Archive News
regularly
updated
Edited on June 14, 2000
Lexis-Nexis news update
New plan for joint Azeri-Armenian rule for
Karabakh said drawn up
Excerpts from report by Azerbaijani newspaper '525 gazet' on 7th June
Recently the Karabakh conflict and possible ways of resolving it have
again become the topic of expanded discussions...
It is known that for the time being the parties cannot find common ground
for resolving the problem. The latest OSCE Minsk Group proposal regarding
a settlement to the conflict, i.e. the common state principle, was
rejected by Azerbaijan, although Armenia and "Nagornyy Karabakh" agreed
with it. But, it seems that this principle is still on the agenda.
Recently the Russian media disseminated reports saying that a changed form
of this principle might be discussed again during the talks on the
Karabakh problem.
This plan says that Nagornyy Karabakh is considered as the territory of
two countries - Azerbaijan and Armenia. International law calls this
regime a "condominium". Incidentally, this principle was used in the
19th-20th centuries in Sudan and the New Hebrides. The latter was owned
simultaneously by England and France.
The Russian media writes that this principle might be used in the case of
Nagornyy Karabakh under the following conditions:
After receiving the status of an autonomous state, the "Nagornyy Karabakh
Republic" simultaneously becomes part of both Azerbaijan and Armenia and
its citizens get dual citizenship (of Azerbaijan and Armenia). A dual
currency system is introduced on the territory of the "Nagornyy Karabakh
Republic" (this means that both manat and Armenia's currency - the dram -
can be used for payments). The power bodies of Nagornyy Karabakh are
allowed to implement an independent policy in all spheres, excluding
foreign, military and fiscal policy. Azerbaijan and Armenia implement a
joint policy in the three aforementioned spheres. All the occupied
territories outside Nagornyy Karabakh, including Lachin (Agdam, Dzhebrail,
Fizuli, Zangilan, Kelbadzhar, Kubatly and Lachin Districts), are liberated
and returned to Azerbaijan. In turn, the territory of the former Shaumyan
District, which was earlier was part of the Nagornyy Karabakh Autonomous
Region [in Soviet times], is put under the subordination of the "Nagornyy
Karabakh Republic". In addition, Azerbaijanis living in Nagornyy Karabakh
[before the conflict] get the right to return to this territory. Those
Azerbaijanis, who returned to the motherland, get special quotas for
representation in the central and local authorities of the "Nagornyy
Karabakh Republic". The territory of the "Nagornyy Karabakh Republic" and
the territories of Lachin and Kelbadzhar Districts between the former and
Armenia are declared an "arms-free zone". The "Nagornyy Karabakh Republic"
gets the right to have its own military units in order to protect internal
security and public order. The quantity of these groups is to be decided
in accordance with an agreement concluded between Azerbaijan, Armenia and
the "Nagornyy Karabakh Republic" on the basis of a certain quota. In turn,
Azerbaijan gets the right to have police forces, a security service and
border troops in Lachin and Kelbadzhar Districts. Finally, CIS armed
forces enter the conflict zone for a certain period in order to guarantee
that this agreement is implemented.
This plan is drawn up on the basis of the Russian media version. It seems
that in the near future it will be clear as to what degree this issue is
serious or not.
Source: '525 gazet', Baku, in Azeri 7 Jun 00 p3
Copyright 2000 British Broadcasting Corporation
BBC Summary of World Broadcasts
Foreign minister says Karabakh problem
cannot be solved by land swap
Text of report by Armenian news agency Snark
Yerevan, 5th June: Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan evaluated as
"pure political speculation" puffed up during the past two months by
certain forces in the republic the report that the Armenian authorities
are allegedly intending to resolve the Nagornyy Karabakh problem by a
territorial swap between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and specifically about
the possible transfer of the Megri district of Armenia to the Azerbaijani
side.
The idea of the territorial swap was raised at high level
Armenian-Azerbaijani meetings, but was primordially rejected by Armenian
President Robert Kocharyan. "This issue is closed. There is no such
issue!" Vardan Oskanyan stated on 4th June in a TV interview.
The minister considers it impossible to implement a similar idea. The
world community can try to foist this or that status on Nagornyy Karabakh,
as was done at the OSCE summit in Lisbon in 1996, but however powerful it
is no state can foist on another state a solution to its problem at the
expense of conceding its own territory. There is nothing similar in
international practice. This would be a violation of the principle of
territorial integrity, which the world community cherishes and vindicates,
the Armenian foreign minister said, noting that Armenia has nothing to
worry about.
