updated
By Paul Goble
Ever more Azerbaijanis view the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute as the most
important problem facing their country, a trend that may make it more
difficult for Baku to reach an agreement on that issue with Armenia.
According to a poll conducted in Azerbaijan for the U.S. State
Department's Office of Research after the publication in February this
year of three failed OSCE Karabakh peace plans, 55 percent of Azerbaijanis
say that the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute is the single most serious problem
Azerbaijan faces. That figure is up from 41 percent in a poll the same
office carried out a year ago. Furthermore, an additional 19 percent this
year said that other aspects of that conflict -- including displaced
persons and territorial integrity -- are the next most serious problem.
These figures are striking for three reasons. First, Nagorno-Karabakh
dwarfs all other issues in Azerbaijan. Fewer than one-third as many in the
sample named any other issue, with 18 percent saying that unemployment is
the most serious problem and 14 percent reporting that economic problems
are the most significant issue. On the one hand, this means Azerbaijanis
care more about what their government does on this issue than they do even
on the bread-and-butter concerns that drive the politics of most countries
the majority of the time. That pattern may allow Baku to devote less
attention to those matters than would otherwise be the case. And on the
other hand, the overwhelming importance of Nagorno-Karabakh to
Azerbaijanis means that the government's ability to pursue new departures
in negotiations over the future of that region are limited. To put it
simply, too many Azerbaijanis care about the outcome for the Azerbaijani
government to ignore their views.
Second, increasing concern about Nagorno-Karabakh, an area within
Azerbaijan's borders with an ethnic Armenian majority that is now under
the control of Armenians, does not appear to reflect changes on the
ground. Rather, it appears to be the product of increased public attention
to efforts by the OSCE Minsk Group led by France, Russia, and the United
States to promote an accord between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Azerbaijanis have become more sensitive to this issue precisely because it
has become the subject of more intense discussion. And that points to one
of the paradoxes of negotiations by governments that must rely on the
support of the people: If outside powers seek to promote a settlement by
highly publicized meetings such as the Key West summit earlier this year,
these countries may unintentionally make it more difficult for the parties
to reach a settlement.
In short, dictatorships may be able to ignore the views of their own
people, but the governments of democracies and of countries that aspire to
become democracies cannot do so except at the risk of massive instability
or even collapse. And the leaders of such countries are very aware of
these dangers.
And third, at least some Azerbaijani politicians may exploit increasing
popular concern about Nagorno-Karabakh to promote their own agenda or even
to advance their own positions in the future. The likelihood of such
actions also acts as a constraint on the government's maneuvering room.
Indeed, it is worth noting that many Azerbaijani opposition parties have
staked out far less flexible positions than has President Heidar Aliev.
But in addition, the exploitation by such groups of these popular
attitudes will only intensify the concerns of the Azerbaijani population,
thus further reducing the possibility of any movement in negotiations and
creating the specter of possible violence should conditions on the ground
in and around Nagorno-Karabakh take a turn for the worse.
Unless these possibilities are taken into account by the negotiators,
little progress appears to be likely in the short term, and enormous
dangers appear to be possible over the longer term.
Copyright 2001 RFE/RL
Azerbaijan hails Russian-US "constructive cooperation"
on Karabakh
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jun 17, 2001
Text of report in English by Russian news agency Interfax
Baku, 17 June: Azerbaijan expects the results of the meeting between the presidents of Russia and US, Vladimir Putin and George Bush, to give an early positive impetus to the process of a [Nagornyy] Karabakh settlement, (?Novruz Mamedov), the head of the presidential administration's foreign department, told Interfax on Sunday [17 June].
"Doubtlessly, the Nagornyy Karabakh problem was discussed in the course of the meeting between the two presidents. It's gratifying that the issue is a subject for constructive cooperation between Russia and the United States," Mamedov said.
He believes that the presidents of the two countries will give appropriate instructions to the leaders of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe group in Minsk.
Source: Interfax news agency, Moscow, in English 1019 gmt 17 Jun 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
ANTI-TERROR OPERATIONS WILL START IN KARABAKH ONCE NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC OPINIONS ARE READY, SAYS MINISTER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
Source:ANS
13.06.01--BAKU--The Minister for National Security of Azerbaijan, Namig
Abbasov confessed that Islams radical trend of Wahhabism has taken roots
in Azerbaijan but added measures are being taken to stop its spreading.
According to him, those who take liberties with this are punished
according to the law. The minister was specially irritated by the fact
that ADRA (Adventist Development and Relief Agency) international
organization operating in Azerbaijans second-largest city of Ganja calls
on the people not to be hostile towards this nations enemies (Armenians)
and its spreading Adventism. This is betrayal against these people, this
will be stopped, said Mr Abbasov. The minister said what Armenians are
doing in Nagorno-Karabakh is the most outrageous form of terrorism and
separatism. The minister reminded that an appropriate protocol was signed
by heads of secret service of CIS states (except Armenia) in 2000. Mr
Abbasov said Azerbaijan has enough potential to conduct anti-terror
operations on the Azeri territories occupied by Armenia which the minister
said would start once the national and international public opinions are
ready for that.
By Etibar Mamedov
ANS News, June 14, 2001
Azeri daily comments on security minister's remarks
on Karabakh
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jun 14, 2001
Text of M. Bagirov report by Azerbaijani newspaper Ekho on 14 June entitled "Anti-terrorist operation in Karabakh"
Official Baku seriously examines such a possibility
With the exception of [Armenian President] Robert Kocharyan, no-one has ever disputed the fact that Azerbaijan has the full right to restore its territorial integrity by force. Now it is probably time to discuss concrete details of military pressure, and particularly, what all this will entail.
Minister of National Security Namiq Abbasov said in an interview with the ANS TV channel that Azerbaijan had all the necessary means to conduct an anti-terrorist operation on the occupied territories. The minister of national security said that the world community today had a preconceived notion of the Karabakh conflict as if it was the result of "the national liberation movement of Nagornyy Karabakh's population", which Armenia helped.
"We maintain that this is terrorism and aggressive separatism," Abbasov said.
The minister of national security said that the world community ought to be convinced of this fact and there will be grounds to carry out anti-terrorist actions.
Ziyafat Asgarov, head of the parliamentary commission for defence and security, has a similar stance.
"This is our right, he told ANS. Azerbaijan can conduct an anti-terrorist operation on its territory. "How and when it will be conducted - I cannot give you the details yet."
It is noteworthy that the idea of conducting an anti-terrorist operation in Nagornyy Karabakh was initiated by former Foreign Minister Tofiq Zulfuqarov and the former head of the secretariat of the Presidential Executive Staff, Eldar Namazov, which was reflected in a proposal drawn by the two experts for the settlement of the Karabakh problem. Then the talk was about the possibility of Azerbaijan carrying out a "humanitarian action" on the occupied territories.
Eldar Namazov totally agrees with the position of the minister of national security. "It does not matter what the operation will be called - a humanitarian or anti-terrorist operation," the former head of the secretariat of the Presidential Executive Staff said. The point is that Azerbaijan should not rule out the possibility of military pressure on aggressors, terrorists and separatists.
It is curious that Namazov does not regard Abbasov's statement as a coincidence. "The minister of national security is one of the key figures, which is why his statement cannot be regarded as a coincidence.
It is clear that Russia's actions on Chechen territory, which, as is known, were called an "anti-terrorist operation" from the beginning, may have served as an example for such statements. How will Russia perceive similar actions by Azerbaijan?
"We think that all issues should be settled in a peaceful way and there are prerequisites for that. After Vladimir Putin's visit to Azerbaijan, I had such confidence," Anatoliy Chekhoyev, deputy chairman of the Russian State Duma committee for CIS affairs, told Ekho.
As for the actions of Russia itself, which are far from being peaceful, the deputy chairman of the State Duma committee stated that this was not the best example to follow.
"Now that the situation in Chechnya has gone so far, such actions can be justified, but I think that the conflict could have been avoided at the beginning," Chekhoyev said.
In the meanwhile, the Pan-Armenian news agency reports that Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan held a press conference in Yerevan yesterday and confirmed the readiness of the Armenian side to continue the negotiating process on the Karabakh conflict on the basis of the "Paris principles".
Oskanyan said serious progress was made during the negotiations in Paris and Key West, which was reassuring. However, after the latest visit by OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen to the region, the mediators obviously encountered new problems which came from Azerbaijan, the Armenian foreign minister said. As a result, the "Geneva meeting" was postponed.
It is strange that neither Armenia nor Nagornyy Karabakh had asked the cochairmen to postpone the meeting, Oskanyan stressed.
It is even more strange that the Azerbaijani president officially stressed that he had not asked the mediators to postpone the meeting in Geneva, whereas the mediators stated that they had postponed the meeting at the two presidents' request.
In any case, the pause that has appeared has now been filled with new arguments in Baku. Of course, we can say that by making such statements, Azerbaijan, as before, aims to put pressure on the course of the negotiating process, but the situation has radically changed now.
If the country's leadership could direct an argument to Azeri opposition protest actions - which were directed against attempts to enforce a defeatist peace accord on Azerbaijan - there will be no arguments [over military option] because Baku has openly declared the possibility of conducting anti-terrorist actions on the occupied territories.
Furthermore, nobody objects to such an option in Azerbaijan. The West, whose attitude to the problem of terrorism is well-know, will not object either.
Source: Ekho, Baku, in Russian 14 Jun 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Azeri official comments on war option over Karabakh
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jun 14, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani newspaper Sarq on 14 June entitled "We ourselves should liberate our land"
Novruz Mammadov: "We should declare war"
The Geneva meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents has not taken place. Probably, the peace negotiation on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict will be frozen. However, it is not ruled out that negotiation between the Russian and US presidents will dwell upon this issue again. Baku believes that the reason that negotiation has not taken place is Armenia's reluctance to compromise. The head the foreign relations department of the presidential executive staff, Novruz Mammadov, answered questions put to him by the correspondent of Olaylar news agency.
[Correspondent] Novruz muallim [form of address], soon [Russian President] Vladimir Putin and [US President] George W. Bush will meet. Will Karabakh issue be discussed at this meeting?
[Mammadov] The USA and Russia are super powers and they are cochairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group. As both states are interested in preserving the stability in the Southern Caucasus and the resolution of the conflicts, I think that Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagornyy Karabakh will be key topics of the discussion. The meeting might contribute to the positive resolution of the problem.
[Correspondent] From which aspect can the Nagornyy Karabakh issue be approached?
[Mammadov] The talk can only be about the just and peaceful resolution of the conflict. Hopefully, both states will have similar opinion on this issue.
[Correspondent] When will a meeting between Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev and Armenian President Robert Kocharyan take place?
[Mammadov] The date has not been fixed.
[Correspondent] Will the exact date for the Aliyev-Kocharyan meeting be announced after the Bush-Putin meeting?
[Mammadov] During the Key West meeting Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents showed willingness to continue the dialogue. Therefore, the negotiation will proceed.
[Correspondent] It is reported that the reason for the failure of the Geneva meeting is Armenia's reluctance to make any compromise. Is it true?
[Mammadov] At present Armenia is ignoring and disregarding international realities, norms and principles. Nagornyy Karabakh has not been recognized by any state. No country will recognize it in the future. Currently Armenia does not see and understand it. Therefore, it has found itself in this situation.
[Correspondent] Can negotiation be frozen due to Armenia's reluctance to compromise?
[Mammadov] None of the countries will benefit from freezing the negotiation, that is to say, neither the international community nor the OSCE want it. Armenia's reluctance to compromise will lead to disaster. On the contrary, Azerbaijan is developing and the influx of investment is increasing and reforms are under way in Azerbaijan. That is to say, Azerbaijan is benefiting from this situation. Despite these facts, Azerbaijan also is against freezing the negotiation. I guess, Armenia does not want it either.
[Correspondent] Armenia is against any compromise. What is the solution? Should Armenia be put under pressure or should a war be unleashed?
[Mammadov] We are watching the development of processes very closely and keep abreast of them. We want our neighbour to think about everything and fully understand the situation and take a constructive stance. The more Armenia fails to understand the situation, the more it will suffer. No doubt, we want a peaceful resolution. However, if negotiation fails to yield positive results and all opportunities are exhausted, then all other options will be taken into account. Guided by all international norms as well as the UN Security Council resolutions, we ourselves should liberate our land.
[Correspondent] Will we have the moral support of the western countries if we go to war?
