Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"The Armenian Weekly"; August 4, 2007; Commentary

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "The Armenian Weekly"; August 4, 2007; Commentary

    The Armenian Weekly On-Line
    80 Bigelow Avenue
    Watertown MA 02472 USA
    (617) 926-3974
    [email protected]
    http://www.ar menianweekly.com

    The Armenian Weekly; Volume 73, No. 31; August 4, 2007

    Commentary:

    1. Armenians in Turkey Continue on Same Path
    By Khajag Mgrditchian

    2. An Unreasonable U.S. Concern: Armenian-Iranian Cooperation
    By Michael G. Mensoian

    3. Health Care in Armenia Yesterday and Today
    By Inna Mkhitaryan

    4. Taxi
    By Simon Beugekian

    5. Ayaan Hirsi Ali Reflects on Secularism and Islam in Turkey

    6. Letters to the Editor

    ***

    1. Armenians in Turkey Continue on Same Path
    By Khajag Mgrditchian

    ISTANBUL, Turkey (A.W.)-The Turkish general elections took place on Sunday,
    July 22, and were concluded with the victory of Prime Minister Rejep Tayyip
    Erdogan's ruling AK (Justice and Progress) Party. This basically means that
    Turkey has chosen to continue on the same path it has taken over the last
    four years.

    In the previous elections AK party gained 34 percent of the vote, and out of
    the 550 seats in the parliament, it had 363, which was enough for the party
    to create a government by itself. This time around, despite the fact that
    the party received 47 percent of all votes, it actually lost some seats in
    the parliament, and now has 340. This decrease in the number of seats that
    is not congruent with the popular vote is the result of the Turkish
    electoral laws, which put a quota of 10 percent of votes for parties to
    enter the parliament.

    The results, which don't change the political landscape, were however not
    alone in defining the latest Turkish elections. There were many other
    phenomenon which make these elections unique.

    One of these events was the setback suffered by the Republican Democratic
    Party (CHP), lead by renown left-winger Deniz Baykal. Clearly, this party
    has left behind its leftist principles and has lately been becoming more and
    more Kemalist, acting as one of the extremely nationalist groups in Turkey.

    The latest wave of nationalism in Turkey allowed another party to enter the
    parliament: the National Movement Party (MHP), which does not even attempt
    to disguise its extreme nationalist approach. The party has been able to
    garner 71 seats in the Parliament. With the entry of this party-which
    sponsors the nationalist "Grey Wolves" movement-into the parliament, a new
    Turkish opposition emerges. In the past, the only opposition party was the
    CHP. The popularity of the MHP is evidence of the latest wave of nationalism
    that has spread as a backlash to Erdogan's Islamist-leaning policies.

    Thus, the progress recorded by nationalist movements is the second unique
    event that distinguishes the Turkish elections. The rise of nationalism
    compels friends of democracy to pick the less of two evils, in this case the
    AK Party.

    The same view was upheld by the Turkish-Armenian community, which, for the
    first time, participated with relative zeal, expressed its views and
    attempted to have some say in the government. Most of the renown
    Turkish-Armenian figures openly preferred Erdogan and his party. "I think
    that the other parties have very little chance of receiving our votes,
    because, in my opinion, we have lost trust in them. They have all been put
    to the test, and they have all come and gone without helping us, while AKP
    has, and where it has failed to reach its goals, it is not to blame. We know
    what kind of opposition they are facing, and groups both within and outside
    of the government are doing whatever they can to impede its plans," said
    Rober Haddejian, editor of the "Marmara" newspaper to Hairenik/Armenian
    Weeklies adding that if the AK Party remains in leadership, then "our
    expectations might be met, and the situation might improve."
    In an interview with "Hairenik," Sarkis Seropian, an editor of the "Agos"
    newspaper, expressed a very similar view, mentioning that the AK Party is
    the less of evils and is acceptable by the Armenian community in Turkey,
    "because the other, so-called democratic parties, do not follow their own
    creeds. The Republican Democratic Party itself claims to be left wing, but
    in my opinion, it is on the extreme right, it is even possible to call it a
    jingoistic party. And the positions of the right-wing nationalist party are
    well known. I believe it is almost impossible to distinguish these two
    parties. There are other parties, but they unfortunately won't be able to
    pass the 10 percent mark."

