Armenia & the South Caucasus | The Caucasian Knot » RFE/RL Signs AR Radio Contract

28 Comments

Jump to comment form | comments rss [?] | trackback uri [?]

Oneworld Multimedia :: RFE/RL Signs AR Radio Contract :: August :: 2007 08.03.07 / 12pm

[…] full post is here. Posted by Onnik @ 12:19 pm. Filed under: Armenia, Democracy, Media, Freedom of Speech, […]
uzogh 08.03.07 / 4pm

Dear Onnik,
While nobody answers to question why there was no payment till February 2007, I would like to add my 2 cents.

There was no contract at all, and State Commission asked Radio Liberty to sign a contract for a while. The in the late 2006 Radio Liberty have finally put contract on table. This contract contained some strange things in it. For example there was a point, that in case of any disputed case, all the issues must be resolved according to US laws.
Public Radio hadn’t signed this contract, and Radio Liberty has declined to resolve the issues. While there was no contract Radio Liberty stops all the payments to Public Radio.
It was in the beginning of elections campaign, and was a real trouble: if RL had to be shut down at that time there was a real treat for elections to be not recognized as free and democratic.

When the election pass away, that problem arises again, and while RL feels very comfortable broadcasting for free, that law had born. That’s it.

Actually there is a big field for conspiracy speculations:
1. Why RL stops to pay at the beginning of elections campaign?
2. Why they put unacceptable demands in contract?
3. Why the Embassy was silent on that case?

Just to refresh your mind - if you will recall the A1+ case, there was similar situation: A1 people prepared a “proposal” (I don’t know how is it actually called) to Amalyans commission, that was written on 5 pieces of paper. While law requires, that such kind of proposal have to include list of existing equipment, program details, businmes plan, etc. SHARM’s proposal was written on 200+ pieces, and included all the things required.
When they was taken out of air, and asked people to come and support them, all that meeting has become Bleyan’s stand-up show, and wave of disobedience stopped.

IMHO this case was a provocation directly aimed to election process.
Onnik Krikorian 08.03.07 / 4pm

From February 2007, I think, but anyway, the issue is the contract and you have put some other aspects to this case although as far as I’m aware there was a contract until February 2007, no?

Anyway, on the other hand, there’s no doubt in my mind that the recent media bill amendments were aimed at preventing RFE/RL from broadcasting and indeed, there had been an orchestrated campaign to attack and discredit RFE/RL since Kocharian personally voiced his dislike of the station to its journalists at some New Year dinner thing for the media.

As for the contract, well, you’re right, if a contract is not considered suitable by one party then they don’t sign it. However, let’s at least accept that the Sharm proposal wasn’t real. Indeed, they sold the station a year later. Anyway, my point is this.

The government here as gotten very skilled at using legislative means to achieve what other countries do more blatantly. A1 Plus was taken off the air on purpose and I feel sure that this latest saga was an attack on RFE/RL. However, the technicalities used to cover up what is a government initiative have gotten very sophisticated.

Still, let’s see. The next six months will indicate what the situation really is. If the government want RFE/RL’s broadcasts restricted by the presidential election they will manage to do so. On the other hand, with a Sarkisyan victory looking assured simply because of the pitiful state the opposition and civil society continues to be in, why bother?

Perhaps that’s the question I’m asking myself now. With or without RFE/RL, I can’t see the electorate rallying behind any of the opposition candidates named so far. Indeed, unless people also want continuity (something that has been said in the past, but that’s another story), I think apathy, cynicism and no real alternatives on offer will mean that its broadcasts are no real threat to anyone.

Anyway, although you’re speaking as an individual, I know, thanks for bringing more information as an “insider” to this blog. Would have been nice if you had done so before, but thanks anyway.
uzogh 08.03.07 / 6pm

First of all - you are right, I’ve don a mistake - there was no payment from February 2007.
The main issue was, that the old contract was not contract per se. It was something like “air renting” service provided by Public Radio, something like ads. Nothing more. And public radio was asking for complete “retranslmitting” contract for years. But the main question still remains - why do they stopped payments in the beginning of election campaign?