[Mammadov] We ourselves should liberate our land.
[Correspondent] This could have been done by now.
[Mammadov] Yes, it was possible. However, I think one should speak responsibly and it is not an easy task even for people who think broadly, correctly and thoroughly. No doubt, moral support is important. We know what war is and what consequences it might have. We shall choose this option if need be.
Source: Sarq, Baku, in Azeri 14 Jun 01 p2
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Iran's mediation in Karabakh problem will not yield results - Azeri ex- minister
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jun 14, 2001
Tofiq Zulfuqarov: "Tehran will not agree with any peace accord that does not guarantee its interests"
The mediation mission of the OSCE Minsk Group has been caught in a vicious circle. Most optimists now count on the Bush-Putin meeting to be held in the Slovenian capital, Ljubljana. Sceptics, as usual, believe that there will be no miracle.
In the meanwhile, Iran is probably trying to look more active in settling the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. The fact that official Tehran's attempt to come up with mediation initiatives coinciding with the recent presidential elections in Iran also deserves attention. Will the peaceful settlement efforts of our southern neighbour yield results during the four-year term presidency of Mohammad Khatami? On the whole, how can Iran's efforts to tackle the conflict benefit the common cause?
Azerbaijan's former foreign minister, Tofiq Zulfuqarov, says that since the problem has now been internationalized, a number of forces are trying to seize the initiative. However, he said that it was quite difficult for Iran to achieve anything alone. "Tehran officials probably understand this, too. Iran can only participate in this as a regional country if some common or global attempts are made." Zulfuqarov does not believe that Azerbaijan's southern neighbour will be represented in any form in the Minsk Group, which consists of OSCE members: "In any case, Tehran cannot act as an independent mediator like in 1992. However, Iran's participation in this settlement process cannot be ruled out."
Touching on the possibility of Iran's "associative membership" of the Minsk Group, the former diplomat said that think that this may not be possible. Zulfuqarov added that Iran's efforts should not be aggrandized : "Because several initiatives of the same kind are voiced every year."
[Passage omitted: About Russian and US mediation missions]
The former foreign minister is sure: "If Azerbaijan plays a more active role, then we can achieve certain success. Otherwise, the talks will be dragging on and most important, there will be no result in our favour." In this context, Zulfuqarov is expecting no positive results from the forthcoming Bush-Putin meeting: "It is very unlikely that Nagornyy Karabakh will be one of the first ten issues to be discussed. There are a lot of issues on the agenda. On the whole, opinions will be expressed about the continuation of activities in this respect."
Thus, it is clear that one of the obstacles for the settlement of the most damaging conflict in the Caucasus is the super powers' conflict of regional interests. Incidentally, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Mahmud Dowlatabadi, said in his recent statement that Iran would not agree with any peace accord that did not meet its interests.
Commenting on this information, Zulfuqarov drew the conclusion that Dowlatabadi's ideas were misunderstood or misinterpreted. "If we remember Turkey's position, we shall see that official Ankara has stated that it will not accept a peace agreement that the Azerbaijani people do not support. What are Iran's vested interests here? The conflict is on Azerbaijani territory. I had met ambassadors in Baku, including the Iranian ambassador. Their stance was that the peace agreement should not lead to Azerbaijan being split, and our country's territorial integrity should be preserved."
Azerbaijani officials are saying the same thing. The difference is that it is the exclusive duty of the Heydar Aliyev government to implement it. But the country's authorities have no power.
Source: Yeni Musavat, Baku in Azeri 14 Jun 01 p 8
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
IRAN ACCUSING THE MINSK GROUP IN AN EFFORT OF DIVIDING AZERBAIJAN
By Farhad MAMMADOV
Official representative of this country called the Azerbaijani nation to support Iran's moderation in the regulation process.
The failure of the talks held between the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia with moderation of the co-chairs of OSCE Minsk group has activated the neighboring Iran. Head of the department of relations with the CIS countries of the Iranian Foreign Ministry and former ambassador of this country to Azerbaijan Alirza Begdeli has given an interview to the local Azerbaijani TV channel and stated that his country is ready to moderate the talks on the regulation of Karabakh conflict. While the official Tehran has, several times, suggested to moderate the regulation process until now, the Azeri side did not support this suggestion. And this time, an Iranian representative has addressed his suggestion not to the Azeri leadership, but directly to the nation. Begdeli has explained this appeal with that the official Baku does not want Iran to join to the regulation process of Karabakh conflict by dealing with "political games".
The Iranian diplomat has also touched on a very sensitive moment for the Azerbaijani nation and added that the goal of the Minsk group is not, in fact, to settle the conflict, but to give a part of the Azeri territories to the occupant side by dividing the Azeri territories. "Iran will never permit division of Azerbaijani territory". In the words of Begdeli, the plan put on the discussion by the co-chairs during the latest talks was directed towards taking off upper Karabakh from Azerbaijan and giving it to Armenia.
Accusing the official Baku and Minsk group's co-chairs by the Iranian diplomat at the current situation is not, undoubtedly, accidental. Ending the talks without any positive results has almost destroyed hopes for the moderation of the American, Russian, and French co-chairs of the Minsk group. Almost nobody in Azerbaijan believes that the Minsk group will justly settle the Karabakh conflict. In addition, there are formalized opinions about the president's readiness to sign on the capitulating peace agreement at the public, each time when he joins to the negotiation process.
And lasting of the resultless talks for many years gives ground to think that Azerbaijan should refuse of the Minsk group's moderation and prepare to liberate its occupied lands by military way. The speech of the Iranian diplomat is, first of all, directed towards gaining the support of the public that lost the hope for the West's moderation in Azerbaijan. Iran may hope for such a support from the first glance. Because the official Tehran, despite of its moderator suggestion, supports Azerbaijan's position, as well and accuses "moderators trying to divide Azerbaijan's territory". Iran even hints being ready to sacrifice the interests of Armenia, which has very close relationships.
Begdeli states that if Azerbaijan wants, Iran is ready to render him any kind of assistance and those statements about Iran's support of Armenia are nothing but "political games". It is notable that attracting Iran to the regulation process has begun in April this year after the talks held in the U.S. After the Key West talks the American co-chair Carey Cavanaugh stated the necessity of informing Iran about the course of regulation process. Later the deputy foreign minister of Russia Vyacheslav Trubnikov gave information about the talks to the Iranian ambassador to Moscow.
And as it is seen, Iran is demonstrating its position only after having known the resultless of the regulation process, and in such a period, when the relationships between the official Baku and Tehran has become very tense. Even the Azerbaijani government officials accused Iran in attempts of establishing an Islamic state in Azerbaijan in the last month, but the official Tehran has strongly reacted to it. In such a condition it is not convincing that Iran's suggestion on moderation will gain a broad support. In addition, the moderation experience of Iran in the settlement of Karabakh problem is remembered with a negative fact for Azerbaijan.
The presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia signed on a document about cease-fire in 1992 in Tehran and a day later the Armenian forces occupied Lachin and Shusha regions of Azerbaijan. Even without this fact, it is not clear on which way Iran will pressure on the occupant side-Armenia. Despite of Begdeli has denounced the moderation of the West, Iranian ambassador to Azerbaijan Ahad Gazayi has stressed in his interview at the local media that Tehran regards the activity together with the U.S. in the regulation of Karabakh conflict as possible. But there are spread such news relying upon another colleague of the Iranian Foreign Ministry Mahmud Doulatabadi that an Iranian representative will take part in the meeting of the Minsk group's co-chairs planned to be held in Moscow, as well.
#2."KARABAKH" FRACTION FORMED AT THE PARLIAMENT
By Vefa ALLAHVERDIEVA
The formalization of the Democratic Bloc that should unify the opposition deputies of Milli Mejlis [the parliament] did not take place. Instead, there was declared formation of a fraction called "Karabakh" in Milli Mejlis on June 12. 7 MPs- Vagif Samadoglu, Sabir Rustamkhanli, Igbal Agazade, Rufat Agalarov, Elman Mammadov, Fazail Ibrahimli, and Rafael Huseinov represent the fraction. The main goal of the fraction is to hold systematic and regular activity for the liberation of Karabakh territories. In addition, the fraction declares to coordinate the activity of Azeris living abroad concerning Karabakh and protection of social and citizen rights of martyrs' families, war invalids, refugees and displaced persons.
The deputies expect that the number of the fraction's members would become up to 15. They suppose independent deputies, as well as deputies from the ruling party will put a step towards the "Karabakh" fraction that works towards the liberation of the lands from aggression.
Despite of the question of leadership to the fraction is not still resolved, discussions concerning it continue. While Vagif Samadoglu is confided as the oldest deputy, he stated that this has not principal importance. Samadoglu has also expressed his believe that this fraction will do important things for the Azerbaijan's interest. As a member of Azerbaijan's delegation at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Vagif Samadoglu also stated that he would make efforts to organize the activity of "Karabakh" fraction on the course of the Council of Europe.
It is notable that Samadoglu's refusal from the leadership of the fraction has kept open the question of a chairman. There was suggested the co-chairmanship as an alternative suggestion. If the deputies agree with it, chairman of the Citizen's Solidarity Party Sabir Rustamkhanli will organize the fraction's activity in Azerbaijan and Vagif Samadoglu at the Council of Europe. Head of Khojali region executive power and MP Elman Mammadov will coordinate the work of the fraction with the refugees as the third co-chairman.
In other words, for now only 7 MPs will demonstrate common position at the Upper Karabakh problem. And they will put an independent step at the rest political and other issues. The especially attractive question in the formation of the fraction was remaining the "Yurd" union leader Ali Kerimov and other deputies from that union beyond the fraction. Generally, Kerimov's claim towards the chairmanship of the Democratic Bloc caused breaking of opposition deputies. "Karabakh" fraction appeared as a result of this. "Yurd" chairman Ali Kerimov and 4 deputies of the party, as well as chairman of the "Yurddash" party close to this union Mais Safarli have not any interest to be represented in the fraction. The formation of the fraction was also useless for Ali Kerimov because chairman of the Citizen's Solidarity Party Sabir Rustamkhanli being with him at the Alternative Democratic Congress chose the "Karabakh" fraction. And it means that Rustamkhanli says goodbye to Ali Kerimov, as well.
AZERBAIJAN BULLETIN No:24 (278), June 14 2001 [ENGLISH]
http://www.andf-az.org/
IRAN APPOINTS CONTACT PERSON AT KARABAKH NEGOTIATIONS
Source:Snark News Agency
14.06.01--YEREVAN, Armenia--Irans Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary to Armenia, Mohammed Farhad Koleini was appointed a
contact person at the Karabakh problem-related negotiations. This was
announced by Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian. At the same time,
the head of Armenian diplomacy failed to concretize the degree of
participation of Tehrans representative in the negotiating process. This
is the prerogative of the OSCE Minsk Group, said Mr Oskanian. According to
the Armenian minister, his country positively rates the fact that Iran
will be informed on the negotiating process. As for forthcoming
discussions of the problem during Putin-Bush negotiations in Ljubljana
June 16, Mr Oskanian said one shouldnt expect too much from it. The OSCE
Minsk Group co-chairs reckon that the conflicting parties should come to
terms themselves. This is why its most likely that a general assessment
will given in Slovenian capital to the development of the negotiating
process, the Armenian minister noted. Commenting on the Turkish Premier
Bulent Ecevits statement that normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations
could be possible only if Armenia releases Nagorno-Karabakh and its
opening a corridor between Azerbaijan and Azeri enclave of Nakhchivan,
Armenian foreign minister called it unprecedented violation of
international ethical norms.
By Staff Writers
IRAN WANTS TO SEE AZERBAIJAN INTEGRAL: IRANIAN AMBASSADOR
Source:ANS
13.06.01--BAKU--Iran will participate in the forthcoming Moscow meeting of
the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs but if the talks dont meet the stance of
official Tehran, the latter is going to act independently for resolution
of this problem. This was announced by the chief of the Iranian Foreign
Ministrys Department on CIS Affairs. Meanwhile, the Iranian Ambassador to
Azerbaijan, Mr Ahad Gazai said he would unveil the essence of independent
acts in its due time. This is Irans official stance, Mr Gazai said adding
his country would never agree to division of Azeri lands. The Iranian
ambassador said his nation wants the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict be solved
peacefully. But experts say its hardly believable Iran will be content
with the talks to be held within the framework of the Minsk Group. The
tense relations between the Islamic Republic and the United States which
tries to take the leadership in its hands in resolution of the
long-running conflict are the evidence of disagreements which will arrive
between Tehran and Washington at the table of negotiations. It should be
noted that the co-chairs announced during the Key West talks between Azeri
and Armenian presidents that Iran would be informed of the results of the
negotiating process. But it doesnt mean the U.S.-Iran relations have been
normalized. U.S. diplomats say they have made this proposal to show they
havent made any plot against Iran. But Iran says it isnt going to discuss
the Karabakh problem with the U.S. at the negotiating table.
