Presidential Elections

[nairi]

Ahhh! You're too quick! We're posting across each other again!

 

Yes, I have seen that website (though I don't think Armenians will do much about it right now), and don't worry, we WON the court case in Assen! Not only that, Dutch Minister of Internal Affairs agreed with us AGAIN on the second list of questions. Mrs van As has still not replied to that!

[EZ]

Nairi, I will reply tomorrow or so, other duties are calling.

[EZ]

Mosjan, I think Nairi and I are discussing this subject in the wrong thread. Should we paste our discussion from here into another thread?

[MosJan]

Ez inchpes vor tsankanas.

 

Thanks for asking

Movses

[EZ]

[nairi]

Elly, remember what the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs wrote in their website about Armenia? I call that limited freedom of speech.

[EZ]

Nairi, read the below answer #4 (and 3) of minister De Vries of Internal affairs to one of Van Dijke's questions (copied from the Forums topic Genocide recognition in the Netherlands that was posted by you).

 

In only a few sentences it shows that:

1. a mistake was made by the mayor of Assen;

2. the mistake is not being covered up at all but openly admitted (NB: by the highest governmental authority of internal Dutch affairs!);

3. the minister even goes one step further by mentioning that a possible outcome of a (future) courtcase could very well be decided in favor of the Armenians.

 

"4. Answer

The action of the police was based on the previously negotiated agreements on among others the texts that would be carried on the banners. With that the police wanted to prevent - and that in itself is very justifiable - irregularities from arising. However to my opinion - and hereby I refer you to my answer on question 3 - the approach that the police chose was not legal. Even though the judgement on the legitimacy of the single case is the judge's concern, it is very much the question whether the made agreements could hold in a lawsuit."

 

The mentioned answer to question 3 was:

 

"3. Answer

The decision to remove certain expressions from the banners in this case, was established by the police and the leaders of the demonstration. It is important to emphasize that public manifestations, such as demonstrations, are settled according to a system of prior notice (with the possibility of a prohibition if the required conditions are not met) instead of a permit system that implies consent to the manifestation. In the Law on Public Demonstrations (LPD) a clear rule is given for the manner in which the right to demonstrate can be regulated at a municipal level. On ground of article 4 LPD, the municipal council as such is authorized to establish rules concerning the prior notice obligation and also within the authority of the Mayor in the framework of LPD, it concerns regulations regarding the orderly course of a manifestation. In case, for instance, a serious disruption of traffic is expected, the Mayor may - after making the necessary considerations of interest - take measures to limit this effect. However the choice of the organization for the time and place of the march is decisive in the first instance and that also has to be the starting point of the local authority. A prior control and active administrative interference in the content of the viewpoints to be carried however, does not fall into the description of LPD and is illegal. The prior judging of texts on banners on their content is a breach of the prohibition on censorship like it is derived from articles 7 and 9 of the Constitution. Only afterwards, when it appears that protesters are carrying discriminating or offensive texts, can the police confiscate banners and such in questions and possibly even arrest individual protesters suspected of certain penal offences."

 

There is no way that the above can have contributed to your conclusion (rather the opposite I would say) that:

 

"freedom of speech in Holland is sometimes as limited, if not more, than in some of the most totalitarian countries around the world."

 

All of this shows that Holland is not perfect, it's people aren't, but it's system is at least VERY OK and working. Even without the help of member of parliament Van Dijke, a courtcase would deal with the matter with the same fairness and objectiveness as minister De Vries' reply to Van Dijke shows in the above texts.

 

You wrote:

 

"The fact that I have so far not read a single Dutch newspaper article that discussed the Armenian genocide without twisting facts, playing with numbers, and even reversing events outright, is enough for me to claim that freedom of speech in Holland is sometimes as limited, if not more, than in some of the most totalitarian countries around the world."

 

If the articles you are referring to, are reason for you "to claim that freedom of speech in Holland is sometimes as limited, if not more, than in some of the most totalitarian countries around the world." (NB: even MORE, than in some of the MOST totalitarian countries), than they must be pretty awful, so not terrible. I have read a couple myself in the past, but have not noticed any content that could lead to such serious conclusions. You will understand that I really MUST read them now. So I am waiting for you to post them or send them to me.

 

By the way, I do not think that you are attacking me, why would you, I did nothing wrong.

[EZ]

No, please remind me.