As for my opinion recent law activity was aimed to show RFERL it place. I mean, that no media must have the right to blackmail. And let’s be honest, even at the very worst scenario, RFERL was not intended to be OFF air. Law amendments were targeted to limit PUBLIC broadcast, not the broadcast at all.

Additionally - RFERL is ON the air, on a radio station with 80% of Armenia coverage.

I really do not understand this mess. Why was in so difficult for RFERL to move to another independent broadcaster?

And again, I would be very grateful, to get your thoughts on 3 questions I asked in my first comment.
Onnik Krikorian 08.03.07 / 7pm

Well, I’m not RFE/RL so can only guess. However, I would agree that these questions should be publicly addressed by RFE/RL because they probably do need answering.

1. Why RL stops to pay at the beginning of elections campaign?

Probably because all western companies make payments only when the legal framework for a deal is in place? On the other hand, it would then be natural for them not to broadcast as well. However, only RFE/RL and Public Radio can answer this one properly. I’m only guessing.

2. Why they put unacceptable demands in contract?

Again, this is an issue for RFE/RL to address, especially as I haven’t seen the contract. However, it is also worth mentioning that I haven’t seen Public Radio detail any concerns with any contract proposed by RFE/RL.

3. Why the Embassy was silent on that case?

And this would be for the U.S. Embassy to answer

Anyway, I agree with you that the intention was never to pull RFE/RL off the air although I do believe that anything can happen up until the presidential election. For example, the reintroduction of the media bill which would see the cost of such re-transmission increase or a convenient breakdown in relaying transmissions.

Then again, as I said in the last comment, maybe it’s all irrelevant anyway as it doesn’t seem likely that the opposition stand much of a chance of successfully contesting the presidential vote which means that along with international oversight, there’s less of a need to falsify so blatantly as has been done in the past.

Anyway, the long and the short of it is that there are still many things unclear about the RFE/RL story from both sides. However, I would much rather have RFE/RL on Public Radio covering 100 percent of the country just to know that there’s little chance of it coming off during the election for one reason or another.

Regardless, thanks for your comment and the points you raise. As I can see from my stats that RFE/RL check out this blog on a daily basis, perhaps someone can there can answer your questions.
Armen Filadelfiatsi 08.04.07 / 4am

Uzogh wrote: […]if RL had to be shut down at that time there was a real treat for elections to be not recognized as free and democratic.

Uzogh just confirmed what I wrote in my first post about this issue: “[This demonstration] is a reminder to all those in power or seeking power that, “Look, see how easy it is for papers to suddenly start running certain stories about certain governments and how corrupt they may or may not be? They can be a lot more specific, too, you know.”

It’s here: http://oneworld.blogsome.com/2007/06/26/media-concerns-in-cis/trackback/

(I’ve confirmed the mafia-boss style of the RFE and its anti-democratic ally USAID in Armenian papers as well, which mention something along the lines of communication of threats from the US Embassy to Armenian politicians. (It’s also worth mentioning that among their other tools is yet another Soros-sponsored project: freenet.am, a presently rather pathetic network that unsurprisingly does not link to anything outside its domain, creating the ideal conditions for an echo chamber.)

Please keep this fact front and center, because this is the–real issue behind RFE–not a lot of empty rhetoric about “freedom and democracy”:

Armenian politicians are, as a matter of course, bribed and threatened by foreign agencies into broadcasting their propaganda.

As uzogh’s comment makes clear, last month’s gag-happy demonstration for so-called “freedom of speech” amounts to nothing more than a lot of naive Armenians (and few outright collaborators) being used by a foreign power to threaten their own, Armenian, politicians. I can only imagine what it must feel like to be an Armenian politician watching the public help undermine democracy by falling for USAid tricks. It must be downright disillusioning, downright repulsive.