    In order to circumvent the above-mentioned minimum limit of votes to enter
    into the parliament, some parties orchestrated their campaigns in a way that
    would allow them to propose independent candidates; and the large number of
    independent candidates who got elected was another feature of these
    elections.

    The Kurdish-leaning Democratic Party (DTP) made good use of this strategy.
    Twenty-four delegates of this party, who were campaigning as independent
    candidates, were elected to seats. In fact, this Kurdish party, by
    circumventing the 10 percent requirement, can form its own grouping in the
    parliament. This large presence of Kurdish delegates is yet another feature
    of the elections.

    There are some names among the independent delegates that are worth
    mentioning, including the former leader of the "Our Homeland" party, former
    Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister Mesut Yilmaz, as well as the
    head of the "Grand Union" Party (BBP) Muhsin Yazicioglu and the head of the
    "Freedom and Union Party" (ODP) Ufuk Uras.

    Translated by Simon Beugekian
    ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ----

    2. An Unreasonable U.S. Concern: Armenian-Iranian Cooperation
    By Michael G. Mensoian

    Recently, the United States Charge d'Affairs in Yerevan, Anthony Godfrey,
    indicated that Washington had concerns regarding the degree and direction of
    Armenian-Iranian cooperation, especially relating to energy resources. For
    the past 30 years Iran has been the principal adversary of the United States
    in the Middle East and its client state Israel. Its determination to develop
    nuclear technology for peaceful or alleged non-peaceful purposes or, again,
    its support of what is described in the Western media as radical Islamic
    groups is beyond the purpose of this discussion. However, what is important
    is that Armenia and Iran enjoy a symbiotic relationship that both nations
    have assiduously nurtured since Armenia's independence. It should be noted
    that there are several hundred thousand Armenians in Iran; most having lived
    there for generations.

    Although the United States has a right to question Armenia's relationship
    with Iran, that concern must be evaluated within the context of the close
    economic and military ties Washington maintains with Turkey, Azerbaijan and
    Georgia. Both Turkey and Azerbaijan, which loom large in the strategic
    interests of the United States, have adopted policies whose sole purpose is
    to weaken Armenia. Georgia, a third recipient of United States military and
    economic largess, maintains a cooperative stance in its relations with
    Armenia, yet it does not hesitate to enter into agreements with Turkey and
    Azerbaijan that are inimical to Armenia's economic interests. Far out
    weighing any economic and humanitarian aid Armenia receives from the United
    States are the close ties that bind Ankara, Baku and Tbilisi to Washington's
    policy of challenging Russia and Iran for the energy resources of Central
    Asia and the Caucasus. As a result, Armenia has been left, literally, to its
    own devices. So much for that.

    As one of 44 land-locked countries in the world, Armenia's relationship with
    its neighbors must be placed in a special category. Georgia's interest in
    Armenia is primarily pragmatic; the type and volume of trade, transit
    concerns, the degree and purpose of Armenia's military cooperation with
    Russia and the political interaction between Yerevan and the Javakhk
    Armenians. Its economic and political viability does not depend on Armenian
    cooperation. Armenia, however, has a strategic interest in Georgia. That
    country represents the only land route to the Black Sea ports of Batumi and
    Poti through which most of Armenia's imports and exports pass. Similarly the
    pipeline that delivers gas from Russia to Armenia transits Georgian
    territory. It is obvious that there is no parity in their relationship. This
    lack of symmetry emboldens Georgia to participate in economic ventures
    without regard for their adverse impact on Armenia. With Armenia excluded,
    Georgia's strategic importance to Turkey increases exponentially as the only
    practical land connection to Azerbaijan and ultimately to Central Asia
    across the Caspian Sea. One only need look at the route of the
    Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline as well as the proposed Kars-Tbilisi-Baku
    railroad which will replace the existing line that passes through Gyumri in
    Armenia that Turkey boycotts. Both of these Turkish sponsored ventures were
    meant to harm Armenia and exclude her from the potential economic benefits
    that the region will experience.

