Is Armenia ready to comprimise Armenian values?

[Joseph]

New Referendum

Karabakh To Hold Constitutional Referendum In December


By Ruzanna Khachatrian
The leadership of Nagorno-Karabakh will hold a referendum next December on its draft constitution that declares the Armenian-controlled territory an “independent and sovereign state,” a senior official in Stepanakert said on Wednesday.

Rudik Hyusnunts, deputy speaker of the Karabakh parliament, told RFE/RL that the decision was made on Monday at a meeting of a government commission that has for years been working on the text of a first-ever Karabakh constitution. The commission is headed by Arkady Ghukasian, president of the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic.

“The NKR president will sign a decree to hold a referendum on the constitutional draft on December 10,” said Hyusnunts.

The decree can be signed only after the NKR National Assembly debates and endorses the commission’s constitutional draft. According to Hyusnunts, the assembly will receive the draft on June 15 and open debates on it in September. The Karabakh parliament is dominated by members of Ghukasian’s Democratic Artsakh Party and its junior coalition partner, the Azat Hayrenik Party.

Stepanakert’s decision to effectively set a date for the referendum came on the same day as the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan again failed to reach a framework peace agreement, all but dashing hopes for a settlement of the Karabakh conflict in the near future. Meeting in Bucharest on Sunday and Monday, Robert Kocharian and Ilham Aliev apparently discussed a peace deal that would enable Karabakh’s predominantly Armenian population to determine the disputed region’s status in a future referendum.

Ghukasian and other Karabakh leaders have been less than enthusiastic about this formula proposed by international mediators, saying that the Karabakh Armenians had already voted to secede from Azerbaijan in December 1991. The legitimacy of that referendum was never recognized by Azerbaijan and the international community, however.

“On December 10 we will try to reaffirm the results of our independence referendum,” said Hyusnunts.

[imported_Hellektor]

We have nothing to give the Turks

Despite the fact that holding Gubatli, Zangelan, Aghdam, Fizuli make the defense of Artskah easier, these were always held as bargaining chips anyway. If the peace accord moves forward and Armenian independence is granted for Artsakh with the addition of Karavachar and Berdzor, (with guarantees of course) it would be a great victory and the most realistic one.

Cede land to the Turks? What the hell for?
They started the war.
They gave us genocide.
It's the Turks who are illegaly holding more than 90% of Armenian territory.
The whole "ceding land" crap is part of the Zionist/Anglo-xxxson treachery and a trap we shouldn't fall into.
Instead of letting this psychological weapon work into our brains, we have to represent the facts to the world community.

The destruction of Jugha cemetery and all Armenian heritage in Nakhijevan is reason enough for Armenia to stop the talks and attack to liberate Nakhijevan.

Since all of 27000 Armenian monuments (cemeteries, khachkars, churches, monasteries, etc.) accounted for by Argam Ayvazian are feared totally destroyed, there will be no fear of unintentionally harming Armenian heritage.
And since the indigenous Armenian population was ethnically cleansed in front of the eyes of the Soviet leaders and later in 1990s, there can be no fear of human casualties.

So why doesn't Armenia dispose of garbage in Nakhijevan by carpet bombing the area and negotiates Armenian territory with the sore, genocidal losers?

______________________________________

What the heck, allow me to paste my "Azeri" history once more:

"Azeri" History for Dummies

"Azerbaijan" is an artificially created "country" on Armenian territory as a result of an artificial insemination between the Turkish phallus and Russian Bolshevik anus.

When this Frankenstein monster was dumped from the Bolshevik rectum, they stole the name of their fake country from the northwest region of Iran and no one protested except some patriotic Iranians who were willing to give up their 2200 year old right to the name Azarbaijan (Aturpatekan) and call it Azadestan in order not to be associated with the fake "nation"…

Then, this fictitious newly fabricated “nation” called itself “Azeri”, a nation that has NEVER existed throughout human history thus, a nonentity.
They were called Tatars before 1918 and that was after the region fell under Russian rule in the 19th century. Before that these tribal nomads distinguished one another from the color of their sheep.