Copyright 2000 British Broadcasting Corporation
BBC Summary of World Broadcasts
Referred from Habarlar-L
Edited on June 13, 2000
RFE/RL Caucasus Report, 8 June, 2000, Vol. 3, No. 23
#########################################################################
HL NOTE: Some or all of the following news articles ignore such basic
facts that:
1) Karabakh region of Azerbaijan was, is, and will remain to be a
legitimate and internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan;
2) Karabakh, and seven other regions are illegally occupied by
armed forces of the Republic of Armenia, the aggressor;
3) Puppet and self-proclaimed (Nagorno) Karabakh Republic ("NKR") is an
illegitimate and criminal entity, not recognized by any international
organization or state;
4) As of 1992, Khankandi has been restored as an official historical name
of the town, that was renamed to Stepanakert by J. Stalin in 1923
#########################################################################
8 June 2000, Volume 3, Number 23
How The 'Goble Plan' Was Born...
Because I was "present at thecreation" of an idea that has taken
on a life of its own, Iwelcome this opportunity to describe how this "plan"
was born as well as to discuss what role I think it might play in the future.
Like most parents, I have been both pleased and disappointed with
my offspring.
In January 1992, shortly after I had resigned from my position as
special advisor on Soviet nationality problems and Baltic affairs
at the U.S. Department of State, I prepared a background paper
on the Karabakh conflict for former Secretary of State Cyrus
Vance, who was planning to visit the south Caucasus. In that
paper, I both described the history of that conflict and offered
some thoughts on how it might be resolved.
At the end of that 3,300 word essay, subsequently published in
the "Fletcher Forum"(1992), I wrote the following lines:
"In principle, there are three ways to "solve" the
Nagorno-Karabakh problem: driving out or killing all Armenians
now there, reimposing enormous outside force to keep the two
sides apart, or transferring the NKAO to Armenian control. The
first of these is morally impossible, the second is probably
physically impossible, and the third is politically impossible if
it is done alone because it would leave Azerbaijan the loser both
territorially and in terms of the water supply to Baku.
"Consequently, the various participants need to begin to consider
the possibility of a territorial swap including the following
concessions: sending part of the NKAO to Armenia, with the area
controlling the headwaters of the river flowing to Baku and areas
of Azerbaijani population remaining in Azerbaijani hands; and
transferring the Armenian-controlled landbridge between
Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan to Azerbaijani control.
"Both sides would have difficulties with this, Armenia because it
would lose its tie to Iran and Azerbaijan because it would lose
something it said it would never give up. But both sides would
also gain something that they have long wanted. Moreover, by
focusing on the transfer of land, this type of settlement would
minimize the need for any shift in population. In any case, no
ceasefire or settlement will hold for very long unless both sides
feel that they were not the latest victims in this long-running
conflict. And perhaps most important, any "solution" which takes
as its point of departure the preservation of the work of Stalin
and his successors is doomed to failure and will insure that this
region will remain unstable long into the 21st century."
Secretary Vance found that argument persuasive and mentioned the
idea at a press conference in Stepanakert. Subsequently, several
other American officials, either out of politeness or interest,
said that they were intrigued by this argument. And because
Vance and several others referred to my authorship of this idea,
some officials and analysts in the Caucasus and elsewhere viewed
my presentation of this idea as a testing of the waters by
then-Secretary of State James Baker. Given that I had just
resigned from the department he headed, I found that amusing at
the time.
But because of this concatenation of events, the Goble Plan
rapidly acquired a life of its own, sometimes serving as the
occasion for criticizing one or another parties to the conflict
and sometimes serving as the basis for further discussions. When
it has been the former, I have been most unhappy, but when it has
served as the latter, I have been pleased because my goal in 1992
and subsequently has been to prompt everyone involved in this
conflict to think more broadly than they generally have been
willing to do.
Here I would like to address three other issues: what I was
trying to do at the time, where I was wrong, and what role I see
this "plan" having in the future.
No author can be sure of just what his readers will pick up on or
how they will make use of his ideas. I certainly was surprised
by the reaction to my essay. I actually thought that its most
controversial feature was a suggestion, hardly ever noted in
discussions of the Goble Plan, that Iran, as a regional power,
would have to be involved for any settlement to work. The
collapse of the Soviet Union created several fracture zones,
including in the south Caucasus, and I believed then and believe
now that peace as opposed to an armistice requires the
restoration of a new balance of power, something unlikely if one
of the major powers in the region is simply ignored.