Onnik, you do good reporting when you stop framing everything in terms of “freedom and democracy,” a phrase that has over the course of the last seven years come to invoke nothing but intense cynicism and disgust. I really hope one day you permanently drop that lie of a frame and engage the real issues in Armenia: Its relationship to the US, Russia, and Iran; the occasions when and means through which Armenian politicians are corrupted, how much power they have, what their real affiliations are; where the money comes from in Armenia, where it goes, and for what purpose; the role of the World Bank, IMF, and various and sundry NGO’s, and so on.

Maybe the reason for your continued use of slogans like “freedom and democracy” is that you have not been living in the West for about the last decade, as I am given to understand. But, believe me, Onnik, much has changed, and changed dramatically. Nobody but nobody believes those stupid slogans anymore: Not in the US, where Bush’s approval ratings are in the 30s; not in your own country, where Blair mercifully stepped down because everybody was sick of seeing his wanker face in those rare moments when his nose was not mining Bush’s crevice; not in France where even a rightist like Sarkozy opposes the Iraq war; not in Spain where they went socialist and ejected that lisping moron like a lactose-intolerant truck driver whose drunk a gallon of milk after a week-long burrito binge.

And the rest of the world gri vres.

So, again, nobody in the West believes the “freedom and democracy” crap anymore. And, since you are writing in English, maybe you ought to seriously reconsider your angle.
Onnik 08.04.07 / 11am

Maybe the reason for your continued use of slogans like “freedom and democracy” is that you have not been living in the West for about the last decade, as I am given to understand. […]

[…]

So, again, nobody in the West believes the “freedom and democracy” crap anymore. And, since you are writing in English, maybe you ought to seriously reconsider your angle.

Sorry, but I do believe in such concepts and I’m quite able to recognize the fact that democracy and civil rights have declined worldwide especially since 911. However, democracy is an ongoing process — there will be advance and there will be regression. It is however, up to people to continually fight for democracy, and to demand their rights as well as accountability from their elected officials.

Certainly, a lack of democracy isn’t reason enough to give up on the idea. It’s actually a reason to fight for it, and coming from the UK as you say, you can not obviously compare the level of democracy to be found there with here. Anyway, there is no such thing as an attainable “democratic” state, but there are levels of democracy which we’re all responsible for pushing for. In a sense, that’s what you’re doing although maybe you just don’t realize it.

Anyway, I’ve already made one post on “managed democracy” which also makes reference to a possible U.S. and E.U. stance on the matter mainly abroad, and also at home. As for whether people actually believe in the idea of democracy, I’ve already concluded that few have any understanding of it here, or show any signs of fighting for it. Instead we have a battle between those in power and those outside.

Actually, democracy is something more than that, but probably it’s just best to end on some quotes from Churchill (not my favorite British political leader, and one with many skeletons in his closet, but anyway) that a local friend always reminds me of when we get to such discussions.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.
uzogh 08.04.07 / 4pm

Onnik, I never expected an exact answer from you. I just asked to to share your thoughts. I mean, that nobody knows exactly what was on the scene.

Perhaps it is a kind of offtopic, but I really believe, that after 12th of May we are living in a new country. Just look around: we had first independent expertise in police, we have arrested son of Gyumri mayor, we have this RFE story, that shows that ruling elite is much more european, than it was just one year before.

They are learning democracy. They understand what it really mean. They try to use “civilized forms of bribery”, try to build parties, try to get lessons from Raffi’s success. It is really good.

As Armen have said, me too have some skeptical view on the term “democracy”. What is it?
Another thing I really wonder on, is that democracy may be provoked by outer forces, and that it can be measured. I’m an engineer, if you remember, and I really cannot understand, how can will of people in one country be manipulated from outside. It is everything, but not democracy. And as far as I understand democracy is not a potato, to be measured in kilograms and is not Red Kilkenny to be measured in pints.

Really I don’t understand. I know the term “republic”. And the best I expect from my country - is to be a republic. Strong, effective, open and, of course, rich.