Azari is a term used by Arab historians to describe the LANGUAGE of the people of the real Azarbaijan (Aturpatekan), north-west of Iran and ALWAYS south of the Arax River. It was a language of the PERSIAN family of languages called Pahlavi. The dialect spoken in Aturpatekan was called Pahlavi e Azari, to distinguish it from other Pahlavi dialects. Later when the people of Aturpatekan were forced to become speakers of Turkish, the word Azari was wrongly attributed to the Turkish dialect of these people, AND NEVER TO THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES.

Later, after a passionate copulation between the Jew-Tatar Kemal and the Jew-Tatar Lenin, the Armenian provinces of Artsakh and Nakhijevan were illegally annexed to the Frankenstein monster and Kars, Ardahan, Ardvin and Surmalu that had never been a part of Ottoman Tyranny, (our beautiful Ani that has been savagely destroyed since and our most sacred symbol, mount Ararat were included in the package) were given just like that to Turkey.

Consult all the maps of the region and you see that a country called Azerbaijan north of the Arax River did not exist before 1918, and Armenia extended in the east to the river Kur until the 19th century. Earlier, Armenia reached the Caspian sea.
Even Arab historians considered Aghvank as part of Greater Armenia (Medz Hyke).

[Hovik]

Cede land to the Turks? What the hell for?
They started the war.
They gave us genocide.
It's the Turks who are illegaly holding more than 90% of Armenian territory.
The whole "ceding land" crap is part of the Zionist/Anglo-xxxson treachery and a trap we shouldn't fall into.
Instead of letting this psychological weapon work into our brains, we have to represent the facts to the world community.

Completely agree! But the fact is that the war isn't over until an agreement is reached. So while we were winning the war, last time it was active - a lot of things have changed since then. I'm not saying we couldn't continue to win the war, but I am sure Azerbaijan has made adjustments in the department of war and resources, that will make it another long and bloody battle if it resumes. The worst thing we could do now is agree to anything that gives them a corridor to Nahijevan, then pan-turanism will have won in part. And the second worst thing we could do is return Kelbajar. I agree though, what they lost they lost. This policy though destroys the peace process obviously, and would probably lead to war.

The destruction of Jugha cemetery and all Armenian heritage in Nakhijevan is reason enough for Armenia to stop the talks and attack to liberate Nakhijevan.

Since all of 27000 Armenian monuments (cemeteries, khachkars, churches, monasteries, etc.) accounted for by Argam Ayvazian are feared totally destroyed, there will be no fear of unintentionally harming Armenian heritage.
And since the indigenous Armenian population was ethnically cleansed in front of the eyes of the Soviet leaders and later in 1990s, there can be no fear of human casualties.

So why doesn't Armenia dispose of garbage in Nakhijevan by carpet bombing the area and negotiates Armenian territory with the sore, genocidal losers?

Thats an idea, since it'll probably lead to war anyway, why not liberate Nachijevan? Just out of curiosity Hellektor, do you think we have the military resources to fight in Karabagh and Nachijevan at the same time?

Also, since the population of Nachijevan consists of 0% Armenians, do you have a plan for how you are going to populate this land? and what you are going to do with those who inhabit it currently? And if you carpet bomb the land, destroying any infrasructure already there do you feel that the ROA has the extra funding sitting around to rebuild enough so that the land is inhabitable?

[the above may sound sarcastic, but don't be fooled. I'd like nothing more than to see more of Stalins wrongs righted, but the questions I asked are sincere, and I think they are important, so I am picking your brain only...]

[Varouj]

Armenia WON the war, it didn't lose it. Therefore, Armenia cannot be expected to concede anything. It is in Armenia's best interest to NEVER come to any sort of agreement and Armenia owes no one any such agreement. Let the PIGS dream of making an agreement because no agreement would ever be in Armenia's interest.

[imported_Hellektor]

We have all the winning cards: ceding land is out of the question

Cede land to the Turks? What the hell for?
They started the war.
They gave us genocide.
It's the Turks who are illegally holding more than 90% of Armenian territory.
The whole "ceding land" crap is part of the Zionist/Anglo-xxxson treachery and a trap we shouldn't fall into.
Instead of letting this psychological weapon work into our brains, we have to represent the facts to the world community.