Anyone who reads the passage I've quoted above will see that it
is less a specific "plan" than a discussion of the logic of the
conflict. I was and remain interested in seeing a peaceful
outcome in the Caucasus, and I believed then and believe now that
all the parties will be better off if they acknowledge the
underlying structural functions of that conflict and that they
will eventually have to acknowledge that any settlement will have
to come about via a comprehensive approach rather than a
step-by-step process.
But what happened in early 1992 and since that time has been that
the Goble Plan has usually been reduced to the notion of a
territorial swap, with all of the qualifications ignored
including about the window during which this was possible and the
countries which would have to be involved.
That misunderstanding was compounded by two mistakes I made in
the article, mistakes for which I have been taken to task on a
regular basis. The first and smaller one concerns the flow of
water from Karabakh to lowland Azerbaijan: Such flows were not
and are not as important as I had thought at that time. And they
did not deserve the prominence I gave them.
The second and more significant one concerns the importance of
the border with Iran to Armenia and Armenians. In 1992, there
was very little commerce or communication over this border, and I
viewed it as something Armenians might be willing to sacrifice in
the name of peace. But I underestimated its psychological
meaning. Not only is this border increasingly significant for
trade, but it is a key outlet for Armenia to the non-Turkic
world.
I underestimated that factor, and I acknowledge my mistake here.
Were I asked to update the Goble Plan now, I would modify it by
calling for Azerbaijan to cede a small portion of western
Nakhichevan so that Armenia could have a border with Iran and by
urging that the international community put pressure on Turkey to
open its borders with Armenia as part of the package deal to end
this conflict.
Every time I see a reference to the Goble Plan in the press, I
smile to myself because I know how this plan was created and even
where: at a word processor in the basement of my house! As I
wrote almost a decade ago, I thought there was a moment when the
ideas contained in my article and my "plan" could have become
part of a peace settlement. As months and years have passed, I
have become ever less sure that those ideas can play such a role.
But as I have pointed out many times to critics of the Goble Plan
in the past, they have to answer--as I do not--for failing to
come up with an idea that could have saved thousands of lives and
brought peace to a region that has known too little of it in the
past.
(Paul Goble)
...And How It Remains A Political Factor.
Armenian President Robert Kocharian disclosed in February that
international mediators had resurrected the prospect of a territorial exchange
to resolve the Karabakh conflict, and that Kocharian discussed
that possibility during one of his meetings with his Azerbaijani
counterpart, Heidar Aliev. But both Kocharian and Foreign
Minister Vartan Oskanian have said repeatedly that the Armenian
side rejected such a territorial exchange out of hand. Oskanian
stated in a TV interview on 4 June that "this issue is closed."
He added that the international community cannot coerce any state
to cede part of its territory, and that Armenia therefore "has
nothing to worry about," according to Snark.
Azerbaijani officials, however, seem to have been more
ambivalent: "Izvestiya" on 24 February quoted Azerbaijani
Foreign Minister Vilayet Guliev as saying "Azerbaijan would
consider as a great success the reaching of an agreement on
resolving the Karabakh conflict that would grant the country a
corridor to the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic in exchange for
the corridor uniting Armenia with Nagorno-Karabakh." Given that
the latter corridor is already under Armenian control, that
formula would constitute a unilateral concession on the part of
Yerevan--a concession that the Azerbaijani authorities could try
to present as a tactical victory on their part, and thus mitigate
the feared outrage by radical groups who oppose ceding any
Azerbaijani territory to Armenia.
Azerbaijani leaders' collective ambivalence has, in turn, given
rise to some truly fanciful hypotheses. "525-gazeti" for example
on 27 May quoted the Russian news agency APN as reporting that
President Aliev is prepared to agree to a territorial swap
(Nagorno-Karabakh for the district of Meghri in southern Armenia)
in exchange for being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
But despite repeated official Armenian denials, opposition
politicians have seized on the possibility of territorial
concessions on the part of Armenia as a way to discredit and to
exert pressure on the present leadership. For example,
addressing a congress of his nationalist National Unity Party
late last month, chairman Artashes Geghamian accused Kocharian of
remaining silent rather than unequivocally distancing himself
from rumors that a territorial exchange will be part of a
Karabakh settlement, according to Snark as cited by Groong.
