updated
Source:ANS
07.05.01--BAKU--I hope the peace agreement will be signed concerning the
Karabakh conflict by the end of this year but I cant say anything in
concrete right now. The peace process is a very complicated way to go and
the Middle East conflict is the proof of it. I beg this precedent not to
happen in Karabakh too. This was announced by the U.S. co-chair of the
OSCE Minsk Group, Carey Cavanaugh. The American diplomat said a certain
headway has been reached during the Azerbaijan-Armenia presidential talks.
But a lot of issues still need discussion. According to Mr Cavanaugh, his
recent meeting with the Azeri President Heydar Aliyev was focused on a
number of problems being on the agenda. But the co-chair refused to reveal
the essence of those problems. Mr Cavanaugh noted that any agreement to be
reached between the conflicting parties wont be kept in secret. The Minsk
Group co-chair also said the draft peace agreement will have to be
submitted for approval of the peoples of Azerbaijan and Armenia. As for
the stance of Armenia which envisions granting independence to the
breakaway region, Mr Cavanaugh said the following: The co-chairs are
working on all variants which could lead to establishing serious and
long-term peace. The U.S. diplomat met with the Minsk Groups other
co-chairs from France and Russia in the Austrian capital, Vienna. Mr
Cavanaugh said the co-chairs are planning to meet with Armenias Robert
Kocharian on May 10. The U.S. politician also said the matter requires
great attention. This is why we are conducting all-around discussions and
maintain permanent contacts with President Aliyev, said Mr Cavanaugh.
By Etibar Mamedov
MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRMAN MEETS WITH AZERBAIJANI PRESIDENT
Carey Cavanaugh, the U.S. co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, met in Baku
on 5 May with President Heidar Aliev to discuss preparations for the
planned meeting in Geneva in June between Aliev and his Armenian
counterpart Robert Kocharian, Turan and Reuters reported. Speaking in
London on 4 May, Cavanaugh noted "a dramatic acceleration of both the
speed and intensity" of the talks aimed at resolving the Karabakh
conflict, according to Reuters. He said the outlines of the draft
settlement are already clear and that "most" of it is now on paper. He
added that "we have seen a lot of signs" that both presidents are
preparing public opinion for a settlement based on "serious compromise."
Cavanaugh also praised Russia's role within the Minsk Group, saying that
Moscow no longer seeks to profit from continued instability in the South
Caucasus. LF
[RFE/RL] Transcaucasia Newsline, May 7, 2001
Copyright 2001 RFE/RL
ARMENIAN FOREIGN MINISTER HOPES FOR PEACE, WHILE HIS NATION KEEPS HOLDING
NON-CONSTRUCTIVE STANCE
Source:ANS
04.05.01--BAKU--An agreement will definitely be signed between Azerbaijan
and Armenia by the end of this year. This was announced by the Foreign
Minister of Armenia, Vardan Oskanian. It should be observed that the head
of Armenian diplomacy is deriving his optimism from the Paris and Key West
talks between Azeri and Armenian presidents. The Armenian politician
expressed his views to Austrias Kurier newspaper. Saying the conflicting
parties were today close to peace as they never were before, Mr Oskanian
stressed the importance of horizontal relations between Azerbaijan and the
breakaway Nagorno Karabakh in future. Karabakh shouldnt be an enclave as
Armenia cant be satisfied with an autonomy, said Armenian minister hinting
at no changes taken place in his nations stance over this issue. The
Armenian diplomat reckons that international guarantees should be issued
for ensuring Karabakhs security. Mr Oskanian categorically rejected the
idea of trading territories saying his nation is not set to discuss any
trading sovereign territories. The Armenian foreign minister said the
question is free movement between Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh, as well as
between Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. Mr Oskanian made
one more statement. Asked about the effect the oil factor has on Armenias
position, the minister noted his country wont make any concessions in the
Karabakh issue by agreeing to let the oil pipeline run through its
territory. Although the Armenian minister said experts find the route
economically very profitable, he added there were no concrete talks on
that account. Speaking of future peace perspectives, Mr Oskanian said
Turkey, which has been keeping Armenia in blockade for years, will
normalize its relations with his country after the Karabakh problem is
settled. Rustam Mamedov of the socio-political department of the
Presidential Administration of Azerbaijan, said, in his turn, the thoughts
expressed by the Armenian foreign minister were just a gibberish. How come
Armenia is pinning its hopes with peace if it keeps insisting on its
stance? asked Mr Mamedov adding Mr Oskanians statement was illogical.
By Parvana Veliyeva
RUSSIA AND IRAN DEVELOP MILITARY COOPERATION
WITH ARMENIA
Source:ANS
07.05.01--BAKU--Even though official Tehran has recognized Armenia as the
aggressor in the Karabakh conflict, this doesnt prevent bilateral
relations between Armenia and Iran from developing. The Islamic Republic
ignored the protests of official Baku some time ago concerning joint
construction of a hydroelectric power station on the Araz River and is now
inviting Armenias nuclear specialists to work in its nuclear power
stations. Iran has also started production of shells for Russian-made T-72
tanks. The deal, according to which the neighboring country is going to
sell the shells for $400 apiece, could be rated as having anti-Azerbaijan
and anti-West goals. Its not convincing that those Iranian-made shells
wont be delivered to Russian military bases in Armenia. Meanwhile, Russia,
rated as Irans and Armenias strategic ally, announced creation of an
anti-missile system jointly with Armenia adding it will be placed on the
Armenian-Turkish border. Plus, Russia even announced that all air defense
system components will be put in operation if necessary. The fact that the
main attention is being put on the Armenian-Turkish state border is
explained by the latters being a NATO member. Although both Russia and
Armenia announced that the united anti-missile defense system is not aimed
against Azerbaijan, the statement made by Azerbaijans Defense Minister
Safar Abiyev on possibility of conclusion of a military treaty with Turkey
at any moment is the evidence of the Russia-Armenia cooperations being
aimed against this country. Its interesting that all these processes are
going in the time when the United States announced its leaving the
anti-missile defense system agreement signed with the former USSR in 1972.
