updated
Nagorno-Karabakh
STRASBOURG, Jan 25 -- Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev accused
the international community Thursday of ignoring the conflict over
Nagorno-Karabakh as his country joined a key European human rights
body.
Aliyev, whose country joined the Council of Europe along with enemy
Armenia, noted in an address that it had been eight years since
over a million ethnic Azeris were forced out of Nagorno-Karabakh --
a mountainous region located inside Azerbaijan -- by ethnic
Armenian fighters seeking independence.
Accusing Armenia of a "full-scaled military aggression", Aliyev
said: "There is no similar disastrous case of this kind in the
world."
"It is unfortunate that the international comunity is silently
observing this continueing tragedy," he said.
The Azerbaijani leader noted that the Organisation for Security and
Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) had set up a group to try to broker a
peace agreement "but its activities have not been successful yet."
While lamenting the ongoing tensions, Aliyev said there were
"opportunities to achieve a fair and just settlement of the
conflict and establish peace with Armenia" by granting "a high
degree of self-rule" to Nagorno-Karabakh, but not independence.
For his part, Armenian President Robert Kocharian said the "peace
process requires patience and time but certainly has prospects for
success."
But the Armenian president said a settlement hinged on "broader
formulations of the notion of sovereignty," suggesting that
Azerbaijan's offer did not go far enough to secure the rights of
Karabakh Armenians.
Armenia and Azerbaijan become the 42nd and 43rd members of the
European body for human rights and democracy. The Council had
insisted on welcoming the two countries at the same time.
Agence France Presse
January 25, 2001
Azerbaijan to use Council of Europe to solve conflict, president tells briefing
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 25, 2001
Strasbourg, 25 January: Bilateral contacts between the Armenian and
Azerbaijani presidents should not replace the activities of the OSCE Minsk
Group, which is meant to settle the Karabakh conflict. At the same time,
Azerbaijan is intending to use the possibilities offered by the Council of
Europe to settle the conflict, Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev told a
joint press conference with Armenian President Robert Kocharyan in
Strasbourg. "It is unbecoming for Europe that two Council of Europe members
are at war," he noted.
In turn, asked to comment on Heydar Aliyev's "harsh tone" at the ceremony to
mark Azerbaijan's admission to the Council of Europe, the Armenian president
said that "the Council of Europe should not be turned into a "gladiatorial
contest".
Both presidents admitted that during his recent visit to Yerevan and Baku,
Sergey Ivanov, secretary of the Russian Security Council, discussed
prospects for settling the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. This is nothing
special, for Russia is a cochairman of the Minsk Group, Kocharyan said.
Asked about the activities of GUUAM [Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan,
Azerbaijan and Moldova], Aliyev said that this organization implied
cooperation not only in the military, but also in other spheres. Kocharyan
pointed out that the issue of entering GUUAM was not on the agenda of
Armenia's foreign policy.
[Passage omitted: Armenia's conditions for settling the Nagornyy Karabakh
problem]
As for the date of signing a peace agreement, Kocharyan thinks it is
necessary to find compromises that would be "digestible" both in Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Nagornyy Karabakh.
Heydar Aliyev negatively assessed the decision of the French Senate, which
recognized the Armenian genocide. "Such issues are not to be resolved in
parliament." Kocharyan pointed out that human rights could not be an
internal affair for one state or another - that is the logic of European
integration. In reply, Aliyev observed that these were the demands of the
present time and there was neither the Council of Europe nor norms of
democracy in 1915.
In his opinion, the Armenians could privately appeal to European courts,
demanding material compensation as the victims of the 1915 genocide.
Heydar Aliyev responded in the negative to a question from a Russian
journalist as to whether Azerbaijan had become Russia's military ally after
Vladimir Putin's visit. "If countries are going for peace, they should give
up military alliances," said Aliyev.
At the same time, he described Putin's visit to Azerbaijan as "important and
useful".
In turn, Kocharyan said that Putin's visit to Azerbaijan had not caused a
negative reaction in Armenia. The consolidation of relations between Russia
and Azerbaijan will have a positive influence on settlement of the Karabakh
conflict, he said.
Source: Turan news agency, Baku, in Russian 1650 gmt 25 Jan 01
Turkish official urges Council of Europe efforts to end Armenian occupation
SOURCE: Anatolia news agency, Ankara, in English 1208 gmt 25 Jan 01
Text of report in English by Turkish news agency Anatolia
Strasbourg, 25 January: Uluc Gurkan, the chairman of the Council of Europe
Parliamentary Assembly (COEPA) Turkish delegation, said on Thursday 25
January that membership of Azerbaijan and Armenia to Council of Europe
(COE) revealed the interest of Europe to Caucasian problem.
Responding to questions of Anatolia correspondent regarded with the full
membership of Azerbaijan and Armenia to COE both states were admitted to
the organization on 25 January , Gurkan said membership of Armenia should
speed up the efforts to put an end to Armenia's occupation on Azerbaijan's
territory.
Gurkan said Turkey harshly objected to the initiatives for the acceptance
of only the membership of Armenia with the pretext of elections in
Azerbaijan, adding that Turkey overcame every kind of pressure and
recorded a very important success in the adoption of the membership of the
two countries.
Pointing out that there was some concern that the resolution on so-called
genocide on Armenians could be brought to the COE after the French
parliament, Gurkan said membership of Armenia was not needed to bring this
issue onto the agenda. Gurkan recalled that controversial historical
incidents of the past were brought to the agenda of the COE, by making
them "today's policy."
Stressing that the important problem was the Armenian occupation of
Azerbaijan's territories, Gurkan said Armenia from now on should withdraw
from the territories it occupied following its membership to COE.
Gurkan said, "we expect the efforts of the Council to be intensified for
putting an end to the occupation."
Copyright 2001 British Broadcasting Corporation
BBC Monitoring Europe - Political
Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring
Turkey's Yilmaz Comments on Ignoring Armenian Occupation,
ASALA Replacing PKK
ANKARA, Jan 23 (A.A) - Deputy Prime Minister Mesut Yilmaz, the leader of
the Motherland Party (ANAP) said on Tuesday, ``we have remained as a mere
spectator against Armenia`s occupation by ignoring the Upper Karabagh
dispute.``
Addressing the ANAP`s parliamentary group meeting, Yilmaz said,
``works to refute the allegations on so-called genocide on Armenians
were successful before 1980. But we could not maintain the same
system. It is necessary to evaluate all matters about Armenia as a
whole. We have remained as a mere spectator against Armenia`s
occupation by ignoring the Upper Karabagh dispute. We could not take
steps to solve the dispute between Azerbaijan and Armenia. We have
been ignoring the fact that the separatist terrorism in Turkey
considered Upper Karabagh as a new base as we have been careless to
misery of refugees who were forced to leave their homes in Upper
Karabagh.``
Yilmaz stressed, ``Armenian terrorist organization of ASALA
included some provinces of Turkey in the borders of Armenia during its
meeting in January of 2000. But we ignored the signals showing that
ASALA will take position of the PKK when PKK is rendered
ineffective.``
He added, ``judgments regarded with the history should be made by
scientists not by politicians or parliamentarians.``
Anatolia in English 1420 GMT 23 Jan 01
The Washington Post
January 24, 2001, Wednesday, Final Edition
SECTION: A SECTION; Pg. A1
Foreign Aid Shrinks, but Not for All; With Clout in Congress, Armenia's Share Grows
BYLINE: Michael Dobbs, Washington Post Foreign Service
DATELINE: SARDARASHEN, Azerbaijan
First of three articles
-- Destroyed by shelling nearly a decade ago, this village of ethnic
Armenians is being rebuilt brick by brick, courtesy of the
U.S. taxpayer. American contractors have renovated the school, laid new
water pipes along the mountain roads and provided a half-dozen local
families with new, earthquake-resistant homes.
