updated
Prisoners of war and hostages held in Armenia
and Nagorno-Karabakh
Doc. 9063
25 April 2001
Motion for a recommendation
presented by Mrs Hajiyeva and others
This motion has not been discussed in the Assembly and commits only the
members who have signed it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. As a result of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict started in 1988,
which later led to the military aggression of Armenia against Azerbaijan,
approximately 20 percent of the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan
was occupied.
2. According to the information given on 10 April 2001 as a
consequence of this occupation 4 959 persons have been vanished, 1 092
persons out of this number were released (from 1992 to 2001) and according
to the same information from the International Red Cross Committee, 176
persons are deceased.
3. But what is more important at present is that there are 783
captives, including 18 children, 43 women and 56 older men on the
territory of Armenia and occupied Azerbaijani lands. Nevertheless, the
Armenian side rejects this fact.
4. It is more than 6 months that the International Red Cross
Committee, according to its own information, is not able to visit those
captives.
5. It is already three months since Azerbaijan and Armenia became
full members of the Council of Europe, and the presence of this amount of
captives who do not have even any basic human rights on the territory of
the country that is a member of the Council of Europe is unacceptable.
6. According to the stories of the witnesses who were released
from captivity, all the captives are in slavery, constantly outraged and
tortured. They do not get any normal food and necessary medical care.
7. The Assembly calls on the Committee of Ministers to ensure
implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights on the territory
of its member state, Armenia and the occupied lands of Azerbaijan by using
all the means at its disposal.
8. The Assembly calls on the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human
Rights to appoint a rapporteur on the issue of finding a solution to this
problem as soon as possible;
Signed : [1]
Hajiyeva, Azerbaijan, EPP/CD
Aliyev I., Azerbaijan, EDG
Arzilli, San Marino, EPP/CD
B?rsony, Hungary, SOC
Cilevics, Latvia, SOC
Gamzatova, Russia, UEL
Glesener, Luxembourg, EPP/CD
Guardans, Spain, LDR
G?lek, Turkey, SOC
G?rkan, Turkey, SOC
Haupert, Luxembourg, EPP/CD
Jurgens, Netherlands, SOC
Kirkhill, United Kingdom, SOC
Landsbergis, Lithuania, EDG
Mart?nez Casa?, Spain, EPP/CD
Mikaelsson, Sweden, UEL
Rakhansky, Ukraine, UEL
Seyidov, Azerbaijan, EDG
Shaklein, Russia, UEL
Stoisits, Austria, SOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] SOC: Socialist Group
EPP/CD: Group of the European Peoples Party
EDG: European Democratic Group
LDR : Liberal, Democratic and Reformers Group
UEL: Group of the Unified European Left
NR: not registered in a group
Recognition of the genocide perpetrated against
the Azeri population by the Armenians
Doc. 9066
26 April 2001
Written Declaration No. 324
This written declaration commits only the members who have signed it
---------------------------------
Genocide became an integral part of the Azeri history starting from the
partition of the Azeri lands with the treaties of Gulustan in 1813 and
Turkmenchay in 1828.
The Armenians carried out massacres against the Azeris in 1905-1907 in
order to achieve #147;the Greater Armenia#148;.
In March 1918 the Armenians purged the Azeris from Baku, Shamakhy, Guba,
Garabakh, Zangezur, Nakhchivan, Lankaran and other regions of Azerbaijan.
With the help of the Soviet regime, Armenia annexed Zangezur and other
Azeri lands in 1920.
The Communist regime deported the Azeri population from their historical
lands in Armenia to Azerbaijan from 1948-1953.
>From the beginning of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in 1988 hundreds of
thousands of Azeris were deported from their historical lands.
On 26 February 1992, Armenians massacred the whole population of Khodjaly
and fully destroyed the city.
Armenian separatism in Nagorno-Karabakh and the ongoing Armenian
occupation of 20 per cent of the Azeri territory has resulted in thousands
of deaths and more than a million refugees.
The undersigned, members of the Assembly, appeal to all the members of the
Parliamentary Assembly to take the necessary steps to recognise the
genocide perpetrated by the Armenians against the Azeri population from
the beginning of the 19th Century.
Signed [1] :
Aliyev �, Azerbaijan, EDG
Ak�al�, Turkey, EDG
Akg�nen�, Turkey, EDG
Aliyev G., Azerbaijan, EDG
Begaj, Albania, SOC
Cerraho�lu, Turkey, EDG
Davis, United Kingdom, SOC
Dokle, Albania, SOC
Glesener, Luxembourg, EPP/CD
G�l, Turkey, EDG
G�lek, Turkey, SOC
G�rkan, Turkey, SOC
Hajiyeva, Azerbaijan, EPP/CD
Huseynov R., Azerbaijan, EPP/CD
�brahimov, Azerbaijan, UEL
�rtem�elik, Turkey, EDG
Iw�nski, Poland, SOC
Kalkan, Turkey, EDG
Loutfi, Bulgaria, LDR
Mutman, Turkey, SOC
Polo?hani, #147;the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia#148;, EDG
Saele, Norway, EPP/CD
Sa�lam, Turkey, EPP/CD
Seyidov, Azerbaijan, EDG
Shakhtakhtinskaya, Azerbaijan, EDG
Tan�k, Turkey, EDG
Taylor, United Kingdom, EPP/CD
Telek, Turkey, EDG
Vakilov, Azerbaijan, EDG
_________________
Total = 29
---------------------------------
1 SOC: Socialist Group
EPP/CD: Group of the European People#146;s Party
EDG:European Democratic Group
LDR : Liberal, Democratic and Reformers#146; Group
UEL : Group of the Unified European Left
NR : Not registered in a group
ARMENIA REJECTS AZERBAIJANI RULE IN KARABAKH.
In an interview with Reuters released on 26 April, Armenian Foreign
Minister Oskanian said that Yerevan "will not accept any subjugation of
Nagorno-Karabakh" to Baku. He said, however, that Armenia is
prepared to consider "anything on the level of horizontal ties."
PG
RFE/RL NEWSLINE Vol. 5, No. 82, Part I, 27 April 2001
Turkic summit declaration to address Karabakh problem.
By Sevindzh Abdullayeva and Viktor Shulman
DATELINE: BAKU, April 25
The Karabakh conflict settlement will be reflected in the final document,
declaration, of the 7th Turkic summit meeting to be held in Istanbul on
April 26-27, Azerbaijani President Geidar Aliyev said on Wednesday before
flying to Turkey.
At the same time, he believes that the Karabakh settlement will be a
matter of broad discussion in Istanbul.
Considering the experience of previous meetings, the heads of some Turkic
states think that this forum should not be politicised.
But Aliyev said that he "always used and will use any opportunity to draw
the attention of the international public to the Karabakh problem", which
is the most painful problem for his country.
The summit's final document will also reflect questions of strengthening
cooperation among Turkic states in the economic, scientific and cultural
spheres, he said.
Aliyev noted that he will also have a one-to-one meeting with Turkish
President Ahmet Necdet Sezer in Istanbul.