By Eldaniz Veliyev
ANS News, June 14, 2001
Azeri paper questions motives behind Iran's wish to mediate in Karabakh
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jun 14, 2001
The Azerbaijani paper Zerkalo says that Iran's current campaign to mediate in the conflict over Nagornyy Karabakh is aimed at scoring political points in the eyes of pro-Iranian forces in Azerbaijan before a change of power in Baku. The paper quoted the former Iranian ambassador to Azerbaijan, Alirza Bigdeli, as saying that the latest OSCE Minsk Group proposals on resolving the Karabakh conflict were in fact aimed at partitioning Azerbaijan. Following is the text of R. Mirqadirov, M. Yasaroglu report by Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo on 13 June entitled "Iran accuses Azerbaijan":
Baku ignores Tehran's desire to become a mediator in the Karabakh settlement
The former Iranian ambassador to Azerbaijan and current head of the Iranian Foreign Ministry's department for ties with CIS countries, Alirza Bigdeli, has said that Tehran is ready to mediate in the settlement of the Karabakh problem. At the same time he accused official Baku of ignoring Iran's numerous proposals to this effect: "They demand concrete proposals for the settlement of the conflict. But has the OSCE Minsk Group, which is the mediator and supposedly has some concrete proposals, achieved anything?" Bigdeli said in an exclusive interview with Lider TV company.
Bigdeli says that Iran is a guarantor of peace and stability in the Caucasus. "Iran has a 796-kilometre long border with the region's states. Iran borders on four points of the parties involved in this conflict: Azerbaijan, Armenia, Naxcivan and following the occupation - Karabakh. Which country has such an advantage? Why can a state from the other end of the world take part in the talks on the settlement of this conflict, but we cannot?"
Bigdeli believes that the OSCE cochairmen are not interested in the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. At the same time, there is no need to seek a mechanism allowing Iran to take part in the talks. Bigdeli believes that it will suffice for Azerbaijan and Iran to hold bilateral talks on this issue: "You know, Armenia is trying to come to an agreement with Iran. We are ready to support Azerbaijan's position. But this depends on Azerbaijan itself".
Bigdeli recalled that it was through Tehran's mediation in 1992 that an agreement on a cease-fire had been reached. Besides, for the first and last time in the history of the conflict the presidents of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Iran signed a document which announced the territorial integrity of the conflicting states.
Bigdeli says that now Iran is not appealing to official Baku and political parties, who are well aware of Tehran's desire to become involved in the talks, but is appealing directly to the Azerbaijani people: "I have already said that the implementation of the new OSCE proposals will lead to Azerbaijan's partition. The question now is not how to settle the problem. The OSCE's proposals are about how to amputate the territory of one of the conflicting parties and hand it over to the other party. This is Iran's official position on the new OSCE proposals."
Bigdeli again rejected Azerbaijani statements about Tehran's support for Armenia. He described this as political "games". Bigdeli said that the Azerbaijani people know very well what forces are behind this: "They demand support from us. If we do not support them, then Azerbaijan has the right to denounce Iran as pro-Armenian."
Bigdeli is not so naive not to realize that after such statements official Baku will not agree to Iran's mediation in the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. By appealing directly to the Azerbaijani people, Bigdeli in fact admits that at the current stage official Tehran is not pursuing this aim. What is happening then?
Bigdeli's statement could be assessed as an attempt to convince public opinion in our country that unlike the OSCE and other international organizations subordinated to the USA, Iran is ready and able to solve the Nagornyy Karabakh problem taking into account Azerbaijan's interests. But the Azerbaijani authorities and the pro-Western opposition parties reject Iran's mediation. This is the gist of Bigdeli's statement.
The question is: why does Tehran need all this? We should recall that Azerbaijani Deputy National Security Minister Tofiq Babayev recently accused Tehran of planning to change the state regime in our country. It is no secret that pro-Iranian political groups exist in Azerbaijan. Moreover, Mahir Cavadov [former prosecutor of Xatai District accused coup attempt in March 1995] had found refuge in Iran itself. Cavadov has repeatedly announced his readiness to take part in the liberation of the Azerbaijani lands occupied by the Armenians together with his supporters. Simultaneously, Cavadov hinted that the Iranian authorities would support this action.
There has recently been a lot of talk in Azerbaijan itself and abroad about a possible change of power. That is why such statements by Tehran could be seen as an attempt to raise the price of "shares" in the consciousness of the pro-Iranian political forces before a possible change of power in Azerbaijan.
But Bigdeli made a serious mistake by recalling the talks between [the then Azerbaijani acting president] Yaqub Mammadov and [former Armenian President] Levon Ter-Petrosyan in May 1992, through the Iranian president's mediation. One day after the signing of the cease-fire agreement Armenian armed forces launched an offensive and occupied first Susa and then Lacin...[ellipsis as given]
Source: Zerkalo, Baku, in Russian 13 Jun 01, p 1,2
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Ecevit Gives Rumsfeld Two Conditions for Diplomatic Ties With Armenia
(Istanbul) Hurriyet (Ankara Edition)
in Turkish
06 Jun 01 p 14
Report by Ugur Ergan: "Ecevit Gives Yerevan Two Conditions"
Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit told US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
in very concise terms exactly under what conditions Turkey would establish
diplomatic relations with Yerevan when they met the other day. The Prime
Minister switched the topic of conversation from Iraq to the Caucasus and
set two important conditions for diplomatic relations with Yerevan:
1. Armenia is to unreservedly, unconditionally and completely
pull out of Nagorny Karabakh, which it is occupying.
2. A secure corridor is to be opened between Nakhichevan and
Azerbaijan.
Stating that the establishment of diplomatic relations between Turkey
and Armenia will benefit Azerbaijan more than it will Turkey, Prime
Minister Ecevit explained:
In fact, everything we have said is in Armenia's favor. Under
today's conditions, Armenia is liked a sealed box. Its economy is spent
and its people are on the verge of starvation. When the Yerevan
administration acts on what we have said, the country will be able to
access the Black Sea via Turkey. Its economy will pick up and its
people will see welfare. This will bring stability to the region. How
can anything we have said be of harm to the Armenian people?"
[Description of Source: Istanbul Hurriyet (Ankara Edition) in Turkish --
Centrist, Mass Appeal Daily, One of Country's Top Circulation Papers]
Turkish envoy says Naxcivan should be linked to Azerbaijan proper
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jun 13, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani TV station ANS on 13 June
[Presenter] Relations between Ankara and Yerevan were also discussed during US Secretary of Defence Donald H. Rumsfeld's visit to Turkey last week. We should recall that official Ankara said that it would restore relations with Yerevan under two conditions: first, Armenia should take the so-called Armenian genocide off its political agenda; second, Armenian armed forces should withdraw from the occupied Azerbaijani territories. Turkish diplomats put forward another condition during the talks with the head of Pentagon, Donald H Rumsfeld: a corridor between Azerbaijan and Naxcivan [Azerbaijani exclave] should be opened and the security of this corridor ensured. The Turkish ambassador to Azerbaijan, Kadri Ecvet Tezcan, commented on Ankara's new condition:
[Tezcan in Turkish, captioned as Turkish ambassador to Azerbaijan] As you know, Turkey is not a cochairman of the Minsk Group, but it is a member of this body. Turkey is closely involved in this [Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict] issue. We are closely involved in this issue, first of all because of Azerbaijan and Turkey's love for the Azerbaijani people, and second, because of international laws. Turkey cannot accept the occupation of the territories of one country by another one.
You asked about the third condition. I cannot imagine Azerbaijan's Naxcivan separated from the main part of Azerbaijan. Also, everybody remembers that the so-called region of Megri was Azerbaijani land some time ago. This region was given to Armenia during Soviet times and consequently Naxcivan and Azerbaijan were separated. That is why these two parts should be linked if any kind of peace is established. This is our opinion. However, it is another question whether or not the Armenians will accept this. But it is certain that normal relations are not possible with Armenia as long as this country holds the territory of other countries under occupation.
Source: ANS TV, Baku, in Azeri 1000 gmt 13 Jun 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
TURKEY IS NOT AN AGGRESSIVE STATE AND CREATES NO DANGER FOR ARMENIA
Armenian President Robert Kocharyan and NATO Secretary General George
Robertson discussed June 6 in Brussels regional cooperation and
security issues. At the press conference held after the meeting,
G.Robertson said that although NATO didn't directly handle regulation of
the Garabagh conflict, settlement of the problem was one of the important
issues and establishment of stability in Southern Caucasus depended on
that. He expressed confidence that the Presidents of Armenia and
Azerbaijan would find a variant of resolution satisfying both
sides. R.Kocharyan stated that Armenia was ready to closer cooperation
with NATO. He acquainted NATO Secretary General with the results of
session of the Collective Security Agreement partners held recently in
Yerevan. He noted that Armenia continued its complimentary foreign policy
and was ready to cooperate with any country and organization backing equal
right relations with the country.
"The European direction remains being the priority in Armenia's foreign
policy course", Kocharyan stressed. Touching upon the possibility of
opening NATO information centers in South Caucasian states, Robertson said
that such a project was not under consideration yet.
NATO Secretary General didn't agree with the opinion that US intention
to open new military bases in Turkey would aggravate the non-smooth
Turkey-Armenia ties.
According to him, it won't take place. "Turkey is not an aggressor and
doesn't create danger for Armenia", NATO Secretary General stressed.
Karabakh Peace Process Still Alive Says Oskanian
YEREVAN (RFE/RL)--Armenia held out hope for a quick settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on Wednesday, urging international mediators to
remove what it termed complications that led to the postponement of a
meeting between the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents in Geneva this
month. Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian expressed hope that the French,
Russian and US co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group will help the conflicting
parties build upon serious progress they had made earlier this year.
I want to make it clear that the [peace] process is still alive, and we
hope that the co-chairs will make active efforts to eliminate those newly
created complications and bring the process back to the previously agreed
framework, Oskanian told a news conference in Yerevan.
The Geneva meeting, which had heightened expectations of a long-awaited
breakthrough, was put off indefinitely late last month, following a visit
to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Karabakh by the Minsk Group negotiators. The
mediators toned down their optimism about prospects for a peace
settlement, arguing that the conflicting parties need more time to agree
all terms of a Karabakh peace deal.
According to Oskanian, Presidents Robert Kocharian and Heydar Aliev agreed
to the main principles of ending the Karabakh conflict during their talks
in Paris and the Florida resort of Key West in March and April
respectively. I want to declare that Armenia remains committed to the
Paris principles and is prepared to continue negotiations in that spirit,
Oskanian said.
Oskanian also said he does not share the viewpoint of US co-chair Carey
Cavanaugh, who claimed that the public in both countries was not ready to
accept a compromise. Neither in Azerbaijan nor in Armenia the public is
aware of the details of the confidential talks, therefore it is somewhat
difficult to conclude that it is not ready for a compromise solution.,
Oskanian said, adding that the both peoples should know what they would
receive and what they give in exchange.
He refused to elaborate on the reasons why the next summit was put on
hold, reiterating only Kocharians statement that the Armenian side was not
responsible for the delay. Officials of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic have
accused the Azerbaijani government of opposing a peace accord based on
mutual compromise. However, Armenian leaders have so far stopped short of
directly blaming Baku. Meanwhile, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Vilayat
Guliev was quoted on Wednesday, as saying that the latest impasse results
from a non-constructive stance of the Armenian side. In an interview with
the Baku newspaper Express, Guliev called for a new format for the peace
talks.
Oskanian sought to put an optimistic spin on the recent developments,
saying that Kocharian and Aliev have managed to build a really good basis
for a Karabakh settlement. He said: This is an ongoing process which I
find normal and express hope that all these [problems] eventually will be
overcome and we will return to the foundation laid in Paris.
He added that the agreements reached by Kocharian and Aliev at the Paris
meeting, mediated by French President Jacques Chirac, are in line with the
long-standing Armenian position on the issue, which rules out Karabakhs
subordination to Baku.
