updated
News for September 6-29, 2000
Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 11:56:05 -0400
MOSCOW, Sept 26 (Reuters) - The presidents of Russia and fellow former
Soviet state Armenia discussed on Tuesday how to settle the 12-year-old
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and signed a new friendship treaty.
Armenia's ties with Moscow have been among the best of the 14 other
ex-Soviet states and the new pact, dubbed a declaration of joint
cooperation in the 21st century, was aimed at cementing this relationship.
Russian President Vladimir Putin was quoted by Russian news agencies as
saying he welcomed talks held between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Karabakh
last year and hoped for more dialogue.
But he said Russia did not have the power to impose a solution. Armenian
President Robert Kocharyan said he wanted Moscow's involvement in the peace
process.
``Finding a solution, and, most importantly, making it work will need the
support of Russia,'' he said.
Azerbaijan and Armenia have been at loggerheads since Karabakh's ethnic
Armenian majority broke away from Azerbaijan's administrative rule in the
dying days of the Soviet Union. Some 35,000 people died in the resultant
war before a 1994 ceasefire.
The region runs itself as an independent state but is recognised by no one.
Kocharyan and Azeri leader Haydar Aliyev held several rounds of talks last
year but the process was brought to an end in the turmoil caused by the
assassination in parliament of Armenia's prime minister and other key
figures in October 1999.
``We want this difficult conflict to be solved for the good of the nations
of both states,'' Putin said.
Kocharyan and Putin hailed the agreement they signed as a further step on
the road to good relations. Russia and Armenia, both sharing a Christian
tradition, have historically had good ties.
``For Armenia, Russia is not only a strong northern neighbour but a country
with which there is a spiritual connection,'' Kocharyan said.
#######################################################################
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
#######################################################################
Armenia Seeks New Approaches To Resolving Karabakh Conflict... (my note- it is not a secret that Armenians speculated with this "new" approach from the very beginning.)
Addressing the UN General Assembly in New York on 18 September, Armenian Foreign
Minister Vartan Oskanian noted that the Declaration adopted at the UN
Millennium Summit earlier in September stressed the right to
self-determination of peoples who remain under colonial domination and
foreign occupation. He said that both those categories applied to the
Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh following the 1923 decision of the
Soviet leadership to transfer the region from Armenian to Azerbaijani
jurisdiction.
Oskanian again affirmed Armenia's commitment to trying to find a lasting
solution to the conflict that would provide "peace and security" for the
unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Acknowledging the ongoing
mediation effort by the OSCE Minsk Group, he added that Armenia is ready
to maintain direct contacts with Azerbaijan in order to search for a
compromise solution. But echoing Armenian President Robert Kocharian's
address to the Millennium Summit, Oskanian said the Armenian leadership
believes that direct negotiations between the Azerbaijani leadership and
that the unrecognized enclave would be "more productive, as it is the
people of Karabakh who will ultimately determine their own destiny and
future."
Referring to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's observation that today more
wars are being fought within states than between states, Oskanian
commented that "no attempt is being made to address this new challenge in
a more effective, meaningful and realistic way."
He went on to reason that "each conflict must ultimately be addressed on
its own terms, and through the actions and the accomodations of its own
peoples and its political leaders." "Generic standard-issue
formulas," Oskanian said, are not ideally suited to promoting a
settlement. The international community, for its part, should provide not
only support and incentives, but "intellectutal conceptual models for
exploring appropriate and suitable arrangements in the resolution of
seemingly intractable conflicts." He argued that in constructing such
model frameworks, "we should think along the lines of form follows
function. The function of the probable solutions that must emerge and the
broad outline of an eventual peace agreement must rely, we believe, on
devices or principles that are tailor-made, highly specific and perhaps
even unique." (Liz Fuller)
...While Azerbaijan Continues To Play By The Book.
In his speech to the UN
General Assembly two days later, Azerbaijan's Ambassador to the UN Eldar
Kuliev showed little enthusiasm for the innovative approach proposed by
Oskanian. Kuliev instead appealed to the UN "to take all necessary
measures to implement the resolutions of the UN Security Council on
Nagorno-Karabakh." In 1993, the Council had passed four resolutions
calling for the immediate withdrawal by Armenian forces of areas of
Azerbaijan they had occupied contiguous to Nagorno-Karabakh. The wording
of those resolutions does not always differentiate clearly between the
Armenian armed forces and the so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Defense Army,
thus implicitly holding the Armenian leadership in Yerevan responsible for
the actions of the Karabakh armed forces.
Kuliev also again accused Armenia of "aggression" against Azerbaijan,
characterizing that aggression as the main destabilizing factor in the
South Caucasus.
Kuliev's approach echoed remarks made one week earlier in Washington by
Azerbaijan's President Heidar Aliev. Aliev repeated earlier claims, which
many observers consider exaggerated, that Armenia has occupied 20 percent
of Azerbaijan's total territory, compelling one million people to flee
their homes. (U.S. diplomats, for example, believe more accurate figures
are 15 percent and 800,000 refugees and displaced persons). Aliev also
accused Armenia of aggression against Azerbaijan and argued that a
concerted effort by the OSCE Minsk Group could yield a peace settlement
not only in Nagorno-Karabakh but also in Chechnya and Abkhazia. He did
not, however, explain how one peace settlement could lead to others. And
the OSCE Minsk Group has recently indicated that, rather than propose yet
another draft peace plan, it considers that Aliev and Kocharian should
reach an agreement between themselves, which the OSCE will then endorse
and help to implement. (Liz Fuller)
Copyright RFE/RL
ANS-Interview: Araz Alizadeh - Ways of resolution of Karabakh conflict
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 19:10:27 -0700 (PDT)
HOST: Etibar Mamedov
GUEST: Araz Alizadeh - Co-Chair of the Social Democratic Party of
Azerbaijan
QUESTION: Talking about the adjustment of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, the
Armenian President Robert Kocharian mentioned that the leaders of the
conflicting parties must have a political potential. First of all, what do
you understand under this phrase - political potential?