"If it weren't for America, we would be living in a hut," says Laura
Baboyan, a mother of five, whose house was blown up by Azerbaijani mortar
fire in 1992 in the aftermath of one of the many ethnic conflicts that
tore apart the old Soviet Union -- the war between the republics of
Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The rebuilding of Sardarashen, one of 48 Armenian villages put back
together by U.S. funds on Armenia-controlled Azerbaijani territory, is a
good example of the old-style bricks-and-mortar foreign assistance that
has gone out of fashion in Washington over the last two decades. It is
also a testament to the political power of one of the most active ethnic
lobbies in Washington.
In recent years, lobbying groups representing 1 million Armenian Americans
have used their wealth, influence and votes to sharply increase
U.S. economic assistance to their compatriots overseas. With the help of
key members of Congress, they have turned Armenia into one of the largest
recipients in recent years of U.S. aid on a per-person basis after
Israel. Last year, U.S. aid to Armenia accounted for about $ 42 per
person, compared with $ 34 per head for Bosnia, $ 3 for Rwanda, $ 1.40 for
Russia and 14 cents for India.
Armenia's good fortune is all the more remarkable because the overall
U.S. foreign aid budget is dropping. In an era when Washington stresses
investment and trade as the best ways to raise living standards, aid fell
from around 0.2 percent of the gross national product to 0.1 percent
during the eight years of the Clinton administration, ranking the United
States at the bottom of donor nations in generosity.
Aid programs that have been cut in the last few years include forestry
projects in Nepal and Honduras, institutional reform in Indonesia and Sri
Lanka, small-scale lending in Bangladesh and development assistance in
Africa.
But in Armenia, the trajectory has been up. Despite plentiful evidence of
corruption and a patchy record on democracy and human rights there,
Congress has voted six years in a row to increase aid for the nation of 3
million beyond levels requested by the Clinton administration. The tale
demonstrates how, in an era of shrinking foreign aid, political
connections are more important than ever.
The Bush administration enters office at a time of renewed calls by
Republican leaders for the abolition of the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), which coordinates foreign assistance
programs. Earlier this month, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman
Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) proposed setting up a publicly funded foundation to
dispense grants to private and religious groups to replace what he called
"a wasteful federal bureaucracy."
The new administration has not revealed its plans for foreign assistance,
now totaling about $ 15 billion a year, roughly half of which is funneled
through USAID. In confirmation testimony, Secretary of State Colin
L. Powell said he looks forward to working with Helms on reforming the
agency in the hope that the foreign aid budget might actually rise. Powell
praised Helms for being "willing to increase foreign aid funding if we
could find perhaps a new model in which to encourage nongovernmental
organizations to receive that funding."
This series of three articles will examine the aid system that Bush
inherits and the political process that drives it. The series will go on
to explore one of the few areas of growth in aid since the fall of the
Berlin Wall: democracy-building. And it will conclude by showing that much
of the money aimed at foreign development ends up with a handful of
Washington-based contractors that have an inside track with USAID.
Last year, a bewildering variety of lobbies -- ethnically based groups
like the Armenian Assembly of America, agricultural development bodies
such as the Fertilizer Institute and animal preservation organizations
such as the Orangutan Foundation -- fought for a share of the foreign
assistance pie.
Some of the resulting "earmarks," such as $ 1.5 million apiece for the
Orangutan Foundation and the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund, seem politically
innocuous at first glance. On closer inspection, even the apes turn out to
be well connected. Orangutan Foundation board members contribute heavily
to the Democratic Party; the Gorilla Fund includes a major Republican
Party donor.
Last July, environmental groups provided an all-expenses-paid visit to
Namibia for Rep. Sonny Callahan (R-Ala.), chairman of the House
Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations, and two other members
of Congress. The trip was followed by a $ 1 million earmark for the
protection of the local cheetah population. A Callahan aide said the
congressman was "piggybacking" on senatorial support for gorillas and
apes, after securing a promise from the president of Namibia to allow the
export of cheetahs to American zoos.
Many development experts complain that the federal assistance is not going
where it is most needed. USAID officials say that most of the agency's $
7.6 billion budget is eaten up by earmarks of one kind or another,
limiting their freedom of action.
"The overall impact of the U.S. development program has been less than it
could have been," said J. Brian Atwood, who stepped down as the agency's
director in 1999 after six years in the job. "Our ability to analyze the
needs of the countries in which we are working, and manage the funds to
respond to those needs, and create a broader strategy for sustainable
development, has all been harmed by earmarks."
Foreign aid lobbyists discount suggestions that their work corrupts the
process, saying it puts members of Congress in touch with grass-roots
reality.
"The slogan 'Leave it to the professionals' does not leave a good taste in
my mouth," says Ross Vartian, former executive director of the Armenian
Assembly, the most influential of the Armenian lobbying groups. He said
that it had taken his organization three years, from 1994 to 1997, to get
Congress to approve assistance to the Armenian-controlled portion of
Azerbaijan, over the heated objections of USAID professionals.
A decade ago, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) was one of the leading critics
of U.S. foreign aid. Like Helms, he believed that USAID should be either
abolished or folded into the State Department. But his views underwent a
significant change after the Republicans took control of Congress at the
end of 1994, and he became chairman of the Senate Appropriations foreign
operations subcommittee, the panel that funds aid programs.
McConnell has used that position to channel aid money to Kentucky
contractors, such as the University of Louisville and Western Kentucky
University, and to favored environmental causes, such as the Mitch
McConnell Conservation Fund.
And he has reshaped aid allocation to the world at large. Under his
stewardship, aid to Africa and Russia has fallen sharply. At the same
time, three countries in the former Soviet Union -- Ukraine, Georgia and
Armenia -- have enjoyed increased packages, with the public rationale that
they are fledgling democracies on the fringes of the old Russian empire
and need to be shored up.
During McConnell's six years as chairman, he and his colleagues have voted
more than $ 500 million in assistance for Armenia. The 2001 budget
allocation is $ 90 million, down from the record $ 102.4 million in 2000,
but still $ 15 million more than requested by the administration.
Individual earmarks (some inserted at the behest of House members) that
have benefited Armenia include $ 10 million for the American University of
Armenia in the capital Yerevan, $ 15 million for earthquake relief, $ 4
million for nuclear reactor improvements and $ 20 million for
Nagorno-Karabakh, the mountainous enclave in western Azerbaijan largely
inhabited by Armenians and now under Armenian control.
