updated
By Farhad MAMMADOV
Co-chairs return empty-handed from the trip to the region.
The trip of the OSCE Minsk Group's co-chairs to Baku and Yerevan that has begun since May 18th has finished resultless. The main goal of the visit was to prepare the next talks of the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents planned to be held in Geneva and at the first day of the trip the co-chairs stated that they would try strengthening "the important progress" gained at the Key West talks. It is notable that co-chairs, concretely American co-chair Carry Cavanaugh was very optimistic before the trip to the region and has several times given statements expressing great hope for the settlement of the conflict during this year. Even before the co-chairs' trip to the region, there was spread news on being held of Geneva meeting on June 15 citing on Mr. Cavanaugh.
But after their meetings in Baku and Yerevan, as well as in the so-called "Nagorno Karabakh Republic", the co-chairs stopped thinking on gaining a peace in near future and left the region empty-handed. And its reason is strong reaction of public opinion to possible compromises both in Azerbaijan and Armenia. In the words of Cavanaugh, the presidents- Heidar Aliev and Robert Kocharian go in the forth of their nation by being ready to compromises. But the nations are far from the idea of adopting the compromises.
Naturally, such a peace can not be firm. Mr. Cavanaugh himself confirms it: "To go to concessions for the sake of peace is a dangerous game". After the trip to the region co-chairs have come to such an opinion that there is no use of holding the next stage of talks without agreeing the parties with compromise. This is why, it is not known when and whether the Geneva talks will take place.
In fact, the probability of breaking the Azerbaijani-Armenian talks again was strong yet before the trip of co-chairs to the region. Armenian president Kocharian has received the leaders of fraction and groups at the Armenian parliament and informed them of the course of talks after returning back from Key West talks. And a week later after that meeting, fraction and group leaders of the Armenian parliament issued a very aggressive statement and rejected any compromise.
According to that statement, Upper Karabakh either should be unified to Armenia together with another 2 regions of Azerbaijan or get a status of full independent state. Naturally, the Azerbaijani community did not approach silently to becoming the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the country to an object of compromise at the talks. Major oppositional forces of the country, as well as the entire public opinion regarded as impossible of abstaining from these two principles and called Aliev to come out from this position at the talks, as well. Generally, the method used by co-chairs for the settlement of the conflict was wrong and over 7 years of history of Karabakh talks also confirms the impossibility of gaining any positive progress by this method.
That method considers that the moderators while knowing Armenia is an occupant party, do not pressure on him, and on the contrary, are trying, indirectly, legalize the military successes of the occupant. Having been lasting the resultless talks for many years and Armenia's use of its military successes as a pressure increase the probability of beginning the war again. Aliev himself has confirmed it, as well. In his meeting with the representatives of the European parliament on May 22, he has confirmed that there has increased dissatisfaction in society with extending Karabakh question and stated that "the situation is very dangerous". At last, Aliev has admitted that the impossibility of settling the Karabakh conflict without regarding the opinion of the community, as well as opposition. "If Armenia does not go to compromise, then I can not do anything alone. This is why, the probability of war will increase time-by-time".
U.S. ATTEMPTS REGULATION OF KARABAKH PROBLEM IN THE NEAR FUTURE
NIP's chairman Etibar Mammadov: "The position of the U.S. government is so that the parties should go to mutual concessions. But there is not any compulsion on who goes to what degree of concession".
On May 21, there has been held a press conference at the office place of the NIP [National Independence Party] dedicated to the results of trip of the party's chairman Etibar Mammadov and his deputy Ilgar Mammadov to the U.S.. Ilgar Mammadov opened the press conference and said that they visited to Washington from May 14 till 18 with the invitation of the American Republicans Party in order to acquaint with the new administration of the White House, and added that the trip was very interesting.
Then spoke Etibar Mammadov and stated that the problem over Upper Karabakh, development of democracy and economy in Azerbaijan has become the main object of discussion at the meetings during the trip. In his words, there has been seen the choice of the West, especially the U.S. on democracy or stability in respect to Azerbaijan until now: "The Western countries, as well as the U.S. were stating before that Azerbaijan was choosing between democracy and stability. And at the same time, closed their eyes to the violation of democracy and human rights because of stability in the region". But in the words of NIP's chairman, Condoliza Rays, advisor of the American president on national security affairs, has strongly stated that there will not be the choice of democracy or stability for the new administration: "That is, the new administration will pay equal attention to both questions and form its policy on that direction". Saying that most tense discussions during the U.S. trip were held around the Upper Karabakh problem, NIP's chairman added that there has been held an exchange of opinions around that question both at the Department of State and National Security Council: "The result of the held discussions is that at the current stage the U.S. efforts regulation of the problem in the near future and is decisive in putting serious steps in this direction".
According to Etibar Mammadov, whether the interests of Azerbaijan will be observed or not in this question depends on us: "That is, it is stated that mutual concessions must, of course, be. But there is not any compulsion on who does these concession at which decree". The discussed plan at the moment is continuation put forward in 1999, added Mammadov. In his words, this plan regards giving independence to Upper Karabakh, passing Lachin region to the control of Armenians as a corridor, and opening the route going to Nakhchivan in Mehri region instead of this: everything depends on how the Azerbaijani government ready to these compromises. In Mammadov's opinion, the main reason of such unjust suggestions to Azerbaijan comes from the statements of the Azeri president on the probability of concessions: "And there is also the question of gaining anything instead of those concessions on the agenda. In other words, Upper Karabakh problem has become a trade object".
Later NIP's chairman pointed out that they have stressed the importance regarding the position of the leading opposition parties of Azerbaijan at the regulation of the mentioned conflict at the meetings in the U.S.: "It was also stressed that this question could not be settled only by the presidents. Everything should be accepted and supported by the people". And political parties should support these peace processes as they represent the nation.
AZERBAIJAN
BULLETIN No:21 (275), May 24 2001
http://www.andf-az.org/
Hopes raise for peace in the Caucasus
Agreement expected to be signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan in June,
Geneva
In case of such an agreement, Ankara will consider a new approach to ease
the long dispute with Yerevan
SAADET ORUC
Armenia and Azerbaijan are closer than ever to signing an agreement for
Nagorno-Karabakh in June in Geneva, diplomatic sources said.
Evaluating the recent developments in the Caucasus, senior officials said
that important decisions positively affecting the region are due to be
seen, as a result of sixteen former meetings between the presidents of the
two states.
"The agreement is expected to be a general parameters deal, which is
planned to describe the basic principles for a solution to the dispute,"
officials say.
The expected consensus can be delayed until autumn, but diplomats believe
that, at minimum, a general framework agreement will be signed in Geneva
in June.
A compromise is expected to be reached on the formula of, "autonomy plus;
independence minus", which means an improved autonomy short of
independence for the Nagorno-Karabakh region.
An international monitoring system is also expected to be on track,
according to the ongoing negotiations.
The process for evacuation of the invaded lands will also be broadly
discussed.
Leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan, Robert Kocharian and Haydar Aliyev,
have met several times to discuss peace in the Caucasus, under the
auspices of the co-presidency of the Minsk Group of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The latest meeting, which was
held in Florida, resulted with an optimism for the future of the Caucasus.
An opportunity for a new Turkish approach to Armenia In case of such a
consensus, Turkey will take steps to initiate a new approach regarding its
relations with Yerevan.
"Since the two main obstacles in the normalization between Yerevan and
Ankara are the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute and the Armenian government and
diaspora's efforts to campaign for the genocide claims abroad, the removal
of one obstacle will encourage Ankara to make a new approach regarding
Turkish-Armenian relations," said official sources in Ankara.
Despite the countless efforts of the Armenian government to push the bills
in various Parliaments on the so-called Armenian genocide, Turkey argues
that the issue is not a matter for discussion from state-to-state.
"The issue should be on the agenda of academicians and historians," is the
phrase which explains the Turkish policy on the so-called genocide in the
best way.
It does not matter that the two states, Turkey and Armenia, do not have
diplomatic "relations." Various opportunities were used by Ankara to
establish diplomatic "contacts" with Armenia.
Justin McCarthy to visit Turkey As part of efforts to inform historians on
the past of the Turkish-Armenian relations, world famous American
historian, professor Justin McCarthy was invited to Turkey. McCarthy will
be in Turkey for a conference titled "The Sources of Prejudice Against
Turkey and Its Reflections on National Issues; Especially on The Armenian
Problem" organized by the Rotary 2420. District Governorate in Cemal Resit
Rey Hall on 30th of May 2001.
McCarthy, a specialist on social and demographic history of Modern Middle
East and senior professor of art and sciences at the University of
Louisville, was awarded the Turkish Honour Medal in 1998.
At the conference, Patriarch of Turkish Armenians, Mesrob II will be
presented with an "honour certificate" in memory of Berk Keresteciyan
Turker, who was general manager of Osmanli Bank and second chairman of the
Hilal-i Ahmer Association. In 1919, he secretly informed Mustafa Kemal
Ataturk that the ship carrying him was going to be torpedoed on the Black
Sea. He was also the first parliamentarian in the Turkish National
Assembly of Armenian origin. At the conference, the "Reward of authors who
remain faithful to the history makers" will be given to historian author,
Cemal Kutay. McCarthy, will end the conference with the presentation of
titles of the Rotary PHD (Paul Harris Friendship).
Ankara - Turkish Daily News
Turkish Daily News, May 24, 2001
Steps for peace meet suspicion in restive Karabakh
Rosalind Russell
Stray cattle wander aimlessly through the archways of the main mosque in
Agdam, the graffiti-strewn building long devoid of worshippers.
This city in western Azerbaijan has been virtually without human life
since it was overrun by Armenian forces eight years ago at the height of a
bloody war over the disputed mountains of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Agdam lies on the plains beneath the mountains, and was used by the Azeris
as a base for launching deadly missile attacks on Armenian-held towns and
villages in the Karabakh region.
As Armenian forces closed in, the city's 50,000-strong Muslim Azeri
population fled, leaving the victors to loot at will.
No building is untouched. Doors, roofs, window panes, every nut and bolt
that could be carried off was scavenged by Armenian soldiers and civilians
hungry for revenge.
The conflict has been dormant yet unresolved since 1994 when Azerbaijan
was forced into a cease-fire in the face of a string of battlefield
defeats.
Now, international mediators have intensified efforts to get the two
countries to sign a peace deal and envoys from the United States, Russia
and France recently toured the region.
The mediators hope the two nations' leaders can sell a deal to their
countrymen. But six years of fighting have left a tragic mark on the
volatile south Caucasus region where suppressed ethnic tensions exploded
with the collapse of Soviet rule.
Push for peace
Hundreds of thousands of refugees from both sides are still jobless and
destitute.
They live in tents, shipping containers and railway carriages, depending
on international assistance or the benevolence of friends and relatives to
survive.
Cities like Agdam lie in ruins, and economic development in the already
poverty-stricken region has been strangled by trade links severed by
fighting and animosity.
Alarmed by the devastation still wrought by the war, and eyeing the
bountiful energy resources of the Caspian Sea, international mediators
have launched an all-out assault to try to resolve it once and for all.
The international envoys toured the region by helicopter, car and on foot
in May to take their message of peace to communities on both sides of the
frontline.
In flak jackets and helmets, they crossed the Line of Control separating
opposing forces and lectured suspicious military commanders on the
benefits of peace.
They told refugees they would be able to return home, that a peaceful
settlement would bring trade, jobs and prosperity.
"We are not simply working on a peace agreement on a piece of paper, but
for the lives of the people in Azerbaijan and Armenia," U.S. mediator
Carey Cavanaugh told Azeri refugees in a sprawling camp of tin-roofed
shelters in Agcebedi in western Azerbaijan.
Bitter refugees
The anger and bitterness which confronted the diplomats reminded them
their task would not be easy.
Shaking with fury, one elderly Azeri refugee said he had lost everything
when he fled Nagorno-Karabakh, a region dominated by Christian ethnic
Armenians but placed by Soviet map-makers within Azerbaijan.
"We came here with nothing and we still have nothing," he cried. "The
Armenians took our lives and our homes. Now we must be compensated, we
must be given our land back."
Across the frontline in his home town of Shusha, thousands of Armenian
refugees have taken over Azeri homes.
Perched amid the soft grasses and wild thyme of the spectacular Karabakh
mountains, the town bred many of Azerbaijan's great poets and writers.
Azerbaijan insists its people must be allowed to return to Shusha, but its
new residents, many of whom fled brutal pogroms in the Azeri capital Baku
in the late 1980s, vow they will never again live with "the enemy."
"Once we lived with Azeris, and see what has happened to us," said
67-year-old Gayne Ulubanian. "We will never do it again."
Close to a deal?
After intensive diplomatic efforts which culminated last month in four
days of negotiations between Presidents Robert Kocharyan of Armenia and
Haydar Aliyev of Azerbaijan in the Florida resort of Key West, mediators
said they had made "excellent progress" towards a peace deal.
But the envoys, working under the auspices of the Organisation for
Security and Cooperation in Europe, say the two leaders have done little
to prepare their populations for reconciliation.
War-like talk continues, with Aliyev recently comparing Armenia to Nazi
Germany. The sense of optimism that followed the Key West talks has been
replaced by caution as the presidents take time to gauge the mood at home.
"We're coming to the hardest part where the leaders see only they can see
this through to the end, and they have to take the responsibility," said
Cavanaugh.
"They have the hard task of selling it to their people, to explain to them
the need for compromise, and we're seeing a certain amount of jitters."
Agdam, Azerbaijan - Reuters
24 May 2001, Copyright� Turkish Daily News
PEACE AGREEMENT WILL BE SIGNED ONLY IF IT MEETS AZERBAIJANS NATIONAL
INTERESTS: SPEAKER ALASGAROV
Source:Turan News Agency
22.05.01--BAKU--I cant imagine Nagorno Karabakh exist beyond Azerbaijans
borders as its impossible since all states recognize the territorial
integrity of our country. This was announced by the Speaker of the Milli
Majlis (MM - Parliament) of Azerbaijan, Murtuz Alasgarov during the May 22
session of the nations legislative body. Commenting on recent statements
by OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, Mr Alasgarov said one shouldnt attach
importance to statements of mediators and leaders of Karabakhs separatist
regime. According to the head of MM, the peace agreement will be signed
when it meets the national interests of Azerbaijan. Otherwise, other ways
of resolution of the conflict will be found, said Mr Alasgarov. The Azeri
Parliament will decide whether the agreement meets Azerbaijans national
interests. At the same time, the speaker emphasized that the president of
Azerbaijan wont sign anything not meeting this nations interests. Mr
Alasgarov also didnt exclude that the forthcoming Geneva meeting between
Azeri and Armenian presidents wont bring anything positive.
By Staff Writers
[ANS] News Digest, May 24, 2001
Copyright 2001 Azerbaijan News Service
Kyrgyz plans on military deal with Armenia
regretted by Azeris
Excerpt from report by Azerbaijani news agency Turan
Baku, 23 May: Bishkek is ready to sign an intergovernmental agreement with
Yerevan on military and technical cooperation. ITAR-TASS news agency has
quoted Kyrgyz Chief of the General Staff [First Deputy Defence Minister
Kubanychbek] Tynaliyev as saying this in a speech to parliament. He noted
that both sides had resolutely agreed on this, however, the exact date of
signing a document has not yet been agreed.