Completely agree! But the fact is that the war isn't over until an agreement is reached. So while we were winning the war, last time it was active - a lot of things have changed since then. I'm not saying we couldn't continue to win the war, but I am sure Azerbaijan has made adjustments in the department of war and resources, that will make it another long and bloody battle if it resumes. The worst thing we could do now is agree to anything that gives them a corridor to Nahijevan, then pan-turanism will have won in part. And the second worst thing we could do is return Kelbajar. I agree though, what they lost they lost. This policy though destroys the peace process obviously, and would probably lead to war.

Hovik jan,

This is the situation:
Armenians demonstrated and voted for cessation completely legally according to Soviet law.
"Azerbaijan" perpetrated genocidal acts forcing 400,000 Armenians to flee their homeland and unleashed a war to exterminate Artsakh Armenians.
Armenians defended themselves and won the war.
"Azeris" committed cultural genocide in Nakhijevan and not only.
Most important of all, the present situation is the consequence of their actions, not the fault of the Armenians. This point should be hammered on ad nauseam until the Zionist xxxxxxs give in.

These are FACTS.
It's completely up to the Armenian leadership to play their cards the best possible way.
Just look at "Azeris" and their treacherous lies about the insignificant Khijalu incident or their whining about "Azeri" "refugees". How come they can use these lies to divert attention from the reality and our leaders cannot use reality to beat the "Azeri" hate propaganda?

The Zionist media also does a great job to hide the truth about "Azeri" barbarities.

The liberated Armenian land should not be the subject of any compromise. The sore losers, the "Azeris" are not ready for any compromise so why should we do that?
Will those chickenxxxxs start another war? I may be wrong but I don't think so.
Their English lovers won't allow their pipeline to be endangered by a new war and the Euroxxxs won't approve of it either, since they have said the side that starts a war will be thrown out of the Euroxxx Counsel.

Every time I hear the "negotiations" did not yield any results, I let out a sigh of relief. Any change in the situation will be to the detriment of the Armenians: No Artsakh = No Armenia.
And these are the Zionist/Anglo-xxxson "suggestions":

I. "Peace" keepers in Artsakh:
Why not peacekeepers in the "Azeri" side where peace is not kept?
The moment these Blue Helmet immoral hooligans are unleashed in Artsakh, expect all sorts of child molesting and rape scandals. They'll turn the region into a xxxxxhouse and their ill treatment of locals is well known.

II. "Azeri" "refugees" should return to "their" homes:
Bringing one million "Azeri" vermin "back" into Armenia to kill us in our sleep, when they don't even have mercy for our dead is unthinkable.
Since when there were more than a couple 100,000 "Azeris" in Armenia?
Why doesn't the "Azeri" government house them in 180,000 Armenian usurped homes instead of whining like hyenas, parading their "refugees" in front of the world?
What about the 400,000 Armenians who had to escape as a result of genocide?

III. Armenians should cede liberated, historically Armenian land to the losers:
What about 90% of Armenian territory occupied by the Turks?
When do the Armenians have to go back to their homeland? 91 years of exile are not enough? What's the hurry for the "Azeri" garbage?

IV. After 10 to 15 years (when the "Azeri" parasite will have bred like rats and will have multiplied tenfold), people of Artsakh will hold a referendum to decide Artsakh's future.
This is considered a "compromise" from the "Azeri" side. Give us a break!

And who says spending on military will make the "Azeris" better fighters? Didn't they have far superior equipment last time around?

The destruction of Jugha cemetery and all Armenian heritage in Nakhijevan is reason enough for Armenia to stop the talks and attack to liberate Nakhijevan.

Since all of 27000 Armenian monuments (cemeteries, khachkars, churches, monasteries, etc.) accounted for by Argam Ayvazian are feared totally destroyed, there will be no fear of unintentionally harming Armenian heritage.
And since the indigenous Armenian population was ethnically cleansed in front of the eyes of the Soviet leaders and later in 1990s, there can be no fear of human casualties.

So why doesn't Armenia dispose of garbage in Nakhijevan by carpet bombing the area and negotiates Armenian territory with the sore, genocidal losers?