TASS
April 25, 2001, Wednesday 10:00 AM Eastern Time
Azeris tell Council of Europe Karabakh involved
in terrorism, drugs trade
SOURCE: ANS TV, Baku, in Azeri 1600 gmt 24 Apr 01
Presenter As we reported, in a address to a session of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe PACE the head of the Azerbaijani
delegation and son of Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev , MP Ilham
Aliyev, spoke about the Nagornyy Karabakh problem. As we promised, we
present an interview with the member of the Azerbaijani delegation and
chairman of the standing parliamentary commission for foreign affairs and
interparliamentary ties , Samad Seidov, in connection with this:
Seidov, on the telephone The head of the Azerbaijani delegation addressed
the PACE. The speech directly concerned Nagornyy Karabakh and the occupied
districts of Azerbaijan and the processes under way in Nagornyy
Karabakh. The focus was on the illegal structures functioning in Nagornyy
Karabakh, the criminal situation, training of terrorist groups, narcotics
etc. These processes are completely beyond the control of the
international community, especially the European Union. So, this speech
was very important from this point of view. Ilham Aliyev told the PACE
session about the 20 per cent of Azerbaijan's territory under occupation
and nearly one million refugees. He once again drew the PACE's attention
to this problem. As a result of this speech, one of the key rapporteurs of
the Council of Europe said that, yes, crime is rife in a situation where
illegal structures are functioning, i.e. the self-styled Nagornyy Karabakh
Republic.
BBC Monitoring Trans Caucasus Unit
Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring
April 25, 2001, Wednesday
OCCUPIED AZERI TERRITORIES UNDER THE CONTROL BY NARCOMAFIA
By Farhad MAMMADOV
There are produced and sold drugs at the territories of Azerbaijan occupied by Armenia, and Armenia, as well as so-called Armenian government structures in Upper Karabakh get a large amount of profit from its selling. Ali Hasanov, deputy Prime Minister of Azerbaijan, has given this sensational statement on April 24. In his words, the UN office of Drugs Control has already been given information about this fact and the office has stated that the question being new for them would be investigated. And a high-rang colleague of the Azerbaijani Ministry of National Security continued the opinions of Hasanov saying that Iran also has a great role in using of the occupied Azeri territories as a drug transit.
It is notable that at the moment 132 kilometer part of Azerbaijani borders with Iran is under the control of Armenian armed units. In the words of the colleague of Ministry, they have sufficient facts about transferring great part of drugs through that territory by Iran and exporting them to Europe from there. In addition, Iran is dealing with drugs exporting to other territories of Azerbaijan, too. He thinks that by increasing the turnover of drugs in the territories of Azerbaijan Iran is planning to use of this for its political and other goals in future.
According to the revealed figures of official bodies, selling and using of drugs at the southern regions of Azerbaijan frontier with Iran composes 54 percent of such instances on the country in general. But 70 percent of criminal cases raised on the contraband drugs belong to the Iranian citizens. In addition, in many instances Iran passes a large amount of drugs to the Nakhchivan province of Azerbaijan under the name of humanitarian aid. In particular, the drugs are passed from Afghanistan to Iran and from there to Azerbaijan, and later are passed to Western Europe.
It should be noted that Iran's main role in drug transit to Europe is not a new fact. These facts were included into the report of the U.S. Department of State for 2000, at the same time, there was stressed that Iran used of the territory of Azerbaijan for drugs transit. But the statements of the Azerbaijani government officials inform on more dangerous moments. Being a part of Azerbaijani-Iranian territory under the control of Armenian occupants and not well defending the rest part ensures free move of narcomafia. Thus the Azeri customs' service is considered a state structure, where the corruption has spread much more, drugs' merchants protected by Iran can use easily of the territory of Azerbaijan by paying bribes. But contraband does not finish only with drugs; it is not also excluded that there are passed nuclear materials to Iran by Armenia through the occupied Azeri territories. The Western intelligence agencies have several times spread information about passing nuclear materials by Russia to Iran by secret ways until now. If we take into consideration the current level of relationships among Russia, Armenia, and Iran, then it will not be so difficult for Russia to pass nuclear materials to Iran through the occupied Azeri territories. And everybody knows that Iran is intensively spreading Islamic fundamentalism in Azerbaijan and sends special emissaries to the country for this purpose.
AZERBAIJAN BULLETIN No: 17 (271), April 26 2001[ENGLISH]
TOP RUSSIAN OFFICIALS UNPRECEDENTED STATEMENT UPSETS ARMENIA
Source:Aykakan Zhamanak newspaper (Armenia)
21.04.01--BAKU--Russia has in Azerbaijan an ally for solution of problems
in the Council of Europe. One needs to defend such an ally whose
territorial integrity was violated by an unkind enemy.- This was announced
by Yegor Stroyev, the Chairman of Russias Federation Council, during his
meeting with the Speaker of the Azeri Parliament, Murtuz Alasgarov.
Armenias Aykakan Zhamanak called Mr Stroyevs statement unique in
its kind. Its interesting that no other official both from Russia and any
other country expressed his opinion concerning the Armenia-Azerbaijan
relations in such a sharp way so far. In the briefing held after the
meeting with Mr Alasgarov, the Russian official went even further saying
the Karabakh problem is a matter of Azerbaijans domestic concern.- By the
way, there hadnt been any similar thoughts since 1991. The issue is also
interesting because the statement coincided with the time when the
relations between Azerbaijan and Russia were moving to a new and
relatively smooth plane and when the Putin Administration was showing some
activity towards adjustment of the Karabakh conflict. Ali Hasanov, the
head of the Azeri Presidential Administrations socio-political department,
consoled the official Yerevan angered by Mr Stroyevs statement. ?They
shouldnt treat it with jealousy, because Russia considers it as a friend
as well,- Mr Hasanov said.
By Gulgun Gurbanova
[ANS] News Digest, April 23, 2001
Autonomy for Karabakh within Azerbaijan
only acceptable option - speaker
Text of report in English by Russian news agency Interfax
Moscow, 17 April: Murtuz Aleskerov, speaker of the Azeri parliament,
met with Yegor Stroyev, speaker of the Russian Federation Council, on
Tuesday [17 April]. Aleskerov told reporters after the meeting that
"Nagorny Karabakh may get a high degree of autonomy provided the
principles of territorial integrity [of Azerbaijan] are observed".
The people of Azerbaijan can agree to this option only, and any other
options are unacceptable, Aleskerov said.
Aleskerov believes that if the Azeri administration makes any
concessions on the Nagorny Karabakh issue, "this may cause displeasure
among the political forces of Azerbaijan".
The Azeri speaker also said that there is only one position that
Azerbaijan sticks to: the Karabakh conflict should be resolved "in a fair
way", i.e., as Aleskerov said, "observing the norms of international
law". He cited the universally accepted norms of sovereignty and
territorial integrity, which Azerbaijan recognizes in all states. "And
there can be no double standard with Azerbaijan," Aleskerov said.
He also said that if a positive decision is made on the Nagorny
Karabakh issue, Azerbaijan is ready to open all communication routes. "In
this case, we are ready to restore not only all communications between
Azerbaijan and Armenia, but also good-neighbourly relations with
Armenia," Aleskerov said.