Geghamian cited what he claims are details of the revised
proposal, which, he said, envisages the creation of five separate
corridors, each 15 km wide, linking the Azerbaijani town of
Fizuli with the Armenian-occupied town of Zangelan; the
Armenian-occupied district of Nuvadi with the Armenian town of
Meghri; and the Armenian town of Agarak with Ordubad in
Nakhichevan. Geghamian further claimed that military observers
would be deployed in those corridors. He argued that the
creation of a landbridge between Turkey and Azerbaijan would
result in the formation of a union between those two states
within 5-10 years.
The Union of Rightist Forces (AUM), for its part, has acted even
more aggressively in seeking to extract political mileage from
the specter of the loss of part of Armenia's territory. Leaders
of that alliance, whose four member parties all split from the
then ruling Armenian Pan-National Movement in the mid- to late
1990s, traveled to Meghri in May where they told a meeting of
some 400 alarmed local residents that the reason for the 27
October shooting in the Armenian parliament of Prime Minister
Vazgen Sargsian and parliamentary speaker Karen Demirchian was
their collective opposition to a territorial swap. Then on 31
May, former National Security Minister David Shahnazarian told
fellow AUM members that Yerevan had been offered $3 billion to
agree to cede Meghri as part of a territorial exchange.
International mediators have suggested that financial incentives,
in the form of funds for reconstruction, could be part of an
eventual Karabakh peace agreement.
As Paul Goble indicates above, one of the gravest drawbacks of a
territorial exchange from the Armenian standpoint would be the
loss of its border with Iran. Visiting Yerevan last month,
Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Morteza Sarmadi was assured by
Armenian leaders that Yerevan will never agree to cede Meghri.
The loss of all or part of that region would jeopardize ambitious
bilateral cooperation projects such as those discussed below.
(Liz Fuller)
Compiled by Liz Fuller.
Copyright 2000 RFE/RL
Referred from Habarlar-L
ARMENIA FREES AZERBAIJANI POW.
The Armenian authorities on 12
June released an Azerbaijani serviceman taken prisoner in
July 1999 near Goradiz, close to the Azerbaijani-Iranian
border, Turan reported. LF
RFE/RL NEWSLINE Vol. 4, No. 114, Part I, 13 June 2000
Copyright RFE/RL
Edited on June 12, 2000
[CENTRAL ASIAN, AZERBAIJANI PRESIDENTS ATTEND
ECO SUMMIT]
... HOLD BILATERAL TALKS.
Aliev met on the sidelines of the
summit with Pakistan's leader, General Pervez Musharraf, who
undertook to provide Azerbaijan with military assistance to
resolve the Karabakh conflict, according to an unconfirmed
Interfax report on 10 June. The presidents of Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan met separately with Iranian
President Mohammad Khatami to discuss bilateral relations,
ITAR-TASS reported. Khatami and Tajik President Imomali
Rakhmonov repeated their previous calls for a peaceful
solution to the civil war in Afghanistan. LF
Copyright RFE/RL
TEHRAN SUMMIT RESULTS IN ADOPTION
OF DECLARATION
The recent summit of the member states of the Economic Cooperation Organization resulted in adoption of the Tehran Declaration. Were the issue interesting Azerbaijan the most, e.g. the Nagorno-Karabakh adjustment process and Caspian�s legal status, reflected in the Declaration? As Azeri Foreign Minister Vilayat Guliyev told ANS, the Declaration reflected the issues of economic character and there were no political problems mentioned in it. According to him, discussion of the issue on the Caspian�s legal status wasn�t planned during the summit. But the minister said also that the experts of the countries concerned were charged with continuation of the topic-related talks. Speaking of the suggestion made by Iranian President Mohammed Khatemi concerning determination of the Caspian�s legal status, Mr Guliyev said Azerbaijan was holding the opposite opinion. �We could experience various pressure but we�ll defend our position to the end,� the head of Azerbaijan�s foreign diplomacy structure said. As for the Nagorno-Karabakh adjustment, the Azeri minister reminded the military support offer made by Pakistani leader Pervaiz Musharraf and said a special conference was planned to hold in Tehran in the nearest future.