Oskanian also commented on a recent announcement by the Russian co-chair
Nikolay Gribkov who reportedly said that the Azeri community in Karabakh
should also be recognized as a side to the conflict. During his visit to
the region Gribkov, he spoke about Karabakh as the third side to the
conflict. To the best of my knowledge, Gribkov referred to a document
which calls to recognize the Azeri community as the fourth side to the
conflict, but irrespective as to what others say, our position is that the
conflict has three sides, Armenia, Karabakh and Azerbaijan, and it is they
who have to find a final and comprehensive solution , Oskanian said.
Oskanian further dismissed Turkeys reported demand for a security corridor
between Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan as unacceptable and nonsensical.
Turkish newspapers quoted Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit as saying that the
creation of the overland link is another precondition for the
normalization of relations with Armenia.
Copyright 2001 RFE/RL
ARMENIANS TAKE REFUGE IN HOLLAND UNDER THE NAME OF AZERBAIJANIAN
The International Migration Organization told Olaylar that the majority
of citizens migrating from Azerbaijan mainly go to Germany. But their
number is not known, as they have not been registered. It is interesting
that in 1999, some 2.449 Azerbaijanis took refuge in the kingdom of
Netherlands, but not all of them are Azerbaijanis. It became known as a
result of studies that Armenian citizens take refuge in Holland under the
name of Azerbaijanis under the pretext of the Garabagh war.
525 gazet
9 June 2001
Diaspora Armenians aggravate problems in Caucasus, Turkish premier says
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jun 12, 2001
Ankara, 11 June: Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit said on Monday [11 June] that setting up diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia is firstly to the advantage of Armenia, adding that "Armenia has to firstly give up misleading the past and it should also withdraw from the territories it occupied".
Ecevit received the same day the members of the Assembly of Turkish-American Associations (ATAA) and talked about Turkey-US relations and other issues.
Noting that there are serious problems in the Caucasus, Ecevit said that the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan comes the first.
"This conflict has to be ended as soon as possible, we are ready to do our best for this to happen, but the Armenian diaspora impedes Armenia by putting forward certain baseless claims related to the past. As I said before it is in fact to the interest of Armenia to have economic and diplomatic relations with Turkey," Ecevit said.
Ecevit pointed out that although Armenian diaspora live in prosperity, the people in Armenia live in poverty, adding that the Armenians in diaspora cause escalation of the problems of Armenians in the Caucasus.
"We must start a cooperation process in the Caucasus by leaving aside the claims related to the past. Armenia has to firstly give up misleading the past and it should also withdraw from the territories it occupied. The territories it occupied are not only composed of Karabakh; the territories of Azerbaijan are also under de facto occupation of Armenia. We must find a solution to this problem by the participation of Russia, but firstly by the support of the USA," he said...
Source: Anatolia news agency, Ankara, in English 1713 gmt 11 Jun 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Open Letter by Armenians, former residents of Azerbaijan
[08.06.2001 20:39:27] President of Russia Vladimir Putin
President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbaev
President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko
President of Kirgizia Askar Akaev
President of Tadjikistan Emomali Rakhmonov
President of Armenia Robert Kocharyan
Estimating the danger of terrorism and extremism, large and small wars in
the post soviet space, one cannot but remember what a burden of trials
falled on us and our children. That is the reason of unconsealed interest
we observed the course of Yerevan meeting of Collective Security Agreement
member states with.
We think that now is the time when everyone realized that the efforts in
combat against separatism and extremism should be merged in order to
revive the real Commonwealth, where the ordinary people could live and
work normally.
We pin our hopes for establishing peace in CIS countries and Caucasus on
activization of peacemaking role of Russia which endured "all charms of
the separatist fever". In this connection, the considered and pragmatic
position of the Head of Russia Vladimir Putin we, the former residents of
TransCaucasus now living in Russia recently voted for, utterly meets our
hopes and expectations.
At the same time, the election a person the tragic events that led two
neighbouring states Azerbaijan and Armenia to catastrophe are connected
with, as a Chairman of Collective Security Council, bewildered us.
The events in Askeran /Karabakh/ in 1987 splited with the hostile wedge
the hundred thousands of people, destroyed towns, houses and fates. The
militant separatism in Karabakh turned the Armenians and Azerbaijanis into
the irreconcilable opposing sides for many years and cancelled all good
and bright we had in our life.
As a result of this armed conflict which bereaved the lives of dozen
innocent people, Armenia controls not only Karabakh but adjoining
Azerbaijani territories.
But who has benefited by it? Armenians living in Armenia? Because of the
monstrous migration, the population of the republic went down twice. And
approximately 20.000 of 160.000 remained in Karabakh.
Armenia itself created its "hostile encirclement" and "economic
blocade". It is propably impossible to expect the kind attitude from the
neighbouring state, a part territory of which you seizured.
The history learns that Germany still pays for the crimes of the fascist
regime. Israel with the economic power and sophisticated weapons is still
unable to manage with stones-armed Palestinians.
It seems to us that today it is possible to realize within the
Commonwelath such economic policy which would make it disadvantageous for
any state to unleash armed conflict.
We hope that you will take measures which would let our children to live
in the territory of the Commonwealth as happy as they it was formerly in
the USSR.
Sincerely,
Shabanova Irina Armenakovna, citizen of Russia,
Adamov Sergey Maratovich, candidate of the engineering science / IDP/,
Avakov Grigory Gazaroivich, refugee from Baku deprived of the ordinary
rights,
Avakova Irina Grigorievna, refugee from Baku,
Charchoglyan Jemma Karapetovna, refugee from Baku,
Gril Iosif Evgenievich,
Mikaelyan Evgenia Yuryevna, citizen of Russia,
Arutunov Aturun Melikovich, citizen of Russia,
Muradyan Valery Samvelovich, citizen of Russia,
Chonieva Aida Saakovna, citizen of Russia,
Shakhnazarov Vladimir Rubenovich, citizen of Russia,
Arustamov Eduard Arustamovich, citizen of Russia,
Karimskaya Marina Semenovna, citizen of Russia,
Avanesov Rudolf Ashotovich.
HHD WARNS ARMENIAN LEADERSHIP AGAINST KARABAKH CONCESSIONS
Hrant Markarian, a leading member of the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation-Dashnaktsutiun (HHD), told a press conference in Yerevan on 8
June that the HHD will oppose any concessions in the Karabakh peace
process it considers to be "a danger," Noyan Tapan and RFE/RL's Yerevan
bureau reported. But he said that the party, which has hitherto supported
President Kocharian, will do nothing that could undermine political
stability. Specifically, Markarian argued against withdrawing Armenian
troops from some of the Azerbaijani territories currently being occupied,
which the Nagorno-Karabakh leadership may be prepared to trade for de
facto independence. He argued that the Karabakh leadership should declare
its sovereignty over those districts to strengthen its negotiating
position. Markarian also appealed to the Armenian authorities to make
public all details of the continuing peace talks. The HHD issued a similar
warning to President Kocharian in late March (see "RFE/RL Newsline," 21
March 2001). LF
RFE/RL Transcaucasia Newsline, June 11, 2001
ARMENIAN PRESIDENT ADVOCATES DE JURE INDEPENDENCE
FOR NAGORNO-KARABAKH
Speaking in Brussels on 6 June following his meeting with EC President
Romano Prodi, Armenian President Robert Kocharian said that a settlement
of the Karabakh conflict should provide for both de facto and de jure
independence for the currently unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic,
RFE/RL's Brussels correspondent reported. Kocharian added that Armenia is
currently discussing three "very important points" that could lead to a
solution to that issue. He did not elaborate. LF
AZERBAIJANIS FROM ARMENIA FORM GOVERNMENT IN EXILE
Representatives of an estimated 3 million Azerbaijanis whose ancestors
lived on territories that now comprise part of the Republic of Armenia
have established a government in exile and are considering how to reclaim
those territories, according to the Azerbaijani daily "Ekho" on 6 June, as
cited by Groong. The government in exile is one of several bodies that
claim to represent the interests of Azerbaijanis from Armenia (see "RFE/RL
Caucasus Report," Vol. 4, No. 21, 8 June 2001). LF
RFE/RL Transcaucasia Newsline, June 8, 2001
ARMENIA SHOULD BE KNOWN AS A TERRORIST COUNTRY
525 gazet
7 June 2001
Public view towards Azeri Security Minister's opinion is positive.
Gyunduz Staff writer
State officials of Azerbaijan have numerously state in case it turns
out impossible to liberate the occupied territories, Azerbaijan will have
to use armed actions. Use of armed actions in this case can not be
regarded as a war in the international community. If Russia attributes
armed actions in Chechenistan as struggle against terrorism, armed actions
held by Azerbaijan within its territories should be regarded in this
manner. There are a number of facts confirming testifying terrorist and
separatism actions by Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh. So, Azerbaijan should
try to recognition of the true essence of the matter in the international
community. In this respect Azerbaijan has done too much works. Azeri
security minister Namik Abbasov noted thank effective measures taken by
the Security Ministry and Ministry for foreign affairs in Azerbaijan, Kiev
Summit of the CIS security and special service bodies approved a protocol
on Cooperation and Interaction of CIS Security and special service
organizations in struggle against terrorism, separatism and other
experimental activity held under the veil of religion and ethnic
struggle. The minister appreciated signing of the document by all CIS
countries, except Armenia, as a success. Relevant structures of Azerbaijan
will hence continue their activity in this direction.
As of ex-Azeri foreign minister, Azerbaijan must literate its
territories under occupation under the aegis of humanitarian
operations. For over 1 mln Azeris live in refugee camp and they retain
right to return to their lands. Noting Armenia's aggressive policy held
officially, T.Zulfugarov said the fact was stated even in US State
Department's official documents. "This is the fact that Armenia and
Armenian Diaspora are linked with terrorism. Even there were fixed cases
when members of terrorist organizations fought on the part of Armenia".
Underlining importance for informing the world community of the
Armenian terrorism ASD Chairman Zardusht Alizade said that would not have
so important part in liberation of the occupied territories of
Azerbaijan. Positive resolution of the Karabakh problem directly depends
on Azerbaijan's will. "We can name the armed actions differently the most
important is that the authorities must take interest in if Baku would
better to appeal to relevant organizations in connection with terrorist
activity by Armenia in regard to Azerbaijan".
Joint ASALA-PKK Meet Reported in N. Iraq; PKK Says Needs
Armenia's Help
Anatolia in Turkish
0829 GMT 12 Jun 01
Ankara (AA) -- The terrorist organizations PKK [Workers Party of
Kurdistan] and ASALA [Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia]
have held a meeting in north Iraq.
ASALA was represented at the meeting by ASALA leader Simon Zakarian,
by Vazken Petrosyan who is responsible for the organization's "political
wing," and by three other officials. The PKK was represented by
Nizamettin Tas, Murat Karayilan, and Duran Kalkan who are members of the
so-called Chairmanship Council, and by seven other officials. Terrorist
Osman Ocalan did not attend the meeting under the pretext of his illness.
The meeting was held at the Makhmur camp which is used as a base by
the PKK. ASALA leader Zakarian reportedly said at the meeting:
"Nobody in Turkey pays any attention to the PKK now that it has ended its
armed actions in a bid to preventing the execution of Abdullah Ocalan.
The PKK is considered finished. If the PKK continues with its current
stand, it will not have the right to ask for Armenia's or anybody else's
help."
To ASALA's criticism, the PKK reportedly replied that "it is not
moving away from its aims and that it feels great need for Armenia's help
and friendship."
[Description of Source: Ankara Anatolia in Turkish -- Semi-official news
agency; independent in content]
Expert calls for war on Armenia to liberate Karabakh
(Baku) 525 gazet
in Azeri
3 Jun 01
Azeri expert suggest president to start war to liberate occupied lands
Excerpt from Mubariz Ahmadoglu, head of the Centre for Political
Technology and Innovations, report by Azerbaijani newspaper 525 qazet on
3 June entitled "Azerbaijan should declare war on Armenia"
Armenia's notion of exchanging "land for peace" and its preference
for results of war over international norms together with the silence of
international organizations leave us no other choice
The Minsk summit of the Commonwealth of Independent States [CIS] on
Caucasus is over.