Tynaliyev said that the future agreement would envisage mutual supplies of
arms and ammunition, the training of specialists and the development and
updating of arms.
[passage omitted: some Kyrgyz MPs opposed the agreement]
"Bishkek's plans to sign a military agreement with Armenia, which supports
terrorism and separatism at state level, cause surprise and regret in
Azerbaijan. It is noteworthy that a Turkic state, which itself suffers
from
international terrorism, is making such plans."The Azerbaijani Defence
Ministry press service gave these comments on Tynaliyev's speech. The
source
said that Bishkek had previously delivered a consignment of ammunition to
Armenia, thus violating the requirements of international organizations on
the inadmissibility of supplying arms to conflicting sides.
Azeri paper eyes Karabakh peace process ahead of Bush-Putin summit
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 23, 2001
Text of E. Abulfatov report by Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo on 23 May entitled "Moscow is dragging Baku under its wing"
To what extent can the White House allow the Kremlin such a luxury?
The latest visit by the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen to the region can already be called significant by its accomplishments. However, an assessment of the recent events has practically dispelled all illusions on a speedy settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. While in Xankandi [Stepanakert], Russian Cochairman Nikolay Gribkov said that "in the course of the 1992 Helsinki conference, Nagornyy Karabakh was described as an interested party. For this reason, regardless of whether somebody wants this or not, Nagornyy Karabakh should be involved directly in the negotiating process." At the same time, Gribkov refused to give a specific time for involving the "third side" in the conflict settlement process.
In fact, the Russian cochairman continued the idea of his US colleague [Carey Cavanaugh], who already spoke in Key West about the expediency of involving the Karabakh separatist regime in the talks. However, the fact that "rapprochement" between the US and Russian positions on this issue is occurring with a lot friction because of a lack of coordination on a number of issues is evident in Gribkov's and Cavanaugh's statements. Gribkov's present position was rather unexpected and Cavanaugh suddenly had to deny his own utterances both on the date of the next meeting [between Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev and Armenian President Robert Kocharyan] and the time frame for the settlement. Thus, Gribkov even took the initiative from Cavanaugh for a certain period of time, which might mean that Moscow intends to considerably intensify its role, not only within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group.
Intensification of the struggle
Gribkov's statement that if Baku wishes, "Russia is ready to deploy its military bases on Azerbaijani territory" can clarify these processes. Thus, Gribkov dispelled the illusion that the USA and Russia are engaged in joint activities for a settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, and emphasized Moscow's aspiration for individual priority in Azerbaijan.
One can assume in this connection that major developments are expected before the meeting between the US and Russian presidents in Slovenia on 16-17 June. Moscow's activation will probably reach a certain level already on 24-25 May in Yerevan where a meeting between [Russian President] Vladimir Putin and Kocharyan will take place during the work of the CIS Collective Security Council.
After an appropriate platform has been prepared in Yerevan, the main stage in the "determination" of bilateral Baku-Moscow relations might start already on 1 June during a summit of CIS heads of state in Minsk, where Aliyev and Putin are expected to meet. It cannot be ruled out that Putin will try to "reach agreement" with Azerbaijan on his "role" in the region just before the meeting with [US President George] Bush.
Moscow might promise its assistance in the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in return for some possible "concessions" from Baku.
Maybe that was why Gribkov started a preparatory sounding to demonstrate that it is impossible to reach a settlement to the conflict in the near future within the framework of the Minsk Group. By thwarting the talks within the framework of the Minsk Group, Moscow is probably hoping that Baku will adopt a pro-Russian policy due to the current circumstances, i.e. it will fully enter Russia's sphere of influence.
However, one should note that, in fact, the aforementioned distribution of forces in the region is already impossible despite the Kremlin's attempts. Washington has its own strategic interests in Azerbaijan, and attempts to oust the former are absolutely hopeless. That is why sooner or later Moscow and Washington will be compelled to recognize the need for mutual cooperation, if they intend to further maintain their positions in Azerbaijan.
Washington's position
In fact, there are many indicators that neither Moscow nor Washington are currently ready for such cooperation. It cannot be ruled out that following the Bush-Putin meeting in Slovenia the final "division" of spheres of influence between the superpowers will not take place either.
A leading German newspaper recently published a secret telegram from the US president to the German leader. The newspaper's management refused to name the source of the information. The telegram consists of 10 pages. It says that it is expedient to toughen economic policy towards Moscow, and it links such a proposal to pressure on the free press in Russia and human rights violations.
Proceeding from such moods of the White House administration and certain disagreements on key issues in the world, it is difficult to believe that any progress can be achieved at the 16 June meeting between Bush and Putin, including the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. A proviso should be made that the situation in the occupied Azerbaijani territories will become one of the many topics of discussion between the two presidents. For this reason, it cannot be ruled out that Bush and Putin will most probably have a familiarization meeting in Slovenia, and linking this summit to peace in the South Caucasus might create another illusion.
Bush and Putin might this time be limited only to a demonstration of their countries' levers of influence in these or other regions for achieving specific agreements in the future. At the same time, the USA has a strong trump card, as the repayment of foreign debts will become a topical issue for Russia next year. Therefore, if Moscow has its own levers of pressure on Azerbaijan through Armenia, then Washington can also influence the Kremlin through Russia's financial problems.
For this reason, the change of date of the Geneva meeting, could really have positive results for Azerbaijan. In any case, there is time to weigh Moscow's proposals and the results of the Putin-Bush meetings and define Azerbaijan's further strategy. After all, it is the definition of priorities towards Moscow or Washington on which the further fate of a peaceful settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict depends. Otherwise, in the absence of agreements between the USA and Russia, the process of the conflict settlement within the framework the Minsk Group will simply acquire a formal nature with a subsequent complete preservation of the explosive situation.
Or the struggle between Moscow and Washington for Azerbaijan might have unpredictable consequences, and such processes might become irreversible for the country...[ellipsis as given]
Source: Zerkalo, Baku, in Russian 23 May 01 pp 1,3
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
CIS Security Council chief's statement hidden threat to Azerbaijan, agency says
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 24, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency Turan
Baku, 23 May: Military force can be used in the case of a CIS country which is not a member of the Collective Security Treaty issuing a military threat against a member-state of the Collective Security Treaty, Secretary-General of the Collective Security Council Valeriy Nikolayenko said today at a news conference in Yerevan, according to Mediamax news agency.
He said that these forces were formed "on the basis of Armenian-Russian agreements and are developing quite actively".
Nikolayenko's statement is viewed in Baku as a veiled threat to Azerbaijan, which has said on many occasions that it reserves the right to liberate lands occupied by Armenians.
The Azerbaijani Defence Ministry, commenting on Nikolayenko's statement to Turan news agency, has stressed that the main goal of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces is to restore the country's territorial integrity, defend its independence and state sovereignty. As is known, as a result of Armenian aggression, 20 per cent of Azerbaijani lands were occupied, and their liberation can in no way interpreted as a threat to anyone.
As for Nikolayenko's statements about the intention of the Collective Security Treaty to protect members of the organization from a foreign threat, it is noteworthy that Azerbaijan was a member of the treaty for six years, however this did not save the country from the aggression of another member of the CIS and this treaty.
Source: Turan news agency, Baku, in Russian 1530 gmt 23 May 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Armenian Azeri exiles to proclaim own state - Cuxursaad, Baku paper says
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 24, 2001
Text of I. Umudlu report by Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo on 24 May entitled "Second Azeri state?.. It is essential!"
Setting up of representative bodies is the first step
This is not a new idea. The first such attempt was made in early 1990, but the Goyca-Zangazur Democratic Republic and the Iravan [Yerevan] government-in-exile, proclaimed on the territory of the Azerbaijani Republic, suspended their activities after a short while.
At present the problem is again on the agenda and work has started on it. An initiative group for holding a constituent congress of the political representative office-in-exile of the Iravan and Zangazur population held its regular meeting yesterday [23 May]. Yesterday's meeting discussed principles for determining the composition of the consultative board under the future organizing committee. An organizing committee is expected to be formed soon.
The legal basis for raising the issue has been drawn up by the centre for strategic research. This is as follows: Azerbaijan is not authorized to resolve the problems of the population of the districts ceded to Armenia until the decision recognizing Iravan as the capital of the Armenian Republic and the decision by the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic to cede Zangazur and other districts to Armenia, are annulled. In their opinion, in line with its constitution Azerbaijan is the successor of the Azerbaijani Democratic Republic [1918-20] which, in turn, is the successor of the Iravan khanate, Kars and Aras-Turkic Republics.
The committee-in-exile will list the resources left there, a census of the exiled population and elections for parliament. The parliament will in turn form a government and the proclaimed state will be named Cuxursaad (Western Azerbaijan). The citizenship issue will be resolved later - dual citizenship will be permitted.
The next stage is to prove that the Ararat Republic [in northeastern Turkey in 1927-31] and the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic carried out genocide against them [Azeris exiled from Armenia]. An appeal will be sent to the UN, UNESCO and the Hague Tribunal for damages from the Republic of Armenia. There are plans to hold the 1st Congress of deportees from the territory of the so-called Republic of Armenia in December 2001.
Some of the initiators believe that although some people see this initiative as romantic and detached from reality, work must be carried out in this direction. Others believe that we are even a bit late with this. We should have thought about this back in 1988. However, the majority believes that it is not too late now.
Source: Zerkalo, Baku, in Russian 24 May 20 p3
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Azeri president says no "unilateral concessions"
on Karabakh
Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency Turan
Baku, 22 May: The Karabakh settlement was discussed today in a meeting
between [Azerbaijani] President Heydar Aliyev and members of the
European-Union-Azerbaijan committee for parliamentary cooperation headed
by its chairwoman Ursula Schleicher.
The guests showed interest in how the talks on the Karabakh settlement
within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group were progressing, and noted
that there were quite a few opponents to peace.
The Azerbaijani president confirmed his adherence to a peaceful settlement
of the problem and noted that since Azerbaijani territory was occupied, it
was Armenia that should go for compromises.
Aliyev let it be known that compromises should be reciprocal and that he
did not intend to go for unilateral concessions. The Azerbaijani president
also said that he would not sign a peace agreement which did not reflect
Baku's justified demands.
The meeting also discussed further cooperation between Azerbaijan and the
European Union, and the implementation of the TRACECA and Inogate
[Interstate oil and gas transport to Europe] programmes and other projects
sponsored by the European Union.
Azeri public increasingly bellicose - president tells
EU official
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 23, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani TV station ANS on 22 May
[Presenter] The patience of the Azerbaijani people has been exhausted regarding the unsettled Karabakh problem, and the nation is now demanding that the conflict be resolved through war. This was stated at [Azerbaijani President] Heydar Aliyev's meeting with European Union representatives. Aytan Safarova has the details from the presidential executive staff.
[Correspondent over video of the meeting] Heydar Aliyev recalled that Azerbaijan became a full member of the Council of Europe this year and he expressed the hope that the republic would become a member of the European Union as well. However, the European Union's requirements are stricter, the president said. He added that the union's 15 member states were among the world's most developed countries. He said that Azerbaijan would definitely achieve what it wanted through developing its economy.
Heydar Aliyev said that the Karabakh conflict was the only factor hampering Azerbaijan's attempts to achieve this and - quote - unfortunately, the world community is not actively involved in the conflict settlement process - end quote. Heydar Aliyev said that he had been holding meetings with Armenian President Robert Kocharyan since 1999 to resolve the conflict peacefully and stressed that Yerevan officials were in a superior position and did not want to compromise.
[Heydar Aliyev] It is natural that our public's dissatisfaction is increasing. There is a growing public mood in favour of waging war again and liberating the occupied territories.
[Correspondent] The Azerbaijani president did not ignore the efforts of the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen, aimed at settling the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict.
[Heydar Aliyev] They say that they will accept any agreement reached between the two presidents. If this is the case, what was the purpose of setting up the OSCE Minsk Group in 1992?
[Correspondent] Asking what the European Union could do to settle the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, the head of the European Union delegation, Ursula Schleicher, received the following answer: Azerbaijan's territorial integrity should be restored, Armenia should withdraw from the occupied territories and the refugees should return home. Aytan Safarova and Musa Qulammirzayev, ANS.
Source: ANS TV, Baku, in Azeri 1600 gmt 22 May 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
AZERBAIJANI OFFICIALS SET CONDITIONS FOR NEW KARABAKH PEACE TALKS.
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Vilayat Quliev told
journalists in Baku on 22 May that Azerbaijan will not attend
a further round of Karabakh peace talks unless the U.S.,
Russian, and French co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group agree
to unspecified demands, Trend news agency reported. Meeting
the same day with a visiting EU parliamentary delegation,
President Heidar Aliev said that it is up to Armenia to make
the first compromise, as Armenia occupied Azerbaijani
territory. He added that he will not sign a peace agreement
that does not reflect Azerbaijan's demands, according to
Turan. Parliament speaker Murtuz Alesqerov told deputies on
22 May that any peace agreement that leaves Nagorno-Karabakh
outside Azerbaijan "is impossible, as all states recognize
our country's territorial integrity." Commenting on the 20
May remark by Russian Minsk Group co-chairman Nikolai Gribkov
that Nagorno-Karabakh "is a major factor" in the peace
process, presidential administration official Novruz Mamedov
said that the former Azerbaijani population of the disputed
enclave "is also interested" in a solution to the conflict.
LF
RFE/RL NEWSLINE Vol. 5, No. 98, Part I, 23 May 2001
Copyright (c) 2001 RFE/RL, Inc.
Azeris say OSCE mediators should bear both Karabakh communities in mind
�� Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency Turan
�� Baku, 22 May: "The cochairmen should know that in line with the OSCE
Minsk Group mandate, there are two sides in the Armenian-Azerbaijani
conflict - Armenia and Azerbaijan - while the Armenian and Azerbaijani
communities of Nagornyy Karabakh are interested sides." This is what the
head of the department for international relations of the presidential
executive office, Novruz Mammadov, has said in comment on a statement by
the OSCE Minsk Group's Russian cochairman, Nikolay Gribkov, that "even
from the formal point of view, Karabakh is a side in the conflict".
�� Mammadov did not add anything about the Russian mediator's statement,
wishing to avoid distortions of his words in the Armenian press.
�� As for Gribkov's statement that Karabakh will definitely be involved
in the negotiating process, former Azerbaijani foreign minister Tofiq
Zulfuqarov said that this could happen after eliminating the consequences
of the Armenian aggression.
�� Another Azerbaijani political scientist, Rasim Musabayov, also thinks
that Karabakh should be included in the negotiating process at a certain
stage. If Gribkov meant the participation of Karabakh's Armenian
community in the negotiating process, this is nothing other than a
deliberate undermining of the peace process, Musabayov said. Moreover,
speaking about Karabakh as an interested side, Gribkov was supposed to
remember the other interested side - the Azerbaijani community of this
region.
Turan in Russian
1130 GMT 22 May 01
Armenian parties call for �legal�, not �political� solution for Karabakh
Text of report by Armenian news agency Mediamax
Yerevan, 23 May: Sixteen parties and public organizations which make up the
organizational committee "In defence of the Nagornyy Karabakh Republic
[NKR]" today issued proposals on changes to the concept of the Karabakh
problem's peaceful settlement and addressed it to the Armenian authorities.