    Paradoxically, economic development in which all countries share is a goal
    that the United States claims is vital to creating political stability
    within the region. Yet the pipeline route was supported by the United States
    knowing that it would have an adverse impact on Armenia. As for the
    projected railroad, the United States again exerted no pressure on Turkey to
    reopen the existing line through Gyumri. The tepid response from Washington
    was that no financial aid would be provided if it by-passed Armenia. With
    the wealth that Turkey and Azerbaijan have at their disposal, financial
    support from the United States was never a determining issue.

    The geostrategic interest of the United States in the Caucasus and Central
    Asia not only benefits Turkey and Azerbaijan, but paradoxically has elevated
    the importance and strategic role of Iran vis-à-vis Armenia's national
    objectives. In March of this year, ceremonies were held at Agarak, Armenia,
    to inaugurate the opening of the gas pipeline from Iran to Armenia. From
    Agarak the pipeline connects to the Armenian gas distribution net at
    Kajaran. This is a major development that should have greater significance
    in the future. Presently, any gas that is imported from Iran must be used to
    generate electricity which will then be "sold" to Iran. An ancillary benefit
    is that the villages in the southern Syunik district will have access to gas
    for domestic purposes for the first time. In an emergency situation, should
    deliveries from Russia via Georgia be cut-off, Armenia will be able to draw
    on this new supply of gas.

    On the main highway north from Megri in southern Armenia, any casual
    observer will notice a steady stream of Iranian trucks which carry an
    estimated 500,000 to 600,000 tons of goods annually. At an economic summit
    in Yerevan this July, Armenian and Iranian officials met to discuss a wide
    range of economic issues. As reported by Armenpress, Iran's foreign minister
    Manouchehr Mottaki indicated that several joint ventures were being
    considered. These included building a hydropower facility on the Arax River,
    a refinery in Armenia to process Iranian oil to gasoline for export to Iran,
    and a new railroad link between the two countries. He reported that trade
    between Armenia and Iran had reached $200 million annually with the
    potential for reaching $1 billion annually.

    Although it doesn't have a contiguous border with Armenia, its fifth
    neighbor is Russia. Both countries do depend upon each other, but Armenia is
    the "junior partner" so to speak in this relationship. Presently, Armenia is
    a "captive" of Russia's Gazprom: a quasi-state run enterprise that supplies
    a significant part of its energy needs at prices that are not set at "arms
    length" negotiations. One can seriously question the desirability of join
    ventures by the two countries or, especially, the ownership of any segment
    of Armenia's economic infrastructure by Russia. The Russian garrison in
    Armenia does provide a stabilizing influence along the Turkish-Armenian
    border. Armenia reciprocates by providing Russia with its last foothold
    south of the Caucasus.

    In the long term, Russia and Iran are adversaries both in the Caucasus as
    well as in Central Asia. However, in the short term their objectives
    coalesce to prevent Turkey from dominating the Caucasus and extending its
    influence into Central Asia. Present United States policy seeks to exploit
    the energy resources of Central Asia and control its movement into
    international markets. For the present at least, Turkey and Azerbaijan are
    willing partners.

    Armenia has a crucial if passive role to play in thwarting this expansion of
    Turkish influence. As mentioned earlier, Russian military units stationed in
    Armenia represent a major deterrent to any ill-advised Turkish military
    venture. The presence of Russian forces is a reminder that she has not
    abdicated her historic interests in the region or her support of autonomy
    for Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia. Additionally, Armenia represents
    the only route for a potential pipeline for the delivery of Iranian gas to
    Georgia-an important bargaining chip in future Georgian-Armenian
    cooperation. An alternative source of gas would lessen Georgia's future
    dependence on Russia as well as on Azerbaijan, whose ability to meet her
    increasing demands is questionable.
    Present United States policy is a direct response to the disintegration of
    the Soviet Union and the transformation of the several Soviet republics into
    independent nations. To fill the resulting political vacuum, the U.S.
    Congress passed the Freedom Support Act in 1992. Its underlying purpose,
    shorn of its altruistic rhetoric, was to challenge Russia in the Caucasus
    and to extend U.S. influence into Central Asia with its vast deposits of oil
    and natural gas. Turkey was a key component of this strategy. However, the
    official objective of the Freedom Support Act was to provide economic and
    humanitarian aid and to promote democratic institutions in these recently
    independent countries. This objective ran counter to Russia's official
    policy, which was to regain hegemony over its Near Abroad, the former soviet
    republics.

