New Laws to Live By: European bodies like draft Constitution changes,
opposition doesn’t
By Vahan Ishkhanyan
ArmeniaNow reporter
After four days of debates the National Assembly has adopted a new
draft of constitutional amendments. The draft of the ruling coalition,
although acceptable for European structures, was not acceptable for
the Armenian opposition.
The opposition stopped its 18-month boycott to take part in the
discussions, but on the next to last day of the discussions left the
hall stating that they would vote against the changes (one wing of the
opposition – the Ardarutyun bloc member Hanrapetutyun party had not
ceased the boycott).
Constitutional amendments have been the most debated political topic
of the last three months, and have been broadcast live on
television. On May 11, the National Assembly adopted a draft of
constitutional amendments in the first reading that was little
different from the existing one (click here to see previous ArmeniaNow
report); the branches of government were not separated, and the
President had unlimited powers.
On May 27, the Council of Europe Press Service disseminated a report
saying that the adopted draft had deeply disappointed the Venice
Commission’s working group and that it needed drastic changes. The
Venice Commission’s working group and representatives of the Armenian
authorities met in Strasbourg on June 23-24 and an agreement was
reached to amend the controversial provisions. As a result, a new
draft of changes was worked out.
Thus, under pressure of European bodies Armenia’s authorities agreed
to make new amendments.
Three key provisions are introduced in the new revised draft:
Yerevan’s mayor is elected (by a council of elders, who are also
elected. Presently, the mayor is appointed by the President). 2. The
President appoints judges according to proposals of the Justice
Council (unlike the previous provision according to which the Chairman
of the Justice Council was appointed by the President, and under the
Constitution currently in force the President is the Chairman of the
Justice Council). The Prime Minister is responsible only to the
National Assembly and the President cannot dismiss him. The President
appoints a Prime Minister enjoying the support of a parliamentary
majority.
Further, half of the members of the Television and Radio Commission
are elected by the National Assembly, and the other half are appointed
by the President. (Currently, all members of the Commission are
appointed by the President. The controversial closure of A1+ TV can be
explained by the dependence of the Commission on the President.)
During the last month ambassadors of European countries to Armenia on
several occasions hailed the new constitutional changes submitted by
the coalition and urged the country’s opposition to participate in the
discussions of these changes.
The opposition admitted that this draft is a positive step compared to
the previous one, but said it still has unacceptable provisions.
The opposition, in particular the Ardarutyun bloc, had submitted five
proposals which were not considered in the changes.
Another major argument for which the opposition is against the draft
is that if the Constitution is adopted now, the changes will be made,
according to the chapter of transitional provisions, in June 2007,
after the new parliamentary elections, and part of them will come into
effect a year later.
The opposition leaders stated that they would vote against the draft,
and Ardarutyan bloc member Shavarsh Kocharyan said that in his opinion
the opposition must remain neutral and let the authorities convince
the people to vote in favor of the changes. He said that this draft is
not a child of the coalition, as it was created under European
pressure and shows how within just three months the same people
presented basically different changes. Neither is it a child of the
opposition, as no proposal of the opposition was included. Coalition
representatives said that the changes from the very outset proceeded
from the opposition’s proposals and were not the result of pressure
from the West.
In political analysts’ opinion, because of the opposition’s stance the
constitutional referendum will either not be held or else the
authorities will rig the results.
Political analyst Vardan Poghosyan, who took an immediate part in the
Strasbourg meeting and had a part in the changes, says that this draft
with all its shortcomings is democratic and it would be better if
these changes worked. But the people will not accept them, as they
were not created in an atmosphere of political accord: `The
Constitution is not only a legal document, it is also a political
document and first of all the result of political agreements,’ he
says. `The authorities were reluctant to reach political
agreement. Besides, if the authorities are proponents of reforms, why
don’t they want the key changed provisions to go into effect soon?