By Ganira Pashayeva
ECO COUNTRIES SPEAK FOR JOINT USING
OF CASPIAN ENERGY RESOURCES
Speaking at the session of the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO) in Tehran, the military leader of Pakistan Pervaiz Musharraf touched upon the problem of Nagorno-Karabakh and said that Azerbaijan�s territorial integrity must be recognized by all ECO member countries like it was by his country. Mr Musharraf noted that Pakistan completely supported Azerbaijan in the Karabakh issue. The Pakistani leader said Armenia must turn back the occupied Azeri lands without any preliminary conditions. Mr Musharraf was followed by Turkish minister of state who also spoke of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict. The Turkish official said the problem should be resolved as soon as possible, because the situation couldn�t last long. The Iranian President Mohammed Khatemi said in his speech that the attention of the countries of the world was focused on natural energy resources. This is why the Iranian leader suggested not to let other countries to operate the region�s energy resources. �It�s possible to efficiently use the Caspian�s rich energy resources by the ECO member countries without letting other countries to do that but one should immediately determine the Caspian Sea�s legal status for that. What�s more, it should be done within the framework of the interests of the Caspian states,� Mr Khatemi said. It�s expected that Iran will make a package of concrete suggestions. The president of the Islamic Republic said his country was expressing for division of the Caspian Sea into equal parts among five Caspian states. He also suggested to create a Cooperation Council of Caspian States within ECO. The President of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev spoke after the Iranian president. The head of the Azeri state said the Caspian issue should be solved with regard for the interests of Caspian states. He noted that certain headway had been achieved in this direction in Azerbaijan.
By Ganira Pashayeva
AZERBAIJAN�S POLITICAL LEADERS CALL
FOR MILITARY COOPERATION
WITH PAKISTAN
The chairman of the National Independence Party of Azerbaijan (AMIP), Etibar Mamedov announced that the talks concerning Pakistan�s rendering military assistance to Azerbaijan were conducted as long ago as in late 1991. But the talks didn�t give any result because Baku didn�t give its official consent. The AMIP leader considers that Pakistan�s military assistance to Azerbaijan is real today as well. Mr Mamedov says if Pakistan starts aiding Azerbaijan in the military way, Russia wouldn�t blame Baku for that. Meanwhile, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Azerbaijan, Ilyas Ismayilov reckons that cooperation between Azerbaijan and Pakistan in the military sphere could play an important role first of all in building a strong army. Another influential oppositional leader - the chairman of the Azerbaijan Popular Front�s Party, Abulfaz Elchibey, reckons that signing a military agreement with Pakistan would definitely be for Azerbaijan�s good. Mr Elchibey even said he would have congratulated Pakistan�s military leader Pervaiz Musharraf with making that statement if he was in power.
AZERBAIJAN SHOULD INCREASE ITS PROPAGANDA CONCERNING
NAGORNO-KARABAKH ISSUE
Azerbaijan�s propaganda in the issue of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is very weak. This was announced by Azeri President Heydar Aliyev in Baku�s Bina Airport before leaving for participation in the session of the Economic Cooperation Organization due to be held in the Iranian capital of Tehran. Mr Aliyev added that the press� main flaw was the failure to bring to the attention of the world community the fact that Azerbaijan is leaving in terms of occupation of a part of its lands by Armenia with more than one million refugees forced to leave their homes. Asked whether creation of a Caucasian Peace Pact will be discussed during the meeting while the long-running Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict isn�t solved, the Azeri president answered negatively. Mr Aliyev also said the fact that Azerbaijan has been a nominee to the Council of Europe�s membership for three consecutive years will finally �give something� to Azerbaijan, because European values have taken deep roots in Azerbaijan. As for the statement made by Azeri Foreign Minister Vilayat Guliyev concerning violation of rights of ethnic Azeris in Iran, the head of the Azeri state said Azerbaijan shouldn�t interfere into other countries� internal affairs and shouldn�t let others to do so with regard for it. Touching upon special activation of the Iran-based Azeri immigrant Mahir Javadov on the eve of the Tehran summit, Mr Aliyev said Javadov wasn�t the man worth being talked about. The Azeri president also said it was too early to say something about opening Azerbaijan�s Consular Office in Tabriz.
By Saadat Mamedova
Copyright ANS
http://www.ans-dx.com/
VILAYAT GULIEV: "ACCEPTING ARMENIA TO THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE BEFORE
AZERBAIJAN IS UNFAIR"
Azeri foreign minister Vilayat Guliev asks:
....How can it be that an aggressor is accepted to the Council of Europe
before the country that faced with aggression?
