updated
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 13, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani TV station ANS on 12 July
[Presenter Rustam Abulfatoglu] The Azerbaijani armed forces are ready to carry out any order from the Supreme Commander because the people and army cannot imagine Nagornyy Karabakh outside Azerbaijan. [Azerbaijani] Defence Minister Safar Abiyev said this in a meeting with the cochairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group. Abiyev said that more than one million Azerbaijani refugees cannot be sacrificed for 30,000-40,000 Armenians in Nagornyy Karabakh.
[Correspondent, over video of meeting] The Russian cochairman, Nikolay Gribkov, told Abiyev that conditions were favourable for the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. He said that precisely for this reason any factor which could lead to the destabilization of the settlement should not be accepted. The French cochairman, Philippe de Suremain, said that now time was working against both parties. The settlement of the conflict is more in Azerbaijan's interest because it has greater economic potential.
Abiyev said that while speaking about peace Armenia wants to consolidate the results of its aggression. As a winner country, Armenia is offering tough conditions to Azerbaijan. Abiyev said that Armenia was trying to project the image of itself as a party allegedly in conformity with the cease-fire regime. However, he said, this is far removed from reality. Armenia often violates the cease-fire and this has already become systematic.
The US cochairman [Carey Cavanaugh] agreed with this. He said that when visiting Yerevan they decisively said that Armenia must observe the cease-fire regime.
Abiyev said that Armenia continued to lay territorial claims against Azerbaijan. The Armenians recently established a society for the annexation of Naxcivan [Azerbaijani exclave] to Armenia. Abiyev believes that the cochairmen should pay attention to such occurrences. He thinks that the peace process cannot go on forever. Armenia must be called upon to withdraw from Azerbaijani lands. An Armenian state with a territory of 29,000 square kilometres exists today on Azerbaijani land. This is Azerbaijan's historical compromise with Armenia. Abiyev said that Azerbaijan cannot make a greater compromises than that.
Cavanaugh said that the world community would never forgive the aggression. He said: whoever controls the heights is the winning party. From the political point of view, Azerbaijan is today in control of the heights.
Source: ANS TV, Baku, in Azeri 1600 gmt 12 Jul 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Azeri opposition slam OSCE mediators'
"meaningless" visit
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 13, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency Turan
Baku, 13 July: Interviews conducted by Turan news agency with the leaders of Azerbaijan's opposition parties shows that they have a negative view of the results of the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen's visit to Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The leader of the Milli Istiqlal Party, Etibar Mammadov, described the activity of the OSCE Minsk Group as "useless". Given that the cochairmen do not observe OSCE principles, they will not be able to achieve any progress in the negotiating process.
The head of the reformists wing of the PFAP [People's Front of Azerbaijan Party], Ali Karimov, said that the cochairmen "have achieved no results". He believes that their activity is only superficial. Instead of forcing Armenia to withdraw from the occupied territory under the UN resolutions, the cochairs equate the aggressor and the victim of aggression.
Tamerlan Qarayev, a member of the council of elders of the Karabakh Liberation Organization, believes that the visit by the OSCE cochairs has not added clarity to the settlement process. "If the OSCE continues to treat the aggressor and the victim of aggression the same, it is difficult to expect a peaceful settlement of the conflict," Qarayev said.
The general secretary of the Azerbaijani Democratic Party, Sardar Calaloqlu, thinks that the OSCE does not have the means to resolve the conflict. He believes that the country cochairs of the OSCE Minsk Group and President Heydar Aliyev do not aim to settle the conflict. "That is why visits by the cochairmen are meaningless," he said.
Source: Turan news agency, Baku, in Russian 0735 gmt 13 Jul 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
OSCE MG begins new stage in Karabakh conflict: President Aliyev
Baku, July 12, IRNA -- The co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group began
a new stage in settling the Karabakh conflict, the Russian news
agency Itar-Tass quoted Azeri President Heidar Aliyev as saying on
Thursday.
The Azeri president received the Russian, U.S. and French
co-chairmen on Thursday, who have arrived in Baku for political
consultations.
Aliyev said that the major factor of the new stage is "growing
attention to the Karabakh conflict by the presidents of the countries
co-chairing the Minsk Group -- Russia's Vladimir Putin, George Bush
of the United States and France's Jacques Chirac, who are discussing
this problem during their meetings and giving instructions to their
envoys on stepping up efforts aimed at ensuring peace."
The Azeri leader said it is important that the co-chairmen reached
agreement on their positions, adding that this will facilitate the
settlement of the conflict.
As a whole, Aliyev gave a positive assessment of the activity of
the Minsk Group. The president said that he had seen active efforts
taken by the co-chairmen. Their efforts are very encouraging, he
added.
Aliyev noted that it is necessary to use this moment to solve the
Karabakh problem as soon as possible.
Copyright 2001 Islamic Republic News Agency
AZERBAIJAN PRESIDENT REAFFIRMS ADHERENCE TO PEACEABLE SETTLEMENT OF KARABAKH ISSUE
BAKU, JULY 12. /From RIA Novosti's Gerai Dadashev, Pyotr Goncharov/ -- The president of Azerbaijan, Geidar Aliyev, has reaffirmed adherence to peaceable solution of the Karabakh problem --- that is the main result of a visit to Baku by co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk group for Nagorny Karabakh.
This was said to RIA Novosti on Thursday by Russian co-chairman of the Minsk group Vyacheslav Trubnikov, first deputy foreign minister. The Minsk group co-chairmen have informed Geidar Aliev of negotiations they had had with the Armenian president, Robert Kocharyan.
According to Trubnikov, the Azeri president "is bent on giving an additional impulse to the negotiating process". Geidar Aliev sees no other way out of the Karabakh crisis except peaceful settlement. Appeals to resolve the problem by military means should be seen as an irresponsible position, said Aliev.
NEXT TRIP OF THE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS TO AZERBAIJAN TO FINISH
By Farhad MAMMADOV
According to initial opinions, Karabakh regulation is going on "very
hard".
On July 12, there finished the next trip of the OSCE Minsk Group
co-chairs to the region of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in Baku. Before
that, they held meetings in Yerevan and Upper Karabakh. It is notable
that the co-chairs have this time again crossed the front line like in
the previous visits.
The purpose of the co-chairs trip to the region was to take forth the
peace process that felt into deadlock and according to initial opinions;
their trip has not given the expected result. After the long talks with
the Armenian president and defense minister, the American co-chair Carry
Cavanaugh stated the peace process is going on "very hard". It seems the
co-chairs' efforts of calming the position of Yerevan have not given any
profit. It has already been turned out that the official Yerevan
excludes any compromise at the negotiations and is stating full
independence for Upper Karabakh or unifying it with Armenia. How strange
it seems, the American co-chair Carry Cavanaugh called the position of
the Armenian defense minister Serj Sarkisian "constructive" for his
opinion like "we shall begin the military operations first" in Yerevan.
While Sarkisian stated that they occupied 7 Azeri regions and did not
shame for it.
One of the initial results of the visit is that the co-chairs have not
spoken with new ideas about the conflict regulation. "We tried to
discuss the results gained in the U.S. in April this year", stressed Mr.
Cavanaugh after his meeting with the Armenian president R. Kocharian. On
the contrary, the Armenian leadership were stating on the eve of the
co-chairs' visit that they preferred to the results of the talks held in
Paris in March this year.
The co-chairs of the Minsk Group held talks at the Azerbaijani capital
on July 11 at night and July 12 morning. Today they will conduct a press
conference in Baku. But we may say beforehand that the talks in Baku
will not profitably influence on the development of peace process.
Because the Azerbaijani leadership has several times issued statements
on impossibility of going to unilateral compromises.
One of the major moments of the co-chairs' next trip to the conflict
regions is the activation of the Russian delegation. Thus, besides the
Russian co-chair N. Gribkov, the first deputy foreign minister of Russia
Vyachislav Trubnikov has represented Russia in this trip. But before
that Trubnikov has held talks with ambassadors of Iran and France to
Moscow on the Karabakh regulation. It seems, Russia tries, again to take
the initiative after the efforts of the U.S. have faced with failure at
the regulation process or has already achieved it. According to the news
provided by the diplomatic sources, after a 4-months break, the Armenian
and Azeri presidents will meet with the participation of the Russian
president Vladimir Putin at the non-official summit of the CIS
[Commonwealth of Independent States] in early August.
AZERBAIJAN BULLETIN No:28 (282), July 12 2001
http://www.andf-az.org/
MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRMEN HOLD TALKS IN KARABAKH...
The French and U.S. co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group and Russian First
Deputy Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Trubnikov held talks in Stepanakert on
10 July with Arkadii Ghukasian, the president of the unrecognized
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR), ITAR-TASS and Mediamax reported.
Ghukasian expressed confidence that talks on resolving the Karabakh
conflict will continue despite "changes in the dynamics of the negotiating
process." Trubnikov stressed that any solution to the conflict must be
acceptable to all parties, in the first instance to the population of the
unrecognized republic. "We would not like the people here to get the
impression that the mediators are trying to impose solutions," he said.
The NKR is not officially represented at the "Three-plus-Two" talks
between the three Minsk Group co-chairs and the presidents of Armenia and
Azerbaijan. On 11 July, the Minsk Group representatives, together with the
NKR Foreign and Defense Ministers, visited the formerly predominantly
Azeri-populated town of Shusha, where they noted that contrary to
Azerbaijani claims, the town's mosque has not been vandalized, according
to Snark, as cited by Groong. LF
...EXPRESS CONCERN AT CALLS FOR NEW HOSTILITIES
Later on 11 July, the Minsk Group mediators crossed in Fizuli Raion, close
to the Azerbaijani border with Iran, the Line of Contact separating the
Armenian and Azerbaijani forces, RFE/RL's Armenian Service reported. In a
communique released as they crossed the Line of Contact, the mediators
expressed concern at the fragility of the current state of "no peace, no
war," and warned against "irresponsible" and "bellicose" statements and
calls for a resumption of hostilities. They said such statements
exacerbate tensions and increase the risk of new fighting. LF
Azeri leader warns against military solution to Karabakh problem
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 12, 2001
Azerbaijan's President Heydar Aliyev warned on Thursday against the use of force as a way to resolve the territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagornyy Karabakh, the Russian news agency ITAR-TASS reported.
It quoted Aliyev as saying that the "increasingly frequent calls for a military solution to the Karabakh conflict, are dangerous but natural". He was speaking in Baku at a meeting with the Russian, American and French co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group on Nagornyy Karabakh.
"People see that the problem is not being resolved through peaceful means and as a result express their readiness for extreme measures," he said. He said the protracted nature of the settlement process could have unpredictable consequences and threaten further tragedies.
He added, however, that he was an adherent of a peaceful settlement and that his country's government would "exert every effort to maintain the ceasefire" established in 12 May 1994.
"At the same time the president of Azerbaijan believes that the settlement process should be speeded up to prevent people being driven to desperation," the agency said.
Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in Russian 12 Jul 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Armenia: A War for the Sake of Peace?
By Aram Aramian
YEREVAN, Jul 11, 2001 -- (Transcaspian Project) A well-known Armenian political scientist suggested a "military version" of the settlement of the Karabakh conflict.
Activation of mediator efforts of France in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and a series of meetings of the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan called forth a wide public response in Yerevan and Baku, where the Karabakh problem once again became the main issue of political and journalistic debates.
The article by a well-known Armenian journalist Igor Mouradian (considered to be one of the most well-informed experts in Armenia) published recently in a Yerevan newspaper "Golos Armenii" ("The Voice of Armenia") seems to be quite interesting in this context.
This political scientist suggests that the current situation around the Nagorno-Karabakh problem "the starting point of the development of this political process may be clearly determined". Approximately in mid-autumn 1999 the USA Secretary of State Madeline Albright demanded the corresponding solutions of the Karabakh problem from the responsible divisions of the U.S. State Department. However they failed to elaborate a realistic settlement project. Later various U.S. analytical and expert institutions were entrusted with the development of such a project. Yet this resulted merely in a number of individual expert evaluations and characteristics of the situation. Both pro-Armenian and pro-Jewish analysts and experts participated in this project. The most realistic project (according to the U.S. State Department) was suggested by the former ambassador of the USA in Armenia Harry Gilmore. Nowadays he is collaborating in an educational institution of the Foreign Service. His project is tightly connected with the top-priority regulation of the problem of Turkish-Armenian relations, probably because Harry Gilmore was working on Turkish problems for a long time. His idea is the following one: two key problems dominate in South Caucasus: the relations between Russia and Georgia and between Turkey and Armenia. The policies of the U.S. and Western community should be directed to increase the distance between Russia and Georgia by rendering the latter one necessary political and financial assistance. At the same time the regulation of Armenian-Turkish relations is the key aim to be achieved by the U.S. and NATO in order to gain control over the South Caucasian region. According to H. Gilmore (and probably his co-authors) the Karabakh problem is merely a derivative of the problematic relations between Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan and should be examined in their context.
Mouradian notes in his article that this American project includes following ideas:
1. Nagorno-Karabakh cannot be returned to Azerbaijan.
2. Nagorno-Karabakh cannot exist as an enclave, thus the neighboring territories of Lachin region have to be annexed to it in order to provide communication with Armenia.
3. Lack of effectiveness of all other approaches to this problem since neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan is ready to agree to such methods of conflict regulation.
4. The elaboration of a fundamental approach to the conflict settlement based on the use of open institutional communication corridors between Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as arriving at agreements concerning the development of economic relations up to mutual political recognition.
5. The mentioned communication corridors are to be controlled by limited military corps of the USA, Turkey, France, Greece, Norway and other NATO countries.
6. Following communication corridors are to be created: Kars-Gyumri-Kazakh, Kars-Eraskh-Nakhichevan-Megri-Alyat-Baku, Nakhichevan-Lachin-Stepanakert-Evlakh. These routs may still be subject to change.
7. Agreements regarding coexistence as well as political and economical integration of the three states under consideration are to be based on economic collaboration and assistance of the USA and European Union.