`On the other hand, the opposition could have acted more competently,
stopping its boycott, submitting its constitutional draft and
stressing 10 points intelligibly for the people, and then urge the
people to vote for them if they are included in the changes. But in
any case, the opposition is little to blame. The authorities showed
that they would not stop at anything and would not go to agreement.’
The constitutional changes are likely to be put to a referendum in
November.
BALTIC `YANS’: A VISIT WITH THE ARMENIANS OF LATVIA
By Suren & Irina Musayelyan
Special to ArmeniaNow from Riga, Latvia
Editor’s Note: Staff writer Suren Musayelyan recently visited
relatives in Latvia, where he found a small, but vibrant community of
Armenians . . .
`Ani’, `Ararat’, `Artsakh’, `Erebuni’, `Kert’, the names of Armenian
landmarks might be expected on restaurants in the popular Diaspora
regions such as Glendale, Tehran, Montreal . . . But Riga?
(Latvia is situated in Northern Europe and is one of the three Baltic
states along with Estonia and Lithuania that were occupied by the
Soviet Union in 1940. Latvia regained its independence in 1991. It has
a population of about 2,300,000. The largest national minority is
Russians, about 28 percent).
With an Armenian population of about 2,500 in Riga (3,000 in the
entire country), the capital of Latvia is home to about two dozen
Armenian restaurants – approximately 1 for each 100 Latvian-Armenians.
According to one of the elders of the community, Karlos Shekoyan, this
detail only stresses that `the Armenian community, although not very
large, is very diverse.’
The 84-year-old, a well-known tamada (toast-master) among the Latvian
Armenians, who was brought to Riga by his fate in 1949, says that the
members of the community try to rally around the church.
`We all have families: children, grandchildren, but it is the meetings
in the church that are spiritual communication for us, bringing us
closer to our historical homeland,’ says Shekoyan.
The religious organization of the Armenian Apostolic Church called
St. Gregory the Illuminator Church appeared in Riga in 1993. And the
construction of the church began in late 1997 (the church is situated
in 6 Kayusalas Street). Construction is not complete yet, but
services are already being held. The church is being built exclusively
on the donations of the parishioners.
Father Markos (lay name – Hrachya Hovhannisyan) also emphasizes the
role of the church in the life of the community thousands of miles
away from their historical homeland.
`The Church is the core of our unity. It is heroism for such a small
community like ours to purchase such a large territory for the
construction of a church,’ says Archimandrite Markos, who came to Riga
in November 2002 and was appointed prior of the St. Gregory the
Illuminator Church.
According to Fr. Markos, Armenians in Latvia can be found in
practically all spheres of activities, but there are especially many
Armenians engaged in arts and culture.
According to him, there were Armenians in Latvia before the
sovietization of the republic in 1940, but they were very few and
disorganized. Armenians, who now live in Latvia, mostly came to this
Baltic state during the Soviet times, after 1946.
The first public organization – Latvian-Armenian Cultural Society –
was founded here in 1988.
The Armenian community of Riga was established on the basis of the
Latvian- Armenian Cultural Society in 2001. This community is a member
of the `Commonwealth’ union of public organizations of Latvia’s
national minorities and receives financing from the state.
Its chairman Artur Isakhanov has lived in Riga since 1979. He says
that the community faces lots of challenges in trying to preserve
their identity, including differences within the community itself. But
he says what they have actually achieved inspires him with optimism
for the future.
`It is for the first time in 50 years that only our community here in
the Baltic states has managed to purchase land and build a church
there. It happens very rarely in these parts, practically never,’ says
Isakhanov. `We have already got permission for the privatization of
the land and soon this land will belong to Holy Etchmiadzin.’
The church in Riga is the first Armenian church to have been built in
the Baltic States (which include churches in neighboring Lithuania and
Estonia, which, however, unlike the one in Riga were not built like
Armenian churches but were converted into them).
Isakhanov says that it is important for them to see the community
centered around the church. The local Armenians also plan to build a
cultural center and a school near the church.