The Armenian connection has proven valuable to McConnell, even though
there are fewer than 300 Armenian Americans in Kentucky, according to
census data. Over the past five years, Armenian American communities in
other states have raised nearly $ 200,000 for him and the Republican Party
in Kentucky, contribution records show. Armenian Americans have also
contributed generously to the National Republican Senatorial Committee,
which McConnell heads.
McConnell declined requests for interviews to discuss his support for
Armenian causes. A senior aide, Robin Cleveland, said the senator began
earmarking funds for Georgia, Armenia and Ukraine after trips to the
region in 1993 and 1995, as "a necessary balance" to the Clinton
administration's "exclusive emphasis" on Russia.
In the past, McConnell has rejected suggestions that his appropriations
decisions are political. At the same time, he has acknowledged the role of
ethnic lobbies. "We have a lot of Jewish Americans who are interested in
Israel, a lot of Armenian Americans who are interested in Armenia, and a
lot of Ukrainian Americans who are interested in Ukraine," he said in a
Senate speech in July 1996. "Boy, when we hear from them, we get real
interested."
One of McConnell's leading supporters in the Armenian American community
is a millionaire bakery owner from California, Albert Boyajian, who has
contributed tens of thousands of dollars to Republican causes. During an
August 1999 fundraising dinner for McConnell, Boyajian recalled, he
tutored the senator on the history and geography of Armenia. He said no
one this century had "helped Armenians and the Armenian nation" more than
McConnell.
Armenian lobbying groups are also active in the House of
Representatives. They have relied in particular on two members of the
House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.) and the
now-retired John Edward Porter (R-Ill.), whose districts include large
ethnic Armenian communities, and the founder of the 97-member Armenian
Caucus, Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.), who received $ 100,000 in Armenian
American contributions for his 1998 House campaign. The House has
generally voted for larger Armenian aid packages than has the Senate.
"Thank God, we have a strong lobby in Washington, a lot of friends," said
Hirair Hovnanian, a New Jersey construction magnate who founded the
Armenian Assembly of America in 1972. The 69-year-old millionaire
businessman is sipping his favorite drink, whiskey on the rocks, in the
luxury home that he recently built in the Armenian hills above Yerevan.
Hovnanian and other leaders of the Armenian American community see foreign
aid as the way to help build a new Armenia from the rubble of the old
Soviet Union. "If it wasn't for USAID money, Armenia would be in very bad
shape," he says. "What Armenia gets is just a drop in the ocean. We give
Israel $ 3.5 billion year after year, no questions asked."
One way in which the assembly drums up political support is by inviting
key Senate and House members on expense-paid visits to Armenia and
Nagorno-Karabakh. McConnell took one such trip in August 1997 with
Boyajian as part of a swing through Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Turkey. He
later said the trip had helped convince him of the need for increased
assistance to both Armenia and Ukraine.
At the same time it spends about $ 200,000 a year lobbying in Washington,
the Armenian Assembly receives millions of dollars in USAID grants. Its
most recent publicly available tax return shows that the organization
received $ 1.28 million in U.S. government grants in 1998, roughly
one-third of its income. Much of this money went to operate a training
center for private organizations in Armenia.
Yet at the same time, USAID sometimes finds itself at odds with the
group. Earlier this year, USAID cut off funds for the training center as
part of a reorganization drive. After the assembly protested on Capitol
Hill, USAID announced a new, $ 2.2 million grant to allow the center to
remain open. USAID officials deny that congressional pressure influenced
their decision.
There also has been debate over how to spend $ 15 million that Congress
set aside for the victims of a devastating earthquake in Armenia. From
USAID's point of view, there were two problems with the earmark: The
earthquake had occurred more than a decade previously and the earthquake
region was already full of unfinished housing projects from Soviet times.
The town of Gyumri, where 15,000 people died in the December 1988 tremor,
has become a graveyard of good intentions and wasted
resources. Cannibalized cranes and abandoned building materials can still
be seen everywhere. In addition, there are plenty of undamaged old
apartments, abandoned by people who moved away from the city and did not
plan to return.
With the help of the Washington-based Urban Institute, USAID came up with
a novel way to satisfy the congressional earmark while also providing
practical assistance. Instead of constructing new units at a cost of $
16,000 to $ 18,000 each -- as some members of the Armenian American lobby
would have preferred -- the agency supported a pilot project to help
people buy existing housing. With $ 3,000 vouchers, recipients had enough
in hand to buy a vacant pre-quake three-room apartment in the center of
the city.
A year later, the Urban Institute program has cleared out some of the
squatter settlements that sprang up in the ruins of Gyumri, moving
families out of makeshift trailers into abandoned apartments. The new
accommodations may not be wonderful, but residents say it beats living in
uninsulated shacks.
In Armenian-controlled Nagorno-Karabakh, USAID has found it more difficult
to implement congressional instructions. Though it has rebuilt many homes
and villages, it has so far spent only $ 12 million of a House earmark of
$ 20 million. After arguing that $ 20 million was greater than the
province of 180,000 people could absorb, USAID officials last fall
grudgingly agreed to release some of the remaining money. The Armenian
Assembly says USAID is reluctant to antagonize Azerbaijan, which continues
to claim sovereignty over the region.
"It is outrageous," said Vartian, the assembly's former head and now
director of development for a proposed Armenia Genocide Museum in
Washington. "They have been finding ways to delay, and avoid implementing
the congressional directive. We have to constantly keep on top of them."
LOAD-DATE: January 24, 2001
Armenia, Azerbaijan to Hold Paris Talks
on Enclave Dispute
YEREVAN, Jan 23, 2001 -- (Agence France Presse) The Armenian and
Azerbaijani presidents, Robert Kocharian and Heydar Aliev, are to discuss
their dispute over the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave Friday in Paris where they
have been invited by President Jacques Chirac, Armenian officials
announced Tuesday.
More than 30,OOO people died and nearly a million were displaced after the
ethnic Armenian majority in Nagorno-Karabakh, a mountainous area located
within Azerbaijan, launched a rebellion in 1988.
A ceasefire was signed in 1994, after Karabakh Armenians, with Yerevan's
assistance, overran the region and a large swathe of Azerbaijani territory
outside, but a final settlement on the enclave's status has remained
elusive.
Copyright 2001 Agence France Presse
Armenian genocide debate abroad hampers Armenian-Azeri settlement -president
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 21, 2001
Text of report in English by Russian news agency Interfax
Baku, 20 January: Baku has been protesting and will protest against
discussions on the so-called "Armenian genocide of 1915" committed by Turkey
that have recently been held at the French and Italian parliaments and the
US Congress, Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev said during a meeting with
an Azerbaijani parliament delegation on Friday [19 January].
These discussions are encouraged by a powerful Armenian diaspora not
interested in the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and
bringing its influence to bear on the state institutions of these countries,
the Azerbaijani president said.
"If everything depended on Armenia and Azerbaijan, the Armenian- Azerbaijani
conflict would have been settled long ago," Aliyev said.