8. All existing and planned methods of settlement of this conflict may be viewed as secondary in relation to this project, which should be considered a primary conceptual instrument.
Thus, the Armenian expert summarizes: this project concerns above all the possible solutions of economic problems of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey. There is no doubt that Armenia is considered the party most interested in unblocking the communications. The project also proposes forcing out Russia from the Southern Caucasus and taking the relations of the countries of this region with Iran under control. According to Mouradian this plan of the State Department also proposes the creation of a system of conflict regulation and coexistence and may be understood as an experiment in resolving similar problems. The project was started in autumn 1999 and developed through diplomatic channels in 2000. It should be noted that the U.S. practically did not try to propagate or popularize it. Actually, the project did not extend beyond rather private political contacts. However it may be stated that the political leadership and diplomatic services of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NQR) did not fully grasp the significance of this project. To some it seemed that it was a matter of some private project aimed at improving the relations between the conflicting parties. The role reserved for Turkey in this project was underestimated too.
In view of the mentioned aims the U.S. should determine the place of Armenia in its foreign policy strategy.
The Yerevani political scientist notes that the present position of Armenia seems to be quite similar to that of Syria in the Middle East. Having no significant universal resources and taking up a vulnerable geopolitical position, Syria keeps on playing a key role in the region due to diversified many-sided policies asserting the interests of the Arab world and preserving its status of a leading regional military power. Leading Arab states, the U.S., EU, Russia and Iran are fighting for gaining influence on Syria. Similarly, understanding that Armenia the only country in Southern Caucasus able to develop high technologies and maintain an efficient army as well as receiving aid simultaneously from the West and the East, the U.S. try to "reserve" Armenia for the foreseeable future. The fact that 1.5 million American Armenians are law-abiding and integrated part of the American nation is very important for the U.S. As a result, any strong political or economical pressure on Armenia is unacceptable for the U.S.
According to Mouradian, the Gilmore project is practically deactualized today and seems to be a reserve variant. In his opinion this is due to the fact that the U.S. are not inclined to intervene actively with South Caucasian conflicts, since America does not regard them as dangerous for its own geostrategic and geoeconomic aims and general aims and goals of the new republican U.S. administration.
According to Mouradian's forecasts the new American administration intends above all to advance the interests of American corporations basing the judgments of acceptability of various political regimes and situations only on the interests of national security (including adequate provision of resources, military, operative, financial and informational security). Right-wing Republican ideologists increasingly confident in taking up the leading positions in the party hold up as a model the successes of German and French economic expansion with no costs of maintaining political presence in Central Asia, Iran and Middle East. In accordance with this foreign political ideology the U.S. work for decreasing slightly the level of its responsibility in Central Asia and seem to be considering similar policy variants for South Caucasus.
According to Mouradian, as to South Caucasus so far there are no signs of realization of such an ideology of foreign policy. He notes, that "decreasing the level of responsibility" should be only interpreted as participation in the maintenance of security, not as political and informational presence. Further in the article he assumes that the U.S. does not intend to abandon these regions since they are considered to have rich resources of energy and raw materials.
In this connection it should be noted that recently George W. Bush suggested in a phone talk to Jaques Chirac to work towards settlement of the Karabakh conflict. Mouradian states: the fact that France acknowledged the 1915 genocide allows the U.S. to effect a more flexible policy regarding Turkey. The U.S. are willing to acknowledge the 1915 genocide and thus to create together with the European Union the conditions for controlling Turkey. This would make Turkey recognize the settlement of relations with Armenia as necessary thus resolving the Karabakh problem.
In Mouradian's opinion the activities of OSCE, and above all of the Minsk group, are rather useless or even harmful for the USA. He writes: The Americans hold that OSCE activities involve certain elements of corruption. Generally, the U.S. does not accept the "common European politics" as such. If OSCE will resolve the Karabakh conflict or similar problems raising the authority of this organization would let the Europeans (especially France and Germany) insist on the development of European atlantism. In this connection the Gilmore project seems to an instrument of balancing the "common European politics".
According to Mouradian, the suggestion made by Bush to Chirac may be pointing towards destroying any European political dialogue construction aimed at settling the Karabakh conflict and towards demonstrating to Europe the futility of any compromise settlement leaving out the new state of facts created in the process of war in case of such conflicts. In this context we may assume that the projects of territorial exchange will get to the foreground again, the projects allowing territorial unity of Azerbaijan would be completely discredited, though.
It should be noted that the model of the so-called "common state" was suggested not by the Europeans but by Americans - Edward Jerijian and Peter Rosenblatt (E.Jerijian is a Republican ideologist, specializing on Middle East and conflict resolution). This model practically allowed the U.S. to drag out the settlement process and undermine the OSCE initiatives. Now France is very successful in aviation and other high-tech markets and actually gains control over the largest Caspian oil deposit in Tenghiz by buying British Petroleum shares. It also leads in oil and gas extraction in Southern Iran. France and Germany are extremely interested in transporting Iranian gas to Europe. The governments and largest banks of France and Germany are working on a project of a continental Iran - Armenia - Georgia - Black Sea - Ukraine - Europe gas pipe. Despite the presence of the Iranian factor, the U.S. is interested in decreasing the dependence of Europe on Russia in energy matters. Liberalisation of gas prices in Europe will raise them, which will make the usage of Iranian gas profitable. In this context France as a pilot of a common European politics is quite interested in guaranteeing security in Armenia and Georgia since these two countries are the most vulnerable transit sections of the pipe route. (The usual pipe capacity of such pipelines is approx. 75 billion m3. Today the countries of the European Union consume 500 billion m3 of gas, 124 billion m3 come from Russia.)
Based on these geoeconomic conditions OSCE may suggest to Armenia certain variants of concessions in Nagorno-Karabakh in exchange to economic benefits. The settlement principles proclaimed by Kocharian in Strasbourg take into account the outlooks of Karabakh problem. These principles include yielding to Azerbaijan the territories taken in 1993-94, abolition of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh and Lachin region to Armenia. The principles of "equal subjects" and "international guarantees" declared by Kocharian have to do more with the "common state" model, which nowadays may be perceived only as propaganda.
At the same time the Yerevani expert writes that Russia keeps on participating more or less actively in the settlement of the Karabakh problem. At this stage all interested powers apart from Iran face the problem of the unsettled Karabakh conflict. All powers understand that this problem is not politically adjustable. In Mouradian's opinion no Armenian leader would dare to cede territories in the absence of military actions. Indeed, "has an unfinished war ever led to a stable and long-lasting peace?" asks the Armenian expert. He notes that here we come to a paradox: two powers most interested in Nagorno-Karabakh as a geopolitical and geostrategic element - Russia and the USA - under certain circumstances may be interested in renewing military actions there. Only these two powers are able to operate geostrategic "bases" in this region. Neither Europe nor Turkey or Iran are able to operate these "bases". The political relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey in the context of the Karabakh conflict are a serious problem for the U.S. and Russia. Yet it is quite clear to these powers, just like to the rest of the world including Turkey, that Azerbaijan will have to face the lost of Karabakh. In Mouradian's opinion now it is necessary to convince Azerbaijan of it. Further he notes that in this case a war would be the most effective method. "Yet no two wars are completely alike. As consequence of a war, which is inevitable according to this settlement idea, the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia should demonstrate to their nations the actual state of affairs, the true possibilities and level of passion and organization of their nations. I.e. - everyone gets what he deserves.
However, if the Armenian army will manage to keep the actual position in Karabakh, Geidar Aliev's clan may just lose power. In this case for the Azerbaijani society there will be no strong evidence that it was impossible to win in the war. This may end in a five or even ten years long armistice, yet the problem will not be solved. Therefore strong evidence is needed."
So, according to Mouradian, Azerbaijan has to make certain progress yet suffering serious losses. These losses have to be significant enough to make Azerbaijani people beg of their government and the global society for putting an end to the war. The Armenian leadership will also get the needed arguments when the Armenian army will retreat on certain sectors of the front (according to a prearrangement). It will be an "objective surrender". One should note that for the Armenian political elite the idea of an "objective settlement of the Karabakh problem" is not new. Consequently, Russia will hope for a continued conflict in Karabakh, which will keep on glowing on a lower scale, though. This will allow Russia to normalize the relations with Azerbaijan with an opposition between Armenia and Azerbaijan remaining.
"After a failed visit of Putin to Baku this idea of "military settlement" might be set afoot. Yet there is no doubt that in this case Russia will lose in the end. The Us will take complete control of Armenia and set up a strict system of "coexistence" in the region. According to Mouradian this would mean the "end of Armenian history". He adds that today there are no agreements between Russia and the U.S. or NATO as to the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. Such an arrangement may only exist in the context of general agreements on certain regions - above all Central Asia and Caucasus. To date there is only a verbal agreement of limited effect regarding the problems of terrorism and extremism in Central Asia.
"A question arises: which characteristics of the current domestic situation in Armenia could contribute to the realization of this project, so similar to a "plot against the nation"? There is no doubt that foreign politics makes certain progress. This progress is not as significant as interesting in the context of the possible outlooks, especially interesting if one takes into account the lack of financial means for foreign politics and propaganda. At the same time the country is facing a rather strange situation: foreign policy is concentrated in the hands of two people - the president Robert Kocharian and the Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian. This is quite understandable. In Armenia there are no due regime conditions and it is obvious that there is a leak somewhere.
Several Armenian political parties including the ones represented in the parliament maintain close relations with foreign representatives and probably - secret services as well. Armenia is practically a "secret address" for the interested powers. Every retired prime minister becomes either radical or moderate oppositionist. The parliament including the speaker seems to be a parody on the state structure. The law-enforcement organs have no well-balanced staff structure. In this context confidentiality and concentration of foreign political information in the hands of few is necessary. However, not in the hands of just two people. This situation is fraught with serious trouble, first of all, for these two people.
We have witnessed a serial provocation including the "surrender" of the Megri wedge, cession of the territories in Karabakh etc. Thinking that Armenia's position in foreign politics is now strengthened would be a mistake. The nation suffers enormous moral losses.
Above all it concerns the future defenders of Armenia. Today the largest part of the problems in the domestic political situation is due to the complete ignorance of the people responsible for the security of the country and the destiny of Nagorno-Karabakh. It turns out that sharing responsibility including risking one's life is allowed, while being informed is not. So far we are only talking about the informal side of the matter. However this style of R.Kocharian's approach to foreign policy will obviously lead to a serious scandal, possibly to a significant civil opposition."
So according to Mouradian, the interested powers, mainly the U.S., European Union and Russia agreed on the fact that Karabakh cannot be returned to Azerbaijan. Compromises including the model of a "common state", package and stepwise settlement are not realistic. Neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan will accept these models. According to Mouradian for Europe the annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, abolition of The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and the cession of other territories to Azerbaijan seems to be the most realistic variant.
"Today America prefers to be isolated and to observe the failures of Russian and European politics, fearing at the same time that the military actions according to the Russian scenario could be renewed. The U.S. would prefer the notion of changing the configuration of the national borders taking into consideration geostrategic interests and outlooks. Unfortunately Iran has lost its positions both in Armenia and Azerbaijan. Thus any model includes the cession of the territories occupied in 1993-1994. However at the same time certain signs indicate that Armenian leadership is ready to face the developing events." According to Mouradian "practical "isolation" of the political leadership of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic from the real political process, staff transfers in the armed forces of NQR and the fact that competent officers are transferred to Armenia, the instructions to charity organizations and local administrations recommending not to build any economic objects on the "liberated" territories indicate the intentions of the political leadership of Armenia". He claims that the "liquidation of the post of the president of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic may indicate to Azerbaijan and the rest of the world that Armenia is ready to agree on groundless compromises". Further he notes that in this context political leaders of Nagorno-Karabakh "get the real chance to spearhead the Armenian nationalistic political powers and exert a significant influence on the army".
(C) 2001 Transcaspian Project
Azerbaijan interested in settling Karabakh conflict
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 10, 2001
Text of report in English by Russian news agency Interfax
Baku, 10 July: Azerbaijan said today that it expected the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, who have begun a visit to the southern Caucasus, to come up with proposals on settling the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
However, "the Azerbaijani side has not yet been informed that the co-chairmen are preparing any new proposal", Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Vilayat Quliyev said.
Commenting on prospects for a meeting between the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia, Quliyev said: "There are several problems that need to be solved for [such a] meeting in Geneva to take place."
"If Yerevan demonstrates a constructive attitude and is ready for compromise on issues essential for negotiations, then one will naturally be able to speak about the dates for a Geneva meeting," he said.
Source: Interfax news agency, Moscow, in English 1508 gmt 10 Jul 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Foreign minister dismisses Azeri charges of "terrorist groups" in Karabakh
################################################################
HL NOTE: The following news articles ignore such basic facts that:
1) Karabakh region of Azerbaijan was, is, and will remain to be a
legitimate part of the Azerbaijan Republic;
2) Karabakh, and seven other regions are illegally occupied by
the Republic of Armenia, the aggressor;
3) That the puppet leaders and regime(s) of some self-proclaimed "NKR"
entity are recognized by no state and lack any legitimacy whatsoever.
Further, the Stalin imposed name of Stepanakert in 1923, is invalid and
the historic name of the city, Khankandi, has been restored since
Azerbaijan's re-establishment of independence.