The Armenian community in Latvia tries to keep abreast with their
compatriots in other Diaspora communities across the world. They now
have their own newspaper, `Ararat’ (printed in 2,500 copies), close
ties with the Armenian communities of neighboring Estonia and
Lithuania and participate in many international pan-Armenian
conferences and forums.
According to Isakhanov, there is an Armenian lobby in the Latvian
Parliament and among the Armenian lobbyists are even extreme
right-wing deputies, such as Chairwoman of the Seim (the Latvian
Parliament), Ingrida Udre.
In spring, when Armenians across the world commemorated the 90th
anniversary of the Genocide, the Armenian community in Latvia arranged
a whole series of events, including an exhibition on the Genocide at
the Seim of Latvia.
Even though the Armenian lobby failed to push a declaration on the
genocide through the Latvian legislature this spring (only 15 of the
100 deputies supported it, including 11 rightist (Latvians) and four
leftists (Russians)), they are determined to initiate the same
declaration next year. Isakhanov says they will continue to work in
this direction in the future.
`The president of Latvia recently met with our ambassador and said to
him: `Perhaps you shouldn’t remember the past, but should look into
the future,’ to which he replied: `Then why don’t you want to forget
your problems with Russia in the past?” says Isakhanov, calling it a
policy of double standards.
There is a khachkar in the very center of Riga, placed by the Armenian
community in 1989 in memory of the victims of the massacres of
Armenians and the earthquake in Spitak. In 2001, on the occasion of
the 1700th anniversary of Armenia’s conversion to Christianity, the
khachkar was reconstructed and re- consecrated.
Armenians in Latvia, whether they have a citizen’s passport or don’t,
mostly come together at church meetings and other events organized by
the community.
Anahit Sargsyan recently celebrated her 80th birthday with her
compatriots in the church yard. Originally from Tbilisi, Georgia,
Anahit has lived in Latvia since 1953.
`All my friends here are already dead. I have made new friends here in
the community, which is a family for me. I feel very sad when I miss a
single Sunday church service,’ she says.
Preservation of language is another challenge, especially for the
younger generation of Armenians in Latvia.
Tigran Bogoyan, 29, was born and raised in Riga. A graduate of the
Department of Economy at the Latvian University, Tigran runs an
accounting firm. He says he often goes to Yerevan where he has
relatives. He speaks Armenian a little.
`I try to speak Armenian with anyone who speaks Armenian. Although I
was born and lived all my life in Latvia, I feel more at home in
Armenia,’ says Tigran.
There is a Sunday school in Riga available to Armenians who want to
learn the language. The school was established in 1989, but according
to Isakhanov, this school needs more attention both in terms of
financing and interest towards it among the members of the community.
Headmistress of Riga’s Armenian Sunday School Elza Mirzoyan says that
besides the Armenian language they also Armenian history and
culture. But she says they have fewer children attending the school
than they would like to see.
`The Armenian language is spoken less and less by children. Their
parents speak the language, but the children do not. Unfortunately,
this tendency is observed throughout the Diaspora,’ says Mirzoyan.
The Armenian boys and girls attending the school also participate in
various school competitions among Latvia’s national minorities and
their headmistress says that performing under the Armenian tricolor
they feel that their ancient historical homeland is behind them.
`I am sure that our children will grow to become real patriots of the
Armenian nation,’ Mirzoyan concludes.
NAGORNO KARABAKH REPUBLIC TURNS 14: SEPTEMBER 2 MARKS HISTORIC DAY FOR NKR
By Aris Ghazinyan
ArmeniaNow reporter
On September 2, 1991, the joint session of the regional council of
people’s deputies of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region (NKAR) and
the Shahumyan (village) council of people’s deputies adopted a
declaration `On the Proclamation of the Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic’. The proclamation took place three days after the
`Declaration on State Sovereignty’ adopted by Azerbaijan and in
practice became a response to Baku leadership.
During the following 14 years more than two dozens new states – UN
members – appeared on the political map of the world, however the
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) has not found its place in this
list. This circumstance in no way influences the position of the
people of Nagorno Karabakh who do not even think about the possibility
of their existence within the Republic of Azerbaijan.