    In recognition of Armenia's position vis-à-vis Azerbaijan, Title 9, Section
    907 of the Act stated that "United States assistance.may not be provided to
    the government of Azerbaijan until the President determines and so reports
    to Congress that the government of Azerbaijan is taking demonstrable steps
    to cease all blockades and other offensive uses of force against Armenia and
    Nagorno-Karabakh."

    In every year since its passage, President Bush has waived Section 907 which
    lifted restrictions on U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan. According to the
    Office of the Press Secretary, U.S. Department of State, the waiver was
    necessary ".to support United States efforts to counter international
    terrorism" [and] ".to support the operational readiness of the United States
    Armed Forces.to counter international terrorism; [it] is important to
    Azerbaijan border security; and will not undermine or hamper ongoing efforts
    to negotiate a peaceful settlement between Armenia and Azerbaijan or be used
    for offensive purposes against Armenia."

    Coupled with these annual waivers, it is instructive to look at President
    Bush's latest recommendations for the fiscal year 2007 budget as reported in
    a press release by the ANCA. Contrary to an agreement struck with Congress
    in 2001 to maintain parity in U.S. military aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan,
    the President proposed ".cutting.economic aid to Armenia from.[the 2006]
    appropriation of $74.4 million to $50 million, a nearly 33 per cent
    reduction." For Azerbaijan, the figure was $28 million and $58 million for
    Georgia. The Foreign Military Financing proposals were $3.5 million for
    Armenia, $4.5 million for Azerbaijan and $10 million for Georgia.

    With respect to the President's recommendations for International Military
    Education and Training the figures are $790,000 for Armenia, $885,000 for
    Azerbaijan and $1,235,000 for Georgia. The President's fiscal year 2008
    budget seeks 20 percent more in military aid to Azerbaijan than to Armenia.
    So much for parity.

    The Congressional Caucus on Armenian Issues formed in 1995 has been
    instrumental in protecting Armenia's interests. However, the role of the
    present administration should indicate the importance it places on the
    Turkish-Azerbaijan-Georgia triumvirate. United States influence within these
    countries is the key objective in its attempt to counter Russian influence
    and to achieve its goal to control the exploitation and movement of energy
    resources to global markets. The $1.5 billion in humanitarian and technical
    aid received by Armenia since 1992 from the United States masks the inequity
    between the aid given to the "triumvirate" and Armenia when Armenia is added
    to the equation.

    During this same period, Armenia has endured the adverse economic effects
    caused by the blockade imposed by Turkey and its ally Azerbaijan, contrary
    to the requirement that the waiver will not be granted ".until the President
    determines.that the government of Azerbaijan is taking demonstrable steps to
    cease all blockades.against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh." Failure to meet
    this requirement has not dampened the President's enthusiasm to waive this
    prohibition each year.

    For the United States to ignore the effect of its pro-Turkish policy begs
    the question as to what should Armenia's response be with respect to Iran? A
    key component of Armenia's economic and political viability depends on
    maintaining a mutually beneficial relationship with its southern neighbor.
    Its cooperation with Iran in no way affects United States interests. It
    could well be that the ideological and strategic objectives of the United
    States and Iran are so great as to defy any immediate meaningful
    accommodation. However difficult that may be for the United States, Armenia
    must be left to develop its relationship with Iran in a manner that enhances
    its legitimate national objectives. Rather than question Armenian-Iranian
    cooperation, the United States should reconsider the aid given to Azerbaijan
    and Georgia and increase its support to Armenia if only because it is the
    one emerging democratic nation in the Caucasus region, a key objective of
    the Freedom Support Act.
    --------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------

    3. Health Care in Armenia Yesterday and Today
    By Inna Mkhitaryan


    According to statistics, Soviet Armenia had the highest life expectancy of
    all the Soviet Republics and a more advanced health care system. After
    independence, however, difficult economic and social conditions badly
    affected the health care sector as well.