[Passage omitted: background of the OSCE Minsk Group and Russia's role
in the conflict]
It is hard to predict the development of events. Parallels have been
drawn between the Caucasus and the Balkans and new geopolitical spheres
are emerging. Political processes are being intensified which require
clear stances. Azerbaijan, in order to win, should adopt a stance and
reinforce its position in the new political processes. However,
Azerbaijan's stance for the resolution of the Karabakh problem by
peaceful means is not so obvious. Our territory is under occupation,
Armenians do not want to abandon it and are engaged in various
speculations. In contrast, Azerbaijan neither adopts the
Armenia-initiated "land for peace" option nor undertakes serious steps.
Serious steps are important:
1. The authorities must reinforce their influence;
2. Armenia and its president, Kocharyan, are in the opinion that
Heydar Aliyev's health has deteriorated and they count on it;
3. Azerbaijan should naturally act if it comes to war.
We wonder, which one of these steps can be deemed the most serious
one? Naturally, one cannot talk about the surrender of Karabakh to
Armenia or its existence as an independent entity. Given this, It would
be better if we talk about a long term conflict in the region after a
brief truce. If Armenians exchange land for peace then they can do the
same in the future. Nagornyy Karabakh should be an integral part of
Azerbaijan. At least, the 70-year Soviet history is a proof that
Armenians are able to live under Azerbaijan's administration. Azerbaijan
should use all its resources to bring Nagornyy Karabakh under
Azerbaijan's control. One of the available means is by war.
Armenians' acts of sabotage to disrupt stability and its notion of
exchanging "land for peace" and its preference for results of war over
international norms together with the silence and passivity of
international organizations, leave us no other choice.
[Passage omitted: Armenia's national liberation movement should be
compared with activities of the Kosovo Albanians]
Azerbaijan should issue a war ultimatum to Armenia and put forward
concrete demands with a time limit (of 7-15 days). The international
community should be briefed immediately.
[Passage omitted: how the constitution regulates war issue]
The Armenians' attitude towards Aliyev is of great importance. Most
Armenians are nostalgic for the Soviet period. Heydar Aliyev, whether we
like it or not, is one of 14-15 leaders of that period.
Therefore, Aliyev is not an "ordinary person" for Armenians and he is
one of the first Azerbaijanis against whom Armenians fought. From this
point of view, the Armenians can be divided into three groups according
to their attitudes towards Heydar Aliyev:
1. Those who show indifference;
2. Those who accept him as a well-known person;
3. Those who dislike him.
The war led by Heydar Aliyev against Armenia has been more effective
and more powerful than any other war. He has a great influence on the
Armenian public opinion. The Armenian public opinion is not ready to wage
a war against Heydar Aliyev's Azerbaijan. Heydar Aliyev's role should be
evaluated properly. At 23-24 February session of the Milli Maclis, Heydar
Aliyev hardly talked about war and brought realities to the session.
Heydar Aliyev would like to see the opposition as the instigator of a war
against Armenians. Having said that, the opposition is in no position to
initiate a war.
The authorities say that the nation wants a quick resolution to the
conflict and that the people would live in prosperity after the problem
is resolved. Speaking at a ceremony [to mark the independence day] on 26
May at the Republican Palace, the most important points in Heydar
Aliyev's speech were about the establishing of a powerful army for a fair
war. Heydar Aliyev's speech was also approved by the US ambassador to
Azerbaijan. Incidentally, the US cochairman in the OSCE Minsk Group,
Carey Cavanaugh, compares the resolution of the Karabakh conflict with
the Palestinian problem which means "major war begins when peace
negotiations come to a dead end". Perhaps the USA has modified its stance
or maybe it is in a hurry [to contribute to the resolution of the
Karabakah problem].
[Passage omitted: Azeri losses in war, Russia's war in Chechnya,
possibility of Russia's actions against Heydar Aliyev]
Should a war be declared on Armenia, Heydar Aliyev will be the second
Azerbaijani to lead his nation to war after Shah Ismayil Xatai [16th
century].
History proves that weak personalities are not able to declare war.
[Passage omitted: victorious war will change people's psychology]
Source: 525 qazet, Baku, in Azeri 3 Jun 01 p5
525 gazet: FREEDOM TO GARABAGH! CORRIDOR TO NAKHCHIVAN!
Kamran Hasanly
US Administration's next efforts to establish diplomatic ties between
Turkey and
Armenia and to open borders failed. US Defense Minister Donald Rasmfeld
has recently paid a visit to Ankara and again put forth the issues to open
borders with Armenia and to establish relations. But the official Ankara
stated it wouldn't agree with Washington's proposal. PM Bulend Ejevit
stated in his meeting with Mr. Rasmfeld that if Armenia wished to
establish diplomatic ties with Turkey then it must put an end to the war
with Azerbaijan. To establish ties with Armenia, Ejevit put forth 2 terms:
1. Armenia must liberate Upper Garabagh unconditionally
2. A corridor must be opened between Nakhchivan and Azerbaijan
Ejevit declared strictly that in case those conditions were not
accepted, Ankara wouldn't discuss at all the issue regarding establishment
of diplomatic relations with Armenia. Ejevit stressed that opening of
borders with Turkey was first of all, in Armenia's favour: "In reality,
these are in compliance with Armenians' interests. Today, Armenia is in
hard state. Poverty and unemployment reigns, the economy has been
destructed. But if Armenians accept our terms, they can go to Black Sea
via Turkey, their economy will begin to develop, the people's welfare will
improve, peace and prosperity will be established in the region. What harm
can all this do to the Armenian people?"
Thus, the US Administration's efforts to open Turkish-Armenian borders
failed once more. However, recently, it is accepted in Washington as one
of the key terms for settlement of the Upper Garabagh problem. During his
visit to the region, American co-chair of the OSCE Minsk group Carey
Cavanaugh declared that his country backed opening of borders between
Turkey and Armenia. Cavanaugh considered urgent first of all, the
restoration of railway connection. It must be noted that in the meeting
with co-chairs, the Armenian side agreed with great pleasure to open
borders and restore transportation route. In the meeting with co-chairs,
Felix Pirumyan, Governor of Shirak district even stressed that only one
month was required for opening the railway. At different times, opening of
borders with Armenia was the subject of discussions in Turkey. When Tansu
Chiller, Chairperson of the Doghru Yol Party was PM, it seemed more real
to establish diplomatic ties between the 2 countries. T.Chiller even
considered it possible to open borders. But after the governmental change,
the issue was suspended in Ankara.
Those who consider it expedient to open borders suppose that by this
way Turkey will have more opportunity to exert pressure on
Armenia. According to them, establishment of ties can make Yerevan
dependent on Ankara for a certain time.
But Turkey's government-in-office considers it possible to establish
ties between Yerevan and Ankara only after the Upper Garabagh problem is
settled. The strict terms put forth at the meeting of Ejevit and Donald
Ramsfeld, once more prove it. Independent political scientist Eldar
Namazov told 525 correspondent that US efforts for establishment of
diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia and opening of borders are
in compliance with Washington's geopolitical interests. Because USA tries
for the ties and cooperation among the regional countries expand and
strengthen. In this case, Russia's influence in the region will reduce and
Armenia won't be directly dependent on Moscow as it is today.
"USA pressure on Azerbaijan to accelerate settlement of the Upper
Garabagh conflict and on Turkey to open communications with Armenia are
natural. Simply, we must understand that in certain moments, US and
Azerbaijan's interests cannot coincide. The issue is namely in these
factors".
As to official Ankara's demand to open a corridor to Nakhchivan,
E.Namazov sees nothing unusual here. "They declared before that ties of
cooperation can be established with Armenia only after Garabagh is
liberated. Stating settlement of the Garabagh problem, Ankara also means
opening communications between Baki and
Ankara. Therefore, it is not right to state that there is serious
change in Turkey's position".
525 gazet
7 June 2001
SPOKESMAN SAYS ARMENIAN PRESIDENT READY TO CONTINUE KARABAKH TALKS...
The Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents reached agreement during their
talks in Paris in March on unspecified principles for resolving the
Karabakh conflict and elaborated on those principles in Florida in April,
Armenian presidential spokesman Vahe Gabrielian told journalists in
Yerevan on 4 June, Noyan Tapan reported the following day. Gabrielian said
President Robert Kocharian is ready to continue talks with his Azerbaijani
counterpart Heidar Aliev "within the framework of those principles."
Gabrielian denied that the peace process is deadlocked, or that
differences have emerged between the French, Russian, and U.S. co-chairmen
of the OSCE Minsk Group that is engaged in mediating a solution to the
conflict. LF
....AS LOCAL ARMENIAN OFFICIALS PROTEST ANTICIPATED LAND CORRIDOR
Officials from Armenia's southern Meghri region have drafted a statement
protesting two anticipated components of a final settlement of the
Karabakh conflict, according to Snark on 5 June, as cited by Turan. They
oppose both opening a land corridor across the region giving Azerbaijan
access to its exclave of Nakhichevan and the deployment in Meghri of
international peacekeeping forces that would protect that transport
corridor, which they argue would pose a threat to the self-government and
national security of Armenia. The officials say they could safeguard the
functioning of a transport corridor without outside help. LF
RFE/RL Transcaucasia Newsline, June 6, 2001
Southern Armenian region rejects compromise corridor for Azerbaijan
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jun 6, 2001
Text of report by Armenian newspaper Aykakan Zhamanak on 6 June entitled "Statement by the people of Megri"
Different rumours are circulating about the settlement of the Karabakh conflict, for example granting
Azerbaijan a corridor through Megri:
In favour of an immediate peaceful settlement of the conflict on the basis of mutual compromises, recalling that at the time of extremely tense Armenian-Azeri relations (1991-1992) the functioning of the main communication (railway) through Megri was provided without the help of any outside force, which was also the result of the will of the local population and the fact that the above communication was severed at the initiative of the Azeri side, due to its blockade of Armenia, we consider the inclusion of the Megri corridor in the package of the resolution of the Karabakh problem, the restoration of communications and deployment of peacekeeping forces unacceptable.
On the basis of the aforementioned we state:
1. The granting of a corridor via Megri within the package of the settlement of the Karabakh conflict or the deployment of peacekeeping forces for the restoration of communications does not promote the settlement of the conflict but directly threatens Armenia's sovereignty and national security.
2. Excluding the existence of a corridor and the presence of peacekeeping forces we consider the restoration of communications necessary and take responsibility for their unhindered functioning.
3. The granting of a corridor via Megri or the deployment of peacekeeping forces for the restoration of communications is fraught with danger, and the entire responsibility for this is to be assumed by those who want to impose such a solution to the process.
The statement is signed by:
The mayors of Megri and Agarak; the heads of the villages of Megri region; the heads of the territorial organizations of the Anrapetutyun Party, the Armenian People's Party, the Armenian Republican Party, the Armenian Communist Party, the manager of the Megri territorial communications and former parliamentarian David Matevosyan.
Source: Aykakan Zhamanak, Yerevan, in Armenian 6 Jun 01
ARMENIAN, AZERBAIJANI PRESIDENTS FAIL TO SET DATE FOR NEXT KARABAKH TALKS
Azerbaijan's President Heidar Aliev told journalists on 1 June on his
return to Baku from the CIS summit in Minsk that his talks on the
sidelines of the summit with his Armenian counterpart Robert Kocharian
probably lessened the chances that the two will meet as planned in Geneva
later this month to continue their search for a mutually acceptable
solution to the Karabakh conflict, Reuters and ITAR-TASS reported. Aliev
said that in order for the Geneva meeting to take place, certain
unspecified conditions must be met, and that at present "my and
Kocharian's positions on the settlement are quite different although they
are not worlds apart." He denied, however, that the talks are deadlocked.
Speaking in Yerevan on 2 June, Kocharian's spokesman Vahe Gabrielian
denied that the Armenian president had asked the Minsk Group co-chairmen
to postpone the planned Geneva talks. French co-Chairman Philippe de
Sureman said last week that the two presidents had asked for the Geneva
meeting to be postponed, but Aliev denied on 31 May having made any such
request (see "RFE/RL Newsline," 1 June 2001). LF
[RFE/RL] Transcaucasia Newsline, June 4, 2001
525 gazet: Interview with Tofiq Zulfugarov: Azerbaijan left only with military solution
525 gazet
2 June 2001
"MEETING OF THE AZERBAIJANI - ARMENIAN PRESIDENTS TO BE POSTPONED BY FALL"
According to ex-Azeri foreign minister realities put Azerbaijan in front
of military selection.