As Mediamax news agency learnt today from the organizational committee "In
defence of the NKR", the document said: "The Armenian president has to
convince the world that during the national liberation struggle the
Armenians of Nagornyy Karabakh did not violate the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan, but acted and are continuing to act in accordance with
international law."
A number of historical facts from 1921 onwards are presented in the
document. The authors are convinced that in 1991 the NKR established its
independence on territories not included in the composition of the modern
Azerbaijan Republic.
"Let us recall that the Supreme Soviet of Armenia in 1992 adopted a decision
prohibiting the authorities from signing any document describing Karabakh as
a constituent part of Azerbaijan. We propose to transfer the settlement of
the problem to the legal field and that the concept presented by us be
adopted as a basis for talks on all levels," the document said.
The Democratic Party, the Union of Constitutional Law and other parties and
public organizations are among those who signed the statement.
Source: Mediamax news agency, Yerevan, in Russian 0723 gmt 23 May 01
OSCE mediators protest against renaming of Azeri villages in Karabakh - Azeri TV
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 23, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani TV station ANS on 22 May
[Presenter] While visiting Susa [Shushi] last week, the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen voiced their concern about the process of giving Armenian names to occupied Azeri villages. This was reported by Nagornyy Karabakh television which is broadcast in Azerbaijan's districts bordering on Armenia.
[Correspondent over Karabakh TV footage] It seems that the Armenians living in Xankandi [Stepanakert] this time correctly covered the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen's visit to the region on their local television. The TV channel broadcast from Xankandi has reported in its news bulletin that the OSCE cochairmen's visit serves peace. The news reader said in comments that during the visit to Susa the OSCE representatives had protested against giving Armenian names to Azeri villages. However, our Armenian neighbours deliberately took the OSCE cochairmen to a church in Agdara [Mardakert] and told them about the church's history.
The fact that the TV stressed this in its news bulletin and broadcast a report about the cochairmen's visit to a furniture factory set up jointly with Italians in Agdara proceeded from the Nagornyy Karabakh Armenians' desire to present themselves as independent. It is clear that Nagornyy Karabakh's self-styled agency is aware that this TV channel is received in neighbouring regions [of Azerbaijan] and wants to show once again that they have no intention of obeying Azerbaijan.
Etibar Ibrahimov, Vafa Fikratgizi and Zaur Naibov, ANS Karabakh bureau.
Source: ANS TV, Baku, in Azeri 1600 gmt 22 May 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Front Line Handshake Fuels Karabakh Peace Hopes
Azerbaijan, May 21, 2001 [ 13:53 ]
By Rosalind Russell, Reuters
NAGORNO-KARABAKH. A gruff frontline handshake between rival commanders this weekend was a small but symbolic step toward ending a 13-year war between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, mediators said.
Standing feet apart on the plains beneath the disputed Karabakh mountains, the two commanders avoided eye contact but listened solemnly as foreign envoys expressed hopes for peace.
``We are pleased that you can come together in peace,'' said U.S. mediator Carey Cavanaugh at Saturday's meeting in no man's land.
``We know war still exists here, but we are working as hard as we can to find peace as soon as possible.''
Nagorno-Karabakh's mainly ethnic Armenian population broke away from Azeri rule during the dying years of the Soviet Union in 1988, triggering six years of fighting in which around 35,000 people died and some 800,000 fled their homes.
Armenian forces inflicted a humiliating defeat on the Azeris, seizing a large buffer of Azeri territory around the disputed region before a 1994 truce was called. Nagorno-Karabakh is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan.
Flak-jacketed mediators from the United States, Russia and France on Saturday were the first international delegation to cross a de-mined path through the ``Line of Control'' which separates opposing forces.
While all-out war ended with the cease-fire, sporadic shooting is common across the front line and scores are killed or injured each year in land mine accidents.
Azeri commander Colonel Ikham Husseinev accused Armenian forces of firing a shot early on Saturday and shelling a nearby village two days before.
General Vitaly Balasanyan of the Armenian-backed Karabakh army said there had been a ``skirmish'' started by the Azeris.
Russian mediator Nikolai Gribkov tried to strike a more positive note.
``This is a happy day for us all,'' he said, as accompanying journalists picnicked on Azeri caviar and Armenian beer between enemy trenches.
``You have lived together side by side for centuries and when the time is right you will do so again.''
NEW PEACE PLAN
The mediators are preparing a new peace proposal after Presidents Robert Kocharyan of Armenia and Haydar Aliyev of Azerbaijan held four days of intensive peace talks in the U.S. Florida resort of Key West last month.
The two leaders then met President Bush (news - web sites) in Washington and expressed optimism that a comprehensive peace deal -- set to unlock millions of dollars of aid to the impoverished south Caucasus region -- would be found.
But at home, both face embittered publics seemingly unwilling to make sacrifices for peace.
``In many ways we are further toward peace than ever before,'' said Cavanaugh.
``But neither president has done a very good job of preparing the people for peace. We understand the people may not want to compromise on what they have paid for in blood.''
The U.S. envoy said the next round of peace talks scheduled for mid-June may be delayed while the proposal -- details of which have been kept confidential -- is fine-tuned.
``As it gets closer to the end it all gets harder because it is all real. Whatever they sign they will have to live with,'' said Cavanaugh. ``It is a great undertaking.''
Mediators say bitter public hurdle to Karabakh peace
May 21, 2001
By Rosalind Russell
YEREVAN (Reuters) - The people of Azerbaijan and Armenia are ill-prepared
for a peace deal to end their 13-year conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh and
public opinion may undermine efforts to reach one, mediators said Monday.
Leaders from both sides have been engaged in intensive negotiations toward
a comprehensive peace accord in recent months, but have done little to
prepare their people for compromise, the international mediators said.
"The people haven't got a lot of signals from the top that they have to
start thinking about reconciliation," U.S. mediator Carey Cavanaugh told
Reuters at the end of a two-day trip to the disputed territory.
"The leaders aren't sending positive messages that everyone has to accept
compromises if they want to live in peace."
Armenian President Robert Kocharyan said the reason for his relative
silence was that he did not want to build up the hopes of the population
unduly.
"This is a sensitive issue and we don't want to arouse expectations that
will be difficult to satisfy, because then the disappointment will be
greater," he said Monday.
DECADE-OLD CONFLICT
The war over the rugged peaks of Nagorno-Karabakh began in 1988, when its
mainly ethnic Armenian population tried to break away from Azeri rule as
the Soviet Union began to collapse.
Around 35,000 people died in the six years of fighting that ensued and at
least 800,000 people fled their homes. Armenian forces eventually
inflicted a humiliating defeat on the Azeri army and a truce was called in
1994.
Thousands of troops still face each other across the "Line of Control"
which separates opposing forces and hundreds of thousands of refugees
remain homeless.
Mediators believe they are closer than ever to a peace deal after
Kocharyan and Azeri President Haydar Aliyev held four days of negotiations
last month in the Florida resort of Key West.
The new U.S. administration has tried to breathe life into the flagging
peace process in the hope that a deal would allow a pipeline to carry oil
from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean.
But changing the mindsets of ordinary people, fed on a diet of belligerent
propaganda for more than a decade, is the final and most challenging
hurdle, the mediators say.
Officials from the United States, Russia and France made a whistle-stop
tour of Nagorno-Karabakh at the weekend, crossing the Line of Control to
take the pulse of public opinion.
On both sides of the front line they met people who said they wanted
peace, but also called for vengeance.
In a sprawling refugee camp of tin-roofed shelters in Agcebedi in western
Azerbaijan, Azeri refugee Gani Kasumov said he wanted to return home to
the ancient Karabakh town of Shusha.
"We have nothing here," said the 47-year-old economist. "We must go home
-- through war if that must be."
STRUGGLE TO SURVIVE
In Shusha itself, perched high on grassy slopes above the Karabakh capital
Stepanakert, Armenian refugees have taken over abandoned Azeri homes, but
say they are struggling to survive.
"Everything was taken from me, everything," said a tearful old woman who
lived in the Azeri capital Baku for 50 years.
The mediators have kept details of their proposal secret, but say both
sides must be prepared to make significant concessions for a peace deal
which will unlock millions of dollars of aid to the impoverished south
Caucasus region.
"We are trying to make it a win-win solution," said one diplomat involved
in the negotiations under the auspices of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe. "The problem is that that idea is anathema to
the mentality of this region where people think if you win, the other side
must lose."
Mediators say the next round of peace talks, scheduled to take place in
Geneva in mid-June, would be postponed while the two presidents prepare
the ground at home.
"There are some last minute jitters," said Cavanaugh. "Making concessions
for peace is a dangerous game. Many world leaders have paid for it with
their lives."
OSCE Minsk Group seeking just accord for Azeri-Armenian conflict
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 21, 2001
Text of A. Ahmadov report by Azerbaijani newspaper 525 qazet on 20 May entitled "Russian cochairman of OSCE: `I would like to tell you everything'"
Nikolay Gribkov: "We need an accord able to end the enmity between two nations for ever"
The OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen have already completed their visit to Azerbaijan, however, many questions regarding resolution of the Karabakh problem remain unanswered. No light was shed on these issues at the cochairmen's news conference, arranged the day before yesterday [on 18 May] in Baku.
At the same time, some nuances from the answers given by Nikolay Gribkov, the Russian cochairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, help us to judge certain opinions regarding options for settling the conflict.
[Correspondent Ahmadov] Mr Gribkov, will Azerbaijan retain its sovereignty and territorial integrity in resolving the conflict?
[Gribkov] Our stance is very plain and simple. Back in January last year Russian President Vladimir Putin made his position public at a meeting between Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev and Armenian President Robert Kocharyan. He said that we would support any resolution option satisfying both Azerbaijan and Armenia.
[Correspondent] Are the cochairmen proposing any plan or option to resolve the conflict?
[Gribkov] Currently various aspects of resolving the conflict are being discussed very seriously and confidentially. We have promised the presidents to keep the details of this resolution a secret.
[Correspondent] What about a comprehensive settlement plan under discussion?
[Gribkov] Speaking about a comprehensive settlement plan, we have in mind a plan to resolve the conflict which encompasses all aspects.
[Correspondent] That is to say, this is a package option?
[Gribkov] I am absolutely frank and sincere, I would like to tell you everything, however, I have made very serious pledges in this regard. The fact is that information which is leaked prematurely can sometimes harm the situation. For example, similar cases happened several times with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The same thing happened to [former Armenian President, Levon] Ter-Petrosyan in Armenia.
The comprehensive settlement plan is neither against the package nor the phase-by-phase options and encompasses all aspects. It has nothing to do with a plan, either short-term or long-term. We need the sort of accord able to end the enmity between the two nations for ever.
[Correspondent] When will the presidents' next meeting take place?
[Gribkov] It is impossible to say. All that can be stated definitely is that they will meet to talk during the summer period. I do not know how it emerged that the meeting would take place in mid-June, however, this should be agreed. In principle, the meeting could take place in July or August, too.
Source: 525 qazet, Baku, in Azeri 20 May 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Kocharian`s and Aliyev`s Efforts Not Enough to Resolve Conflict, Russian Negotiator Says
May 21, 2001 [ 23:21 ]
, Armenpress
YEREVAN. A team of international negotiators from the OSCE Minsk group began their recurrent visit to Armenia from visiting the disaster zone that was heavily hit by 1988 earthquake and is still recovering. They have arrived in Armenia after visiting Baku and Stepanakert.
In Nagorno-Karabagh senior diplomats from France, Russia and the United States held talks with the defense and foreign ministers of the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabagh Republic.
The three co-chairs of the OSCE's Minsk Group - France's Philippe de Suremain, Russia's Nikolay Gribkov and Carey Cavanaugh of the US, told Armenpress that the goal of the visit was to see what was going on in the region. "We are trying to see what should be done to restore the economy and return the refugees once the peace is established," the US negotiator Cary Cavanaugh said. The co-chairs said they had met with refugees in Azerbaijan and Karabagh and "all the problems can be resolved only after establishment peace in the region."
The co-chairs also visited a railway station near Armenia's second largest town of Gyumri located on Armenian-Turkish border, that was serving Armenia-Turkey railway connection in 1988-1993. Cavanaugh said that peace would help reopen the railway connection between Armenia and Turkey. "Turkey is just 2 kilometers off from here and it is regretful that the two neighbor countries do not enjoy relations," Cavanaugh said.
The co-chairs also said they were calculating the volumes of necessary financial aid to the two countries after establishment of peace. "During our visits to the region we are trying to evaluate the needs of the region, to detect the potential for economic recovery and what should be invested for it. We are cooperating for this with international lending organizations. It is very important that we should be ready for action right after peace deal is concluded," they said.
"Despite some emotional announcements, made recently in Baku by various groups, the general mood there is for peace," the Russian co-chairman in the OSCE Minsk group Nikolay Gribkov told Armenian reporters on Sunday in Yerevan.
The OSCE Minsk group co-chairman had arrived in Armenia on Saturday, the last leg of their recurrent visit to the region. "The Armenian side also realizes that the neither war nor peace situation is not beneficial to neither side," Gribkov said, adding that it inspired hopes for the soonest resolution of the long-running conflict between the two neighbor peoples.
Gribkov also said that the constructive stance of the two presidents, "who have come to an understanding that the only way to find a durable peace is through serious compromise" and the Minsk group co-chairs was very encouraging. "We feel the support not only of the presidents of Russia, USA and France but also the support of all Minsk group member countries," he said.
Gribkov refused to predict whether a peace deal would be signed this year. "We all want very much that the peace accord be signed as soon as possible and we shall continue working to make the differences between the conflicting parties as narrow as possible," he said.
The US co-chairman Carey Cavanaugh also emphasized the visit, saying that the meetings they had in Baku, Stepanakert and Armenia allowed to move forward the peace process. "But we all are aware of what kind difficulties we all are facing on the path to peace and what kind of responsibility is laid on the both presidents. The most difficult task that faces them is to gain broad support form their publics," he added.
According to Cavanaugh, the efforts of presidents Kocharian and Aliyev are not enough to make a breakthrough in the peaceful process. "It is important that the two peoples should also be ready to see concessions as the only way for reconciliation," he said.
"Iran is one of the key players in the region and we realize that the OSCE co-chairman should also meet with Iranian officials to keep them informed about the pace of negotiations," Nikolay Gribkov said.
The co-chairmen of OSCE Minsk group met today the Armenian president Robert Kocharian. "During the meeting we presented the aims of the visit to the region, stated that we are impressed by the efforts of the two presidents to settle the conflict", said American co-chairman Carey Cavanaugh.
Answering the reporters' question on whether the chairmen were more optimistical after Key West than now, Cavanaugh said: "When the Key West talks were completed, there was a certain optimism, which based on the progress which took place there. We believe that the leaders of the two countries should discuss the results of the talks in Florida with the political forces. I know that the presidents acted actively and that Robert Kocharian had met with Arkadi Ghukasian as well as with some members of Parliament. It is important that the principals discussed during the talks be considered as the best on the way to peace".
According to Cavanaugh the problem is not the time and speed, but the stability and lasting of the providing peace, to which the process of talks is directed.
Nikolay Gribkov informed that the conversation with the Armenian president was very useful because in the process of the conflict's settlement it is necessary to listen to all sides in order to make right decisions.