    Among the organizations that have helped the sector recover are several
    American ones:

    USAID

    The Armenia office of USAID was founded in 1992, and since then the agency
    has helped the government in its efforts to provide high quality health care
    and equity in health care.

    USAID, in cooperation with the Armenia Ministry of Health, works to finance
    and develop mechanisms to execute plans to improve primary healthcare (PHC)
    services. According to USAID/Armenia, "The objective has a twofold approach:
    (1) strengthen national institutional capacity for PHC reform; and (2)
    reinvigorate provision of PHC services at the facility level."

    Access to all communities is essential in order to take care of the medical
    needs of the population. Given that people living in remote areas and under
    harsh socio-economic realities have limited access to medical services,
    USAID provides mobile medical teams. Attention is also given to providing
    communities with awareness on health issues.

    In the first half of 2006, the cooperation between the U.S. and the Armenian
    governments in the health project that had begun in 2005 continued through
    USAID. Observers periodically visit Armenia and prepare reports on the
    registered progress in the project, which is worth $17 million.

    The main partners of USAID in this project are the Armenian Ministry of
    Health, provincial authorities, educational/medical institutions, as well as
    some international and local organizations.

    One of the important goals of the USAID is to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS in
    Armenia; to educate youth about AIDS; to target sections of the population
    that are particularly at risk (intravenous drug users, prostitutes,
    homosexuals, prisoners); to improve the quality of the health services that
    individuals with AIDS receive; to ensure that the disease does not pass from
    pregnant women to their children; to lessen the social and psychological
    effects of the AIDS epidemic; and to encourage the educational system to
    help stop the spread of AIDS. In 2005, this project reached the Davoush and
    Shirak provinces, and in 2006, it was being implemented in 90 percent of the
    clinics in Kodayk and Keghakounik. In the next three years the project will
    be implemented in five other provinces: Armavir, Arakatzodn, Ararat, Vayots
    Tsor and Syunik.

    FAR

    For about a year, the Fund for Armenian Relief (FAR) and the "Jinishian
    Memorial" Fund have financed and overseen the "Provincial Doctors
    Re-training" project. The project has already re-certified and re-trained
    about 60 doctors from different provinces in Armenia, Javakhk and Artsakh.
    The training takes place in some of the most modern and advanced clinics of
    Yerevan: "Arapgir," "Kanaker-Zeritoun," "Nork Marash," "Shenkavit,"
    "Diagnostica," and "Erepuni" medical center and the mother and child health
    center. The project also provides free medical equipment for doctors.

    This project, jointly financed by the Jinishian Memorial Fund, also strives
    to create a medical network, encouraging doctors with the same specialties
    but from different areas to interact.

    In one month, provincial doctors are not only instructed of the most recent
    developments in international medicine, but they also learn English, receive
    computer lessons and learn to use the Internet. This information later helps
    them when they participate in international seminars.

    Armenian-American Wellness Center (Mamography Center)

    The Armenian-American Health Center was founded in 1997, thanks to
    Armenian-American philantropist Rita Balian and member of the Armenian
    National Assembly Hranoush Hakobyan.

    The aim of the center is to preserve and improve women's health by
    preventing breast cancer, as well as to support family health by providing
    yearly medical visits that focus on preventing diseases. The center has a
    radiology section, a laboratory and a family health section.

    The executive director of the center, Khatchanoush Hakobyan, informed us
    that in 10 years, the center has served more than 80,000 individuals with
    different health problems; 7,000 of those examined were diagnosed with
    breast cancer. In more than 2,500 young women, breast cancer was found early
    and thanks to that the women's lives were saved. Sixty percent of all
    patients of the center are treated for free. The number of yearly visits to
    the center has reached 15,000.