Pasha Babakerli Staff Writer
Geneva meeting between the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia on
resolution to
Karabakh problem has been delayed. So, the negotiation process reached
the desperate state. Upon the visit to the region of the OSCE Minsk group
co-chairs of France Russia and USA once more demonstrated that Armenia did
not hurry to show constructive position. The last talks and meeting also
provides to say even Russia does not hurry to take decisive steps in the
way of resolution of the conflict. In this Azerbaijan, which lost over 20
percent of its territory as a result of Armenian aggression, has nothing
to do, but to choose armed actions. Ex-Azeri foreign minister, Tofik
Zulfugarov, shares his views on the question.
- Mr. Zulfugarov, reasons for delay of the Azerbaijan-Armenian
Presidents are explained differently. How do you regard the motives for
it?
- During their last visit to the region OSCE Minsk group co-chairs
witnessed Armenia's non-readiness for regulation of the conflict in a
peaceful manner. Thus official Yerevan demands annexation of Nagorno
Karabakh and Lachin district to Armenia, or creation of an independent
state in this territory. In the course of last discussions Armenian
President Robert Khocharian supported this standpoint. By this manner that
managed to break the negotiations process.
- It seems Azerbaijan is going to strengthen its standpoint. During the
meeting with CE officials one of these days Azeri President Heidar Aliyev
stated Azerbaijan's all demands should be taken into account.
- Azerbaijan has enough demonstrated itself as a peace-will country and
unfortunately, Armenians, as well as mediators accepted these intentions
as weakness. In this respect the Azerbaijani President's standpoint should
be accepted as an adequate step.
- Do you pin hopes on coming meeting of the "Caucasian fours"? Russia
is intensifying its activity in the way of peaceful resolution to the
conflict.
- In fact Armenia go on demonstrating sharp position and namely this
country has broken the negotiation process. Great hopes are pinned in the
meeting of the US and Russia Presidents for the say resolution of the
Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict will be one of key issues of the
talks. Namely is shown as a direct season for delay of Geneva talks
between the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia.
- I don't think a question of resolution of the Karabakh problem might
be key issue of discussions. For the problem was enough discussed by the
second and third level officials of the said countries and they stated
their standpoints on the problem. Therefore I don't expect any cardinal
changes from this meeting. As to delay of Aliyev-Kocharian meeting by
fall, it has nothing to do with the US-Russian talks scheduled for June
15.
- Do you expect possible international impact on Armenia?
- It is so difficult to say any word I this respect. The OSCE Minsk
group co-chairmen are in fact in front of selection. Upon knowing
Armenia's standpoint the co-chairs might choose one of the tactical
steps: they inform their country's leadership about Armenia's
non-constructive standpoint and propose to use the means of pressure on
this country to make it to step back. However, it is probable expect the
like resources by the US and Russia. The second tactics might be a long
pause in the process of settlement of the conflict. To my mind, the
co-chairs have selected the second tactics.
- Do you expected on birth new ideas during the passive period?
- I don't pin hopes on finding of new ideas. I think no need to waste
time on it. Resolution to the problem is too simple: either Armenia should
abandon its aggressive intentions, or that should be forces to do so by
super powers, or Azerbaijan. If it is not so, I don't believe in
achievement of any progress in the negotiation process.
- You, mean, it is impossible to find out the ways for pressure on
Armenians in the international level.
- If the super-powers come to an agreement to force of Armenia,
naturally, that will not be difficult from economical sanctions to armed
actions. But it to view attentively the super powers' visions on the
region, one can come to conclusion that unless they reach a common
agreement, they will not defend one of the conflicting parties.
- In this case Azerbaijan will have to select armed actions:
- We are already in front of dilemma either peace or war. Azerbaijan
people, however, has already stated is will. War has become mere available
for
Azerbaijan for over the past 10 years no one has intended to punish the
aggressor and it is not expected in the near future. Azerbaijan should
consolidate its military power and strengthen military cooperation with
some friendly countries. In this respect the relations established with
Pakistan are quite normal. We should understand once and forever
Azerbaijan should have strong army to strengthen its policy.
THE FORGOTTEN JEWS OF KARABAKH
The 30 Jews left in Nagorny Karabakh find themselves trapped in a society
which regards them with growing suspicion.
By Steve Sverdlow in Stepanakert.
For the tiny Jewish community in Nagorny Karabakh, paradise has been lost
irretrievably.
During the Soviet period, the Armenian enclave in Azerbaijan enjoyed a
reputation as a haven of ethnic and religious tolerance. Thousands of Jews
from Russia, Ukraine and Belarus flocked there in a bid to escape the
anti-Semitism endemic in Soviet society.
But the aftermath of the six-year war has ushered in a new era of chauvinism
and intolerance to non-Armenians living in Nagorny Karabakh. And the Jewish
community has dwindled to just 30 people.
Unlike Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kabardino-Balkaria, Dagestan and Chechnya,
Armenia and Nagorny Karabakh never had significant Jewish populations.
The Jews of Armenia were made up mainly of Ashkenazis from Eastern Europe
whose immigration begins with Russian unification in 1828-1829 and lasts
until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The vast majority of Jews who ended up in Nagorny Karabakh came either to
escape persecution or to find work or as a result of mixed marriages. Maria
Spector Groisman came for all three reasons.
One of several Jewish women living in Martuni, the third largest town in the
disputed territory, Groisman and her husband moved from Chernovtsy, Ukraine,
in 1967.
"We were persecuted by the peasants, by our classmates and by our teachers,"
she says. "I remember the mass graves outside Chernovtsy and
Kamianets-Podolsky where most of my relatives were massacred during the
war."
When Groisman's parents applied to emigrate to Israel in the late 1960s, her
father was imprisoned for four years as an enemy of the people.
Says Groisman, "Moving to Karabakh was like a chance to start again, they
treated us with respect there." In the 1970s and 1980s, the Groismans lived
a relatively open Jewish life. They received regular packages from the Star
of David association in Baku and raised their only daughter, Svetlana, to be
proud of her heritage.
However, even before the actual fighting reached Martuni, Maria Groisman
began to sense the growing wave of nationalism in Nagorny Karabakh.
Her parents - who had emigrated to Haifa in 1977 - telephoned and urged her
to join them in Israel. Soon after the phone call, Karabakhi nationalists
threatened to have Groisman fired from her job as a telephone operator
unless she wrote an article describing the wretched conditions experienced
by Soviet Jews in Israel and praising Armenian tolerance. Groisman refused.
Now her grandson, David, 16, is nervous about starting his three-year
military service in the army.
"I hide my Jewish identity from people," he says. "People here think Israel
helps Azerbaijan and don't like Jews because of that." Now with tensions
running high between Yerevan and Baku and rumors of fresh hostilities, David
has even more reason to be concerned.
When the war broke out in 1988, Daniel and Svetlana Groisman were living in
Shushi, now Nagorny Karabakh's second largest town. Daniel joined the
Armenian army and fought from 1990 until the ceasefire in 1994.
Says Svetlana, "My husband helped retake Shushi. So many fled during the
war. We aren't even Armenian but we stayed and didn't betray Karabakh. But
now people call us Yids."
After the war, the new government paid out compensation to veterans of the
conflict but Daniel was denied the benefits awarded to "pure-blooded"
Armenians. When the city court confiscated the Groismans' garage in 1998
and gave it to an ethnic Armenian veteran, the family was told, "Only
Armenians are full-fledged citizens. You should all leave for Israel!"
A mixed Jewish-Armenian couple, Alexander and Svetlana Peisakhov, lived in
Stepanakert where their children, Sergei and Stella, were known as "local
prodigies".
However, during four years of fighting, the children's grandparents, Niusia
and Gelta Sarkisian, kept them back from school and hid them in the
basement. "We would bury the dead at night because the heavy shelling
during the day made it too dangerous," said Nuisia Sarkisian. "We were
scared because they were not Armenians. We did everything we could to get
them out through Baku."
Since 1988, the Jews of the region have been almost entirely isolated from
Jewish organisations in Baku and Yerevan as well as Jewish diaspora agencies
such as the Joint Distribution Committee which sends humanitarian aid and
special foods for the holidays.
The chairwoman of the Jewish Community of Armenia, Rimma Vardjapetian, is
sometimes able to find money for the two or three Karabakhis who come to
Yerevan to celebrate Purim.
However, while Nagorny Karabakh remains in political purgatory, the
Groismans and the Peisakhovs are not officially recognised as citizens of
any country and cannot travel any further than Armenia.
Svetlana Groisman comments, "What bothers me is the lack of attention we get
as one of the only Jewish families in Karabakh. I want the right to lead a
Jewish life here at the very least."
And Maria Groisman adds, "I dream of visiting my grandparents' grave in
Haifa but I cannot cross any borders with my passport. No one knows whether
we exist or not."
Steve Swerdlow is a human rights monitor for the Union of Councils and the
US State Department's Young Leadership Fellow in the Caucasus, 2000-2001.
IWPR'S CAUCASUS REPORTING SERVICE, NO. 85
PUTIN-BUSH = 1:0?
525 gazet
2 June 2001
USA support for freezing Garabagh talks is next failure in the Bush
Administration's foreign policy.
Kamran Hasanly
The OSCE co-chairs' visit to the region which was called "political
impotent" by
Azerbaijanian politicians, yielded no results. Instead of it, we
witnessed the inefficiency of the Minsk group activity for the next
time. Although the co-chairs try to explain the postponement of Geneva
talks at the request of Heydar Aliyev and Robert Kocharyan, it is more
convincing that US and Russian Presidents interfered with the
issue. Probably, the Azerbaijanian and Armenian presidents really wanted
the Geneva meeting to be postponed. But the result is the same - the
Kremlin is behind this request of the Presidents.
First of all, to answer the question whether USA or Russia is more
interested in freezing the talks, it is necessary to place attention on
the different statements made recently by the Minsk group American and
Russian co-chairs. Carey Cavanaugh's satisfaction with the progress of
talks, his statement that the sides were close to peace and it was
possible to sign the peace treaty by end-2001 demonstrated that the talks
fully satisfied Washington. Gribkov's non-involvement in euphoria unlike
Cavanaugh, was certainly the official Moscow's position. The Kremlin
couldn't allow the peace talks to begin (Key West) and end (Geneva) in the
West. Therefore, we can state with confidence that Russia took the
Garabagh talks into control. Whether the Kremlin will gain serious success
in the sphere will be known end-week, after the talks among Putin, Aliyev
and Kocharyan.
US support for freezing the talks is next failure of the Bush
Administration's foreign policy. Washington makes serious concessions to
the Caucasus and it can create problems for the West. It had been
predicted that Bush would finally give up his positions in the
Caucasus. Because G.Bush's foreign policy philosophy is built on such
"concessions". Bush has always criticized the Clinton Administration's
"unnecessary" initiatives in foreign policy. The dministration-in-office
mainly handles international problems and considers it unnecessary to
interfere with foreign processes. For instance, unlike Garabagh, the
social political processes in Columbia, which is closer to USA have always
been under Washington's control. Since some years, the talks between the
government and armed opposition have been held through US mediation. But
after Bush came to power, he refused that mediation. According to him, the
politicians of Columbia itself must settle their problems. The same words
can be stated about the Near East problem. Bush policy to settle US
Near-East problem "by telephone" surprises American political scientists
and researchers. Unlike Madeleine Albright who paid regular visits to Near
East, Colin Powell gives preference to talk by telephone with the regional
countries heads of state. It is not occasional that former Secstate
W.Christopher compares Bush with Mikhail Gorbachov, who once gave away his
positions.
Vladimir Putin has begun his initiative to gain priority in regulation
of the Garabagh conflict this January. Have you paid attention to the list
of Russian officials who have visited Baki since V.Putin came to Baki in
the first month of 2001? Within 5 months, from Russian President to the
Patriarch of the Orthodox Church have been Heydar Aliyev's guests.
It is not easy to express unequivocal opinion about the issues
discussed during the visits: only H.Aliyev and the guests know the essence
of the meetings. The result is apparent. The Kremlin could persuade Baki
to freeze talks and continue them in the Kremlin. V.Putin, who took into
consideration that Moscow's close ties with Azerbaijan caused open concern
of Yerevan, appeased his close allies. After the promise at the last
session of the Collective Security Council held in Yerevan that military
assistance would be rendered to Armenia in case of war, the Armenians
calmed down really. After all this, it was announced that Aliyev and
Kocharyan asked to stop the talks. The talks held under the West's
patronage were frozen to be restored under Moscow's leadership.
