Archive News
regularly
updated
Edited on February 11, 2000
BAKU EXPECTS KARABAKH CONFLICT SETTLEMENT EFFORTS TO BE INTENSIFIED
BAKU Feb 9 (Interfax)-A meeting of the co-chairmen of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's (OSCE) Minsk group
for a Karabakh settlement will be held in late February, after which a
decision might be reached that the co-chairmen will take another tour of
the conflict zone to work out new settlement proposals, Azerbaijani
Foreign Minister Vilayet Guliyev has told Interfax. Guliyev noted that
this meeting was to have taken place on February 2, but was postponed
due to the internal political situation in Austria.
This meeting of the OSCE Minsk group chairmen might be held either
in Vienna or in Geneva, diplomatic sources in Baku have said.
The Minsk group has so far mainly temporized, as manifested by the fact
that in working out their proposals the co-chairmen have oriented
themselves to the results of direct negotiations between Azerbaijani and
Armenian Presidents Heydar Aliyev and Robert Kocharian, Guliyev said.
Since last spring, eight rounds of negotiations between Aliyev and
Kocharian have taken place, mainly in western capitals. The one before
last was held in Moscow on January 25 in the framework of the CIS
summit. Acting Russian President Vladimir Putin, who attended the
meeting, declared that Russia is prepared to become a guarantor of such
agreements as Aliyev and Kocharian reach. Meanwhile, the Azerbaijani
president said recently that "the parties have so far not reached
complete mutual understanding as regards compromises that should be
agreed upon."
In the view of observers, the West is trying to urge the parties to more
actively seek to break the deadlocks. For example, a representative
delegation of the U.S. State Department visited Baku and Yerevan last
month. The White House proposed a detailed plan to Baku concerning the
restoration of the occupied Azerbaijani territories after their
liberation. According to the plan, the restoration work would be
financed with the help of the International Monetary Fund, the World
Bank and other international financial and lending organizations.
The head of the U.S. delegation, State Department representative Stephen
Sestanovich, said during the talks with Aliyev that U.S. President Bill
Clinton shares the Azerbaijani president's optimism that "the year 2000
will be the year of the Karabakh conflict's settlement." Aliyev made a
similar promise in a state television address to the nation on New
Year's Eve.
Meanwhile, last year Baku categorically rejected the latest draft plan
submitted by the OSCE Minsk group for Karabakh conflict settlement,
which was based on the so-called common state principle.
If new proposals from the OSCE Minsk group's co-chairmen again contain
elements of the "common state" principle, the mediators will achieve
nothing and their mission will be not bear fruit, Guliyev told Interfax.
According to Guliyev, the "common state" principle stipulates that
Nagorno-Karabakh, which it has been proposed to renamed the Republic of
Nagorno-Karabakh, will have its own monetary and financial system,
currency, flag, state emblem, parliament, justice system, law-
enforcement agencies and armed forces. Thus, the principle gives Nagorno-
Karabakh even higher status than it could have enjoyed in a confederated
state, Guliyev noted. In that case, Azerbaijan could enjoy only a formal
acknowledgement that Nagorno-Karabakh is in fact its territory. "The
implementation of this principle would actually mean the establishment
of another Armenian state within Azerbaijan, which is absolutely
unacceptable for Baku," the minister said.
Copyright 2000 Interfax News Agency
Interfax Russian News
Foreign minister says Armenia not ready for peace negotiations
Source: Trend news agency, Baku, in Russian 1609 gmt 3 Feb 00
Baku: If Armenia feels ready to fulfil the requested conditions, the
possibility of holding a new meeting between the Azerbaijani president and
his Armenian counterpart is not ruled out. Trend news agency reported that
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Vilayat Guliyev had said this.
Commenting on the latest stage of the negotiations between [Azerbaijani
President Heydar] Aliyev and [Armenian President Robert] Kocharyan in Davos
Guliyev said that "this meeting showed once again that Armenia has not got
over the shock caused by the events of 27th October [shootings in Armenian
parliament]". Guliyev said that Armenia is still not ready to hold
large-scale negotiations. At the same time, the parties spoke about the
importance of continuing this dialogue for the settlement of the Nagornyy
Karabakh problem. In connection with this it was decided to continue the
dialogue between Aliyev and Kocharyan but the date and place of the next
meeting has still not been determined.
