMENIA TOTALLY DEPENDS ON RUSSIA

 

Weinstein writes: "Armenia's primary dependence on Russia is

difficult to deny. Militarily, Russia has 2,500 troops in the

country... Russia is also Armenia's major trading partner, its largest

source of investment, the main destination of its surplus labor, the

provider of its energy needs and military equipment and its biggest

creditor..."

 

There are several errors in these fragments (I'll show some of

them below), but even their absence would not change the main

question: even if all of this were correct, would it mean a

pessimistic conclusion for Armenia? Yes, Russia has been the largest

source of investments in Armenia in the last two years (replacing

Greece), but does it mean increasing Armenia's dependency upon Russia?

Quite the opposite. Nor is the presence of the Russian troops in

Armenia a sign of unilateral dependency, as Russia is no less

interested in having these troops in its main partner country in the

Caucasus. True, Armenia depends heavily on fuel supply from

Russia. But Germany does as well. To a lesser extent, but Germany is a

richer country.

 

Moreover, many analysts, including Weinstein, fail to see that

this dependency will most likely decrease. He writes: "In May, 2004,

Kocharian visited Moscow for talks about Russia's displeasure with

Yerevan's initiatives. Moscow wants [Yerevan's] assurance that the

Iranian pipeline will not be extended through Georgia and under the

Black Sea to Ukraine, bypassing Russia and depriving it of a market

for gas." Hence, the author sees this meeting as a typical "failure

story", as Russia had prevented the Iran-Armenian gas pipeline from

being extended after Armenia. In fact this was a real success story,

as Russia could as well have simply prevented the construction of the

Iran-Armenia pipeline, thus preserving its own monopoly in the

Armenian gas market. After all, is it realistic for a country like

Armenia to be fully free of dependence on its neighbors? Especially on

one like Russia?

 

 

STEREOTYPE TWO: "COMPLEMENTARITY" IS A DREAM

 

Weinstein, the authors of the ICG report and many others (both in

Armenia and outside) speak about the so-called complementarity, the

key of the Armenian foreign policy, with skepticism if not

irony. "Since Yerevan lacks the resources to execute its

complementarirty policy successfully, that policy has become a hopeful

facade covering continuing dependence on Russia," Weinstein writes.

 

Since its first days of independence, Armenia has always sought to

keep equally good relations both with Russia and the U.S. (and the

West in general). This policy got the brand name of "complementarity"

in the late 90s. Let's see the results. Armenia is the only country

in the world, which has managed to preserve the status of a military

ally of Russia, and, at the same time, to be one of the largest

recipients of American assistance (for a long period, Armenia was the

third largest recipient in per capita terms, after Israel and

Egypt). In some years, Yerevan managed to pay its bills for the

Russian gas directly with the money provided by the U.S. If this is a

failure, what is the success?

 

 

STEREOTYPE THREE: ARMENIA IS NOT ORIENTED TO THE WEST

 

It is a long-term belief that Georgia and even Azerbaijan are more

inclined to adopt Western orientation than Armenia. Surprising as it

may look, this vision is based on the fact that the West is primarily

interested in contacts with Azerbaijan and Georgia (rather than with

Armenia) due to the oil pipeline now under construction. Another

arguable assumption supporting this belief is that, being a military

ally to Russia, Armenia should inevitably copy Moscow's economy policy

and foreign preferences as well. Such a perception has become even

stronger after the "Rose revolution" in Georgia. "Yerevan's policy of

complementarity contrasts with Tbilisi's pro-Western orientation since

the Rose Revolution and with Baku's "balanced" policy," Weinstein

writes, leaving the natural question "Where is the contrast?"

unanswered.