CROSSING THE LINE - REFLECTIONS ON THE NAGORNY KARABAKH PEACE PROCESS
By Thomas de Waal
(Thomas de Waal is a British journalist working on a book about the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Last year he received a grant from the United States Institute of Peace to study the conflict and traveled extensively in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Armenian-held Nagorno Karabakh. In London he received institutional back-up from
Conciliation Resources, who also supported his recent trip to the region in order to better inform CR's Caucasus Programme and to raise public awareness of dilemmas inherent in peace processes in the region. This piece is his reflections on the trip and on the state of the Karabakh peace process that we received from CR and interested in it. If you have any comments on this piece, do not hesitate and write us about it.)
CROSSING THE LINE
From 18-22 May 2001 I was one of seven journalists invited on a unique trip crossing for the first time one of the most closed borders in the world, the front-line between Azerbaijanis and the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh. The trip was organized by the
American, French and Russian "co-chairs" of the Minsk Group, the body set up in 1992 by the OSCE to mediate between the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis.
After a successful meeting between the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents, Robert Kocharian and Heidar Aliev, in Key West, Florida from 3-7 April, the co-chairs wanted to broaden the constituency for peace in the region. They designed a route that took in the sections of the population, which are most affected by the stalemate: in Azerbaijan, displaced people; in Armenia, people suffering because of the economic isolation of their country. They also want to open up three routes across the Line of Contact, which can be used by aid agencies and mediators. Last year they made two crossings across the Armenia-Azerbaijan frontier, which has also been closed. This third crossing was the most sensitive because it took place in what is the internationally recognized territory of Azerbaijan.
After attending a meeting between the co-chairs and President Aliev on 18 May in the Azerbaijani capital Baku, we flew by helicopter to the refugee camp at Agjabedi in western Azerbaijan. Here, as everywhere throughout the region, the mediators were besieged by crowds, complaining about their problems. A common theme was
established: all repeated the refrain that they wanted peace, but only on their terms.
From the camp we flew to the "no-fly zone" near the Line of Contact that divides the two sides. In minibuses we traveled to the Azerbaijan post, to be met by Colonel Elkhan Husseinov who led us down a narrow strip of country road that had been de-mined only that morning. The scene was peaceful, the uncultivated fields around had
grown tall thistles since the 1994 cease-fire agreement. After five minutes we reached a group of soldiers, wearing almost identical camouflage uniforms, waiting for us. These were the Armenians, wearing arm-patches that said "NKR" (the unrecognized "Nagorno Karabakh Republic"). There was also a group of OSCE field officers
who had an icebox of Armenian beer and caviar sandwiches.
But if this crossing was a breakthrough of sorts, it also pointed up the enormous gulf that these few meters of cease-fire-line represent. The handshake between Col Husseinov and the Karabakhi Armenian, Major-General Vitaly Balasanian was so quick that I did not catch it. After that they avoided eye-contact. Col. Husseinov looked especially uncomfortable - he had told us earlier that the other side were
"Armenian bandit formations" occupying Azerbaijani land, so even to meet with them was a concession.
We walked back across no-man's land with the Armenians and then spent a day in the hills of Nagorno Karabakh, now a self-proclaimed separatist Armenian state. On 20 May we flew by helicopter to Armenia and spoke to the poor and unemployed of the northern Armenian towns of Spitak and Gyumri, which were hit first by the devastating 1988 earthquake, then by the economic blockade of neighboring Turkey. We then flew to the Armenian capital Yerevan.
On 21 May the group of journalists met with Armenian president, Robert Kocharian. The mood was downbeat. A final briefing with the US mediator Carey Cavanaugh confirmed the general tenor of the trip. Both presidents had returned from Florida to hold consultations with their political allies. Consultations during this "cooling-off
period" only seemed to have hardened their positions. Given this, there was no point in holding a planned follow-up meeting in Geneva in mid-June.
PROBLEMS
The major obstacle to a successful peace settlement remains entrenched public opinion on both sides. We heard repeatedly that the two presidents are "ahead of their populations" in their understanding of the need for compromise.
There is a central question here, which forces one to question the motives of the two leaders: If they are committed to a peace settlement, but the public is hostile, why do they not do more to sell the idea of compromise to their people?
Since Key West, developments on this front have been very discouraging. At a ceremony on 9 May, Aliev said that just as German aggression had been punished in 1945, so Armenian aggression should be. As for Kocharian, when the group of journalists directly asked him why he was not talking more to the public, he said: "I wouldn't want to raise public expectations until there is a certainty that a
solution is found".
So why are the two presidents, who, we are told, have come 80 or 90 percent of the way to a peace deal, so reluctant to promote it? I can identify four main reasons:
- Tactics. Both leaders believe that a tough stance at home will win them more at the negotiating table. In his verbal sparring with the international mediators, Aliev was evidently trying to put pressure on them to do more for Azerbaijan. Kocharian may be calculating that a little brinkmanship with the ageing Aliev could force more concessions out of him.
- Home and abroad. Clearly the presidents find it easier to imagine a peace settlement in Florida than back home. Many in the region are critical of the Americans in particular for "rushing" the process. The potential danger here is that the two leaders might sign up to something on which they cannot deliver.
- Character. Neither man is a democrat. Aliev is a former Politburo member, who has rigged all the elections he has held since coming to power. Kocharian was the wartime leader of the Karabakh Armenians. Both men energetically pursued the "military option" over Karabakh in 1993-4. For them, the popular will presents a potential threat and they would rather manipulate it, than engage with it.
- Power. For both men self-preservation would seem to be the highest goal- higher than peace and prosperity. Ultimately both men may decide that the cost of signing up to a peace agreement is too high and that they could be swept away by the storms of protest it arouses.
WHAT NEXT?
There is an unhappy paradox at the heart of the Karabakh peace process. Two essentially undemocratic leaders are pursuing a peace settlement. They have apparently come close to achieving one. They understand that a peace deal is best for their countries. Yet they are reluctant to engage their societies in the process.
Clearly there are reasons why undemocratic leaders can actually do more in a peace process. The political base they need to consult with is narrow. They have to worry less about elections. They can simply ignore the nationalist consensus that still grips their respective publics. Equally, it is pointless to wait for more democratic leaders
to emerge, which could take a generation - and is in any case more likely to be a consequence of peace than a cause of it. (It is also worth remembering that the freely elected Popular Front government in Azerbaijan in 1992-3 was both more democratic and more nationalist and war-mongering than the Aliev regime).
And yet the lack of trust between authoritarian leaders and their publics is now the biggest problem for the Caucasus in general and the Karabakh peace process in particular.
What can be done? Three of the biggest problems of the Karabakh dispute are: (I) The two sides live in deep isolation from one another. (ii) Public opinion in both countries is skeptical or hostile towards a peace settlement. (iii) The two presidents while close on many issues are reluctant to make further concessions.
Why not take existing elements of the framework agreement and incorporate them into a "phased" or "step by step" plan, in which some of the thornier problems (such as security issues and the status of Nagorno Karabakh itself) were postponed until later? The Armenians could, for example, give up some occupied territory and the USA could lift Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act barring technical aid to Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan and Turkey could open up some communications
with Armenia (perhaps through the Azerbaijani exclave of Nakhichevan,
which is also suffering from economic isolation).
These are not hard-and-fast proposals, merely examples of the kind of mutual concessions that either side could make without surrendering their fundamental interests. I recognize that the example of the "phased" agreement in the Middle East is not encouraging. Opponents of peace will mobilize, as well as its supporters. Yet something is needed to overcome the public cynicism amongst both Armenians and
Azerbaijanis. My point is that some progress - any progress - could be the most crucial confidence building measure of them all. An incremental peace could be better than no peace at all.
Conciliation Resources (CR)
http://www.c-r.org
and AZERBAIJAN BULLETIN No:23 (277), June 07 2001
http://www.andf-az.org/
525 gazet: GASPROM PARTICIPATES IN ARMAMENT OF ARMENIA
525 gazet
2 June 2001
Trying to impede establishment of stability in the Caucasus Gasprom
finances Armenian guns traders, reports UK-registered The Timer.
Kamran Hasanly Staff writer
"The Russian company Gasprom finances Armenian guns traders", reported
The Times UK's authoritative publication. Referring to US oil circles-based
sources the newspaper writes Gasprom transfers the funds to offshore
accounts, afterwards to the Armenian accounts. The article, titled
"Energetic ogre financing Russia's foreign policy", noted the motives of
financing of Armenian guns traders. As of the authors of the practice the
company's very much interested instability in the Caucasus for as the
conflicts in Azerbaijan and Chechenstan are not regulated, foreign
investors will not take risks to construction of oil and gas pipelines in
the region. That means maintenance of Gasprom as an only powerful company
in the region.
If the said facts are confirmed, that becomes a next big scandal upon
illegal sale of $1 mln cost Russian arms to Armenia. In case the hindrance
by the world leading company known as "a state within state" Gasprom, in
peaceful resolution of the conflict is asserted, the Kremlin, recognized
for unilateral standpoint in the Karabakh problem may turn out in a
difficult situation.
Moscow's policy directed to keeping instability in the region in order
not lose its positions in the Caucasus, is not secret. But now it turns
out that along with the official policy some companies are keen to satisfy
their commercial interests at the expense of conflicts in Karabakh,
Abkhasia, Chechenistan. Non-resolution of the conflicts is the key
obstacle in way of investment flow to the region. Some days ago US
Ambassador to Azerbaijan, Ross Wilson, told to the press-conference held
in Baku that the conflicts in the Caucasus created obstacles in the way of
the projects realized in the region, including construction of the
Baku-Ceyhan MEP route. It seems Gasprom also understands the truth.
The next no less attractive point is resignation of Gasprom leader Rem
Vyakhirev from his post some days prior to publication of the said article
in The Times. It should be noted that upon accession of Vladimir Putin to
state power the line replacements are carried out directly at the will of
the President's Administration. The supposition on provided by the fact
Dmitriy Medvedev, who replaced Vyakhirev in his post, is considered to be
closer to Vladimir Putin.
Undoubtedly, it is impossible to insist last replacement in Gasprom is
lined with the information spread by the Times. The point is that the
company is under the state supervision and its management takes loyal
position in regard to Kremlin from this angle version linking sudden
removal of Vyakhirev with support to armament of Armenia is some new
convincing.
Since the beginning of the Russia has become more active in resolution
of the Nagorno Karabakh problem. The lost processes delay of Geneva talks and
announcement on assembly of OSCE Minsk group co-chairs in Moscow directly
indicate to Moscow's serious achievements in this
respect. "Gasprom" scandal in this case might have considerable damage on
the Russian-Azerbaijani relationship. Removing Vyakhirev from his post the
Kremlin wants to get insured from reveal of information on Gasprom -
Armenian relations.
BAKI AND YEREVAN SATISFIED WITH RUSSIA'S POSITION
The heads of state of the "Caucasian four" support peaceful, fair and
sustainable regulation of the conflicts in the Caucasus. It is pointed out
in the joint statement of the Presidents of Russia, Armenia, Azerbaijan
and Georgia on the results of the Minsk meeting. The Presidents of Russia,
Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia stressed the urgency of soon regulating
the Upper Garabagh, Skhinvalsk (Southern Osetiya) and Abkhasia
(Georgia) conflicts, stability in the Caucasus, observation of multi-side
commitments, commonly-accepted international norms and principles. The
Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia stressed their satisfaction with the
increasing role of Russia as an co-chair of the OSCE Minsk group in
settlement of the Upper Garabagh conflict.
The heads of state expressed their concern about the expansion of
terrorism and extremism in Caucasus. They stressed the urgency to
eliminate such cases which are serious danger for the region. The 4 heads
of state positively evaluated the results of the scientific practical
conference "Peace and development in Caucasus" held May 28-29 in
Moscow. The Presidents think that the regional countries play the key role
in development of cooperation and ensurance of security in the
region. They also stressed the active participation of international
mechanisms and organizations in peaceful regulation of the conflicts in
Caucasus. They approved of the proposal to hold a meeting of the
legislative body officials of the 4 countries.
There was achieved an agreement to hold next meeting of the presidents
of Caucasian countries end-this year.
U.S. AMBASSADOR ON A TRIP TO NAKCHIVAN
U.S. Ambassador to Azerbaijan Ross Wilson who is on a tour to Nakchivan,
visited the Martyrs Alley in this city.