Carey Cavanaugh also added that the presidents of the two countries face today a very difficult problem: to solve the question of war and peace. "It is difficult to talk about the official deadline in such a situation. The agreement should be acceptable for both presidents, as well as governments and mainly for the people", stated the American co-chairman.
OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS SAY MEETING WITH NAGORNO-KARABAKH LEADERSHIP WAS EXTREMELY USEFUL
SHUSHA /Nagorno-Karabakh/, MAY 20, 2001. /RIA Novosti correspondent/ -- Co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group called extremely useful their meeting with the leadership of Nagorno-Karabakh, a self-proclaimed republic within the territory of Azerbaijan, held in Nagorno-Karabakh capital Stepanakert. During Sunday's talks, positions were clarified on fundamental issues of Nagorno-Karabakh settlement.
According to the Russian co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, Nikolai Gribkov, "it would be difficult to conduct a peacekeeping mission" if the Nagorno-Karabakh leadership's views and position were not taken into account. Gribkov emphasized the exchange of views would help the co-chairmen find a solution that would be acceptable for all the sides.
The Russian mediator was particularly emphatic that the Nagorno-Karabakh leadership seeks peaceful settlement of the conflict. He added that the OSCE Minsk Group team made the results of its talks with Azeri President Geidar Aliyev known to the Nagorno-Karabakh leadership. Then he went on to point out that the Azeri opposition, with whom the co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group met before leaving for Nagorno-Karabakh, were too in favor of a peaceful solution.
The OSCE Minsk Group's major goal in the tour is to negotiate issues of Nagorno-Karabakh settlement with Azeri, Armenian, and Nagorno-Karabakh leaders. In addition to the meetings already held, the delegation, which also comprises U.S. and French mediators, will meet with Armenian President Robert Kocharyan on May 21.
The OSCE Minsk Group on Nagorno-Karabakh was founded on March 24, 1992, by 11 nations. Currently, the OSCE mediators hold several sessions per year and work on a project of Nagorno-Karabakh's status. According to the OSCE Minsk Group's version of settlement, Nagorno-Karabakh will have a special status within the common state, one that will not infringe on its de-facto independence while preserving Azerbaijan's territorial integrity.
Karabakh's separation to encourage terrorism, separatism - Azeri politician
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 21, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency MPA
Baku, 21 May: "I do not believe that the Azerbaijani authorities can sign a defeatist peace [agreement]," Chairman of the Justice Party Ilyas Ismayilov has said. In the politician's opinion, one should not make concessions and thus encourage separatists and terrorists. The USA and the West should understand this because we are not talking only about Azerbaijan's interests. This might become a precedent that will give an impetus to the development of terrorism and separatism in the world. The conflict should be resolved within the framework of the international law, which, as Ismayilov believes, is on Azerbaijan's side.
Commenting on a statement made by [the ruling New Azerbaijan Party's Deputy Executive Secretary] Mubariz Qurbanli about possible losses of Azerbaijan in the settlement, the Justice leader noted that Baku should ensure the rule of the country's laws on the territory of the so-called Nagornyy Karabakh republic. Ismayilov said that otherwise, this land could not be regarded as Azerbaijani. As for Nagornyy Karabakh's status, the lawyer said that existing proposals in this regard could not be accepted, as they served Nagornyy Karabakh's separation from Azerbaijan.
Source: MPA news agency, Baku, in Russian 21 May 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
ARMENIA AT THE CROSSROADS
OF WAR AND PEACE
Prof. Stephen Blank
John Hopkins University
SAIS
Central Asia Caucasus Analyst
BIWEEKLY BRIEFING�������� Wednesday/May 23, 2001
Armenia has for long been ruled by an elite whose main concern has been
neither the economy of the country nor the well-being of its people, but
the annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia at all cost. This has led to
the militarizaton of Armenia, isolation from the west, and near-total
dependence on Russia. Recent progress in negotiations with Azerbaijan in
Key West have highlighted the crossroads at which Armenia stands, between
sustaining a policy based on military conquest and moving toward peace
with its neighbors and integration with the west.
BACKGROUND: Today Armenia stands at a major crossroads between a politics
based on war and a politics based on peace. Numerous observers have noted
that the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh, and indeed the constituency that
supports the war over that province and its annexation to Armenia, has
hijacked Armenian politics. Yet at the same time even presidents who come
to power from that constituency and with its support, like the current
president, Robert Kocharian, come to see the issue in a different
perspective.� Those leaders realize that continued war prevents economic
progress, improved relations with the West and any significant gains from
the forthcoming silk road and overall integration of the Caucasus with the
European economy. An insistence on holding onto Nagorno-Karabakh as part
of Armenia plus other territories seized from Azerbaijan also ensures
Armenia's militarization, insecurity, and most of all dependence upon
Russia.� The recent American initiative to bring the presidents of Armenia
and Azerbaijan together in Key West apparently made real progress and thus
opens up possibilities for peace that confront Armenia with the choice of
a more diversified security policy based on reconciliation with Turkey,
integration with the West, and a less militarized domestic policy or
continuing isolation from Turkey and the West, dependence upon an
impoverished Russia, and a continuing reliance upon military conquest.
The Nagorno-Karabakh war is over a decade old and has hitherto defied
solution. International efforts have foundered upon rivalries among the
key players, locally Armenia and Azerbaijan and internationally� Russia,
Turkey, and the United States. The prospective importance of the huge
energy supplies at stake has also complicated efforts at
peacemaking. Whereas Baku has used energy as its political weapons, with
Azerbaijan and the United States arguing that pipelines will bring peace,
in Armenia things have been quite different. Armenian politics have
largely been hijacked by militants determined to hold onto their conquests
over Azerbaijan and to annex the disputed province to Armenia. They have
relied upon military forces and have frequently been able to elude any
kind of democratic or civilian control over those forces.� Indeed, they
have resorted to coups detat and even assassinations of key leaders to try
and maintain the militarys privileged position and the tough,
uncompromising line on Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia's current President,
Robert Kocharian actually came to power in this fashion.
IMPLICATIONS: The other side of this tough policy is that no
reconciliation with Turkey is possible, Western support remains limited
and Armenia has essentially become a Russian client state with a sizable
Russian military presence.� Yet none of this helps Armenia's economy which
has been ravaged by war, embargoes, power shortages, corruption,
etc. Although Kocharian, like his predecessor whom he ousted, now realizes
the need for broader relations with Turkey and the West and the overriding
need for peace to begin a real economic reconstruction, his opponents in
the military refuse to find a solution for Nagorno-Karabakh that will
secure the local Armenians' rights without annexing the province and other
territories conquered from Azerbaijan. That stance has precluded any
meaningful progress with Baku, which naturally will not accept the
outright and overt loss of territories that include non-Armenian
populations, and entails Armenia's military-political dependence upon
Russia.
The recent American-inspired mediation of this war that took place in Key
West, seems to have made progress in overcoming the logjam. But it
instantly aroused opposition in Armenia among those forces that wish to
continue the state of war, hold on to the conquered territories, and make
the Russian connection Armenia's primary foreign policy relationship and
military alliance. Naturally their stance has coincided with Moscows
ambition to keep Western and especially Turkish influence out of the
Caucasus and given Moscow a section of Armenias elite which can be counted
on to support Moscow� a traditional instrument of Russian imperial
policies
CONCLUSIONS: Armenias choice for peace or for war and the benefits, and
sacrifices, of either course will not only determine its policies for
years to come.� That choice will also exert profound influence over the
evolution of international alignments in the South Caucasus and efforts to
tie the region to Europe through pipelines connecting it with either
Turkey or Russia. A policy based on holding onto nationalistic
perspectives and the� gains of war entails dependence upon Moscow and
military elites at the expense of a politics based on the primacy of
economic restoration, peace, and European integration. Equally
importantly, the decision between war and peace will determine whether or
not a reconciliation with Turkey can be achieved and whether or not
Armenias armed forces can be brought under effective civilian and
democratic control over time. Since that latter condition is also an
indispensable requirement of integration with Europe, it becomes clear how
Armenias internal politics are imbricated with major decisions about its
future course on defense and foreign policies.
AUTHOR BIO: Prof. Stephen Blank is a Professor at the Strategic Studies
Institute, US Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA 17013. The views
expressed here do not in any way represent those of the U.S. Army,
U.S. Department of Defense or the U.S. Government.
Copyright 2001 The Analyst
All rights reserved
Turkey dissatisfied with Azerbaijan's Karabakh policy - paper
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 23, 2001
Turkey has taken umbrage at the fact that Azerbaijan has stopped insisting on Ankara's key role in settling the Karabakh conflict and the way Baku has allowed the OSCE Minsk Group mediators to play up the importance of Iran as the key regional player which must be kept informed about the settlement process. The Turkish media is now saying that the successor of Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev should be sought in the ranks of the opposition and opposition Musavat Party leader Isa Qambar was received at a very high level during his recent trip to Turkey. The following is text of Rauf Mirqadirov report by Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo on 23 May entitled "Turkey is dissatisfied with Azerbaijan":
Now with Baku's position on the Karabakh settlement
Zerkalo has learnt from Turkish diplomatic sources that Ankara is dissatisfied with the course of talks on settlement of the Karabakh conflict. We have also learnt that following the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen's visit to Baku, the Turkish Foreign Ministry secretly told the Azerbaijani leadership about its dissatisfaction with the fact that during the mediators' visit, Azerbaijan did nothing to prevent attempts to isolate Ankara from settlement of the Karabakh conflict, which is the regional problem.
We should recall that until recently official Baku repeatedly spoke of the need to involve Turkey almost as a mediator in the settlement process. Azerbaijan even suggested electing Turkey as one of the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen, as a counterbalance to Russia, Armenia's strategic partner.
Besides, account was also taken of the fact that a final settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict is impossible without the involvement of Turkey as a regional power.
For a long time official Baku pursued the tactics of coordinating with Ankara all its actions to resolve the conflict. However, at the present - to use the words of the mediators - decisive stage of the talks, the Azerbaijani leadership has abandoned these previous tactics.
The first and very serious "alarm bell" for Ankara rang when Baku, despite Turkey's negative reaction, accepted French President Jacques Chirac's mediation, just after the French parliament recognized the "Armenian genocide".
The mediators compounded things further in Key West. They said that they would inform the leadership of Iran, which is vying with Turkey for the status of regional leader, about the course of the talks.
Zerkalo has learnt from the same sources that the unexpected visit of a high-ranking Turkish Foreign Ministry official to Baku just before the mediators' visit to the conflict zone had been Ankara's final attempt to persuade the Azerbaijani leadership of the need for a coordinated policy on this issue. We should recall that Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev received and listened to the Turkish official even though it was his day off. However, this official seemingly could not persuade the Azerbaijani leadership, i.e. could not carry out his mission.
The result is clear. Turkish Minister of State Abdulhaluk Cay has strongly criticized Azerbaijan's policy in Turkish media outlets. Ankara welcomed one of the Azerbaijani opposition leaders - Musavat Party Chairman Isa Qambar - at almost the top level. Turkish media outlets are full of articles saying that Aliyev's successor should be sought in the ranks of the opposition.
After their visit to Baku, the mediators struck another tangible blow against Turkey's positions in the region. On behalf of his colleagues the Russian cochairman of the OSCE Minsk Group said that Iran was a "major regional power and a real settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh problem was unlikely to be achieved without taking into account its interests".
It is obvious that Russia and, maybe, France is behind the mediators' attempt to reduce Turkey's influence on regional processes. This undoubtedly was destined to provoke Ankara's irritation...[ellipses as published]
Source: Zerkalo, Baku, in Russian 23 May 01, p1
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
AZERBAIJANI FOREIGN MINISTER DENIES ORAL AGREEMENT REACHED ON KARABAKH
SETTLEMENT
Vilayat Quliev has rejected as untrue parliament deputy Igbal Agazade's
statement that during the OSCE-mediated talks in Key West the Armenian and
Azerbaijani presidents reached an oral agreement on the future status of
the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, Turan reported on 17 May. Agazade
had said that under that agreement the enclave would have its own currency
and national guard, and would be declared a free economic zone. The Lachin
corridor linking the enclave with Armenia would be under international
control, while communication across Armenian territory linking Azerbaijan
and its exclave of Nakhichevan would be guaranteed. Quliev also denied
that any document was prepared in Key West providing for an exchange of
territories between the two states, or, as the "Tehran Times" has
reported, that Iran has been invited to join the peace process. LF
[RFE/RL] Transcaucasia Newsline, May 18, 2001
ALIYEV COMMENDS ON IMPROVED WORK OF MG
Receiving co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group Carey Cavanaugh, Philip de
Sourimayne and Nikolay Gribkov Friday, President Aliyev said the Group had
finally started active work after a long hibernation.
We look forward to new steps on your part, he said.
Mr. Cavanaugh responded that courageous steps will have to be taken to
achieve peace and make serious compromises. Informing the President of the
co-chairs intention to travel to a refugee camp in Agjabadi and then to
Agdam, the diplomat indicated that the possibility of tackling restoration
operations would be studied in Agdam. Mr. Cavanaugh added that after peace
is achieved in the region, co-chairs would try to mobilize the
international community to assist in restoration work. We are working not
only on a peace treaty, but also in the name of the future rehabilitation,
he said.
President Aliyev encouraged the co-chairs intention to visit Agjabadi and
Agdam, saying that they should themselves witness the destruction there.
Indicating that there is no destruction in Upper Garabagh and Armenia, the
head of state announced that the 7 occupied Azeri provinces are completely
ruined.*
PACE EXPERTS TO PREPARE REPORT ON AZERI REFUGEES
Azeri and Georgian parliament members spoke of the life and problems of
refugees and IDPs from Upper Garabagh, Abkhazia and South Osetia, as they
attended a two-day international conference in Baku organized by the PACE
Committee for Migration, Refugees and Demography.
Armenian MPs didnt show up despite expectations.
Azeri MP Bakhtiyar Aliyev said the Azerbaijan government fully subscribes
to the opinion of PACE experts that it is possible to return refugees to
their homes without waiting until the conflicts are resolved. However, it
is first of all necessary to provide for suitable conditions for this to
happen.
Chairman of the PACE committee Tadeus Iwinski said it was important to
resume a dialog at the level of MPs in an effort to restore shattered
peace in the region. In his opinion, by so doing the parties can approach
lasting peace.
In a subsequent news conference, the Council of Europe spokesman on
refugees in Azerbaijan and Armenia Mrs. Vermouth-Mangold said a report
would be prepared on the issue and discussions held at the PACE and the
committee.
On Saturday, the conference participants will travel to refugee camps and
settlements in Baku.*
[AssA-Irada] News Digest, May 18, 2001
Azeri defence minister wants end to Armenia's membership of CIS military treaty
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 18, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency MPA
18 May: "Under no conditions will Azerbaijan give up its territories; Armenia, as an aggressor country which is conducting a state policy of supporting terrorism and separatism, must unconditionally liberate the occupied lands," Azerbaijani Defence Minister Safar Abiyev today told a meeting of the Council of Defence Ministers of CIS member countries (18 May, Grand Hotel Europe). Abiyev familiarized the participants with Azerbaijan's achievements in the economic and political spheres, and also informed his colleagues about the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.
Abiyev said that Armenia was ignoring the UN's four resolutions, which are based on the principles of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. He said that the OSCE Minsk Group was becoming noticeably more active today.