Interfax in English 1043 GMT 17 Apr 01
Nagorny Karabakh May Get High Degree of Autonomy, Azeri MP Says
MOSCOW. April 17 (Interfax) - Murtuz Aleskerov, speaker of the Azeri
parliament, met with Yegor Stroyev, speaker of the Russian Federation
Council, on Tuesday. Aleskerov told reporters after the meeting that
"Nagorny Karabakh may get a high degree of autonomy provided the
principles of territorial integrity [of Azerbaijan] are observed."
The people of Azerbaijan can agree to this option only, and any other
options are unacceptable, Aleskerov said.
Aleskerov believes that if the Azeri administration makes any
concessions on the Nagorny Karabakh issue, "this may cause displeasure
among the political forces of Azerbaijan."
The Azeri speaker also said that there is only one position that
Azerbaijan sticks to: the Karabakh conflict should be resolved "in a
fair way," i.e., as Aleskerov said, "observing the norms of international
law." He cited the universally accepted norms of sovereignty and
territorial integrity, which Azerbaijan recognizes in all states. "And
there can be no double standard with Azerbaijan," Aleskerov said.
He also said that if a positive decision is made on the Nagorny
Karabakh issue, Azerbaijan is ready to open all communication routes.
"In this case, we are ready to restore not only all communications
between Azerbaijan and Armenia, but also the good-neighborly relations
with Armenia," Aleskerov said.
Interfax in English 1043 GMT 17 Apr 01
The Fight For Azerbaijan, or, Illusions Again?
Recent commentaries in the official and independent press in Azerbaijan
suggest that the media are again willingly or unwillingly trying to delude
the public with new interpretations of Azerbaijan's role in US-Russian
relations, as well as predictions concerning the future of the Karabakh
peace talks.
"Yeni Azerbaijan," which is published by the ruling Yeni Azerbaijan party,
as well as "Zerkalo" and "525," which are semi-independent papers, showed
unusual solidarity by claiming that there is a fight going on between the
superpowers, specifically between the United States and Russia, for
influence over Azerbaijan. They argue that during the peace talks in Key
West earlier this month, President Aliev managed to turn around entire
political thinking in Washington concerning U.S. policy towards Azerbaijan
and Armenia. Official Washington, they claim, made changes in its
priorities, namely the U.S. administration decided to abandon Armenia and
support Azerbaijan instead. Wishful thinking rules again in Azerbaijan.
Repeating the theory advanced by "Yeni Azerbaijan," "Zerkalo" and "525"
claim that there is a race and competition for influence between U.S. and
Russia in the South Caucasus, and that both superpowers are trying hard to
gain the support of Azerbaijani leadership. For that reason, the papers
reason, both countries are prepared to support the Azerbaijani position in
the Karabakh peace talks.
The newspaper "525" goes even further, declaring in its 19 April issue
that the public in Azerbaijan should not be afraid of any peace acccord
concerning Karabakh, since, as newspaper put it, "Aliev is not a king
(anymore) who has the ability to sign any kind of agreement on Karabakh
without consulting his own people. Today Aliev appears to be a president
who is ready to take into consideration the will and opinion of his own
people and he will sign a peace accord only if Azerbaijani people approve
it." [my note: for this article look below]
That is a very interesting and very unusual statement. It is possible that
the arguments about a struggle between the superpowers for influence in
Azerbaijan, as well as the arguments about President Aliev's victorious
trip to Key West, are aimed at the domestic public, not for outside
consumption.
Commenting on the Key West talks in its latest issue, the "Economist"
takes a quite different look at the "confrontation between the
superpowers." The "Economist" noted "a rare example of cooperation among
the big powers" in their shared attempt to resolve the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Three newspapers of different political
orientations and one clear pattern. It is an unusual solidarity even in
Azerbaijan, where it is hard to find anything unusual. Illusion or
reality? There is no clear answer to this question. But it is obvious that
President Aliev is ready to sign a peace acord with Armenia and the
struggle (and propaganda campaign) for public opinion has started.
It is clear that the Aliev leadership is clearing the way and preparing
the ground for a peace accord with Armenia. Why have they started to
persuade the public so early, and why so hard and why so persistently?
There is no clear answer to that question either. It is possible that
President Aliev is going to make far-reaching concessions (maybe too
painful for the public in Azerbaijan to accept) in the Karabakh issue and
he needs public support: or if not real support, at least expressions of
support on the pages of different newspapers.Whether the leadership will
be successful in its attempt or fail, remains unclear.
Carey Cavanaugh, the U.S. co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, told
Reuters he has to admit that: "The populations are not as far along as the
presidents, and it will certainly be a daunting task. The most difficult
issue is convincing the populations of both countries on the merits of
making significant compromises to achieve peace".
Mr. Cavanaugh is right. The public mood in Azerbaijan, especially in
regard to an emotional issue like Karabakh, remains unchanged, to judge by
the latest opinion polls: the majority of people in Azerbaijan want peace,
but not at any price. This is the message we hear today. Will President
Aliev manage to change this mood? Will he manage to convince the public of
the merits of making peace? And if he does not, will the Azerbaijani
president act in accordance with the mood of Azerbaijani people, as
newspapers claim he will? We shall have to wait until June to answer this
question.
(Mirza Xazar)
[RFE/RL] Azerbaijan Report, April 20, 2001
Opposition Alliance Slams Kocharian's Karabakh Policy
President Robert Kocharian's strategy of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict came Wednesday under renewed attack from an alliance of left-wing
opposition parties which said the recent peace talks in Florida were
another step towards an "unacceptable" peace with Azerbaijan.
Leaders of the National Accord Front (AHCh) claimed that Kocharian agreed
to give up Armenian control of a stretch of land linking Azerbaijan with
its Nakhichevan exclave in return for Azerbaijani concessions on
Karabakh's status. They said that under the terms of a peace deal prepared
by American, Russian and French mediators, the southeastern Meghri
district will be placed under international supervision, making it beyond
Yerevan's control.
"The planned agreement will have the big powers as its guarantors," Ashot
Manucharian, the AHCh's main founder known for his close Russian
connections, told a news conference. "That means that at any moment and
under any pretext it would be possible [for international peace-keepers]
to start concrete actions to allegedly ensure security of that corridor."
Manucharian said such option will deal a "significant blow to Armenia's
national interests" even if only Russia is granted a supervisory role in
Meghri.
While expressing readiness to ensure unfettered communication between
Nakhichevan and the rest of Azerbaijan as a part of a "package" solution
to the Karabakh conflict, the authorities have so far ruled out any
compromise on Armenian sovereignty over the strategic area bordering on
Iran. Armenian officials say that the mediators have in the past proposed
a swap of territories between Armenia and Azerbaijan but that they have
rejected the idea.