[EZ]

My first thought is, that even the ministry of Foreign Affairs has a right to freedom of speech.

But maybe after you freshen my memory up I will know what you mean.

 

I gotto to run now. See you later.

[EZ]

MJ, sorry for messing your Presidential Elections up. Can you help me to move this discussion (including all relevant postings) elsewhere?

[MJ]

That's OK, Elly. I have decided to remove my candidacy in the upcoming elections. BUt I will be back.

[nairi]

Elly, you're right. Perhaps my comment was a bit exaggerated, but I guess we agree that freedom in Holland is also limited, be it for good or bad reasons.

 

Anyway, the topic is Armenia and its presidential elections People seem to be responding...

[EZ]

Hi Nairi jan.

 

I am planning to comment tomorrow. Now just this...

 

I don't agree with you that "freedom in Holland is also limited, be it for good or bad reasons."

 

The difference between "good" or "bad" in your above sentence is essential. It decides whether it's legitimate (from the human perspective) or not to limit freedom. It's the difference between heaven or hell. Yes, freedom in Holland IS limited, VERY, for ALL the good reasons that people came up with in the past. It's these limitations that give us our rights as well as our obligations, the right to speak as well as the obligation to respect. If I would believe in a God I would thank him or her for letting me be born here, though I think he or she forgot to give us a little more sunshine and a little less rain.

 

Thanks, Nairi. Tomorrow I will come back with a little more (if you don't mind).

[MJ]

Dear Alpha,

 

I would like to think that you are kidding, here.

[EZ]

Hi Nairi, thanks. But but I don't think it was a bit exaggerated, it was not even a bit true.

 

I do agree that 'freedom' (not to be confused with [the right to] freedom of speech) is limited. Of course. In what chaos would we be otherwise. I am very glad that we have our laws and that our judges (who have the last word in the end) are guarding them the way they do, even though it sometimes can be very difficult to judge.

 

I'm sure you are familiar with the case of member of parliament of the Christen Unie Van Dijke, who openly insulted homosexuals by comparing them with thieves. It was the law against discrimination that got him into trouble, but it was the right to freedom of religion that got him off the hook. Now you can argue about the judge's decission. Personally I feel that the law against discrimination should have priority and that there is something wrong with a religion that discriminates. But I'm not a judge, fortunately. With discrimination being a death sin and freedom of speech, freedom of religion etc. etc. to be guarded as treasures also.... trying to be fair for everyone sure can be complicated.

 

I have taken your claim so seriously that today I have actually started to search the archives of our major newspapers for articles like the ones you described. What I found were reports of what was going on at the time, for example in Assen, or at EU-level. To me they were either neutral reports - I also sensed 'pro Armenian' even - or they were based on interviews. Also I found some that I thought were not very accurate in stating the (note: "recent") facts as they had actually occurred, which is needlessly careless and an example of bad journalism, but it has nothing to do with 'twisting' facts for some dark reason as you insinuated. From other articles in the past I remember that the number of victims varied, but you can hardly take that as "twisting" facts either, since no one is sure about the exact number, not even Armenians. Of course, good journalism also has to do with good and thorough research and one has to be really interested, I guess, to want to go into it that deep. About "reversing events" as I believe you mentioned: I have never read a Dutch article reversing the genocide story, that is what the Turks do. But an article that let's both sides speak, well, one can hardly object to an attempt to be objective (regardless of the personal opinion of the journalist in question). I can imagine however, that it's very hurtful for Armenians to hear a Turk say in the news, or read in the paper something like: "The Armenians did it themselves, they were the ones who killed us!".

 

As I see it, to report news (for ex. the Assen events) is one thing, but to report the past, the Armenian Genocide, that is a whole different matter.

 

I think you should not confuse lack of interest and/or care (or not enough for your personal taste), or ignorance, with sabotage, viciousness or lack of freedom (of speech). Also I think that paranoia is not the way to change things for the better.

 

You mentioned something about the Ministry of Internal Affairs' website. You called that "limited freedom of speech". If you were referring to the changed footnote, I think that has nothing to do with limited freedom of speech. It was their own footnote, they can change it if they want. Whether it's a good or bad thing to do is a different matter. We (at least I) never got to find out the reason for the changes, but I can imagine that it had something to do with the usual Turkish complaints about the mentioning of the genocide in the footnote. If I would have had anything to say about it, they could have complained until hell freezes and I think whoever decided to give in to that Turkish pressure, was wrong to do so.