The Azerbaijani head of state delivered a farewell speech to the Azerbaijani
parliament delegation leaving for Strasbourg on Saturday to take part in the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe session. The delegation will
have to work hard at PACE, Aliyev said, adding he sure that it would
worthily represent Azerbaijan at the Council of Europe and defend the
country's national interests.
Source: Interfax news agency, Moscow, in English 0916 gmt 20 Jan 01
AZERBAIJAN, TURKEY TO COORDINATE TACTICS OVER ARMENIANGENOCIDE RECOGNITION.
President Aliev and Azerbaijan's Foreign Minister Vilayat Quliev met on
19-20 January in Bakuwith visiting Turkish Foreign Ministry Under-
Secretary FarukLologlu (a former Turkish ambassador to Azerbaijan) to
discuss drafting a common policy towards Armenia, according
to Trend News Agency on 22 January as cited by Groong. That
coordinated policy will also include joint actions in
response to the resolutions adopted by various national
parliaments condemning the genocide of Armenians in Ottoman
Turkey in 1915. Meanwhile in Yerevan, Armenian Union of
Consumers chairman Arsen Kazarian called for an Armenian
boycott of Turkish consumer goods in response to Ankara's
call for a boycott of French products to protest the French
parliament's condemnation of the genocide, Groong quoted
Snark as reporting on 22 January. LF
RFE/RL NEWSLINE Vol. 5, No. 15, Part I, 23 January 2001
15 - 21 January 2001
Armenia, Azerbaijan Approved for Council of Europe
YEREVAN, Armenia and BAKU, Azerbaijan--The Committee of the Ministers of
the Council of Europe (CoE) voted unanimously to accept Armenia and
Azerbaijan as the organization's 42nd and 43rd members on 17 January. The
ceremony officially inducting the two countries and raising the state
flags will be held on 25 January in Strasbourg, France.
In Baku, Foreign Affairs Minister Vilayat Quliyev indicated that
Azerbaijan's membership will offer "movement on the protection of human
rights," and help in "building civil and pro-Western society." Political
forces in Azerbaijan roundly backed the Azeri candidacy for the CoE.
NATO also came calling, in the first official visits of NATO Secretary
General George Robertson to Armenia and Azerbaijan. The visits, initially
scheduled during the summer of 2000, had to be postponed because of a
deterioration in the situation in the Balkans at that time.
In Armenia, Robertson spoke about the role of NATO in the settlement of
south Caucasian conflicts. He asserted that the responsibility for any
such settlement falls first on the parties in conflict, then on the
Organization for Security and Cooperation of Europe Minsk group and the
UN. Additionally, he indicated that NATO is ready to support peacemaking
efforts within the framework of the Partnership for Peace and
Euro-Atlantic Partnership for Peace agreements.
On 16 January, Robertson met with Armenian President Robert Kocharian and
a number of other governmental officials. The issue of Nagorno-Karabakh
was discussed briefly, but no progress was made.
Later the same day, Robertson traveled to Azerbaijan for similar talks
with Azeri President Heydar Aliyev. The main topic for discussion was the
relationship between Azerbaijan and NATO, but relations between Azerbaijan
and Armenia were also discussed. Robertson reiterated that NATO forces
could only participate on any monitoring of the Nagorno-Karabakh region
under the aegis of the OSCE.
In other Armenian news, on 18 January the French Parliament unanimously
adopted a bill recognizing the Turkish genocide of Armenians in 1915. In
retaliation, Ankara recalled its ambassador to France. The bill's adoption
was praised in the Armenian parliament later on 18 January.
by Anna Hakobyan and Gulnara Ismailova
Copyright 2001 Transitions Online. All rights reserved.
Transitions Online
Overshadowed, Not Forgotten
The Armenian Diaspora gets its second wind, as relations with the homeland
improve over the genocide issue.
by Hovann Simonian
#########################################################################
HL NOTE: The following article incorrectly refers to the massacres in
Eastern Anatolia during the World War I as so called "Armenian Genocide".
Below is one of the many historical rebuttals to the groundless "genocide
claims" by Armenians. For further information, please, visit
http://www.turkishforum.com
"I regret to inform Your Lordship that there was nothing therein which
could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for
trial at Malta. Having regard to this stipulation and the fact that the
reports in the possession of the Department of State do not appear in any
case to contain evidence against these Turks which would be useful even
for the purpose of corroborating information already in possession of His
Majesty's Government, I fear that nothing is to be hoped from addressing
any further inquiries to the United States Government in this matter".
(Foreign Office document 371/6504/E.8519. R.C. Craige , British Embassy in
Washington to Lord Curzon, No. 722, of July 13, 1921.)
"Reports are being freely circulated in the United States that the Turks
massacred thousands of Armenians. Such reports are repeated so many times
that it makes my blood boil. The reports from our own American people,
show that Armenian reports are absolutely false. The circulation of such
false reports in the United States, without refutation, is an outrage."
Mark Bristol, U.S. High Commissioner (Ambassador), Istanbul.
#########################################################################
YEREVAN, Armenia--One of the major issues that has led to tension in the
relations between the Armenian government and its international Diaspora
has been the recognition of the Turkish genocide of Armenians in 1915. For
over a decade, it has been overshadowed by the momentous events in Armenia
surrounding the conflict with neighboring Azerbaijan over the breakaway
Nagorno-Karabakh region. It was also placed on the back burner by the
Diaspora-unfriendly regime of Armenian President Levon Ter Petrossian, who
was more concerned with establishing better ties with Turkey.
Kocharian may soon be celebrating better relations with the Diaspora
photo: Patker Photo Agency/Ruben Mangasaryan (from TOL archive)
But in recent months, the Armenian genocide--the most defining moment in
the collective history and identity of a Diaspora composed of the children
and grandchildren of victims and survivors--has gotten a second wind, both
at home and internationally. Once again, the calls for international
recognition of the Ottoman Turk genocide against Armenians have become the
primary concern of the Diasporan communities around the world. As a
result, the Diaspora's relations with the homeland have taken a turn for
the better, though numerous problems surrounding its role at home still
exist.
The Armenian Diaspora is present in at least 40 countries around the
world. Using rough estimates, the largest communities are in Russia (over
2 million), the United States (1 million), France (400,000), Georgia
(300,000), Iran (150,000), Argentina (120,000), and Lebanon and Canada
(100,000 each). Armenian Diasporans have a reputation for being
well-education and quite successful. Many have made significant names for
themselves abroad: for example, U.S. billionaire Kirk Krikorian, French
executive Serge Tchuruk, who now heads Alcatel after having been in charge
of Total oil company. The genesis of most Diasporan communities can be
directly linked to the Turkish genocide against Armenians--thus making the
genocide issue of utmost importance to Diasporans. In the case of Russia,
the recent increase in the number of Armenians living there is due to
migration from Armenia and Azerbaijan, where living conditions and
on-and-off ethnic conflict continue to push people to seek refuge
elsewhere.