....How can it be that the state that violated the right of 1 million
Azeris
is considered more developed in the filed of protection of the human rights
than Azerbaijan and it is preferred?
....How can it be that the state, whose 21 state officials -here includes
prime minister, parliament chairman, vice-chairmen, ministers, prosecutor
general, and others- have been assassinated by terror act in last years, is
considered more prevalent than Azerbaijan in the field of human rights? How
can terror and democracy, occupying policy and democracy combine together?
....At last, how can a state that made terror and occupation to the
attribute of its state policy be accepted to the Council of Europe?
....Not only the Council of Europe approaches Azerbaijan with double
standards. Though the Azerbaijani territories have been occupied and faced
with communication blockade by Armenia, the U.S. Congress has punished
Azerbaijan as if it blockaded Armenia and for 8 years does not take the
Section 907 on Azerbaijan.
* Newspaper "525-ci gazet", remarks from an interview of Vilayat Guliev
AZERBAIJAN BULLETIN N27(225),June 08 2000 [ENGLISH]
Referred from Habarlar-L
ARMENIA, IRAN, GREECE ASSESS COOPERATION.
Attending the second session of the industry and technology committee
of the Armenia-Iran-Greece economic grouping in Yerevan on 7
June, trade and industry officials from those three countries
sought ways to boost trilateral economic cooperation and
trade, RFE/RL's bureau in the Armenian capital reported. They
noted that previous agreements aimed at increasing ties have
not been implemented despite the "strong political will" of
the countries concerned. Armenian Industry and Trade Minister
Karen Chshmaritian stressed the need for a solid legal basis
for such cooperation, according to ITAR-TASS. In a joint
memorandum, the three sides singled out the chemical,
pharmaceutical, and construction sectors as promising areas
for future cooperation. A group of Iranian businessmen
attending the meeting proposed to open a number of
manufacturing enterprises in Armenia with the financial
assistance of their Greek and other Western partners. LF
RFE/RL NEWSLINE Vol. 4, No. 111, Part I, 8 June 2000
Copyright RFE/RL
Edited on June 6, 2000
Armenpress and Noyan Tapan Armenian News, June 5, 2000
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:48:50 -0700 (PDT)
#########################################################################
HL NOTE: Some or all of the following news articles ignore such basic
facts that:
1) Karabakh region of Azerbaijan was, is, and will remain to be a
legitimate and internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan;
2) Karabakh, and seven other regions are illegally occupied by
armed forces of the Republic of Armenia, the aggressor;
3) Puppet and self-proclaimed (Nagorno) Karabakh Republic ("NKR") is an
illegitimate and criminal entity, not recognized by any international
organization or state;
4) As of 1992, Khankandi has been restored as an official historical name
of the town, that was renamed to Stepanakert by J. Stalin in 1923
#########################################################################
120 Candidates to Run for Karabakh Parliament
STEPANAKERT (Armenpress)-On June 1, the Karabakh Central Election
Committee compiled up the registration of candidates running for
parliament.
According to the urban and regional election committees'
resolutions, 120 of 129 nominees have been registered as candidates.
Seven nominees for deputies were not registered because of some
violations disclosed in the lists of signatures for their support.
Five of these have turned to the law and the issue of their
registration will be solved in legal form.
Earlier two candidates withdrew their candidacies voluntarily.
Karabakh Foreign Minister To Visit To Moscow
STEPANAKERT (Noyan Tapan)-Nagorno Karabakh Republic Foreign Minister
Naira Melkoumian will pay a working visit to Moscow on June 6.
In Moscow, Melkoumian is scheduled to meet Russian politicians, the
OSCE Minsk Group Cochairman from Russia as well as representatives
of the Armenian community of the Russian capital, the Karabakh
Foreign Ministry reports.