################################################################
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 10, 2001
Nagornyy Karabakh Foreign Minister Naira Melkumyan has challenged Azerbaijan to prove its claims that terrorist groups are operating in the disputed region and said calls for an "anti-terrorist" operation against Karabakh were echoing Russia's description of its military actions in Chechnya. She said she did not think the Azerbaijani army was capable of going to war and winning back Karabakh, but said that bellicose talk in Azerbaijan threatened the peace talks with deadlock. Melkumyan said Karabakh wanted independence and discussion of the recent adoption by the Russian parliament of a law on states and territorial units joining the Russian Federation was not on the Karabakh agenda. The following is text of Tatul Akopyan report by Armenian newspaper Azg on 10 July entitled "If Azerbaijan thinks that there are terrorist groups in the NKR [Nagornyy Karabakh Republic], let it prove that":
An interview with NKR Foreign Minister Naira Melkumyan
The international mediators of the OSCE Minsk Group are arriving today in the Nagornyy Karabakh capital, Stepanakert. Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Trubnikov, who said he wanted to see the town of Shushi [Susa], is coming on his first visit to Karabakh. What is Nagornyy Karabakh expecting from this visit? Let us listen to what Karabakh Foreign Minister Naira Melkumyan has to say:
[Naira Melkumyan] It looks as though the Minsk Group cochairmen have analysed recent developments and have apparently found some common points for consideration. We expect from them answers to the questions we sent them when they met in Malta. I believe the Minsk Group cochairmen treat responsibly the processes associated with Karabakh regulation. I mean, in particular, the mood in Azerbaijan, which we believe could have irrevocable consequences, primarily for Azerbaijan itself. I also think that crossing the contact line from Karabakh to Azerbaijan will be of symbolic significance. Of course, our borders are very strong, but we are willing to resolve the conflict exclusively through peace talks.
[Azg correspondent] Mrs. Melkumyan, one gets the impression that the regulation process is deadlocked. There are some points proposed by the cochairmen which are rejected by either [Armenian President Robert] Kocharyan or [Azerbaijani President Heydar] Aliyev. The impression is that the conflict is between Armenia and Azerbaijan, while the main party to the conflict, Nagornyy Karabakh is forgotten. Let us imagine that both Kocharyan and Aliyev have agreed upon an option. What about official Stepanakert?
[Melkumyan] The fact that the cochairmen are due to visit the capitals of Armenia, Karabakh and Azerbaijan shows that the conflict has three sides. Of course, the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan are holding very important talks about the principles for regulating the conflict. When the cochairmen prepare new proposals they will be submitted to the three parties, and only after that can we say if the three parties agree to them or not. As regards Azerbaijan's efforts to see two parties to the conflict, ignoring Karabakh, the explanation for this is the weak legal basis of Azerbaijan, which is trying to make 1988 the beginning of the conflict. We have to be careful in presenting the legal basis of the question. If the conflict shows any signs of entering deadlock, though it is early to draw such a conclusion, we shall have to be ready to shift regulation of the issue to another level, a legal level. In such a case we can say for sure we were ready for a political solution, but this was deadlocked and another option, a legal option for peaceful regulation remains.
[Correspondent] The cochairmen's regular visit coincides with turmoil in Azerbaijan and bellicose calls from President Aliyev about launching an "anti-terrorist action". Do you perceive any danger of military actions resuming?
[Melkumyan] By using the term "anti-terrorist actions", the Azeris are repeating what the Russians say about their operations in Chechnya, but they forget that the international community is well aware of the efficiency and combat readiness of the Karabakh armed forces. The Azeris have put themselves in a ridiculous position, "having lost the war to terrorist groups". If Azerbaijan claims that there are terrorist groups in Karabakh, let it try to prove this.
I do not think the Azerbaijani armed forces are capable of resuming military actions today, but the hysteria in Azerbaijan could have serious political after-effects. In the first place people should be prepared for a political solution. The Azerbaijani propaganda machine has launched a campaign to convince the people that Armenians are their historical enemies. All this actually leads to deadlock in the settlement process. We have repeatedly told the international mediators about this.
[Correspondent] The recent law passed by the Russian State Duma allowing other states and territorial units to join the Russian Federation has caused a new wave of anti-Armenian hysteria in Azerbaijan. Georgia's breakaway region of Abkhazia has welcomed it, but official Stepanakert has kept silent.
[Melkumyan] We have declared independence. We believe that in the near future Karabakh will not be ready to give up its gains. As regards the State Duma law, we think there is a logic to it. We should not forget that Russia is the successor to the USSR, and in terms of history it has a political responsibility. I would like to repeat that this question is not on Karabakh's policy agenda. We are not going to give up our independence.
Source: Azg, Yerevan, in Armenian 10 Jul 01 p 1
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Azeri army spokesman says military doctrine
to rely on Turkey
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 10, 2001
Azerbaijani army spokesman Uzeyir Cafarov has said that the country's long-awaited military doctrine will be defensive and reliant on Baku's partnership with Turkey. He said that, unlike Armenia's military doctrine which is based on the Russian model, Azerbaijan will have an original document. Cafarov said that Azerbaijan should use its army to restore its territorial integrity. Following are excerpts from Nuraddin Heydarli report by Azerbaijani newspaper Yeni Azarbaycan on 10 July entitled "Azerbaijan's military doctrine will be defensive and aimed at defending the territorial integrity principle"
Lt-Col Uzeyir Cafarov: "Armenia's military doctrine is based on the Russian formula, but in Azerbaijan this document will be original"
Armenia has announced that its military doctrine, based on the study of 12 states' appropriate documents, including Turkey's, is ready. Only after this did the Azerbaijani media start asking whether Azerbaijan had a military doctrine or not. But such a document has been under preparation in Azerbaijan since long ago. We asked the head of the Defence Ministry's public relations and information department, Lt-Col Uzeyir Cafarov, whether we needed a military doctrine.
[Uzeyir Cafarov] Every independent state in the world needs a military doctrine which defines its attitude towards other countries. A military doctrine outlines a country's military objectives. This includes the protection of territorial integrity, cooperation with neighbouring countries in the economic, military and other fields. I believe that a key role in our military doctrine will be given to Turkey. Moreover, we maintain good relations with Pakistan, Ukraine and Georgia.
[Passage omitted: foundations for Azerbaijani military doctrine drawn up in 1992]
[Correspondent] The revival of discussions of Azerbaijan's military doctrine coincide with statements by the Armenian side. Is there a parallel between them?
[Uzeyir Cafarov] First of all, those who are looking for a link are wrong. Azerbaijan's military doctrine has always been on an agenda, it is not something of today or yesterday or a statement issued a couple of days ago by Armenia. It is pure coincidence that the public remembered Azerbaijan's military doctrine after the Armenian report.
[Correspondent] Armenia has studied the military doctrines of 12 states while preparing its own. How many and which states' documents will Azerbaijan analyse?
[Cafarov] We shall indicate in this document what is appropriate for Azerbaijan. The Russian military doctrine is the basis for Armenia regardless of the number of documents studied by Armenia. This country has always relied on Russia in all matters and the Russian military doctrine was taken as basis when this issue surfaced. Azerbaijan will draw up a progressive military doctrine, appropriate to our state and its public and strategic line. I do not think that either a Turkish or a Pakistani or a doctrine of a state close to us will be chosen. This will be an originally Azerbaijani doctrine.
[Correspondent] Will a course towards NATO be highlighted?
[Cafarov] Generally, the Azerbaijani top brass have never hidden that our army is gradually being brought to NATO standards. Everything has changed. We participate more in NATO events than in the Commonwealth of Independent States' joint exercises. Our armed forces attended 200 NATO events last year and this year this number will also be about 200. These figures indicate that Azerbaijan mainly attended the events of world states. This certainly sheds light on many issues.
[Correspondent] Will Russia be irritated if NATO is given priority in our military doctrine?
[Cafarov] I do not believe that Russia will be annoyed, but let it become irritated if it so wishes. This neighbouring state has also taken steps annoying to us. As Azerbaijan respects Russian-approved documents, the opposite side is also under the obligation to do the same. My position is let bygones be bygones. Azerbaijan, like Russia, is an equal member of the UN and is recognized by the world's states. Therefore, Azerbaijani-approved documents should not only be respected by Russia but by all states. Our military doctrine will be very likely be a defensive doctrine. We have declared at the state level that we have no territorial claims against other states. We think about the restoration of our territories and sovereignty. If Azerbaijan faces a threat, our state will implement certain measures with the help of its allies. This will be the basis of our military doctrine.
[Correspondent] What is the difference between defensive and offensive doctrines?
[Cafarov] Offensive doctrine stipulate certain moments for future acts. However, we can openly show in our military doctrine that we have claims against Armenia and the basis of our claim is the Nagornyy Karabakh problem which has not been resolved so far. The document may contain a point that Azerbaijan is free to resort to all measures at international level until it restores its territorial integrity. Military operations should also not be ruled out. This is not only Azerbaijan's desire but is also allowed by the UN Security Council resolutions.
The defensive doctrine stipulates that Azerbaijan keeps an army to defend itself should the need arise. That means that we are compelled to take retaliatory measures.
[Passage omitted: Armenian military doctrine has Turkey as its opponent]
[Correspondent] Uzeyir muallim [mode of address], which bodies are responsible for drawing up the military doctrine?
[Cafarov] The doctrine, as an important document, should be drawn up by all the power-wielding bodies.
[Passage omitted: all proposals to be sent to Defence Ministry]
[Correspondent] The Armenian side says our army is over 100,000-strong and perceives this as a threat. Are they guessing or does Armenia have the opportunity to obtain details?
[Cafarov] While speaking about this issue, one should bear in mind the inspections of these states' armies by international inspectors. They possess information about the numerical strength of the armed forces, ammunition, hardware and so on. That is to say, they are free to inspect whichever military unit they like . They want to discredit Azerbaijan at the international level. It is not beneficial for any country to keep extra forces. Armenia's armed forces number 60,000 despite the fact that they claim that they have 40,000 troops.
[Passage omitted: Russia supplies Armenia with weapons and ammunition]
Justice is on our side. Weapons do not play a significant role in war. The human factor and training play a key role.
At that time [in 1990s] our army was fighting and building itself. We did not have the chance to learn and apply our knowledge in practice. During the cease-fire, we conducted exercises and training and tested our abilities in practice. These are indicators of events to come. The Armenians are concerned that Azerbaijan will apply force to restore its territorial integrity. As a self-respecting state we should settle this issue. We have an army and it should be used for its purpose.
Source: Yeni Azarbaycan, Baku, in Azeri 10 Jul 01 p 4
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Azeri observer says no new proposal on Karabakh will suit Russia
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 11, 2001
11 July, Sarq correspondent F. Huseynzada: The OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen, as well as Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Trubnikov who joined them, are coming to Baku today as part of their latest visit to the conflict region. They had meetings with the Armenian leadership yesterday. Prior to their visit to Baku today they are also to have meetings with the leadership of the unrecognized Nagornyy Karabakh Republic and to take part in OSCE monitoring [of the contact line].
It is worth noting that, according to Armenian media reports, during their meetings with Armenian officials the cochairmen described Armenia's stance in the negotiating process as constructive. The Azerbaijani political scientist Rasim Musabayov believes that this positive characterisation of Armenia's stance should be regarded cautiously because "logically, where the Armenian stance is described as positive, the stance of Azerbaijan as the opposing country should be described as non-constrictive".
At the same time, the cochairmen noted how complex their meeting with Armenian President Robert Kocharyan had been. According to them, this shows "how difficult resolution of this conflict is". As has been reported, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Vilayat Quliyev has once again linked slow progress towards a peaceful settlement of the conflict with the Armenian side's unwillingness to agree to compromises. Given this factor, Musabayov did not rule out that after their visit to Baku the cochairmen would return to Yerevan to continue talks with the Armenian leadership.
As for the Russian deputy foreign minister, who has frequently joined negotiations, the political scientist suggested that Trubnikov's participation shows Russia's desire to seize the initiative in the negotiating process. "If the issue of the cochairmen putting forward a new proposal drags on, there is a possibility that Moscow will come up with its own proposal," Musabayov said.
In the political scientist's opinion, the likelihood that the cochairmen have brought a new proposal this time, is low enough. "Before giving their new proposal a complete form, the cochairmen will have to carry out major work on many aspects which cause serious disagreements between the opposing sides," he said.
In any case, as Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Vilayat Quliyev said yesterday, Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev will never go for a "capitulatory peace", nor will the Azerbaijani people itself ever put up with such peace.
[passage omitted: Azerbaijani and Armenian leaders might meet in early August in Sochi, observers say]
Source: Sarq news agency, Baku, in Russian 1147 gmt 11 Jul 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Threat to Armenia as Russia and West vie for position in Caucasus
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 10, 2001
Armenian President Robert Kocharyan could soon face a tough decision as a likely Russian proposal to formalize in a new treaty closer economic ties between Russia and Armenia would antagonize the West were he to agree to it, or antagonize Russia and pro-Russian forces in Armenia were he to decline. The West, particularly the USA, is pursuing a deliberate policy of trying to exclude Russia from the Caucasus. It is even cultivating the idea of a greater Iranian role, particularly in the Karabakh settlement, as it believes Russia guards its position in the region so jealously that any suggestion of another country playing a greater role could put paid to any Russian-Iranian rapprochement. All this makes Armenia's position difficult, particularly in the run-up to Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit in September. The following is text of K. Sarkisyan report by Armenian newspaper Iravunk on 10 July entitled "Is Armenia facing the threat of isolation?":
Official Tbilisi, under pressure from the West, has recently been trying to get rid of the Russian bases deployed on the republic's territory as quickly as possible, including the bases in Akhalkalak - an area with a predominantly Armenian population. These bases are an important guarantee of security. More and more developments like this are taking place in the Transcaucasus, particularly at the present time, ahead of [Russian President] Vladimir Putin's September visit to Armenia.
According to rumours, the Russian president intends to suggest to the Armenian side that it discusses the draft of a new Armenian-Russian economic treaty, which would mean Armenia's energy and military industrial systems being reoriented towards Russia.
This leaves Armenian President Robert Kocharyan in an extremely difficult position: the Armenian president would come under unforeseen pressure from the West if he were to accept the Russian proposal. However, by refusing it Kocharyan would become a target for criticism from the large pro-Russian population and certain political forces, with all the domestic political consequences this would entail. Moreover, Moscow would exert much more economic pressure on Armenia by reducing energy supplies and demanding repayment of Armenia's debt.
