updated
Source:Le Figaro newspaper, France
09.08.01--BAKU--Reaching a peaceful adjustment of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group and on the basis of
Azerbaijans territorial integrity and international law is the most
difficult task of my whole life. This was announced by the President of
Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev in his interview with Frances influential Le
Figaro newspaper. At the same time, the Azeri president spoke skeptically
of his meeting with Armenian leader Robert Kocharian in Key West, Florida
in April earlier this year. We didnt discuss fundamental issues and it was
sad that an impression was reigning that it was possible to solve the
Karabakh problem on the basis of Florida talks, said President Aliyev. We
would remind you that the Minsk Group comprises Russia, France and the
United States acting as co-chairs. The Azeri president said he didnt see
any progress yet in the process of resolution of the Karabakh conflict.
But the head of the Azeri state noted at the same time that one shouldnt
talk of a deadlock yet, neither of all peace hopes being exhausted. Mr
Aliyev noted that the Azeri opposition was trying to resume war with
Armenia. The opposition wants war to win back the occupied lands, stressed
the Azeri leader adding that the Azeri society is getting more and more
radical seeing no progress at the talks. Under these circumstances, the
opposition is trying to use the situation for seizing political power,
concluded the Azeri president.
By Staff Writers
ANS News, August 8-9, 2001
Aliev Lambasts International Community Over Karabakh
BAKU, (AFP) - Azerbaijan's President Heydar Aliyev slammed the
international community on Wednesday [i.e. August 8 � my note] for
failing to drive occupying Armenian forces out of the disputed territory
of Nagorno-Karabakh.
"The international community does not care about the fact that the
territorial integrity and borders of Azerbaijan are being violated,"
Aliyev said during a meeting with Belarus Prime Minister Vladimir
Yermoshin in the Azeri capital, Baku.
"This is paradoxical when you consider that all these states say they are
committed to international principles about territorial integrity and the
inviolability of borders."
Peace talks for a permanent settlement to the dispute have been stalled
since April this year. Aliyev's latest comments could point to a further
hardening of his negotiating position on the issue.
Copyright 2001 Agence France Presse
Azeri president sees no headway in Karabakh peace process
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Aug 8, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani TV station ANS on 8 August
Achieving a peaceful solution to the Karabakh conflict within the framework of the [OSCE] Minsk Group, on the basis of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and international law, is the most difficult task of my entire life, Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev said in an interview published today in the French newspaper Le Figaro. He was quite sceptical about the results of the April meeting in the USA with Armenian President Robert Kocharyan. The Azerbaijani president said that for the time being he did not see progress in the solution of the Nagornyy Karabakh issue. However, at the same time he said that one could not talk of deadlock or say that all hopes for peace were exhausted. At the same time, he noted that the opposition wanted war against Armenia to resume. In these conditions, the opposition will try to use the situation to seize power, Heydar Aliyev said in the interview with Le Figaro.
Source: ANS TV, Baku, in Russian 1500 gmt 8 Aug 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
6 August 2001, Volume 4, Number 28
BAKU IGNORES MINSK GROUP'S CAUTION AGAINST SABRE-RATTLING...
Perhaps the most significant aspect of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen's visit
to Armenia and Azerbaijan last month was the contrast between the official
statements made during and after discussions by the two countries'
leaderships. The Armenian side reaffirmed its commitment to resolving the
Karabakh conflict only by peaceful means, building on the "Paris
principles" agreed on in talks in March-April between Armenian President
Robert Kocharian and his Azerbaijani counterpart Heidar Aliev. Armenian
Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisian, who met with the co-chairs, pledged that
Armenia will not violate the cease-fire agreement signed in 1994.
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Vilayat Quliev, by contrast, denied that any
such Paris principles had ever been agreed to and blamed the stalemate in
the settlement talks on Yerevan's "unconstructive attitude," as did
Defense Minister Colonel General Safar Abiev, who also accused Armenia of
"systematic" violations of the cease-fire. President Aliev, for his part,
accused the Minsk Group co-chairs of bias towards Armenia by refusing to
condemn Yerevan's violations of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity which,
he argued, the OSCE is bound to uphold, and by demanding greater
compromises from Azerbaijan than from Armenia. Quliev commented that the
co-chairs' visit failed to yield "positive results," a point of view
shared by several Azerbaijani opposition political figures, including
Azerbaijan National Independence Party (AMIP) Chairman Etibar Mamedov and
the chairman of the reformist wing of the Azerbaijan Popular Front Party,
Ali Kerimov. Quliev told the independent daily "Ekho" that Azerbaijan
"cannot accept the status quo," and that military action to redress the
balance "cannot be ruled out." ANS quoted the foreign minister as arguing
that "either Azerbaijan should resolve the conflict on its own, or the
OSCE should do it." Aliev, too, warned the mediators that if the peace
process drags on indefinitely, "unanticipated events" could lead to
"another tragedy."