Thats an idea, since it'll probably lead to war anyway, why not liberate Nachijevan? Just out of curiosity Hellektor, do you think we have the military resources to fight in Karabagh and Nachijevan at the same time?

Also, since the population of Nachijevan consists of 0% Armenians, do you have a plan for how you are going to populate this land? and what you are going to do with those who inhabit it currently? And if you carpet bomb the land, destroying any infrasructure already there do you feel that the ROA has the extra funding sitting around to rebuild enough so that the land is inhabitable?

[the above may sound sarcastic, but don't be fooled. I'd like nothing more than to see more of Stalins wrongs righted, but the questions I asked are sincere, and I think they are important, so I am picking your brain only...]

I know if the Western Turk suckers stay neutral, Armenia can take back Nakhijevan.
But we don't even need a war for that.

I truly believe the "positive" thing about this savagery is that Armenia should stop talks and demand justice and compensation. This is in no way an exaggeration.

What would Greeks or Italians do if some savage "state" went on rampage destroying their historical sites?
What? Are Armenian churches and khachkars less important in terms of historic value? They certainly aren't so for us at least. That's why the negligence of the Armenian government is extremely annoying.
It's the government that should address this issue and bring the barbarians to justice. I don't think anybody can object to that.
It's us who have to care for our heritage, no one will do it for us.
This is a really serious matter and the Armenian leadership has the duty to pursue this case.

There's ample proof that Nakhijevan was wrongly given to the Turks and the destruction of Armenian heritage should lead the Armenians to a more aggressive approach to the Kars/Moscow treaty issue and it's time they included Nakhijevan in the list of demands from the "Azeris", besides Shahoomian and Getashen.

So:
"Azeris" say: we demand Gebrail.
Armenians must say: first give us back Shahoomian.

"Azeris" say: we demand Fizuli.
Armenians must say: first give us back Getashen.

"Azeris" say: we demand Aghdam.
Armenians must say: first give us back Nakhijevan.

And don't worry about populating it. Time will tell. I really believe since legally speaking, Nakhijevan is Armenian it should be given back to its owners first. The Armenian population will slowly but surely return. Count on it.
It's up to the "Azeris" whether they want to stay or leave but after what they did to us I'd rather they got the hell out and took their folding and non-folding tents with them to the hell they came from.

Karvajar, Lachin and a corridor to Nakhijevan must be vehemently rejected and dismissed as a joke.
Armenians won the fukking war after all, didn't they?
What kind of loser attitude is this? The "Azeris" can't do xxxx, neither can the money worshipping Zionist/Freemason xxxxxxs.

Besides, even if in the worst-case scenario, Armenians gave all the liberated land to the Turks, do you sincerely believe they'll lift the embargo?
Don't you know pan-turkists want to destroy Armenia? Do you think this is fantasy?
Don't you know they offer nothing for everything?
Even if they initially open the borders, can't they close it for the slightest pretext?
Don't you know they committed the AG under fantastic pretexts of Armenian betrayal?
Don't you know "Azerbaijan" was artificially created for pan-turkist purposes?
Don't you know they (Noori pasha, half sibling of Enver), the Ottomans, named the bogus state "Azerbaijan" for future claims on the real Azarbaijan in order to suffocate Armenia and found the "Great" "Turan"?
Do you think I say these things just for the hell of it?

Armenia does not need relations with the Turks as long as pan-Turkism is the leading ideology of the Turkish state and its extension in the Caucasus.
Armenia has shown it can survive and grow economically without relations with the Turks and despite earthquake, war and embargo.

The Jews and Analglos blow the trumpet that Azgarbageland is the fastest growing economy in the world. But the growth is only oil related, unlike in Armenia.

So give me ONE good reason why we should fall into the Zionist/Turk/xxxxxx trap and allow Armenia to be destroyed ONLY to have a worthless piece of pissed-on, "peace" paper in our hands?