By Rustam Abulfatoglu
[ANS] News Digest, May 7, 2001
Azeri paper concerned about joint Russian-Armenian military group
The recent hardening of Armenia's position on Karabakh, exemplified by the
statement issued by Armenian MPs on the principles for settlement, could be
a result of renewed confidence in Russian support in the wake of the
establishment of a new Russo-Armenian military grouping. The Azerbaijani
newspaper Ekho speculated that Armenian President Robert Kocharyan could
have prevented the issuing of this statement, or at least downplayed it,
instead of which he described it as balanced and important. The paper said
he could also have been using it to demonstrate that he had very little
scope to make compromises. The following is text of Nurani report by
Azerbaijani newspaper Ekho on 3 May entitled "Armenia hardens positions":
[subhead] And intends to take under control joint Russian-Armenian
military grouping
Discussion of the results of the Key West negotiations has reached a
qualitatively new level in Armenia. We have already reported that political
forces represented in the Armenian parliament issued a joint statement on 27
April [on Karabakh settlement], in which they quite officially stated how,
in their view, the problem should be settled.
The Armenian political elite believes that "the Artsakh [Karabakh] problem
is a result of ignoring the principle of self-determination of nations and
unsuccessful attempts to suppress by brute force the free will of part of
the Armenian people, who live on their own territory"and that "Artsakh won
its independence and firmly joined with Armenia at a cost of losses and
thousands of victims of the war with Azerbaijan".
Naturally, the fact that the political confrontation was launched by the
Armenian side and large-scale military actions started from the occupation
of Susa and Lacin, were not mentioned by the authors. Praising the great
authority of the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen, the statement's authors say
that hasty steps or the diktat of force "cannot serve the establishment of
peace". They also can't miss a chance to brandish arms again either:
"Regarding it as unacceptable to reject peaceful settlement, and given the
threats to use force periodically heard in the Azerbaijani Republic, we
promise to repel Azerbaijan in a befitting way if there is another
provocative act of aggression. Full responsibility for new military actions
will lie with this country."Of course, Turkey also came in for criticism:
"The openly biased position of neighbouring Turkey also gives cause for
concern. Therefore, we reject any attempt by this country to play a
mediating role."
This document has no official force, given that it is not an official
statement by parliament. However, in reality this reflects the position of
all the political parties represented in the Armenian parliament. It
expresses the position around which there is political consensus in Armenia.
It is not enough only to say that this position is tough. In the statement
the status of Karabakh is effectively determined: "uniting Karabakh to
Armenia or international recognition of its status"are described as
acceptable principles. Moreover, one should forget about the districts
bordering on Karabakh, which were not part of the former NKAO [Nagornyy
Karabakh Autonomous Oblast]. The next point literally says: "ensuring that
the common border between the Republic of Armenia and the `NKR'is sufficient
to guarantee the security of the `NKR'". No-one wants to hear about a
territorial swap: "during the negotiations, no Armenian territory could be a
subject for discussions and no possible means of communication could be
provided at the expense of Armenian land resources or self-government."
It is obvious that Armenia's executive authorities have been placed in a
fairly rigid framework. It is unclear how in such a case one could conduct
negotiations at all. Armenian President Robert Kocharyan's reaction was even
more unexpected. Snark news agency reported that he described the statement
by political forces as "balanced"(!) and well-timed, and noted that it was
extremely important for the outside world, given that it showed that
Armenia's political forces are not indifferent to the settlement process,
but treat the issues calmly and in a balanced way. Kocharyan believes that
the absence of hysterics is a sign of confidence.
Perhaps Kocharyan is simply giving in in the face of "public opinion": a
common position held by all the political parties in parliament is more than
serious. It could be assumed that in line with old nomenklatura rules,
Kocharyan has decided to head this process, which he is unable to oppose for
obvious reasons. However, the president's message about the importance of
this statement for the outside world provides food for thought. In the
current situation, Kocharyan could have put a stop to the appearance of this
document or have "knocked it down"to the level of pro-opposition parties. It
cannot be ruled out that in fact, with the help of this document Robert
Kocharyan is trying, let's say, to influence the international community and
demonstrate that the Armenian establishment cannot make all these
"compromises"and "concessions".
However, it is also interesting that such a sharp shift in Armenian policy,
where until just recently they were talking about "necessary compromises",
occurred after a meeting of the committee of security council secretaries
from countries of the CIS Collective Security Treaty. To recap, amongst
other issues discussed at this meeting they decided to set up a joint
Armenian-Russian military grouping. The Armenian defence minister and
security council secretary, Serzh Sarkisyan, spoke about its possible tasks.
He said that at the preliminary stage the military grouping will consist of
a Russian military base in Armenia and the fifth military corps. Sarkisyan
does not see any danger of the role of the Armenian army being reduced.
Moreover, the newspaper says: "given that a joint grouping is being set up
on Armenian territory and all its actions are clearly set out, the grouping
cannot undertake anything independently. It will operate under the command
of Armenia."One can only speculate whether or not this grouping will turn
into the notorious Russian regiment No 366, which also operated under the
command of Armenia during the destruction of Xocali [in 1992].
Moscow is in no hurry to comment on Sarkisyan's statement that the joint
military grouping, which is being set up for "joint security"and includes a
Russian military base, will be commanded by Yerevan, not Moscow. However, it
cannot be ruled out that the reasons for the sudden hardening in Armenia's
positions should be sought in Sarkisyan's statements. Perhaps, this is a
result of support promised by Russia to Yerevan, including on the issue of
making use of this very military grouping...
OSCE expects progress between Azerbaijan and
Armenia at June meeting
BAKU. May 5 (Interfax) The co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk group from the
U.S. Carry Cavano has voiced hope that at their meeting scheduled for June
in Geneva, the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents will build on what they
achieved during negotiations in Key West, Florida in April.
He said this in Baku on Saturday, addressing local press representatives.
At the same time, Cavano said that it is "hard to predict when the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will be settled and how successful this
settlement will be."
He added that the U.S., Russia, and France, as co-chairman of the OSCE
Minsk group, seek to activate the process of resolving the conflict as
much as possible.
Interfax News Agency
May 05, 2001, Saturday
Armenia's "complementary" foreign policy losing substance
"COMPLEMENTARITY" NOT HONORED IN PRACTICE.
Its declared policy of "complementarity" between Russia and the West
notwithstanding, Armenia entered on April 26-27 into an agreement to form a
"joint group of forces" with the Russian troops based in the country (see the Monitor,
May 1). Thatstep places Armenia on a common footing with Belarus as a military
ally ofRussia. In some significant ways, however, Yerevan has outdone Minsk in
developing the alliance with Moscow.
