Less industrially developed countries, without communication policy and planning infrastructures, are in a weak position to control resource applications that are influenced heavily by private international businesses with agendas differing from their own national development objectives.

Twenty years ago, telecommunications was ac acceptable term to use, and most specialists in the field knew what was meant. In today's rapidly changing climate, however, precision in language is all-important, as language shapes our ability to think and conceptualize. Therefore, it is imperative that terms not be crated ad hoc, without deliberation.

H. Mowlana, Global Information and World Communication

Very recently, a paper entitled A Concept for the Development of the Communication and Informatization Domain , worked out by the Ministry of Communications and Transport, has been made public. As we are assured, "It is envisaged that the Concept will be adopted as a key document expressing the Armenian government's perspective on the development of the communication and informatization field, and will become a guideline for state policy in this sphere."

The commonly accepted way to draft such concept papers in the post-Soviet era has been to translate the corresponding Russian document with abridgments and changes, depending on the drafter-translators' competence and conscientiousness. This paper, too, is not without its "Russian influence", as is clear from the very title of the paper. "Communication and Informatization" is the name of the Internet portal of the corresponding Russian ministry and recurs as a refrain in the titles of numerous Russian documents (Seewww.minsvyaz.ru ). It remains hard to understand when Armenian "concepts" will, at last, directly correlate with the corresponding European programs and documents. Isn't Armenia a member of the Council of Europe? Or is it despite that fact that it continues to see its prospects in this sphere within the framework of the CIS initiative? I believe that the concept paper is a document which requires certain fundamental specifications.

On the terms used

At the same time, the concept paper gives the impression of being more of a self-made document. From a formal standpoint it doesn't even resemble a concept. Let us begin with saying that the document doesn't define main notions and terms, something that a document that calls itself a "concept" is expected to do. There are things that simply require explanation or interpretation. For example, there is a need to justify the selection of the domain "communication and informatization". If it is the case in Russia, does it follow that it must be the case in Armenia, too? Or, how should the reader understand what "digital disparity" means, or what "universal service" is, etc.?

Then, the document is full of all kinds of tables. It is beyond doubt that statistical tables, however important they are, don't belong in a concept; their place is in the proper annexes. Strange though it may be, there is no reference to any specific document - either local or developed in the CIS or the European Union - on which this concept based, or with which it correlates in one way or another (making mention in passing of Geneva documents is not enough to make a difference). And, of course, not a word is said about any prior research (it should have been - after all, a concept is developed), just as there are no assurances that other documents will follow. Naturally, the concept is not amplified with a plan of action, as one might expect. Thus, this document is presented to us on the one hand as a set of three-page-long strictly abstract assertions, on the other hand as statistical tables with strictly empirical data.

The terminological muddle begins with an incorrectly translated word; in a number of cases, the word "numerical" is used instead of the word "digital".

The notion "universal service" is not defined, although it is incorrect to consider it to be something understandable by itself. A general definition or description can be found in an article about the Geneva Summit on the same site. However, we must take into consideration that this definition only suggests what universal service can mean in a particular country, remaining subject to continuous change, since under rapidly changing circumstances, new services may appear and some old services may disappear. Each country, thus, individually decides what it is, in accordance with the capabilities and needs of the moment, and with a clear idea of the mechanisms resources necessary to realize it. Therefore, it is necessary to try to give at least a preliminary description of a possible universal service in Armenia (if such a thing is at all possible). However, it is easy to understand how difficult this will be to do in a country where the fight against corruption and poverty is declared as the key direction of government activity.

To be continued

Hrach Bayadyan