 

In reality, the status of a Russian ally hasn't prevented Armenia

from performing extensive economic reforms (according to the estimates

of the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, in terms of

market reforms Armenia is the most advanced country among the

CIS). Contrary to what Weinstein states, Russia has never been

Armenia's main creditor. More than half of Armenia's foreign debt is

loans of the World Bank, i.e., it is made up of the funds provided by

the leading Western countries for economy reforms. As for the

bilateral loans, Russia was the largest creditor before 2002, as it

had provided several high-interest loans in the peak of the economy

crisis in mid-90s. After Yerevan settled this debt with the

debt-for-equity deal (hence making Russia responsible for the proper

work of these assets), Germany has become its largest creditor

country, as it extensively credits economy reconstruction and reforms

in Armenia at very concessive terms. All of these have led the

U.S. to include Armenia in the list of those eligible for getting

funds of the newly established Millennium Challenge Corporation (17

countries were elected among more than 70). Finally, Russia did not

prevent its ally from performing NATO war games in Armenia in 2003 and

from being included into the EU New Neighborhood policy in 2004.

 

 

STEREOTYPE FOUR: ARMENIA MAY FACE INSTABILITY

 

The report of the International Crisis Group contains a sound body

of analysis and recommendations, most of which cannot be

questioned. But, having read the whole report, one may ask, why have

its authors chosen to give it the title: "Armenia: Internal

Instability Ahead."? The fragment relevant to that idea in the report

is: "While the present opposition -- divided and seen by many as more

interested in regaining power than truly fixing the system -- does not

have wide popular resonance, the situation could become much more

explosive if a charismatic leader emerged." Obviously, such a

conclusion does not imply that Armenia is "facing

instability". Meanwhile, the possibility of internal instability in

Armenia is even lower, because what is currently branded as

opposition, i.e., the Ardarutiun (Justice) alliance, is not a real

opposition at all. Rather, it is a part of the current ruling elite

which has separated from it due to the events of the terrorist act of

October 27, 1999, and partly, due to some details of the tactics

towards the Nagorno Artsax problem.

 

What is even more important, the "opposition" does not enjoy

appreciable support of the country's business community. This is the

key reason why the regime lead by Kocharian has remained stable

(despite the violations and breaching during last year's elections)

and, will, most likely, keep stability in the future, even if a

"charismatic" opponent like Saakashvili or Yushchenko appears. The

only possibility of internal instability in Armenia may be due to some

split in the ruling coalition, but this possibility has not even been

considered in the report.

 

Hence, I can see no other reason for this alarming title to be

chosen except for the failure of the report's authors to get rid of

stereotypes about an "unstable" Armenia.

 

Of course, Armenia is far from being a prosperous country with a

stable environment. However, it is regrettable to see that analyses

and media reports often fail to reveal its true problems and tell the

readers about non-existing or forgotten ones.

 

 

--

Haroutiun Khachatrian is a Yerevan-based writer specializing in

economic and political affairs.

[groul]

I don't have neither time nor wish to comment another piece of crap Sue wrote. But I want to comment the photo, because images are always much more powerfull than all the words.

 

The number of people using wood to heat their apartments in winter decreases every year. Yet this year there was even sharper decrease, because natural gas is being installed in more and more Armenian regions constantly. At this moment more then a half of Yerevan and surrounding regions has natural gas supply. I am talking about what I have seen with my own eyes.

 

So most of us have gas heaters now, almost the same I had while living in Vermont

 

This photograph is probably taken 10 years ago, or at some wholesale wood market a which probably still exists somewhere though I personally have never seen anything like that since I moved back to Yerevan 10 months ago.

Edited January 15, 2005 by groul

[Arpa]

Has anyone looked into Ms. Sach's ethnicity and her special interest in Armenia vs Turkey?

It may explain a lot!

[gamavor]

Armenia, as well as most of the former Soviet Republics are well gasified, unlike many Eastern European countries, who also belonged to the Soviet Block. A modernization of the existing grid and some more appropriate investments would be of great benefit fot the further development of the economy.

 

Natural Gas is the fuel for the coming 100 years.

[DominO123]

Armenia, as well as most of the former Soviet Republics are well gasified, unlike many Eastern European countries, who also belonged to the Soviet Block. A modernization of the existing grid and some more appropriate investments would be of great benefit fot the further development of the economy.

 

Natural Gas is the fuel for the coming 100 years.

style_images/master/snapback.png

 

According to some recent researchs, fossile fuel reserves won't last that long.