Those statements by Quliev and Aliev were made after the release on 11
July of a statement in which the co-chairs registered their concern at
"bellicose rhetoric" that "only exacerbates tensions and increases the
risk of renewed conflict." "Calls for a military solution to the conflict
are irresponsible. We encourage all politicians, leaders of political,
public, and religious organizations...and all people of good will to
demonstrate restraint and responsibility by avoiding any actions or
statements that could aggravate the situation and harm the delicate peace
process," the co-chairs continued. (Liz Fuller)
...BUT FORMER AZERBAIJANI OFFICIALS SEEK SUPPORT FOR MILITARY OPTION.
Among those Azerbaijanis who also argue that Armenia's refusal to
compromise may render a new war inevitable are former presidential advisor
Eldar Namazov and former Foreign Minister Tofik Zulfugarov. In March,
shortly after the special Azerbaijani parliament session to discuss the
leaked earlier Minsk Group peace proposals, the two men had unveiled an
"Initial Platform towards a Settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani
Conflict" (see "RFE/RL Caucasus Report," Vol. 4, No. 11, 16 March 2001).
More recently, together with Nazim Imanov, a leading member of AMIP, and
Sabit Bagirov, who served as president of the Azerbaijan state oil company
under the Azerbaijan Popular Front leadership, they have drafted a
"Charter" outlining priorities and ways to resolve the Karabakh conflict,
and are soliciting support for that document from the country's political
parties.
In an interview with "Zerkalo" published on 21 July, Namazov lists as
priorities that must be addressed in a settlement the liberation of
occupied Azerbaijani territories "both within Nagorno-Karabakh and
beyond," the repatriation of displaced persons, and "granting to both the
Armenian and Azerbaijani population of Nagorno-Karabakh a status that does
not violate the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan."
Namazov said that the leaders of most political parties, including Civic
Unity Party Chairman and former President Ayaz Mutalibov, have appended
their signatures to the charter, as have 20 parliament deputies and some
300 NGOs. The only political parties that declined to do so were the
ruling Yeni Azerbaycan Party, whose leaders explained that they cannot
defy President Aliev, and the influential opposition Musavat Party headed
by Isa Gambar.
Namazov argued that the groundswell of support for the charter reflects
both the degree to which the hitherto fragmented opposition has closed
ranks, and the growing realization among the population at large that
individual opinions do carry some weight. In that context, he cited the
rationale advanced by the Minsk Group co-chairs for the indefinite
postponement of the meeting between Aliev and Kocharian scheduled for
Geneva in mid-June -- namely, that both presidents needed more time to
prepare public opinion for the unpalatable compromises that a peace
agreement would necessitate.
The charter affirms that Azerbaijan would be justified in launching a
military campaign if Armenia refuses to withdraw from "our lands." Asked
whether the Azerbaijani army should simply try to restore the Azerbaijani
government's control over Nagorno-Karabakh, or advance into Armenia,
Namazov replied that "as soon as we liberate our occupied territories,
Azerbaijan should raise the question of the return of the lands that were
annexed to Armenia with the help of the Bolsheviks at the beginning of the
last century. This issue is extremely important both in terms of restoring
historical justice and from the point of view of prevent further Armenian
expansion against Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan should not attack Armenia. But
having got back Karabakh, we must give the Armenians to understand that in
the event of a new attack on us, the next war will end with them losing
Geycha [Lake Sevan] and Zangezur." (Liz Fuller)
Copyright 2001 RFE/RL
AZERBAIJANI PRESIDENT DENIES REACHING PRELIMINARY AGREEMENT ON ENDING KARABAKH CONFLICT
Speaking to journalists at Baku airport on 3 August on his return from the
CIS summit in Sochi, Azerbaijan's President Heidar Aliev again denied that
during talks in Paris in March and Florida in April, he and his Armenian
counterpart Robert Kocharian reached agreement on the main terms for
ending the Karabakh conflict. Aliev was quoted by Azerbaijan State
Television as saying that he and Kocharian "simply discussed various
options in Paris, but we did not come to any firm decision," and that
Armenia later "stepped back" from some of those options, RFE/RL's Yerevan
bureau reported on 4 August. He added that no agreement was reached in the
Florida talks, stressing that "this is a process. You reach an agreement
one time, later you see that they reject it." On the eve of the Paris
meeting, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian said those talks would
focus on general principles for a settlement formulated by French
President Jacques Chirac and his U.S. and Russian counterparts which if
accepted by Baku, Yerevan, and Stepanakert could serve as a basis for a
settlement document (see "RFE/RL Newsline," 5 March 2001). Armenian and
Karabakh officials have since accused Baku of going back on agreements
reached in Paris and Florida, while Aliev and Azerbaijani Foreign Minister