The accession of Robert Kocharian to the Armenian presidency in 1998
signaled a significant advance in the pursuit of genocide recognition and,
consequently, an improvement in the tense relations between the Diaspora
and the homeland. Under Kocharian's predecessor, Ter Petrossian, the
genocide issue was shelved by the newly independent Armenia in the vain
hope of improving relations with Turkey, and pressure was exerted on the
Diaspora to do likewise. However, Ankara refused Yerevan's overtures and
made the establishment of diplomatic and economic ties between the two
countries conditional upon Armenia's relinquishing Karabakh to Azerbaijan.
Under Kocharian, the pursuit of genocide recognition has become an
integral part of Armenia's foreign policy agenda--bringing to an end one
of the primary Diaspora-homeland disagreements. Kocharian made the
affirmation of the Armenian genocide the cause of the entire nation, and
not only of the Diaspora. Kocharian demonstrated his commitment to the
issue in September 2000 at the United Nations Millennium Summit, when he
condemned Turkey's denial of the genocide in his speech. In addition to
healing the rift with the Diaspora, the pursuit of recognition might also
serve as a way for Yerevan to retaliate against Turkey's unwavering
support of Azerbaijan and its refusal to establish diplomatic ties with
Armenia. Also, Kocharian has forged his new policy on the grounds that
healing ties with an internationally wealthy Diaspora could only
strengthen his regime and help to rebuild the country.
The high levels of mobilization over the past few months in both the
United States and Western Europe bear witness to the fact that the
genocide issue has never lost its paramount importance in the hearts and
minds of Diasporan Armenians. But the revival of the pursuit of
recognition actually began much earlier. In addition to Kocharian's rise
to power, a wave of new historical research in the 1980s and 1990s on the
Armenian genocide have greatly contributed to the renewed momentum.
In recent years, a considerable amount of historical research has been
published, which has translated into nearly unanimous support in academic
circles for the validity of the Turkish genocide against Armenians. That
fact was admitted by no less a figure than Sukru Elekdag, the former
Turkish ambassador in Washington, who stated that the ranks of American
scholars actively defending the Turkish thesis that no genocide took place
have been so depleted that they have been reduced to just one
individual: Justin McCarthy, a Missouri-based history professor.
The weakness of the revisionist position could also explain why the
Turkish reaction to the Armenian campaign has mostly consisted of threats
rather than of attempts to dispute Armenian accusations with historical
arguments. In addition, increasingly self-confident Diasporan communities
have come to recognize their political and economic power within their
adopted homelands. Politicians from Beirut to Marseilles to Los Angeles
know that they need the financial support and the votes of their Armenian
constituents to ensure electoral victory and are consequently pushing the
genocide issue forward. Also, the raising of the issue in one country has
tended to have a snowball effect, stimulating communities in other
countries to emulate their compatriots' example.
DIASPORAN FATIGUE
Problems remain between the Diaspora and the homeland, however. Corruption
left over from the Soviet era took on massive proportions during the Ter
Petrossian years, and has continued unabated under Kocharian. Funds
collected by the Diaspora to help the homeland have often failed to reach
their intended destination--going instead to line the pockets of corrupt
officials who have adopted conspicuously lavish lifestyles, while the rest
of the population has lived in utter poverty or has been forced to migrate
abroad.
Diasporan businessmen who invested in Armenia became the victims of both
official and unofficial corruption--often losing their entire
investment. As a result, the sense of trust has been destroyed and the
huge economic potential of the Diaspora has remained idle. In the
meantime, a phenomenon referred to as "Armenia fatigue" has taken root in
the Diaspora, and the conviction that little or nothing can be done for
the homeland has become widespread. An alienated Diaspora found it hard to
believe warnings that pushing the genocide issue would be harmful to the
homeland. Instead, the Diaspora perceived that large-scale corruption,
mass migration, rigged elections, and political assassinations constituted
the real threats to Armenian statehood. The inability--or
unwillingness--of successive Armenian governments to attract Diasporans to
rebuild the homeland left untapped a large pool of talent and energy that
was available for service in the genocide recognition campaign.
Despite its importance, however, harmony on the genocide issue is not
sufficient to solve all the differences between the Diaspora and the
government. Suspicions about dishonest officials and racketeers of all
sorts have prevented a significant increase in Diasporan investment. At
the same time, confidence the country's stability--badly shaken after the
October 1999 assassinations in Armenian Parliament --has not been
restored.
Along those same lines, agreement on the genocide issue between the
Diaspora and the government should not be interpreted as a manifestation
of increased Diasporan influence on Armenian affairs. The Ter Petrossian
regime failed to conceive homeland-Diaspora relations in any dimension
other than that of financial support--giving rise to the bitter feeling
that the Diaspora was little more than a sugar daddy for the Armenian
government. Ter Petrossian criticized the Diaspora for not donating enough
money to the government. The regime also blamed the Diaspora for
attempting to influence Armenian politics--especially with regards to the
genocide issue and relations with Turkey. During the final days of the
Soviet era, three Diasporan political parties had returned to
Armenia--most notably, the nationalist Armenian Revolutionary Federation
(ARF), which became one of Ter Petrossian's main political opponents. Its
leader was expelled in 1992 for conducting political activities while
being a "Greek citizen," and in 1994 the party was outlawed and some of
its members imprisoned on charges of organizing terrorist acts.
IMPROVED RELATIONS
The situation has improved with Kocharian--at least in words, if not in
deeds. The ARF was legalized again, and its leaders liberated. Unlike his
predecessor, Kocharian does not chastise the Diaspora every time the
opportunity arises, and he does not attempt to use it as a scapegoat to
cover up his own government's failures. However, the influence of the
Diaspora over the conduct of Yerevan's foreign and domestic policies has
remained limited. While it is clearly understood by most Diasporans that
decisions concerning the future of the country should be made by the
people who live there, there is a desire for a better definition of
homeland-Diaspora relations. As for the ARF, its power has remained
minimal, while its support for Kocharian has dwindled due to the country's
catastrophic economic situation and the government's inability to
implement reforms.
The opinions of the citizens of Armenia on the pursuit of genocide
recognition have not been frequently heard during the past few months. For
the average resident struggling to make ends meet, genocide affirmation is
not an everyday preoccupation. That said, very few Armenians accept the
argument heard in Turkish and Western circles that the opening of borders
with Turkey would contribute to a substantial improvement in their living
standards, and that consequently, they should yield on the genocide
issue. Turks and their allies would have to explain why the average
citizen of Georgia and Azerbaijan is still as poor as his Armenian
counterpart--if ties with Turkey are a panacea to all the economic
problems of the former Soviet republics of the Caucasus.
The recent Armenian victories in European legislative bodies--France ,
Italy, and the European Union Parliament have officially recognized the
genocide --have had a curative effect on Diaspora-homeland relations, as
well as on the Diaspora's internal political climate. The conflict over
Nagorno-Karabakh, the disastrous condition of the economy, and mass
migration, however, constitute the main problems of the Homeland, while
the Diaspora is confronted with the struggle of Armenian cultural survival
in an era of intensifying globalization.