Abiyev noted that in their statements a number of leaders of the Collective Security Council and Armenia had made threats against neighbouring states. In this connection Abiyev hoped that the military cooperation between the Collective Security Treaty member states would not be directed against those CIS countries which are not members of the treaty.
Abiyev called for a stop to be put to Armenia's membership of the Collective Security Treaty and to the rendering of military assistance to an aggressor state. Following Abiyev's proposal, Russian Defence Minister Sergey Ivanov was elected chairman of the Council of Defence Ministers of CIS member countries.
Ivanov said that in recent years Russia has declared and tried to put into practice its idea about Russia's priorities in its relations with CIS countries. Ivanov said that the key point was the security of CIS members. A draft programme for military technical cooperation and the issue of allocating funds to carry out a programme for international cataloguing and information technology was discussed at the meeting.
Armenia's representative on the CIS Council of Defence Ministers' staff for coordinating military cooperation, Aleksey Antonyan, is attending the meeting. He was the only participant who refused to visit Martyrs' Avenue [central Baku] this morning.
Source: MPA news agency, Baku, in Russian 18 May 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Azerbaijan's military doctrine purely defensive,
says president
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 18, 2001
Text of report in English by Russian news agency ITAR-TASS
Baku, 18 May: Azerbaijan's military doctrine has an entirely defensive character, Azeri President Heydar Aliyev said at a meeting with defence ministers of member-countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in Baku on Friday [18 May].
He said Azerbaijan needs an army only in order to defend the country's territorial integrity and independence. "We do not want to fight and are not going to attack anyone," Aliyev said. He stressed that Azerbaijan is in favour of a peaceful settlement of the Karabakh conflict.
Regarding threats to Commonwealth countries he mentioned particularly terrorism and separatism, stressing that it is necessary to wage a common struggle against them. The president emphasized particularly the threat posed to Azerbaijan and Central Asian countries by religious extremism and said measures should be taken to eliminate it.
Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in English 1133 gmt 18 May 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Armenia, Azerbaijan Are Pressed to End
Conflict, but Negotiations Remain Fragile
The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition -- May 17, 2001
Business and Finance - Europe
By STEVE LEVINE
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
ALMATY, Kazakstan -- The leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan, under
domestic and outside pressure to formally end their 13-year war, seem
nearer than ever to a peace agreement in their territorial dispute. An
accord could remove a key peril to Caspian Sea oil development.
Yet their negotiations remain fragile. Last week, Azerbaijan President
Heydar Aliyev compared Armenia to Hitler's Germany and vowed that it
will "be punished" for what he considers Armenian aggression. Armenian
President Robert Kocharian has said he is ready to return to the
battlefield if Mr. Aliyev so wishes. "There are no guarantees how this
is going to come out. But you hope it can" succeed, says Richard
Kauzlarich, a former U.S. ambassador to Azerbaijan.
Next month, the two presidents are to meet in Geneva for their 17th
round of negotiations, which are being mediated jointly by the U.S.,
France and Russia. The U.S. considers a settlement crucial to
stabilizing the fractious Caucasus, across which it has backed the
construction of oil and natural-gas pipelines from the Caspian to the
world market. President Bush has made the talks a rare exception to
his arms' length approach to foreign disputes. Continuing a
Clinton-era strategy, President Bush last month met the two leaders
separately after they concluded their last round of talks in Key West,
Fla.
The dispute centers on a majority ethnic Armenian pocket of Azerbaijan
called Nagorno-Karabakh. A truce was signed in 1994, after 30,000
deaths and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Azeris from
Nagorno-Karabakh and a swath of surrounding territory. Since then,
regular talks have been held, mainly without progress.
According to details leaked from the last two rounds of talks, Armenia
would keep Nagorno-Karabakh but withdraw from much of the rest of the
occupied territory. It would also keep a corridor linking
Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia proper. Azerbaijan would obtain a
corridor to an isolated Azerbaijan region called Nakhichevan.
Nagorno-Karabakh arouses emotions in both republics, and any
settlement will be difficult to sell to the nations' people. Yet both
republics are under domestic pressures. Local and foreign analysts
believe Mr. Aliyev, 78 years old and in visibly worsening health,
wants to conclude a deal, then transfer power to his son, Ilham, who
might have less authority to sell a deal at home. Armenia -- which
defeated Azerbaijan on the battlefield -- has no oil and is struggling
far more economically than its neighbor.
"Both countries need peace," says Vafa Guluzade, Azerbaijan's former
negotiator with Armenia. "But the peace must be as just as possible."
Write to Steve LeVine at [email protected]
Copyright 2001 The Wall Street Journal
Azerbaijani authorities disclose results of poll on Karabakh� settlement
�� Excerpt from Tunzala Rafiqqizi report by Azerbaijani newspaper 525
qazet on 16 May entitled "War or peace?!"
�� According to the results of an opinion poll conducted on instruction
from the Presidential Executive Staff, more than 60 per cent of those
polled said they were ready for war if a peaceful settlement of the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict failed
�� As is known, the Azerbaijani Sociological Association conducted an
opinion poll among the population "On ways to settle the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict" on
instruction from the Presidential Executive Staff last month. This
opinion poll, which the Azerbaijani Sociological Association conducted
among 115,000 people, has already been summed up. Rufat Quliyev,
president of the Azerbaijani Sociological Association, said in a talk
with a 525 qazet correspondent that the complete results of the poll were
being prepared for publication as a book and that the ceremony of the
book's launching would be held at the Baku Press Club next week. Along
with this, Quliyev made preliminary statements to 525 about the results
of the poll.
�� According to Quliyev, the main purpose of this poll, which covered 83
districts of the country, including the districts of the capital, was to
learn public opinion on the settlement of the Karabakh problem and to
establish how the population wished to resolve this problem. Saying that
the poll was conducted at the initiative of the Azerbaijani Sociological
Association and with the consent of the Presidential Executive Staff,
Quliyev added that the authorities had given them only moral support
whereas Ali Hasanov, head of the public-political department of the
Presidential Executive Staff, said in his statement for the press one
month ago that this poll was conducted on direct instruction of the
Presidential Executive Staff. But Hasanov refused to answer why no
conditions had been created for non-government organizations to
participate in this poll. Asked why the Presidential Executive Staff
charged his association with carrying out such responsible work, Quliyev
stressed that they were the first to put forward this initiative:
"Simply, our ideas coincided with those of the leadership of the
Presidential Executive Staff. Is there anything bad about that? This poll
is a very important job. The public mood towards the settlement of the
Karabakh problem revealed by this poll may have a very serious impact."
[Passage omitted: details of conducting of the poll]
525 gazet
in Azeri
16 May 01
Azeris picket British premier's office over Armenian aggression
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 17, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani newspaper 525 qazet on 17 May entitled "Britain should criticize the Armenian aggression"
On 12 May, about 100 representatives of Turkish communities in Britain gathered outside the prime minister's residence in order to hand in to Tony Blair's secretariat a letter criticizing the Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan. The action was organized by the Vatan [Homeland] society, which unites Azerbaijanis living in Britain. The picket was also joined by Turkish and Cypriot communities in Britain. The picket went on for three hours. After that, the demonstrators handed in the letter and other documents to the prime minister's secretariat.
The letter to Blair says that as a result of the Armenian aggression and ethnic cleansing, Azerbaijan has the largest number of refugees. The authors of the letter also said that Karabakh historically belongs to Azerbaijan and it is an integral part and material and moral hearth of the country.
The members of the society asked the British government to condemn the occupation of Azerbaijani land and help the refugees.
Source: 525 qazet, Baku, in Azeri 17 May 01 p 3
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Azeri government, UN bodies discuss programme for repatriation of refugees
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; May 16, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani TV station ANS on 15 May
[Presenter Rustam Abulfatoglu] The forecasts regarding a peace agreement being reached between Baku and Yerevan by the end of this year, made by US OSCE Minsk Group cochairman Carey Cavanaugh and Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan, may possibly come true. Otherwise, the Azerbaijani government would not be discussing with the UN a mass repatriation programme for refugees.
[Correspondent] Should a major peace accord be signed, a mass repatriation programme for refugees would be drawn up. The Azerbaijani government's list of phases for the return of refugees has already been drawn up. The activities of the repatriation department include working out a mechanism to determine damages incurred on the occupied territories, the process of educating people about the danger of landmines, the carrying out of restoration work and creation of new jobs, working out a new development mechanism for agricultural and industrial potential and the attraction of donor communities when drawing up new projects.
We should note that today Deputy Prime Minister and Chairman of the State Committee for Refugees Ali Hasanov discussed specific details of the mass repatriation of refugees with UN bodies operating in Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani representative office of the United Nation's World Food Programme has noted the importance of establishing a precise figure for the number of refugees to be repatriated. The UNHCR said that international bodies would be closely involved in drawing up the repatriation programme.
Samir Mehdiyev, ANS.
Source: ANS TV, Baku, in Azeri 1600 gmt 15 May 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
IS A KARABAKH ACCORD LIKELY TO BE SIGNED IN GENEVA?
The 15 June meeting in Geneva between the Minsk Group co-chairmen and
the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan to continue the April Key West talks
on resolving the Karabakh conflict is still one month away. But reactions in
Baku and Yerevan to official statements over the past week concerning the
terms of a possible settlement highlight the degree of public opposition to the
"serious compromises" which U.S. co-chairman Carey Cavanaugh told
journalists in London on 4 May are required for resolving the conflict.
Speaking in London, 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 that by virtue of eliminating
variants which are unacceptable to one side or the other, "both
leaderships can see the outlines of how a solution might work," and as a
result "most" of the draft solution is now on paper. He declined to
divulge details, but Reuters reported without giving a source that
Nagorno-Karabakh would have "a high degree of self-government" while
remaining nominally part of Azerbaijan, and that Armenian forces would
withdraw from occupied territory adjacent to the unrecognized
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic but retain control of the Lachin corridor
linking the enclave with Armenia. Armenia would also guarantee unimpeded
communication across its territory between Azerbaijan and its exclave of
Nakhichevan.
Cavanaugh added that "we have seen a lot of signs" that both presidents
are preparing public opinion for a settlement based on "serious
compromise." Both in London and in comments made one week later in New
York at an international conference on investment in Armenia, he expressed
the hope that the two presidents might sign a final accord in Geneva. But
Armenian President Robert Kocharian said in Yerevan before his departure
for the New York forum and in an 11 May interview with AP that he doubts a
final peace settlement will be signed in Geneva. Repeating his earlier
insistence that the leadership of the NKR must be a party to discussions
on a settlement, Kocharian pointed out that "even if all the three parties
agreed to a definite solution...six months or a year will be needed for
its implementation," given that the accord must be approved by the
Armenian parliament.
Kocharian confirmed that "we do have the outline of a future proposal
clear," but at the same time he said the final accord must encompass the
three basic principles which have been central to the Armenian position in
recent years: no vertical subordination of the NKR to the central
Azerbaijani government; the need for a common border between the NKR and
Armenia, which presupposes continued Armenian control of Lachin; and
security guarantees for the NKR.
At least the first two of those demands would require a retreat from the
shared insistence of the Azerbaijani leadership and opposition that the
most Baku could agree to is a "high degree of autonomy" for Karabakh
within Azerbaijan and that Armenian forces should cede all remaining
Azerbaijani territories to facilitate the return of displaced persons to
their homes. The proposed status for Karabakh that is apparently under
discussion thus may be something far closer to de facto independence than
to autonomy: Turan on 5 May quoted an unnamed Western diplomat as
comparing the impact of the peace settlement on Azerbaijan to the
amputation of a hand -- a comparison that impelled opposition Musavat
Party leader Isa Gambar to warn that "Azerbaijan will not condone the loss
of a single finger." Gambar also believes that any decision on the future
status of Karabakh should be postponed until after the liberation of the
occupied territories and the return to their homes of the internally
displaced persons. (In other words, Gambar advocates a "phased" settlement
rather than the "package" approach that the Armenians prefer.)
Opposition parties in Armenia too have reacted negatively to official
statements that they construe as a retreat from, or even a betrayal of,
the Armenian position. Specifically, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan
Oskanian's remark during a 9 May interview with the independent Armenian
TV station A1-Plus that Yerevan would be prepared to return six of the
seven "occupied" raions in Azerbaijan triggered a storm of protest from
those who insist that the areas in questions were historically Armenian
and were in fact "liberated" from Azerbaijani control.
Oskanian himself subsequently sought, with little success, to downplay
those protests, which eclipsed his upbeat prognosis that Armenia and
Azerbaijan have never been so close to peace, and that "if nothing
extraordinary happens," a final settlement could be signed by the end of
this year.
The primary obstacle to such a settlement would seem to be the domestic
political opposition in both countries. One of the factors that served as
a catalyst for the April Key West talks was the simultaneous publication
in February in both Armenia and Azerbaijan of the three draft peace
proposals presented by the OSCE Minsk Group between mid-1997 and late
1998. Whether or not it was intended as such, that leakage of hitherto
confidential information was interpreted by the opposition in both
countries as an invitation to help determine the terms of an alternative
settlement plan, and as a sign that the search for such a settlement would
no longer be the exclusive preserve of the top leadership. By reverting to
maintaining the confidentiality of the peace talks, the two leaderships
have not only dashed opposition parties' hopes of increasing their
influence and input in the search for an acceptable peace, but compounded
fears of a "sellout."
In an attempt to assuage domestic grievances and sensitivity, the
Azerbaijani leadership over the past few days has accused Yerevan of
seeking to destabilize the political situation in Azerbaijan by implying
that the draft peace accord under discussion encompasses concessions
unacceptable to Azerbaijani public opinion. Rustam Mamedov, head of the
political department of the presidential office, told RFE/RL's Azerbaijani
Service by telephone on 11 May that Oskanian's 9 May statement on Lachin
(which was apparently mistranslated by the Azerbaijani media, which quoted
the minister as saying that Yerevan wants "to reserve Lachin for itself")
was deliberately intended to provoke a negative reaction in Azerbaijan.
There remains a possibility that, while formally continuing its mediating
role as one of the three Minsk Group co-chairs, Moscow may simultaneously
try to sabotage a settlement: "Yeni Azerbaijan," the daily newspaper of
the eponymous Azerbaijani ruling party, predicted last week that in a bid
to do just that, Russia has already started planning a repeat of the
October 1999 parliament shootings in Armenia. (Liz Fuller)
[RFE/RL] Caucasus Report, May 14, 2001, Vol. 4, No. 18
Copyright 2001 RFE/RL
RUSSIAN OFFICIAL PESSIMISTIC OVER KARABAKH CONFLICTS RESOLUTION BY END OF YEAR
Source:Turan News Agency
16.05.01--BAKU--The summit of the Caucasian 4, which comprises the leaders
of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Russia, will be held in Minsk in early
June within the framework of the CIS summit. This was announced by the
Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, Vyacheslav Trubnikov, who is currently
in Baku. According to him, the Caucasian leaders will discuss the problems
of regional security and, to all appearances, the Azeri-Armenian summit to
be held in Geneva in mid-June. Mr Trubnikov skeptically spoke of the
optimism the western mediators are showing over the possibility of the
Karabakh conflicts solution by the end of this year. He noted that no
sensible politician would talk of the terms of the adjustment. One will
need to work more over the adjustment principles, Mr Trubnikov concluded.