Vilayet Quliev have denied that the so-called "Paris principles" exist
(see "RFE/RL Newsline," 12 June and 18 July 2001). LF
RFE/RL Transcaucasia Newsline, August 6, 2001
Azeri parties doubt sincerity of Karabakh minister's remarks on refugees
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Aug 4, 2001
Azeri opposition parties have given a mixed response to remarks by the Karabakh foreign minister that Azeri refugees can return to their homes in Nagornyy Karabakh. A spokesman for the People's Front said that the minister's comments were "a propaganda trick" while the Milli Istiqlal Party spokesman said that the refugees would return anyway when Azerbaijani sovereignty was re-established. The cochairman of the Social Democratic Party said that the minister should be taken up on her offer but added that the refugees should return only to a demilitarized area, policed by neutral powers. The following is the text of Mirqadirov's report in Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo on 2 August entitled "'Nagornyy Karabakh' ready to receive Azerbaijani refugees":
This is what Naira Melkumyan said
Nagornyy Karabakh is ready to receive Azerbaijani refugees, the so-called "Nagornyy Karabakh Foreign Minister" Naira Melkumyan, said at a meeting with representatives of the Yerevan, Baku and Xankandi [Stepanakert] press clubs.
Of course, Melkumyan's statement is propaganda and has the aim of demonstrating to the world community the peaceful disposition of the Nagornyy Karabakh Armenians.
One could expect that everyone in Azerbaijan would unanimously say that the refugees should return to their homes, even if their homes are under Armenian occupation. However, this is not so -
The deputy chairman of the Milli Istiqlal Party [AMIP] with responsibility for political issues, Ilqar Mammadov, said that the Azerbaijani refugees would return to their homes in any case. "It is a matter of time. Azerbaijan itself will ensure the return of the refugees to their homes if the talks on a peace settlement do not yield positive results. The return of the refugees under any occupation regime is absurd. This is inadmissible and impossible. Our refugees should return to their homes and Azerbaijani sovereignty should be established on the territories that they return to. There is no logic in the idea that 50,000 Nagornyy Karabakh Armenians govern several hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis," Mammadov said. Mammadov added that there were no other options for this problem.
The cochairman of the Social Democratic Party of Azerbaijan, Zardust Alizada, said that the refugees should return not only to the districts outside Nagornyy Karabakh, but inside this region as well. "As for the status of these people, like Nagornyy Karabakh Armenians, the refugees who return to their homes are also citizens of Azerbaijan. The security of both Azerbaijanis and Armenians should be ensured. As for the demands of the separatists, they already understand that they have no prospects," Alizada said.
Alizada believes that Azerbaijan could take advantage of this statement by Melkumyan to start talks about the return of the refugees and restoration of local Azerbaijani administrations in the territories that the refugees return to. Alizada said: "If they accept this, for God's sake, let them do it. If not, then this refusal proves once again that Melkumyan's statement is an act in the propaganda war to obtain dividends by feigning a peaceful disposition."
Alizada also said that the return of Azerbaijani refugees to the Armenian occupation regime was impossible. He said: "Not a single Azerbaijani will return to the territories where Armenian armed forces are deployed. The primary condition for the return of the Azerbaijani refugees should be the withdrawal of troops. There is no need for Azerbaijani armed forces to replace the Armenian ones. This area could be demilitarized. Our party voiced these proposals seven years ago. There is a need to demilitarize the whole of Karabakh and withdraw the Armenian armed forces. International police forces, which do not involve the armed forces of super powers or the big countries of the region, could be temporarily deployed there. These police forces could consist of the police forces from countries such as Denmark, Finland, the Czech Republic etc. These forces could monitor the situation, so that neither military groups nor criminals created problems for the peaceful life of citizens." The cochairman of the Social Democratic Party of Azerbaijan sees no other option for the resolution of this problem and believes that any other option is inadmissible for Azerbaijan.
A member of the People's Front of Azerbaijan presidium, Fuad Mustafayev, says that it should not be a question of only the settlements inside Nagornyy Karabakh, but of the six occupied districts outside this region as well, as the majority of the one million refugees are residents of these districts. The representative of the People's Front of Azerbaijan Party says that there is a need for national and international security guarantees for the refugees' return. These guarantees could be given only after the complete resolution of the Karabakh problem. "I believe that Melkumyan's statement is a propaganda trick," he said.
Mustafayev also said that the return of refugees to the occupation regime was not possible because this could result in our citizens becoming Armenian hostages.