    Satenig Krekorian, who has visited the center twice, informed that about a
    year ago, feeling some pain around her breasts, she came for an examination,
    and her results were negative. As per expert advice, she gets a mammography
    at least twice a year.

    ARS

    For years the ARS optic centers in Talin, Yerevan and Vanatsor have provided
    optical services to the Armenian public. The center, cooperating with the
    government and international organizations, provides 300-400 prescription
    eyeglasses each year for free to pensioners, orphans and other socially
    unstable individuals.

    The ARS Mother and Child Clinic in Akhourian

    The clinic was opened in 1997 and is equipped with the most modern medical
    equipment, a modern laboratory and a pharmacy. The center provides free
    medical services to the population of the area. In the last nine years, the
    highly qualified staff of the center has served more than 72,000 patients.

    In 2005, a maternity ward was attached to the center. As of today, 1,185
    babies have been born there.

    The center regularly organizes lectures and lessons on health issues.

    Armenian Bone Marrow Fund

    The Fund was created in 1999 in Armenia. The President of the Fund is the
    First Lady of Armenia Bella Kocharian. The president of the board is Frida
    Jorday.
    The Fund was created to help children suffering from leukemia or other forms
    of cancer. The laboratory is unique not only in Armenia, but in the region
    as a whole. Unfortunately, because Armenians have quite a unique genetic
    structure, it is difficult for them to find matching, fitting donors in the
    world. Due to genetic differences, Armenians suffering from bone marrow
    issues die. Thus, it is essential that a database is created for all
    Armenians in Armenia and the diaspora in order to help those of us suffering
    from leukemia and other such cancers. The goal of the project is to organize
    campaigns all over the world where Armenians can sign up and thus create a
    large network. After all, the bigger the database, the bigger the chance of
    finding fitting donors.

    Rubina Ghazarian, who works for the fund, says that about 13,000 potential
    donors have registered from Armenia, Artsakh, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Greece
    and the United States. Eight hundred thirty-nine patients have applied to
    the Fund, not only from Armenia but from across the world, and 623 have
    found fitting donors. Six bone marrow transplants taken place in Armenia,
    Europe and the U.S. Efforts are now being focused on creating a bone marrow
    transplant center in Yerevan.

    Vahe Vartanian, who lives in the city of Ardashad, gave some blood to the
    Fund in 2003 and was listed on the database. When it was found that he was a
    matching fit to a five-year-old Italian girl, Vahe flew to Cyprus and
    underwent three months of medical exams. Vahe says he keeps in contact with
    the girl through letters and that her health is improving.

    'Howard Karageuzian' Center

    The Howard Karageuzian Center has implemented several projects in Armenia,
    especially related to children's health and social issues. The cooperation
    between the center, which has been active in Armenia for 10 years, and the
    Armenian government is one of the best examples of cooperation between
    Armenia and the diaspora. The clinic in the Yerevan Nork Marash community
    was instrumental in providing healthcare to children, especially in
    dentistry and ophthalmology, after independence. Children who are seven
    years or older can benefit from the high quality dentisry and ophthalmology
    services of the center. They receive yearly medical exams and other free
    medical services until the age of 14.

    According to Kohar Akhajanian, her 8-year-old son has received services from
    the center for about two years. She praises the center for its services, and
    little Aram is especially thankful for the warmth of the doctors.
    ----------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- ------

    4. Taxi
    By Simon Beugekian

    As August approaches in Armenia, taxi drivers are mobilizing, and a serious
    controversy is brewing in Yerevan. The cause of the uproar is a list of
    rules the government of Armenia passed last March to regulate the
    transportation industry there.

    For a few years now, the taxi business has been growing exponentially.
    Anyone who has visited Yerevan in particular knows how common they are and
    how essential they are for transportation, especially for tourists. The
    industry has created thousands of jobs, ensuring the livelihood of thousands
    of Armenians. In March, the government moved to regulate the industry; the
    new rules state that all taxis must be cars that are less than 10 years old,
    all drivers must install electronic fee meters in their cars, and they must
    pay an annual tax of 200,000 AMD ($590) to the government. The new rules
    were initially set to take effect August 1.