`We had won our independence at the cost of blood as a result of a war
foisted on us by Azerbaijan,’ says 67-year-old farmer from Hadrut,
Avetis Hakobyan. `Now the populations of many former Soviet republics
feel nostalgia for the past which in their minds is associated with
safe life and social security. I don’t want to argue with this,
especially that many of my coevals even in Armenia itself also
remember only the `good past’. However, the people of Nagorno Karabakh
do not feel such nostalgia, for the past in their minds arouses
opposite associations – their endangered and oppressed situation
within Soviet Azerbaijan, economic and demographical
discrimination. The basic difference between the peoples who won
freedom from `above’ and the peoples who gained their right to freedom
from `below’ is that the former still live retrospectively, and the
latter live with perspective.’
`A generation of independent citizens has grown up in the NKR during
the 14 years. Today, they attend senior grades in Armenian schools and
do not imagine their life within Azerbaijan,’ the Republic’s President
Arkady Ghukasyan says as his people celebrate their un-recognized
independence. `The people of Nagorno Karabakh gained their right to
sovereign development not so much in the crucible of the Azeri
military aggression, but also in accordance with international legal
norms.’
For three years, Karabakh and Azerbaijan were at war. For 11 years
there has been a `cease fire’. And for all 14 years, the matter of
Karabakh’s secession from Azerbaijan has been a matter of political
debate and controversy.
The Declaration `On the Proclamation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic’
adopted in Stepanakert on September 2, 1991, with a special point
invokes the USSR Law of April 3, 1990 `On the order of solving issues
connected with the secession of a Soviet republic from the USSR’ which
regulates also the form of secession of an autonomous unit from a
Union republic that declares its independence. It is in accordance
with this law that on August 30, 1991 Azerbaijan declared about its
seceding from the Soviet Union.
`In this case we deal with double standards, as one and the same law
was used differently,’ an Armenian expert on Nagorno Karabakh,
Professor Alexander Manasyan argues. `Nagorno Karabakh successively
complied with all necessary norms, including the organization of a
referendum on December 10, 1991, at the time when it was in a state of
war, in the presence of independent observers.’
There is another nuance that the expert calls special attention to.
The `Declaration on State Sovereignty’ proclaimed by Azerbaijan on
August 30, 1991 stated Baku’s rejection of its Soviet political
heritage and mentioned that the Azerbaijani Republic is a legal
successor of the Azerbaijani Republic that existed in 1918-1920.
`However, Nagorno Karabakh was part of Azerbaijan only during the
Soviet period, and consequently Baku’s official abandonment of the
political heritage of the USSR automatically deprives it of the right
to this territory,’ says the political analyst. `Moreover, declaring
itself as a legal successor of the First Azerbaijani Republic, Baku
also loses any right to possess Karabakh, as this Armenian land never
was within Azerbaijan in 1918-1920. The League of Nations had not
recognized this state exactly because of its aggressive character and
claims on Karabakh. I should mention that the First Armenian Republic
of 1918-1920 was accepted by the League as a full entity of
international law and had its embassies from the United States to
Japan.’
Some Armenian political analysts think that the status of Nagorno
Karabakh should not become a subject for discussion in the negotiating
process between the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan. In particular,
this opinion is shared by Viktor Solakhyan, an expert of the
Department for Refugee Affairs and Migration attached to the Armenian
Government.
`Nagorno Karabakh proclaimed its independence in accordance with
international norms, and it is special international instances that
are to solve this issue of compliance of the choice of the people of
NKR and to legal norms recognized by the world community,’ says Viktor
Solakhyan. `The presidents of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh
can discuss only issues connected with the prospect of the territories
around the NKR controlled by Armenian and Azeri forces. Mutual
concessions are possible here, but they cannot be linked to the issue
of the NKR’s status. Otherwise, a deadlock situation is created,
something that we have witnessed for the past ten years.’