 

After having read more and more related material, on and off this Forum, I can see now, how terribly complicated the whole matter is. I still believe that the truth should weigh the heaviest, but I guess I have stopped to think only in black and white. Relatively we have a whole lot of Turks living in Holland, who could severely disturb the Dutch peace. Then there's this EU-situation: Turkey wants in, EU doesn't let them but doesn't want to make them mad either; USA wants Turkey in and presures Europe. There's a war with Irak in the air... there's oil, economic interests and what else do you have...

 

Back to the initial subject. Holland is not perfect, neither are it's people. But to compare Holland with a totalitarian state is plain rediculous. I mean, Nairi... If it were that bad, why do you live here then? (Now don't tell me "because in China it's even worse" ) You are living in one of the most democratic and FREE countries in the whole ******* wide world!

 

P.S. I am a little confused about what courtcase the Armenians won exactly. Can you give me some info or a url?

 

P.S.2. My advice is, set up a courtcase, let the judge decide. The monument would be a good start. Get the original text back on it. Let the judge spank the mayor for influencing the text. Then prepare another, major one. Prepare it well, bring all the experts and documentation you can find. You'll set history straight and write a new one even.

 

Have a nice sunday.

[EZ]

Oh, and Nairi, to not disturb Alpha and MJ in their preparings for the presidential elections I think we are ready to rap things up now and move over to the thread "Genocide recognition in the Netherlands" or to a new thread.

 

By the way, MJ, why don't I get offered a job in your new government? I hope you're not discriminating this Dutch girl.

[EZ]

Sorry, I forgot this one: "denial policy"

 

We are not in denial, Nairi. Don't confuse the Dutch with the Turks please.

 

We (the people) are ignorant, yes, and we (the government) should acknowledge the genocide, but we are not the ones who should admit having committed it, are we.

[EZ]

Sorry, just this last one

 

You called it: "Holland's limited freedom of speech"

 

Nairi, you should really be more careful with what you say.

 

"Holland's limited freedom of speech" as you call it, does not exist, because it's the ******** Assen Town (not Holland!) that made a couple of stupid and serious mistakes.... Yes, regarding the right to freedom of speech! They abused their power to apply censorship on the Armenians, which is very unethical. Go to a judge and he'll set them straight. That's how the system works. People, institutions, everyone, make(s) mistakes, and when they do and denie someone his rights, he can let the system work for him, to get his rights. That goes for you as well as for me, AS for the Turks. I believe they went to court and lost, right? So you can go to court and win!

 

By the way, I may sound a little passionate here and there, but I'm not in any way trying to hurt your feelings Nairi, ok? All of this is just to set things straight because I felt it was necessary.

[alpha]

What is democracy? Let’s first define democracy than discuss the idea of democratic elections. Every more or less well read person is probably familiar with Aristotle’s “Politics” (there is an interesting link that talks about it in this website http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-politics/ ) which is the cornerstone of modern democratic theory. In democracy every citizen has a right to choose a leader, but the problem with current democracies is that every idiot has obtained a right of citizenship and a right to decide the future of his / her community / country. The right to vote should not be based on age of a person as it is now, but on intellectual capacity to make decisions. Democratic elections have become more advertising campaigns than an election process. As we all know advertising requires money, so naturally the best financed people win the advertising campaigns. It’s easier to advertise and buy the votes of people who do not have the intellectual capacity to determine the future of a county / community. I don’t believe in electoral process in any country of the world including United States (in latest presidential elections more people voted for Gore). To be frankly honest with you my understanding of modern democracy (it can be wrong) is making people believe that they have a voice in decision making process, and convince them to vote for the best advertised candidate not the most qualified one. Look what happened after the election of George W., military got a major boost in spending, rich people got lower taxes and overall big business has won.