Unlike Belarus, Armenia hosts Russian troops and arsenals on national
territory. Second, Karabakh provides a sanctuary immune to effective
international verification, and in which Russian-supplied weaponry is
believed to exceed the regional ceilings set by the Treaty on Conventional
Forces in Europe (CFE). To some extent, even Armenia proper serves that
purpose, as illustrated by the transfer last November of seventy armored
combat vehicles from a Russian base in Georgia to one in Armenia, violating
the CFE treaty. And, third, the Russian forces, forward-based in Armenia,
serve directly or indirectly as an instrument of political pressure on
neighboring, Western-oriented countries. An analogous situation would
develop in Belarus if Russian forces were to be introduced there opposite
neighboring Poland, Lithuania or Latvia. While President Alyaksandr
Lukashenka and Moscow do not intend--in the foreseeable future--to station
Russian troops in Belarus, the Armenian leadership deems the hosting of
Russian troops a fundamental and unquestioned dimension of Armenia's policy.
On the political level, recent actions and statements by Armenian leaders
seem to be voiding the "complementarity" principle of any practical
meaning. A recent interview by President Robert Kocharian and two
concurrent ones by Foreign Affairs Minister Vardan Oskanian illustrate this
tendency. In his remarks for the Paris daily Le Figaro before a visit to
France, Kocharian openly regretted the collapse of Soviet power in the
South Caucasus from the standpoint of Armenia's national interests as he
sees them. "For better or for worse, a regional security system did exist
in Soviet times. The Soviet collapse changed our situation. I do not
believe that Armenia, Georgia or Azerbaijan could by themselves resist the
activities of great powers in the region. We, therefore, have done the
minimum necessary for providing a balance," the president said with
reference to the stationing of Russian forces in Armenia.
Kocharian's remarks seem however surprisingly to imply that Georgia's and
Azerbaijan's Western orientation requires Armenia to reach for a Russian
counterbalance. That suggestion ties in with Oskanian's April 23 and 27
statements, criticizing Georgia for developing ties with Turkey. "The
balance could be disrupted if Georgian-Turkish cooperation deepens,"
Oskanian stated. Georgia, he went on, is becoming "dependent on Turkey" and
"is being pulled, perhaps without realizing it, into a
Turkish-Azerbaijan-Georgia axis" against Armenian interests.
Tbilisi, for its part, regards the relationship with Turkey as crucial to
Georgia's own economic recovery and military modernization, as well as
counterbalance to the Russia's military presence in the region. The United
States and NATO encourage the development of Turkish-Georgian cooperation
for reasons wholly unrelated to Armenia, and which may in fact benefit
Armenia if that country and Russia join the regional security pact,
proposed by Georgia and Turkey. Responding to Oskanian's remarks, President
Eduard Shevardnadze stated that Georgian-Turkish relations do not in any
way affect Armenian interests. By the same token, Shevardnadze stated,
Georgia seeks equally friendly relations with Azerbaijan and with Armenia.
The president confirmed Georgia's position against creating military
alliances in the South Caucasus and in favor of dismantling the existing
military alliances--a reference to the Russian military bases in Armenia.
The spirit of Oskanian's latest remarks is somewhat reminiscent of his
attack last November on GUUAM from the standpoint of Moscow's interests in
the region (Le Figaro, April 28; Mediamax, April 23; Respublika Armenia,
April 27; Prime News, April 30; see the Monitor, January 23, February 1,
13, April 12, 25, May 1; Fortnight in Review, February 2, April 27).
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jamestown.org
Thursday, 3 May 2001 - Volume VII, Issue 86
MONITOR -- A DAILY BRIEFING ON THE POST-SOVIET STATES
Copyright (c) 1983-2001 The Jamestown Foundation
Armenian premier to help freed bomber to "continue his activities"
Text of report in English by Armenian news agency Noyan Tapan
Yerevan, 4 May: Armenian Prime Minister Andranik Markaryan received on 4 May
Varoujan Garbidijan, who was released on probation from the French St-Maur
prison and sent to Armenia. [He was sentenced to life imprisonment in 1983
for causing explosions at the office of the Turkish airlines in France]
The information and public relations department of the Armenian government
has told Noyan Tapan news agency that the prime minister was pleased with
Garbidijan's release and his return to the motherland. He added that, as
head of the government, he was ready to do his best to help him continue his
activities in Armenia. Andranik Markaryan highly valued Varoujan's loyalty
to the motherland and noted that since his arrest, political forces, MPs,
ordinary people and public organizations of Armenia constantly demanded his
release and used all possible means to secure his release. The prime
minister asked Varoujan about his health and instructed the health minister
to provide him with medical care, and if necessary, to personally organize a
plan of medical care for him.
Varoujan Garbidijan noted that from now on he would live in his motherland
and devote his whole life for Armenia's prosperity and power. "For me, the
highest goal is to serve national interests, and never interests of a
certain party." In agreement with the prime minister, Varoujan Garbidijan
stressed that in order to achieve Armenia's supreme goals, all forces in the
country must be united.
[some spicy news for you ;o)]
Historian demands UK return 14th century Armenian treasure
Text of report by Armenian news agency Snark
Yerevan, 5 May: Yerevan History Professor Suren Ayvazyan is preparing a big
surprise for the whole of Great Britain. In the near future he intends to
send a letter to Buckingham Palace, to Queen Elizabeth II, demanding that
Cilician treasures be returned to Armenia, the Yerevan newspaper Novoye
Vremya reported.
The message says, in particular: "In 1378 King of Armenian Cilicia, Levon VI
Rubinyan, handed Armenian gold treasury to the Plantagenet English king,
Edward III, for safekeeping. At the same time an agreement was signed
according to which this treasury must be returned to Armenia after the
establishment of its statehood. For 600 years, by one means or another,
Britain hindered the establishment of Armenian statehood to avoid returning
the treasury. But now Armenian statehood has been restored, isn't it high
time for the treasury to be returned?" the professor asked.
This agreement can be found on the pages of the legal code of the British
Empire, so from the legal point of view there would appear to be no problem,
Ayvazyan thinks.
In his letter Suren Ayvazyan makes a curious excursion into the distant
past, based on his research in the fields of linguistics, history and
archaeology. This research has shown that the Anglo-Saxons came from Armenia
in 1500-1000 BC. Ayvazyan believes they are from the Angl-tun region of the
Fourth Armenian territory of Greater Armenia. According to the scholar,
ancient English sources which have become the property of the scientific
community at large, proves this. Angl-tun is located in the high mountains.