On September 2, 2005, Aram Petrosyan, a boy from the Karabakh village
of Azokh, will mark his 14th birthday. He has no idea what the
negotiating process is and who the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen are. He
has absolutely no idea of how many variants of a peaceful settlement
of the problem were proposed by the negotiators and what their
contents were. He only knows a family legend that when he was a
four-month-old babe in arms, he visited with his parents a polling
station under bullets so that the grown-ups could have time to vote in
the referendum for independence. And he also knows that his birthday
is marked not only by his family, but also by the whole of Karabakh.
POWER PLAY: QUESTIONS ARISE OVER ARMENIAN ELECTRICITY NETWORKS DEAL WITH
RUSSIAN COMPANY
By Suren Deheryan
ArmeniaNow reporter
An investigation by the Public Services Regulatory Commission of
Armenia has concluded that no laws were broken when, earlier this
summer, the Armenian Electricity Networks engaged in transactions with
a Russian holding company for a share of Armenia’s power grid.
Legality aside, however, the commission’s response is not enough to
allay concerns by some that control of the republic’s energy supply is
being placed in the hands of the Russians.
On June 23, the official website of the Russian (joint stock company)
Unified Energy System State Holding (), reported that
Russian Interenegrgo BV had purchased AEN’s shares from British
Midland Resources Holding Ltd. Corporation, at a cost of $73 million.
Such a transaction would be in violation of Armenia’s agreement with
British Midland, signed in 2002, in which the holding company must
notify the Government of Armenia in advance of any negotiations
involving more than 25 percent of shares.
News of the sale caused concern in Armenia, particularly among
international donor organizations implementing assistance projects
within Armenia’s energy system.
The first to react, in early July, was World Bank Director Roger
Robinson, who expressed his dissatisfaction with the deal being not
transparent.
`Electricity distribution networks are one of the largest and most
profitable sectors of Armenia that has a strategic importance for
every Armenian,’ Robinson said. `I consider it necessary that a public
announcement should be made about the ongoing events – transparently
and officially.’
Robinson’s comments were followed by a statement from the United
States Agency for International Aid in which USAID said that unless
the matter were satisfactorily clarified, USAID would revise its aid
package to Armenia.
After such tough statements, Inter RAO UES Deputy Director Mikhail
Mantrov spoke in a press conference in Yerevan on July 24, giving
explanations to the report published on the website.
`An agreement was signed on June 23 between the owner of AEN, Midland
Resources, and `Interenergo BV’, and the latter will manage AEN for 99
years and will dispose of the whole profit received during the
operation. However, in this case Midland Resources remains an
unchanged owner of AEN’s shares,’ Mantrov said during the press
conference.
The $73 million, Mantrov said, is the amount paid by the Russians to
gain managing rights.That is $33 million more than Midland paid three
years ago for a 100 percent stake. According to Mantrov, such an
overpayment was made for getting the right to purchase shares in the
future.
On August 26, Deputy Chairman of the Public Services Regulatory
Commission Nikolay Grigoryan told ArmeniaNow that AEN had acted
properly according to the requirements of the license.
`According to the documents sent to us, the owner of the AEN is the
same Midland Resources, the composition of the Board of Directors is
unchanged, and the governor remains Eduard Shifrin,’ Grigoryan
said. `Bank accounts were not changed, which is also confirmed by the
document presented from the central depositary.’
The Armenian government still keeps silent about this expensive energy
deal, saying that Midland has given no explanation so far to the
government, although the Ministry of Energy turned to Midland with
such a request.
According to Mantrov, the authorities were not informed because it is
not mentioned in the agreement signed between the Government of
Armenia and Midland Resources that state bodies are to be informed in
advance only in case of getting the right to management.
The latest dealings aside, Russia already owns about 80 percent of
Armenia’s electricity system. Of them are the Hrazdan thermal power
plant, the Nuclear Power Plant, as well as the Sevan-Hrazdan
hydro-power station cascade.