Hovann Simonian is a Ph.D. candidate in the department of political
science of the University of Southern California (USC). He is Swiss of
Armenian origin and the co-author (with R. Hrair Dekmejian) of "Troubled
Waters: The Geopolitics of the Caspian Region" which will be published by
I.B. Tauris in London, and the editor of "The Hemshins," also forthcoming
this year, which will be published by Curzon Press of London, as part of
their Peoples of the Caucasus series.
Copyright 2001 Transitions Online. All rights reserved.
Azeri foreign minister says no concessions
on territorial integrity
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 22, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani TV station ANS on 20 January
[Presenter] The bill adopted by the French parliament still has to be
submitted to the Constitutional Court of this country to be ratified within
two weeks. France will officially recognize the so-called Armenian genocide
of 1915 if the Constitutional Court ratifies this bill, Azerbaijani Foreign
Minister Vilayat Quliyev has said.
[Correspondent over video showing French parliament] According to
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Vilayat Quliyev, Azerbaijan believes that the
French parliament's decision to recognize the Armenian genocide was a
mistake. He said that there was no doubt that Azerbaijan's position would be
made clear to France.
[Vilayat Quliyev] The adoption of such a bill by one of the cochairmen of
the OSCE Minsk Group, France, cannot be considered permissible. This could
certainly have a negative impact on settlement of the Azerbaijani-Armenian
conflict. A country which is a cochairman should not take up any position on
this issue.
[Correspondent] Vilayat Quliyev commented as follows on the meeting to take
place between the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents, in the presence of
French President Jacques Chirac: This meeting shows a stepping up of
France's activity as an OSCE Minsk Group cochairman, but I do not believe
that there will be any change.
[Correspondent] The foreign minister believes that any chance of improvement
depends on the proposals put forward at the meeting. The minister said that
there would be an improvement in the negotiations if there were proposals
for a just settlement of the conflict. Touching upon Azerbaijan's proposals
for this meeting, Vilayat Quliyev said:
[Vilayat Quliyev] We are not intending to make any proposals, because
Azerbaijan has already made all possible proposals. We are expecting
proposals from the Armenian side and from France, which is a cochairman of t
he OSCE Minsk Group and initiated the holding of this meeting in its
capital.
[Correspondent] Vilayat Quliyev said that compromises are needed to resolve
any conflict, however, Azerbaijan can make no compromises to resolve the
Nagornyy Karabakh conflict which could violate Azerbaijan's internationally
recognized laws or its territorial integrity. According to Mr Quliyev, the
position of the Azerbaijani side on this issue is firm. Compromises can only
be made on the status of Nagornyy Karabakh and the rights of the Armenian
minority in this enclave. The foreign minister said that there was nothing
more Azerbaijan could concede.
Natavan Babayeva, Qanira Pasayeva, Sahin Kazimzada ANS
Source: ANS TV, Baku, in Azeri 1700 gmt 20 Jan 01
Azerbaijan holds NATO should attache more importance
on the Upper Karabakh conflict's settlement
Baku 01.17.01. /AzadInform/. Yesterday the head of state Heydar Aliyev hosted the NATO secretary general Lord George Robertson. Mr. President laid stress one more Azerbaijan appears for establishment of peace in the Caucasian region and throughout the world. He imparted to the NATO official about the current state of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict on Upper Karabakh and declared all international organizations including NATO should attach a big importance upon the conflict's resolution because this is not a problem between two ethnic groups or national minorities of one state but it's a serious conflict between two independent states sharing the membership in UN, OSCE and Partnership for Peace program.
Mr. Robertson expressed his gratitude to the President for participation of the Azeri detachment in Kocovo peacemaking operations. He mentioned NATO couldn't be engage in the Upper Karabakh problem's settlement and stated if conflicting sides are not able to settle the conflict for a long time they won't get rid of economic, social and military problems accompanied the conflict.
OSCE and Minsk Group can help to find resolution meeting interests of both sides. I appreciate the Russian President's visit to Azerbaijan and his readiness to take upon himself a mediator part in the problem's settlement. NATO will also support all international efforts to help to decide the conflict anyway, the NATO official declared.
AzadInform #11(609) 01/17/01
NATO has to choose between pro-Russian Armenia, pro-Western Azerbaijan -
paper
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 16, 2001
Text of Aziz Mustafa report by Azerbaijani newspaper Zaman entitled "Will
NATO embrace Azerbaijan?"
NATO Secretary-General [Lord] George Robertson's visit to Azerbaijan will
make it clear how our country's relations with this structure will develop
in the future, as well as whether our country will opt for military
cooperation with NATO or Russia to solve the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict.
Azerbaijan, like other former Soviet republics, places a great deal of faith
in NATO for preserving its independence. At the same time, the majority of
well-known political scientists in Azerbaijan, including former State
Foreign Policy Adviser Vafa Quluzada, believe that in order to eliminate the
threat created by the Russia-Armenia military alliance, it is inevitable
that NATO military bases should be deployed on the Abseron [peninsula] or
Azerbaijan should become a member. However, Azerbaijan is sticking to a more
guarded position on the issue of NATO membership and prefers to follow a
policy that would not irritate Russia.
[subhead] Robertson to pay a familiarization visit
Although Azerbaijan has on many occasions voiced its readiness to develop
its relations with NATO, the leadership of this body has a mixed attitude
towards our country. Today, NATO is pursuing a balanced policy towards both
Azerbaijan and Armenia, and in many cases even supports the aggressor. It is
no coincidence that in the run-up to his visit to Azerbaijan, Robertson has
clarified another point in NATO's position on the Nagornyy Karabakh issue.
He said that NATO did not intend to get involved in settlement of the
Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. Many local political scientists have assessed
this statement by Robertson as clear evidence of the double standards of
NATO, as well as other international organizations, in the region. At the
same time, Russian naval exercises in the Caspian following [Russian
President Vladimir] Putin's visit to Azerbaijan have created a real threat
to US strategic interests in the Caspian.
[subhead] What will the visit give us?
There is no doubt that Robertson's visit to Azerbaijan will, primarily,
boost our country's international image. It cannot be ruled out that
Robertson's visit to Azerbaijan will give an impetus to the further
development of ties between our country and this body at a higher level. And
finally, Robertson's visit to Azerbaijan provides the latter with great
scope to manoeuvre between Russia and NATO. Putin's visit has shown that if
Azerbaijan does not get the expected assistance from the West, it could try
to expand both its military and economic partnership with Russia. Therefore,
it cannot be ruled out that during Robertson's visit to our country, NATO
and the West will show a more unbiased stance towards Baku in terms of our
country's role in the region. This will allow Azerbaijan to take better
advantage of the struggle in the region between the West and Russia to solve
its own problems.
[subhead] Whom will NATO choose?
So, NATO has to make a choice, after pursuing a balanced policy for the last
eight years between Azerbaijan - which has chosen economic, political and
military integration into the West, and Armenia - which has become Russia's
military shield against NATO in the South Caucasus. As was the case in the
Balkans, NATO has either to get actively involved in solving ethnic
conflicts in the South Caucasus, or to announce its noninterference in
Russia's strategic military interests in the region. If NATO refuses to play
an active part in solving ethnic conflicts in the region, the West will lose
not only the South Caucasus, but Central Asia as well. For this reason, the
visit by NATO Secretary-General George Robertson to the South Caucasus will
make clear whether NATO will choose Azerbaijan, which is of strategic
importance to the West, or Russia's military ally - Armenia.