This is where the Armenian king kept his treasury. "That is why Levon VI,
following the tradition of Armenian rulers, handed the Armenian treasury for
safekeeping to those who came originally from Angl-tun, to the English king.
Incidentally, the name of the Windsor dynasty in Armenian means "gorge of
vineyards". That means the ancestors of the current queen lived in Armenia
in the gorge where grapes were grown," Ayvazyan wrote.
Ayvazyan is hoping for a positive response, but thinks that it will be very
difficult for Britain to return the treasury immediately, if, of course, it
expresses such a wish. Ayvazyan also has no doubt that there are billions in
the "English deposit". It is true, he does not specify which currency he
means. Ayvazyan did not exclude the possibility that a descendant of King
Levon - (?Luie Lusinyan), who currently lives in London, might also show an
interest in this issue.
News referred from Habarlar-L
ARMENIA/AZERBAIJAN
How close are they to peace?
The chances for peace are better now than at any time in the last decade,
says Carey Cavanaugh. He would know. As US special negotiator for the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict since August 1999, he spearheaded the US
mediation efforts and raised the profile of the nearly defunct OSCE Minsk
Group. The presidents have arrived at a basic understanding, which is
endorsed by the three chief mediators who represent France, Russia, and
the US. The three will work out the particulars and present a proposal
to the presidents at the next meeting in Geneva in June. Now the
presidents must obtain public acceptance of the peace process, and this,
according to Cavanaugh, constitutes the biggest obstacle to peace.
(PRESENTATION to Strengthening Democracy Initiative (SDI), Harvard
University, 23 Apr 01)
During the first week of April, President Robert Kocharian of Armenia and
President Haidar Aliev of Azerbaijan arrived at the basic formula while
attending four days of OSCE-mediated talks in Key West which were hosted
by US Secretary of State Colin Powell. Then the presidents had
individual meetings in Washington, DC, with US President George W. Bush.
The parties and the OSCE are keeping the substance of the talks secret,
but some details have been leaked in a scattered way among different
media outlets and others can be inferred from the official statements.
The Armenian side would return six of the occupied seven districts of
Azerbaijan outside Nagorno-Karabakh. This would allow the vast majority
of the more than 700,000 Azerbaijani refugees to return home. According
to Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Vilayat Guliev, a territorial exchange is
not on the agenda, but the retention by Armenia of the "Lachin corridor"
linking Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh must be balanced by a corridor
through Armenia from Azerbaijan proper to its non-contiguous territory,
Nakhichevan. In this context, having dismissed the territorial swap, it
would seem that by "corridor" the parties mean extra-territorial roads.
(However, in the Lachin region some change of borders in Armenia's favor
seems to be implied.) As regards status, Cavanaugh says the "common
state" formula has been discarded and Guliev says that Nagorno-Karabakh
will have a "high degree of autonomy" but formally remain within
Azerbaijan. (REUTERS, 19 Apr 01; via [email protected], and THE
ECONOMIST, 21 Apr 01)
The US State Department has announced that the OSCE in the person of
Carey Cavanaugh is informing Iran about the talks and that a group of
experts on borders has been summoned. This also suggests that
extra-territorial roads are under discussion, since a road from
Azerbaijan proper to Nakchichevan would have to pass very close to the
Iranian frontier, perhaps even running along the border where there is a
railroad already. If the agreement is signed, restrictions on US
assistance to Azerbaijan and the trade embargo that Azerbaijan and Turkey
have imposed on Armenia would be lifted. This would pave the way to
normalizing relations between Turkey and Armenia.
How to sell the compromise?
The arrangements discussed above are nothing if not fair: The Armenians
are guaranteed security and self-rule; the Azerbaijanis retain
territorial integrity (at least in areas other than Lachin) and obtain a
link to Nakhichevan, which constitutes an uninterrupted path to Turkey.
But these provisions fall far short of banners under which the war was
fought or the slogans that the demagogues in the parliaments and on the
streets of Yerevan and Baku still chant.
Persuading the populace in both states that this compromise represents
the best available outcome requires a degree of openness and public
accountability that has been woefully lacking. However, the last couple
of months witnessed some very productive experiments with public
discussion. The February publication of the outdated draft OSCE texts
created a context for debate in Azerbaijan that humiliated the
opposition, which had no viable alternative to offer. (See THE NIS
OBSERVED, 28 Feb 01 and 21 Mar 01)
The presidents must trust their publics to be savvy enough to distinguish
between an opposition that criticizes real flaws in the peace proposals
and an opposition that only uses the occasion to attack the plan's
authors. At the same time, the presidents have a very powerful tool --
deniability. The governments already have leaked more information than
was made available in 1997 and 1999, the two previous occasions when a
compromise seemed imminent. Over the next few weeks, the opposition can
have its say and, if its representatives propose improvements, the
governments can modify the proposals before making them public. (Ways of
ensuring the security of the roads without introducing foreign
peacekeepers represents one fruitful area for discussion.) In other
words, the break before the Geneva meeting provides the presidents with
an opportunity to steal the thunder from the opposition by appropriating
any constructive proposals that may emerge.
In 1994, when the cease-fire agreement was signed, both nations were
exhausted by war. Now they are exhausted by poverty. The international
community can play a very constructive role by holding out generous
financial incentives. The Azeri refugees who eked out an existence amid
devastating squalor need more than the formal right of return; they need
services, transportation, and shelter. Veterans in both countries lack
medical care, pensions, and employment. It's not enough to suggest that
peace will remove obstacles to trade and promote economic recovery. It
would be far more persuasive to offer an aid package to improve
immediately the condition of those who suffered the most from the war.
Why isn't Russia misbehaving?
In his comments at Harvard on 23 April, Cavanaugh emphasized that the
three mediating countries share a common constructive attitude and are
working in tandem to develop a concrete proposal. In this context,
Cavanaugh mentioned that Russia has treaty obligations to help Armenia in
the event of a new war over Nagorno-Karabakh, but Russia has to contend
with its own conflict in the North Caucasus.
In March two former Azerbaijani officials, Tofig Zul'fugarov and Eldar
Namazov, proposed launching limited operations to retake the
Armenian-occupied districts east of Nagorno-Karabakh. (ZERKALO, 7 Mar 01)
Would the armed forces of Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia be sufficient to
counter such moves? True, Russia has bases and thousands of troops in
Armenia and it has supplied extensive weaponry to Armenia (most recently
by moving CFE-limited equipment from a base in Georgia to
Nagorno-Karabakh). But what if hostilities resumed on such a scale that
this was not sufficient? Would reinforcements from Russia be available?