Regarding the aforementioned Guliyev pointed out that from the first stage
of the Aliyev-Kocharyan meetings it had been announced that peace in the
South Caucasus for the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict could be reached only
if every party were ready to compromise. "But for the time being Armenia is
not able to overcome hesitations with regard to compromises and this, most
likely, is connected with the fact that this country has made certain
changes in its positions," Guliyev emphasized.
Guliyev reported that he had met his Armenian counterpart in Davos and
Moscow. "We exchanged views in Davos but, naturally, the two presidents were
the key collocutors. The foreign ministers must fulfil their orders, if they
are given. But, in general, I had detailed meetings with [Armenian Foreign
Minister Vardan] Oskanyan both in Moscow and Davos. During these meetings we
widely analysed the history and stages of the conflict, ways of settling it,
the attitude of the [OSCE] Minsk Group to this issue and other themes,"
Guliyev said. Guliyev also reported that in Davos he had met the Russian and
US co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group, respectively Nikolay Gribkov and
Carey Cavanaugh.
Guliyev thinks that recently the Minsk Group has taken a waiting position
and the co-chairmen are explaining this by the direct Aliyev-Kocharyan
talks. The Minsk Group declares that the limit on proposals has been
reached. They are ready to accept any agreement between Aliyev and Kocharyan
as a basis for their proposals. At the same time, Guliyev completely ruled
out the possibility that a "common state" idea would be put on the agenda
after changing the terms. "If they again arrive in the region with the
common state idea, it will be possible to say that they have arrived
empty-handed and their proposals will not be accepted by Azerbaijan,"
Guliyev said.
Guliyev said that signing of a peace agreement between Armenia and
Azerbaijan was not expected in the near future. "If there is no principal
agreement between the presidents of the two countries, one cannot speak
about the signing of any document," he said.
Copyright 2000 British Broadcasting Corporation
BBC Summary of World Broadcasts
Copied with permission from Habarlar-L Newslist
Edited on February 10, 2000
Armenia/Azerbaijan: Diplomats Discuss Karabakh
By Andrew F. Tully
Washington, 7 February 2000 (RFE/RL) -- Two diplomats who once negotiated
on different sides of the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute held a congenial
discussion on
Friday (Feb. 4) on ways to pursue a peaceful solution to the conflict.
Vafa Quluzada of Azerbaijan and Gerard Libaridian of Armenia spoke in
Washington at a forum on the disputed enclave in Azerbaijan sponsored by
the Open Society
Institute, a think-tank based in New York.
During the past decade, the two men had represented their respective
governments in negotiations designed to resolve status of
Nagorno-Karabakh. The predominantly
Armenian enclave in the mountains of western Azerbaijan has been the focus
of a conflict, sometimes armed, between the two former Soviet nations
since 1988.
Quluzada, who has served as adviser to all three presidents of Azerbaijan,
said a peaceful resolution of the problem could be reached quicker if
Russia no longer has
what he called "imperialistic ambitions."
Libaridian, an adviser to former Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian,
recommended that both sides stop negotiating on the basis of rigid
ideology. He also said
each side should abandon the notion of bringing the other, as he put it,
"to its knees."
The congeniality dissipated, at least briefly, when a student from
Nagorno-Karabakh (unidentified) asked Quluzada why the government of
Azerbaijan refuses to
negotiate directly with the people of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Quluzada replied sternly, saying that Nagorno-Karabakh is not a sovereign
nation. He said one group of Armenians declaring independence in a region
of Azerbaijan is
as unthinkable as another group of Armenians settling in California and
declaring independence there.
The Azerbaijani diplomat dismissed separatists in the enclave as
"mutineers." He said they could proclaim their Armenian cultural identity,
and even have their own flag,
when -- as he put it -- "you are ready to be citizens of Azerbaijan."
Until then, Quluzada said, "there is nothing to discuss."
Quluzada is the founder and director of the Caspian Geopolicy Research
Foundation, which studies the Caspian region. Libardarian is now a senior
research fellow at
the East West Institute, a New York think-tank.
No Turkish-Armenia Ties, Without Conflict Resolution
YEREVAN (Armenpress)-"The unresolved Karabakh conflict
remains one of the biggest obstacles for the establishment of
peace and stability in the region," announced speaker f the
Turkish National Assembly Yildrim Akbulut, while visiting Baku
Tuesday, reported the Itar-Tass.
Speaking before Azeri legislators, he underlined that the Karabakh
conflict was also impeding the realization of larger regional
projects, including energy and transport. The chairman of Turkish
parliament expressed his belief that the establishment of peace
between Azerbaijan and Armenia will create a favorable
opportunity for the regulation of not only bilateral but also
multilateral co-operation in the region.