The process of forcing Russia out of the Transcaucasus undertaken by the West is not limited to the quick "recruitment" of Georgia and Azerbaijan. Recently the United States has been making clear moves to counter Moscow and Tehran. Washington clearly understands that the West's presence in the region would be difficult without taking into account Iran's interests. It also understands the full extent of the danger of a possible Iran-Russia alliance, which is growing stronger every day. The Americans also understand that Russia is jealous of all the countries which seek to establish themselves in the region, hence the fact it frequently speaks of the need for Iran to be involved in resolving the Karabakh conflict. For example US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Ross Wilson said on 26 June that Iran's involvement in the Karabakh peace talks was "simply a necessity".
US diplomats also note that the lack of relations between Iran and America will not hamper the mutual cooperation of the two countries in this region. The Wall Street Journal once noted that Washington was conducting an unwise policy towards Tehran. It is sure that the USA's harsh position towards Iran promotes Russian-Iranian rapprochement, whereas a softening of the pressure on Tehran would lead to an improvement in Iranian-American relations, and a strategic partnership in future cannot be ruled out. The USA is today trying to achieve its long-held wish in this way, this time in the context of the Karabakh conflict.
In this case, we can probably expect the Russian side to reciprocate in the near future, as preservation of the status-quo evidently promotes the fulfilment of the West's geopolitical goals. In these conditions, a delay in the creation of the Russia-Armenia-Iran axis is really fraught with serious strategic consequences. Armenia's policy of complimentary relations towards Iran and Russia should ultimately justify itself.
Source: Iravunk, Yerevan, in Armenian 10 Jul 01 p 6
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Improving ties with Armenia depends on Karabakh issue - Turkish deputy premier
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 10, 2001
Ankara, 10 July: Mesut Yilmaz, the deputy prime minister and state minister who is also the leader of the Motherland Party (ANAP), said on Tuesday [10 July] that improvement of Turkish-Armenian relations depended on solution of Nagornyy Karabakh problem.
Murtuz Alasgarov, the Azerbaijani national parliament Speaker, and a delegation accompanying him visited Yilmaz...
Yilmaz said the most correct expression defining between the two countries was "One nation, two states". He stressed that Baku-Ceyhan project was an important project which will link the two countries in economic means, and expressed belief that the two countries will continuously be linked to each other after the project takes effect in 2004.
Yilmaz said: "We have always supported Azerbaijan's membership in the Council of Europe, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and its participation to the Black Sea Economic Cooperation. We will continue the closest cooperation in those platforms from now on. Also, we aim to contribute to the democratic development in Azerbaijan."
Yilmaz said Turkey extends support to the efforts carried out under the leadership of Heydar Aliyev to find a lasting solution to Nagornyy Karabakh problem through peaceful methods. He said Turkey continuously gives the message to Armenia that "the way that leads to the improvement of Turkish-Armenian relations is solution of Nagornyy Karabakh problem".
"Turkey-Azerbaijan relations have a great potential. The duty of the administrators of the two countries is to activate this potential in the coming period. Turkey will do its best in this respect. I think, our Azerbaijani brothers will be in the same understanding to evaluate this big potential."
The Azerbaijani delegation also visited Devlet Bahceli, the State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, who also acts as the leader of the Nationalist Action Party (MHP).
Source: Anatolia news agency, Ankara, in English 1044 gmt 10 Jul 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
TURKEY- ARMENIA PEACE COMMISSION ESTABLISHED
For the first time after many years, Turks and Armenians will come
together to take up so-called genocide allegations and also create a base to
handle with projects to help the rapprochment of both nations. With the
initiatives of five Turkish and Armenian volunteers, a commission including former diplomats, historians, jurists and psychologists was formed. The
members of the commission convened in Geneva yesterday, for the third time, to
discuss new projects to establish a dialogue between the two countries.
Source:Milliyet Newspaper/Turkey
ARMENIAN, TURKISH REPRESENTATIVES CREATE UNOFFICIAL RECONCILIATION COMMISSION...
Following months of confidential talks, Armenian and Turkish
representatives reached agreement in Vienna on 9 July on setting up a
Reconciliation Commission, RFE/RL's Yerevan bureau reported the following
day, citing "The New York Times." The aim of the commission is to foster
cooperation and communication leading to direct talks between the two
governments, which do not at present have formal diplomatic relations.
Members of the 10-person commission include former Armenian Foreign
Minister Alexander Arzoumanian and Andranik Migranian, who served as an
adviser to former Russian President Boris Yeltsin. LF
...AS TURKISH DEPUTY PREMIER REITERATES PRECONDITIONS FOR IMPROVED RELATIONS
Meeting in Ankara on 10 July with an Azerbaijani parliament delegation
headed by speaker Murtuz Alesqerov, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister and
Motherland party Chairman Mesut Yilmaz said that an improvement in
Turkey's relations with Armenia depends on finding a solution to the
Karabakh conflict, according to Anatolia News Agency and the "Turkish
Daily News," as cited by Groong on 10 July. Turkish Prime Minister Bulent
Ecevit recently listed as preconditions for establishing formal diplomatic
relations the withdrawal of Armenian forces from occupied Azerbaijani
territory and the creation of a corridor across Armenian territory linking
Azerbaijan and its exclave of Nakhichevan (see "RFE/RL Caucasus Report,"
Vol. 4, No. 21, 7 June 2001 and "RFE/RL Newsline," 14 June 2001). LF
MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS VISIT ARMENIA, NAGORNO-KARABAKH
Russian First Deputy Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Trubnikov and the French
and U.S. co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group met for 2 1/2 hours in
Yerevan on 10 July with Armenian President Robert Kocharian and Foreign
Minister Vartan Oskanian to discuss approaches to resolving the Karabakh
conflict, Noyan Tapan and RFE/RL's Yerevan bureau reported. U.S.
co-chairman Carey Cavanaugh told journalists that the talks focussed on
possible "refinements" of ideas discussed during earlier talks in Paris in
March and Florida in April. He told RFE/RL there is no timeframe set for
reaching an agreement on resolving the conflict, but AFP quoted Oskanian
as saying that he hopes one can be reached by the end of this year.
Oskanian also said that "the general framework is pretty much in place,"
and if the differences between the Armenian and Azerbaijani positions can
be resolved, then a further meeting between President Kocharian and his
Azerbaijani counterpart Heidar Aliev could take place in Geneva. But
Interfax on 10 July quoted Azerbaijan's Foreign Minister Vilayat Quliev as
saying that a meeting between the two presidents is contingent on Armenia
abandoning its "unconstructive" attitude which, he claimed, had brought
the peace process to a halt. The three mediators also had what Cavanaugh
termed a "very useful" meeting with Armenian Defense Minister and National
Security Council Chairman Serzh Sarkisian, who reaffirmed Armenia's
intention to abide by the cease-fire signed in 1994, according to
Mediamax. They then traveled to Stepanakert for talks with the leadership
of the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. LF
RFE/RL Transcaucasia Newsline, July 11, 2001
Azeri paper expands on Russia's role in aggravation of regional conflicts
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 9, 2001
Russia has the potential to manipulate many situations in the Caucasus region to bring into line states like Azerbaijan and Georgia, which are reluctant to fall in with Russia's plans for maintaining its influence in the region, the Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo has said. Russia has failed to maintain its influence through economic measures. Moscow could, however, capitalize on the latest belligerent talk in Azerbaijan about Karabakh to cast Baku in the role of aggressor in the eyes of the international community, it could exploit the deteriorating relations between the Chechen and Azerbaijani leaders, exacerbate tension for ethnic Azeris in Georgia or use the Turkmen-Azerbaijani dispute about Caspian offshore oilfields. The possible consequences of all these scenarios are very bad for Azerbaijan, and could leave Russia in a position of stepping in to act as "peacemaker". The following is excerpt from R. Mirqadirov report by Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo on 7 July entitled "Russia starts..."
As it has lots of options to "punish" Azerbaijan
Today, nobody in Baku doubts that Russia has essentially worked out its well-defined foreign policy doctrine setting the course for this country's behaviour throughout the former USSR, especially in the South Caucasus. In two words, the essence of this doctrine is that except for the three Baltic states, all the other CIS member countries must stay in Russia's sphere of influence.
Bit the trouble with it, i.e. the doctrine, is that not all CIS countries, including Azerbaijan and Georgia, are willing to stay within Russia's sphere of influence. These countries have defined their foreign policy priorities, which do not conform to Russia's plans.
Everything would be fine if Russia used only economic levers as the main tool to achieve its foreign policy goals given that both Azerbaijan and Georgia, like all former Soviet states, need economic support. After all, what difference does it make to Azerbaijan and Georgia where financial injections into their economy come from - the Kremlin or the White House. Both have the same strategic goals. But it is better not to annoy the "Russian bear" which is a lot closer than Uncle Sam.
[passage omitted: Russia failed to make use of purely economic ties to keep CIS countries in its sphere of influence]
The Karabakh card again
Strange as it may seem, Russia might take advantage of the fact that many in Azerbaijan have currently started talking about the need for a military solution to the Karabakh issue. Russia might take advantage of this to destabilize the situation in the region. Frequent cease-fire violations by Armenia and acts of provocation on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, which have cost human lives, make this more than realistic.
The reason is that due to the absence of permanent observers on the troops' contact line it is practically impossible to determine precisely who fired the first shot in the case of hostilities resuming. Recently Armenia has been accusing Azerbaijan of encouraging military hysteria. So, in ideological terms, the international community is ready to see Azerbaijan as the culprit should military actions resume on the Karabakh front.
But it should be pointed out that most politicians in Baku, at least opposition ones, say that Azerbaijan is not yet ready to liberate the occupied territories militarily. It is difficult to say how true this is, but should there be further defeats on the front, Azerbaijan runs the risk not only of losing more of its territory (and Russia will unconditionally help Armenia), but also of appearing as the "culprit" in this situation in the eyes of the international community.
[passage omitted: former Russian OSCE Minsk Group cochairman Vladimir Kazimirov recently put forward his own option for a staged settlement of the Karabakh conflict]
New centres of separatism and the Islamic factor
Russia also has a reliable ally - Iran - to implement several modifications of this option.
The adoption by the State Duma of a law regulating how whole states or parts of states can join the Russian Federation is a step providing political support for centrifugal tendencies in Azerbaijan. But what is currently going on in Azerbaijan's northern districts is already concrete actions. Nobody is really taking seriously statements by the power-wielding [defence, interior and national security ministries] structures that Interior Ministry troops were sent to this region just to catch a few armed criminals.
For a long time Russia used the Lezgin organization Sadval to stimulate separatism in the north of Azerbaijan. But now, a majority of the most active Sadval members have allegedly been arrested, some even physically removed, and the organization itself has been practically outlawed in Russia.
But, as informed sources have reported, most Sadval members are continuing their activity in northern districts of Azerbaijan using "the cover of religion", i.e. as Wahhabis.
In addition, [Russian President Vladimir] Putin has managed to completely spoil relations between the leaders of Azerbaijan and Chechnya, where Wahhabi positions are strong. It is also no secret that there are quite a few Russian special services agents both among Wahhabis and in other Chechen groupings.
So, Wahhabis allegedly pushed by Chechens might start "a war" against Azerbaijan for its "betrayal". Russian special services will "have nothing to do with this". On the contrary, Russia will blame the Azerbaijani leadership, which until recently made no secret of its warm attitude to Chechens, and call for a joint fight against "terrorists". In reality, this will mean a demand for Azerbaijan's integration into CIS military structures or even worse - the introduction of its troops here.
Then, Russia together with Iran might destabilize the situation in both the south of our country and the capital. One should not forget that [former prosecutor of Baku's Xatai district accused of March 1995 coup attempt] Mahir Cavadov found shelter in Iran, and just recently the establishment of an initiative group of the "Talis-Mugan Republic" was announced in Moscow.
But the worst might happen in Baku. Both Wahhabis and radical groupings controlled by Iran have started intensive activities in Baku. It is not just that (as events in other countries have shown) both are fanatics and are not particularly fussy about their methods of struggle. In addition to all this, these currents of Islam are ultimately hostile towards each other. And it is no problem for the Russian and Iranian special services to organize armed cashes between the supporters of these currents of Islam in the Azerbaijani capital. It is no problem for them to arm 500 people on both sides. And in the lives of Baku civilians this is no minor thing in a "big geopolitical game".
Relations between Azerbaijan and Georgia can be spoilt
Recently there have been more frequent acts of provocation with regard to Azerbaijanis in Georgia. Georgian officials have no real interest in events developing in this way, in fact the contrary... [ellipsis as given]
But what is happening then? In unofficial conversations Georgian officials openly admit that the authorities are already losing control of the situation in this country. And it is a mere trifle for Russian special services to organize several more killings of Azerbaijanis in Georgia. The reaction of the Azerbaijani side, most probably also "organized" by the Russian special services, will come immediately. What you have here is a conflict between Azerbaijan and Georgia.
Yes, the latest events in Georgia's Bolnisi District are crimes which cannot be justified. But at the same time, it is no coincidence that "gazetasng.ru", which has always been regarded as practically a mouthpiece of the Kremlin, pays such a lot of attention to these tragic events... [ellipsis as given]
The Caspian against Azerbaijan
At first glance, Russia currently has no disagreements on the status of the Caspian with Azerbaijan or other interested states. Moscow has allegedly found common ground in this issue will all the Caspian states.
This is understandable. Considering the huge oil reserves existing in Russia itself, one can confidently assume that Caspian [oil and gas] fields do not interest Moscow much from an economic point of view. But at the same time, the status of the Caspian and the related fate of offshore fields is one of the tools allowing Moscow to exert pressure on the region's countries, first of all "disobedient" Azerbaijan.
In this case, at first glance it is not Russia which is rocking the boat, but Turkmenistan, with its capricious president Turkmenbashi, who is even ready to use force to "prove" his country's right to disputed Caspian fields. And it is no secret to anybody that "Turkmenbashi" [head of Turkmens] remains "bashi" only thanks to support from Russia.