    On Wednesday, July 25, about 60 mostly self-employed taxi drivers staged a
    protest outside the main government buildings in Yerevan, on the city's
    Republic Square. They honked their horns and turned their headlights full on
    in protest to what they described as unfair changes in the rules, which they
    see as benefitting large corporations and undermining independent cab
    drivers. The response from the government was pathetic. Reportedly, Arshak
    Petrosian, head of the Public Transportation division of the Transportation
    Ministry, came out to greet the protestors with the words, "By gathering
    here you are interfering with the government's day-to-day work." He later
    met with five representatives of the drivers.

    The drivers' protests finally resonated, and on July 30, Prime Minister Serj
    Sarkisian met with dozens of drivers protesting again outside his office. In
    a rare moment where an Armenian leader shows sincere empathy with the
    everyday man, he told the protestors, "The decision affects the livelihood
    of thousands of people and we must give them more time." He said the law was
    passed in haste, and announced that its enforcement would be postponed.
    However, he still defended the government regulations, saying it is
    important to make sure cab drivers pay necessary taxes and their cars meet
    safety standards.

    What is this controversy about? To me, at least, it seems like a clear case
    of class struggle. The regulations passed by the government of Armenia
    clearly benefit one group while harming another . Those who benefit are
    those who can actually afford to abide by the regulations-oligarchs who are
    at the helm of large taxi companies. It is a strange "coincidence" that many
    oligarchs who own taxi businesses are either in the government or are allies
    of government officials.

    Those who stand to lose the most are independent taxi drivers, who are using
    the cars they have to make an honest living. These people cannot afford to
    pay $590 a year to the government, which would be a large chunk of their
    income. Many of them drive cars that are older than 10 years old, and cannot
    afford to buy newer cars. With the passage of these new laws, these cab
    drivers will literally lose their livelihood and income, and thousands of
    families will suffer.

    The parties that are currently heading the government, including the ARF,
    during the May 12 parliamentary elections, issued electoral platforms that
    stipulated support for small businesses and assistance to the working class
    in its struggles. All parties stated their goal to combat and put an end to
    poverty. The controversy surrounding the new taxi regulations put the
    authorities before the challenge of an issue that purely relates to their
    electoral platforms. If they impose these laws strictly, they will be
    stifling small and independent businesses, and will, unfortunately, increase
    poverty. Armenians must expect their representatives to stand up to the
    occasion and come to the aid of these taxi drivers whose livelihoods are in
    jeopardy. The ARF, which states that it is the historic protector of the
    Armenian worker, should be at the helm of a movement to resolve the issue.

    Of course, this doesn't mean that the taxi business in Armenia does not need
    to change. Cars that are more than 10 years old can be environmentally
    damaging and often lack the modern safety features that ensure the safety of
    the driver and passenger alike. Electronic fee meters are obviously needed
    for transparency of transactions, and taxes must be paid to the government
    (currently, only a small percentage of taxes are actually collected by the
    Armenian authorities).

    However, an egg doesn't hatch in a single day, nor can the whole
    transportation system of Armenia be changed overnight. History shows that
    when it comes to these issues, evolution is better than revolution-meaning,
    you can't just take a system that feeds thousands of families and turn it
    upside down. Real people are affected, and families are left without income.
    These changes must come over time in order to ensure that the government isn't
    actually harming its citizens-an ironic phenomenon that occurs way too often
    in Armenia.

    The government must do everything it can to reach a compromise, which would
    ensure that no cab driver loses his income, and that he is given time and
    incentives to comply with the new regulations. The most important thing to
    remember is that Armenia cannot allow large taxi companies run by oligarchs
    to take over the business at the expense of independent drivers who suddenly
    find themselves without income.
    ------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------- ----

    5. Ayaan Hirsi Ali Reflects on Secularism and Islam in Turkey

    WATERTOWN, Mass. (A.W.)-In the Summer 2007 issue (Vol. 24, No. 3) of the New
    Perspectives Quarterly (www.digitalnpq.org), Somali immigrant, feminist and
    former Dutch legislator Ayaan Hirsi Ali has an article titled "Don't Disarm
    Secularism," analyzing the current clash between secularism and Islam in
    Turkey.