As for the main topic of this discussion - I am totally sure, that RFE have the things, to hide and bury them to silence. And on 28th of June, I’ve told the exact finish for that RFE saga. It is on Russian in a journal of my good friend David Sandukhchyan (http://david-sand.livejournal.com/134073.html?thread=1802937#t1802937).
Onnik, all that story was a show. And actually exam for our politicians. They have passed it with a brilliant mark. They can do everything, they want, and it will be called democracy. They know rules, and are ready for Europe.
Onnik Krikorian 08.04.07 / 6pm

Uzogh, can you give us non-Russian speakers a brief summary of what David said? Thanks in advance if you can.

Regarding everything else, well, I’ve made it quite clear on two blogs I run that the parliamentary election was a step forward. I’ve also made it clear that I am personally shocked by what I consider to be the non-democratic mentality that exists among the “radical” opposition and certain parts of civil society. Some of those groups openly say they will do anything in their power to prevent Serzh from becoming president. My take? Well, what if the majority of Armenians actually vote for him?

Saying both of those things, however, I don’t believe that the election was “democratic” although again, I say, it was noticeably better than before (it was “more democratic” than before) and as many of us suspect — but I admit can’t prove — that vote bribes played a role it also has to be understood that that part of the electorate who took money did so quite willingly and without intimidation. I daresay not being able to see an alternative to the ruling parties also played a role.

However, let’s also recognize one other reality, or maybe two. Firstly, without pressure from outside — and particularly with regards to Armenia’s CE commitments and obligations — I don’t believe that this somewhat arguable progress would have happened. At the same time, I also believe that this form of “managed” democracy is what the West favors in a country such as this.

Anyway, let’s see what will be for the presidential election, but I personally don’t expect it to be “democratic” as I know it. However, I do believe that it will be more democratic and will largely be accepted by the West who can see that Armenia might well have now started to embark on some kind of path of democratization. Nevertheless, I think that international obligations are key although that’s different than say the outside world supporting the idea of revolution in Armenia.

Interestingly, as some civil society groups and opposition parties appear to still be waiting for the West to give the green light for revolution, I think it has to be said that the traditional and radical opposition are also to blame for the slow pace of democratization in Armenia. Certainly, in my opinion, they have lost the trust of those among the public that used to support them compared to 2002-3.

There has been progress, and for a variety of reasons — impotent opposition, economic growth, international pressure, and yes, some limited form of political will among the government — I think there will be progress next year too. I also agree with you that certain other events are also indicative of this as well. The filling in of the pit by the opera, for example, the failure of the media bill to pass, and the arrest of Ghukasian’s son, for example.

Nevertheless, I believe that democratization means that there needs to be checks and balances in the system, civil society has to play a role, and there will always be constant pressure for more change — and that even includes in established democratic countries. On that, if I felt pessimistic before the 12 May parliamentary election let me at least say that I don’t feel like that now.

Time will tell, but I do believe that a managed democratic model is now in play in Armenia and that really does involve pressure from the outside, but also willingness of the internal authorities to accept it. That after all is actually what European integration and CE obligations are all about and something the present authorities entered into quite willingly.

Anyway, with continued pressure from within and outside the republic as well as playing by the (changing) rules I hope we are now on a path towards what we can perhaps be called the slow process of democratization. If that’s the case, I’m quite happy to acknowledge it, but believe that pressure from wherever it comes has to be there. As you say, it’s a test, and so far since 12 May the government appears to be responding adequately, if maybe sometimes reluctantly.

That’s what I think some kind of process of democratization (accelerated for the former SU so it doesn’t take 100 years instead of a decade or two) is. All I wanted to see for the parliamentary election was progress, and although I’d say there are significant problems to be addressed (which is also part of democratization in any and every country), I had to conclude that there was.

Once again, let me point you to my post on managed democracy.
Onnik Krikorian 08.04.07 / 9pm

(It’s also worth mentioning that among their other tools is yet another Soros-sponsored project: freenet.am, a presently rather pathetic network that unsurprisingly does not link to anything outside its domain, creating the ideal conditions for an echo chamber.)