ANSWER: There are a lot of talks going that the key to solution of the
Karabakh conflict is in U.S., Russia, Iran and Turkey. I have repeatedly
said that first of all Karabakh has the key to solution of the conflict
and Azerbaijan must create a powerful army. We must try to solve the
problem through military way or just demonstrate our power to our enemies
and force them to accept a peaceful resolution. As for Mr Kocharians
potential, I know him well. In 1990, I participated at the conference The
Way To Democracy held in Prague. We exchanged opinions on adjustment of
the Karabakh conflict at that conference organised by the U.S. Department
of State. All experts opinion came to that Azerbaijan is right and Armenia
is wrong. I mean, here is Mr Kocharians potential. We say our president is
great, genius etc. If he hasnt been able to solve the Karabakh conflict
since 1993 and his opponent is a person with a much lower potential, then
what does that mean?
QUESTION: Then it means that all political leaders participating in
resolution of the Israeli-Palestine conflict for the past 50 years are
laymen too?
ANSWER: After a long time, Palestinians managed to put Israel before the
fact and the latter was just forced to accept the problems peaceful
solution. Palestinians waged a war, they created a partisan movement,
occurred losses and forced Israel to choose the way of peace. As for the
problem of Karabakh, we have an Armenian aggression and we must secure
ourselves against this. But we shouldnt make concessions in this
matter. Some of our politicians say that if we start a war against
Armenia, we could upset the latter. We have to defend our lands and let
Armenia be upset.
QUESTION: This is the first time I see an Azeri politician say that
Armenia could be upset. On the other hand, doesnt it mean that a
politician, who refuses from the peaceful way of conflicts resolution,
lacks political potential?
ANSWER: Ill tell you what - Kocharian is the victorious side. He can say
anything he wants. We are the side which lost the war and we must be ready
for a new war. If the victorious side says Im ready for peace talks, it
has the right to say that. They have got what they want.
QUESTION: Armenia has got what it wants militarily. But not completely,
because there isnt a political agreement and Azerbaijan didnt capitulate.
ANSWER: What do you mean Azerbaijan didnt capitulate? Our minister for
national security says World War III could break out if the Karabakh war
does, etc. If force ministers say Azerbaijan shouldnt wage war, it means
capitulation. This is the evident sign of powerlessness.
QUESTION: You want the World War III to break out?
ANSWER: No. They wont be World War III if Karabakh war does.
QUESTION: No one guarantees that.
ANSWER: I guarantee you that there is international law. According to it,
the Supreme Council of Armenia adopted decision that Karabakh is
considered as part of Armenia. Without Azerbaijans consent. After that,
they started a war and occupied our lands. Now, please show me a document
which states that Azerbaijan is deprived of the possibility of defending
its lands. But international conferences say that Azerbaijan doesnt have a
national army, its very weak and badly hit by corruption. They say to us
go beef your army up and well then start talks. No one has so far been
taken into consideration and wont be.
Copyright 2000 Azerbaijan News Service
ANS News, September 29, 2000
ALLEGED ARMENIAN GENOCIDE A BONE OF CONTENTION BETWEEN TWO NATO ALLIES
The only goal of the United States is to weaken Turkey and Iraq from
within. This was announced by the Iraqi Ambassador to Azerbaijan, Galib
Abd-Houssein. According to the ambassador, Turkey and Iraq had been having
close relations till the 1991 Gulf War. Mr Houssein says those relations
have been damped by the U.S. The Iraqi envoy says his country still
maintains diplomatic contacts with Turkey despite being in blockade. The
Iraqi representative expressed his regret that Turkey allows the U.S. to
use its Incirlik airbase for bombardment of Iraqs northern
territories. The thought of transfer of the Incirlik airbase to Azerbaijan
was first stated several years ago by the then-state advisor for foreign
policy issues, Vafa Guluzadeh. Now, Turkey has raised the question closing
it down after the U.S. Congress Human Rights Committee passed a decision
on recognition of alleged Armenian genocide of 1915. The former state
advisor said there wasnt anything dangerous in this. He reckons that if
the U.S. Congress recognises the so-called Armenian genocide, Turkey,
which is one of closest U.S. allies, will start pursing independent
policy. This, in its turn, means that Turkey will choose a different
stance in the Karabakh problems resolution process, the one differing from
OSCEs position. On the other hand, Mr Guluzadeh says that Turkey, after
possible leaving the sphere of U.S. control, could start developing
nuclear programmes which could lead in its eventual becoming a regional
leader. Richard Boucher, a representative of the U.S. Department of State,
says he doesnt believe the Congress will recognise the Armenian
genocide. As for the possible closedown of the Incirlik airbase, the
U.S. diplomat said it was impossible, because Turkey is the U.S. ally in
NATO and the two countries have common interests. Turkeys Embassy to Baku
refused to comment on official Ankaras recent statement on closing the air
corridor with Armenia and the Incirlik airbase. Turkish media write that
nations National Security Council is going to pass a decision with this
connection.
By Etibar Mamedov
Normalization Of Armenian-Turkish Relations At Risk.
Armenia stands no chance of normalizing its relations with Turkey if it continues to lobby
for international recognition that the 1915 deaths of more than million
Armenian subjects of the Ottoman Empire constituted genocide, a former
Turkish foreign minister said on 27 September.