So, de jure Russia is not present in all the options considered above, but de facto it plays the most active part. In this way, Moscow reserves the right to act every time in future as a "peacemaker" in the settlement of another centre of tension that it created itself... [ellipsis as published]
Source: Zerkalo, Baku, in Russian 7 Jul 01 pp 9,10
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Party leader wants Azeris to give Armenia corridor to Russia
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 9, 2001
Text of report by Armenian news agency Snark
Yerevan, 7 July: Baku must give Armenia a corridor for direct communication with Russia in exchange for the Megri corridor, which Armenia will give to provide Azerbaijan with a connection with Naxcivan if a Karabakh conflict peace agreement is signed. This is what Armenian MP and deputy chairman of the Union of Constitutional Law, Ayk Babukhanyan, said at a news conference today.
He said that the corridor, which would pass through Armenia to connect Azerbaijan with Naxcivan was in fact a direct link between the military and strategic allies - Baku and Ankara. In exchange, Azerbaijan must give Armenia a corridor to connect it with Armenia's military and strategic partner - Russia. The problem of corridors can only be discussed in this context, Babukhanyan said. Nevertheless, he said, the Union of Constitutional Law would never agree to an option envisaging a foreign army's control over the Megri section.
Touching upon the so-called Paris principles for settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, which, in Babukhanyan's opinion, provide for the Megri corridor being given to Azerbaijan in exchange for the Lacin corridor to connect Armenia with Nagornyy Karabakh, Babukhanyan voiced his dissatisfaction with the fact that the content of these principles was not officially made public. In his opinion, secret negotiations in which MPs are not involved will not yield the desired result and will not be capable of guaranteeing a peaceful solution of the conflict.
Source: Snark news agency, Yerevan, in Russian 1325 gmt 7 Jul 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Russians Say Controversial Law Not Directed Against Azerbaijan
YEREVAN (Armenpress)--Heated debates have emerged in Azerbaijan in
response to a law adopted by the Russian State Duma allowing other
countries and territorial units to join the Russian Federation. A senior
Duma official has stated that the adoption of the law was not directed
toward Nagorno Karabakh.
The Russian official said the law refers to the possibility of territorial
units joining the Russian Federation, which have expressed their
willingness to join Russia. He went on by saying that these units do not
necessarily have a common border with Russia, but are nevertheless willing
to join it. The official refrained from disclosing the names of these
territorial units so that international tensions are not raised.
As regards to the Karabakh conflict, "its fate should be solved by the
international community within the context of Armenia-Azerbaijan
relations, but it is also known that the Karabakh conflict is of a
military-political nature," he said on Russian television.
Copyright 2001 Armenpress
AZERBAIJAN WAITING FOR NEW PROPOSALS FROM OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRS
Source:ANS
09.07.01--BAKU--Azerbaijan expects new proposals from the OSCE Minsk Group
co-chairs who are currently paying a new visit to the region. This visit
is the logical continuation of the Key West talks and Baku hopes that the
co-chairs proposals will reflect the demands made by Azerbaijan, said
Vilayat Guliyev, the Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan. Mr Guliyev added the
following: Three months have passed from the last meeting. In this period,
the co-chairs had plenty of time to deal with this conflict. Both sides
have made proposals. I think theyve analyzed the proposals seriously. Its
most likely that they will have some new formulas. It should be noted that
the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs and the personal representative of the OSCE
chairman, Andrzej Kasprszik wont come to Azerbaijan using traditional
ways. They will first visit Armenia and then will pass to Azerbaijan via
occupied territories. Will this non-traditional arrival influence the
course of the negotiations? In his interview with ANS, Mr Guliyev said
that the Armenian side was the main reason why the negotiation process was
slowing down. This is why Baku expects new changes from the opposite sides
position, said the foreign minister. The foreign minister also said that
Azerbaijan was waiting for the exact date for Geneva meeting of the Azeri
and Armenian presidents.
By Ilgar Mikayiloglu
ANS News, July 9-10, 2001
KARABAKH PEACE DEAL IN JEOPARDY
The suspension of the latest round of peace talks on the long-running feud
for control of Nagorno-Karabakh does not augur well for the region.
By Ara Tattevosian in Yerevan
The long-festering territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan looks
in danger of spilling over once more following threatening noises of a
possible Chechnya-type assault on the Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Fears were spurred by a warning from Azerbaijan's national security minister
Nammik Abbasov that his country "possesses all necessary means to carry out
an anti-terror operation on the territories occupied by Armenia". The term
"anti-terror operation" was used by Russia about its assault on Chechnya.
The Armenian security minister, Karlos Petrosian, replied tersely in an
interview with the Yerevan newspaper Ajotz Ashkhar, "If Azerbaijan's special
services assume that they can carry out an 'anti-terror' operation on these
territories, I can assure you that their actions will receive an appropriate
response."
The row over Nagorno-Karabakh, a large pocket of ethnic Armenians inside
Azerbaijan, stretches back to the days of Stalin. The two countries went to
war over it in 1992 and the conflict ended two years later with Armenians in
control of the enclave along with an access path across Azeri territory.
Since then the matter has been continuously thrashed out within the OSCE in
international negotiations chaired by The United States, Russia and France.
There were hopeful signs following the end of peace talks in Key West,
Florida, earlier this year. Mediators described the negotiations there as a
'breakthrough' for the Karabakh problem. They expressed hope that a peace
agreement would be signed by the end of this year.
The question was held over for a meeting in Geneva in the second half of
June when the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan and the co-chairs of the
OSCE Minsk Group were expected to seal the Key West agreements.
However, the Geneva meeting was put off indefinitely following a visit to
the region last month by the Minsk Group. Clearly surprised, the mediators
said vaguely that more time was needed.
As the time for Geneva approached, the co-chairs began saying that public
opinion in Armenia and Azerbaijan was not prepared for a compromise. The
diplomats said this was due to leaks, not always accurate, about the
agreement.
The co-chairs said a judgment on the compromise should be made only after
studying the whole package of so far undisclosed mutual concessions. French
co-chair Philippe de Suremain refused to comment on a rumour that the
agreement provided a communication corridor through Armenian territory
connecting Azerbaijan with fellow Azeris in the Nakhichevan region.
On June 13, Armenian foreign minister Vardan Oskanian commented, "It is not
our fault that negotiations were postponed. Armenia is ready to continue
talks on the basis of agreements already reached. "However he declined to
blame Baku directly for the delay.
On May 5, when the Geneva talks were still confidently anticipated, the US
co-chair Carey Cavanaugh made a surprise visit to Azerbaijan, giving rise to
speculation that Azerbaijan's President Heydar Aliev had changed his mind
about the deal.
A week after Cavanaugh's visit, all three co-chairs travelled to New York to
meet the Armenian president Robert Kocharian, presumably to warn him that
the agreement was running into snags.
A clear sign that the 'breakthrough' was not as promising as had appeared
came with a statement by President Aliev that "the mediators prepared a
shameful peace for Baku".
Cavanaugh would not confirm that the deal had been wrecked by Azerbaijan.
But it was widely accepted that Baku had created a difficult situation for
the Minsk Group.
It is also evident that the Armenian side is unwilling to revise the
agreements reached in Key West and start again from scratch. There have been
reports that Presidents Kocharian and Aliev will meet in two or three
months.
President Kocharian has already said that Armenia is insisting on "de facto
and de jure independence for Nagorno Karabakh". It is hard to see how
President Aliev could swallow this.
The co-chairs are planning to visit the region in the first half of July. In
the meantime, they appealed to the parties to refrain from "any steps that
could complicate the situation".
Ara Tattevosian is director of the Mediamax news agency in Yerevan
IWPR'S CAUCASUS REPORTING SERVICE, No. 89, July 6, 2001
Armenian minister hopes Azeris to return to "Paris principles" on Karabakh
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 11, 2001
Text of report by Armenian news agency Mediamax
Yerevan, 11 July: Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan today expressed the hope that Azerbaijan would return to the Paris principles for the Karabakh settlement which the Armenian side and the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen regard as a good basis for continuing the peace process.
Oskanyan said this today in Yerevan at a joint briefing with his Portuguese counterpart Jaime [Jose Matos da] Gama. "We will be able to judge about the future prospects of the negotiating process after the mediators' visit to Baku," the Armenian minister said.
According to Oskanyan, the Armenian side is satisfied with the fact that in the course of their visit to the Yerevan, the cochairmen unambiguously said that they were for continuation of talks on the basis of previous agreements and against making changes of principle to them.
Commenting on Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Vilayat Quliyev's statement that "the Paris principles are another lie of the Armenian side", Oskanyan said: "In fact, following two meetings between the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents in Paris, the mediators deemed it possible to organize the talks in Key West with the aim of transferring onto paper the verbal agreements between [Armenian President Robert] Kocharyan and [Azerbaijani President Heydar] Aliyev. This is what we call the Paris principles or agreements."
Source: Mediamax news agency, Yerevan, in Russian 1317 gmt 11 Jul 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
NEW CONTRADICTIONS AT KARABAKH REGULATION: FRANCE AND RUSSIA AGAINST THE U.S.
By Farhad MAMMADOV
Or why Armenia again swells "Parisian principles".
As it come to be known, both three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group will visit to the region of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in early July. According to the trip's program, first they will conduct meetings in Yervan, Armenia, and then come to Nagorno Karabakh and through there to Baku by crossing the front line.
The conflicting parties have differently estimated the next visit of co-chairs to the region. Azeri foreign minister Vilayat Guliyev thinks the moderators should avoid Armenia from non-constructive position in order to develop the negotiation process that fell into deadlock after the Key West talks. "We expect new suggestions from co-chairs" marked the foreign minister. On the contrary, the Armenian foreign minister Vardan Oskanian stated no need to new suggestions. He thinks it is more admissible to return to the agreed principles at the talks held between the presidents Heidar Aliev and Robert Kocharian in March in Paris. He stressed Armenia is ready to negotiate on the basis of those principles.
But the Azerbaijani side did not react to the opinions of Oskanian on "Paris principles". So, here appears an interesting scene on the eve of co-chairs' visit to the region: Armenia supports just the "Paris principles" or the initiative of France, but not the talks held in Key West with the initiative of the U.S. state secretary Colin Powell in April this year. It seems France has suggested more admissible conditions for Armenia in comparison with the U.S. It is notable that the third co-chair Russia was speaking from the same position of France during the Paris meetings, as well. Though the meetings between the presidents were held very confidential, the Azerbaijani media has revealed some details of Paris agreements at that point. According to those details, Upper Karabakh was given actually independence and joined to Armenia through Lachin region. Naturally, there was not simply stressed being Upper Karabakh an independent state in Paris agreements. But according to various news, there was planned including such an item to the document: "The sides recognize each others' territorial integrity and will not henceforth come out with territorial claims".
Generally, the terminology "sides" might be belonged not only to Azerbaijan and Armenia, but to Upper Karabakh, as well. And it might mean that Azerbaijan, indirectly, recognizes a part of its territory as an independent state. Naturally, the public strongly reacted to Paris agreements and Heidar Aliev did not dare to go till the end in this direction. At that point, the informative sources were stating that the news about "Paris principles" were passed to the opposition circles by the diplomatic circles of the co-chair U.S. that remained beyond. Then, as it is known, Washington took the initiative and co-chairs gave optimistic statements on "gaining very important progress" after the Key West talks. But after the Key West talks Armenian president Robert Kocharian returned not to Yerevan, but flew directly to Paris and met with the president Jacques Sherak. In addition, immediately after the completion of Key West talks France strangely replaced its representative at the Minsk Group with its ambassador to Iran. Then the Armenian leadership held consultations with Moscow and appeared the position of official Yerevan excluding any compromise. As a result, the planned Geneva meeting for copying the progress gained in Key West to the document did not take place.
So, the events happening around Karabakh regulation during the last few months do not confirm both three co-chairs are at the same position with each other as stated officially. The serious competition among three big powers at the regulation process is clearly seen. We may strongly stress that the U.S. is against France and Russia in this competition. In most cases, France is demonstrating similar position with Russia, but Moscow has private interests at the South Caucasus region different from these two powers, and full alliance of Moscow with Paris at the Karabakh regulation seems difficult.
There appeared several signs of that rivalry on the eve of forthcoming visit of co-chairs to the region. The Russian State Duma adopted a law on the possibility of joining a part of other state to Russian Federation. Undoubtedly, this law was adopted for a psychological pressure on Georgia and Azerbaijan. Because separatist regimes, as well as so-called "state" in Upper Karabakh may appeal to unify with Russia at any time and this appeal may be responded positively in accordance with the new law. Yet before the adoption of the mentioned law chairman of the Russian State Duma has stated in Yerevan that Upper Karabakh, if wants, may become a member of Russia-Belarus union together with Armenia.
But the U.S. is trying to bring forth the Key West talks with the trip of co-chairs to the region. The American ambassador to Azerbaijan Mr. Ross Wilson met with Heidar Aliev immediately after returning from Washington and held closed discussions with him about Karabakh regulation. On July 3, he met with the Azeri defense minister Safar Abiev and on July 4th at night again returned back to Washington. In his meeting with Heidar Aliev he stressed his satisfaction from Aliev's speech on the Army Day and marked that those opinions were "very important" for the U.S. government. Aliev has stressed at the mentioned speech that if there was a possibility to settle the conflict by peaceful way, then there is not any need to search other way, but the military regulation should not be excluded, as well.
There does not seem special activation of France, but recently the president Jacques Sherak touched on Karabakh regulation in his meeting with the Russian president Vladimir Putin in Moscow. But it seems the possibility of developing the regulation process has exhausted in such a condition of rivalry among three co-chairs and three big powers coming from geo-political interests.
AZERBAIJAN BULLETIN No:27 (281), July 05 2001 [ENGLISH]
http://www.andf-az.org/
Karabakh separatist leader says Azeris will lose more land if resort to war
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 6, 2001
Text of report by Armenian news agency Snark
Yerevan, 6 July: Azerbaijan is not ready to go to war to resolve the Karabakh conflict, President of the NKR [Nagornyy Karabakh Republic] Arkadiy Gukasyan has said. Armenian Public TV has reported that Baku knows very well that Azerbaijan will lose new territory if hostilities resume.
Officials in Baku have recently started talking a lot about the need for a military solution to the Karabakh problem. In turn the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen adopted a communique following their recent meeting on Malta, calling on the parties to the conflict to abstain from making provocative statements, particularly about a military solution to the conflict.