[Joseph]

MUST READ: Vladimir Kazimirov Statement

Vladimir Kazimirov: Conformism to whims and "creeping" concessions
resulted in a deadlock in Karabakh peace process

Regnum, Russia
July 18 2006


The report on Karabakh presented by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs
to the OSCE Permanent Council and their recent statements have shed
some light on the content of the private consultations between the
Azeri and Armenian presidents and FMs on the sensitive points of the
Nagorno-Karabakh (NK) conflict settlement.

The objective of the co-chairs was not only to report on their work and
to press on the leaders of the conflicting parties, but also to start
"making their people ready for peace" instead of them. Now they are
discussing the pluses and minuses of the peace process for each side,
but if they actually want to ensure peace, they should better give
this problem a wider approach.

Some media have presented the texts of the report and the statements
with lots of inaccuracies in translation, which is giving rise to
false rumors. For as long as more Armenians and Azeris know Russian
better than English, such documents should be made in Russian. They
in Vienna translate into English more expertly than they in the South
Caucasus - from English.

I would like to start with seemingly formal cavil at the co-chairs'
texts. They should better abstain from using in vain such significant
terms as "principles" and "agreement." Here the question is hardly
about "basic principles," let alone "framework agreement." The
co-chairs have given just general contours rather than specific -
and by no means new - principles.

True, they are trying to apply two real principles in Karabakh:
non-application of force and threats of force and peaceful resolution
of disputes. Here they must be given all-out support!

It is very early to speak about "framework agreement" yet. Even if the
parties agreed on specific "principles," it would be just political
arrangement between the two parties rather than final agreement. It
would take a long time to negotiate each element into a full-value
legally-binding agreement.

Another problem is the circle of agreeing parties. It doesn't befit
the co-chairs to hope that Armenia will talk Karabakh into agreement.
How can one hope to oblige the Karabakh Armenians to withdraw their
troops from the five districts outside NK unless they also sign the
agreement? And what a line they should be withdrawn to? Full agreement
requires consent of all conflicting parties (like was the case during
the May 12, 1994 truce). There is no other way, like it or not.

In this light, it is surprising to see the careless mention of
"two parties," "both parties" in the Vienna text. Three parties to
the Karabakh conflict is something that has long been recognized in
OSCE documents and by the OSCE MG co-chairs. Who and when has changed
this approach? Where is the decision? Conformism to somebody's whims,
"creeping" concessions just for continuing, at least, some kind of
talks leads to deadlocks and failures. And we can see the result.

The co-chairs say they are successors just to what has been done in the
last nine years. Strange dating, isn't it! The US and France joined
in 1997, but Russia had already been both co-chair and independent
mediator by that time. There had been other chairs and co-chairs in
the OSCE MG too. A whole range of settlement ideas was worked out long
ago. And the whole work of the mediators is based on the cease-fire
agreement attained through Russia' mediation in 1994.

Let's proceed to the main point - to the gist of the problems. One
can't start from peace settlement (from withdrawing troops from
occupied territories) and then ... come what may. Peace process
sustainability and guarantees are mentioned just casually as
something closing the primary measures, while the first and foremost
"unconditional condition" (sine qua non) must be the absolute refusal
by all the conflicting parties to use force and to make any attempts
to resume war. This may require international affirmation - perhaps,
by the UN Security Council. This must not be left just outlined but
unfinished. This is a kind of "zero cycle" - something to be finished
before the beginning of the "first stage."

The key source of threat to the Karabakh peace process is Azerbaijan,
who can't put up with its failures during that war. This is generally
known and can be seen with the naked eye: bellicose statements, calls
for arms race and revenge, encouraged hostility towards Armenians,
breach of contacts with them. In fact, Baku rejects the co-chairs'
proposals more frequently and strongly. That's why the co-chairs
should closely follow Azerbaijan's positions and arguments to see
and to show what and why is unacceptable and inappropriate in them.

What the co-chairs propose now is "most of the territories in exchange
for promise of referendum on NK's status (without saying exactly when
and how). This proposal specifies only the withdrawal of Armenians
from five districts, leaving almost everything substantial from the
rest in total uncertainty. It is naive to expect that the parties
will agree on the referendum later. So, it means there will be no
referendum at all. This would leave unsettled the key problem of the
conflict, the status of NK, the problems of Qalbajar and Lachin and
the selfsame potential danger of new war - but this is exactly what is
inadmissible. The co-chairs should move farther than that in the very
first agreement (by both ensuring the "zero cycle" and elaborating,
at least, some ground terms of the referendum).