Ambassador Ilter Turkmen said Yerevan's support for a genocide recognition
bill under consideration by a subcommittee of the U.S. House of
Representatives will "exacerbate" the already strained rapport with
Turkey. "There is a feeling in Turkey that this initiative in the House
has gained momentum after some official statements by Armenian leaders,
especially by President Kocharian at the United Nations [summit earlier
this month]," Turkmen told RFE/RL. He spoke on the sidelines of an
international conference on prospects for regional peace cooperation held
in Yerevan by the Armenian Center for National and International Studies,
a local independent think-tank. A retired career diplomat, Turkmen headed
the Turkish foreign ministry between 1982 and 1984 and currently works as
adjunct professor at Istanbul's Galatasaray University.
"If Armenia persists with trying to have Turkey condemned by the
international public opinion, there will be no way out," he said. The
authorities in Ankara warned of a major deterioration in close
U.S.-Turkish relationship following last week's approval by a House
subcommittee of a draft resolution amounting to an official American
recognition of the Armenian Genocide. The full House International
Relations Committee is due to discuss the bill on 28 September.
Turkmen stressed that the Turks will never agree to recognizing the mass
killings as "genocide" because that would go against their "national
consciousness." "You are convinced that this happened, whereas in Turkey
people are convinced that something else happened," he went on. "It's very
difficult to come to a clear judgement of history. History is written
differently in different countries."
"History always has a positive aspect. So why don't we don't work on the
positive aspect. We have so many things in common," Turkmen argued,
pointing to the fact that "Armenians contributed immensely to the Ottoman
Empire." Armenian officials believe that a full reconciliation is
impossible without the two peoples addressing their troubled past. Turkmen
said joint studies of the bloodiest period of Ottoman history are welcome
as long as they "do not come to a verdict." "You can discuss the past but
with the aim of achieving a reconciliation."
Armenia's previous leadership preferred not to raise the genocide issue in
its dealings with Turkey. Critics say that policy did not pay off, with
Ankara continuing to make the normalization of bilateral ties contingent
on the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
But Turkmen countered that Turkish-Armenian relations cannot be considered
non-existent. "I came here yesterday from Istanbul on board an Armenian
Airlines plane. It was full of people, including businessmen, both Turkish
and Armenian. There is a considerable amount of trade going on between
us," he said.
Asked whether there is any chance of Turkey establishing diplomatic
relations with Armenia before a Karabakh settlement, the ex-minister
replied: "It depends on what you will do with the Azeris." "I don't know
if the [Turkish] government will consider having a more structured
relationship with Armenia before a settlement in Karabakh. It also depends
on the Azeris. We have taken a [pro-Azerbaijani] position. It is very
difficult to change a position." (Emil Danielyan)
Copyright 2000 RFE/RL
U.S. panel delays vote on Armenian-genocide charge
By Christopher Wilson
WASHINGTON, Sept 28 (Reuters) - After nearly four hours of rambling
deliberations, a House of Representatives committee on Thursday delayed a
vote to approve a politically explosive resolution giving U.S. recognition
to
accusations that Turks carried out genocide against Armenians 85 years ago.
The influential House International Relations Committee was set to vote on
the measure on Thursday, but opponents tried to remove the resolution's
sting
by scrapping all references to the term ``genocide'' and then successfully
used a series of manoeuvres to postpone the vote until next week.
``This legislation at this moment in U.S.-Turkish relations is singularly
counterproductive to our national interest,'' said California Democratic
Representative Tom Lantos, who led the effort to derail the resolution.
He said the resolution would ``humiliate and insult'' Turkey, a major NATO
ally, and the ``unintended results would be devastating.''
The resolution, which drew a furious reaction from Turkey when it was
approved by a House subcommittee last week, calls on President Bill Clinton
to ``characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000
Armenians as genocide.''
Turkey, which is outraged, although it is not named in the resolution, has
disputed the allegations, saying that the 1915 killings occurred during
partisan fighting as the Ottoman Empire collapsed.
The resolution is a purely symbolic, nonbinding measure that does move on to
the Senate or the president for approval.
House Republicans retrieved the resolution from legislative limbo, where it
had been languishing for years, to help embattled Representative James Rogan
win re-election on Nov. 7 from a Southern California district with a large
Armenian-American population.
SOME STRONG SUPPORT
Some lawmakers have zealously embraced the issue, labeling the deaths the
first genocide of the 20th century.
``Unfortunately, memories seem to have faded. The overwhelming body of
evidence clearly points to a genocide,'' Republican Representative
Christopher Smith of New Jersey said. ``We should not shrink from calling a
genocide a genocide.''
Others seemed frustrated by the fuss as Congress rushed to to get through a
crush of legislation before its planned adjournment in mid-October.
``This is an issue that historians should address, not members of
Congress,''
Texas Republican Representative Kevin Brady said.
Although the resolution has some support among Democrats, Clinton
administration officials warned that its passage would damage U.S.-Turkish
relations and urged the House to drop it.
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright told the International Relations
Committee on Wednesday that passage would not only affect relations with
Turkey but also those between Turkey and Armenia and could complicate
Greek-Turkish peace negotiations over Cyprus.
``It's very important that this resolution not go forward,'' she said.
``This
something that is of great concern to us because this resolution is not
helpful.''
Ambassador Robert Pearson, who flew in from Ankara to attend the committee
meeting, noted that U.S. warplanes used air bases in Turkey to police the
no-fly zones in northern Iraq and that Turkey was a major U.S. trade
partner,
particularly in arms, agriculture and other commodities.
``People in Turkey regard this (resolution) as directed against them. They
view this as directed against the current state of Turkey,'' he warned. ``If
this resolution passes, there will be a strong Turkish reaction.''
Copyright 2000 Reuters Limited
Testimony by Dr. Justin McCarthy at the Congressional Hearing on H.Res 398
House Committee on International Relations Subcommittee
on International Operations and Human Rights
September 14, 2000
In Turkey today there are millions of men and women who remember their
parents and grandparents' accounts of the terrible events of World War I.