Leaders of the opposition bloc say the recent flurry of diplomatic
activity over Karabakh is part of a Western plan to "drive Russia out of
the region." Manucharian, who was ex-president Levon Ter-Petrossian's
chief national security adviser in the early 1990s, warned last month that
Kocharian could face political destabilization at home if he accepts a
peace accord drafted by the OSCE's Minsk Group. He demanded on Wednesday
that Kocharian publicize details of his agreements with Azerbaijani
President Heydar Aliev, reportedly reached at the Florida resort of Key
West earlier this month, before the next round of negotiations in June.
(Armen Zakarian)
[RFE/RL] Armenia Report, April 25, 2001
Azeri officer denies draft dodging on the rise
over possible Karabakh war
Excerpt from report by Azerbaijani news agency Bilik Dunyasi
Baku, 24 April: The possibility of resolving the Karabakh conflict
militarily has no bearing on the process of recruitment of soldiers, the
military commissar of the republic, Col Aliaga Huseynov, has said.
We remember how often the media used to report about problems related to
conscription, but now the problem is disappearing. However, due to
frequent rumours about a possible war, this has again become topical.
Huseynov categorically denied these rumours. He praised the latest call-up
and described as groundless rumours that there is a growing number of men
dodging military service due to a possible military solution to the
Karabakh conflict. Huseynov noted the high enthusiasm of young people and
their determination to undergo military training in the ranks of the
Azerbaijani army. "On the contrary, today there is a remarkable revival in
the conscription offices. People who reach conscription age are actively
joining the army. Even compared to the call-up campaign during the Soviet
Union, this process is on a higher level," Huseynov said.
passage omitted: rumours that 10 military commissars will be sacked are
not true; no details
SOURCE: Bilik Dunyasi, Baku, in Russian 0745 gmt 24 Apr 01
CIS COLLECTIVE SECURITY GROUP MEETS IN YEREVAN.
Representatives of the six CIS countries that signed the 1992 Collective
Security Treaty -- Armenia, Russia, and four other post-Soviet
states -- met in Yerevan to plan for the 25 May summit of their
presidents, RFE/RL's Armenian Service reported. They discussed
creating rapid reaction forces to counter Islamist threats in
Central Asia. PG
RFE/RL NEWSLINE Vol. 5, No. 82, Part I, 27 April 2001
GEORGIAN-TURKISH MILITARY TIES DISTURB ARMENIA.
Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian said that "Turkish-Georgian
military cooperation causes serious alarm in Yerevan because this may
considerably upset the regional balance," Prime-News reported on
26 April. He said that Georgia's actions in this regard may
effectively make it "a participant in the policy of isolating
Armenia now being pursued by Turkey and Azerbaijan." PG
Georgian-Turkish military ties cause serious concern in Armenia
Text of report by Georgian news agency Prime-News
Yerevan, 26 April: "Turkish-Georgian military cooperation causes serious
alarm in Yerevan because this may considerably upset the regional
balance," Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan has said. A Prime-News
correspondent reported this from Yerevan quoting Mediamax news agency.
Oskanyan said that the daily movement of Georgia and Turkey closer to each
other, despite it being done unobtrusively and gradually, might result in
Georgia's unwitting involvement in a Turkey-Georgia-Azerbaijan
alliance. By doing so, Georgia will effectively become a participant in
the policy of isolating Armenia which is being implemented by Turkey and
Azerbaijan."
Oskanyan noted that "Armenian-Georgian relations are the guarantor of a
firm regional stability and serve as a factor preventing the occurrence of
new dividing lines in the region".
In the meantime, Georgian Foreign Minister Irakli Menagharishvili, who
visited Armenia on 28 March, said that Armenia's "worry" about
Georgian-Turkish military and political relations was completely
groundless.
SOURCE: Prime-News news agency, Tbilisi, in Georgian 0700 gmt 26 Apr 01
Web site closed for branding Azeri officials,
opposition leaders as criminals
Text of press release from Milli Istiglal Party (Party for National
Independence of Azerbaijan) on 26th April
A free web site, www.freeserver.com, has been opened on Internet with the
intention of morally terrorizing the Azerbaijani government and the
opposition leaders. Describing the following people as enemies of the
Azerbaijani people, the site claims that they are on the wanted list as
criminals: former state foreign policy adviser Vafa Quluzada; chairman of
Milli Istiqlal Party Etibar Mammadov; Azerbaijani President Heydar
Aliyev; former Azerbaijani speaker and chairman of the Democratic Party of
Azerbaijan , Rasul Quliyev; Security Minister Namiq Abbasov; Interior
Minister Ramil Usubov; and President of State Oil Company of the
Azerbaijani Republic Natiq Aliyev.
The web site has openly violated ethical standards of disseminating public
information and its action is tantamount to hooliganism. The deputy
chairman of the Milli Istiqlal Party, Ilqar Mammadov, sent an official
letter to the owners of this web site yesterday saying that their free
service is being used for moral terror.
Today, on 26 April, this site was closed due to "breach of conduct". The
Milli Istiqlal Party calls on the Internet users to observe ethical
standards.
SOURCE: Milli Istiglal Party, Baku, in Azeri, 0705 gmt 26 Apr 01
Trans-Caspian Project
RUSSIA AND ARMENIA TO "CONTROL" THE CAUCASUS
ARMENIAN-RUSSIAN MILITARY GROUP TO BE FORMED
Russia and Armenia have decided to take the Caucasian direction of the
Collective Security Agreement (CSA) under their strategic "control". We
shall remember that in addition to these states, Kazakhstan, Belarus,
Kirghizia and Tajikistan are also (CSA) members.
According to the (CSA) council general secretary Valery Nikolaenko
communique, a joint Armenian-Russian regional military power group will be
formed in the near future. This structure as has Nikolaenko declared at
the press conference in Yerevan, will play "a very big role in accident
prevention in the (CSA) Caucasian direction". It will be formed based on
Russian military forces deployed in Armenia and the special divisions of
the Armenian army. "The readiness degree of the question concerning the
creation of a regional Armenian-Russian group comes nearer to the level of
cooperation present today between Russia and Belarus, being an allied
state"; - the Yerevan newspaper "Golos Armenia" (voice of Armenia) quotes
the (CSA) council general secretary.
The answer of Mr. Nikolaenko to a question of the Armenian journalists is
considered as rather characteristic in this light: in which military and
political situations this group would be used? Therefore, according to the
(CSA) council general secretary, the Armenian-Russian joint group will not
have a strong military character and will not put before itself aggressive
tasks. "Neighbors of Russia and Armenia may sleep quietly if, certainly,
they do not have bad plans in their minds", - has declared Nikolaenko.
As he said, from all the six (CSA) members (Armenia, Russia, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Tajikistan) Armenia is in a special position as it
is located in an enclave but also has no direct borders with other
(CSA) members. "For this reason, safety issues on the Caucasian direction
and the safety of the Armenian borders have a great importance for the
safety of the entire region as a whole", - has noted Nikolaenko. His
statement that the Armenian-Russian military group as well as the (CSA) as
a whole may become the appropriate counterbalance to the further expansion
of NATO and toughening of the USA positions concerning the Antiballistic
Missile Treaty is especially important.
Albert FREEDMAN
25.04.2001
---------------------------------------
More Details Of New Karabakh Peace Plan?