The Russian military faces another summer of war in Chechnya, including
mounting rumors of a Chechen counteroffensive. According to the
preeminent Russian expert on nationalities, Emil Pain, the Russian side
is running low on reinforcements, whereas the Chechens have the
demographic resources to fight a guerrilla war for the next 50 years.
(PRESENTATION to The Institute for the Study of Conflict, Ideology &
Policy, Boston University, 4 Apr 01) A second front in the Caucasus
seems more than Russia can handle.
It's ironic that for the second time in a decade the South Caucasus is
poised to reap the benefits of a Chechen war. Nearly two years ago
Azerbaijan's elder statesman, Vafa Guluzade, resigned his position as
foreign policy advisor to Aliev in protest over Azerbaijan's lack of
support for the Chechens. His words ring prophetic now:
"I will tell you right now that if that brave and courageous people in
their tiny republic (of Chechnya) had not managed to defeat Russia in the
1994-1996 war, Moscow would long have been back in Azerbaijan, making
further trouble and trying to destroy our independence. Our debt to the
Chechens is huge -- and yet not one voice in this government will speak
one word of support or solidarity. Silence. I am ashamed, mortified.
That is why I quit." (Thomas Goltz, "The Question of Succession in
Azerbaijan: Is the Aliyev era (almost) Over?" SDI CASPIAN STUDIES
EXPERTS CONFERENCE REPORT, Oct 99)
Evolution of US policy
Major improvements in US policy under the present administration
constitute the second set of factors pushing Russia to support a peaceful
and fair solution to the impasse over Nagorno-Karabakh. In 1999, in a
zealous pursuit of an elusive legacy, the Clinton administration
abandoned the OSCE process. In the midst of the war against Serbia,
Madeleine Albright launched the bilateral negotiations which were held in
total secrecy and left Russian representatives out in the cold. When
those talks showed promise, Armenian leaders were murdered in the
nation's parliament. Then it was Putin's turn to mediate the bilateral
talks, then Chirac's. In the meantime, the OSCE process languished. In
its waning days, the Clinton administration made a shameful last-ditch
effort by secretly offering a deal: It would lift US restrictions on aid
to Azerbaijan if Turkey ended its embargo of Armenia. (AZTV1, 25 Feb 01;
BBC Monitoring, via [email protected]) Had Azerbaijan accepted that
offer, a key bargaining chip in the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement would
have been squandered.
The Bush administration improved the process substantially by merging the
bilateral talks with the OSCE mediation. In Key West the main talks
were among the negotiators and between the negotiators and each of the
parties separately. The presidents met only once and for only a brief
period. This format shares the spotlight among the mediators, expedites
the process by having the presidents on hand to react swiftly, and gives
symbolic weight to the proceedings by involving top figures from the US
administration.
The Bush administration has come under criticism for taking a tougher
line in its relations with Russia than the previous administration. Yet,
in this instance, the Bush administration involved the Russian
representatives in a cooperative and fruitful manner. This
administration is said to be weak on foreign policy and uninterested in
international conflicts. Yet, according to Cavanaugh, on the 10th day of
the administration President Bush discussed the Nagorno-Karabakh quandary
with President Chirac; in its 10th week the administration was hosting
the negotiations in Key West. Azerbaijani embassy sources say that the
US president himself ran the half-hour meeting with Aliev. Bush exhibited
such mastery of the complexities of the situation that the Azerbaijani
president was very satisfied when he left the room.
by Miriam Lanskoy
NIS OBSERVED, VOL VI, #8 (PART 2 OF 2)
Fall in number of Armenians applying for refugee status in the West
Text of report by Armenian news agency Snark
Yerevan, 3 May: Armenia today occupies 20th place in the world in terms of
the number of citizens who are applying for refugee status in Western
European countries, the USA and Canada. This is what the assistant to the
UN High Commissioner for Refugees in Armenia, Emil Saakyan, told a Snark
correspondent.
He said that in the first three months of 2001 1,905 Armenians applied for
refugee status in Western Europe, the USA and Canada. Of them 1,357
applied to countries in Western Europe (228 to Germany), 537 to the USA
and 10 to Canada. This is 25 per cent less than in October-December 2000,
the UNHCR assistant in Armenia said.
Azerbaijan occupies 28th place in this list. Nine hundred and
seventy-three Azerbaijanis applied for refugee status in January- March
2001 in Western Europe, the USA and Canada.
SOURCE: Snark news agency, Yerevan, in Russian 1015 gmt 3 May 01
Azeri army stages military exercises
Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency Turan
Baku, 2 May: According to a report from the Azerbaijani Defence Ministry
press service, the country's armed forces started their latest
command-staff exercises on 2 May. There are no reports on the location or
duration of the exercises, nor their scale.
However, Turan has learnt from sources close to the military that the
exercises are being held in the front-line zone and involve all types of
troops. In terms of scale, the current exercises are of the same kind as
those held by the Azerbaijani army on 9-16 April. We should recall that
the previous exercises were also held in the front-line zone and aircraft
were involved.
SOURCE: Turan news agency, Baku, in Russian 1045 gmt 2 May 01
Azeri opposition leader doubtful of Karabakh breakthrough
Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency Turan
2 May: Any retreat from the principles of territorial integrity and the
sovereignty of Azerbaijan in settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani
conflict is inadmissible, the leader of the Azarbaycan Milli Istiqlal
Party, Eibar Mammadov, has told Turan.
"Any encroachment on these principles will be assessed as a violation of
the Azerbaijani Constitution and betrayal of the Motherland," Mammadov
said. He believes that the public needs to be informed about how the
negotiating process is proceeding. At the same time, Mammadov does not
believe the conflict is likely to be settled in the near future "because
Armenia wants either unification with Nagornyy Karabakh or Karabakh
independence," Mammadov said.
SOURCE: Turan news agency, Baku, in Russian 1045 gmt 2 May 01
Minister refutes rumors of major Russian role in Karabakh
Excerpt from report by Azerbaijani news agency Turan
Baku, 30 April: In the event of a peace agreement being signed between
Azerbaijan and Armenia, Russian troops should form the backbone of
peacemaking forces in Nagornyy Karabakh and play a leading role in the
conduct of a peacemaking operation, Turan has learnt from an informed
western source. The source believes that this is the explanation for
Russia stepping up its activity in the Karabakh settlement process.