In a reference to the conflict resolution mechanisms, he stressed
that his country supports direct negotiations between presidents of
Azerbaijan and Armenia and believes that direct dialogue may
conclude with a peace treaty. In his words, Ankara comes out in
favor of maintaining Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and solving
the conflict on the basis of international laws.
Responding to questions, he said that Ankara will not open its
borders with Armenia until the conflict is fully regulated.
Copyright 2000 Armenpress
News copied with the permission from Habarlar-L
Azerbaijan Warns Foreigners of Illegal Visas
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan has sent a note to the
foreign offices of all the countries and the international organizations
warning them about the consequences of using the illegal visas issued by
the unrecognized government of self-proclaimed Nagorno Karabakh republic,
the Azeri territory which is under the military occupation of the Armenian
armed forces. The Armenian administration of Nagorno Karabakh has begun
issuing the visas to foreign citizens to wish to visit that territory. The
Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry note reminds that under the existing
international laws and laws of the Republic of Azerbaijan all citizens of
foreign countries have to apply for the Azerbaijani visa in order to enter
the territory of Azerbaijan. Any person who violates this provision and
enters Azerbaijan with the illegal visa issued by the occupying Armenian
military will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
HABARLAR-L
ARMENIAN WAR VETERANS WANT FINAL SAY ON KARABAKH PEACE AGREEMENT.
Meeting last weekend, the board of the Yerkrapah
union of veterans of the Karabakh war warned that they will
not accept any settlement of the Karabakh conflict that
entails the return to Azerbaijani jurisdiction of occupied
Azerbaijani territories bordering on the unrecognized
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, RFE/RL's Yerevan bureau reported
on 7 February. "We will not allow anybody to decide on the
fate of Armenia and Artsakh without asking Yerkrapah's and
the people's opinion," union chairman Manvel Grigorian said.
Prime Minister Aram Sargsian, who attended the meeting, said,
"Rest assured that on this issue my views can't be different
from yours. I can't accept a decision that you wouldn't like,
especially on the question of [occupied] lands." Deputy
parliamentary speaker Tigran Torosian told RFE/RL on 7
February that the Miasnutiun parliament majority faction,
which is dominated by Yerkrapah's political wing, the
Republican Party of Armenia, agrees with Yerkrapah that a
future peace deal must be put to public debate.
RFE/RL
Political Groups Discuss Karabakh Conflict Settlement
The political groups and experts in Azerbaijan gathered at the conference
to discuss the challenges in settling the Karabakh conflict. The seminar
was organized at the initiative of the Popular Front Party. The Popular
Front Deputy Chairman on Humanitarian issues Professor Hasanli gave a
detailed report on the roots and nature of the Armenian-Azeri conflict
from the historical perspective concluding that all the conflicts thus far
had ended in the victory of Azerbaijan, and the current round of
confrontation would share the fate of the previous ones. Other speakers
noted the importance of economic prosperity in Azerbaijan which would draw
the Armenian residents of Nagorno Karabakh to Azerbaijan. The conference
has mirrored the growing belief in the Azeri society that there could be
no more concessions to Armenia. Speaking of the imminent new pressures on
Azerbaijan on the part of the foreign powers, Ali Kerimov, the First
Deputy Chair of Popular Front, stressed the exigency of creating a single
coordinating body that would resist any duress on the Azerbaijani
government to accept peace proposals that would not include the
sovereignty of Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh and violate the
territorial integrity of the country.
Habarlar-L
Edited on February 7, 2000
ARMENIAN PRESIDENT PROPOSES 'NEW IDEAS' ON KARABAKH
SETTLEMENT...
During talks with his Azerbaijani counterpart,
Heidar Aliev, on the sidelines of the world economic summit
in Davos last month, Robert Kocharian suggested two "new
ideas" for resolving the Karabakh conflict, RFE/RL's Yerevan
bureau reported on 4 February, quoting presidential spokesman
Vahe Gabrielian. Gabrielian did not say what those ideas
were, but he did comment that despite "some positive
movement," the Davos talks did not yield "major progress" on
resolving the conflict. On 3 February, the Azerbaijani
Foreign Ministry issued a note saying that the unrecognized
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic's decision to demand entry visas
from foreigners was a violation of Azerbaijan's sovereignty,
ITAR-TASS and Turan reported. Baku warned that foreigners
whose passports contain such a visa will be barred entry to
Azerbaijan.