 

OK enough about Western Democracies, now about Armenia. It is known to everybody that all elections are very expensive. Most deputats in Azgayin Zhoghov are moneyed people. In last parliament elections to win a sit cost $120,000. There has to be a wealthy class who should have a vested interest in a candidate to support him / her. Whoever in Armenia is for maintaining the status quo is going to finance Robert Kocharyan. The big winners of current status quo are the Army generals, most of whom have a very lucrative business on aside, newly rich class who obtained their wealth through plundering of their country. Geghamyan or Demichyan are backed by people who were bureaucrats in Soviet Armenia and still have significant levers. Their socialistic platforms are aimed at playing on nostalgic feelings of the past. Raffi Hovhannissyan is a Diaspora person and should naturally attract Diaspora backing, but Diaspora is too disorganized and is incapable of financing a well run campaign. Vazgen Manukyan split from the rest of HHSH in early 90s and is backed mainly by Soviet era intellectuals. Since he doesn’t have significant financial resources I think his campaign will falter in early stages. Regional powers also have their preferred candidates and will most likely finance them, that is why Geghamyan and Demirchyan are in Moscow every other week. In terms of corruption it doesn’t matter who the person is on top. The whole system is corrupt. I think it takes major diaspora influence to change the corrupt system. Being raised in United States Raffi Hovhannissyan is probably the best candidate to stem out corruption. He is the one least involved in clannish structures, which are present since Soviet Times.

 

OK hima ban@ hasav pashtonin. I would like to be head of Chamber of Commerce of Armenia (a non profit organization) or …….. head of Central Bank of Armenia since MJ has put my candidacy I can’t refuse it.

[nairi]

Elly, please don't underestimate the desire of Dutch journalists to "revive" the Armenian genocide, be it for the sole purpose of exposing the history of their Turkish community. I don't think I need to post an article (or non-article for that matter) for you to know that censorship and restrictions happen in Holland as well.

 

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs' reference to a "genocide" may in itself be the freedom of speech that FA chooses to apply, however, I think it's more likely the result of national and international pressures than that of what FA genuinely believes is true.

 

As for Dutch law, I agree that the system is quite objective and fair, but it still does not support journalists in writing freely about certain topics in practice (namely in quality newspapers, as opposed to local ones). Clearly, either Dutch freedom of speech only works on paper, or Dutch leaders are cowards when it comes to applying it in practice.

 

About living in Holland: I am very grateful about having had the right to grow up here. I mean that. I don't think there is a single other country in the world that I would have been proud to grow up in. However, since it is also "my" country, to a certain degree (I was born here), I feel that I too have the right to look at it critically.

 

Filing a lawsuit: the Armenian Genocide does not belong in some obscure village court. It belongs at the International Tribunal, or International Criminal Court. However, if anyone really believes that the Armenian Genocide will be judged there in the near future, they are dreaming. This isn't merely about Turkish denial; it's about supporting Turkey in its denial. By writing "genocide" in its web site, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is acting as an accomplice. The situation is more complex than that, and it is NOT that easy for Armenians to get voice. What the h... do you think we've been doing since the beginning of last century? Yes, we made and continue to make many mistakes, but it would be ridiculous to put the full blame on Armenians by telling them they're not trying hard enough, or they're not doing it the right way. It's just not that easy to gain support when the most powerful countries are blocking your way.

 

As for genocide recognition in Holland: there's not much point discussing it right now. First of all, nothing major is happening at the moment, and secondly Holland will not recognize the genocide either until the rest of the world does, or Turkey does. This is almost a guaranteed fact. Blame it on cowardice if you want, but it just won't happen soon.

 

The court case we won was filed at the highest level by the Turkish Forum. The outcome was that the monument can stay in Assen, but its text cannot be altered. Officially, we're still commemorating Nikolai Romashuk's ancestors in the period of 1910-1920. I doubt Armenians will file a lawsuit to get the text back. There's simply not much point. If we get the text back, the Turks will drag us back into court. Then we'll have to file another lawsuit to set that straight, etc, etc. It's a vicious circle. We're better off just being quiet, doing as we're told, respect Dutch law and freedom to the extent that we can have it, and stop bothering everyone with it. If Dutch people want the genocide to be recognized by their country, they will have to be the ones to put more effort into it. We're merely guests: that's why Romashuk went along with what he was told. He didn't want to cause more trouble than he already had.

 

Concerning Assen: again, there's not much point for us to file a lawsuit against Mrs. Van As. If the lady refuses to listen to Internal Affairs, what makes anyone think she'll listen to her local court? Besides, it's too much energy and too much trouble. Armenians in Holland are not full-time activists. It's something they do in their free time (which is not much). And considering that the above court case took more than two and a half years (!) to resolve, I doubt anyone has that much free time or willingness on their hands to file another one. Not now anyway.