In an article entitled "Crossroads in Karabakh?" published in its most
recent issue, the "Economist" reveals some details of possible deal
between Azerbaijan and Armenia: " The contours of possible deal are
becoming clear.The Armenians would give Azerbaijan back six of the seven
regions they captured. Nagorno Karabakh and the adjacent Lachin region
that links it to Armenia would be granted self-governing status.
Azerbaijan would be compensated with an internationally protected road,
linking it to its isolated exclave of Nakhichevan.
20 April 2001
[RFE/RL] Azerbaijan Report, April 20, 2001
Crossroads in Karabakh?
AT LEAST until this month, when prospects suddenly brightened for the
settlement of a bitter 13-year-old feud between the Armenians and the
Azeris, western talk of a rosy future for the southern Caucasus sounded
like a sick joke. Now there really is fresh hope of a lasting peace.
In diplomatic theory, the region's three small states--Georgia, Armenia
and Azerbaijan--were supposed to provide a natural thoroughfare between
Europe and Asia for gas and oil from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. In
practice, more than a decade of conflict has turned the region into a
patchwork of poorly-observed ceasefire lines, minefields and dead
ends--preventing humdrum local trade, let alone big international deals.
Few ends are deader than Talysh, a community of Armenians surrounded on
two sides by troops guarding a ceasefire line at its most north-easterly
point in Nagorno-Karabakh, a disputed Armenian-held territory that is
internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan. The villagers'
freshwater supply, the river Indzhachai, is now out of reach on the front
line. In the old days, the Azerbaijani town of Ganje and all its business
opportunities were just 50km (30 miles) away. Now the nearest metropolis
is Armenia's capital, Yerevan, a twisting and circuitous eight-hour drive
to the west.
After six years of worsening strife, when the two sides took turns to
bombard, shell and ethnically cleanse territory with scant regard for
civilian life, some locals may have been grudgingly thankful, in 1994,
when the losing Azerbaijani side cut its losses and agreed to a truce. But
economic development has been frustrated by the lack of a long-term
settlement.
Things look better, though, after a five-day conference that ended earlier
this month at Key West in Florida, bringing together Presidents Heidar
Aliev and Robert Kocharian of Azerbaijan and Armenia respectively, the
American secretary of state, Colin Powell, and senior French and Russian
officials. The State Department said "substantial progress" had been made
after international peace-makers relayed proposals between the Armenian
and Azeri leaders, who later flew to Washington to see President George
Bush. More talks are planned for Geneva in June; there are hopes that at a
further meeting in Moscow the two Caucasian presidents may even sign a
binding accord.
The contours of a possible deal are becoming clear. The Armenians would
give Azerbaijan back six of the seven regions they
captured. Nagorno-Karabakh and the adjacent Lachin region that links it to
Armenia would be granted self-governing status. Azerbaijan would be
compensated with an internationally protected road, linking it to its
isolated enclave of Nakhichevan.
If the logjam were at last to break, it would be a rare example, these
days, of co-operation among the big powers. The Bush administration has
been energetic in the Caucasus, even as it vows not to micro-manage the
Balkans or the Middle East. It seems willing to accept Russia as a partner
in diplomacy; for its part, Russia may have been persuaded that it has
more to gain from co-operation than from wrecking.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin has begun to repair relations with Azerbaijan,
which had, until recently, been among the most Russophobic of ex-Soviet
republics. If the Azerbaijani position has become less rigid, that may be
because Mr Aliev, a 77-year-old veteran of the Soviet Politburo, wants to
bequeath a settlement to his son and heir-apparent, Ilham. France's
president, Jacques Chirac, has also been involved in negotiations. And,
intriguingly, the senior American negotiator at Key West, Carey Cavanaugh,
said Iran was being kept informed of developments too.
So the region may finally emerge from its morass of sputtering conflict
and closed borders. Not before time: the combined GDP of Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Georgia is a pitiful $10 billion a year; and the talented
from all three countries have been steadily emigrating.
But to win a lasting peace, you have to persuade people like the villagers
of Talysh of its virtue. So far the region's leaders are adopting the
Soviet practice of keeping their citizens in the dark.
Talysh was captured and recaptured during the Karabakh war; three-quarters
of its 600 houses are still in ruins. The inhabitants, most of them old,
scrape a living from their animals and pensions of around $12 a
month. Securing peace will mean persuading such people that the benefits
of a settlement, such as the possibilities of trade with Azerbaijan all
around them, outweigh the perceived risks, such as the return of people
they see as enemies to live among them. That job has barely begun.
Copyright 2001 The Economist Newspaper Ltd.
All rights reserved
The Economist
April 21, 2001 U.S. Edition
525 gazet: Aliyev is changing his Karabakh tactics
Excerpt from report by Azerbaijani newspaper 525 qazet on 19 April
entitled "Aliyev is changing his Karabakh tactics" by Kamran Hasanli
[Subhead] The president's latest gestures compel the West to take into
consideration public opinion in Azerbaijan in order to maintain its
position in the region
Official Baku has more than once stated its position towards the
Karabakh settlement at the highest level: Karabakh can be granted the
highest degree of autonomy within Azerbaijan's borders. The president
spoke about this issue, the foreign minister issued a statement and other
officials expressed their views. Officials and pro-government politicians
have always tried to convince us that Heydar Aliyev would not sign a
defeatist peace. However, the behind-the-scenes negotiations and
Azerbaijani officials' reluctance to inform the public about the ongoing
talks cause panic in society and give the opposition the opportunity to
accuse the authorities of making separate arrangements. The parliamentary
discussions on the Karabakh problem in February shed some light on the
issue.
In his meetings with foreigners, Aliyev does not try to hide the
belligerent mood in our society. This is gradually modifying the
impression in the West that "Aliyev could sign any kind of agreement
paying no heed to public opinion in Azerbaijan".
Azerbaijani Milli Maclis [parliament] Speaker Murtuz Alasgarov made a
similar statement a few days ago in Moscow. The Speaker believes that "if
Aliyev made major concessions on the Karabakh issue he would cause
widespread discontent among Azerbaijani political forces."
Up to now official circles were presenting the current Azerbaijani
authorities as a single force without alternative, the opposition as a
frivolous force and the public as unreservedly supporting Heydar Aliyev's
"internal and external policies" (as well as his Karabakh policy). They
were trying to convince the West that only Aliyev's authorities were
entitled to preserve regional stability and solve the Karabakh problem.
However, this policy boomeranged on the authorities and they reached an
impasse: the mediators thought that Azerbaijani society would hail any
agreement signed by the president and drew up outrightly pro-Armenian
drafts.
[Passage omitted: Azerbaijani president said war option is a
possibility]
At present Heydar Aliyev attends Karabakh talks not as a ruler
authorized to sign any document and able to impose on the people any kind
of agreement, but as a president who knows what kind of peace document
the people want signed. This means that Azerbaijan is no longer the
defeated side in the negotiations it used to be, but an equal partner.
One can detect certain successes while analyzing the events that took
place after the radical changes in the authorities' attitude.