Source: Snark news agency, Yerevan, in Russian 0935 gmt 6 Jul 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Azerbaijan: Distrustful Karabakh Armenians Prefer Status Quo
By Emil Danielyan
#########################################################################
HL NOTE: Some or all of the following news articles ignore such basic
facts that:
1) Karabakh region of Azerbaijan was, is, and will remain to be a
legitimate and internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan;
2) Karabakh, and seven other regions are illegally occupied by
armed forces of the Republic of Armenia, the aggressor;
3) Puppet and self-proclaimed (Nagorno) Karabakh Republic ("NKR") is an
illegitimate and criminal entity, not recognized by any international
organization or state;
4) As of 1992, Khankandi has been restored as an official historical name
of the town, that was renamed to Stepanakert by J. Stalin in 1923
#########################################################################
Hardened by years of conflict, ethnic Armenians in the Nagorno-Karabakh
enclave remain deeply distrustful of their Azerbaijani neighbors. Most
prefer the existing "no war/no peace" situation to what they see as a
likely unreliable peace. RFE/RL correspondent Emil Danielyan reports from
the enclave that continuing economic hardship does not seem to have
altered this view, and that painful memories of the war still exert a
powerful grip on people's minds.
Stepanakert, Nagorno-Karabakh, 5 July 2001 (RFE/RL) -- The fruits of
victory must have tasted particularly sweet for the Balayan family as it
picked mulberries and figs in the gardens of Agdam on a recent hot Sunday
afternoon. Completely devastated since its capture by Armenian forces
eight years ago, this Azerbaijani ghost town just outside Nagorno-Karabakh
illustrates the scale of Armenian gains in the bitter secessionist war of
1991 to 1994.
Standing amid the town's ruins with his wife, daughter, and two
grandchildren, Serob Balayan -- a 66-year-old pensioner from Stepanakert
-- has an uncompromising message for Armenian leaders and international
mediators trying to exchange Agdam and other occupied Azerbaijani lands
for de facto independence for Karabakh:
"We defeated them with their weapons. We took Agdam, we took Fizuli and
Kelbajar. These are all Armenian lands." His wife Bella joins the
conversation:
"After sustaining so many casualties, why should we give them any land?
Never. What about our dead and our blood?"
The Balayan couple's attitude seems to be the dominant one in the disputed
Armenian-populated region, which broke away from Soviet Azerbaijani rule
in the late 1980s. After years of conflict, the Karabakh Armenians remain
deeply distrustful of their Azerbaijani neighbors, preferring the existing
"no war/no peace" situation to the prospect of what they believe will be
an unreliable peace. Continuing economic hardships don't seem to have
altered this attitude, while painful memories of the war still exert a
powerful grip on people's minds.
The views of the Armenian population in the disputed territories
constitute a factor that the mediators from the OSCE's Minsk Group will
have to cope with as they press on with their peace initiatives, which
earlier this year seemed to be moving the conflicting parties toward a
settlement. The French, Russian, and U.S. co-chairs of the group will
launch another round of shuttle diplomacy next week when they visit
Armenia, Karabakh, and Azerbaijan. For them, as for Azerbaijan itself, the
return to Baku of six out of the seven Armenian-occupied Azerbaijani
districts surrounding Karabakh is not negotiable.
But our correspondent's talks with ordinary Karabakh residents suggest the
return of the territories should not be taken for granted. Robert
Stepanian is a Karabakh army officer and, like virtually the region's
entire male population, a war veteran. He is adamantly opposed to any
transfer of territory. Stepanian asks:
"How can we return territories taken in a battle? Why did people pay for
them with their lives?"
The same argument is cited by other Armenians in the area, who say they
are undaunted by the constant threat of renewed fighting. Continued
control of the occupied lands is seen as vital for Karabakh security.
One unnamed Stepanakert-based journalist suggests another explanation for
this reluctance to give up the occupied territories in return for a
hard-won independence. As time goes by, he says, there is an increasing
"proprietary attitude" among the Karabakh Armenians toward the most
tangible result of their military victory over Azerbaijan. Some of them
have an economic interest in maintaining the occupation, because they
cultivate the land profitably. The Azerbaijani owners, who fled their
homes in the face of advancing Armenian troops, still live in refugee
camps across Azerbaijan.
This hard-line public opinion is a major challenge to the leadership of
the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, which says it is ready to
withdraw from most of the occupied territories. But the republic's
president, Arkady Ghukasian, says he is not worried about a possible
domestic backlash against the compromise peace deal on which the Minsk
Group negotiators have been working. Ghukasian argues that concessions
must not be unilateral, and says he will be able to convince his
distrustful people to accept such an accord.
But healing the wounds left by the conflict will not be an easy task. The
ruins of Agdam testify to how deep mutual Armenian-Azerbaijani antagonism
runs. A ramshackle mosque flanked by two minarets is all that is left of
the once-bustling town of 40,000 inhabitants, which was reputed to have
had the richest bazaar in the former Soviet Union.
The town of Agdam, and the surrounding district of the same name, was the
main outpost of the Azerbaijani army, which wreaked havoc on nearby
Armenian-populated villages at the start of the war. Even the capital
Stepanakert was not spared relentless shelling. Several Karabakh villages
adjacent to Agdam were overrun and burned down by Azerbaijani forces
during a 1992 offensive.
A year later, it was the Armenians' turn to strike hard. The fall of Agdam
was the most spectacular in a string of Armenian military victories
throughout 1993. Stones from the town's looted and devastated houses have
since been used in the rebuilding of Karabakh villages damaged by the
fierce fighting.
It is this grim reality that makes Silva Balayan, the adult daughter of
Serob and Bella Balayan, skeptical about the chances for peace.
"Armenians and Azerbaijanis lived in peace and traded with each other
after the massacres of 1915 to 1918. Over time, this will again become
possible. But not at this moment, because nothing has been decided yet."
Younger residents of Karabakh sound even more uncompromising. The former
"children of the war" remember the horrors of the conflict much better
than they do the days when Karabakh was under Azerbaijani rule.
Lira is an 18-year-old history student at Karabakh State University. She
spent part of her childhood hiding in bomb shelters.
"There is an old saying that lands taken with blood are never handed back.
And if we are real patriots we must not allow the state, our leadership,
to take such a step."
Asked about reconciliation with the Azerbaijanis, Lira was equally
categorical. "That won't happen, I don't believe in it," she said. "No
matter how long a peace lasts, we will end up in the same situation in 20
or 50 years."
Copyright 2001 RFE/RL
Paris agreements between Azeri, Armenian leaders could cause major crisis
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 4, 2001
Baku, 4 July: The leader of the Karabakh separatists, Arkadiy Gukasyan, has expressed doubts about the possibility of an agreement on peaceful settlement of the Karabakh conflict being signed before the end of the current year. [passage omitted: details of known Armenian report]
As Turan has learnt from informed diplomatic sources, in the course of the Paris talks between [Azerbaijani President Heydar] Aliyev and [Armenian President Robert] Kocharyan in March, agreement was reached on those principles that official Baku denied so furiously afterwards. What is being referred to here is virtual recognition of Nagornyy Karabakh's right to have all the attributes of an independent state (army, own foreign and domestic policy, absence of vertical connections with Baku). In exchange, the Armenian side agreed to the liberation of six of the seven districts around Nagornyy Karabakh and to Azerbaijanis returning to Susa. The Lacin corridor would remain with the Armenians in exchange for the opening of a road between Azerbaijan and Naxcivan through Megri.
After these agreements were reached, French President Jacques Chirac made a statement that the Karabakh conflict could be settled before the end of the current year.
In the course of talks in Key-West a month later Baku slightly changed its position and insisted on the return of Lacin in exchange for the opening of a road between Karabakh and Armenia through Kalbacar. In addition, Aliyev spoke of the need for the return of Azerbaijanis not only to Susa [Shusha], but also to a number of villages around it. The sides agreed these arrangements with the [OSCE Minsk Group] cochairmen, who hastened to announce a "breakthrough" in the talks.
However, despite these conditions, which were so convenient for Armenia, Yerevan virtually refused to go for their implementation due to major pressure from Moscow, which believes that settlement of the Karabakh conflict deprives it of levers of influence in the region. At the same time, Russia started to propose to Azerbaijan implementation of the agreements reached on condition that it would get a dominant military role in the region in the form of peacekeeping forces or military bases.
In turn, a number of members of Heydar Aliyev's team leaked to the press that they would resign if the Azerbaijani president went for such a peace.
Source: Turan news agency, Baku, in Russian 1510 gmt 4 Jul 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Ghukasian Skeptical About Peace, Claims Success In KarabakhDemocratization
STEPANAKERT (RFE/RL)--The president of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic,
Arkady Ghukasian, on Monday urged international mediators to build upon
recent months' progress in peace talks during their upcoming visit to the
region but voiced skepticism about chances of a breakthrough this year. He
blamed the latest slowdown in the peace process on Azerbaijani
intransigence, saying that Baku is trying to avoid major concessions to
the Armenian side.
"I don't think that a peace agreement will be signed before the end of the
year," Ghukasian told RFE/RL in an interview. "I don't think that
Azerbaijan is now ready for a solution."
Official Stepanakert "strongly suspects" that the Azerbaijani leadership
is "trying to abandon agreements reached in Paris last March and the
Florida resort of Key West in April, he said.
The talks between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan, mediated by
the French, Russian and US co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, are thought
to have resulted in considerable progress, leaving the conflicting parties
as close to a settlement as never before. But the subsequent cancellation
of another Armenian-Azerbaijani summit, due to be held in Geneva in June,
fueled renewed pessimism about prospects for peace.
The mediators, however, still hope that a framework deal will be agreed
later this year. They say the parties simply requested more time to
prepare their publics for mutual compromise. Next week the co-chairs will
embark on yet another tour of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Karabakh to try to
push the process farther forward.
"The Paris and Key West agreements must not be forgotten," Ghukasian said,
speaking in his Stepanakert residence. "They laid a pretty good basis for
the conflict's settlement and must be built upon."
Armenian officials have said that, while in Paris, Presidents Robert
Kocharian and Heydar Aliev agreed on the main principles of a new Minsk
Group plan on Karabakh. Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian told reporters in
Yerevan on Tuesday that he hopes the troika will be able to "return the
process to the Paris path" and "remove complications" holding up further
progress in the peace talks.
Ghukasian said the NKR leadership trusts Yerevan's assurances that the
so-called Paris principles are largely in line with the Armenian side's
position on the issue.
He said: "Our position is very clear: Nagorno-Karabakh can not be part of
Azerbaijan, it can not be subordinated to Azerbaijan." Ghukasian said the
NKR's insistence on only "horizontal relations" with Baku presupposes
"certain limits" on its independence, but added that those limits would be
set by the Karabakh Armenians and "would not necessarily be in
Azerbaijan's favor."
Turning to the domestic political situation, Ghukasian claimed that
Karabakh has become "much more democratic and open to the outside world"
since June 1999 when he moved to curb and eventually eliminate General
Samvel Babayan's pervasive control of all power reins in Karabakh.
"The atmosphere of fear has disappeared; the parliament plays a greater
role; a [democratic] political system takes shape; and the army does not
meddle in politics," he argued.
Babayan, the once powerful commander of the Karabakh army who was stripped
of all his posts by the end of 1999, is currently serving a 14-year prison
sentence for allegedly masterminding the March 2000 attempt on Ghukasian's
life. The NKR president was heavily wounded in the assault, which the
authorities say was part of a broader coup plot.
Babayan has denied any involvement in the shootings. He and his supporters
claim that the charges brought against the general are politically
motivated, accusing the authorities of cracking down on dissent. Babayan's
allies in Armenia have recently stepped up their campaign for his release
from jail, suggesting among other things that he be pardoned by Ghukasian.
But Ghukasian ruled out such option on Monday, saying that Babayan's guilt
was proven by a Stepanakert court and that the local population would
disapprove of his pre-term release.
Pro-Babayan groups in Karabakh, who had hoped to win last year's
parliamentary elections, have kept an extremely low profile over the past
year, leaving the local branch of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation
(ARF) as the main opposition force.
The ARF, which controls nine seats in the 33-member Karabakh legislature,
has so far been unable to weaken Ghukasian's hold on power and appears to
have adopted a more cooperative line on the authorities in recent months.
One of the party's leading members, Georgi Petrosian, is now a top aide to
Ghukasian.
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 03:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
Copyright 2001 RFE/RL
Karabakh president doubts peace accord to be signed
in 2001
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 4, 2001
Text of report by Armenian news agency Snark
Yerevan, 4 July: Nagornyy Karabakh Republic [NKR] President Arkadiy Gukasyan has
expressed doubts that an agreement on a peaceful solution to the Nagornyy
Karabakh conflict would be signed by the end of this year.
The Public Television of Armenia reports that the NKR leader pointed out that
the Azerbaijani authorities were not ready to resolve the conflict. Moreover,
official Baku is trying to avoid fulfilling agreements reached during
negotiations between the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia in Key West and
Paris. At the same time, Gukasyan stressed that precisely these principles
should be the foundation of the peace agreement. "Our position is clear -
Karabakh cannot be a part of Azerbaijan or subordinate to it," the NKR president
said.
Source: Snark news agency, Yerevan, in Russian 1035 gmt 4 Jul 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
(Corr) Armenia dumping nuclear waste in Karabakh - Baku paper
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 5, 2001
The Azerbaijani paper Ekho says that Armenia is burying nuclear fuel in Nagornyy Karabakh and its outlying areas. According to an inquiry conducted by the paper, Armenia, which does not have the technology or resources to dispose of nuclear waste, might have been dumping nuclear waste in Karabakh over the past 12 years. Following are excerpts from N. Aliyev and R. Orucov report by Azerbaijani newspaper Ekho on 4 July entitled "The world's nuclear waste dump":
Our newspaper has started its own inquiry to help MP Samad Seyidov's commission
It seems that the last doubts that Armenia is burying its burnt up nuclear fuel on the occupied Azerbaijani territories are vanishing. After the Azerbaijani delegation at the PACE [Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe] raised this and some other questions (for example issues related to the destruction of cultural monuments in the captured territories) for discussion, Armenia got a move on and started denying everything.