 

Likewise

[MJ]

Dear Elly,

 

I had you in my mind. You would be perfectly suitable for the position of Ambassador of Armenia in the Netherlands. But since I didn't garner enough support for my campaign, I decided not to make my plans for you public.

[EZ]

Well, you have MY support now!

 

By the way, I know people have been joking around here about participating in the presidential elections. But I do take it also seriously, I really believe it would be a good idea to try to have a go at it from here. There are certainly some very qualified people on this Forum.

 

So to all: could it be also discussed as a real possibility?

 

It's nice to joke around, but don't have some of you at least have the real thing in the back of your minds?

[Azat]

Decision 2003: Candidates declare property and income

http://www.armenianow.com

 

By Julia Hakobyan

ArmeniaNow reporter Candidates for the February 19 Presidential election have, according to law, submitted financial declarations to the Central Elections Committee.

 

While most common citizens doubt the veracity of any such statements, the formality in any case shows a dramatic range of incomes.

 

At the top of the list, 42-year old former Prime Minister Aram Sarksyan claimed an annual income of 206,301,304 drams (about $352,650), while "Motherland and Honor" party candidate Garnik Margaryan, 58, stated a mere $418.

 

According to the Armenian Election Code, candidates must declare property and annual income as a condition of their candidacy.

 

Both Sarksyan and Margaryan asserted that they do not possess any property expect cars. Sarksyan owns a Jeep Wrangler and Margaryan, who listed his employment as "pensioner" owns a Mercedes Benz 190.

 

Vladimir Darbinyan and Vazgen Manukyan are the only two candidates who declared real estate. (Some candidates put dash lines in the area assigned for claiming real estate. Others simply ignored that section.)

 

Manukyan, 57, says he owns a 107 square meter house and 180 square meters of land and a Niva.

 

Manukyan, leader of the National Democratic Union, says his family earned 5,456,026 drams (about $9,300), more than half, $5,600, coming from his daughter Astghik's income.

 

Vladimir Darbinyan, 72, leader of the Communist Party, claimed an income of $2,565 and a 131-square meter apartment.

 

Forty-four year old Stepan Demirchyan, considered by political observers as the most serious contender in the race expected to won by President Robert Kocharyan, claimed to have an overall income of $9,925 of which he earned $3,891 from his job at Mars robot production plant and the remaining $6,034 earned by his mother and his wife.

 

Kocharyan, 49, indicated that he does not own property nor a car and that his family, including his son, Sedrak and daughter, Gayane, earned $17,160 in 2002.

 

The youngest candidate, 39 year old Aram Karapetyan, head of the "Herankar" center reported $34,355.

 

Artashes Geghamyan, 54, the head of the parliamentary coalition "Right and Union" claimed $3,731.

 

Ruben Avakyan, the Director of the Armenian branch of the New Moscow Juridical University declared an income of $23,769 earned by himself and his wife and his son.

 

Aram Harutyunyan, 44, an assistant at Yerevan State University, reported $776.

 

The other Aram Sarksyan, 57 year old leader of the Democratic Party, claimed $3,709.

 

The official campaign began January 21 and will end February 17.

 

Garnik Margaryan 244,307 $418

Aram Harutyunyan 454,155 $776

Vladimir Darbinyan 1,500,000 $2 564

Aram Sarksyan 2,170,000 $3 709

Artashes Gegamyan 2,182,889 $3 731

Vazgen Manukyan 5,456,026 $9 327

Stepan Demirchyan 5,806,322 $9 925

Robert Kocharyan 10,038,458 $17 160

Ruben Avakyan 13,904,994 $23 769

Aram Karapetyan 20 097 400 $34 355

Aram Sarksyan 206 301 304 $352 652

[Azat]

Eurasia Insight:

THE WEST WATCHES ARMENIA CHOOSE

Emil Danielyan: 2/02/03

A EurasiaNet Partner Post from RFE/RL

 

Armenia will face what could be the biggest test yet of its democratic credentials when it holds presidential elections in February, elections that President Robert Kocharian hopes will give him another five-year term.

 

The United States and Europe strongly criticized the 1998 Armenian elections and are again keeping a watchful eye on the intensifying election campaign. This time, Western officials say, the scrutiny will be far more focused.