Hmmm, is it Soros sponsored now? I know that that Freenet was set up as a UNDP project 10 years ago before the project was finally stopped — last year, if this post is anything to go by. It wasn’t meant to last long unless it could become self-sustainable, and really wasn’t necessary for Armenia after 1999.

For now, it looks like Arminco are at least running the helpdesk, but I’d welcome any additional information on who is funding it. I maybe mistakingly assumed that Arminco took it over as they always saw it as a potential threat to their network.

Actually, they over-estimated the threat as Freenet always seemed unreliable to me, couldn’t access foreign web sites and was Yerevan-based because the lines were so damn bad everywhere else.
Armen Filadelfiatsi 08.04.07 / 11pm

It was USAid, too. (Not Soros; I misremembered):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet_%28Central_Asia%29
Onnik Krikorian 08.05.07 / 2am

I think you place too much significance on Freenet. As I remember it, Freenet was largely used by most users who set up web sites to distribute porn, and chat was the most used feature until they finally took that offline. Sure, some NGOs set up some very basic and amateurish sites, but the connection was lousy, often it was impossible to get a line in, and there was no technical support at all. Sometimes, the Freenet service was even given over to start-up ISPs to enter the market without UNDP knowing.

As a result, the service suffered and sometimes Freenet users were purposely cut off from the system. I suppose some money privately changed hands for this, but I have no idea other than seeing one company, ACC, use the Freenet office, servers and modem pool in the UNDP building as their own sometime around 1998-9. I also remember that both Freenet and Arminco constantly accused the other of initiating hacking wars to bring the other’s service down.

Anyway, as I said, even if some case could be made for allowing access to email — indeed, this is what those in charge of Freenet argued in order to continue pulling large salaries and to receive funding, but that’s definitely not the case now when you consider that dialup cards are not only more reliable, but they’re also cheaper, and free online mail services such as Yahoo, Hotmail etc are better and more widely available.
Myrthe 08.05.07 / 1pm

“the old contract was not contract per se. It was something like “air renting” service provided by Public Radio, something like ads. Nothing more.”

Uzogh, in legal terms, that is still a contract. Even if you go to the shop to buy bread, in legal terms, there is still a contract, albeit an implied one and obviously no paper is signed: you give money and in return you receive a bread. If the bread is moldy or whatever, you’d go back to the store to complain that the shop didn’t keep up it’s side of the contract, even though these words would obviously not be used. I know it sounds like blowing up a small thing like buying bread out of proportion, but I just wanted to show you that contracts and agreements don’t always need to be written down on pages and pages of paper.

If Public Radio “rents out air” (hmm, this sounds very funny, but I’ll stick to it), you bet there is still a contract. It can be written down or oral (though that would obviously be inadvisable to both parties in this case), but there is always a contract, an agreement the two sides agreed upon where both parties are expected to do certain things (provide a service, pay a certain amount of money, you name it).
Onnik Krikorian 08.05.07 / 1pm

I suppose this then creates a problem with my argument as to why RFE/RL didn’t actually pay for the broadcasts if some kind of contract did exist whether on paper or not. Actually, it is this matter of payment or the lack of it that hasn’t been explained by RFE/RL yet, although at the same time I haven’t heard anything from Public Radio to indicate that they requested it. Certainly, there has been nothing to indicate they issued any warning to RFE/RL.

However, regarding your analogy with buying bread at a shop, I really don’t think that RFE/RL and Public Radio should be working along the lines of my local kiosk. Nevertheless, I reserve judgment on this aspect of the RFE/RL saga because I have heard no real explanation of why this situation was allowed to exist — i.e. broadcasting without payment — from either of them. Indeed, this is the most confusing side of the whole story and one that has not yet been adequately explained or reported on.