Firstly, Azerbaijan has stiffened its position and Armenian hopes that
Baku would make unilateral concessions have been dashed completely. The
current concern in Yerevan (pessimistic overtones in the Armenian and
Russian media corroborate this) over the outcome of the negotiations
shows that everybody admits that it is inevitable for [Armenian
President] Robert Kocharyan to make concessions.
On the other hand, the West is certain that it cannot lure Armenia out
of Russia's sphere of influence by stepping up pressure on Baku. On the
contrary, it might throw Azerbaijan into Moscow's embrace, which would
mean the total loss of Western influence in the Southern Caucasus.
The new US administration's indirect recognition of Armenia as the
occupier of Karabakh, the initiative to increase aid to Azerbaijan etc,
stem from the fact that Washington has finally realized the true state of
affairs. For these reasons, Heydar Aliyev returned home satisfied with
the Key West negotiations.
[Passage omitted: Armenian sources assess Key West talks as
unsuccessful]
To recap, the West is compelled to treat the interests of the
Azerbaijani public fairly in order to preserve its interests in this
region. Murtuz Alasgarov's statement in Moscow was aimed at making the
other side [Russia] do the same.
(Baku) 525 gazet
in Azeri
19 Apr 01
Azerbaijan paper says pressure was exerted
on Armenia in Key West talks
Armenia came under pressure at the Key West talks on Nagornyy Karabakh,
according to a report in an independent Azerbaijani newspaper. This did
not elicit any concessions from the Armenian president at the talks, but
if the USA were to step up the pressure, then it might yield results in
the end, the report said. It concluded that Azerbaijan should capitalize
on the growing trend in its favour by intensifying diplomacy, ensuring the
army's combat readiness and mobilizing public opionion. The following is
the text of E. Abulfatov's report by Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo
entitled "The forces can be equal":
[Subhead] Baku intends to have public support behind it
On Saturday evening [14 April], Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev
returned from his trip to the USA, during which another round of peace
talks on settling the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict within the framework
of the OSCE Minsk Group took place.
Since the negotiations proceeded "behind closed doors", the public
attention in Azerbaijan focused on the Azerbaijani president's official
statement, which he made in a news conference at [Baku's] Bina airport
right after his arrival in Baku. Answering journalists' questions, Heydar
Aliyev stressed that the results of the talks were positive on the whole,
though no concrete agreements were reached.
The president said: "Due to the fact that a cease-fire agreement was
reached between Azerbaijan and Armenia in 1994, the conflict as well as
the need to settle it quickly has been forgotten in the international
arena in the course of time. For this reason, during the negotiations in
Key West, it was necessary to draw the world community's attention to the
conflict and the truth about it."
In fact, the continuation of the cease-fire regime between Baku and
Yerevan, has moved the need to solve the conflict to the background of
international political affairs. While the international community
urgently reacts to the crises in the Middle East or Balkans and tries to
resolve them, the settlement of problems in the South Caucasus has been
at the mercy of the amateurishness of the OSCE Minsk Group cochairs. We
hope that after the talks in the USA, leading countries will make as much
effort to settle the Karabakh problem as to solve the Arab-Israeli
conflict or the Yugoslav problem.
In fact, such a tendency can already be observed. The initiative of
the new US administration on peace talks between the presidents of
Azerbaijan and Armenia brought some benefits for Baku. In addition,
Azerbaijan's stance was brought to the notice of the world community
again and quite a lot of important events occured.
Apart from the positive report by the State Department on the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and the USA's intention to increase aid to
Azerbaijan by 46 per cent, significant events happened in the region,
too. Let's go through them one by one.
[Subhead] The failure of Armenian strategy
During the Aliyev-Powell-Kocharyan joint news conference, the
Azerbaijani president's comment about the negative aspects of spinning
out the conflict, which surprised the sides, confused and discouraged the
Armenian president.
Then, after the meeting with US President George Bush, Kocharyan did
not come out to meet journalists to answer their questions, which can
also imply that the Armenian president was displeased with the results of
the meeting. Kocharyan's impulsive and thoughtless behaviour gave cause
to presumptions that some pressure was put on the Armenian president in
the USA. This was underlined by the fact that Kocharyan and his foreign
minister, in spite of the confidentiality of the talks, made statements
that the talks were proceeding in Yerevan's favour. It seemed that
Kocharyan, whose position is very shaky in Armenia, was trying to justify
his position before his opponents in Yerevan.
Before the talks, his opponents said: "If Kocharyan makes concessions,
he had better not return to Yerevan." As a result, it proved impossible
to get any concessions from Kocharyan in Key West. However, the
intensification of pressure by the USA might yield results in the end.
Meanwhile, Vardan Oskanyan used the opportunity by stating that the
results of talks in Key West would probably be put before the public. All
these indicate that Kocharyan was trying to consolidate his position.
Kocharyan, a third rate public employee of Karabakh who unexpectedly
became the Armenian president, does not have the capacity to deal with
complicated issues. For this reason, Kocharyan is trying to make a
political "manoeuvre" like the one made by the Azerbaijani president
before the latest talks in the USA.
Baku, by giving permission for the publication of the Minsk Group
proposals, generated a nationwide debate about the Karabakh problem. The
Azerbaijanis were outraged by the defeatist proposals of the Minsk Group
and as a result they closed ranks and called for the close cooperation of
all political organizations. At the same time, people's patriotic spirits
were raised and they demanded the return of the occupied territories by
any means even military force. All these proved that people's apathy
about the Karabakh problem, which had been sensed during the last few
years, can be removed. Therefore, the Azerbaijani president participated
in the negotiations with a powerful weapon - Azerbaijanis are totally
against any option that runs counter to the country's interests. For this
reason, Baku was insured against any pressure in Key West because
Azerbaijan could not be offered a proposal that might cause an outrage in
the country. Since democracies are based on interests of societies, then
any Western attempt to enforce something on Baku can be regarded as the
undermining of freedom and public opinion in Azerbaijan.
[Subhead] Armenia's botched military "show"
Concurrent with the Key West talks, the Nagornyy Karabakh's separatist
regime launched a large-scale military manoeuvre on the occupied
territories. The main purpose of this action was to demonstrate the
so-called military "might" of the separatists and to exert pressure on
the negotiations in the USA. Before the Key West meetings, the leader of
the separatists, Arkadiy Gukasyan, stated that "if Azerbaijan wants war,
it will get it". However, the words and deeds of the separatists not only
proved ineffective, but also backfired.
In response to the exercises on the occupied territory, the
Azerbaijani armed forces began large-scale military exercises near the
occupied territories using both ground troops and aircraft. Moreover,
during the exercises, Azerbaijani jets shattered the myth of the
separatists' "powerful army", that could only watch the jets flying over
Nagornyy Karabakh. The Armenians, naturally, could not take any actions.
At the same time, the Azerbaijani president at Bina airport stated:
"As soon as the rotor blades of Azerbaijani helicopters started moving,
some Armenians urgently started to collect their bundles to make a quick
getaway". That's to say if military exercises can cause such a turmoil
among Armenians then what will happen if hostilities are resumed?
Besides that, the president stressed once again that "Azerbaijan had
never ruled out the start of hostilities, however, the peace potential
has not been exhausted yet".