Copyright RFE/RL
Edited on February 6, 2000
Foreign Ministry Sends Note To All
Countries And International Organizations
According to reports arriving at the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, the separatist regime illegally established in the
occupied Upper Karabakh region of Azerbaijan, has started
issuing bogus entry visas for the so-called Upper Karabakh
Republic, says a report released by the MFA. In this
connection, the MFA of Azerbaijan sent a note to Foreign
Ministries of all countries and international organizations
on February 3. The note states that the MFA of Azerbaijan
regards these actions by the illegal regime as a new blatant
violation of Azerbaijan`s sovereignty and principles and
norms of international law. The Ministry states that foreign
citizens entering Azerbaijan use visas adopted by the
Foreign Ministry of Azerbaijan, while all other visas are
considered illegal. The Ministry is, therefore, notifying all
states and international organizations that the receipt by
foreign citizens of fictitious visas to the so-called UKR and
entering Azerbaijan on them will be
regarded as violation of the republican laws on entry ane
exit. Foreign citizens possessing such visas will not be
granted visas for entering the Azerbaijan border and be held
accountable for violating the entry and exit regulations of
the Azerbaijan Republic. The MFA expresses a hope that
informed parties will not commit any action undermining the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, the note
says.
AssA-Irada News, February 4, 2000
AZERI CYBER FORCES
by Armenian journalist Mark Grigorian in Yerevan
Sparks are flying in cyberspace as the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict takes on a
new and unexpected dimension.
Azeri computer hackers are sabotaging a series of Armenian web sites, which,
they claim, spread lies about the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Two groups of hackers - which go under the monickers of Green Revenge and
Hijak [sic] Team 187 - are said to be involved in the virtual hijacking,
which has provoked a storm of protest in Azerbaijan and Armenia
www.greenrevenge.domainvalet.com.
The hackers - who sabotaged the Armenian State Television and the Armenian
Assembly of America sites earlier this month - claim in broken English that
they want to provide an accurate picture of events in the disputed enclave.
"The general mission of our project is providing true information about real
situation of Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict," the hackers' site says. "At
present a lot of Armenian sites provides tones [sic] of lie to you. We
decided to fix this, using our best efforts."
Their tactics are primitive and unsubtle. Visitors to hijacked sites are
greeted by a blank page, which forwards them to the hackers' site. Here they
are regaled with a litany of anti-Armenian abuse as well as a guest book
featuring messages left by other callers.
"Congratulations Azerbaijan," reads one note signed by Adolf Sturm, from
Austria. "I think if you hacked Armenian sites you will have back your own
lands in Karabakh!"
Samir, in Holland, is more outspoken, "Azerbaijan Rules!!! Armenia Sucks!!!
You Armenian losers soon will be crawling on your dirty knees. Actually, you
are on your knees already. Greatly [sic] done, Green Revenge. Avenge our men
and old people who were scalped and whose eyes were poked out by Armenian
terrorists."
None of the e-mail addresses provided in the guestbook appear to exist.
The incidents have provoked howls of outrage from the press in both
Azerbaijan and Armenia. "The Karabakh war has moved to the Internet," wrote
Zerkalo ("The Mirror") in Baku while Golos Armenii ("The Voice of Armenia")
in Yerevan branded the hackers "hooligans".
Eldar Zeynalov, director of the Human Rights Centre of Azerbaijan, said the
hackers targeted the sites because they were trying to toady up to the Azeri
leadership. He called for official sites to play a more responsible role and
provide unbiased information on political issues.
"All sites purporting to give information about the Karabakh conflict stress
external aggression and victimisation," said Zeynalov. "They make no
contribution to the peace-process."
So far, Armenian hackers are refusing to be drawn into a virtual vendetta.
Yerevan webmaster Avetis Avagyan said, "I've been waiting for Armenian
hackers to retaliate but I haven't noticed anything so far. We shouldn't
fight on the Internet. We should be above that."
Grigor Sahinian, technical director of Yerevan's Arminco Internet company,
says Armenian hackers have the know-how to launch a crushing offensive
against the Azeris. "They [the Azeris] don't know the meaning of real
hacking. But we've no intention of getting involved."