By Staff Writers
AZERBAIJAN STRUGGLES FOR ENTIRE KARABAKH: FOREING MINISTER GULIYEV
Source:ANS
16.05.01--BAKU--The President of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev said during his
meeting with the Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, Vyacheslav Trubnikov
that official Baku was satisfied with what Russia and other co-chairs of
the OSCE Minsk Group were doing toward resolution of the Karabakh
conflict. Said Mr Aliyev: But its important that this work gives practical
results. Thoughts that some agreements will be signed in Geneva or later
create great hopes among people. The Russian deputy minister recommended
not to hurry and be realistic. According to him, the parties must find
solution not to second-rate issues but those being of more importance. Mr
Trubnikov said one would deceive himself if believed the problems will be
solved tomorrow. The Russian diplomat noted that the major problems to be
solved are determination of the status of Lachin and Shusha, Azeri regions
occupied by Armenia. But Azerbaijans Foreign Minister Vilayat Guliyev said
no concrete city name was discussed during the talks. According to Mr
Guliyev, Azerbaijan struggles for the entire Karabakh. Mr Guliyev said it
was unacceptable to divide Karabakh into separate regions. It should also
be noted that Armenian President Robert Kocharian announced that the peace
agreement will be based on a package variant of adjustment of the
conflict. But instead of saying NO to the package variant like he always
did, the Azeri foreign minister said he felt difficulty with evaluation of
those documents since he knew nothing of their contents.
By Etibar Mamedov
PRESIDENT ALIYEV SAYS SUCCESS OF CAUCASIAN 4 DEPENDS ON ADJUSTMENT OF
KARABAKH CONFLICT
Source:Turan News Agency
15.05.01--BAKU--Successful activities of the Caucasian 4 will depend on
adjustment of the Karabakh problem. This statement was made by President
Heydar Aliyev while receiving the Chairman of the Security Council of the
Russian Federation, Vladimir Rushailo. The Azeri president said the four
Caucasian states efforts in the field of ensuring regional security will
bring positive results after the Armenia-Azerbaijan and other regional
conflicts find their solution. The head of the Azeri state said the
co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group will arrive in Baku on May 18 for
continuation of the talks on resolution of the conflict. According to the
president, adjustment of the Karabakh conflict is possible on the basis of
mutual compromises. In his turn, the Russian diplomat said his country was
interested in solution of the conflict adding that Armenian and Azeri
presidents should find solution to the long-running conflict. We are ready
to become guarantors of any agreements reached, Mr Rushailo said. He added
that Russia has some interests in ensuring regional security in the
Caucasus. The high-ranking Russian guest also emphasized Moscows
appreciation of President Aliyevs efforts in the field of establishing
stability in the region. Mr Rushailo also said he was satisfied with the
level of mutual cooperation between Azerbaijan and Russia, especially in
the field of combating international terrorism and extradition of
criminals. Touching upon development of bilateral relations in other
spheres, Mr Rushailo said Russia was interested in modernization of
industrial enterprises in Azerbaijan, as well as privatization of nations
fuel and power engineering committee. Besides, Russia is also ready for
cooperation in the military and technical spheres, consultations in the
military field and training military personnel. The Azeri president gave
positive reaction to all suggestions made at the meeting and highly rated
the development prospects in Azerbaijan-Russia relations.
By Staff Writers
U.S. WONT ALLOW ANYONE TO VIOLATE AZERBAIJANS TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY: SAYS
U.S. PROFESSOR
Source:ANS
14.05.01--BAKU--The U.S. Administration is quite sure that the Karabakh
conflict will find its solution within the nearest two years. This was
announced by the professor of the Georgetown University, Rep. Zohrab
Subhani. It should be noted that the U.S. co-chair of the OSCE Minsk
Group, Carey Cavanaugh said before that the compromises reached during
recent Yerevan-Baku talks were hard to accept by both nations. A war is
probable if the compromises are not accepted. Development of processes in
this direction is not acceptable for both nations. According to Mr
Subhani, the U.S. Government will treat negatively a country which will
reject the peace agreement giving the preference to war. According to Mr
Subhani, Russia, which needs international assistance, is, too, interested
in objective resolution of the conflict. The situation with Iran, which
has a great influence over the region, is a bit different. Although the
Washington-Tehran relations are strained, the United States takes into
consideration the Islamic Republics stance in the conflict. Said the
American professor: Iran cant play a positive role in this conflict but
has enough potential to spoil everything. Mr Subhani also said the U.S.
wont allow anyone to violate Azerbaijans territorial integrity.
By Etibar Mamedov
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON REFUGEE PROBLEMS OPENS IN BAKU
Source:Turan News Agency
17.05.01--BAKU--International conference dedicated to the problems of
refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs) in South Caucasus opened
in Bakus ?yatt Regency Hotel. The conference is organized by the committee
for refugees, migration and demography of the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe (PACE). The chairman of the committee Tadeusz
Iwinski said the humanitarian situation in the Caucasus and Balkans is
still the most critical in Europe. With this connection, the Council of
Europe must increase its efforts, Mr Iwinski said. The head of Azerbaijans
delegation to PACE, Ilham Aliyev brought the attention of the audience to
one million of refugees who were forced to leave their lands by Armenian
occupants. Azerbaijan has been suffering from the conflict with Armenia
for 10 years and we know quite well what it means to have one million of
refugees among a 8-million-strong population, Mr Aliyev said. Weve been
observing the grave conditions Azeri and Armenian refugees have been
living in for the last 8 years. We, politicians, are responsible for the
way they live now, said Gabi Vermont-Mangold, the deputy chairman of the
committee for refugees, migration and demography and the observer for
refugees and IDPs in Armenia and Azerbaijan. According to the European
diplomat, those people wont soon return to their homes. Speaking of the
hard conditions refugees and IDPs are currently living in, Mrs
Vermont-Mangold said she was convinced in it after personally visiting the
refugee camps in Sabirabad and Saatli regions. Naira Shakhtakhtinskaya,
the initiator of holding the conference in Azerbaijan and member of the
above-mentioned committee, reckons that political adjustment of the
conflict doesnt mean solution of refugees humanitarian problems. Mrs
Shakhtakhtinskaya expressed hope that the forum would play an important
role in solution of the refugees problems. According to the executive
director of the Britain-based Links organization, Dennis Sammuth, one
should rightly evaluate the problem. Its impossible for refugees and IDPs
to return to their homes until a peace agreement is signed and their
security is guaranteed, said Mr Sammuth. Speaking of the refugees
problems, the forum delegate touched upon the Chechen topic. According to
him, the Chechen refugees who found refuge in Azerbaijan and Georgia dont
actually have a status. There are people among them who should be given
the international refugee status, Mr Sammuth noted adding that Azerbaijan
and Georgia would assume obligations to assist them in that case. The
chairman of the State Refugee Department of Armenia, Gagik Yeganian spoke
of the problems of Armenian refugees. He noted the necessity of paying
compensation to Armenian refugees. Ali Hasanov, the Deputy Prime Minister
and Chairman of the State Committee for Refugees, compared the last Soviet
president Mikhail Gorbachev and Armenian separatists to Yugoslavias
Milosevic and German fascists. According to him, its time to bring in
Gorbachev and Armenian separatists before the International Tribunal in
The Hague. Mr Hasanov noted that every eighth citizen of Azerbaijan is a
refugee. The situation in this field in Azerbaijan is second to none in
the world. 20,000 persons died, 8,500 became disabled and more than
100,000 got injured as a result of Armenian aggression. Some 900
settlements were razed to the ground. The material damage caused to
Azerbaijan surpassed $50 billion. The properties left by Azeris in Armenia
are estimated at $3 billion. 200,000 of 300,000 IDPs are unemployed, Mr
Hasanov concluded.
By Staff Writers
[ANS] News Digest, May 17, 2001
US Mediator says new OSCE proposals on Karabakh almost ready
525 gazet
in Azeri
16 May 01
�� Text of unattributed report by Azerbaijani newspaper 525 qazet
entitled "Carey Cavanaugh meets Azeri community of USA"
�� The US cochairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, Carey Cavanaugh, has met
representatives of the Azeri community in the USA. Azartac [news agency]
reports that the meeting discussed the Nagornyy Karabakh peace
negotiations. Cavanaugh said that the cochairmen were working on new
settlement proposals and that the majority of the work had been done. At
the same time, the US diplomat stressed that it was extremely difficult
to achieve peace in Nagornyy Karabakh, and no-one could guarantee that
the negotiations would be successful until a peace accord had been
signed. Nevertheless, Cavanaugh emphasized that Azerbaijani President
Heydar Aliyev "deals with the settlement seriously".
�� The US cochairman refused to reveal the gist of the proposals prepared
and said that "the presidents will inform their people about them".
FRANCE CHANGES MG CO-CHAIR
Foreign Minister Vilayat Guliyev received French ambassador to Azerbaijan
Jean-Pierre Guinhut as the parties exchanged views on ways of resolving
the Upper Garabagh conflict within the OSCE Minsk Group framework.
Mentioning that co-chairs of the Group are expected to visit the region on
May 18-19, ambassador Guinhut said a new French co-chair Philip de
Souremayne will be among them.
Speaking of the work of the Minsk Group, Min. Guliyev said its work was
necessary despite the fair discontent with it on part of the people of
Azerbaijan. He voiced a hope that the Azerbaijan party would manage to
build constructive relations with the new French co-chair, considering his
good knowledge of the subtleties of the political situation in the
region.*
[AssA-Irada] News Digest, May 15-16, 2001
Armenian Dashnaks favour unification with Karabakh
�� Text of report by Armenian news agency Snark
�� Yerevan, 14 May: The unification of Nagornyy Karabakh and Armenia has
a programmatic and strategic value for the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation-Dashnaktsutyun (ARFD), a press release, forwarded to the Snark
news agency today, has said. The statement presents the results of the
11-12 May Yerevan conference of the ARFD with the participation of
members of the bureau, the ARFD supreme body, the central committee of
Nagornyy Karabakh's ARFD, representatives of central committees of
various regions and Armenian and Nagornyy Karabakh parliamentarians.
�� The statement says that the conference determined the party's
principles and positions on each of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict
settlement options. The problem of guaranteeing the security not only of
Nagornyy Karabakh, but also of Armenia and the Armenian people is
practically on the negotiating table. In order to emerge from such
crucial negotiations as the winner, the Armenian side first of all needs
internal solidarity, a unified position and internal stability, the
statement says. Dashnaktsutyun believes that various settlement proposals
and options presented during the negotiations must be discussed between
the Armenian president and all political forces with the aim of drawing
up a single coordinated position. The participants in the conference
stressed the need for the equal participation of the NKR authorities in
the decisive stage of the negotiations.
�� Dashnaktsutyun is in favour of negotiations leading to a just peace.
The settlement of the Karabakh problem, the report says, should ensure
Nagornyy Karabakh's unification with the Republic of Armenia or at least
the consolidation of Nagornyy Karabakh's independence, guarantee the
national security and defence capability of Armenia and Nagornyy
Karabakh, "preserve Armenia's hegemony over the country's territories",
as well as the confirm Armenia's strategic importance in the region.
�� "Those who assume that the Armenian people can forego the results of
their 13-year struggle due to their difficult social and economic
situation are wrong in their calculations," the statement stresses.
Snark in Russian
0500 GMT 15 May 01
PROSPECTS AND PERILS OF AN ARMENIAN-AZERBAIJANI SETTLEMENT
Blanka Hancilova
John Hopkins University
SAIS
Central Asia Caucasus Analyst
BIWEEKLY BRIEFING Wednesday/May 23, 2001
In the spring of this year, the Nagorno Karabakh peace talks gained an unprecedented momentum towards a peaceful settlement. A deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan will be a painful compromise for both sides. To secure an environment conducive for its implementation, the international community needs to support political stability in the countries, to provide security guarantees and humanitarian and development aid to the region. The alternative to active international involvement is the increased radicalization of the opposition to the Presidents Aliev and Kocharian, and ensuing destabilization. Alternatively, if the negotiations fail to produce a mutually acceptable compromise, Azerbaijan and Armenia are likely to experience a new phase of military escalation.
BACKGROUND: Since the May 1994 cease-fire, which left Nagorno Karabakh de facto independent and with a territorial link to Armenia, the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia is effectively in deadlock. Since spring 1999, both the level of dialogue between the parties and the degree of international involvement increased considerably. The presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, Robert Kocharian and Heidar Aliyev, have met sixteen times to discuss the conflict. The last two meetings in March and April 2001 were held in the presence of the OSCE co-chairs, Russia, the U.S. and France. The latest Key West talks also heralded a new format of the consultations. The system of proximity talks was employed, in which the negotiating parties do not meet directly but use the services of mediators. The same negotiation format will be used at the next round scheduled to take place in Geneva this Summer.
The current positive dynamics are shaped by several favorable factors. Firstly, the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan no longer consider the status quo viable and see the final settlement of the conflict as both possible and desirable. Secondly, the commitment of the United States and Russia to reaching a settlement is higher than ever. Russias position is currently more constructive than before. Cooperation between the U.S. and Russia generates a favorable psychological and political framework for the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents. President Kocharian can address his own political establishment pointing at the support of Russia, Armenias protector and strategic partner. Aliyev, in turn, can exploit U.S. support to reassure his own political opponents of a counterbalance to the perceived Russian support for Armenia. These psychological dynamics could generate the crucial sense of ripeness in the minds of the two sides, both decision-makers and the wider public. Unfortunately, at this point in time, it seems that the presidents are ahead of their constituencies.
IMPLICATIONS: Any peace settlement will be a tough compromise and may be out of the range of what the public in either Azerbaijan or Armenia consider fair and just. There is likely to be many opponents of the settlement who will try to pressure the presidents. Presidential signatures on a peace settlement plan is a necessary, but certainly not sufficient, condition for bringing lasting peace to the region. There are clear political and practical obstacles to the implementation. The withdrawal of the Armenian units from occupied territories, which is a necessary part of any deal, will be followed by the movement of hundreds of thousands of internally displaced persons in Azerbaijan to their places of origin. Such major population movements will create a severe burden on the crisis-ridden Azerbaijani economy, as well as political pressures.
To offset the possible destabilizing implications of a peace settlement, the international community will need to engage actively and decisively in the implementation of the settlement. The involvement must surpass post-conflict rehabilitation to include de-mining, reconstruction and long-term development. International support for the peace solution must also be tangible from withdrawal of section 907(a) of the Freedom Support Act limiting U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan, to the provision of post-settlement assistance packages. Extensive foreign involvement will also have international implications. To avoid delays in international programming, there is a need to decide on the lead international agencies for the rehabilitation and development projects with a clear delimitation of responsibilities and built-in contingency planning.
The OSCE, which leads the negotiations, should carefully decide what information from the negotiation process can be shared with international organizations at this stage in order to allow them for timely planning of their involvement. The OSCE should seek the consent of Armenia and Azerbaijan to allow for a needs assessment missions prior to the actual signature of a settlement. Such field visits to at least some of the territories of concern should allow for more adequate international planning and shorten the deployment time of the international programs.
It is crucial for the UN and OSCE not to miss the short window of opportunity after an agreement is reached if it is. The time gap between the announcement of a settlement and the actual field engagement of the international community often leads to a situation where the momentum of political will of the parties created by the agreement has slowed down, stopped or even reversed by the time international projects are launched. There is a need for efforts to avoid this scenario in Nagorno-Karabakh, if and when a settlement to this protracted conflict is reached.