Source: Zaman, Baku, in Azeri 16 Jan 01 p 3
Refugees and IDPs from Azerbaijani occupied
territories total 791 824 men
Baku 01.11.01. /AzadInform/. Due to data to 31 December of 2000, refugees and
IDPs from Azerbaijani provinces occupied by Armenian Armed Forces total 791 824 men, the State Statistics Committee reports. This is 190 743 families of which 46 172 families (19 373 men) are refugees and 144 571 families (572 451men)- IDPs.
Refugees and IDPs are settled in the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, 11
districts of Baku city, Gandja, Sumgait, Mingechaur, Ali Bayramlu cities and 17 provinces of the republic.
AzadInform #07(605) 01/11/01
NATO BELIEVES IN PUTIN CONTRIBUTION TO
GARABAGH SETTLEMENT
The NATO Secretary general George Robertson, currently in Baku on an
official visit, told a news briefing following a meeting with President
Aliyev Tuesday, when asked of his attitude toward Russian President Putins
suggestion concerning Russias mediation in the Garabagh settlement, that
the statement illustrates Moscows determination to contribute to the
solution of the protracted conflict.
Mr. Robertson underscored the importance of a fair settlement.
Asked whether the NATO enlargement could lead to a stand-off with Russia,
Lord Robertson answered that Russia cannot oppose the acceptance of
sovereign countries to NATO.
In response to the question whether Russo-Azeri military cooperation could
affect Azerbaijans relations with NATO, Mr. Robertson replied, I see no
conflict of interests here.
Regarding the possibility of NATOs participation in front-line monitoring,
Mr. Robertson said, NATO forces can take part in this only on the
initiative of the OSCE.
Copyright 2001 AssA-Irada
[AZERBAIJANI, RUSSIAN PRESIDENTS ] DISCUSS
KARABAKH CONFLICT, ARMS.
Putin said after his talks with Aliev that Russia is ready to mediate a
solution to the Karabakh conflict "without victors or vanquished," and
will act as a guarantor of any peace agreement reached, Interfax reported.
He said the optimum approach to resolving the conflict is to continue the
"realistic and sensible" dialogue between the Armenian and Azerbaijani
presidents, according to Turan on 10 January. That position corresponds
fully to that of the OSCE Minsk Group, whose Russian co-chairman Nikolai
Gribkov accompanied Putin to Baku. Putin characterized as "a forced
measure" the transfer to Russia's military base in Armenia of weaponry
withdrawn from its Vaziani base in Georgia, which is to be closed by 1
July 2001, Interfax reported. He told journalists that the revised CFE
treaty allows Russia to maintain a certain amount of weaponry in the
region. He reasoned that since "Russia's military presence in the Caucasus
is still necessary," Moscow has "no choice" but to deploy those arms in
Armenia if it can no longer to do in Georgia. LF
RFE/RL Transcaucasia Newsline, January 10, 2001
Russian foreign minister says Moscow cannot be indifferent to Karabakh
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 10, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani TV station ANS on 9 January
[Presenter] Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov; the Russian cochairman of
the OSCE Minsk Group, Nikolay Gribkov; and Security Council Secretary Sergey
Gribkov, who are accompanying Russian President Vladimir Putin on his visit
to Baku, have also voiced their opinions on ways to resolve the Nagornyy
Karabakh problem. [ANS correspondent] Etibar Mammadov has a detailed report:
[Correspondent over video of Igor Ivanov and Azerbaijani envoy to Moscow
Ramiz Rizayev, talking to each other] The Azerbaijani and Armenian
presidents have had 12 tete-a-tete meetings. The Russian leadership sees
this as an effective way of finding advantageous solutions for the Nagornyy
Karabakh problem. Here is what Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said:
[Igor Ivanov in Russian, with Azeri voice-over] Naturally, we are interested
in the resolution of this problem, which has been going on for 10 years.
Despite the fact that the conflict is between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Russia
cannot remain indifferent to the problem. Because Russia is interested in a
stable, secure and great Caucasus.
[Correspondent over video of unidentified village] Russian Foreign Minister
Igor Ivanov said that the options offered by Kazimirov or Petrov were not
considered. The main option will be shaped by the Azerbaijani and Armenian
presidents. The Karabakh problem was discussed in the talks between the
Azerbaijani and Russian security secretaries, Ramiz Mehdiyev and Sergey
Ivanov, too.
[Sergey Ivanov in Russian, with Azeri voice-over] Russia views the situation
of neither peace nor war in Nagornyy Karabakh with regret and concern. It is
high time to resolve this issue.
[Correspondent over video of Nikolay Gribkov] The Russian cochairman of the
OSCE Minsk Group, Nikolay Gribkov, is not sure that the sides would be
completely satisfied with any decision adopted in connection with the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. But Mr Gribkov believes that a compromise
could satisfy the conflicting sides' legal interests and partially remove
their concerns. The Russian cochairman said that up to now the OSCE Minsk
Group had worked out three proposals for the settlement of the problem.
[Nikolay Gribkov] We regret that the proposals put forward were rejected for
some reason. However, we believe that there are important elements in those
proposals that could help the Azerbaijanis and Armenians reach a compromise.
[Correspondent over video of an unidentified village] Three proposals
submitted by the OSCE Minsk Group are on the agenda. The obligation of the
conflicting sides is to study these proposals again and to take elements
from them which could serve as a basis acceptable to both sides. Gribkov
believes that it is possible to facilitate the search for a lasting peace on
the basis of those elements.
[Nikolay Gribkov in Russian, with Azeri voice-over] We believe that freezing
the conflict is a heavy burden for both the Azerbaijanis and the Armenians.
The activities of the Minsk Group have changed things somewhat. We are
expecting signals from the presidents. The cochairmen believe that nobody
from the outside will submit a specific proposal. It is impossible to make
any decisions on behalf of the sides. In such an event, peace reached on the
basis of such a decision would not be lasting.
[Correspondent over video of mountain] Hope should not be lost, Nikolay
Gribkov said and added that the cochairmen were not sitting around
idle-handed. They are conducting regular consultations in connection with
the settlement of the problem.
AzadInform #07(605) 01/11/01
Putin calls for Karabakh peace "without
winners or losers"
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 9, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani TV station ANS on 9 January
[Presenter] Russian President Vladimir Putin's official visit to Azerbaijan
started today. The current official visit to Baku is the first visit by a
Russian president to Azerbaijan after the collapse of the USSR. A number of
interstate and intergovernment agreements were signed in the course of the
visit. The Baku declaration of the Azerbaijani and Russian presidents is of
particular importance, as well as an agreement on the status of the Caspian
Sea. [Azerbaijani President] Heydar Aliyev and Vladimir Putin discussed
prospects for the development of bilateral relations in the political,
economic, cultural and humanitarian spheres. The problem of the settlement
of the Karabakh problem was touched upon at the meeting. Vladimir Putin
noted that Russia was attentively following this problem. He also said that
he pinned great hopes on the direct dialogue between the Azerbaijani and
Armenian presidents.