Their stories tell of murders, rapes, and forced exile from their homes.
Turks do not dwell on these things, but they remember. When asked, they
tell their family histories in sorrow and anger.The stories are so
similar to those told by Armenians that only the names of the victims
separate them. Like the Armenians, the Turks and other Muslims suffered
horribly in one of the most perilous times in human history, Like the
Armenians, Turks were killed by their enemies; in their case the enemies
were often Armenians. Like the Armenians, the Turks suffered forced
migrations in which great numbers died. Like the Armenians, the Turks
died from disease and starvation. In the wartime period, Turks and other
Muslims lost nearly 3 million souls. Like the Armenians, they have not
forgotten their losses. Turks tell their children stories of those times.
Like the Armenians, they dwell on the suffering of
their own. Turkish
scholars and the Turkish government have begun to recognize and to deplore
the suffering of both sides, but it is naturally the sufferings of their
own people that are most remembered. I have come here to oppose a House
resolution that ignores the suffering of the Turks, a resolution that
declares that mutual inhumanity in an inter-communal war was genocide.
I am naturally troubled by the inaccurate assertions in the resolution.
Yet I am most troubled that the United States Congress might promulgate a
version of history that attacks one of our allies without affording those
allies a chance to tell their own side of history. Turks will not receive this
resolution well, nor should they. Those who remember the past suffering
of their own people cannot be expected to accept unjust attacks on their
forefathers, not even when the attacks come from those whom the Turks have
rightly considered to be their best friends in the world.
The historical assertions in House Resolution 398 are more than
questionable. Within the resolution is a long list of accusations, quotes,
and justifications--carefully selected and with no mention of opposing
positions. This is the equivalent of a trial in which the judge hears only
the prosecution, then issues a verdict.
House Resolution 398 quotes from General Harbord, without mentioning that
General Harbord has been proven to have lied and to have suppressed
evidence from his own staff that demonstrated that Armenians had engaged
in mass murder of Turks and Kurds, The Resolution selectively recalls one
American Ambassador of the war period, Morgenthau, who agreed with The
Armenian Cause, but makes no mention of the American ambassador, Bristol,
who disagreed with that cause. Morgenthau's political motivations, racist
views, and patent inventions of events go unmentioned.
Adolf Hitler's supposed views on Armenian history
are quoted, as if the Nazis needed to learn from Middle, Eastern history
before they could put their evil plans into effect. Whether Adolf Hitler
ever said those words has been fiercely debated. Scholars have examined
German archives and reports of eye-witnesses and newspaper reporters
from the time. Some scholars believe the quote was the product of the
imagination of a reporter for the Associated Press. Others believe
it was simply omitted from the official record. Such disagreements are
only truly resolved by study and academic debate. Yet House Resolution 398
declares with confidence that Hitler said it,.
The statement that 2,000,000 Armenians were
deported, 1.5 million were killed, and 500,000 were survivors is a bizarre
increase of both the number of Armenians and the number of deaths.
Immediately after the war, Armenian representatives estimated that
approximately 600,000 Anatolian Armenians had died, a number with which I agree.
Now the figure seems to have risen to 1.5 million dead--slightly more than
the entire Armenian population of Anatolia. Contemporary figures from
the League of Nations and those of Armenian scholars (not figures from
Turks) indicate that nearly 900,000 Armenians survived the war, not the
500,000 stated in the resolution, Which leaves the question, where did
these figures come from? They are not the result of historical inquiry.
Turkish court-martial that convicted members of the Committee of Union and
Progress Government of the Ottoman Empire are reported, but not described.
Had they been portrayed in any detail, the character of the tribunals
would have been apparent. They were quisling courts, convened by an
non-elected government under the watchful eyes of the British and other Allies.
The accused could not defend themselves at these mock courts. The resolution
does not mention that the courts also found the government guilty of all sorts of
preposterous crimes, everything the courts could
invent that would discredit the previous government and please the Allies,
The resolution does not relate that the British themselves admitted that
they could find no evidence that the Ottoman government was guilty of
planned extermination of the Armenians, although they tried very hard to
do so. The British at the time were in control of Istanbul. Archives and
government records were in their hands. Yet they could not find the evidence.
Facts such as this are essential to a understanding of the Armenian-Turkish conflict;
they are omitted from House Resolution 398. The resolution states that the national
archives of Turkey contain records of these courts-martial, which is true. What is not
stated is that these same archives also contain voluminous evidence of Armenian actions
against the Muslims. This evidence would call into question the entire basis of
House Resolution 398. It is also not included in the resolution.
Statements of the Allied governments in 1915 are included, but no mention
is made of the fact that those Allies were at the time at war with the
Ottoman Empire. It is well known that Allied propaganda bureaus
deliberately fostered a damning image of the turks to counter effective
anti Russian propaganda from the Central Powers. At the time, Russian
persecution of the Jews was much publicized in America. The Allies needed
something to counter it in the American mind, something to blame on the
Central Powers. They selected the Armenian Horrors, and did their job of
propaganda very well. Documents invented by the British Propaganda Bureau
during World War 1 are still being reprinted today as if they were true.
There can be no question that the concept of an Armenian Genocide has been
widely accepted. The various statements of political leaders listed in
the resolution demonstrate this. This is partly due to 'the fact that in
Europe and the United States there were very few Turks. No one was there
to defend the memory of the Turks, and there was no incentive for
Americans or Western Europeans to delve deeper into the subject.