 

"The process will be put under a microscope to a much larger extent than it was in the past," said a Western diplomatic source in Yerevan who asked not to be identified. "This will be a real test of Armenia's international commitments."

 

Peter Eicher, head of a monitoring mission from the OSCE, likewise describes the February 19 vote as a "big challenge for Armenia." "I think it's a test this time to see whether the authorities have progressed far enough to run an election which is really clean and really meets international standards," Eicher said in an interview. "I think there is going to be a lot of interest internationally on this."

 

Eicher's mission is the largest Western-led group to monitor the polls, and its judgment will therefore be crucial for their international legitimacy. The mission currently numbers 25 long-term observers from 16 OSCE member countries. They will be joined by more than 250 short-term monitors on the eve of the voting.

 

Eleven candidates representing virtually the country's entire political spectrum are vying for the presidency. Kocharian, who is far ahead of his rivals in opinion polls, is aiming for a landslide victory in the first round. But some independent pollsters say he is not popular enough to avoid a risky runoff with an opposition contender. Their surveys show that the opposition vote, though split among several candidates, exceeds Kocharian's current approval ratings.

 

Two left-wing opposition politicians – Stepan Demirchian and Artashes Geghamian – are currently seen as Kocharian's main challengers. Also in contention are two former prime ministers: Vazgen Manukian and Aram Sargsian. The latter is the younger brother of another former premier, Vazgen Sargsian, who was killed in the October 1999 terrorist attack on the Armenian parliament.

 

Opposition leaders are already accusing Kocharian, who is backed by the state apparatus, of planning to manipulate the vote on a massive scale. There have been numerous reports of senior government officials ordering their subordinates to campaign for Kocharian in breach of the law. Justice Minister David Harutiunian was forced to admit last week that he had summoned school principals in Yerevan and told them to "propagate" Kocharian's re-election among their students' parents.

 

Although Kocharian has repeatedly pledged to ensure a clean election, one Western diplomat cautioned, "There is still a lot of potential for fraudulent voting." He pointed to the biased media coverage of opposition candidates, persistent inaccuracies in voter lists, and a lack of transparency in the tabulation of ballots. OSCE observers have singled out the latter problem and urged the authorities to publish a precinct-by-precinct breakdown of election results.

 

"It is an absolutely key control that allows every citizen to see that the results of their polling station were included accurately as the count went forward," Eicher explained. "Very often, in countries where elections are manipulated, the manipulation is found not so much in the stuffing of ballot boxes, but rather that the results somehow change as they move up the tabulation process." Armenia's Central Election Commission, according to Eicher, has promised to consider this antifraud suggestion.

 

An additional source of concern is Kocharian's decision to appoint powerful Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisian as his campaign manager. The Western source termed the move as "at best, questionable," saying that Sarkisian effectively continues to perform his ministerial duties despite his announcement in November that he would take a three-month leave of absence. Sarkisian was a member of an Armenian government delegation that accompanied Kocharian during his official visit to Russia earlier this month.

 

Voting by the military has been a major source of vote irregularities in Armenia, with tens of thousands of army conscripts reportedly constrained to vote for the incumbent in the past.

 

The lingering concerns about the freedom and fairness of the upcoming presidential ballot were underscored last week by US Ambassador to Armenia John Ordway, who warned authorities against resorting to fraud. "Any significant irregularities in the process will cast doubt on the legitimacy of the whole process and, therefore, on the result," Ordway said in a brief statement.

 

Voting irregularities have become a tradition in Armenia, with none of the elections held since independence judged by international monitors to have been democratic. For example, the OSCE concluded that the preterm presidential election in 1998 did not meet democratic standards to which Armenia had committed itself.

 

Such negative international reaction did not, however, prevent Armenia from joining the Council of Europe two years ago. Still, membership of the unofficial club of European democracies brings with it higher international expectations of political reform, which might explain why the West's patience with Yerevan now seems to be wearing thin.

 

Editor’s Note: Emil Danielyan is an RFE/RL correspondent based in Yerevan.

 

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insi.../pp020203.shtml

[takavor]

When I read this articule carefully, I just wonder (based on the above statements),

 

"Why are they putting SO MUCH pressure on the Armenian elections?"

 

"What interest do the US and the Western Europe powers have to seize any opportunity to make Armenia look bad on the international scene?"