CONCLUSION: A peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict would have a significant stabilizing effect on the Caucasus. It would enable the reconstruction of war-damaged areas, and facilitate economic and political development of the whole South Caucasus. It would strengthen Azerbaijan and Armenia and therefore limit their vulnerability to foreign, most importantly Russian, dictate. In addition, the agreement could serve as an example and incentive for other breakaway regions, such as South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Transdniestria, to consider serious compromises in exchange for lasting and guaranteed solutions and economic assistance packages.
The absence or slow implementation of reconstruction, rehabilitation and development projects in the region would strengthen the opponents of the deal and feed into the negative stereotypes between the Armenian and Azerbaijani populations. It would have a negative impact on the stability of the regimes during the uneasy post-settlement period and the future cooperation between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It could also have a serious damaging impact on the peace process itself. The failure of the peace process at a given moment is likely to generate an overwhelming negative momentum, which will destabilize the regimes in Armenia and Azerbaijan. A failure of the negotiations to produce a settlement may not result in a continuation of the current status quo, but could compel leaders to seek a military solution to the situation. The use of other means than negotiation if the negotiations do not lead to a settlement have already been mentioned as possible options, specifically in Azerbaijan.
AUTHOR BIO: Blanka Hancilova is a PhD Candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University.
Copyright 2001 The Analyst
All rights reserved
INTERVIEW WITH DR. BRENDA SHAFFER, RESEARCH DIRECTOR OF THE CASPIAN STUDIES PROGRAM AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY, ON THE PROSPECTS OF PEACE FOR THE CAUCASUS.
Interview by Araxie Vann, Voice of America, Armenian Service Chief
APRIL 16, 2001
(The translation of this interview, with voice actualities, was broadcast on the VOA Armenian show on April 16th 2001. Minor clarifications have been made to this version by Brenda Shaffer.)
Question: Dr. Shaffer, how do you assess the results of Key West negotiations?
Dr. Shaffer: I think that the chief negotiators assess the results as very positive. They are professional diplomats, and wouldn't want to create high expectations if they didn't feel it was grounded. Probably the best sign that something happened in Florida is the silence of the different participants. If there were some sort of failure we would be hearing everyone talking about their own role there and trying to explain what they did and how they fought for their country's interest. The fact that the negotiators have not let out any details and the Presidents themselves have been quiet about what happened there is a sign that there was significant progress.
Question: So you think that optimism was not expressed by Armenia either?
Dr. Shaffer: I think both sides are at a critical stage. Of course we all love democracy, who isn't for democracy but democracy can create very difficult conditions during negotiations. You could see it in the recent round of negotiations in the Middle East. Having to keep the Parliament together in Israel, in a sense a daily referendum, makes negotiations almost impossible. Leaders have to sell a peace plan. So now it's a crucial time, because they are realizing that both leaders [of Armenia and Azerbaijan] are getting into some very serious negotiations, and whatever has been decided upon has to be marketed to each of their peoples; and public participation probably will be heightened after the June meetings in Geneva.
Question: What role will the Parliaments in Azerbaijan and Armenia play in future negotiations on Karabagh conflict?
Dr. Shaffer: I think in terms of the parliaments, sometimes opposition automatically opposes the incumbent leaders' negotiations, for political gains, without thinking if the terms actually benefit the state and people or not. I think sometimes leaders have to make very difficult and unpopular decisions in order to create peace. For example what de Gaulle did in Algeria, or what Rabin did in the first stage of peace with the Palestinians had to be silent negotiations, because no matter what the details of the different peace plans are, a lot of different political segments have an interest in attacking it and breaking down the negotiations. Democracy and public debate is good, but sometimes there are very crucial moments, when leaders have to demonstrate leadership and make sometimes difficult, not necessarily popular decisions that for the long run are the best for their people, and for their regions.
In January I visited Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Nagorno-Karabagh. In terms of peace in this region you really have to break down a lot of perceptions of the other side in terms of how dangerous is war or peace to the opposite side. For instance in Armenia I kept hearing this idea that Azerbaijan is a "failed state," so Armenia does not really have to be under pressure for peace. I didn't find Azerbaijan in any state of failed state. I found the infrastructures there improving rapidly. There is wider and wider cooperation between the opposition and the government. On the other hand in Azerbaijan I heard a lot of people talking about "well if Armenia won't give in, in the negotiations, we have to think of the war option." They already explored the war option, and Azerbaijan lost a lot of territories, and even if you win a war a lot of lives will be lost: there is a price for war. And for both sides there is a price for the status quo. Armenia has lost a lot of its population to emigration during the last decade. A terrible price to pay. In Azerbaijan its development has been stifled and open to dictates from surrounding powers because of the status quo. The status quo is not an option for Armenia or Azerbaijan.
Question: Under President Putin's leadership Russia seems to show more interest in the peaceful settlement of the Karabagh conflict. In your recent article in the Miami Herald, Peace for the Caucasus, you indicate that Russia might be pursuing new interests in the Caucasus region. Can you talk about this?
Dr. Shaffer: One of the keys to peace in the South Caucasus is the cooperation between Russia and the U.S., and it is essential that this region does not continue to serve as a a zone of rivalry between the U.S. and Russia or other powers Turkey, Iran, other countries that are active in the region. All of the people in the region realize that Armenia and Azerbaijan have grievances against each other, but it probably would have remained a local conflict if it wasn't for the involvement of Russia at the time, I don't think it would have turned into all out regional war. At the time there was a lot of playing forces against each other, led to the escalation of the activities between Azerbaijan and Armenia regarding Karabagh. I think that now we are at the point where over these negotiations we have had significant cooperation between Russia and the U.S. and this is really a key to why they have succeeded so far and it's essential for their future success. And no matter what the various interests are, this has to be co-sponsored peace, both Russia and the U.S. having a stake in the peace arrangement. For Russia it may not be the best goal for the region, but Russia must say "This is not bad for us. We have a stake in preserving this." I think that if you look at the behaviors of the negotiators, and co-sponsors, U.S. and Russia this was a time of good cooperation between them. All the officials who have participated were very happy about that idea that they are united. It's important to the countries of the region to realize that the U.S. and Russia are very committed this time. So let's hope that the Caucasus will turn out to be sort of a turning point also for relations between Moscow and Washington in the coming years, which are now at a relative low point.
Transcript: Minsk Group Co-Chairs Press Conference in Yerevan May 21 (Discuss meeting with Armenian president, peace process) (1530) 22 May 2001 Minsk Group Co-Chairs Carey Cavanaugh (United States), Philippe de Suramaen (France), and Nikolai Gribkov (Russia) briefed reporters in Yerevan May 21 about their meeting with Armenian President Robert Kocharian on the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process.
Cavanaugh said they described for the president their visit to refugee camps in the region. "We explained to him that we had found a lot of people very concerned about peace. This was a common message we heard by refugees from Sumgayit and Baku and by people who had lived in Aghdam and are now in camps in Azerbaijan.... We were worried, however, that we did not hear a lot of discussion among the population about the need for compromise."
Declining to discuss details of the peace negotiation, Cavanaugh said that President Kocharian and Azerbaijan President Heydar Aliyev "have dealt with very difficult questions and have made some progress on the most difficult questions."
Gribkov said that "all our meetings with President Aliyev and President Kocharian encourage hope that the peace process will go on. As for the Geneva meeting [in June], in our strong belief this meeting should be very well prepared, we have to be sure that the new round of peace talks between the presidents will really be a step forward."
Calling Nagorno-Karabakh a "very difficult problem," he added that "one should take into account that the resolution will be necessarily based on compromises."
De Suramaen said "there was an optimism" following the April peace talks between Aliyev and Kocharian in Key West, Florida "and it was based on serious progress that the presidents had made and we had made working together there. But there was also an understanding that the presidents had to go home to talk to their governments, to listen to their opposition, to get a feeling for their people... We expected the leaders to take soundings from people to know if this is the right approach."
"The path to peace is not a straight road," Cavanaugh said. "And our concern as you go on this path is not for speed but for the final destination... a peaceful settlement between the countries, a peaceful situation in the Caucasus, and a different future than they have today."
Following is a transcript of the press conference:
(begin transcript)
MEDIA BRIEFING OF THE OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS Presidential Building
Yerevan, Armenia
Monday, May 21, 2001
Ambassador Carey Cavanaugh, United States, Ambassador Philippe de Suramaen, France, Ambassador Nikolai Gribkov, Russia
Opening Remark by Ambassador Cavanaugh:
We all want to speak to you, but let me say first that we described to the President our visit to the region this weekend, we talked to him about how moved we were with the meetings we had yesterday in Spitak, in Gyumri, and about the meetings we had in Shoushi and Karabakh. We had an opportunity on this visit to travel more in Armenia and Karabakh and Azerbaijan than we normally do. We explained to him that we had found a lot of people very concerned about peace. This was a common message we heard by refugees from Sumgayit and Baku and by people who had lived in Aghdam and are now in camps in Azerbaijan -- a very strong commitment for peace.
We told him we were worried, however, that we did not hear a lot of discussion among the population about the need for compromise. It's something we have heard again and again from President Kocharian and President Aliyev -- an understanding that a peace settlement requires compromises. But we expressed concerns that that feeling is not as strong yet with the people of Armenia and Azerbaijan, even that we hear the strong feeling of the need for peace. So we described all of these things.
Q. Can you comment in detail on the discussion with President Kocharian?
A. (Gribkov): We believe that the discussion we had with Robert Kocharian was very interesting and helpful for us. We should listen to all sides of the conflict in order to understand better how we should move further. The discussion with the President will help us consider new nuances and better prepare the next phase of the Karabakh settlement process.
Q. Mr. Cavanaugh, you have stated that the main contradictions [between the conflicting parties] have already been solved and that the status of Nagorno- Karabakh is still on the table of discussions. Can it be assumed that the main disagreement has been on returning territories to Azerbaijan?
A. (Cavanaugh): I have not said which items have been resolved or which ones remain on the table. We have been very careful, in fact, to follow President Kocharian's and President Aliyev's wishes to keep the details of these discussions confidential. What I have said is that they have dealt with very difficult questions and have made some progress on the most difficult questions. But let me add they are dealing with the most difficult issue a country can face -- how do you solve the problems of war and peace. This is not simple, and it can't be done quickly, it can't put an artificial deadline on it, it can't be imposed from outside, it has to be a solution that works for the government of Armenia and the government of Azerbaijan, and the people of Armenia and the people of Azerbaijan.
Q. Did the meetings with the two presidents inspire any hopes that a peace agreement may be reached in Geneva?
A. (Gribkov): Of course, all our meetings with President Aliyev and President Kocharian encourage hope that the Karabakh peace process will go on. As for the Geneva meeting, in our strong belief, this meeting should be very well prepared, we have to be sure that the new round of peace talks between the presidents will really be a step forward. That's why, after the discussions we had in Baku, Stepanakert and Yerevan, we will be working on the proposals and ideas with doubled efforts, which, in our view, may become helpful for the Azeri and Armenians in the solution of that actually very difficult problem. One should take into account that the resolution will be necessarily based on compromises.
Q. After the Key West talks you were more optimistic and closer to reaching an agreement. The recent statements by the co-chairs have shown less optimism. Why?
A. (de Suramaen): We found that the more we progress, the more we see the complexity of the situation. All these questions cannot be resolved in two minutes, and why this visit was so important ... that we get a lot of impression, a lot of information and then we can go further and better. It takes time because it is a very delicate situation and things have to be resolved in a proper way.
A. (Cavanaugh): Let me add to that. When we finished the meetings in Florida, there was an optimism and it was based on a serious progress that the presidents had made and we had made working together there. But there was also an understanding that the presidents had to go home to talk to their governments, to listen to their opposition, to get a feeling for their people -- were the proposals, the ideas, the concepts being considered the right ones, do they work, does this bring about a peace that isn't temporary but permanent? They've been doing that. President Aliyev has been widening the circle of contacts and people who are involved in this process. I believe he has been looking at the response in the press and public events of people about peace. President Kocharian, I know, has been meeting with parliamentary leaders. He has been talking to Arkadi Ghoukassian and other people in Stepanakert, that we had expected that in Florida -- the leaders to take soundings from people to know if this is the right approach.
Q. What do you think about the opinions of both publics?
A. (Cavanaugh): I think you've heard me say already that we have seen a greater understanding of the need for compromise among the leadership than among the public. And I also think the public needs time. Let me say one last thing. The path to peace is not a straight road, it is more like the road to Lachin -- there are many curves and rises and holes. And our concern as you go on this path is not for speed but for the final destination -- to reach a durable lasting peace. If it speeds up in Florida, and it slows down a little now, and speeds up again later -- that's fine. And the meeting we have just had with President Kocharian and the meeting we had with President Aliyev in Baku on Friday both made clear that they see the same destination -- a peaceful settlement between the couuntries, a peaceful situation in the Caucasus, and a different future than they have today.
Q. Are you still optimistic that until the end of the year it is possible to solve this problem?
A. (Cavanaugh): I think I just answered that question.
Thank you very much.
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State.
Transcript: OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs Press Conference in Baku May 18
(Baku: U.S., French, Russian ambassadors on Nagorno-Karabakh) (3810) 21 May 2001
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group Co-chairs held a press conference in Baku, Azerbaijan May 18 to brief reporters on progress on the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh.
The co-chairs -- Ambassador Carey Cavanaugh (United States), Ambassador Philippe de Suramaen (France), and Ambassador Nikolai Mikhailovich Gribkov (Russia) -- had just met with Azerbaijan's President Heydar Aliyev. Earlier they met with Russian Defense Minister Sergey Ivanov.
Cavanaugh characterized the meeting with Aliyev as "very productive." Aliyev and Armenia's President, Robert Kocharian, "are ahead of their populations in understanding that there can be no lasting peace settlement if there is not compromise," he said, adding: "They have worked very much to find possible compromises. And they have been successful."
Cavanaugh declined, however, to provide details except to say that these compromises "would make up only part of the peace settlement."
De Suramaen said the Nagorno-Karabakh problem is not a "forgotten issue" but "the number one problem on the scene."
Gribkov revealed that the meeting with Ivanov had been "entirely devoted to the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh and the perspectives of its settlement."
The co-chairs were scheduled to meet May 19 with Azerbaijani opposition leaders, some of whom have called for war. Praising the determination of Presidents Aliyev and Kocharian to find a peaceful solution to the situation, Cavanaugh said: "I personally believe the future of Azerbaijan and the future of Armenia lies in a peaceful settlement."
"The international community is looking at ways to help if peace can be found with the resettlement of refugees, the rebuilding of what was destroyed and the integration of this region. We believe for the region to achieve its true potential you need to integrate it effectively and economically," Cavanaugh said.
In his opening statement, he pointed out that the three were in the region for two reasons: "This is both a diplomatic trip in working on the peace process -- in building on what had been developed at Key West [peace talks held last month in Key West, Florida] to see how to move forward. It is also one of our periodic trips where we come to the region about every six months to look more extensively at the situation on the ground, to see refugees and to look at needs for economic reconstruction and development."