One Armenian webmaster reportedly posted a message calling on volunteers to
"organise a group and hack a couple of Azeri sites" but the appeal fell on
deaf ears. An Armenian website posted a long warning about the hackers,
including advice about how to take protective countersteps
www.armenia.com
Internet experts are confident that tracking down the culprits should
present few problems. One American webmaster speculated, "The so-called
groups are just one person and we have information that he occupies a senior
position in a major telephone company in Baku."
Mark Grigorian is IWPR Project Editor in Yerevan and Director of the NGO
Co-operation and Democracy.
Copied with permission from Habarlar-L
Edited on February 4, 2000
Economic pressure on Armenia?
Posted Thursday, February 03, 19100 - 15:17
GMT by News Editor
Commenting on the increased interest of Armenia in Caspian economic projects
(Mr. Kocharyan, Armenia's President, stated that at the recent world
economic forum in Davos), the Azerbaijani Foreign Minister, V.Guliyev, said:
"This statement is not casual. Armenia isolated itself from all the
processes going on in the region by the Karabakh conflict. The economic
environment in the country is at the breaking point. This year might be
catastrophic for Armenia: it might fall into bankruptcy. The government of
Armenia turned down some beneficial economic proposals due to arrogance of
the annexation policy pursued by the country's political establishment.
Armenia stationed itself on a dangerous ground, and this country shall now
make the right choice:"
Slovakia supports territorial integrity of Azerbaijan
Posted Thursday, February 03, 19100 - 15:16 GMT by News Editor
In the course of a meeting between the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and
Slovakia, V.Guliyev and E.Kukan, the officials co-ordinated the ways of a
close political and economic co-operation between their countries. An
exchange of diplomatic missions was also arranged during the talks. Mr.
Kukan officially notified his counterpart that the government of his country
supports the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and political settlement of
the Karabakh conflict.
Caspian Times news as of 02/03/2000
ARMENIA ACCUSES AZERBAIJANI HACKERS OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION.
The blocking by Azerbaijani hackers of Armenian
Websites that provide information about the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict constitutes a violation of the right of access to
information, Snark on 31 January quoted the Armenian Foreign
Ministry as saying. Armenian Television's Website is among
those to fall victim to this practice.
Copied with permission from RFE/RL
Foreign minister: Armenia must "reconsider" position on Karabakh
SOURCE: Source: Turan news agency, Baku, in Russian 1149 gmt 1 Feb 00
Baku, 1st February: A new meeting of the heads of the South Caucasus
states and Russia will take place in April this year. The meeting will be
held within a regular summit of the Commonwealth of Independent
States. Issues of regional security, economic cooperation and the
resolution of regional conflicts will be discussed at the meeting of "the
four", Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Vilayat Guliyev told a press
conference in Baku today.
Replying to journalists' questions, the minister said that he evaluated
"positively" the latest statement of acting Russian President [and Prime
Minister] Vladimir Putin regarding the necessity of observing the
territorial integrity of states. He said that these statements could be
assessed as a "softening" in the position of Russia towards the South
Caucasus states. Guliyev believes that Putin is a pragmatist and he was
the first Russian politician who talked about "the necessity of rejecting
an imperialist policy". Guliyev substantiated the "softening" of Moscow's
attitude towards the South Caucasus countries by the hostilities in the
North Caucasus and Russia's desire to strengthen its position in the South
Caucasus.
Asked whether new proposals were put forward on the resolution of the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, the minister said that the OSCE Minsk Group
had acknowledged that it had "exhausted" the limit of proposals. At
present, it is waiting for the results of the bilateral
Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations, Guliyev said. "Armenia must be ready
for compromises. But we cannot talk about that yet. The events of 27th
October [killing of Armenian speaker, prime minister and a group of MPs in
parliament] influenced Yerevan's official position. Currently the Armenian
leadership is not in a condition to meet their commitments," Guliyev said.
Asked how realistic the possibility is of constructing an oil pipeline
through Armenia, the minister said that Armenia had stated that it would
replace national interests with oil. However, currently the economic
situation is worsening in this country. Yerevan understands that if
Armenia remains outside major regional projects then the situation in this
country will further deteriorate. But in order to participate in these
projects on the transportation of oil and the Great Silk Road, Armenia
must "reconsider" its position on the resolution of the [Nagornyy]
Karabakh conflict, Guliyev said.