[Passage omitted: Armenia denies Muslim cultural monuments are destroyed in Nagornyy Karabakh]
However, when it comes to nuclear waste, Armenia continues to pretend that there are is no such thing. Why? Many see the answer to this question in the former Russian Minister of Atomic Energy Yevgeniy Adamov, who now stands accused of corruption.
Adamov's links with the Armenian leadership are well-known. Namely, before the terrorist act in the Armenian parliament, the then Speaker Karen Demirchyan had a meeting with Adamov. The conversation naturally focused on Russian-Armenian cooperation in the nuclear energy sphere. The "conclusion on the business activities of Russian Minister of Atomic Energy Yevgeniy Adamov drawn up by the Russian State Duma commission to combat corruption" completely unravels the true nature of this cooperation.
But let us talk about things in the right order. The Armenian Nuclear Power Station has a VVER-440 reactor with two blocks, only one of which is operating. About 120 fuel assemblies (burnt up nuclear fuel) are unloaded from the VVER-440 reactor in one year. Until recently Armenia neither had the industries to process burnt up nuclear fuel nor possibilities to bury it. The pre-reactor pond of the Metsamor Nuclear Power Station is full and even the reserve section is in use. The pond of the closed and non-operational reactor was also filled many years ago.
That is why Armenia has decided to have the French company Framatom build a temporary NUHOMS storehouse for the nuclear power station. A construction of 11 horizontal modules with 612 fuel assemblies was chosen.
However, the Ukrainian newspaper Mirror Weekly reported in 1999 that a burnt up nuclear fuel storehouse, which Framatom had built in Metsamor with the Armenian Diaspora's money, had not been put into operation for more than six months. The reason was not technical but a lack of money for creating the necessary additional infrastructure, which was to be financed by the Armenian Nuclear Power Station itself. The power station has no money, otherwise its staff would not have been threatening to go on strike over wage arrears. Later, another Ukrainian newspaper - Faks-gazeta - reported in June 2000 that Armenia had finally bought Framatom technology.
Armenia did not welcome the idea of building dumps, not protesting against the nuclear power station itself, which was providing the country with electricity. The Russian newspaper Izvestiya reported in December 1998 that the Green Union of Armenia thought it inadmissible to build a nuclear waste repository on the territory of the Armenian Nuclear Power Station. Akop Sanasaryan, leader of the Armenian Greens, maintained that the nuclear waste repository was being built without proper ecological study and without topographical maps, and that public opinion about this was being ignored.
However, judging from the pace of the constructing of the burial site, the Armenian authorities were not in hurry. Why should they hurry if there is an occupied territory nearby, which will have to be returned to Azerbaijan sooner or later. Therefore, it was decided to bury burnt up nuclear fuel from the Armenian Nuclear Power Station there. In any case, the Armenians had no choice since all the ponds at the station had long been full.
On the last day of the Azerbaijani parliament's summer session, 2 July, Speaker Murtuz Alasgarov instructed Samad Seyidov, head of the [parliamentary] foreign relations commission, to investigate the problem of possible disposal of radioactive waste on the occupied territory of Azerbaijan. Prior to this Seyidov submitted his own report to the deputies, in which he said that all the waste from the Armenian Nuclear Power Station had most likely been transported to our occupied lands over the past 12 years. In addition, he questioned where 40 tonnes of nuclear waste from the Armenian Nuclear Power Station in 1988-89 had gone.
Seyidov believes that it is very likely that the Azerbaijanis will be finding hotbeds of radiation in the very centre of the Caucasus in future.
The Metsamor Nuclear Power Station has existed for a long time, but it is known for certain that Armenia has no mechanisms for the disposal of nuclear waste. "During the recent visit to Armenia by a Russian State Duma delegation headed by Gennadiy Seleznev, a proposal was put forward for cooperation between Armenia and Russia on the disposal of nuclear waste. But they were speaking about the future. This means that there has not been such cooperation so far. But if nuclear waste is not exported, where could it be buried? It might be buried on the occupied territory. Therefore, we raised the problem of waste at the Council of Europe and recently sent an official inquiry to the IAEA," Seyidov said.
Throughout the world, Seyidov says, information about nuclear waste repositories is not confidential because it is under the control of international organizations. We should also demand that Armenia notify the world about this. We are now expecting a reply from the IAEA, while the Council of Europe, where our document has been submitted, should appoint a rapporteur who will draw up his own report about the situation. This issue will then be discussed by the Council of Europe ecology committee.
Arif Yunusov, head of the conflicts and migration department of the Institute for Peace and Democracy of Azerbaijan, who raised the issue of possible nuclear waste repositories on the occupied territories of Azerbaijan several years ago, said that in 1995 he had learnt from the German press that the Germans tried to dump their nuclear waste in Russia, Ukraine and Armenia for a certain bribe.
He raised this issue twice - in 1999 and 2000 - at international conferences on anti-personnel mines in Tbilisi, also attended by an Armenian delegation. According to his personal information and according to competent agencies, waste from Western European countries and directly from the Armenian Nuclear Power Station is buried on the occupied Azerbaijani territories, namely in Fuzuli and Agdam. The Armenian delegation replied that "this is impossible".
Yunusov believes that Murtuz Alasgarov is very late investigating this subject. Daily familiarization with Armenian public opinion through that country's press have convinced him that if the Armenians regard Nagornyy Karabakh as their own territory, they treat the other districts as land that will have to be given up in return for peace. Unlike Lacin [Lachin] and the former Nagornyy Karabakh Autonomous Region, Armenian settlers do not live in the areas of Fuzuli and Agdam, where nuclear waste has most likely been buried.
This is indirectly confirmed by the fact that during a working meeting with his Armenian colleagues, Yunusov suggested that they organize visits by refugee delegations to their previous homes and when the issue of former residents of Fuzuli and Agdam participating in this trip was raised, the Armenian representatives unanimously replied that this was not desirable.
Yunusov believes that Seyidov will hardly manage to get confirmation of these theories with the help of our internal structures, although the Ministry of National Security should have long made every effort to learn all the details of the matter through its agents. But we can expect real help only from the IAEA, of which Armenia is a member and which has the right to carry out its own inspections. However, even if the burial sites are found, the Armenians may say that Nagornyy Karabakh and other occupied territories are not part of Armenia, but are an "independent state" - the "Nagornyy Karabakh Republic".
But this is not the worst. It has become clear that burnt up nuclear fuel not only from the Armenian Nuclear Power Station but also from many European and Russian nuclear stations may have been buried on the occupied Azerbaijani territories.
[Passage omitted: nuclear waste in Russia]
In an interview with Ekho, Vladimir Chuprov, a specialist from the Russian branch of Greenpeace, said that he had no information about the storage of nuclear waste on Azerbaijani territory, pointing out that being in Russia, he was dealing only with subjects of the Russian Federation. In the meantime, commenting on some points of the conclusion by the Russian State Duma, he said: "We have no direct information that radioactive material had been transported with Adamov's participation. But it ensues from the conclusion that organizing activities were under way to form a structure which would be dealing with these supplies."
Speaking about the state of the Armenian Nuclear Power Station, Chuprov assumed that an emergency might affect the whole region, in view of its dense population and the topography of the area.
Source: Ekho, Baku, in Russian 4 Jul 01 pp 1,3
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Azerbaijan's military doctrine to be drawn up in autumn, Defence Ministry says
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 7, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani TV station ANS on 6 July
[Presenter in studio] Azerbaijan's military doctrine will be ready by autumn this year, considering that the draft law on the military doctrine, which has already been discussed by the country's Security Council, is to be submitted to parliament for debate at its autumn session.
[Correspondent over video of Defence Ministry official in office] Ramiz Malikov, chief of the Defence Ministry press service, said that serious work is under way to prepare Azerbaijan's military doctrine. He said along with Defence Ministry representatives, other power-wielding structures and law-enforcement agencies are also taking part in the preparation of the doctrine. A commission has been set up to draw up the doctrine, Ramiz Malikov pointed out. Then it will be submitted to the Milli Maclis for consideration in the form of a bill. We should point out that in line with the country's constitution, a bill on the military doctrine must be presented to the Milli Maclis at the initiative of the Azerbaijani president. Alimammad Nuriyev, a member of the Milli Maclis security commission, said that the bill had already been discussed by the country's Security Council and it was decided that the document would be put up for debate by parliament at its autumn session. The doctrine will reflect Azerbaijan's military-political strategy, its allies, possible threats to the state, supplies to the army and funds required for that. Alimammad Nuriyev said that the military doctrine would clarify Azerbaijan's military-political stance vis-a-vis the settling of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. In any case, the military doctrine will have a defensive nature since Azerbaijan adopts its policy in line with international legal norms. We should also point out that until recently, both the former and incumbent defence ministers were saying that the country's military doctrine was confidential and could not be published. However, it has now become clear that Azerbaijan did not have a military doctrine. Etibar Mammadov, ANS.
Source: ANS TV, Baku, in Russian 1500 gmt 6 Jul 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Armenia's military doctrine envisages a "superior army with better mobility"
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 7, 2001
The Azerbaijani paper Ekho says that Armenia has adopted a military doctrine which envisages closer cooperation with Russia and the revitalization of the Armenian armed forces on the basis of the "Russian military culture". Commenting on the military doctrine, Azeri experts say that Armenia is planning to annex Karabakh and the doctrine is a clear manifestation of Armenia's "expansionism". Following is the text of N. Aliyev report by Azerbaijani newspaper Ekho on 6 July entitled "The armies of Karabakh and Armenia are one and indivisible"
Details of a military doctrine being discussed in Yerevan confirm these words uttered by the Armenian ex-defence minister
Our newspaper reported yesterday, quoting the Armenian newspaper Azg, that the preliminary draft of Armenia's military doctrine would be submitted to the public soon. Mikael Melkonyan, head of the Armenian Defence Ministry department for foreign relations and military cooperation, said this. However, he refused to go into detail and said that the experience of various countries was taken into consideration while drawing up the document and the Russian military doctrine was taken as the benchmark.
The doctrine will be sent to relevant state agencies and scientific centres. Afterwards, it will be presented for a nationwide debate and the Armenian parliament will examine it, too.
Melkonyan said that the military doctrine would not be a secret document, however, " it would include points about the neighbouring countries' attitude towards Armenia and vice versa". First of all, Turkey and I suppose Azerbaijan, he said.
The document, which we are talking about and which cannot but cause interest in Azerbaijan, was prepared a long time ago and people involved in it made various statements at various times while it was being prepared. We tried to put the statements together in order to make a picture of the military concept that has been taken on board by a country, which is de facto at war with Azerbaijan.
First of all, it is known that the basis of the Armenian military doctrine is similar to Russian. The latter contains a number of unusual aspects. For example, it has been said that the doctrine is of a purely defensive nature and that Russia will defend its borders and some other areas abroad.
That Armenia also has such areas abroad was confirmed in December 1998 by the then Armenian Defence Minister Vazgen Sarkisyan. When Sarkisyan was asked whether he agreed that the Karabakh army is the strongest one in the Transcaucasus, he replied: "Yes, the Armenian army is. Our people perceives the republic's armed forces and the Karabakh army as one and indivisible."
After the terrorist act in the Armenian parliament, as a result of which Vazgen Sarkisyan died, the process of preparing Armenia's military doctrine came to a halt. However, its general concept was already ready on the eve of the parliament shooting.
Yerevan's military doctrine points out that Armenia should not be satisfied with what it has already achieved. In this connection, Sarkisyan made the following comment: "The country needs a technically superior army with better mobility". In quantitative terms, Armenia cannot have a big army. But it conforms to modern standards both in terms of number and arms. Its basis is ground troops - motorized infantry units and subunits.
Yerevan officially said that its army has 42,000 personnel with a budget of 60-65m dollars per annum. However, Col Melkonyan said that 700m dollars are required every year for the Armenian army to operate normally. This means that it is planned to increase the Armenian armed forces.
An assessment of the London International Institute for Strategic Studies [IISS] shows that the number of the Armenian armed forces can reach up to 360,000 in a short period. In 1997, that country's armed forces numbered not 42,000, but 60,000 people (with 300,000 reservists). Thus, the figure mentioned by Melkonyan - 700m dollars - can support an army of 360,000 people under the earlier plan of the Armenian Defence Ministry. Moreover, there would be a 185m-dollar "surplus".
Besides, the official data cited by the Armenian colonel are very different from conclusions drawn up by foreign experts. According to IISS, 92m dollars were spend on defence needs in 1996, which was one of the hardest years for the Armenian economy.
Armenian military doctrine envisages the revitalization of the country's army "on the basis of the Russian military culture", according to Vazgen Sarkisyan. Military and military-political cooperation between Armenia and Russia is also planned on the basis of a grand political friendship, cooperation and mutual aid treaty signed between Russia and Armenia in Moscow in August.
Armenia looks on the stationing of Russian troops on the country's territory as a main positive factor in the cause of providing the republic's security and stabilizing the general situation in the Transcaucasus." Relations with NATO will develop within the framework of the Partnership for Peace programme.
As for Turkey, which is a member of NATO, Armenia will be "vigilant" as regards this state.
It is also pointed out that Armenia is interested in the presence of Russian military bases on its territory.
Commenting on the likely points of the Armenian military doctrine, a political scientist, Eldar Namazov, said that "the basis of Armenia's state policy is a plan to annex Nagornyy Karabakh and a number of districts on the Azerbaijani territory".
"No wonder that such a policy is reflected in a more concrete documents. This goes to show once again that Armenia is directly participating in an aggression against Azerbaijan and is not going to give up the occupied territories, and what is more, is intending to defend them militarily. Azerbaijan, which excels Armenia in many aspects, should get its army to excel the Armenian army at its might.
[Reporter] But Azerbaijan does not even have a military doctrine.