Well, EurasiaNet did request clarification on this issue, but RFE/RL “declined to comment.” Even so, I think it’s obvious that someone wanted RFE/RL’s broadcasts limited. On the other hand, I can understand the argument why a foreign broadcaster shouldn’t use public radio or television. That is, for established democracies, and this is my point. When there is a problem with the information being made available to the public, RFE/RL still serves an important role in a country such as Armenia.

Later, I would imagine that when democratization takes hold here, and the local media actually does it job, there will be no need for RFE/RL. That’s for later, though. For now, I think RFE/RL is necessary and contributes to the process of democratization, although somewhat ironically I think we can consider that the government won on this one. RFE/RL will stop broadcasting on Public Radio and will instead work through another station. Time will tell if any other problems — technical or legislative — will emerge before the election.
Onnik 08.05.07 / 2pm

BTW: Uzogh, I want to open this blog up to guests who want to give their own opinion on the state of democracy ahead of the election as well the vote itself. I don’t expect to agree with many of those opinions or maybe I will, who knows. However, what is important for me is that we all have food for thought and the basis for discussion.

If you want I’d gladly take a guest post from you (as well as others) although it would have to be in English as my audience consists of English-speaking locals, Diasporans and foreign representatives of the international media and various organizations. Anyway, I can edit for English although yours isn’t bad at all, and I’d like you and others to consider it.

Yeah, hits aren’t many at present (an average of around 23 readers a day*), but that’s normal given we’re 6 months away from the campaign period, and my reason for setting up this blog now is so that it can gradually gain popularity before February next year. At the same time, all posts obviously remain in the database so will come up in Google and other searches, including that facility on this site.

* According to Statcounter. Google Analytics reports 526 unique visits since 20 July (an average of over 30 a day) with 42.40 percent being returning visitors and 36.12 percent being located in Armenia and 36.50 percent being in the U.S. People are reading the posts with the average time spent on the site during a visit being 12.41 minutes. Page views per visit average 3.31. By early next year I obviously expect the number of readers to be significantly higher as more interest is shown in the election.
Armen Filadelfiatsi 08.05.07 / 2pm

Obviously, buying bread from the market is nowhere near the same thing as buying (or armtwisting) airtime from a nation’s public radio.
Onnik 08.05.07 / 2pm

Armen Filadelfiatsi, right, but I have still not heard any explanation from either RFE/RL why they didn’t pay, and also from Public Radio as to whether they demanded it and if not, why not. Very bizarre from whichever side you look at it from.
Armen Filadelfiatsi 08.05.07 / 2pm

By the way, I’m not placing any emphasis on freenet. I just mentioned it in passing, and that in parentheses. Freenet is not now a viable anything. I brought it up because of its funding, which is noteworthy because it is shady, and for no other reason. Last time I checked freenet, there were a whole lot of dead sites and a few artists whose works should be far faster to load.
uzogh 08.06.07 / 4pm

“Uzogh, in legal terms, that is still a contract.”
Myrthe, the main issue is that by legislation this service must be provided under the terms of a contract. Properly created and written. And there was no such contract. At all. From early 2005 administration of Public Radio was asking RFE people to sign complete, properly designed contract. With no positive response from their side. Then it comes to election campaign, and RFE proposed a contract with terms, completely unacceptable for Public Radio. After this proposal they’ve stopped payments.

If Public Radio “rents out air” (hmm, this sounds very funny, but I’ll stick to it), you bet there is still a contract.
It was RFE, that was renting out the air (eter). And the absence of properly written contract is the main issue. RFE wanted a contract with inappropriate (even strange) requirements. I’ve listed one, but there are many.
Onnik Krikorian 08.06.07 / 4pm

So this means since 2005 Public Radio was breaking the law? To be honest, I still don’t understand why Public Radio were allowing RFE/RL to use their frequency if a) a contract didn’t exist since 2005 and b) no payments were made since February 2007. It sounds like a mess which Public Radio were mainly guilty of creating for themselves.
uzogh 08.06.07 / 4pm