Copyright 2000 British Broadcasting Corporation
Opposition Predicts Treacherous Solution To Karabakh Conflict
Attending the roundtable, "Ways of settling the
Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict", held at the PFPA office on
February 3 and also attended by representatives of different
political parties, deputy chairman of PFPA Doctor of History,
Professor Jamil Hasanli, presented a report on the Karabakh
conflict, focusing on reasons behind the conflict and ways of
settling it. Also speaking on the issue were Musavat
secretary Sulkhaddin Akbar, ASDP co-chair Zardusht Alizadeh,
chairman of the People`s Party Panah Husseinov, first deputy
chairman of PFPA, MP Ali Karimov, chairman of "Yurddash"
party Mais Safarli, etc. In conclusion, the politicians
decided that the "process of settlement would end by signing
a defeatist truce", resulting from the good-for-nothing
foreign policy of the present authorities.
AssA-Irada News, February 3, 2000
News copied with permission from Habarlar-L News Distribution Listserver
STATEMENT BY
AMBASSADOR HAFIZ M. PASHAYEV
AZERBAIJAN AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES AT THE NATIONAL WAR COLLEGE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
February 3, 2000
First, let me say what a privilege it is to appear here today, especially with my good friend, Ambassador Japaridze, in front of such a
distinguished audience.
In his invitation to me for today's event, Admiral Bowler asked that I address "Azerbaijan in "The Geostrategic Context." This is an
excellent topic. I must admit that any discussion over Azerbaijan almost inevitably acquires geostrategic context. Now, when we have
entered XXI century, the fabled Great Game of the late XIX century and its geostrategic contents are being re-addressed in the world
media. I personally would like to see less of those components of geostrategy, which caused failing of Azerbaijan�s first, short-lived
experience with independence in 1918-1920.
The most important fact of life for Azerbaijan is, quite simply, the geography and the neighborhood in which it exists. With Russia as
our northern neighbor, Iran to the south, and Georgia, Armenia and Turkey to the west, we are guaranteed an interesting existence, to
say the least. And when you add the valuable and vast oil and gas deposits both onshore and offshore our eastern boundary in the
Caspian Sea, what was before an interesting existence quickly becomes a volatile and dangerous one.
Our geography has been highlighted in recent weeks by the war in Chechnya. Both Georgia and Azerbaijan have been falsely
accused by Russia of allowing our territory to be used to transport arms and fighters for the Chechen guerillas. There is no question
that Russia is using the war in Chechnya to put pressure on both Georgia and Azerbaijan in an effort to extract concessions from us.
So what happens in the Northern Caucasus regions of the Russian Federation also vitally affects those of us in the South Caucasus.
By geography alone, Azerbaijan is a geostrategically important state. It is at the cross-roads of Central Asia with its five new
republics, it is where East meets the West, it is Russia�s important southern neighbor and Iran�s important northern neighbor. As a
result of this geography and vast energy resources, it should come as no surprise that Azerbaijan�s neighbors are constantly
jockeying for position and influence over Azerbaijan.
Since October, 1994, Azerbaijan has signed some 20 production sharing agreements with oil companies from throughout the world for
in excess of $60 billion of investments. Oil industry experts predict that Azerbaijan and its neighbors will eventually have as much oil
as Kuwait, and we have just recently made a natural gas discovery that could supply Turkey�s energy needs for the next 40 years.
Competition for influence over Azerbaijan�s energy resources has taken many forms since our independence was achieved in 1991.
First, there was the question of true ownership of this mineral wealth buried beneath the waters of the Caspian Sea. Russia and then
Iran challenged Azerbaijan�s ownership of these resources, contending that the Caspian was a lake and not a sea, and that all the
littoral states of the Caspian should share equally in the wealth of the Caspian. While this argument has pretty much been overcome,
it is still not totally settled.
Secondly, there was the question of how this oil and gas wealth should be transported to Western markets. Russia contends that
most of that transportation should be through Russia to the Russian port city of Novorossiysk on the Black Sea. Iran contends that
the cheapest route is through Iran. The United States, Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan support a route called Baku-Ceyhan, which
would run from Baku in Azerbaijan through Georgia and Turkey to the Turkish Mediterranean port city of Ceyhan. As alluded to earlier,
this transportation issue not only encompasses the geostrategic interest of all the interested governments, but also involves the
question of cost to the oil companies, environmental questions relating to use of any Black Sea route, and the role of Iran in major
energy development in the region. Thus, the major question now before us is the location of the Main Export Pipeline to transport the
oil and gas of Azerbaijan and its neighbors to waiting markets.
Now let me briefly discuss Azerbaijan�s foreign policy priorities and why they are important to the United States.