Source: Zerkalo, Baku, in Russian 2 Aug 01 p 3
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
'CHARTER OF FOUR' SUPPORTERS GROWING
A discussion over the Nationwide Charter on solution of the
Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict was held at the Press Club of Zerkalo
newspaper Thursday. The event was initiated by ex-foreign minister Tofig
Zulfugarov, former aide to the Azerbaijan President Eldar Namazov, a
member of the PNIA political council Nazim Imanov and ex-president of
SOCAR Sabit Bagirov, as the four met with directors of 9 news agencies.
Having become familiar with the Charter, leaders of the news agencies
signed the document, describing it as a document reflecting the will of
the Azerbaijan people in the solution of the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict.
Back in June, the four reportedly issued a statement on all-national
principles for resolving the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict. Over the period
that has elapsed since, the group has met with MPs, leaders of political
parties, public organizations, mass media, intellectuals, etc. and has won
overwhelming public support.
It is indicative that the Yeni Azerbaijan Party and a number of
pro-governmental parties have opposed the Charter, as deputy executive
secretary of the governing party Mubariz Gurbanli told journalists that
the document does not contain anything new, while the group is trying to
take advantage of the national problem in order to earn political
dividends.
Authors of the Charter believe that the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict can
be resolved only on the basis of the following principles and in the
following sequence:
- all occupied territories of Azerbaijan must be freed and the territorial
integrity of the state restored;
- internally displaced persons must return to their homes (including
Shusha and other residential areas of Garabagh) and their safety
guaranteed;
- the Armenian and Azerbaijan population of the Upper Garabagh may be
provided with the right of self-administration.
If the problem cannot be resolved through peace negotiations, the
Azerbaijan Republic, in keeping with the UN Charter and resolutions of the
UN Security Council, must oust the aggressor from the territory of
Azerbaijan with the use of force.*
[emphasis added - my note]
AZERI JOURNALISTS VISIT KHANKANDI, SHUSHA
5 Azeri journalists traveled to Khankandi and Shusha on July 26-30 as part
of the project of the Baku and Yerevan press clubs, according to the
chairman of the Yeni Nasil Union of Journalists Mr. Arif Aliyev.
The 6-month project, launched in February, calls for a monitoring of
Garabagh related media materials, opinion study of political leaders and
statesmen in regard to ways of resolving the conflict and public opinion
polls. Results of the surveys will be drawn in late August and made public
in September.
Mr. Aliyev said Azeri journalists had spread questionnaires containing 25
questions among the Garabagh population. After being filled out, the
questionnaires will be sent to Baku.
According to him, there are only 5 state-owned newspapers in Upper
Garabagh, local television broadcasts 1.5 hours a day, the quality of AzTV
broadcasts leaves much to be desired, independent Azeri television
channels are not televised at all, while the population watches only
Armenian TV.
Initially, meetings were scheduled with the leader of the so-called Upper
Garabagh republic A. Gukasian and foreign minister of the self-proclaimed
republic N. Melkumian, but only the latter agreed to talk to Azeri
journalists.
A video footage shot in Khankandi and Shusha was demonstrated to the
participants of the news conference. According to eyewitnesses, the
situation in Shusha and Lachin is extremely difficult, with Lachin almost
empty as only one of 15-20 apartment buildings are populated.*
AssA-Irada News, August 2, 2001
Copyright 2001 AssA-Irada
Azerbaijani Journalists Visit Armenia, Karabakh
A group of Azerbaijani journalists visited Armenia and the occupied
territories of Azerbaijan from 26--29 July. The visit was arranged by the
Baku and Erevan Press Clubs and financed by the Open Society Institute.
Arif Aliyev, the chairman of the Journalists' Union "Yeni Nasil," held a
press conference on 2 August at which he said the main purpose of the
journalists was to study the role of the media in the Nagorno Karabakh
problem and to find out the opinion of experts and society.
According to Aliyev, the Armenians agreed before the visit that the Azeri
journalists would be allowed to film the occupied territories of Shusha,
Lachin, Khankendi and Aghdam, but during the visit Armenians changed their
mind and refused to allow them to film Lachin. The Armenians also didn't
let them visit Aghdam. "Every time we asked the reason for this action
they avoided giving an answer," Aliyev said. "But then they confessed that
there is nothing to film in Aghdam." Aliyev says this proves that Aghdam
is wholly destroyed.
The newly built churches were more interesting for local journalists.
Aliyev says that there were 15,000 Azeris living in Shusha before the war,
but Armenians claim the figure was only 2,000.
The Armenians have created good conditions for themselves in Khankendi.
Aliyev says there are no buildings there which bear traces of the war.
According to Aliyev the journalists also had a chance to talk to some
people in Khankendi who said they live badly.