I suppose this then creates a problem with my argument as to why RFE/RL didn’t actually pay for the broadcasts if some kind of contract did exist whether on paper or not. Actually, it is this matter of payment or the lack of it that hasn’t been explained by RFE/RL yet, although at the same time I haven’t heard anything from Public Radio to indicate that they requested it. Certainly, there has been nothing to indicate they issued any warning to RFE/RL.
There was a public statement by Public TV and Radio Company commission (published on http://www.a1plus.am/ru/?page=issue&iid=51798 , it is on Russian, and no sign of it in Armenian and Ehglish sections), in which is said: “?? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????????? ?????????????? ? ??????? ?????????? ???????????? ?????????? ??? ????????????? “????? ????????? ?????? ???????” ??? ????????. ??? ?? ?????, ???????????? ?????????????, ????? ???? ?????? ????, ?????????? ????????????? ????????? ???????????? “???????” ? ?????? ????? ????????????? ????? ?? ??????????????? ???????. ?? ??????? 2007 ???? ???????????? “???????” ????????? ??????? ?? ??????, ?????? ????? ??????? ????????????, ???????? ?? ??, ??? ????? ??????????????? ??????????. ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ???????????? “???????” ?? ??????????????? ?????? ?????????? ??????? $86 ???. ”
My (quick and dirty) translation follows:
“Right now there’s no contract betwwen Public Radio and Council of American Broadcaster, or RFE/RL. Anyway Public Radio Company showed its good will by continuing retransmition of RFE programs, providing invoice for service monthly. Until February 2007 RFE was paying for this invoices in accurate manner, but then payments were stopped, although invoices were provided on monthly basis. Right now RFE’s debt for provided service is near $86.000.”

So here’s the statement from one side.
Let’s wait for the statement of RFE, but I really in doubt, that we will get it.

Just want to remind you the case of Jina Khachatryan. When I found her lying, everybody was saying - let’s wait for her response. And when there was no response, nobody told me: OK, Ruben, you were right.
uzogh 08.06.07 / 4pm

BTW: Uzogh, I want to open this blog up to guests who want to give their own opinion on the state of democracy ahead of the election as well the vote itself. I don’t expect to agree with many of those opinions or maybe I will, who knows. However, what is important for me is that we all have food for thought and the basis for discussion.

Thank you for your invitation, Sir!
I think it’s a good idea, and I think that I will contribute.
Is there any exact topic, or I may have freedom in topic selection?
I really wanted to write about the accountability of donors and NGO sector, but not sure, that it is a correct place to put it in.
Onnik Krikorian 08.06.07 / 4pm

Uzogh, you have complete freedom to choose. Personally, I like your idea of donor and NGO accountability because I believe that transparency in elections should apply to everyone, but it’s up to you. It can be on any aspect of the election you like.

Incidentally, as for Jina, I never saw what you were saying on the matter before I saw it mentioned on the Guardian’s blog so please be aware that I wasn’t one of those who said you were wrong.

Of course, I’ll also admit that I never saw the original posts so I might have had I done so.

Anyway, credit where credit is due, it was great work you did on that, and I’m still disappointed that few other blogs (and I suppose media outlets) covered the story.

Back to the RFE/RL - Public Radio saga, why didn’t the latter make it’s position clearer? Obviously, they didn’t. Likewise, I assume that journalists spoke to Public Radio and in all the quotes I’ve seen, they again don’t make the points you do, or as clear, shall we say?

Maybe you should get a job there as their media person.
uzogh 08.06.07 / 6pm

“Back to the RFE/RL - Public Radio saga, why didn’t the latter make it’s position clearer? Obviously, they didn’t. Likewise, I assume that journalists spoke to Public Radio and in all the quotes I’ve seen, they again don’t make the points you do, or as clear, shall we say?”
I think (and please consider it as my own opinion), that they have to menthal complexes:
1. Not to go to public. Sometimes they just want to avoid discussion, sometimes they try to silence the mess.
2. They have no experience of work with the situation that requires debate skill. It’s a real trouble in Armenia - people here do not know how to debate. How to write, and how to defend a position. I hope this will change in time.