[Namazov] Unfortunately not. When we ask why, they often reply: "Our president knows everything and that's why there is no need to worry." But any state, which has found itself in such a situation as ours, should have a clear programme to develop its military-industrial complex, its national security concept and many other things.
[Reporter] Will the adoption of the Armenian military doctrine mean that the Karabakh conflict should be settled militarily?
[Namazov] Twenty per cent of Azerbaijan are under the Armenian occupation and the use of military means cannot be ruled out in this situation. Military doctrine is not the only factor - without a powerful military force and the will to use it, we will not be able to achieve the restoration of our sovereignty over Karabakh.
Political scientist Rasim Musabayov said that the points in the Armenian military doctrine are a clear manifestation of Armenia's expansionism. To say that Armenia is ready to defend Nagornyy Karabakh by force is just an effrontery. Musabayov said that Yerevan's military doctrine was one of the documents furthering the recognition of the aggression carried out by Armenia against Azerbaijan.
Source: Ekho, Baku, in Russian 6 Jul 01 pp 1,2
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Armenia ready for public discussion of new military doctrine
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 4, 2001
Text of report by Armenian news agency Snark
Yerevan, 4 July: Armenia's military doctrine will soon be made available for the public to study, the head of the Armenian Defence Ministry's foreign relations and military cooperation department, Col Mikayel Melkonyan, said today at a seminar organized by the "Supreme Soviet" club.
He said that in line with an order given by the Armenian defence minister on 15 September 2000, a special commission was established to produce a military doctrine for Armenia. Defence Minister Serzh Sarkisyan, three of his deputies and a group of military specialists were on this commission. Melkonyan, who is the commission's secretary, said that they decided to take Russia's military doctrine as their model after carefully studying similar documents of 12 states and a 25-page document was produced.
Col Melkonyan stressed that the main plank of the military doctrine of any state is adequate financing of the country's armed forces. The country's 65m-dollar annual budget is divided in the following way - 30 per cent is spent on staff, 35 per cent on providing the army with military equipment, and the rest on military and operational training. "Financing of staff and the provision of military and operational training for the Armenian armed forces is as it should be and in this sense, the Armenian army is the best among CIS states today, but material and technical provision lags behind at the moment," Melkonyan said.
The Armenian officer believes that 700m dollars per year is required to maintain a 42,000-strong army (this is the official figure for the number of people in the Armenian armed forces), which in future should consist entirely of professional soldiers. For the sake of comparison, he cited figures showing that Turkey, which has a 650,000-strong army, spends 7bn dollars per year, while Azerbaijan, which has 103,000 soldiers and officers, spends 195m dollars.
According to the Armenian defence ministry commission's information, Melkonyan reported, Armenia is Ankara's main likely enemy, after Greece, as "it makes unfounded territorial claims, insists on recognition of the mythical genocide, wages an aggressive policy against Turkey's allies, has contacts with Ankara's enemies and has a whole network of camps where terrorists are trained to organize attempts on the lives of highly-placed officials etc."
After wide-ranging discussion by political and public forces, and also by state institutions, the document will be submitted as a law for consideration by the Armenian parliament, taking into account all the comments made on it, the head of the Armenian defence ministry's foreign relations and military cooperation department said.
Source: Snark news agency, Yerevan, in Russian 1527 gmt 4 Jul 01
Azeri opposition politician draws parallels between Milosevic, Kocharyan
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 3, 2001
An adviser to the leader of Azerbaijan's opposition Musavat party, Elxan Mehdiyev, has said that Armenian President Robert Kocharyan's extradition to the Hague war crimes tribunal is possible and expedient. He said that Kocharyan had taken part in the ethnic cleansing of Nagornyy Karabakh Azeris and persecution of local Armenians opposed to him. Mehdiyev said that Kocharyan's and former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic's political styles were identical. Following is an excerpt from a report by the Azerbaijani news agency Bilik Dunyasi:
Baku, 2 July: Some people in Baku followed the arrest of the Yugoslav president like an exciting detective story, as if it was not about the head of a distant and little-known country but new heroic adventures of the legendary Mikhaylo [USSR's Azerbaijani hero Mehdi Huseynzada who fought in World war II]. The extradition of Milosevic to the Hague tribunal was even met with satisfaction. Most of the opposition politicians questioned by journalists consider the actions by international forces to be lawful and just. Slobodan Milosevic is a dictator with a red past, he is guilty of mass killings of Bosnian Muslims, ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and terrifying repression in Croatia and Slovenia.
The adviser to the head of the [Azerbaijani opposition] Musavat Party, Elxan Mehdiyev, draws a parallel between the political styles of the former Yugoslav president and the current head Armenian head of state, Robert Kocharyan. He finds them identical and consequently believes that the latter's extradition to the international tribunal is possible and expedient.
Charges brought against Milosevic are for the time being limited to the bloody consequences of his presidential activity. If we proceed from this, then many, e.g. [Mikhail] Gorbachev, can be brought before the international tribunal. He approved the war in Afghanistan (1979), ordered a peace demonstration to be fired at in Almaty (1985), tried to cover up the Chernobyl tragedy (1986), and caused bloodshed on the streets of Tbilisi, Baku, Yerevan and Vilnius. The real result of his political activity was millions of victims on the expanses of Eurasia. Similar claims can be put forward against the US administration, actually Europeans as well, for smothering millions of Iraqi people and unleashing wars which resulted in numerous victims in Yugoslavia and Iraq.
As for Robert Kocharyan, in order to attract the attention of the world community to the gloomy figure of the former communist leader of Nagornyy Karabakh - a separatist and organizer of terrorist formations - Azerbaijan needed to define its attitude towards him from the very beginning. We should recall that Robert Kocharyan carried out in Nagornyy Karabakh not only ethnic cleansing, by killing and banishing the Azerbaijani population, but also persecuted every Armenian who did not agree with the plan of the forcible Armenization of the territory. And there is sufficient evidence for this. Moscow journalists, who visited the self-declared Nagornyy Karabakh Republic during Robert Kocharyan's rule, wrote about the suffocating atmosphere of a barracks democracy cultivated by Armenian nationalism. However, no strong desire could be detected in Azerbaijani social and political journalism and political science to bring to the judgment of the international community the personal responsibility of Karabakh's terrorist No 1 Robert Kocharyan and members of his team for the genocide of Azerbaijanis in Karabakh. Kocharyan's appointment as Armenia's prime minister also went unnoticed, as well the velvet coup that followed afterwards and was organized by the Karabakh separatist in Yerevan. Azerbaijan could have dealt the strongest blow to the image of the Armenian president, about whom people are squeamish in Yerevan as well, by rejecting the direct dialogue [between the Azeri and Armenian presidents over Karabakh]. Unwillingness to sit down at the negotiating table with a man whose hands are stained with the blood of thousands of his compatriots, would have been explainable and justified from the part of the supreme authorities of the Azerbaijani Republic. For this they could have made use of the relevant decision of the Milli Maclis [parliament] and support of the public, as had been the case more than once on other occasions. Subsequent events in Yerevan and Xankandi [Stepanakert] - shootings in parliament, attempts and rumours of coups, and Robert Kocharyan's involvement in all this - would only have confirmed the correctness of Azerbaijan's position.
Unfortunately, nothing like that was noticed in Baku's policy - official and opposition. Around two tens of high-level meetings only legalized Kocharyan and helped the Karabakh terrorist enter and feel comfortable in the top of world politics. One could asses the manners and style of this figure by his smirks and brazen behaviour in Key West. So, parallels with the Yugoslav events are pertinent, but hardly feasible. But this is not the main thing either. It is well known that the Council of Europe, the OSCE and other international organizations in Brussels, Geneva and other European capitals are completely managed and controlled by Washington. The Hague tribunal is an exception in this respect. The very legal basis of a trial of this kind has not been sufficiently tested, and legal practice discovers partiality of the accusers, and contradictions connected with the violations of the sovereignty of individual states. Milosevic has not found himself under arrest because of ethnic cleansing and killings of Muslims. Washington is in this way bringing to an end the Yugoslav operation.
[passage omitted: further analysis]
Source: Bilik Dunyasi news agency, Baku, in Russian 1445 gmt 2 Jul 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Azeri, Armenian spiritual leaders to meet over Karabakh
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 4, 2001
Text of unattributed report by Azerbaijani newspaper Yeni Azarbaycan on 4 July entitled "Seyx ul-Islam to meet Garegin II in Baku"
Spiritual leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia to start talks through the mediation of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Aleksiy II
The spiritual leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia will meet within the next two months through the mediation of the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, Aleksiy II. We should recall that this initiative was made in May during Aleksiy's visit to Baku.
The date and place of the meeting is not yet known. The head of the Spiritual Board of Muslims of the Caucasus, Haci Allahsukur Pasazada, has said that the meeting might be held in Moscow or even in Baku.
The meeting will focus on the peaceful settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict and the exchange of POWs and hostages.
Source: Yeni Azarbaycan, Baku, in Azeri 4 Jul 01, p 1
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Exiled Uzbek opposition back Azerbaijan over Karabakh
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 4, 2001
Text of Yadigar report by Azerbaijani newspaper Sarq on 4 July entitled
"Karabakh cannot be compromised"
Main Uzbek opposition party issues statement
Uzbekistan's main opposition [Uzbek Democratic Party] Erk Party has issued a
statement in protest against the occupation of Karabakh by Armenia and attempts
to compel Azerbaijan to sign a defeatist peace agreement.
The statement, forwarded to Baku's Turan Integration Centre, stresses that the
Uzbek opposition regret that they are unable to extend a helping hand to
Azerbaijan. The statement stresses that as the Turkic states are ruled by former
communists, they will not protest against the Armenian aggression against
Azerbaijan. The statement also says that the rule of former communists is not
eternal and that very soon the incumbent rulers of the Turkic states will be
replaced by new leaders. "We do not consider Karabakh to be a solely Azerbaijani
problem but a problem of the entire Turkic world."
The Uzbek opposition believe that no compromise is possible with Armenia over
the Karabakh issue. "Our Azeri brothers and the whole Turkic world should
realize this. The only solution is to drive out the Armenian occupiers to where
they came from. You will not succeed to do this by diplomatic and political
means. You should drive away those who have encroached on your homes. There is
no other way."
The statement, signed by the leader of the Erk Party, Muhammad Salikh, calls on
Azeri brothers on behalf of the Erk members to launch a liberation war to regain
Karabakh: "We, Turks of Turkestan, are with our Azeri brothers in this holy
war". We should note that the Erk Party works in exile in Norway.
Source: Sarq, Baku, in Azeri 4 Jul 01 p 8
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Ex-Soviet Breakaway Regions Discuss Cooperation In Karabakh
YEREVAN (RFE/RL)--The Nagorno-Karabakh authorities hosted a meeting on
July 2-3 of senior officials from four unrecognized republics of the
former Soviet Union which seek to promote their multilateral ties to
offset the lack of full international recognition. The foreign ministers
of Karabakh, the Georgian breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia,
and the Transdniester Republic which is seeking independence from Moldova
began a two-day session in Stepanakert, focusing on internationally
sponsored peace efforts in their areas.
The parties were briefing each other on recent developments in their
respective conflicts with Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova, Karabakh
officials said. The four entities, which fought successful secessionist
wars in the 1990s, are due to issue a joint communiqu on July 3, pledging
greater cooperation in the international arena.
The president of the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Arkady
Ghoukasian, described the meeting as "important." But speaking to RFE/RL,
he stressed that the long-running conflicts in the four former Soviet
republics have major historical and political differences and therefore
require different solutions.
Also on the agenda of the talks is the creation of a joint "information
center" meant to facilitate the exchange of information among the
entities. The officials also discussed the possibility of establishing
direct commercial links. The four breakaway territories, which have
enjoyed de-facto independence for the past decade, reject offers of
conventional autonomy repeatedly made by the authorities in Baku, Tbilisi
and Chisinau. They instead favor the creation of loose confederations with
the former metropolies.
Copyright 2001 RFE/RL
RESTORATION PROCESS IN FULL SWING ON RELEASED AZERI TERRITORIES
Source:ANS
29.06.01--BAKU--The European Union has allocated a credit worth 30 million
Euro and a grant of 46 million Euro for restoration of the Azeri lands
released from under Armenian occupation. The Director of the Agency on
Restoration of Released Lands, Ali Mamedov says the credit aimed at return
of refugees to their lands was granted on preferential terms. Mr Mamedov
says 15 regions are involved in the restoration project. Other
international institutions too are working on the territories at the
expense of credits and grants allocated by the European Union. The agency
director says all restoration works are going transparently. According to
him, 110 houses have been built, while a school and a local clinic
renovated in the Shukurbeyli village of the Fuzuli village. People receive
credits and loans for living a normal life. Besides, Mr Mamedov said that
a destroyed electric station and electricity lines have been restored in
Agdam and Fuzuli regions within the framework of a program consisting of
five stages.
By Natavan Babayeva
ANS News, July 2, 2001
Nakhichevan-Araz Society Created
Head of the board of the newly founded "Nakhichevan-Araz" Society, Samir
Adigezally, told a press conference on 3 July that the creation of the
Society is connected with the blockade of Nakhichevan and Armenian
propaganda directed to the occupation of Nakhichevan. He rejected the
opinion that the president administration head, Ramiz Mekhdiyev, and
Custom Committee head Kamaladdin Heydarov's father took an active role in
the creation of the Society. "The creation of the Society is the social
order," Adigezally said. As a result of provocation being committed
against Azerbaijan since 1988 we have lost Karabakh. We can lose Karabakh
unless we take the necessary measures. He noted that Azerbaijan should
make efforts to return the Mehry corridor connecting the territory of
Azerbaijan with Nakhichevan.
Adigezally also positively appraised the creation of organizations of
Azerbaijanis from Armenia. He said the Nakhichevan-Araz Society supports
the principles of the Western Azerbaijanis society.
(Almaz Nasibova)
RFE/RL Azerbaijan Report, July 3, 2001
News referred from Habarlar-L