(Maarif Chingizoglu)
RFE/RL Azerbaijan Report, August 3, 2001
Central Asia - Caucasus Analyst
BIWEEKLY BRIEFING Wednesday/August 1, 2001
THE WIDER CONTEXT OF 'PEACEMAKING' IN THE CAUCASUS
By Emin Alisayidov
The increased pace of negotiations between Armenia ad Azerbaijan this
spring led to great optimism, especially given the high level U.S.
interest in the conflict. Increased U.S. cooperation with Moscow has
been repeatedly praised. While this is a positive development, there
is a risk of this cooperation becoming an end in itself while Russia is
aggressively pursuing its interests in the region without any western
reaction. The situation calls for a principled U.S. approach where the
achievement of a lasting peace is seen as the main objective, rather
than as a vehicle for 'cooperation' with Moscow.
BACKGROUND: The intensification of mediating efforts to negotiate an
agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan by the OSCE Minsk Group (of
which France, Russia and the US are co-chairmen) earlier this year,
produced an upsurge of now-subsiding optimism. The head-on charge by US
co-chair Ambassador Cavanaugh so early in the new Administration's
tenure, as well as President Bush's and Secretary Powell's direct
participation, indicated the importance of the region for Washington.
Importantly, the mediators seem to have abandoned their often-criticized
competition and have found a way to work together. Such a cooperation
among the co-chairs was repeatedly, and sometimes excessively, emphasized
and hailed by the co-chairs themselves, but is certainly welcome in the
region. However, there is a fine balance between cooperation in order to
achieve a fair peace, and making mediators' cooperation, rather than
reaching lasting peace, the main priority.
During high-profile Moscow-Washington summits in the late 1980s and
early 1990s, many suspicious conspiracy-theorists in Baku (admittedly,
most post-Soviet observers typically are) warned about agreements at the
expense of Azerbaijan. To make their point, they reminded that often a
major military success of the Russian-backed Armenian military, or even
the Soviet invasion of Baku in January 1990, were preceded by White
House-Kremlin photo-ops. It shouldn't be surprising, therefore, that Mr.
Cavanaugh's newfound 'excellent cooperation' with Moscow, mentioned
visibly more frequently than the Russian military presence in Armenia or
the overall forceful Russian tactics in the region, brings back bad
memories.
While in the narrow sense of the term Russia might have become more
cooperative, evidence of the same in a wider regional context is yet to
be seen. Russia's military presence in Armenia is not abating. Quite to
the contrary, new arms are being openly shipped, a joint 'rapid reaction
force' is being discussed. The Duma passed a law enabling the Russian
Federation to incorporate a foreign state or a part of it, and speaking
in Yerevan, a Russian military official threatened Azerbaijan with the
use of force. With the only response from Washington being yet more talk
of 'cooperation between peacemakers', anxiety naturally grows among the
Azerbaijani public wary of the potential sacrifices that maintaining such
a cooperation could come to require.
IMPLICATIONS: The western policy of what amounts to de-facto condoning
Russia's misbehavior, most notably and tragically its murderous approach
in Chechnya, sends mixed signals to others in the region. It is not a
secret that the events in Chechnya are closely watched by Russia's
neighbors as a warning to them. In this respect, neither the brutality of
Moscow's crackdown against the people it claims to be its citizens, nor
the West's silence, are good news.
As an indirect consequence of Russia's actions in the North Caucasus,
the region is witnessing a growing risk of violent instability, increase
in crime, an overall rise of militancy and a perception of impunity as
well as the radicalization of otherwise possibly benign Islamic groups.
Moreover, along with destroying Chechen society and exhausting Russia's
own - and its neighbors' - resources, Moscow's actions undermine the
fragile and sensitive system of co-existence, traditionally maintained
among diverse groups in the Caucasus, thus severely damaging long-term
prospects for normalcy in the region. Ten years into their independence,
the Caucasus republics of Azerbaijan and Georgia are firmly on the radar
screens of Western policy-makers both in terms of attention and support.
Yet, still weakened and exhausted by a seemingly never-ending
socioeconomic transition, they are now coming under increasing and much
more sophisticated pressure from Putin's Moscow evidently determined to
reassert control over them. If this pressure is not matched by a
corresponding increase in Western support for these countries'
independence, they may fall victim to Russia's forceful intrigues and
their own mismanagement. In fact, while Western presence in Azerbaijan
has increased and Russia's has been declining over the last decade, the
overwhelming impact of numerous channels of Russian broadcast and print
media conveniently available in Azerbaijan should not be underestimated.