Following is a transcript of the press conference provided by the U.S. Embassy in Baku:
(begin transcript)
Baku, Azerbaijan
Friday, May 18, 2001
TRANSCRIPT OF THE NEWS CONFERENCE OF THE OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS
Ambassador Carey Cavanaugh, United States
Ambassador Philippe de Suramaen, France
Ambassador Nikolai Mikhailovich Gribkov, Russia
Opening Remarks:
Ambassador Cavanaugh: Good Evening, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to apologize for us being late. We had a very productive and lengthy meeting with President Aliyev. We also had a meeting with Sergei Ivanov, the Russian Defense Minister at the airport. All of these meetings altered our schedule and plan. Now we would like to tell you a few words about our trip. This is both a diplomatic trip in working on the peace process -- in building on what had been developed at Key West [peace talks held last month in Key West, Florida] to see how to move forward. It is also one of our periodic trips where we come to the region about every six months to look more extensively at the situation on the ground, to see refugees and to look at needs for economic reconstruction and development.
In the next few days we will visit the refugee camp at Agdjabadi, Agdam region, city of Mardakert, Stepanakert, Shusa as well in Spetak and Gumru. These visits are all designed in one way or another to focus on the needs of this region. There are pressing humanitarian and economic needs as well as needs for security. Tomorrow we will do the first crossing ever of the line of contact to go from Azerbaijan into Agdam and into the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. We remain very concerned about the military situation along the line of contact and on the border of Armenia and Azerbaijan. We will bring together military officials from both sides tomorrow to look at measures that might make that region, that border and that line of control safer.
Ambassador Gribkov: If I am going to speak Russian will you understand me?
I would like to clarify some points mentioned by Carey Cavanaugh. He said that tomorrow we will be crossing the line of contact between Azerbaijan and Nagorno-Karabakh. I have to note that we have already crossed that line before, but those were borders between Azerbaijan and Armenia. We have done this monitoring twice. First time it was in the region of Gazakh and Jevan. The second time on the border of Nakhchivan and Armenia in the region of Sadarak. Tomorrow, I would like to repeat, we will have to first crossing of contact line in the region of Agdam.
But in general I would like to support the words of my dear friend and colleague Mr. Cavanaugh. We indeed have done tremendous work in order to make the sides get closer, to reach a compromise agreement. You know in fact from the beginning of this year, the activity on Nagorno-Karabakh was very high. There were contacts at a high level by the presidents of our three countries, with Heider Aliyev and Robert Kocharian. There were very close contacts among our three presidents that included exchanges of messages and telephone calls and just conversations during meetings. I just wanted to say that our leaders are showing very big attention to this problem and are trying to do everything they can in order to solve this persistent problem. Our trips to the region are carrying the same goal. As it was already correctly noted here, our trips are two times per year and each trip adds more value in our understanding on the questions that arise daily. They help us maybe to find out new and not ordinary ways of solution. For example, I have an impression -- I don't know whether my colleagues will agree with me or not -- that now we have got so many new ideas so maybe we should somehow stop and think of what's going on because sometimes I think we are ahead of the schedule of our work. For now I will stop here.
Ambassador Philippe de Suramaen
If you allow I would prefer to speak French because it is still easier for me.
I just can support the words of my two colleagues. I am a relatively new in this sphere although I have been familiar with this region and what surprises me most about this is the closeness of the cooperation between us. We have been working intensively recently. This active work could be explained by the active work due to the great importance our presidents of all three countries have attached to this issue. I am drawing this to your attention in order to let you know that the Nagorno-Karabakh problem is not just a forgotten issue. It is the opposite, in that it is the number one problem on the scene. These periodic trips of ours give us a chance to better understand the elements and details of this problem. There is an international community standing behind us with the hope that after the peace settlement they could send forward help to this region. At the same time to put an end the unrest on both sides in this region and as Ambassador Cavanaugh mentioned, the organization of the current trip itself shows to what degree this problem remains of vital interest for us. The thing that I want to tell you is that we are working hard together. Thank you.
Ambassador Cavanaugh: Now we would like to answer your questions.
Q. I have two questions, one is to Ambassador Cavanaugh. Ambassador Cavanaugh recently in different talks mentioned that the sides will have to agree to big compromises. If the territory of Azerbaijan was occupied, what kind of compromises could be made from Armenia's sides?
A. (Cavanaugh): For several months now both Presidents have been talking about the need to make serious compromise to bring about a lasting settlement in this region. I believe that in their 16 meetings together they have developed an understanding that this is essential. And indeed, I think they are ahead of their populations in understanding that there can be no lasting peace settlement if there is not compromise. They have worked very much to find possible compromises. And they have been successful. We have helped them in that effort. The compromises would make up only part of the peace settlement. And both Presidents have made clear that there is no logic in discussing those compromises until there is a settlement. We respect that decision. These are very difficult fundamental questions for a nation. What has been encouraging them is that they have pursued this course. And we hope that they will be successful. That is all the detail I can really give on compromises.
Q. I have a question addressed to all three co-chairs. How do you think the speed of conflict settlement is affected by additional delivery of Russian weapons to Armenia? And did you discuss the question of creation of the mutual Russian/Armenian Group on Anti-Aircraft Defensive Arms during your meeting with the Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Ivanov.
Ambassador Gribkov: As I understand this question is addressed to me? Journalist: No, to all of you.
Ambassador Gribkov: First of all I will start from the end of your question. The meeting with the Minister of Defense was very short and it was entirely devoted to the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh and the perspectives of its settlement. Now to the beginning of your question. You know that Russian weapons have been located in Armenia for a long time and you know that very well. And I even hope that you know why they are located there. Let me assure that there is no connection of the location of our weapons to the Armenian and Azerbaijan relationship and mainly to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. But if you insist on it then I will say why wouldn't we develop this kind of military relationship with Azerbaijan as well? If you don't mind let's suggest our ministers of defense to elaborate on the possibility to deploy Russian weapons on Azerbaijan territory (ironically).
Q. Question to Mr. Gribkov. Besides the meetings planned for June 15 in Geneva between Aliyev and Kocharian are there another planned contacts between the two, even unofficial? What kind of perspectives and questions could arise during those contacts?
A. (Gribkov): As I know, at the present moment there is a meeting planned with Putin and Kocharian. The meeting has to take place in Armenia on May 24-25 on the occasion of a meeting of the Council of Collective Security that will take place in Yerevan. There, besides the protocol and general meetings, there will be separate meetings between the two presidents. After that on May 31st-June 1 there will be a Summit of NIS countries in Minsk. I don't exclude that even there, there will be meetings of Putin with the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan that would be concerning the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. With regards to the Geneva meetings that you mentioned and even mentioned the dates June 15, the discussions at these meetings will be determined by the results of these recent meetings, negotiations, and maybe what will happen in meetings in Minsk and Yerevan or other activities. The dates for Geneva have not been set up yet. It could even be the 15th of July or August. I can't tell now. It will depend on how the settlement process will go on.
Q. Please tell us in what form are the peace settlement proposals being discussed at the present? Are they based on step by step format or a package agreement? If they are based on step by step format please let us know what regions of Azerbaijan are to be freed in the first stage?
A. (Philippe de Suramaen): This is a very difficult question because you want us to tell you the details of the proposals we are discussing now. It would run contrary to the trust shown by the two presidents. Meaning that to disclose those ideas prematurely would be counterproductive. I can only say that until now we did not forget anything that we have discussed in the past. We are using those materials from the past and our frequent meetings are the results of our hard work in this area. Since the Key West meetings we have been to NY, Vienna, and now we are in Baku and are going to be in Yerevan and as Mr. Gribkov mentioned earlier we have got a lot of ideas that have to be elaborated on. I have to mention that this issue is very sensitive and by the time you get some idea another element or detail arises that has to be taken into consideration. I don't believe that my answer satisfied your question (smiling).
Q.: My question is for Mr. Cavanaugh. From the press we heard that you wrote a letter to the leaders of Musavat, the Popular Front, Azerbaijan National Independence parties and asked them to convince the public and the population here to the agreement of the Karabakh conflict.
A. (Cavanaugh): I did not write such a letter. Let me also take the occasion to highlight that we will be meeting with opposition leaders tomorrow. We think it's very important to take their views also into account as this peace process moves forward. One thing I had said about the opposition is concerns about some who call for war. I believe President Aliyev has been very clear in his dedication to pursuing a peaceful resolution of this conflict. President Kocharian has shown the same determination. It is hard to see a situation where Azerbaijan or Armenia would benefit from further fighting. The destruction, the refugees, all the results of this last fighting are still holding this country back. I personally believe the future of Azerbaijan and the future of Armenia lies in a peaceful settlement. And I think that many in the opposition believe that too. But there are some who take the easy course of simply calling for war, and I do disagree with them.
Q. I would like to know your assessment on Azerbaijan's position on the demand for compensation for damage. Azerbaijan has tried to raise this issue of compensation from Armenia for its refugees. I believe Azerbaijan is going to make an appeal to the International Court. I would also like you to answer the first question about Russia's attitude to terrorism in Chechnya and in Karabakh.
A. (Cavanaugh) I think the only answer we can give to that question is that concerns about claims is something we have been discussing. These questions are enormously complicated. We have seen around the world with other conflicts, it is often difficult to resolve them effectively. It's one of many issues we have been looking at.
A. (Gribkov) I would like to say a few words in answer to your question about the Chechen terrorism. Our position on the Chechen terrorism is very simple. We condemn terrorism in all its forms and appearances. So that's why I don't understand your question.
Q. Because of your double standard.
A. (Gribkov) What double standard are you talking about?
Q. Double standard of the terrorism in the form of separatism in Karabakh and Chechnya.
A. (Gribkov) So, if you want to know, in 1992 in Helsinki there was a Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers, then the Council on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Now it is called OSCE. In accordance with that Session in the Nagorno Karabakh Conflict there four parties involved: Azerbaijan and Armenia, as two conflicting parties, and two interested ones - Nagorno Karabakh and the Azerbaijani Community of Nagorno Karabakh. If an International Organization makes such decisions, and you regard Nagorno Karabakh as a terrorist organization, then I don't understand it.
Q. At today's meeting with the Russian Defense Minister, was there a discussion on the participation of Russian troops in a peace-keeping operation to come after a peace agreement is signed? At the OSCE Budapest Summit there was made a decision that in a peace-keeping contingent share of any state cannot exceed 30%. And will the principle of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and its sovereignty over Nagorno Karabakh be preserved in future settlement of the problem?
A. (Cavanaugh) Let me give a part of the answer to the first question. Defense Minister Ivanov had a meeting with President Aliyev. And if you want to know what they talked about at that meeting you would have to talk to him. That was a one-on-one meeting. We had a meeting with Defense Minister Ivanov at the Baku airport about an hour ago. And the focus of that meeting was on broad efforts to push forward a solution to the problem of Karabakh. We have just finished three hours of meeting with President Aliyev: one hour in public, two hours in private. And we took this opportunity to be able to convey our Co-Chair concerns directly back to President Putin. As you know the communication between Presidents Bush, Chirac and Putin on the question of Nagorno-Karabakh have been significant. And the common approach that the three Presidents in the three countries have had to this problem have helped move this peace process forward. I think you can take this meeting with Defense Minister Ivanov as yet another sign of that constant communication. So he and soon President Putin will be well aware of the intricacies of the discussions we've had here in Baku. And I can tell you I have already called Washington to tell them both about the discussion with President Aliyev and the discussion we had with Defense Minister Ivanov. I can tell you that right now in fact in Washington Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov and Secretary of State Powell are having lunch and talking about Nagorno-Karabakh.
A. (Gribkov) I would like to add a few words to what my colleague Cavanaugh said. I will be quite frank. Question about international military presence including Russia was not discussed at the meeting with Mr. Ivanov. At least because you know there are issues of high and lower priorities. At the beginning we have to agree on how to settle this major and serious problem. And other following issues could be addressed at the latest stages.
Q. Will the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan be preserved?
A. (Gribkov) I think this is what we state all the time here on how the problem will be settled is pretty clear.
Q. Mr. Cavanaugh recently stated that an economic development plan for the region is under work after the war is over. I think when Mr. Cavanaugh spoke of the plan, he meant Azerbaijani territory because its territory suffered mostly from destruction both economically and other areas in the conflict.
A. (Cavanaugh) Actually when I talk about economic development in this region I mean both Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Georgia and beyond. The international community is looking at ways to help if peace can be found with the resettlement of refugees, the rebuilding of what was destroyed and the integration of this region. We believe for the region to achieve its true potential you need to integrate it effectively and economically.
Q. My first question is to the French co-chairman. What was the purpose of the recent visit of NK representatives to France and what they discussed with the Co-Chairs? And two weeks ago NK representatives led by Gukasyan were in Paris and met with the French both former and present Co-Chair. What was discussed at that meeting? What was the purpose of the meeting, and why were NK representatives were invited there?
A. (French Co-Chair) The President of a so-called NK Republic paid a non-official visit to Paris. He traveled with his Armenian passport. He held meetings with various local Armenian organizations. As to my meeting with him, I had a lunch with him where my purpose was to get comprehensive information, and it was unofficial. I can assure you that he was not officially invited. It was a private visit. For example, he was not received at the Foreign Ministry.
Q. Your last meeting with the President lasted just one hour, whereas this time it increase to three. Does it mean that compromises have narrowed or (inaudible)?
A. (Cavanaugh) The last time when I met with the President I had a four hour meeting, this time (there was) a three hour meeting with the three of us. But you would be making a mistake to judge the meanings, values of meetings by their length. The only thing you can judge by the length of the meeting is how much importance your president attaches to this peace process. And this when had dozen important state issues and almost eight or nine defence ministers in town, he spent three hours with us on this problem.
Q. Nezavisimaya Gazeta: You said during the Key West talks that Iranian side should also be informed. What was the reason you said that - was it because a change of territory has been discussed, borders with Iran, or that Iran might be involved in this process?
A. (Cavanaugh): It was at the end of the Key West talks (that we announced) our intention to brief the Iranian government on the peace process. We thought that as peace is moving forward it was important to inform other players in the region and others who will be involved in helping implement a peace. Ten days ago we had meetings with the Minsk Group in Vienna and informed many of the European countries most involved with this conflict and we talk about this at OSCE, which lets 55 European countries know the pace of developments and what is going on. That takes care of Georgia, that takes care of Turkey, that takes care of most European countries that will be involved in the settlement. But since Iran is not a member of the OSCE they are left out of that process. We are now working with the government of Iran to find a common time when the three co-chairs can brief the Iranian government. We believe that it's in Iran's interest that there be a peaceful settlement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and we believe that the peace processes now under discussion do not in any way hurt Iran's fundamental interests. And as I said we are working with the government of Iran to find the right time to do that briefing.
Thank you all very much!
(end transcript)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State.
Armenian patriarch rejects so-called genocide
Mesrob II, the Patriarch of the Turkish Armenians, said that terminology should not be used for defining the events which took place in the past between the Turks and the Armenians, stating that he could not say that either a genocide or a massacre took place.
"However, I can say that too many painful events occurred. Now there are those who were affected by this and who have to live with the pain and trauma of those events," Mesrob II said.
Patriarch Mesrob II, visited Gaziantep to give a small boat as a present to the inhabitants of the Kasaba village close to Rumkale, who moved to the area as it will not be affected by the rise in the water level before the construction of the Birecik Dam.
The Armenian Patriarch asked that the issue not be seen as a matter of hatred and offered the starting of the dialogue process.
Ankara - Turkish Daily News
News referred from Habarlar-L