However, commenting on this report for Turan, Azerbaijani Foreign
Minister Vilayat Quliyev refuted statements that the contingent of
international peacekeepers in Nagornyy Karabakh would be formed mainly
from Russian military. According to him, the issue of peacekeeping forces
in Karabakh has not yet been discussed at all. Quliyev noted that
agreement should first be reached on the "character" of peace. After
this, the sides will decide the issue of how to ensure peace - using
their own forces or with the help of international peacekeeping forces.
The former state foreign policy adviser, Vafa Quluzada, believes that
there is absolutely no need to use peacekeeping forces. "If the sides
have managed without them so far, then why should they be needed after
peace is concluded?", he said.
As is known, the 1994 OSCE Budapest summit decided to create
international peacekeeping forces for a peacekeeping operation in
Nagornyy Karabakh. At that time, it was decided that each country in the
peacekeeping forces could not exceed 30 per cent of their total number.
It will be impossible to change the 1994 decision without Azerbaijan's
consent. However, Armenia has more than once stated that it agreed to
peacekeeping forces formed 100 per cent from Russian troops.
[passage omitted: Russian representative at Key West talks sharply
reacted to Azeri officials proposing NATO deployment in Azerbaijan]
Turan
in Russian
1102 GMT 30 Apr 01
Russia, France satisfied with level of interaction
on Karabakh
By Natalya Lenskaya
MOSCOW, April 28 (Itar-Tass) - Russia and France are satisfied with
the level of interaction, established between them within the framework
of the co-chairmanship of the Minsk group of the Organisation for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).
This was stressed at a meeting on Saturday of First Deputy Foreign
Minister of the Russian Federation Vyacheslav Trubnikov with Ambassador
of France to Russia Claude Blanchemaison.
The diplomats focused on the present state and prospects for the
settlement of the Karabakh conflict. They touched on issues of a
practical preparation for a new round of peace talks on this problem,
scheduled for June in Geneva.
During the talk the sides also confirmed the readiness to continue
close coordination of their actions in the interests of the solution to
the Karabakh problem and the restoration of peace and stability in the
region.
ITAR-TASS in English 1848 GMT 28 Apr 01
[Description of Source: Moscow ITAR-TASS -- main government information
agency]
Competing reminders of past suffering
While Azerbaijanis and Armenians continue to observe genocide days, can the
historical cycle of hate be broken
Financial Times; Apr 28, 2001
By DAVID STERN
There are two telling entriesin the index of Peter Hopkirk's excellent first
world war history of the Caucasus region. Under "Armenians" are two
sub-headings - "massacres of" and "massacre by". Under "Azerbaijanis" are
two more sub-headings - "massacre by Armenians" and "revenge on Armenians".
This is the essence of this fantastically diverse and cruel corner of the
world. One ethnic group slaughters another, only to be revenged in kind. And
so on. When it started, or when it will end, no one knows.
The entries in the index of Hopkirk's book, On Secret Service East of
Constantinople, are particularly relevant at this time of year - the
Azerbaijanis observed their "National Genocide day" on March 31 and the
Armenians observe theirs on April 24.
The Armenian day dates back to 1915 and what are described as mass
deportations and massacres during the rule of the Ottoman Empire. Possibly
more than 1m Armenians were killed when they were driven out of a
traditional Armenian homeland in eastern Anatolia. At the same time, the
anniversary is a reminder of the unfortunate 2,000-year history of this
Middle Eastern people.
The Azerbaijani day is a recent addition to the observance calendar. For
three years, residents of Baku have marked the death of 12,000 people - the
Azerbaijanis say 50,000 - at the hands of Armenian paramilitary groups in
the city in 1918.
On the last day of March this year, flags flew at half-mast and Azerbaijani
President Heydar Aliyev addressed the nation, saying 2m of his countrymen
died or were deported during the 20th century.
His figures included the 1918 massacre, deportations of Azerbaijanis living
in Armenia during the Soviet era, and those killed and driven from their
homes during the Karabakh war in the 1990s. Genocide for the Azerbaijanis
seems to mean both death in large numbers and ethnic cleansing.
All this commemoration is one-sided, however. For instance, six months after
the 1918 massacre the Azerbaijanis allied with Turkish forces, retook the
city and slaughtered 9,000 Armenians. In Baku today, no mention is made of
Azerbaijanis slaughtering Armenians - just as Armenians make no mention of
killing many Azerbaijanis.
The result is competing genocides - a competition to establish the greater
suffering.
Of course, amid the remembrance, a little public relations is taking place.
"We are not doing this for political reasons," says
Idayat Orujiyev, Azerbaijan's state adviser for national issues. And he
adds: "Our goal is for the world to recognise that Azerbaijan suffered a
true genocide."
The Azerbaijanis feel they need to publicise their cause as they have seen
how crucial world opinion has been in other ethnic struggles beyond the
Caucasus. Certainly, the Azerbaijanis' ter-rible history is little known
internationally and it is therefore easy to understand their publicity
effort.
Yet, at street level, one gets the impression that both Genocide days are
more for local consumption. And herein lies their biggest danger.
Yo'av Karney is the author of the recently published Highlanders: A Journey
to the Caucasus, in Quest of Memory, that deals with the bending of history
to suit present-day needs. He says the creation of a national cult of
grievance is the first step in nation building and creating a national
consciousness among new countries. But leaders need to know how far to go
and when to stop.
He says: "There has been something of a genocide envy in a number of ethnic
conflicts the world over: Serbs and Croats, Jews and Arabs, Turks and
Greeks.
" 'Who suffered more' is an old game played among nations, especially small
ones, since the mid-19th century. Sadly, those who have suffered more seem
ready to inflict suffering on those who suffered less.
"In an age of self-pity, where past victimhood seems to provide licence for
victimising others, there is little wonder that the Azeris are trying to
join the club."
Curiously, as the competition hots up, President Aliyev and his Armenian
counterpart Robert Kocharian are said to be as close as they have ever come
to resolving their two countries' 13-year-old conflict over the Nagorno
Karabakh enclave.
Neither leader has done much to prepare his respective society for the
possibility of peace with its historic enemy, however. In fact, the opposite
is happening, as Aliyev and Kocharian continue to pursue the same short-term
policy of demonising the other side.