Religious and ethnic prejudice played their part. Indeed, anyone who did
advance arguments against the conventional wisdom risked vilification and
loss of position. It must also be said that America was remarkably lacking
in scholars who studied the Ottoman Empire at all. Not until well into
our lifetimes was this situation corrected. It was when scholars began to
study Ottoman history from Ottoman sources that they began to question the
Armenian Genocide. The Turks themselves bear responsibility for not
opposing those who distorted their history. After the terrible wars of
1912 to 1922, Turkey was largely in ruins. One-fourth of the population
was dead. Cities had been destroyed, farm animals killed, trees and crops
burned with no seed to replace them. Yet there were some who called for
the wars to go on. Lands that had been Turkish were still in the hands
of enemies. Revenge lived in the minds of those who had lost all in the
wars. If these sentiments were to rule the new Turkish Republic,
more deaths would have resulted. The government of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
therefore set a policy of ignoring past losses and making peace with old
enemies. The Turkish government felt that pressing the Turkish case
against Armenians and others would rekindle old hatreds and invite war, so
the Turks said nothing of their grievances. This was the right
decision for the time. The unfortunate result was that no one spoke for the
Turks. Not until Armenian terrorists began to kill Turkish
diplomats did the Turks change their policy. They opened their
archives and began to publish documents of the wartime period. These
became a part of a scholarly reexamination that will continue for many
years. Do I expect that the Sub-Committee and the Congress
will accept my word on historical events? No. Nor should they accept the
word of others. Such matters should be considered by historians who
marshal facts, analyze sources, and engage in scholarly debate--historians
who do not only put forth one side of the argument. Congress, with
limited time to consider the pressing problems of our country, cannot be
expected to read all the literature, then come to conclusions on historical
events. Yet, in fairness, that is exactly what must be done before
historical judgments are made.
Finally, it must be asked why the Foreign Service of the United States
should be instructed to reach this one version of history. Why this
particular example of man's inhumanity to man'? Why pick one example that
is debated by scholars, instead of the many examples of inhumanity that
are agreed by all? Why not the Irish potato famine, the murder and
starvation of Ukrainians by Stalin, the Serbian death camps in Bosnia?
Incredibly, I understand that no House resolution has been passed
requiring Foreign Service instruction on the Holocaust! What are the Turks
to think, but that They are being singled out for condemnation, unjustly
censured for something they believe they did not do, when those whose guilt is agreed
upon by all go unmentioned, unblamed? If the Foreign Service of the United States is to be
instructed in man's inhumanity to man, would it not be better to
instinct in all of the many examples of inhumanity? If this were to be done,
justice would demand that the curricula include not only the sufferings of the
Armenians, but also the sufferings of the Turks.
--------------------------------------------------------
President Leaves For US
By Saba Agayeva Azernews
Staff Writer
[exerpts regarding the Karabakh conflict]
On Monday morning, President Aliyev left for New York to attend
a Millennium Summit within the framework of the UN General
Assembly 55th session. The visit is scheduled to last till
September 14.
In an interview with journalists at the Bina airport before
departure, President Aliyev gave a high assessment to the
forth-coming summit. He said he would hold a number of meetings
in New York and Washington, including with Armenian President
Kocharian, US state secretary Madeleine Albright and other heads
of state.
...
Asked about the status of the Karabakh conflict, the head of
state said work was always in progress in this direction.
Regarding this process as something extremely difficult, the
President pointed out to certain forces that are not interested
in a negotiated settlement of the conflict and are doing their
best to derail the peace process.
...
Azernews, No. 36(166), September 6-12, 2000
Permanent Mission to the United Nations
Statement by
H. E. Mr. Heydar Aliyev
President of the Republic of Azerbaijan
at the Millennium Summit of the United Nations
[exerpts regarding the Karabakh problem]
...States, which have suffered from acts of aggression, seizure of
territories and ethnic cleansing, aggressive separatism and terrorism, rightfully expect maximum effective actions from the United Nations to establish a just and secure world, and protect principles of the UN Charter.
Unfortunately, the South Caucasus have become a region where all these
problems, threats and risks have found their clear reflection. The main
destabilizing factor of the situation in the South Caucasus has become
aggression of Armenia against Azerbaijan, which has brought incalculable tragedies to millions of people.
As a result of the aggression Armenian armed forces have occupied twenty per cent territories of Azerbaijan, carried out ethnic cleansing and ousted one million Azerbaijanis from their homes. The Security Council of the United Nations passed four resolutions with this respect, which unequivocally confirmed sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability of frontiers of the Republic of Azerbaijan, and unconditionally demanded immediate withdrawal of Armenian armed forces from occupied lands of Azerbaijan. But since 1993 till now decisions of the Security Council are left on papers.
Since 1992 the OSCE has been engaged in the settlement of the conflict
between Armenia and Azerbaijan. But its activities have not been
successful. Bilateral discussions between Presidents of Azerbaijan and
Armenia continue but they also have not brought any results yet. We have had ceasefire for the last six years but it is not a solution to problems.
I call on the United Nations to take all necessary measures to implement the resolutions of the Security Council.
Without settlement of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and
other conflicts, without removal of factors of external pressure including the foreign military presence it is impossible to achieve peace and security in the region. If the South Caucasus acquires political integrity and neutral status it would allow establishing normal mutual relations among states of the South Caucasus and ensuring their harmonic integration to the world economic system.
---
President Robert Kocharian's Statement At The UN Millennium Summit
The following is the text of Armenian President Robert Kocharian's
statement at the UN Millennium Summit on September 7, provided by
the Permanent Mission of Armenia to the UN:
-
...Armenia remains committed to the peaceful resolution of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. We will continue to work intensively
with the Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group, and we underscore their
contribution to maintaining the cease-fire regime. Equally, we
are ready to maintain direct contacts with Azerbaijan in order to
search for compromises, although we think that direct negotiation
between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh would be more productive,
especially taking into account the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh is a
de facto established and open for a dialogue state.