This must not be left until later. People's will is decisive for
determining the status of NK. In a sensitive and conflict-prone region
like the South Caucasus, the international community must discourage
any attempts to settle problems by threats or blood. This is equally
applicable to the recent past - the military success of Armenians in
1992-1994 - and, especially, to the future - the absurd revenge dreams
of some Azeris - even though we know the results of both the pre-war
referendum and the "bullet voting." This problem needs civilized
approach with no military confrontation. One must not regard Karabakh
as just somebody's territory and ignore the opinion of its people.

Law rather than force must decide here.

Baku refers to its Constitution saying that referendum in Azerbaijan
is possible only on a nationwide scale. However, they forget that
they adopted this constitution in late 1995 exactly to prevent people
in Karabakh and other regions from expressing their will. The use
of basic law as just a weapon for political propaganda may recoil
in irreversible change of it, particularly, in this point. In fact,
any outcome of the dispute over NK will require drastic changes in
the Azeri Constitution.

If Baku is actually so zealous in observing its Constitution,
then it should also more often remind its people about Article 9 of
the same Constitution saying that war must not be a way to resolve
international conflicts.

One more inaccuracy is the neglect of the succession from the
Azeri SSR - something that is now preventing Baku from asserting its
"legacy." The authors of the Constitution 1995 were so eager to avoid
any mention of the Azeri SSR that when abrogating the Constitution 1978
they even failed to give their new republic a legally correct name. So,
the trick with the Constitution is not working out. Today, voting on
their own status are only those whom it concerns directly rather than
indirectly (Quebec rather than Canada; Catalonia rather than Spain).

Concerning the referendum itself. Why put off the date of referendum
for as many as 10-15 years (i.e. for the period after the second term
of the Azeri president). Why can't they hold the referendum 4-5 years
after they start implementing the cherished agreement? Of course,
the Azeris who lived in Karabakh before the war and their children
born there should also be allowed to vote. They should be allowed
to go back to their homes, but also to know under what authorities
they are going back. They may as well vote from distance (the way
they did during the last parliamentary elections) lest there might
be any incidents leading to escalating tensions and failing referendum.

The co-chairs should not avoid these issues (nor keep them secret, or
leave them until later). The remaining problems are not so disputable
even though they too will require persistence from both the parties
and the mediators.

The right to voluntary return of displaced persons and refugees to
their former homes is one of the axioms of settlement, but - only
for all sides. If those people refuse to return they should have the
right to compensation. All districts should be deeply demilitarized
before the finalization of NK's status. The security of the returnees
should be ensured by peacekeepers from outside and sufficient civil
police forces from inside.

In order to make their peacekeeping operation effective and compact,
the mediators should deploy international observers along two lines
(the present contact line and the external line of withdrawal) and 2-3
mobile shock groups in between. The key task of those groups would
be to prevent any attempts to wreck the demilitarization process by
any of the parties and to react to "spontaneous" actions by civilians
(this mechanism is not new). By the time of the agreement signing,
the parties will have to determine the national composition of the
observers and peacekeepers.

By their slyness the parties to the Karabakh conflict hinder the
co-chairs in their search for solutions, but the latter are so tactful
that they are sometimes "ashamed" to call "a spade a spade." For the
former co-chairs, things are much easier. The parties have created
lots of myths and propaganda tricks about the conflict.

Some people like showing the exterior and hiding the interior: they
cry about occupation but are silent about its origin. Today Azeris
are giving a humanitarian overtone to their demands for eliminating
occupation and repatriating refugees. They are blaming Armenians
for occupation but are covering their own sins: their persistent
reluctance to stop war in 1992-1994 (they broke cease fire agreements
for four times! and shirked peace initiatives) (Armenians also dodged
but never avoided such agreements). Now they face the music: loss of
seven districts and hundreds of thousands of refugees. How it all
began is a taboo subject in Azerbaijan as it casts a big shadow on
Elchibey and an even bigger shadow on the all-national leader.