Access to western media is further limited by the language barrier. In
fact, the impact of this flow of information with a distinctly Muscovite
flavor on shaping political perceptions has never been greater. Feeling
the seeming indifference of the West and perceiving the plight of their
nations as just an element among others in U.S. - Russia relations, many
in the Caucasus fear the return of Moscow's domination on the one hand
and the rise of radical movements on the other. Sadly, in the post-Soviet
countries, where all-national pro-independence movements uni
veral years ago, political apathy is a growing trend.
Mediators' disturbing words about the need to recognize 'the reality on
the ground' add insult to injury for people for whom this 'reality' means
ethnic cleansing of their lands and years in refugee camps. Recognition
and acceptance of 'the reality' achieved in violation of international
norms, with Russia's open military backing also means that such a
'reality' can be reversed with the same impunity and, perhaps, again with
Russian military backing. This in turn would undermine a fundamental
cornerstone of Azerbaijan's independent statehood - the hard-won
departure of Russian military from the country's territory. As the
example of neighboring Georgia is presently showing, a Russian military
presence, even in some form of a peacekeeping force, turns into a strong
leverage in Moscow's hands.
CONCLUSIONS: The region is already witnessing the influence of growing
Russian pressures on traditionally close Azerbaijan - Georgia ties as
well as on GUUAM. Moreover, Moscow's policies have not been conducive for
the Trans-Caspian Caucasus-Central Asia cooperation. Ironically, this all
is taking place at a time when new opportunities are abundant for Western
involvement, the process of building independent institutions in most of
the former Soviet states is fully underway, and Russia's real potential
is limited to undermining its weaker neighbors.
The US should base its negotiating efforts on principles of
international law and the values it is being associated with in the
region and help Armenia and Azerbaijan to negotiate a peace acceptable to
two independent nations. In this way, Washington will continue to be seen
as an honest broker, rather than just a broker. Positive consequences of
such a principled approach, just as the negative ones of the contrary,
will go beyond the Armenia-Azerbaijan peace process.
AUTHOR BIO: Emin Alisayidov is a freelance Azerbaijani writer.
Copyright 2001 The Analyst
Thursday, 2 August 2001 - Volume VII, Issue 148
JAMESTOWN FOUNDATION MONITOR - A daily briefing on the Post-Soviet states
Vladimir Socor
[email protected]
ARMENIAN PARLIAMENT SAYS NO TO "RECONCILIATION" WITH TURKEY.
Armenia's political system nixes Turkish-Armenian reconciliation initiative
On July 31, the Armenian parliament closed ranks against the recently created,
unofficial Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission and its proposals (see the
Monitor, July 18). Five parliamentary parties and two nonpartisan
parliamentary groups, making up an overwhelming majority of that fractious
body, issued a joint declaration condemning the commission, its programmatic
intentions and the concept of reconciliation itself. These political forces
had all along been aware of United States support for the reconciliation
initiative.
Terming that initiative "suspect," the parliamentary declaration condemned
Turkey for "continuing to deny the 1915 Armenian genocide" and for its stand
on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. As distinct from "reconciliation," the
parliamentary statement called for a "normalization of relations" with
Turkey if the latter abandons those positions. The declaration warned the
Armenian participants in the reconciliation initiative that "it is
unacceptable to weaken the process of garnering international recognition of
the Armenian genocide and split the united Armenian front."
A cross-section of Armenia's political forces, both governmental and in
opposition, adopted this declaration. These include the Republican Party of
Prime Minister Andranik Margarian, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation
(ARF)-Dashnaksutiun allied with President Robert Kocharian, the Communist
Party, and several right-wing nationalist parties and groups.
The declaration caps a systematic political assault, initiated by the
Dashnaks
but which turned into a bandwagon, against the reconciliation initiative in
general and its Armenian supporters in particular. Those supporters are
mainly associated with the formerly ruling (1991-98) Armenian Pan-National
Movement, its successor groups and the few media outlets still backing them.
The political backlash has forced the government onto the defensive. The
Foreign Affairs Ministry had initially signaled its tentative assent,
however cautiously and noncommittally worded, to the Reconciliation
Commission's initiative two weeks ago. Since then, Foreign Affairs Minister
Vardan Oskanian has taken pains to distance himself and the ministry from
the reconciliation project.
In the diaspora, the Armenian Assembly of America (AAA)--a major force on
the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission--has come under virulent
attack from the ARF-led Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) and
like-minded groups. At the heart of the controversy is the "genocide issue."
Those opposing the reconciliation initiative fear that it would thwart their
campaign for international recognition of the 1915-1918 mass killings of
Armenians as a "genocide" organized by the Ottoman government.
While the political forces behind that campaign are diverse, activists
envisage
recognition as leading to reparation and restitution--the "three Rs"--by
modern Turkey to Armenia and Armenians. That agenda, traditionally
associated with the diaspora's activist sections, was shunned by the
Armenian state in 1991-98, but was subsequently adopted by Kocharian and his
government.