[Vladimir Putin] We fully realize how painful the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict
is for Azerbaijan. We are most attentively following the development of the
situation surrounding this conflict. We are seriously concerned at the lack
of real progress regarding its settlement. It is impossible to remain
indifferent to the fate of numerous refugees who have been outside normal
life for almost 10 years now. In this connection, I would like to state that
both independently and within the framework of the cochairmanship of the
OSCE Minsk Group Russia will continue its efforts aimed at finding a speedy
solution to the Karabakh knot. In addition to everything else, the
protracted situation which can be characterized as neither war not peace
hinders the development of our relations with both Azerbaijan and Armenia,
and with other countries of the Transcaucasus. Our aim is to help achieve a
peace without winners and without losers.
Source: ANS TV, Baku, in Russian 1600 gmt 09 Jan 01
Putin tries to allay Azeri fears of Russian arms redeployment to Armenia
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 9, 2001
[Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev and Russian President Vladimir Putin
held a press conference after introductory speeches which followed the
signing of a number of agreements between the two states on 9 January in
Baku. The press conference and the signing ceremony were broadcast live on
Azerbaijani state television at 1400 gmt. The following is one the questions
to the Russian president at the press conference]
[Correspondent for Azerbaijani Lider TV and radio Murad Huseynov, in
Russian] The question is for Mr President Putin. Several years ago the mass
media published reports on illegal supplies of Russian arms to Armenia to
the value of more than 1bn dollars. Currently the press is clamouring about
the transfer of Russian military hardware from Georgia to Armenia. Do you
think that this will tarnish Russia's image as one of the members of the
[OSCE] Minsk Group and disrupt stability in the region? Thank you.
[Putin] I will answer your question and I am even grateful that you asked it
because Russia's position on this needs an explanation. As for the supplies
of arms, as you know, the official stance of the Russian side was and is
that this all has to do with the division of the military property and arms
of the Soviet Union. One can either agree with this or not. I am telling you
about the official stance. You know that even a relevant criminal case was
instituted and an investigation into it was held. But this issue is still in
the field of vision of the Russian leadership.
As for the current relocation of some military hardware to Russian bases in
Armenia, this indeed warrants a special explanation. First, this hardware is
not just being relocated to Armenia - and it is not being given to the
Armenian side - but is under Russian control and it is being transferred to
a Russian military base.
Now about why this is happening. In accordance with renewed international
agreements on conventional weapons in Europe, Russia has the right to deploy
a certain amount of military hardware, including armoured hardware, in this
part of the world. Since our Georgian partners are raising the issue of the
withdrawal of a part of Russian arms from Georgia - and we believe that the
current situation in the world is such that a Russian military presence in
the Caucasus is currently necessary - we have no other choice - I want to
underline this - but to redeploy this hardware to another point in the
Transcaucasus, to our military base in Armenia. If the Georgian side wanted
to keep this hardware in Georgia, it would have stayed there. This has
nothing to do with mutual relations between Armenia and Georgia. Though we
understand that this does not make anybody happy. Believe me that this
brings no joy to the Russian side either. I repeat that this is a forced
step linked with the stance of our partners, our partners in the negotiating
process on the future of the Russian bases on Georgian territory. But I once
again underline that this hardware is under the strict control of the
Russian armed forces.
Source: Azerbaijani TV, Channel One, Baku, in Russian 1400 gmt 09 Jan 01
Russian president tells Azeris compromise is solution for Karabakh
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 9, 2001
[Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev and Russian President Vladimir Putin
held a press conference after introductory speeches which followed the
signing of a number of agreements between the two states on 9 January in
Baku. The press conference and the signing ceremony were broadcast live on
Azerbaijani state television at 1400 gmt. A correspondent of the Azerbaijani
state news agency AzerTac was the first to ask a question, which she
addressed to Vladimir Putin]
[Correspondent Nargiz Sadixova, in Russian] My question is for Russian
President Mr Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. Mr President, we know about your
statement that Russia sees the resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani - the
Nagornyy Karabakh - conflict as based on the principle of observance of the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Russia is one of the cochairs of the
OSCE Minsk Group for a peaceful settlement to this conflict. What steps will
Russia take towards a peaceful settlement of the conflict in the near
future?
[Vladimir Putin] You very correctly recalled that we are participants in the
work of the Minsk Group, and we will continue our efforts within the
framework of this structure. But, we reached agreement today with
Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyevich Aliyev that Russia will increase the
intensity of its bilateral relations with both Azerbaijan and Armenia. We
spoke about certain options for achieving a possible compromise. This
process is a complex one and for this reason I am not ready to speak about
the details right now. But details exist and, certainly, reaching agreement
on such complex matters is always a compromise, and compromise means mutual
concessions. It is clear that the situation which the two states are
currently in can suit neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan.
I want to assure you of the following - Russia is not interested in the
preservation of such a situation. Russia believes that we should all aspire
for a stable situation in the Caucasus and the Transcaucasus. Only such a
situation can allow us to normally develop relations with everybody. So far
the very existence of this conflict and the situation we are in does not
give us the opportunity to fully develop relations either with Azerbaijan or
with Armenia. Such a situation cannot suit Russia and we will consistently
aspire to find a compromise.
Source: Azerbaijani TV, Channel One, Baku, in Russian 1400 gmt 09 Jan 01
Putin's visit not to accelerate Karabakh resolution
- Azeri foreign minister
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jan 9, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency Turan
Baku, 9 January: Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Vilayat Quliyev described
Russian President Vladimir Putin's official visit to Azerbaijan, which began
today, as an important event for Azerbaijan. Speaking about the bilateral
documents to be signed, Quliyev stressed the importance of the Baku
declaration and joint statement by the presidents of the two countries on
the status of the Caspian Sea. However, Quliyev did not give details of the
agreement and said that he was not a specialist in this area. At the same
time, Quliyev described the document in question as a step ahead compared to
a similar agreement signed earlier between Russia and Kazakhstan.
The Azerbaijani foreign minister said that the joint statement would support
the principle that "water is common property, but we share its depth". Asked
about the length of the maritime border zone, Quliyev said it was the
question of the future.
At the same time, the sides have not reached agreement on the fate of the
Qabala radar station. Quliyev said that Azerbaijan had certain demands and
that we want them to be implemented. Asked if Azerbaijan had offered to
lease this facility to Russia, Quliyev said that there were various options.
As far as the Karabakh issue is concerned, Quliyev said that this would be
discussed in the meeting between the two presidents. However, the minister
said that a breakthrough should not be expected on this issue. "The Russian
president's arrival should not be linked to immediate progress. Progress
depends on us," Quliyev said.
Source: Turan news agency, Baku, in Russian 1150 gmt 09 Jan 01
Referred from Habarlar-L
Note: You will need Azeri fonts in order to be able to read the news in Azeri language.