After centuries of being dominated by its neighbors, Azerbaijan finally restored true and lasting independence in 1991. Maintaining
and strengthening that independence is and will remain the top foreign policy objective of Azerbaijan. For far too long, our very
existence has been in the service of others. We are finally free of the yoke of 70 years of Soviet communism, and we are now
enjoying the freedom to develop our own democracy and free market economy. We do not intend to relinquish that freedom ever
again. So our first priority is the elimination of threats and risks to the security, political independence, sovereignty and territorial
integrity of Azerbaijan.
A second major foreign policy objective is to settle the 12-year old conflict with our neighbor Armenia. This conflict began in 1988
when ethnic Armenians living within the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh unilaterally declared their independence. This
action, backed by Armenia, quickly developed into an all-out war. With the assistance of the Armenian army and more than $1 billion
in illegal arms shipments from Russia, the Armenians during 1993 captured Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding regions. With
more than 30,000 dead on both sides and about 1 million Azerbaijani refugees and displaced persons, and with Armenians controlling
20 percent of the territory of Azerbaijan, a cease fire was established in 1994. That cease fire has held for the succeeding six years,
but all efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict have shown little progress.
We are now in the midst of the most promising set of negotiations since the cease fire was put in place. Azerbaijan�s president,
Heydar Aliyev, and Armenian President Robert Kocharian met just last week in Moscow and Davos, which is a continuation of a
series of bilateral meetings that started here in Washington during the 50th anniversary celebration of NATO, under the prompting of
Secretary of State Albright, and complements the negotiations conducted by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe�s Minsk Group, which is co-chaired by the United States, France and Russia. Our objective is clear: return of the captured
territories, respect for our territorial integrity and achievement of lasting peace.
A third foreign policy objective of Azerbaijan is the establishment of security and stability arrangements within the South Caucasus
region. We view them as fully compatible with pan-European security priorities for the XXI century and aim at enhancing our strategic
cooperation with the United States and the West. Considering the fact that the South Caucasus, despite being geographically unified,
is very diverse politically (due to the contrast of interests: Armenia has a pro-Russian orientation, while Azerbaijan adn Georgia have
thrown in their lot with the West), we attach special importance to the development of friendly cooperation with our neighbors.
Growing synchronicity of foreign policies of GUUAM countries (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova), which face
common risks and challenges, is a good example of potent cooperation in the region, based on common security needs.
We share many values with the West, such as independence, democracy and free markets, and we need the support of the United
States and other Western governments as we seek to implement these values. Being active participants in the Partnership for Peace
program, we hope to expand that cooperation with NATO in the near future and seek further integration with European and
Euro-Atlantic security structures. As has already been mentioned, we are under pressure constantly from some of our neighbors who
either do not share our values or who wish to control us. Since we cannot resist those pressures on our own, we must have Western
support.
A fourth objective of Azerbaijan�s foreign policy is the creation of a climate that will foster the economic development of Azerbaijan
and the entire region, as well as integration with the Western economies. We have already discussed the oil Azerbaijan can provide
for Western markets, but there are many other items of commerce that we can trade. We need to fully re-establish the old Silk Road
by developing of the Eurasian Transport Corridor, which will enhance regional cooperation through shared prosperity. The urgency of
facing this challenge is fully recognized by the American legislators as well. As you know, back in 1999, the US Congress has
passed the Silk Road Strategy Act, which is aimed at promoting mutual understanding and cooperation in the region, as means of
strengthening independence and sovereignty of the states located along the ancient Silk Road.
I have now discussed Azerbaijan�s geostrategic importance by looking at its geography and its mineral wealth, and I have outlined
Azerbaijan�s four basic foreign policy objectives. Now let us turn to the United States� interests and how its foreign policy and
geostrategic interests are affected by Azerbaijan. My argument will be that the geostrategic interests of the United States and
Azerbaijan are largely consistent and compatible, which should give rise to more strategic cooperation between our two countries.
First, we share many of the same values as a nation and as a people. Independence is now taken for granted in the United States,
but it is really only nine years old in Azerbaijan. Our feeling on independence is much like that of Patrick Henry and other great
American patriots � �Give me liberty or give me death.� We are in the process of implementing democracy in Azerbaijan, and we have
had three Presidential, one parliamentary and one local government elections. These elections have not been perfect, but we are
improving. We are also in the process of implementing a free market economy. Almost all small businesses have been privatized.