In this connection I would like to specially mention that the
situation around Nagorno-Karabakh today is a consequence of the
Azerbaijani aggression of 1991-92 aimed at the ethnic cleansing of
the Armenian population, as well as a consequence of the
Azerbaijani refusal to accept the recent proposals by the
mediators in the conflict.
The contemporary history of conflict resolutions reflects the
changing nature of inter- and intrastate relations. It clearly
displays the necessity of breaking through the frameworks of
conventional perceptions of sovereignty. In this context, we are
confident that the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can
only be materialized on the basis of the legal equality of the
parties to the conflict...
Copyright 2000 Asbarez
---
Noyan Tapan: Kocharian, Aliyev Discuss Karabakh Conflict in New York
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 00:02:22 -0700 (PDT)
YEREVAN (Noyan Tapan)--Armenian president Robert Kocharian and his
Azeri counterpart Haydar Aliyev met in New York Thursday, within
the framework of the UN Millennium Summit, to discuss the peace
process in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Following their meeting, both presidents reiterated their
willingness to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict peacefully,
through mutual compromises. They said communication between the
two side has been very important and useful.
Kocharian said it was still early to speak of concrete results.
He then added that the meetings were of extreme importance and
require patience, as it is difficult to reach a compromise and
similar conflicts are not easy to resolve. He stressed that both
presidents have the willingness to solve this conflict and that
efforts to find a peaceful solution to the problem must be
continued.
A delegation from Armenia led by President Robert Kocharian
participated in the 55th session of the UN General Assembly - the
Millennium Summit on September 6-7.
On September 6, Robert Kocharian made a speech at the summit
meeting [see text on page 2]. In his speech, Kocharian emphasized
the need for measures to anticipate and settle conflicts and that
the role of the United Nations should be decisive in this matter.
The next day, Kocharian participated in one of four interactive
roundtables held within the framework of the Millennium Summit.
The panel discussion was attended by leaders from about 40
countries. Presidents and prime ministers dealt with issues from
globalization to security and struggle against poverty.
Participants at the summit also considered ways of raising the
efficiency of assistance rendered by industrialized nations to
developing countries, as well as the need for the strengthening of
information technologies.
Copyright 2000 Noyan Tapan
ARMENIAN PRESIDENT VISITS KARABAKH.
On a working visit to the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
on 13-14 September, Robert Kocharian met with enclave President
Arkadii Ghukasian, Prime Minister Anoushavan Danielian, and National
Assembly speaker Oleg Esayan, Noyan Tapan reported. Kocharian
also reviewed construction and infrastructure projects in the
enclave financed by Armenian diaspora foundations, including
the north-south highway. LF
RFE/RL NEWSLINE Vol. 4, No. 179, Part I, 15 September 2000
DEFENCE MINISTER SAYS ARMY BEING SUPPLIED WELL
In his interview with representatives of mass media outlets,
the Defence Minister of Azerbaijan Safar Abiyev said the army's
preparation for winter started as long ago as in May and the
nation's defence department has learned the lessons of past
years and increased the troops' fuel and food supply.
According to the minister, the main problem last winter was
lack of warm clothes, this is why an order was placed with
purchase of large quantities of warm clothes, especially for
those serving in mountainous regions. Preventive measures were
also conducted for combating various diseases among servicemen.
Asked of the status of the Gabala radio location station, the
minister said it was a political issue which should be solved
on the interstate level. According to Mr Abiyev, the main
problem is that the Azeri side considers the Russian object,
which is located on its territory, as an information and
analytical centre. There hasn't been any bilateral agreement
signed so far which would determine the station's status and
this is why the parties must sign an appropriate one.
"Azerbaijan's stance in this issue is clear and says that
military bases of foreign states shouldn't be located on its
territory," the defence minister concluded.
By Staff Writers
ANS News, September 8, 2000
Armenia Leader Actively Seeks Lasting Peace With Azerbaijan
Paris, Thursday, September 7, 2000
By Michael Dobbs Washington Post Service
STEPANAKERT, Azerbaijan - When Armenian separatists seized control
of a wide swath of Azerbaijan back in 1992 and declared the
independent republic of Nagorno-Karabakh, Rafiq Israelian was
euphoric. The decades-old dream of detaching this predominantly
Christian region from Muslim Azerbaijan, and reuniting it with
Mother Armenia next door, seemed on the verge of becoming reality.
Today, Mr. Israelian is a disillusioned man. He spends most of
his days standing in the central square of the Karabakh capital,
Stepanakert, waiting for work. Occasionally, he earns a couple of
dollars at a construction site, barely enough to feed his wife and
three children. At other times, his family goes hungry.
''We hoped that life would improve after the war, but it hasn't,''
said the former soldier, 42, who now pins his hopes on President
Vladimir Putin of Russia, whom he sees as a modern-day successor
to Stalin. ''Putin should bring back the Soviet Union and restore
the collective farms. Then we might have a chance of getting out
of this mess.''
While Mr. Israelian's talk about restoring Soviet power may be an
idle fantasy, it reflects a very real frustration, both here and
in Armenia, with the fruits of independence. Over the past
decade, Armenia, an ancient Christian nation, has scored a
remarkable series of military victories over its hereditary Muslim
enemy, culminating in the seizure of 20 percent of Azerbaijan's
territory. Economically, however, Armenians are reeling.
Western diplomats estimate that a third of Armenia's Soviet-era
population of 3.6 million has left the country since independence
in search of work and better living conditions. An estimated 40
percent of the remaining population is unemployed. Corruption is
rampant. Political killings are commonplace, as illustrated by a
terrorist attack last October on the Armenian Parliament in
Yerevan, the capital, that resulted in eight deaths, including the
prime minister and the speaker of Parliament.