Thus, following the failure of Armenian strategy, new tendencies in
favour of Azerbaijan are emerging.
[Subhead] Appropriate steps by Baku
We can see that Baku intends to have public support behind it. Quite
recently, Ilham Aliyev, deputy chairman of the New Azerbaijan Party [NAP]
and first vice-president of SOCAR [State Oil Company of the Azerbaijani
Republic], stated that the results of the Key West talks would be put
before the people. Therefore, on the one hand, there is a possibility
that the confidentiality of the negotiations will be lifted and on the
other hand, a decision will be made on the basis of public opinion, which
might not be very popular. Moreover, the initial experience gained from
the discussions in parliament about the previous proposals of the Minsk
Group showed how effective public opinion is. Therefore, public opinion
might be used in preparing the population for a possible resumption of
hostilities if the peace options fail.
Besides that, Yerevan's noncooperative position will hardly undergo
such sharp changes. On the contrary, dissatisfaction with the country's
incumbent leadership and the likelihood of a change of power might
increase in Yerevan. It cannot be ruled out the Armenian side might do
anything to spin the conflict out. The freezing of the conflict meets
Armenia's interests to some extent, which is why attempts have been made
not to change the current situation.
Therefore, Baku's strategy might include the following three points:
First, Azerbaijan must intensify diplomatic activities in the
international arena to step up pressure on Yerevan. Second, it must
combine diplomacy with military readiness in order to be able to resort
to military means if Baku's just demands do not get international
support. Third, by supporting the actions of Baku, the people can
indirectly exert pressure on the leading countries to settle the conflict
peacefully. The economic interests of the leading countries, which do not
wish to jeopardize their investments in Azerbaijan, may also play a great
role.
Thus, we have to use Azerbaijan's geopolitical and strategic role more
actively in the international arena in order to guarantee our own
national interests and liberate the occupied territories.
Zerkalo
in Russian
17 Apr 01
Azerbaijani Paper Slams US Congressional Aides'
Visit to Karabakh
Excerpt from report by Azerbaijani newspaper 525 qazet on 17 April
entitled "Foreigners' Karabakh adventures" by Kamran Hasanli
[subhead] What is the difference between foreign politicians who visit
Karabakh by illegally crossing the Azerbaijani border, and smugglers?
Armenian sources have reported that a delegation of US congressmen
arrived in the so-called Nagornyy Karabakh republic yesterday [16 April].
[passage omitted: report by the Armenian Mediamax news agency]
Although Karabakh slipped out of Baku's control as a result of
Armenia's occupation policy, the world recognizes this territory as an
integral part of Azerbaijan. So, US congressmen visiting the Karabakh
Region of Azerbaijan have to obtain the permission of the Baku
government. Otherwise, the congressmen, in fact, are in violation of the
border of an independent state and call into question the inviolability
of our country's borders.
A department head at the Presidential Executive Staff, Novruz
Mammadov, has told a 525 qazet correspondent that "although we have not
been officially informed about the congressmen's visit (!) [punctuation
as given] to Karabakh, we have learned through unofficial channels that
they went to Karabakh". Mammadov is also perfectly aware that the visit
was organized by the Armenian Assembly of America. Mammadov said that
this structure was the strongest and most respected organization of the
Armenian diaspora: "In fact, they coordinate all activities by US
Armenians and probably do for Armenia more than it does for itself." The
Azerbaijani official said that as the Congress and Senate were
independent legislative bodies, their members "are trying to present
themselves as independent parliamentarians". Mammadov said that the US
president "backs Azerbaijan's territorial integrity" and "accepts it as
the part subject to aggression". He admitted that he did not know what
the aim of the congressmen's visit was. The only thing Mammadov is aware
of is that "this action by the congressmen is not right. No doubt, we
will declare ourselves appropriately on this after the visit is over and
its details are known."
One can conclude from Mammadov's words that US congressmen DID NOT
EVEN HINT AT THEIR PLANS TO VISIT AZERBAIJANI TERRITORY TO OUR
LEADERSHIP. [capitalization in bold as given] A logical question arises:
what is the difference between Armenian generals, who get on a warplane
in Yerevan, violate the Azerbaijani border to go to Karabakh and observe
a separatist "military parade" there, and US congressmen, who go to
Xankandi [Stepanakert], without notifying us, to discuss "the economic
prospects of the NKR [Nagornyy Karabakh Republic]"? Could there be more
disrespect for an independent and sovereign state in modern diplomacy?
Can these congressmen go freely to Groznyy, talk to [Chechen field
commander] Shamil Basayev and learn his position on the settlement of the
Chechen problem without the Kremlin's CONSENT? [capitalized as given]
We wonder what the status of the Karabakh visit by these congressmen
is: are they visiting an Armenian region or an independent "Karabakh
republic" with Yerevan's permission?
A British MP, a woman called Cox [Deputy Speaker of the British House
of Lords Baroness Caroline Cox], gathers a number of "philanthropists"
and visits Xankandi once a month.
Swiss businessmen visit Karabakh and discuss economic projects with
leaders of the so-called "country".
Finally, members of the legislative body of the "most democratic
state" in the world inform only [Armenian President Robert] Kocharyan and
[Karabakh President Arkadiy] Gukasyan about their visit to Karabakh.
Are our leaders not concerned about all this? How and why are these
people crossing the Azerbaijani border? What procedures do they go
through to enter a country recognized by the whole world, or do they go
through any procedures at all? Where do they get visas and do they get
visas at all?
Finally, why is the independent Azerbaijani Republic indifferent to
such "tourist visits" by US, French and British politicians who show
disrespect for its territorial integrity and, in fact, do not differ from
smugglers who cross our border illegally? Or is the blow dealt by these
people to Azerbaijan's security less than that by a person who smuggles a
couple of grams of opium and is arrested justifiably for this?
Does this country have a master or not?
PS. The Foreign Ministry has told 525 qazet that foreigners visiting
Karabakh never inform the Baku government about this in advance.
(Baku) 525 gazet
in Azeri
17 Apr 01
Armenian Terrorist Freed and Deported From France
PARIS, Apr 24, 2001 -- (Agence France Presse) An Armenian nationalist
convicted of a 1983 bomb attack at Orly airport in Paris which killed
eight people has been freed and deported to Armenia, French justice
officials said Tuesday.
Varoujan Garbidjian, 47, a former member of the Armenian Secret Army for
the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA), was released after serving 17 years of
a life sentence, and put on a plane to Yerevan on Monday.
Garbidjian -- a Syrian national -- was found guilty in 1985 of planting a
bomb at the Turkish Airlines desk at Orly airport, and perpetrating the
deadliest terrorist attack in France of the last 20 years.
His lawyer Gerard Tcholakian said the release was prompted by his
"remarkable" behavior in prison, and by the changed political climate --
with the establishment of an independent Armenian state, and the French
parliament's recent recognition of an Armenian genocide.