Referred from Habarlar-L
Edited on June 5, 2000
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION TO BE HELD
IN BREAKAWAY NAGORNO-KARABAKH
REGION OF AZERBAIJAN
Parliamentary election will be held in the self-proclaimed
"Nagorno-Karabakh Republic" on June 18. Although Azerbaijan has
so far made numerous declarations to the international community
pointing out the election?s illegality, they have yet to give
practical results. The official Baku realizes it quite well. The
so-called foreign minister of the non-recognized republic Naira
Melkumian said she didn't understand the essence of those
declarations. Saying that the international law envisions the
self-determination right for all nations, Melkumian said instead of
calling the forthcoming election in Karabakh as an illegal action,
the leadership of Azerbaijan should better explain the failure to
send a delegate to the conference "The Karabakh Crisis: Moment of
Adjustment" being held in Washington DC. According to Melkumian,
the two-stage model of reaching independence for Karabakh has been
drawn up at the conference despite Azerbaijan's absence. The
Karabakhi diplomat said politologists had come to a conclusion that
the contradiction existing between the principles of territorial
integrity and nations' self-determination could be easily removed.
The first stage of the model envisages for Karabakh to establish
contacts both with neighbouring states and international
organizations. The first stage further envisages specification of
Nagorno-Karabakh's borders and then holding a referendum under the
auspices of the United Nations. Thus, by indirectly agreeing to
holding election in Nagorno-Karabakh, the official Washington has
put Azerbaijan in a very difficult situation. Meanwhile, Azeri
Foreign Minister Vilayat Guliyev said he hadn't been invited to the
conference and added that Melkumian hadn't been officially invited
to the U.S. either and Karabakh's official representatives weren't
present at the mentioned conference. Mr Guliyev noted that the
conference was held by the Armenian Diaspora in the U.S. adding
that it was quite a surprise that Karabakh's so-called minister
spoke of the international law and Karabakh's relations with
foreign states, because even Armenia hasn't recognized Karabakh's
so-called independence.
By Ganira Pashayeva
ANS News, June 4, 2000
Copyright ANS
Azeri President Says OSCE Ignores Its Obligations
YEREVAN (Armenpress)--Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev
complained that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe had not fulfilled its obligations on the settlement of the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, Itar-Tass reported.
Aliyev met chairman of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly Helle Degn
in Baku on Thursday.
He expressed regret that the resolutions on the Nagorno- Karabakh
conflict of the 1994 Budapest and the 1996 Lisbon OSCE summit had
not been implemented.
"If the warring sides are able to solve the problem themselves,
they will not bother international organizations," Aliyev said.
Degn assured the Azerbaijani president that she would do her best
to rivet the OSCE leadership's attention to a speedy solution of
the Nagorno-Karabakh problem.
Copyright 2000 Noyan Tapan and Armenpress
NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN AZERBAIJAN
AND ARMENIA TO BEGIN
By FARHAD Mammadov
Strengthening of control over the political situation within the country by
the Armenian president Robert Kocharian has influenced on re-beginning of
negotiations on Upper Karabakh. The date of face-to-face meeting of Robert
Kocharian and Heidar Aliev has already been defined. This meeting will take
place on July 22, during the summit of the state leaders of the
Commonwealth of Independent States [CIS] in Moscow.
But beginning of the negotiations has not increased the hopes on gaining
any results from them. Regardless of the efforts of the Azerbaijani side,
the OSCE Minsk Group abstains from preparing of new suggestions for the
settlement of the conflict. The discussions of the co-chairmen held in
Geneva in the mid of may has resulted without any concrete suggestions. In
fact, the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group from the U.S., France, and Russia
have several times promised Azeri representatives on preparing new
suggestions in their meetings. But the Minsk Group does not want to leave
its waiting position until now and is waiting for the result that will be
gained from the bilateral negotiations.
The statement of the Armenian president Kocharian on the regulation of the
conflict on the eve of Moscow meeting decreases the probability on getting
concrete result. Kocharian has, in fact, put forward initial conditions on
the eve of negotiations and stated that the moderators have to agree with
the independence of Upper Karabakh. The Armenian president had considered
possible to hold the negotiations only on the basis of the "common state"
principle of the OSCE Minsk Group.
This principle considers independence for Upper Karabakh and is considered
inadmissible by the Azerbaijani side. The Azeri opposition has strongly
protested the "common state" model, as well. In that case, the fate of the
Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations that stopped since October of last year
is under doubt before its beginning.
On the other hand, the Azeri president Heidar Aliev has stressed that there
is no possibility to go to unilateral compromises in his latest speeches,
as well. "After my meetings with Kocharian last year I stated the necessity
of going to compromises. But the opposition of the country immediately
began propaganda against me. The opposition is suggesting to settle the
conflict by military way and criticizing me because I do not support this
way", stated Mr. Aliev. He has also strongly criticized the position of the
U.S. on the settlement of the conflict. Aliev has stressed that the U.S.
and other Western countries could not call Armenia that occupied 20 percent
of Azerbaijani territories as an occupant. Besides it, Azerbaijan has been
used of the Section 907 that has over 1 million of refugees: "Such position
of the U.S. is unfair", stressed Mr. Aliev.