Turkey for its part points out that the conflicts in 1915-18 in Anatolia and
1918-20 in the South Caucasus killed and displaced equivalent numbers of
Armenians and Turks in a chaotic, mutual bloodletting. Turkey, moreover,
feels that the ongoing Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict also needs to be
addressed as part of attempts to normalize Armenian-Turkish relations.
Ankara argues that it cannot ignore the eviction of 700,000 Azeris from
their homes by Armenian forces in 1993 and the seizure of that part of
Azerbaijan.
The Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission does not propose to resolve
the genocide issue, though it does propose to have it researched by
historians, lawyers and social psychologists. Nor does it propose to deal
with the recent Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. The commission's members want
Turks and Armenians to move from residual hostility and mutual ignorance to
some level of understanding and cooperation. Economically, Armenia needs
such cooperation far more than Turkey does. Yet the political backlash in
Yerevan seems designed, first, to pillory the advocates of reconciliation,
and, second, to force the government to stick to the view that "genocide
recognition" must be a precondition to any normalization.
In Turkey and Azerbaijan, the political forces have paid only scant
attention to the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission and its
initiative. Turkish mainstream press reactions, while sporadic, have been
cautiously favorable. The governments in Ankara and Baku seem, publicly at
least, to bide their time and give this American-backed initiative a chance.
(Roundup based on recent reporting by Noyan-Tapan, Snark, Azg, Armenpress,
Groong Armenian News Service and Turkish press monitoring, July 18-August 1).
News referred from Habarlar-L
On August 1, there was held a face-to-face meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents Heidar Aliev and Robert Kocharian in Sochi. The meeting continued for an hour and fifteen minutes and was discussed the regulation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. After the meeting the Armenian president told journalists that the parties could not come to a "common opinion". Heads of the two countries have agreed to continue the discussions. In the words of Kocharian, "the talks were not passed easy, but both presidents have the strength of will to settle the problem".
In his turn, the Azeri president Heidar Aliev stated that there were discussed different variants during the meeting. In his words, the parties could not come to an agreement on any last variant, but intended to continue the dialogue.
Both presidents confirmed that it was impossible "to go out of the deadlock". Kocharian marked the presidents had agreed to be "self-possessed". He stated that at some point the parties "were trying to strike a goal to each other" through media. Aliev added that nobody besides him has informed about the theme of the talks in Azerbaijan. "If somebody speaks anything, it is his/her own opinion" stressed he.
AZERBAIJAN BULLETIN No:31 (285), August 02 2001
http://www.andf-az.org/
Azeri party condemns Armenia for moving families to Karabakh
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Aug 2, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency Bilik Dunyasi
Baku, 1 August: More that 220 Armenian families were moved to Karabakh permanently from January 2000 to March 2001, a statement of the Civic Unity Party says. This is an undeniable proof that Armenia has no interest in settling the Karabakh conflict and is trying to artificially increase the number of its Armenian population. This is an inadmissible and the leadership of Azerbaijan should firmly protest to Armenia and notify the OSCE Minsk Group.
Source: Bilik Dunyasi news agency, Baku, in Russian 1 Aug 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Azeri expert expects president to declare state of emergency and start war
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 28, 2001
Text of unattributed report by Azerbaijani newspaper Sarq on 28 July entitled "War will start by the end of the year"
Cumsud Nuriyev: "Aliyev will declare state of emergency"
We are all wondering about the answer to the question "What will be the consequences of ongoing political processes in Azerbaijan at the end of the year?" The former MP, Cumsud Nuriyev, has pessimistic predictions for the end of the year.
"President Heydar Aliyev will introduce a state of emergency and then unleash a war by the end of the year," Cumsud Nuriyev thinks. He also says that the public and political situation in the country will deteriorate following attacks on our country. In a conversation with Olaylar news agency, Cumsud Nuriyev said that no progress was expected in the resolution of the Karabakh problem by the end of the year. The former MP admits the possibility of certain disagreements in the country, but he rules out social upheaval.
Source: Sarq, Baku, in Azeri 28 Jul 01 p 1
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
Turkish journalist says Armenians setting up anti-Azeri terrorist organization
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Jul 28, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani TV station ANS on 27 July
[Presenter] A Turkish journalist has informed our country about the creation of a new terrorist organization to pose a threat to Azerbaijan. Armenians created this organization.