    Hirsi Ali, who recently published her memoir Infidel, criticizes the leaders
    of the AK Party in Turkey for wanting "to run state affairs on Islamic
    principles." She notes, "The proponents of Islam in government such as Recep
    Tayyip Erdogan, Abdullah Gul and their Justice and Development Party have
    been remarkably successful. They have understood and exploited the fact that
    you can use democratic means to erode democracy."

    According to Hirsi Ali, the Islamists will benefit if Turkey joins the
    European Union, as the military will no longer be able to interfere in the
    country's political affairs. "[T]he army and the court in Turkey-besides
    defending the country and the constitution-are also, and maybe even more
    importantly, designed to protect Turkish democracy from Islam," she says.

    In her concluding paragraphs, Hirsi Ali presents her concept of "true
    secularism" in Turkey: "Bringing back true secularism to Turkey does not
    mean just any secularism. It means secularism that protects individual
    freedoms and rights, not the ultra-nationalist kind that breeds an
    environment in which Hitler's Mein Kampf is a bestseller, the Armenian
    genocide is denied and minorities are persecuted. Hrant Dink, the Armenian
    editor, was murdered by such a nationalist."

    Benhabib Responds

    Asked about Hirsi Ali's article, Seyla Benhabib, professor of political
    science and philosophy at Yale University, told Daniele Castellani Perelli
    ("Mosque and State," Dissent Magazine, Fall 2007) that "Miss Hirsi Ali's
    language is a language of confrontation that basically presents a
    homogeneous, orthodox Islam as closed to reform and transformation. And it
    is a language that presents a unified, uncritical and un-reflectively
    positive view of liberal democracies-as if they didn't have their own
    problems and reasons to be criticized."

    Benhabib says the AK party is "carrying out an incredible experiment and it
    is unusual for some one who is a democratic socialist like myself to be
    supporting, and watching very carefully, a party like them. But we are all
    watching carefully because they also represent a kind of pluralism in civil
    society, which is absolutely essential for Turkey."

    Talking about the Turkish military, Benhabib charged, "The Turkish army has
    been involved in Turkish politics for the last half century and anybody who
    considers themselves a liberal democrat and who wants the return of the army
    to power cannot know the history of repression caused by the army in
    Turkey."
    ------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------- ----------

    6.Letters to the Editor


    Looking for Family Members

    Dear Editor,

    Senekerim (Seno) Tonoyan of Yerevan, grandson of a Senekerim Tonoyan who was
    born in Constantinople and who fled in 1915 to Bdjni in Eastern Armenia, is
    looking for his grandfather's son and nephews in the United States.

    While in Bdjni, the elder Senekerim married a woman named Srpuhi, and had a
    family. He joined WWII in 1941 and was a POW somewhere in Europe before he
    escaped to France. While in France he established another family and had
    four sons, all of whom eventually moved to the United States.

    Anyone with information about Senekerim Tonoyan or his sons and families,
    please contact Andranik Michaelian at [email protected].

    Andranik Mikaelian
    Yerevan

    ***

    Flying Colors

    Dear Editor,

    Regarding Tom Vartabedian's column "Where Does Our Loyalty Rest?" (July 21),
    loyalty has nothing to do with the positioning of the Tricolor. The rule for
    flying the American flag states that no other flag may be flown above it on
    the same flagpole. Tom was correct to fly the American flag above the
    Armenian flag and I agree with everything else that he wrote.

    Let there be no mistake. I, too, love to see the Tricolor flying. There was
    a house on the beach at Wells, Maine, with a Tricolor on a flagpole. I used
    to walk from Ogunquit Beach to Wells Beach just to see that flag and salute
    it. Long may our Tricolor wave!

    Ada Hamparian
    Burlington, Mass.
Working...
X