One of the by-products of the economic chaos has been a renewed
interest in peace with Azerbaijan, which is widely seen as an
essential first step to the return of economic stability. Over
the last year and a half, the Armenian president, Robert
Kocharian, has held an extraordinary series of 11 face-to-face
meetings with his Azerbaijani counterpart as part of renewed
efforts to find a solution to the protracted Karabakh conflict.
''We have both agreed that peace can only come about through
compromises, and we are trying to let our publics know that there
must be compromise,'' said Mr. Kocharian, a former president of
Nagorno-Karabakh who rose to power in 1998 by thwarting the
efforts of the former president, Levon Ter-Petrossian, to strike a
peace deal with Azerbaijan.
Once adamantly opposed to any concessions to Baku, the Azerbaijani
capital, Mr. Kocharian now appears to realize that the only
long-term solution to Armenia's terrible economic situation lies
in abandoning the siege mentality of the past decade.
For his part, the Azerbaijani president, Heydar Aliyev, 77, is ill
with heart problems. U.S. officials believe that he wants to
resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh issue once and for all as part of
securing a smooth political transition to his son, Ilham.
The conflict was the first of dozens of ethnic disputes to flare
up in the Communist world during the waning years of the Cold War,
establishing a pattern that would soon become familiar from Bosnia
to Moldova to Chechnya.
Ethnic Armenians, who accounted for three-quarters of
Nagorno-Karabakh's population of 180,000, began demonstrating for
secession from Azerbaijan in early 1988, saying government
policies favored the Azerbaijani minority. After the Soviet Union
disintegrated in 1991, the protests escalated into all-out war.
By the time a cease-fire was declared in 1994, the
Nagorno-Karabakh rebels had overrun hundreds of Azerbaijani
villages and towns, with the assistance of the Armenian Army,
driving out the Azerbaijani inhabitants and creating a huge buffer
zone around Nagorno-Karabakh.
Armenian officials say they are willing to return much of this
land to Azerbaijan as part of an overall peace settlement that
recognizes the de facto independence of the Armenian-inhabited
areas.
-
WHILE ECONOMIC conditions in Armenia are not as bleak as in the
early 1990s, when electricity supplies in Yerevan were limited to
one hour a day and people cut down trees for firewood, there is a
widespread sense of hopelessness. The collapse of the Soviet
Union led to the collapse of most local industries, which were
tightly integrated with the rest of the Soviet economy. At the
same time, Armenia found itself the target of an economic blockade
by Azerbaijan and Turkey, which border the country on three sides.
Stepanakert is even more cut off from the outside world than
Armenia proper. Decades-old communications links with Azerbaijan
were destroyed during the war. The region's sole economic
lifeline now consists of a little-traveled 70-kilometer road
across the mountainous Lachin corridor to Armenia that was largely
financed by the 2 million-strong Armenian diaspora in the United
States.
War and isolation have proved an ideal breeding ground for
corruption and feuding between rival political clans for control
over the remnants of the old Soviet command economy.
The in-fighting has been particularly brutal in Nagorno-Karabakh,
where in March the president narrowly escaped an assassination
attempt allegedly organized by a former defense minister, Samuel
Babayan.
''When Babayan and his supporters lost power, they also lost a lot
of money,'' said Prime Minister Anushavan Daniyelyan. ''They were
able to control half the trade and industry here. This was an
attempt to preserve their personal power and wealth.''
The seemingly endemic corruption and absence of serious economic
reform have scared away foreign investors, without whom there can
be no lasting economic recovery.
Armenian officials believe that Mr. Aliyev, a former Communist
Party boss who became president of Azerbaijan in a 1993 coup, is
the key to any deal.
''We must find a solution to this conflict while he is still in
power,'' said Nagorno-Karabakh's foreign minister, Naira
Melkunian. ''It is not clear what will happen in Azerbaijan after
Aliyev.''
At the same time, given the political risks involved, Mr. Aliyev
is unlikely to make significant concessions before next November's
parliamentary elections.
In the end, any peace settlement is likely to be shrouded in
ambiguity.
The Armenian foreign minister, Vartan Oskanian, says he has
proposed a ''don't ask, don't tell'' approach to Azerbaijan, under
which Nagorno-Karabakh's status would be interpreted differently
by each side.
Copyright 2000 The Washington Post
VIOLENCE FLARES IN ARMENIAN ENCLAVE
IWPR'S CAUCASUS REPORTING SERVICE, NO. 48
Political analysts across the South Caucasus are warning of a "second
Nagorny Karabakh" in southern Georgia
By Ara Tadevosian in Yerevan
Fears are growing that the Russian troop withdrawal from an Armenian enclave
in southern Georgia could spark violent ethnic conflict in the region.
Unrest has been simmering in Samtskhe-Djavakheti for the past year as plans
move forward to close the Russian military base in the administrative
capital, Akhalkalaki.
The province's largely Armenian population bitterly opposes the withdrawal,
claiming that it will leave the region vulnerable to Turkish expansionism
and cripple the local economy.
Meanwhile, some observers point out that the province has long nurtured
breakaway tendencies and warn of a "second Nagorny Karabakh" if urgent
action is not taken.
Tensions came to a head in June this year when fighting broke out between
Georgian pilgrims and Armenian residents of the Poka settlement, in
Samtskhe-Djavakheti.
Endzel Mkoyan, an Armenian deputy in the Georgian parliament, later claimed
the violence flared after one of the visitors hit a local youth. However,
fellow deputy Van Baiburt said the clash was sparked by agents provocateurs
"who champion the cause of securing autonomy for this region of southern
Georgia".
Ten days later, a checkpoint on the Armenian-Georgian border became the
scene of fresh fighting, when Armenians from Akhalkalaki exchanged blows
with Georgian border guards. Witnesses said the situation spun out of
control after one of the guards hit a 70-year-old Armenian woman with his
rifle-butt.