Russia also participates in the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline construction
project, in particular, the Russian side plans to build the fifth unit
of Hrazdan, which, as a compensation of the import of natural gas,
will supply Armenian electricity to Iran.
The transfer of the right to manage AEN to the Russian holding formed
an opinion among the public that there is no longer point in talking
about the concept of the country’s energy security.
Stiopa Safaryan, Director of Research at the Armenian Center for
National and International Studies says that the privatization of
electricity distribution networks to one company already has a
political direction.
`Electricity networks are the most important chain in the country’s
energy system,’ says Safarian. `Many can generate electricity, but
electricity distribution networks have an opportunity to make a
selection as to what price the electricity should be sold. And in this
regard, it is a rather serious instrument of influencing the public.’
And according to Caucasus Media Institute Director and political
analyst Alexander Iskandaryan, the June deal was
predictable. According to him, politically, everything there is very
clear.
`It was simply a variant of handing over electricity distribution
networks to Russia. Legally, perhaps it will be impossible to prove,
but politically it is so,’ Iskandaryan told ArmeniaNow.
According to him, the dissatisfaction within a certain mass of the
public regarding the transfer of AEN’s management to the Russian side
has the following explanation:
`In Armenia, as well as other post-Soviet countries, there is a
certain post- imperial complex. It is a complex of emotional defense
of statehood,’ says Iskandaryan. `If a part of shares of an industrial
company of the republic is purchased by a German, British or American
company, it is regarded as normal, however if the buyer is a Russian
company, then it is considered that it is terribly dangerous, as
Russia is Armenia’s former metropolis.’
`In all cases, the entrance of such countries to Armenia implies that
they come for a reason, and Russia’s entrance into Armenia has enough
reasons,’ says Iskandaryan and adds: `They had promised that they
would not give the electricity distribution networks to the Russians,
but they seem to have given them.’
Safaryan also questions the motives behind the AEN deal with the
Russian company.
Midland is a company registered in an offshore zone, but its manager
is a Russian by nationality. According to some experts, to have
greater guarantees the Russians want AEN to belong to a Russian
state-owned enterprise.
Safarian says that the report on the website was published for a probe
of responses, however certain experts contend that such a giant
company would not place wrong information on its official website.
`In any case, even if there was no change of the owner, then RAO UES
already enjoys all the rights of an owner, as it manages, owns and
uses. To transfer management for a period of 99 years and dispose of
the whole profit is in no way different from the rights of an ordinary
owner,’ Safaryan concludes.
SPORT DIGEST: DON’T BET ON THE HOME TEAM, UNLESS IT’S IN WEIGHTLIFTING . . .
By Suren Musayelyan
ArmeniaNow reporter
Football
Dutch test for Armenia’s Dutchman. Armenia will host Holland in a
World Cup 2006 qualifier in Yerevan’s Vazgen Sargsyan `Republican’
Stadium on September 3.
Currently, Armenia is last but one in their group (ahead of Andorra
only), having played nine matches and gaining only four
points. Armenia long ago lost their hopes for qualification or a high
place in the group and in the remaining three games (against Holland,
the Czech Republic and Andorra) will only struggle for the fifth spot
in the group now occupied by Macedonia (with 8 points after 10
matches).
But Armenian football functionaries say these matches have a great
importance for the team, which is in search of its football.
`We are facing a hard trial. We must struggle for a result. Unlike the
Dutch team, we have nothing to lose. The boys feel positive about the
match and can put up a successful performance,’ National Teams
Technical Director Ashot Manukyan said in a press conference in
Yerevan earlier this week.
He informed the media that Andrey Movsisyan, playing for Moskva FC
(Moscow, Russia), had refused to play for his national team, as well
as the young goalkeeper from FC Pyunik Apula Bete. Instead, the
coaches invited another young goalkeeper Georgi Kasparov as the team’s
second goalkeeper.