Copyright 2001 Agence France Presse
ARMENIA MARKS 86TH ANNIVERSARY OF 'GENOCIDE'
Thousand of Armenians marched in Yerevan on 24 April to mark the 86th
anniversary of the deaths of some 1.5 million Armenians in the Ottoman
Empire in 1915, RFE/RL's Armenian Service reported. In a written address
to the nation, President Robert Kocharian said that the mass killing and
deportation of Armenians then was "the greatest tragedy" in the nation's
history and said that "the pursuit of an international recognition of the
Armenian genocide continues to be on the foreign policy agenda of the
Republic of Armenia." PG
RFE/RL NEWSLINE Vol. 5, No. 80, Part I, 25 April 2001
US Department of State
24 April 2001
President Bush's Message to Armenians on Day of Remembrance
(Bush hopes for peace and reconciliation in south Caucasus region)
(550)
President Bush issued a message April 24 commemorating "one of the
great tragedies of history: the forced exile and annihilation of
approximately 1.5 million Armenians in the closing years of the
Ottoman Empire."
"One of the most important ways in which we can honor the memory of
Armenian victims of the past is to help modern Armenia build a secure
and prosperous future," the President said, noting that the United
States "actively supports Armenia and its neighbors in finding a
permanent and fair settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute" and
peace in the south Caucasus region.
Following is the text of his message:
(begin text)
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
April 24, 2001
PRESIDENTIAL MESSAGE
Today marks the commemoration of one of the great tragedies of
history: the forced exile and annihilation of approximately 1.5
million Armenians in the closing years of the Ottoman Empire. These
infamous killings darkened the 20th century and continue to haunt us
to this day. Today, I join Armenian Americans and the Armenian
community abroad to mourn the loss of so many innocent lives. I ask
all Americans to reflect on these terrible events.
While we mourn the tragedy that scarred the history of the Armenian
people, let us also celebrate their indomitable will which has allowed
Armenian culture, religion, and identity to flourish through the ages.
Let us mark this year the 1700th anniversary of the establishment of
Christianity in Armenia. Let us celebrate the spirit that illuminated
the pages of history in 451 when the Armenians refused to bow to
Persian demands that they renounce their faith. The Armenian reply was
both courageous and unequivocal: "From this faith none can shake us,
neither angels, nor men, neither sword, fire or water, nor any bitter
torturers." This is the spirit that survived again in the face of the
bitter fate that befell so many Armenians at the end of the Ottoman
Empire.
Today, that same spirit not only survives, but thrives in Armenian
communities the world over. Many Armenian survivors and their
descendents chose to live in the United States, where they found
safety and built new lives. We are grateful for the countless ways in
which Armenian Americans continue to enrich America's science,
culture, commerce and, indeed, all aspects of our national life.
One of the most important ways in which we can honor the memory of
Armenian victims of the past is to help modern Armenia build a secure
and prosperous future. I am proud that the United States actively
supports Armenia and its neighbors in finding a permanent and fair
settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. I hope that this year we
will see peace and reconciliation flourish in the south Caucasus
region between Armenia and all its neighbors. The United States
welcomes the opportunity to support the courageous efforts by the
Armenian people to overcome years of hardship and Soviet repression to
create a prospering, democratic, and sovereign Republic of Armenia.
Let us remember the past and let its lessons guide us as we seek to
build a better future. In the name of the American people, I extend my
heartfelt best wishes to all Armenians as we observe this solemn day
of remembrance.
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. )
'Genocide' debate divides allies
April 24, 2001
Web posted at: 1:37 PM EST (1837 GMT)
By Douglas Herbert, CNN.com Europe writer
LONDON, England (CNN) - Clashing versions of an 86-year-old mass slaughter
are straining relations between Turkey and some of its key European
allies.
France and Turkey are locked in a diplomatic skirmish over a decision last
week by the lower house of France's parliament to classify the killings of
Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire in 1915 as genocide.
Meanwhile, the Armenian issue has complicated Britain's plans to
commemorate victims of genocide in the country's first-ever Holocaust
Memorial Day this Saturday.
The event, more than a year in the planning, was originally intended to
draw attention to atrocities committed since 1939, taking the mass
extermination of Jews in World War II as a focal point for a day of
tributes.
Those plans remain on course, according to the UK Home Office, which has
also sent out invitations to representatives of the Rwandan and Bosnian
communities in London, among others.
But organisers say victims of the Armenian slaughter -- which preceded the
Holocaust by 24 years -- will also be acknowledged in a 15-minute
introduction to a British Broadcasting Corporation television documentary
on genocide to be aired on the day of the remembrance.
Stephen Smith, director of Beth Shalom Holocaust Centre, argues that
calling the Armenian genocide by any other name would mean "allowing us to
be persuaded by the argument of those who would deny that the genocide
occurred at all."
He added: "History is greater than our temporary interpretation of it and
one day it will be called the genocide because the historical facts bear
that out."
Privately, one official involved in the planning for the Holocaust
remembrance said some British government officials, wary of angering
Turkey, have tread a fine line between doing what they felt was morally
right, and diplomatically appropriate.
"I think the government and the committee have gone out of their way to
show that there is a real concern for the victims of the Armenian
genocide," said the official, who requested anonymity. "But there is a
political sticking point the government still has to deal with."
Britain may be extra wary given Turkey's reaction to the French
parliamentary decision to label the Armenian killings as genocide.
Turkey swipes back
The French move prompted a swift retaliation from Turkey, which recalled
its ambassador from Paris and, on Tuesday, scrapped a $149 million project
with a French firm to build and launch a high-tech spy satellite by 2003.
The fall-out continued on Wednesday, as a Turkish deputy introduced a bill
to parliament that recognises as genocide France's massacre of Algerians
in its war against the former colony in the early 1960s.
Armenians claim they lost 1.5 million people between 1915 and 1917 in a
campaign orchestrated by a then-dying Ottoman Empire to expel them and
their Russian allies from Anatolia, on modern-day Turkey's eastern fringe.
Turkey, founded as a nation in 1923, after the Ottoman Empire's collapse,
scoffs at such claims.
It says the Armenian death toll is wildly inflated, numbering at most
500,000. The killings that did occur, the argument continues, were not a
systematic attempt to exterminate a race -- as genocide is defined in
international conventions -- but the natural casualties of a hard-fought
war that also claimed thousands of Turkish lives.
"What is believed here in Turkey is that this happened in World War I,
when the Armenians were fighting for their homeland within the Ottoman
Empire," said Hasan Koni, a professor of international relations at Ankara
University, in the Turkish capital.
Koni accused the French parliament of "double standards", given France's
own failure to confront its chequered past in Algeria, a former colony
that waged a war of independence against its occupier during the 1950s and
early 1960s.
Koni was referring to the French deputies' recent decision to forgo an
official probe into the killing of Algerians during that war, preferring
to let future historians pass judgement.
Western historians say such views, shared by the country's president and
prime minister, points up the degree to which Turkey remains in denial
about a dark episode of its own history.
It also reflects, they say, the starkly differing approach towards
difficult historical episodes from that adopted by Germany, which has
publicly grappled with questions over its leading role in the
extermination of six million Jews in the Holocaust.
Copyright 2001 CNN
News referred from Habarlar-L