Tweet
MONEY AND STABILITY
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir, Armenia
Nov 13 2006
Alex Russin, Country Director of the Millennium Challenge Armenia,
has stated recently that Armenia made regress in terms of the
political benchmarks of the MCA, and if it makes no progress,
Armenia may lose the Millennium gift of 235 million dollars. Alex
Russin particularly mentioned the referendum in 2005, the freedoms
of citizens and journalists. It is clear that the country director
would not give such a tough evaluation if he did not have the opinion
of his government. "Voice of Russin, voice of Bush."
This fact allows certain political sets to suppose that the United
States is rigorous towards Robert Kocharyan and is unlikely to
forgive his actions pursuing the reproduction of the regime ruling in
Armenia. It is highly probable that the United States is interested
in the mechanisms of reproduction rather than reproduction itself.
But are the words that the United States utters to confirm its
likelihood sufficient? We have heard these words for many times, and
we heard these words after every election, when the officials of the
same United States told the same about the government of Armenia and
mentioned that they would not forgive if regress went on. But regress
continued and continues. And when the Americans reassert that they
will not give the money if regress continues or alike, the citizen
of Armenia for whom they are allegedly trying to create welfare with
the money of the Millennium and by teaching the rules of democracy,
shrugs his shoulders on hearing these words, silently or with the
phonetic expression of the reverse of the level of education.
He shrugs his shoulders because he knows what these words are worth.
They know that these words never acquire a real expression, and the
government of the United States will never make efforts to warn the
regime described by regress or simply to send it off. Certainly,
this is not the business of the United States, and the United States
does not have to deal with this because the change of the government
of Armenia is first of all the problem of the Armenian society. But
in this case the U.S. officials had better keep silent instead of
discrediting by impertinent statements, which never become actions,
the democratic values the United States tries to uphold. Otherwise,
the question occurs why the United States forgave the election in
1998, the elections in 2003, the United States even sent a preacher
to the referendum in 2005 in the person of John Evants, meanwhile it
announces that they will not forgive in 2007.
Besides, the citizen of Armenia may shrug his shoulders with other
thoughts. If the U.S. government is trying to alert the Armenian
government by saying that they will not give the money of the
Millennium if political regress continues, they had better seek a new
method of alerting. The Armenian public, for whose welfare the money
is given, know that for the Armenian government the welfare of the
public does not mean anything because this government does not rely
on the vote of this public. It falsifies the elections, and it does
not worry whether the United States will give the money or not. This
government is anxious whether the United States will recognize the
elections held and the election that will be held.
And the government, as well the citizens of Armenia are convinced that
the United States will recognize the results of this election because
according to an analyst representing the U.S. government, at least he
introduces himself so, the United States needs stable Armenia rather
than democracy. In other words, the question is fluently directed
into an either-or pattern. Either democratic, or stable. And this is
what the Armenian government states, which answers every argument of
democracy with the danger of losing stability. Consequently, when the
analyst Richard Kirakosyan, who presents himself as having connections
with the U.S. government, puts forward the democracy or stability
thesis, the hearers can immediately conclude that the United States
announces via Kirakosyan their willingness to recognize any outcome
of the election in 2007.
In this case, they can be sure that even if they use a different
wording to state that Armenia lives up to the benchmarks of the
Millennium, the political regress was eliminated and consequently the
corporation will continue financing, the citizens of Armenia may reject
the money because unlike the U.S. they view the question in the context
of democratic and stable Armenia, not democratic and stable Armenia.
It is possible that Richard Kirakosyan expresses his personal opinion,
and this time the United States will not forgive. But this needs to
be proved first.
Hakob Badalyan
Lragir, Armenia
Nov 13 2006
Alex Russin, Country Director of the Millennium Challenge Armenia,
has stated recently that Armenia made regress in terms of the
political benchmarks of the MCA, and if it makes no progress,
Armenia may lose the Millennium gift of 235 million dollars. Alex
Russin particularly mentioned the referendum in 2005, the freedoms
of citizens and journalists. It is clear that the country director
would not give such a tough evaluation if he did not have the opinion
of his government. "Voice of Russin, voice of Bush."
This fact allows certain political sets to suppose that the United
States is rigorous towards Robert Kocharyan and is unlikely to
forgive his actions pursuing the reproduction of the regime ruling in
Armenia. It is highly probable that the United States is interested
in the mechanisms of reproduction rather than reproduction itself.
But are the words that the United States utters to confirm its
likelihood sufficient? We have heard these words for many times, and
we heard these words after every election, when the officials of the
same United States told the same about the government of Armenia and
mentioned that they would not forgive if regress went on. But regress
continued and continues. And when the Americans reassert that they
will not give the money if regress continues or alike, the citizen
of Armenia for whom they are allegedly trying to create welfare with
the money of the Millennium and by teaching the rules of democracy,
shrugs his shoulders on hearing these words, silently or with the
phonetic expression of the reverse of the level of education.
He shrugs his shoulders because he knows what these words are worth.
They know that these words never acquire a real expression, and the
government of the United States will never make efforts to warn the
regime described by regress or simply to send it off. Certainly,
this is not the business of the United States, and the United States
does not have to deal with this because the change of the government
of Armenia is first of all the problem of the Armenian society. But
in this case the U.S. officials had better keep silent instead of
discrediting by impertinent statements, which never become actions,
the democratic values the United States tries to uphold. Otherwise,
the question occurs why the United States forgave the election in
1998, the elections in 2003, the United States even sent a preacher
to the referendum in 2005 in the person of John Evants, meanwhile it
announces that they will not forgive in 2007.
Besides, the citizen of Armenia may shrug his shoulders with other
thoughts. If the U.S. government is trying to alert the Armenian
government by saying that they will not give the money of the
Millennium if political regress continues, they had better seek a new
method of alerting. The Armenian public, for whose welfare the money
is given, know that for the Armenian government the welfare of the
public does not mean anything because this government does not rely
on the vote of this public. It falsifies the elections, and it does
not worry whether the United States will give the money or not. This
government is anxious whether the United States will recognize the
elections held and the election that will be held.
And the government, as well the citizens of Armenia are convinced that
the United States will recognize the results of this election because
according to an analyst representing the U.S. government, at least he
introduces himself so, the United States needs stable Armenia rather
than democracy. In other words, the question is fluently directed
into an either-or pattern. Either democratic, or stable. And this is
what the Armenian government states, which answers every argument of
democracy with the danger of losing stability. Consequently, when the
analyst Richard Kirakosyan, who presents himself as having connections
with the U.S. government, puts forward the democracy or stability
thesis, the hearers can immediately conclude that the United States
announces via Kirakosyan their willingness to recognize any outcome
of the election in 2007.
In this case, they can be sure that even if they use a different
wording to state that Armenia lives up to the benchmarks of the
Millennium, the political regress was eliminated and consequently the
corporation will continue financing, the citizens of Armenia may reject
the money because unlike the U.S. they view the question in the context
of democratic and stable Armenia, not democratic and stable Armenia.
It is possible that Richard Kirakosyan expresses his personal opinion,
and this time the United States will not forgive. But this needs to
be proved first.