POVERTY REDUCTION POLICY FOR "KOZLEVIC"
Hakob Badalyan

Lragir.am
19 June 06

It appeared that the revaluation of the national money would arouse
pride among the Armenian society against such a supercurrency as
the dollar. The Central Bank of Armenia lays this idea at the basis
of contacts with the Armenian public. It is not a surprise that the
national liberation veil underlies the government propaganda. The
Central Bank would not be an exception and was not. However, let
the organization led by Tigran Sargsyan not disturb itself with the
thought, after all so far there has not been a government agency
in Armenia, which has managed to arouse pride among the citizens
of Armenia. It would be much more difficult to arouse pride for the
dram. How can a person be proud of something he does not have?

The majority of the citizens of Armenia get income in drams.

Therefore the citizen feels pity for the dram rather than pride
for the revaluation of the dram, because he is starting to get less
and less drams in exchange for his dollars. And this is already so
simple and easy that can be used in elementary school textbooks as
an example. Whereas the central Bank would not perceive it. Tigran
Sargsyan continues the "floating" of the exchange rate of the dollar
proudly and self-confidently. And he is tenaciously assisted by
the senior officials of international financial organizations. The
executive directors and other senior and junior officials of the
World Bank and the International Monetary Fund support Tigran Sargsyan.

No doubt, this assistance does not pursue interest, and fits into the
"fair governance" and anti-corruption logic that the leaders of the
same organizations are trying to promote in Armenia. However, if we
subtract interest from their words of support for Tigran Sargsyan and
the Armenian government, logic vanishes. Is it fair that due to the
policy of the Central Bank hundreds of thousands of citizens getting
income in dollars, suffer losses, and several importer oligarchs get
profits of millions of dollars. Hence, on the other hand, they invite
the government of Armenia to exercise fair governance, and on the
other hand, they encourage a monetary policy, which inflicts losses
on the majority of the population. Hence, either the international
financial organizations are not aware of the state of Armenia, or
they are aware but they do not care for it. If they are aware of the
state of Armenia, what are the World Bank and IMF representatives
busy with in Armenia then? If they do not care for Armenia, what do
they have to do in Armenia that they visit here very often and praise
the Armenian government.

It is also interesting that the statements of these officials in
Armenia and their countries are essentially different. Their speeches
in Armenia express satisfaction, whereas in their countries their
speeches are reproachful. If these officials care for the state of
Armenia and they are aware of this state, they must have heard the
Armenian proverb about the possibilities of a clever lamb. And maybe
they have heard this proverb and act according to it. For instance,
they in Washington they write letters that Bush, for instance, would
be satisfied to read, and in Yerevan they make announcements that
would please Robert Kocharyan.

It is almost impossible to find another logical explanation. Or by
saying fair governance the international organizations and their
resident representatives mean that besides the Armenian public
the Armenian government should also think about the international
organizations. It is possible that the government of Armenia might
be acting so, dividing the two-digit growth fairly: this is for us,
this is for Ostap Ibrahimovich. What about Kozlevic? For Kozlevic a
poverty reduction strategy. This perhaps explains the observations of
foreigners that the economic growth in Armenia is being distributed
better.