The danger is that if or when a settlement over Nagorno Karabakh is reached,
neither country's population will accept it, having been educated in the
absolute correctness of their cause. If this happens, the two presidents
will have only themselves to blame.
One British observer, quoted in Hopkirk's book, said: "When one speaks of
the streets of a town running with blood, one is generally employing a
figure of speech. But if one is referring to Baku between 1917 and 1919, one
is being starkly literal."
The world can only hope the Azerbaijanis and Armenians can break out of this
horrible cycle.
Copyright: The Financial Times Limited
ARMENIAN PARTIES SET CONDITIONS FOR KARABAKH PEACE
All 11 parties and factions of the Armenian parliament issued a joint
statement on 27 April saying they will consider unacceptable any
settlement that would affect Armenia's territorial integrity, put Karabakh
under the control of Baku, or does not set the stage for the region's
"re-unification" with Armenia or "independence," RFE/RL's Armenian Service
reported. President Robert Kocharian on the same day welcomed this
statement as "timely and even-minded," the Snark news agency reported the
same day. PG
ANOTHER RUSSIAN BASE TO OPEN IN ARMENIA
A spokesman for Russian air force commander Aleksandr Drobyshevskii told
ITAR-TASS on 29 April that another Russian military base will open in
Armenia in the near future. Meanwhile, on 27 April, Armenian Defense
Minister Serzh Sarkisian said that the planned joint Armenian-Russian
military command will be commanded by an Armenian, RFE/RL's Armenian
Service reported. PG
[RFE/RL] Transcaucasia Newsline, April 30, 2001
ARMENIA, RUSSIA BUILDING COMMON ARMY
Armenia and Russia have agreed to establish a joint military unit on the
territory of Armenia, Azerbaijans Azadlig newspaper has quoted Armenian
chief-of-staff General Arutunian as saying in an interview with Russian
Red Star newspaper.
The Armenian officer says further that a meeting of the CIS Collective
Security Council was held in Yerevan on April 26-27 and attended by the
Secretary of Russias Security Council A. Rushailo and other high-ranking
dignitaries from Moscow.
According to Media-Max news agency, Gen. Arutunian said Russias 102nd
military unit and Armenias Air Defense Force would be defending not only
themselves but also the entire territory of Armenia.
The general went on to say that Armenias key army units, considering the
current situation, have been stationed in the vicinity of the border with
Nakhchivan and along the western border )with Azerbaijan.
If necessary, we can concentrate our troops, together with Russias 102nd
unit, on the western border, he said and added that in case of a military
threat in the region, the Russo-Armenian units would be further
strengthened with Russias space aviation components.
The general pledged that bilateral military and technical cooperation
would further enhance.*
AssA-Irada News Digest, April 28, 2001
Armenian communist leader says Karabakh
should be independent
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Apr 28, 2001
Text of report by Armenian news agency Snark
Yerevan, 27 April: Nagornyy Karabakh should become an independent state and
join the Russian-Belarusian Union together with Armenia, the first secretary
of the central committee of the Armenian Communist Party, Vladimir
Darbinyan, told journalists today on presenting his proposal for settlement
of the Karabakh conflict.
He said that peaceful resolution of the Karabakh problem was not possible
without Russia's participation because the USA is supporting Azerbaijan and
its interests. Darbinyan noted that he did not rule out compromises to
resolve the conflict. However, he added that these compromises should not be
detrimental to Armenia's interests.
The first secretary of the Armenian Communist Party expressed his
dissatisfaction with the lack of information about the content of the talks
between the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents. "The people should know
what the presidents discussed in the USA or what will be discussed in
Geneva," he said.
Armenian communists will take appropriate measures if the sides come to an
agreement which is unacceptable to the Armenian communists. However, he
found it difficult to say specifically what measures he meant.
Source: Snark news agency, Yerevan, in Russian 0838 gmt 27 Apr 01
Azeri army can counter Russian-Armenian
military alliance, officer says
Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency Bilik Dunyasi
Baku, 1 May: "There is no doubt. We should not get worried that joint
Russian-Armenian groups are being set up. Russian base No 102 in Armenia is
almost completely staffed by Armenian servicemen. I think that the Armenians
will lose, even with Russia's help. The Azerbaijani army is capable of
countering Russian-Armenian armed formations,"Col Isa Sadixov, chairman of
the Union of Retired Officers, has said.
In his opinion, the concentration of joint groupings in the direct vicinity
of the Naxcivan Autonomous Republic does not constitute a threat: "First, it
is impossible to concentrate large forces in the Naxcivan direction. Second,
the Armenians will never dare to invade Naxcivan. Should such a thing
happen, Turkish Armed Forces would enter Naxcivan to defend it under the
[1921] Kars agreement."
Azerbaijan and Turkey sign military logistics
cooperation accord
Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency Turan
Baku, 30 April: [Azerbaijani] Defence Minister Safar Abiyev received a
Turkish military delegation headed by the chief of logistics of the General
Staff of the armed forces, Hursit Tolon, on 28 April .
Both sides expressed satisfaction with the growth of material-technical aid
being rendered by the Turkish side to the armed forces of Azerbaijan.
The sides exchanged opinions on the issue of training military cadres, as
well as reforms being carried out in the defence industry sphere.
The meeting resulted in the signing of a protocol "On cooperation in the
sphere of material-technical supply between the Azerbaijani Defence Ministry
and the Turkish General Staff". The document was signed by Hursit Tolon and
Azerbaijani Deputy Defence Minister Qorxmaz Qarayev, the Defence Ministry
press service reported.
DEFENSE AND SECURITY
April 30, 2001, Monday
AZERBAIJAN FOREIGN MINISTER SAYS NATO MAY OPEN BASES IN THE REPUBLIC
It is possible that NATO may establish military bases in Azerbaijan in the
near future, said Foreign Minister Vilayat Guliev in his interview with
the newspaper Echo (Baku). This is not the first statement concerning NATO
bases made by influential officials. They explain the necessity of
creating NATO military bases by the presence of Russian military bases in
Armenia, which allegedly threatens Azerbaijan's security. In this regard
another statement made by Vilayat Guliev looks rather
paradoxical. According to the Azerbaijan Foreign Ministry the solution of
the Karabakh problem must be sought in Russia. The minister states that
currently Russia and Azerbaijan can strengthen cooperation in the security
sector.(Translated by Alexander Dubovoi)
SOURCE: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, April 26, 2001, p. 5
PLANNING CONFERENCE FOR FULL-FLEDGED NATO EXERCISE IN TRANSCAUCASIA HAS ENDED
Military from six NATO countries and five countries which cooperate with
the alliance (Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, Azerbaijan, and
Georgia) gathered in the Georgian town of Poti. The conference for
planning NATO's first full-fledged exercise Cooperative Partner - 2001 is
to end on April 27.