This speech of Aliev was after the Azerbaijani government has been strongly
criticized by the international organizations, as well as the U.S. recently
in connection with the state of human rights and democracy in the country.
Perhaps, he has hinted that he could prefer the role of Russia in future in
the regulation of the conflict by criticizing the position of the U.S. in
Upper Karabakh conflict.
AZERBAIJAN BULLETIN N26(224),June 01 2000 [ENGLISH]
ARMENIAN-AZERBAIJANI NEGOTIATIONS
COULD BEGIN AGAIN
By FARHAD Mammadov
The last incidents in Armenia could stimulate beginning of the
Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations that stopped after the assassination
happened at the Armenian parliament in October of last year. Let`s note
that as a result of that terror act, besides the pro-Russian prime minister
of Armenia and parliament chairman, some government officials were killed.
At present, the Armenian president Robert Kocharian could strengthen his
positions much. Some days ago, Kocharian dismissed the Armenian defense
minister, who is known as a person close to the Russian military-political
bodies and opposite to the president, from his position, at the same time,
made the government that claimed his resignation to resign.
In observers` opinion, after such steps of Kocharian, the influence of
Russia on the Armenian leadership has weakened. It is supposed this factor
will stimulate beginning of the negotiations between Azerbaijan and Armenia
again. Because the official Yerevan was stating, until now, that the main
obstacle for beginning the negotiations is related with the political
situation within Armenia, and has already begun putting initial steps for
the beginning of the negotiations. Perhaps, the US will take the main role
in the regulation of Upper Karabakh conflict this year, too, as it was in
the previous negotiations.
Two days ago, Mr. Kerry Kavano, co-chairman of the US at the OSCE`s Minsk
Group, visited to the conflict region. He has stated that the Minsk Group
is working on the new suggestions in his meeting with the leadership of
Armenia and Azerbaijan. Mr. Kavano has been closely interested in the
situation within this country on being in Armenia and in his opinion, now
the official Yerevan is partially ready for holding the talks.
But if the negotiations begin again and go not in the framework of Russia`s
interests, but with the advantage of America, then can it be stopped
unfinished again? The very aggressive policy of Russia on the Caucasus
gives ground to state that Moscow could increase its efforts for beginning
the military operations at the conflict region again for restoring its
influence on the region.
Even if the negotiations go without any obstacle, there is very little
probability that there will be come to a concrete peace plan. The official
Yerevan has, several times, stated that will never agree with any other
plan, besides that of the "common state" plan of the Minsk group. The
'common state" plan, in fact, considers Upper Karabakh as an independent
state. This plan has been rejected by the official Baku.
At present, the Azerbaijani side expects new suggestions from the Minsk
Group for beginning the negotiations. But such suggestions are not given,
yet. Because the OSCE puts the responsibility for the settlement of the
conflict on the sides and states that the new suggestions will be only on
the basis of mutual agreement of the two sides. But in fact, there is not a
possibility that Armenia, which claims independence status to Upper
Karabakh, and Azerbaijan could come to an agreement.
During the confidential bilateral negotiations between the Azeri president
Heidar Aliev and Armenian president Robert Kocharian last year, Aliev
stated that he is ready to compromise Armenia. But strong protests of the
Azeri opposition abstained Aliev from his compromising position. If he
again thinks to settle the Upper Karabakh conflict by the unilateral
compromises of Azerbaijan, undoubtedly, the political situation within the
country will tense.
AZERBAIJAN DEMOCRACY MONITOR,MAY 2000 N05 (18) [ENGLISH]
Copyright (c) THE AZERBAIJAN DEMOCRACY MONITOR 2000
Referred from Habarlar-L
I will be very interested in your proposals and comments regarding the content of this site. Please, dont hesitate to sign my guestbook. Thanks.
Other News Resources concerning Azerbaijan
My favourite newspaper in Azerbaijan. Pitily it is only in Russian.
News in Azeri, English and Russian. Note: You will need Azeri fonts in order to be able to read the news in Azeri language.
Yahoo!News Search for Azerbaijan
VOA Azeri service