Today Azerbaijan appeals to the four UN SC resolutions 1993 and
demands their observance, but neither Armenians nor Azeris themselves
have so far observed any single requirement from these resolutions
(except for the cease-fire). It was exactly Baku who for a whole year
ignored the key requirement of all the resolutions by trying to take
upper hand by force (and it was then that the UN SC stopped making
resolutions on Karabakh at all). A few days ago the former advisor of
the Azeri presidents Vafa Guluzade said: "The UN SC resolutions must
be observed, full stop!" Did he advise this to Elchibey and Heydar
Aliyev in 1993-1994? Or, probably, they refused to listen to him?

If it was actually a matter of humanity - the way they in Baku say -
they would have long liberated some of the districts and taken back
hundreds of thousands of refugees, in the meantime, considering the
return of the others, including of 45,000 residents of NK. It might
seem that the gaping discrepancy in figures would urge Baku to show
flexibility.

Nothing of the sort! So, it turns out that their point is not solely
the sufferings of the refugees. In fact, the co-chairs have failed to
get the conflicting parties to directly admit that the status of NK
is the key disputed problem. Everybody in the world understands this,
but not everybody concerned admits: each side says that Karabakh
is "indisputably" its own territory - something only its present
and former residents can say. If they recognized the key subject of
their dispute, this would make a civilized democratic resolution much
easier. Today everybody cares for democracy, don't they?

Putting the blame for the loss of Karabakh on the People's Front of
Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev perfectly understood that he could not get
it back and was close to swapping it for the occupied territories. He
just sought some compensation (like corridor via Meghri) and a decent
way to formalize the deal. He stopped when he saw that his supporters
were leaving him.

For the present Azeri president concessions (something that is really
indispensable for resolution) are even more dangerous. Insuring
himself against agreements, Ilham Aliyev is raising the demands: now
he refuses "to yield" even Karabakh but, at the same time, he avoids
normal ways to settle the related dispute. He contradicts his own
self: he first says that his patience is not limitless and then calls
for patience in order to gain strength and to force Armenians into
capitulation. He is also contradictory on peace and war (not mentioning
that war is absolutely incompatible with the Azeri Constitution and
that the relapse of violence may have extremely negative consequences
for both sides). There is also an obvious reluctance to understand
the specificity of the tectonic epoch of collapse of the USSR and
other states in Europe and no less obvious preference of general
wordings about justice, international law and territorial integrity
(something more like spells) to specific discussions and concrete
arguments. Hardly any leader of nation can feed his domestic public
opinion with such products, not mentioning exporting them abroad.

This all makes peace agreement impossible and condemns the co-chairs
to a forced pause and half-truth - and the displaced persons ("over
million"!) to further vegetation.

With all my respect for my co-chair-colleagues, I dare say that
they should more actively engraft the commitment to peace and
non-application of force in the conflicting parties - something they
really should do instead of ramming settlement recipes. Azerbaijan and
Armenia have repeatedly undertaken these commitments - particularly,
before the OSCE - and how are they honoring them? In fact, they are
breaking them directly and repeatedly by continuing mutual threats.

That's what the mediators should give not only the rest of 2006 but
also the following two years too, if they really want to come as close
as possible to real peace agreement. And this does not obligatorily
require consideration by G8 now and even by UN SC for the time being.

Vladimir Kazimirov - Ambassador; in 1992-1996 head of Russia's
mediatory mission; plenipotentiary representative of the Russian
President on Nagorno Karabakh; member and co-chair of the OSCE Minsk
Group from Russia; presently, deputy chairman of the Association of
Russian Diplomats.

[Joseph]

Map

http://encyclopedia.quickseek.com/index.php/Image:Az-qa-kaart-en.PNG

[TONY CASTALINO]

Armenians & Kurd are dealing with moslem devils of turk, ajam, as well as arab & other moslem animals.

[auser]

Armenians & Kurd are dealing with moslem devils of turk, ajam, as well as arab & other moslem animals.

Kurds are muslums as well!
But not all muslums are animals !

[Joseph]

Kurds are muslums as well!
But not all muslums are animals !

I'm not unsure that Tony is an impostor