Artavazd Karamyan, playing for Rapid (Romania) has an injury and his
club’s medical staff and management informed the Football Federation
of Armenia that Karamyan is currently receiving medical treatment and
cannot be available for international duty for the next few
matches. As for his twin brother Arman Karamyan, this time the
national team’s Dutch head coach Henk Wisman did not include him in
the squad.
After a long interval Armenia skipper Harutyun Vardanyan returns to
the team. The experienced defender had been sidelined for about a
year because of an injury and could not help his national team. Young
Banants FC midfielder Samvel Melkonyan was invited by the coach to
enhance the right wing.
But before the match international bookmakers have no doubts that
Holland will beat Armenia. The Dutch team’s victory is evaluated with
a coefficient of 1,08, Armenia’s victory has a coefficient of 16. The
draw also has a high coefficient – 8.
The first match between these two teams in this qualifying campaign in
Eindhoven ended in a convincing victory of the Dutch team – 2-0
followed by the replacement of Armenia’s French coach Bernard Casoni
with Wisman under whom Armenia have lost twice – to Macedonia at home
(1-2) and to Romania away (0-3).
Weightlifting
Armenian junior weightlifters, who successfully performed in the
European junior championships recently held in Bulgaria have earned
monetary awards from Armenian National Olympic Committee Chairman
Gagik Tsarukyan this week.
Armenian male and female weightlifters won a total of 20 medals during
the championships. And Armenia placed second in the team competition.
Talking to A1 Plus, Sport Committee Chairman Ishkhan Zakaryan called
the performances by Armenians in Sofia `a fantastic result’.
The medal winners received up to $500 from the chairman of the
Armenian National Olympic Committee.
Special awards were given to women’s team coach Ogsen Mirzoyan and
junior team coach Ashot Mkhitaryan.
Mkhitaryan promised to improve the results if he was given a chance to
continue to work with the team.
Wrestling
Armenia’s freestyle wrestling national team is holding a training
assembly in Alushta (the Crimea, Ukraine) in preparation for the world
championships due to be held in the Hungarian capital of Budapest from
September 26 to October 3.
According to the head of Armenia’s sport delegation Levon Vardanyan, a
tough selection will be made for places in the national
team. (Armenpress)
Chess
Armenia’s grandmaster Elina Danielyan, gaining 6 points out of the
possible 9, finished 6th in the Rodento memorial tournament that
recently ended in the Russian city of St. Petersburg. The winner of
the tournament, in which 48 female chess-players took part, was
Natalia Zdebskaya of Ukraine with 7.5 points. (Armenpress)
OUTSIDE EYE
By John Hughes
ArmeniaNow reporter
I have a friend who is a teacher. She teaches at one of the most
prestigious universities in Yerevan. Students in fine clothes and
fancy cars with cell phones and suntans from holidays on foreign
beaches returned to the school yesterday to start another year.
She teaches a foreign language there. Her expertise, passed on, is a
ticket for the ones who apply it to get the best jobs in this country
of rare best jobs.
If they care about their financial future, they will not choose the
profession the teacher has chosen.
She is a fulltime university professor and she makes about $70 a
month. She spends about $10 of that each month riding a bus to the
university. She lives in the suburbs. A person with her salary can’t
afford an apartment in the center.
She has a son. Thursday was his first day of school.
Earlier in the week, like thousands of mothers in this city, she went
shopping for school things for the boy.
She dressed him in a new suit. It cost $15
She bought him new shoes. They cost $10
She bought a new shirt, $5. And a new tie, $2.
She took him for a haircut. It cost $1.50.
She bought notebooks, a book bag, pencils, pens. The cost was about
$11.
It cost the teacher nearly a month’s salary to properly send her boy
off for his first school day.
The teacher started her new school year this week too, with eight
groups of 20 students each. 160 students; about 85 cents per student
per month. She will spend 64 hours a month with them. She will make
$1.09 per hour, not including preparation time.
Other teachers in Armenia make even less.
If my friend were a math teacher, I’d ask her to explain to me how
those numbers add up to anything that makes sense.