[Correspondent over footage of Yerevan] One more Armenian terrorist organization besides ASALA [Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia] is being created. This was reported by the author and presenter of the "Behind the Curtain" programme of Turkish TRT television channel, Erturk Yondem, who held a press conference in Baku. Saying that the information had been clarified by some sources, Erturk Yondem noted that Azerbaijan and Turkey should be aware of the creation of such terrorist organizations beforehand. He said that the facts about the Armenians' terrorist attacks against Azerbaijan and Turkey should be presented to the world community. Erturk Yondem said that mainly for this reason TRT was working on an hour-long film about Armenian terrorist attacks and brutality against Azeris during the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. The film, to be translated into six languages, will be broadcast on the Turkish and Azerbaijani national television channels in August.
Expressing his attitude towards the creation of the new terrorist organization by Armenians, the head of the press service of the Azerbaijani National Security Ministry, Araz Qurbanov, said that the National Security Ministry did not rule out the possibility that such an organization had been created.
Source: ANS TV, Baku, in Azeri 1700 gmt 27 Jul 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.
AZERBAIJAN CAN DEVELOP EVEN WITHOUT U.S. ASSISTANCE: NOVRUZ MAMEDOV
Source:ANS
26.07.01--BAKU--The House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress has
taken a decision on rendering assistance to foreign countries. According
to the document, Armenia will receive $82.5 million in 2002. U.S.
legislators also demanded to allocate $8.2 million for the breakaway
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The House of Representatives said in its
statement that the notorious Section 907 to the Freedom Support Act hasn�t
been liquidated and this issues wasn�t on the agenda. Besides, Rep. Joseph
Crowley and a group of 36 congressmen sent a letter to President George W
Bush. In it, the congressman asked the head of the American state to help
lay the Baku-Ceyhan Main Export Pipeline (MEP) via Armenia. According to
Mr Crowley, up to $600 million will be saved if the MEP runs through the
territory of Armenia, as it would be the most economically profitable
route. The congressman also noted that Washington should ignore Baku�s
appeals to isolate Armenia. We would remind you that congressmen Joe
Knollenberg, Frank Pallone, Joseph Crowley and John Sweaney had announced
earlier this month that a new letter would be sent to the U.S. president.
The congressmen are also going to express their anxiety over spending the
means of U.S. taxpayers on the Caspian energy process. Commenting on this
matter, the head of the Presidential Administrations (PA) department of
foreign relations, Novruz Mamedov said no broad discussions were held with
the U.S. side on repealing the Section 907. But Mr Mamedov noted at the
same time that existence of Section 907 some kind lost its significance
for Azerbaijan today. Despite the Sections being in force for many years,
the PA official said Azerbaijan has had some economic achievements and
ensured its development. Mr Mamedov said also that Section 907 is not
anything the U.S. foreign diplomacy should be proud of. As for the
congressmen�s appeal to lay the Baku-Ceyhan MEP through Armenia, the Azeri
politician called it another adventure of the Armenian Diaspora and
recommended not to pay attention to it.
By Ayten Safarova
Parliament Prepares to Condemn Reconciliation Commission
YEREVAN (Armenpress)--Several parties represented in parliament are
expected to issue a statement to condemn the creation of the
Turkish-Armenian Commission for Reconciliation.
A source in the parliament has told reporters that the statement had
already been signed by the Armenian Communist Party, Armenian
Revolutionary Federation and the Constitutional Rights Union. The source
said other parliament forces were expected to sign the statement. So far
only the Hayastan parliamentary group, representing the Union of Karabakh
war veterans has refused to sign it.
The agreement to create the commission was reached in Geneva after months
of confidential negotiations. The ten-member private group, among them two
former foreign ministers and retired diplomats, said it will try to foster
cooperation and communication that could lead to direct talks between the
governments of Turkey and Armenia.
Earlier, the Armenian government welcomed the creation of the
"reconciliation commission" composed of former Turkish and Armenian
officials. But it reiterated by stating that a full normalization of
relations between the two neighboring states will be impossible without
Ankara agreeing to establish diplomatic relations with Yerevan. The
country's leading political parties, meanwhile are mostly skeptical about
the success of the unprecedented initiative with the ARF at the forefront.
Copyright 2001 Armenpress
ARMENIAN SEPARATISM REAR UP IN GEORGIA
According to the Yeni Musavat newspaper, MP from the Georgian parliament
representing Akhalkalaki province, Melik Raisian, said in case the
governor of Samikha-Javakhetia, Gigla Baramidze, did not resign, people in
this region would launch mass protest actions. The MP alleges that Mr.
Baramidze is a despotic ruler in a region overwhelmingly populated by
Armenians and keeps the official Tbilisi misinformed of the local
situation.
Deputy chairman of the Musavat party, Gabil Husseinli, says that Armenian
separatism in Javakhetia has historic roots. This is one of the components
of the all-national Armenian movement. The key purpose here is to annex
Javakhetia to Armenia, he said.*
AssA-Irada News, July 27-28, 2001
News referred from Habarlar-L