He was received by the chairman of the Supreme Assembly of the
Nakchivan Autonomous Republic, Vasif Abutalibov. Besides, he had meetings
with the teachers and students of the Nakchian private school, leaders of
local branches of opposition parties. During the talks the parties
discussed social and economical state in the Autonomous Republic, hard
living conditions due to blockade by Armenia and had exchange of opinions
in regard to other issues as well. Besides, they considered the position
of the U.S. and international organizations in regard to Nagorno-Karabakh
problem and current state in this field. Participation of some people in
the meeting opposition members had negative impact on frankness of the
discussions.
"CAUCASIAN FOURS" WILL REMAIN TO A DREAM
Rustam Mammadov: "Prior to resolution of Karabakh problem it would be so
simple mindedness to believe in converting "the Caucasus fours" to the
international organization". "Russia's well to establish "Caucasian
fours" despite of GUUAM directly indicates to Moscow's intentions to
establish a new organization regulating the Caucasian countries," said
Rustam Mammadov. Sector Director of the Public and Political Department
under the President's Administration. As to Rustam Mammadov, he does not
believe in formation of the like organization, for cooperation Azerbaijan
and Armenia, which are in war conditions, somehow impossible. Prior to
fair resolution of Karabakh problem, it would be simple-mindedness to
believe converting the "Caucasian fours" into the international
organization
Azeri MP says 63 children being held captive by Armenians
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jun 4, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency Turan on 4 June
Baku, 2 June: Three hundred thousand Azerbaijani children have lost the roof over their heads as a result of Armenian aggression against
Azerbaijan. One thousand and twenty four children have been blown up on mines laid by Armenian terrorists. At present 63 Azerbaijani children are being held prisoner by the Armenians. Turan was told this by the chairman of the children's organization of Azerbaijan, Milli Maclis Deputy Gular Ahmadova. According to her, children continue to get blown up on mines in the conflict zone and in districts bordering on Armenia.
Ahmadova thinks that international organizations should carry out serious monitoring in these zones and prepare and implement mine-clearing programmes.
Source: Turan news agency, Baku, in Russian 0420 gmt 4 Jun 01
Armenian Security Ministry denies holding Azerbaijani children prisoner
Snark
in Russian
0915 GMT 4 Jun 01
Text of report by Armenian news agency Snark
Yerevan, 4 June: The Armenian National Security Ministry has assessed
an Azerbaijani report that 63 Azerbaijani children are allegedly being
kept prisoner in Armenia as another piece of misinformation aimed at
discrediting Armenia in the eyes of the world community. The report was
disseminated by the Baku-based Turan news agency that quoted the
chairwoman of the Children's organization of Azerbaijan and member of the
Milli Maclis [parliament], Gulara Ahmadova.
This report is completely divorced from reality, the press service of
the Armenian National Security Ministry has told a Snark correspondent.
The ministry has more than once denied inventions about POWs, hostages,
etc created by Azerbaijani propaganda and distorted figures presented by
Baku, the ministry's press service stressed.
Azeri ex-foreign minister says Aliyev completed historic mission, time for new leader
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jun 2, 2001
Former minister believes there are politicians in the country more suited to current realities
As foreign minister he shunned direct contacts with journalists. More precisely, he did not let us close to him and we did not specially like him. However, we respected him. He never allowed himself to speak nonsense or succumb to populism. He has so far been restrained in his communication with journalists. Nevertheless, when inviting the former foreign minister and now independent expert, Tofiq Zulfuqarov, for an interview, we supposed from the outset that we would have a rather tough time.
[Correspondent] The Foreign Ministry during Tofiq Zulfuqarov's period as foreign minister was hardly different from the National Security Ministry in terms of confidentiality?
[Tofiq Zulfuqarov] The Foreign Ministry should always express the state's position. Journalists were presented commentaries only on issues we deemed necessary.
[Passage omitted: Zulfuqarov's assessment of his activities as foreign minister, recent developments in the region]
[Correspondent] How close is
Azerbaijan to a resumption of war?
[Tofiq Zulfuqarov] Armenia's policy is simply provoking Baku to resume operations.
Azerbaijan's choice between war and peace will depend on Armenia's behaviour. Azerbaijan should firmly stand up for its territorial integrity and sovereignty over Karabakh. If Armenia's position does not leave a chance for a peaceful resolution then the issue of a resumption of operations will become topical again with an extra impulse. Armenia's stance is dynamically increasing the number of supporters of a military solution in Azerbaijan.
[Passage omitted: international norms and principles recognize
Azerbaijan's integrity; cease-fire enabled the sides to strengthen their armies]
[Correspondent] Is any progress possible in the negotiations following the Putin-Bush meeting in July?
[Zulfuqarov] This is the first contact of the two presidents and as far as I know, among the issues on the agenda the Karabakh problem occupies, let us say, 15th or 16th place. A regular declaration on joint efforts to solve the problem by peaceful means might possibly be adopted.
[Correspondent] What if the problem of Karabakh becomes the subject of a profound and serious discussion?
[Zulfuqarov] To hope that the problem will be resolved by someone else is a manifestation of dependence. If
Azerbaijan expressed its position firmly and clearly and said that in case it is ignored by the opposite side, the war option cannot be ruled out - I think this would work. Nobody will gives us Karabakh back on a tray.
[Correspondent] The impression is that the Americans are in a great hurry to solve the problem but that the Russians are not.
[Zulfuqarov] If the Americans are in such a great hurry they should submit proposals on a stage-by-stage resolution of the problem. What they are doing is feigning haste. First of all, the Armenians should evacuate the occupied districts around Nagornyy Karabakh.
[Correspondent] What will they get in return?
[Zulfuqarov] A resumption of communications, partial removal of the aggressor's image and a basis for a more constructive dialogue.
[Correspondent] But they are simultaneously losing key levers of pressure on us.
[Zulfuqarov] If they want to conduct a dialogue from a position of strength and pressure then this is doomed to failure and war will become more probable, and in that case everybody would come off as a loser.
[Correspondent] Why are they provoking a new war?
[Zulfuqarov] Because of their maximalism.
[Correspondent] Would you vote for Aliyev if presidential elections were held next Sunday?
[Zulfuqarov] I do not know who would compete against him. But in any case I would vote for the worthiest candidate.
[Correspondent] Do you think there are such candidates among our politicians?
[Zulfuqarov] Certainly, there are many people who meet the requirements of our realities very much. No doubt, Aliyev is a very experienced politician. However, every experienced politician operates only for a certain period of time.
Everything has its beginning and its end. Heydar Aliyev has already fulfilled his historic mission and stabilized the situation in the country. At present extensive reforms in all spheres, in politics, the economy etc are very important. For example, the economy should be rescued from the monopoly of clans and representatives of the authorities.
Source: Zerkalo, Baku, in Russian 2 Jun 01 pp9, 10
West reluctant to invest in Azerbaijan because of Karabakh - paper
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jun 2, 2001
The Azerbaijani daily Ekho says that the West is eager to resolve the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict as soon as possible in order to pour billions of dollars into the region. Singling out the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline project and the Great Silk Road route as the main concerns, the paper said that these projects did not hinge on reconciliation between Baku and Yerevan. The paper said that
Azerbaijan's oil and gas reserves were the most important regional asset the West was interested in, whereas all that Armenia had to offer to the world was a cheap labour force. Following is the text of S. Abbasov's report in the Azerbaijani newspaper Ekho on 2 June entitled "Why is the West in such a hurry to reconcile Azerbaijan and Armenia?":
Most likely an investment of many billions, which has not yet been made
The World Bank is promising to allocate additional funds for Armenia and
Azerbaijan if the Nagornyy Karabakh negotiations end successfully. A World Bank expert on Armenia, Peter Nicholas, has said, adding that if a peace agreement is reached, additional funds for post-war reconstruction would be requested for both countries.
The World Bank council of directors approved on 22 May the bank's new strategy for cooperation with Armenia, which provides for the possibility of allocating additional funds if the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict ends.
This is not the first report of the kind. The entire Western community lately seems to have increased pressure on Armenia and
Azerbaijan, demanding a swift solution to the Karabakh problem. Moreover, the West, mainly the European Union, is referring to the fact that the conflict puts a strong brake on the influx of foreign investment in the South Caucasus region and on the implementation of global economic projects.
What kind of projects? Among the biggest projects lobbied by the West, we can list the creation of a transport corridor Europe-Asia (the Great Silk Road) and the construction of oil and gas pipelines from
Azerbaijan to Europe. However, the Karabakh problem could hardly be the main brake on implementation in this case.
The agreement on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan main export pipeline has already been signed and there is good reason to assume that the first oil will flow through it in 2004. The project to construct a Transcaspian gas pipeline has almost been buried, but this is Turkmenistan's fault. As for the Great Silk Road, the possibilities for its implementation, of course, leave much to be desired. However, the conflict between Armenia and
Azerbaijan has nothing to do with this as these are problems of an absolutely different nature.
Why is the West in such a hurry to reconcile Armenia and
Azerbaijan? It is especially important to find the answer to this question in the context of the mediators' rather strange behaviour. The impression is that the USA and European counties do not care at all about the terms under which the peace is signed. The main thing is to achieve the signing of an agreement on the cessation of the conflict.
Experts believe that the main reason for the West's current behaviour is its oil and gas interests in
Azerbaijan and the desire to engage in a serious competition with Russia in the South Caucasian region. Both of these goals are closely interlocked. Indeed, the West can compete with Russia in our region only by making huge investments and promoting its economic interests in this way. The oil and gas sphere is the most attractive from this point of view.
But the problem (for the West) is that this sphere requires huge volumes of investment at precisely this stage. According to some estimations, about 10bn dollars are expected to be invested in the implementation of the Baku-Ceyhan main export pipeline, exploitation of the Sah Daniz deposit and other projects in the next few years.
The sum is tremendous. Of course, the West is not hurrying to give
Azerbaijan such a trump card until we solve our problems with Armenia. Who can guarantee that in this case Azerbaijan will not use the investment of many billions as a means of pressure on the West, demanding a fair solution to the Karabakh conflict?
This theory is indirectly confirmed by the deputy minister of the liquidated Ministry of Economy, Oqtay Haqverdiyev. He said that many international organizations, first of all the European Union, have been making it clear for several years that if the Karabakh problem is solved, the volume of investment in
Azerbaijan and Armenia will increase.
Haqverdiyev said that the EU was more interested in lifting the blockade on economic relations between the conflicting sides than in the settlement itself.
"But nobody is going to swallow the bait. I have always replied that this issue is not on the agenda in our country," the deputy minister pointed out.
Haqverdiyev does not understand the Europeans' position. The influx of investment in
Azerbaijan is not small anyway, and in principle, the conflict is not a big obstacle to its increase.
"This issue was raised back in 2000 at a meeting between the Azerbaijani government and EU representatives in Luxembourg. The EU is asking the question in the following way: As soon as you make friends with Armenia, we shall immediately increase the volume of investment. But we have no economic interests in Armenia and, in principle, neither does the West. Armenia has only one kind of resource - cheap labour. Who is preventing the European Union from investing in
Azerbaijan now?" Haqverdiyev asked.
Asked what dominated the West's position - politics or economy - the deputy minister answered:
"The EU's political and economic interests are so interlocked that it is difficult to pinpoint. In theory, the economy should be a priority for them. But the fact that they are refusing to increase investment in
Azerbaijan until the conflict is solved and trying to force us to make friends with Armenia testifies to the opposite."
What does the opposition think about this? Strangely, they think the same. Asim Mollazada, deputy chairman of the People's Front of
Azerbaijan Party [PFAP], explains the West's efforts to solve the Karabakh problem quickly above all by the implementation of projects to extract and transport oil and gas. "The existence of serious military problems in the region jeopardizes these projects to some extent," he thinks.
Besides that, a war-stricken region is risky for foreign investors as it is, especially in the non-oil sphere.
"Work in the oil sphere makes up for the risk to some extent, and Nigeria is an example of this. Stability of investment in other spheres, which are also irresistible in our region, is not guaranteed by unsolved problems," the Milli Maclis deputy said.
Besides that, Mollazada thinks, if we take into account that
Azerbaijan and Georgia intend to integrate into European structures, in the current conditions new conflicts would in fact be brought to Europe. This means new problems, refugees etc. For this reason, Europe would like to have a quiet life here.
Source: Ekho, Baku, in Russian 2 Jun 01 p 3
News referred from Habarlar-L