NATO intends to conduct a peacemaking exercise near the town of Poti. In
particular the alliance plans to land troops in Georgia. According to the
exercise's scenario NATO, forces which rescue civilians after an
earthquake are opposed by terrorists. NATO will use 12 Falcon fighters,
two submarines, transport planes, three corvettes, from 30 to 40 different
men-of-war, and marines.
According to the scenario the exercise has a happy end. The terrorists
will be destroyed by NATO and its partners.(Translated by Alexander
Dubovoi)
SOURCE: NTV, Segodnya, April 27, 2001, 10:00
Azerbaijani Opposition: Military solution of Karabakh conflict conforms to UN Charter
Text of M. Mammadov report by Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo entitled
"UN can punish Armenia"
[Subhead] The UN Charter permits prevention of aggressions by military
means
The Karabakh Liberation Organization held its second sitting yesterday
[24 April] on "Peace or War". Opening the round table discussion, the
organization's chairman, Akif Nagi, talked about "The Karabakh problem
and international law" and put the following questions to the audience:
What norms of international law would allow Azerbaijan to demand the
immediate withdrawal of Armenia from the occupied territories? Would
Azerbaijan face the international pressure if it tried to resolve the
Karabakh problem militarily?
The chairman of Vahdat Party and ex-chairman of the Azerbaijani
Supreme Court, Tahir Karimli, said that the supreme law of the
international community - the UN Charter - stipulates mechanisms for
settling interstate conflicts, including military ones. Therefore,
Azerbaijan should first of all appeal to the UN and admit that it has
failed to resolve the conflict with Armenia peacefully. The UN Charter
stipulates economic sanctions against aggressors (Article 41), blockade
(Article 42) and also direct military intervention (sections 7 and 8).
The UN Charter also stipulates an independent prevention of aggression
(Articles 51 and 52). On the basis of these articles, Karimli said that
any action by Azerbaijan aimed at safeguarding its territorial integrity
would conform to the norms of international law.
Karimli told the audience that the UN has adopted a number conventions
that refers to different sides of military conflicts. Azerbaijan, which
signed many of these conventions, should seek the international
recognition of Armenia as an aggressor and sanctions against it. The
genocide of Azerbaijanis, refugees, the Armenians' attitude to historical
monuments, among other issues, are the grounds for Azerbaijan to appeal
to the UN to recognize Armenia as an aggressor. "Instead of this, our
president talks about adherence to the peaceful settlement of the
conflict," Karimli said.
According to Karimli, Azerbaijan should not have any illusions about
the OSCE's interest in settling the conflict. He added that the Karabakh
conflict was about to be resolved in 1993. At the time, the UN forced
Armenia to accept a plan of withdrawal from the occupied territories.
However, the coming to power of a new government in Azerbaijan impeded
the fulfilment of the UN plan.
The round table participants said that the international community
would have no grounds to bring any charges against Azerbaijan if it
decides to liberate Karabakh by war.
Zerkalo
in Russian
25 Apr 01
Zerkalo dismisses Armenian report on
Karabakh population growth
Excerpt from report by Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo on 21 April entitled
"Demographic disinformation from Yerevan" by I. Umudlu
[subhead] The objective is to lay the groundwork for more financial
assistance from the Diaspora
A few days ago some Baku media swallowed the bait, believing a report
by Yerevan's Azg (Nation) newspaper, which said: "Nagornyy Karabakh is the
only republic in the South Caucasus where population growth has been
registered", and "compared with Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, Nagornyy
Karabakh has a higher standard of living, lower prices for basic goods,
lower taxes, almost no emigration and the same unemployment level as in
the other three Transcaucasus states" and so on.
[passage omitted: quotes the same report and Armenia's Snark news
agency]
Now let us speak about these points one by one. First, about
"population growth in Nagornyy Karabakh that reached 150,000-160,000
people". It is a fact that before the known events, of the 180,000 people
in the former NKAO [Nagornyy Karabakh Autonomous Region], 120,000 were
Armenians. During the war many of them left. People left Armenia proper as
well. Nearly half of the population left for Russia, CIS countries or the
West. This was natural. For a nation with mercantile flair, not only
Nagornyy Karabakh, but Armenia itself stopped being a promising
motherland. Therefore, it is ridiculous to speak about population growth
today. Especially as this information was obtained "from an unofficial
Stepanakert [Xankandi] source".
Competent Azerbaijani sources state that about 60,000 Armenians are
left in Nagornyy Karabakh. To this we can add the 20,000-strong Armenian
occupation army. Only the poor part of the former NKAO residents remained
in Nagornyy Karabakh. Rich people preferred to leave, as they understood
perfectly well that Azerbaijan would never cede Karabakh to Armenia. To
them Nagornyy Karabakh became an unattractive land in every respect.
Moreover, it became dangerous as a permanent place of residence: whatever
one may say, the front line is always in close proximity.
The statement that 200 to 250 families have returned to their
"historical motherland" is also not convincing, if we recall
kilometre-long queues for visas outside foreign embassies in Yerevan. The
[Karabakh] "prime minister's" optimism concerning 300,000 people [he said
Karabakh was ready to accommodate another 300,000 people] sounds more like
a joke from "Armenian radio", for Azerbaijan's permission has to be sought
for demographic changes on its territory.
To all appearances, this skillfully veiled "disinformation" pursues
two goals: to psychologically influence the Azerbaijanis who stubbornly
refuse to resign themselves to their defeat and are eager to take revenge
and return their own lands, and to prepare fertile information ground for
more financial aid from the diaspora. Evidently, programmes to resettle
Nagornyy Karabakh are prepared exactly with this in mind. In such a
graphically corrupt country as Armenia (we are not saying that there is
nothing like that in Azerbaijan! [punctuation as given]), money will flow
into the pockets of individuals. That is probably the root of the matter.
Zerkalo
in Russian
21 Apr 01
News referred from Habarlar-L