According to Georgian sources, local villagers later set fire to a nearby
military building and, on the following day, a group of ethnic Armenians
smashed through the barrier of the Ninotsminda checkpoint in a truck.
Leading politicians on both sides of the border have been eager to attribute
the violence to deep-rooted local frustrations, dismissing any wider
political context.
However, Armenians living in Samtskhe-Djavakheti have been vocal in their
protest against the closure of the Akhalkalaki base ever since the idea was
mooted at the OSCE summit in Istanbul last year.
Following its withdrawal from the two bases at Gudauta and Vaziani, Moscow
has promised to close the Akhalkalaki and Batumi camps by 2004.
But Melik Raisyan, an Armenian MP from Akhalkalaki, believes the move will
have a disastrous effect on the region's economy since "over half" the
residents survived by providing services to the Russian troops.
The MP went on to say that local Armenians, who make up 90% of the
population of 76,000, "still remember the attacks made by the Turks in the
1920s".
Raisyan claimed that Georgian border guards only had token control over the
Turkish frontier and the presence of the Russian military was vital to the
region's security.
In Armenia, military leaders have echoed these concerns. In an interview
with the Aiastani Anrapetutyun newspaper, the border troops commander,
Major-General Levon Stepanyan, said, "We're worried that our Georgian
colleagues won't be able to guarantee security after the Russians have
left."
Stepanyan even claims that, for a time, the Georgian side of the border was
patrolled by a detachment of ethnic Azerbaijanis. "Just imagine the
consequences of even the slightest scuffle," he said.
However, the general went on to say he had received assurances from his
Georgian counterpart, Lieutenant-General Valery Chkheidze, that this section
of the border would only be guarded by Armenians in the future.
The spectre of neighbouring Turkey continues to cast a chilling shadow over
the region. One Akhalkalaki resident, David Antonyan, 46, said plans to
build a railway between the town and Kars would inevitably herald increased
Turkish influence in Samtskhe-Djavakheti.
Meanwhile, Azerbaijani politicians have been quick to capitalise on the
growing tensions in southern Georgia. Two deputies, Ali Alirzaev and Fazail Agamaly,
told the Baku parliament that the "alarming behaviour" of the
Akhalkalaki residents proved "that they are pushing towards autonomy for the
region - or else secession to Armenia."
Both deputies concluded that "the Armenians have territorial ambitions not
only in Azerbaijan but also in Georgia." Melik Raisyan dismissed these
remarks as "provocative".
But the leaders of Georgian and Armenia have wasted no opportunity to play
down the situation. The Armenian president, Robert Kocharian, put the unrest
down to social and economic problems while Georgia's Eduard Shevardnadze, on
a recent visit to Armenia, commented, "Our region has a wonderful future and
I believe that in time the borders between Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan
will be purely symbolic."
People in Samtskhe-Djavakheti remain unconvinced. Roza Saakyan, 65, who lost
her son in the Nagorny Karabakh war, said, "I really hope that Shevardnadze
and Kocharian have the brains to prevent another Karabakh breaking out
here."
Ara Tadevosian is director of the Armenian independent news agency, Mediamax
Copyright (c) IWPR 2000
********** VISIT IWPR ON-LINE: www.iwpr.net **************
TDN: Sezer responds to Armenian president, lobbies against Armenian bill
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 23:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
Sezer responds to Armenian president, lobbies against Armenian
bill
President Sezer adds a paragraph to his speech at the last minute
in response to his Armenian counterpart. He asks President
Clinton to do what he can to prevent a bill concerning the
so-called Armenian genocide bill from being passed in Congress
Ankara - Turkish Daily News
Tacan Ildem, President Ahmet Necdet Sezer's foreign policy
advisor, criticized Armenian President Robert Kocharian over his
address at the United Nations Millennium Summit in which Kocharian
accused Turkey of committing a genocide of Armenians early in the
20th century, the Anatolia news agency reported.
In his address on Thursday, Kocharian claimed that Turkey had
consistently denied that Armenians were subject to genocide at the
hands of the Ottoman Empire.
Addressing the summit after Kocharian, Sezer changed his original
text and inserted a paragraph to respond to Kocharian. "I have
taken regretful note of Kocharian's words," he commented at the
end of his speech. "The evaluation of history should be left to
the historians."
Speaking to the press in New York where the summit is being held,
Ildem said that every speaker who was set to address the summit
was supposed to talk about matters of general concern as a
principle. "The Armenian president's addition of a paragraph
referring to Turkey was not in line with this principle," Ildem
stated.
Ildem also said that it was Sezer who demanded that Kocharian be
immediately responded to. He added that Sezer was not in the
meeting hall when Kocharian delivered his address.
Sezer voices Turkey's concern over Armenian bill
In related news, Sezer had a meeting with United States President
Bill Clinton on Thursday night. Sezer expressed Turkey's concerns
about a bill concerning the so-called Armenian genocide bill that
may well be debated in the U.S. Congress.
Voicing Turkey's concerns over the bill, Sezer asked his U.S.
counterpart to do what he could in Congress to prevent the bill
from being passed.
The Armenian lobby in the United States has been lobbying
intensely to have the bill passed in Congress. The bill would
mandate that U.S. diplomats and public officials be taught about
the so-called genocide.
U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert said earlier this month that he
would ensure that the bill reached the U.S. House of
Representatives floor for debate and a possible vote before the
November elections. Some diplomatic observers say that the bill
will most probably be passed. For the bill to actually become a
law, however, it would also have to be voted on and passed by the
U.S. Senate, and then signed into law by the president.
Copyright 2000 Turkish Daily News
Referrred from Habarlar-L
Note: You will need Azeri fonts in order to be able to read the news in Azeri language.