Most of the major sectors of the economy are in the process of being privatized. We are carrying out land reform. We believe in
separation of church and state. Although a largely Muslim country, we have a very secular government and protect the religious
freedoms of all.
Second, I believe America does not want to see Russia re-establish the old czarist or Soviet empire. As such, the United States has
an interest in the future independence of the former Soviet Republics such as Azerbaijan and Georgia. In fact, Azerbaijan was the first
among the former Soviet republics to get rid of Russian troops on its soil. We wish to have friendly relations with Russia, but we know
old habits die hard with some Kremlin leaders. If Russia were to re-exert control over Georgia and Azerbaijan, you would have the
beginnings of a new Russian empire, and that would probably bring about a new Cold War with the West. It is for this reason, much
more than because of oil, that the United States has a strong interest in the continued independence of Azerbaijan and Georgia, and
it is also why the United States must take those actions necessary to help us preserve our independence.
We also believe that Russia will not be able to again incorporate any of the South Caucasus countries into the like of a former Soviet
Union, and even if they succeed by force, the US will never recognize that move, just as they never considered the Baltics to be a
part of the USSR, and that bolsters our confidence for the future.
Third, the United States has a strong interest in development of energy supplies outside the Middle East. Taken together, the
Caspian Sea Basin countries represent the best hope for new non-Middle Eastern energy supplies. As I have already mentioned, the
United States and Azerbaijan also share similar views on the best route for the Main Export Pipeline, specifically a route that is not
under the control of the Russians or the Iranians.
Fourth, the United States realizes that Azerbaijan is one key to the future development of the five new Central Asian republics. If the
principles of democracy and free markets succeed in Azerbaijan, it will have an undeniable impact on the new governments of Central
Asia, and the opposite is true as well.
Fifth, I believe the United States supports the arms control policies of Azerbaijan in the region. We are for non-proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, we are for de-militarization of the Caspian Sea Basin, and we support a nuclear-free zone in the South
Caucasus. We support a mutual regional security pact for stability in the South Caucasus. We support all existing arms control
treaties. In other words, we support de-militarization of the region, which I believe is also consistent with American foreign policy, and
we confirm our principles by action.
Sixth, the United States has a friend in Azerbaijan in its other foreign policy objectives. Azerbaijan supported American policy in
Bosnia and Kosovo, and has sent a military unit to Kosovo under the auspices of Turkey. Azerbaijan supported NATO enlargement
and its objective of maintaining a stable Europe. Azerbaijan is a strong friend of Israel. Azerbaijan has withstood Iranian pressure to
impose a radical Islamic regime.
I can go on like that for quite some time, but let me make one last point. The United States has strong relations with both Armenia
and Azerbaijan, and it does not relish being constantly placed in the middle of this conflict. The United States does, however, support
the concept of territorial integrity, which is at issue in the war. For this reason, the United States� interest is in seeing the conflict
settled on internationally recognized principles.
But with all these areas of strategic cooperation, there is one item I must mention before closing. In 1992, when Congress was
enacting the Freedom Support Act to provide assistance to the former Soviet republics, pro-Armenian members of Congress
successfully supported an amendment -- known as Section 907 � which prohibits any direct American assistance to the government
of Azerbaijan. This discriminatory piece of legislation was enacted at a time when Azerbaijan had no embassy, ambassador or other
representation in Washington. And while we have successfully modified this provision over the years, Congress insists on retaining it.
Both the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administrations strongly oppose(d) Section 907, but because of the politically active
Armenian diaspora, we have been unable to repeal this provision of law. Azerbaijan finds it inconsistent in the extreme for the United
States to maintain Section 907 at a time when Azerbaijan has literally and figuratively cast its lot with the West. This, to my way of
thinking, is a classic example of the negative impact of ethnic politics on American foreign policy, and it does not reflect well on the
world�s sole remaining superpower.
Current realities dictate importance of the cooperation in the security field, and it�s sad that Pentagon�s arms look tied up by the 907.
The geostrategic interests of the United States and Azerbaijan argue for increased strategic cooperation between the two countries.
Such increased cooperation will not only benefit both Azerbaijan and the United States, but I also believe it would be in the best
interest of peace and stability in the world.
Current realities dictate importance of the cooperation in the security field, and it�s sad that Pentagon�s arms look tied up by the 907.
Despite the latter, it is obvious for both the United States and Azerbaijan, that increased strategic cooperation between the two
countries is in their mutual interest, but also in the best interest of peace and stability in the world.
Habarlar-L