BTW I’ve remembered that I owe you some translation (again quick and dirty) of discussion in David Sandukhchyan’ LJ (http://david-sand.livejournal.com/134073.html?thread=1802937#t1802937)
In hist Original post he condemns the amendments, and cohdemns political fractions in parliament for supporting the bill.

UZOGH: I think that nothing will happen to RFE. It will not lose the airtime. Perhaps it will move to another frequency, but will not be shut down completely…..
DAVID_SAND: Perhaps: If it will switch to Yerevan (meant yerevan-only-covering-frequency) it will not be dangerous.
UZOGH: I.e. it is dangerous on republican (meant full-republic-covering) frequency?
I reckon, that it is not dangerous at all. But it is not an issue.
DAVID_SAND: I think, that Serge is not convinient with marz broadcasting. Though he is not convininet with them anyway. But in marzes especially. In Yerevan there is some information about opposition and other things still leak out, but in marzes it is only PTV (Public TV), some glamorous Armenia and cowardous Shant.

UZOGH: Serzh personally have told you so?

But in marzes there are ALM and H2, and a lot of smaller tv-channels.

DAVID_SAND: ALM and H2 are under control, and you know them. Smaller are intimidated as [russian idiom]. Rub, don’t you understand me?
UZOGH: Understood. I still do not understand why are you sure about Serzh’s thoughts. And a minor correction to marz situation.
DAVID_SAND: I meant that this is originated from republicans. Bargavatches do not care, dashnaks again were not active, but Vahan [Hovhannisyan] have said a few words. The most active are republicans. I.e. Serzh. Although rumours say, that amendments are written at presidential [administration], not in Ministry of Justice.
UZOGH: Is it the first reading? Or amendments are not going thruogh 1,2,3 [readings] cycle?
DAVID_SAND: Going [through 1,2,3 cycle]. How they could not? It is us - who say amendments, but it is a law about amendments to law - everything by procedure.
then DAVID_SAND have gone into details of law making, and I become bored with translation.
Onnik Krikorian 08.06.07 / 6pm

Thanks
uzogh 08.06.07 / 7pm

“So this means since 2005 Public Radio was breaking the law? To be honest, I still don’t understand why Public Radio were allowing RFE/RL to use their frequency if a) a contract didn’t exist since 2005 and b) no payments were made since February 2007. It sounds like a mess which Public Radio were mainly guilty of creating for themselves.”
Not the law, but the rule. There was change in legal requirements for deals with/without contract (I really do not remember it’s correct name), and PR has begun to ask RFE staff to sign that contract. For 1.5 year. Actually this situation may continue endlessly, but when in late 2005 the contract was prepared, and PR have become a subject for blackmail, it makes all that mess.
uzogh 08.06.07 / 8pm

Correction:
Actually this situation may continue endlessly, but when in late 2006 the contract was prepared, and PR have become a subject for blackmail, it makes all that mess
Onnik Krikorian 08.08.07 / 4pm

BTW: Regarding international donors and NGOs, I contacted USAID/CASP last week to request information on the grants they disbursed for the 12 May parliamentary election and to get an idea of what they’re planning for the 2008 presidential election. I still haven’t received a response, but you’ll be able to read about it here when I do.

Have your say

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Please Note:

Comments are currently moderated.
If your comment does not appear immediately, there is no need to submit it again.
Please treat others with respect.
Comments containing hate speech, obscenity, and personal attacks will not be approved.

RFE/RL Signs AR Radio Contract

Twitter Updates

Global Voices Online: Caucasus

28 Comments

Have your say

Please Note:

About

Recently

Monthly Archives

Categories

RFE/RL Signs AR Radio Contract

Twitter Updates

Global Voices Online: Caucasus

28 Comments

Have your say

Please Note:

About

Blogroll

Recently

Monthly Archives

Categories