Armenia, Azerbaijan `Close To Karabakh Deal'

[Hovik]

Forgotten war threatens to reignite

Forgotten war threatens to reignite
By Scott Taylor
Aljazeera.net

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9FCDE7FD-47A8-4A72-93FE-10A85BBD6575.htm

Saturday 05 August 2006, 2:28 Makka Time, 23:28 GMT

Hardening positions on the future status of the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region between Armenia and Azerbaijan threaten to reignite an ancient conflict.


Gurhan Iliyev was just a 23-year-old sergeant in the Azerbaijan civil defence force when war erupted with Armenia in 1992.



"We were engaged in heavy fighting with Armenian troops near my home village of Lachin when a mortar shell hit my friend’s trench. When I got to him I saw that his belly had been ripped open by the shrapnel and he was screaming in mortal pain. He died in my arms as I tried to stuff his intestines back inside him."



With the international media focused at that time on the break-up of the former Yugoslavia and the genocide in Rwanda, this border dispute in the Caucasus region garnered very little press coverage.



Nevertheless it was a brutal clash spanning two years that left 30,000 killed - mostly civilians - 100,000 wounded and nearly one million people ethnically cleansed.



Armenia and Azerbaijan were both former republics of the Soviet Union and formally granted - along with Georgia - their independence with the signing of the Tashkent Agreement in May 1992.



Under the terms of the agreement all three republics were allocated the same amount of Soviet military material from which they could constitute their own independent armies.



Disputed territory



But the transition from Soviet control to full independence was marked by bloody warfare over Nagorno-Karabakh - a stretch of mountains within Azerbaijan’s recognised border where a sizeable Armenian minority lived.



Taking advantage of Azerbaijan's post-independence internal political disorder and using the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians as a pretext, the Armenian army entered the territory in 1992.



"We fought back, but our local defence battalion was short of heavy weaponry – we had only two tanks and 650 men," explained Iliyev. "The Armenians were well-equipped and they were assisted by the Russian 366 Motorized Rifle Regiment. As a result, we took enormous casualties."



After completely securing the region, the Armenians continued to push into Azerbaijani territory – securing not only a land corridor with Armenia proper, but also extending into central Azerbaijan to create a buffer zone.



In the wake of the military operations, ethnic Azeri citizens were forcibly removed from the newly occupied territories.



Crisis situation



Having successfully ousted his political rivals, the then president, Heydar Aliyev, was able to solidify his leadership over Azerbaijan in 1993 and gave orders to create a formal army to deal with the crisis situation in Nagorno-Karabakh.

"This was a difficult task to perform as we were already supporting the civil defence forces (paramilitaries) who were in the process of fighting a war," said Major-General Ramiz Najafov, one of the key architects of the fledgling Azerbaijani army.



"We sent letters of invitation to 3,800 ethnic Azeris still serving in the Russian Soviet army and 2,600 accepted our offer. They became the nucleus of our new military."



Within a year the Azeris had managed to train and field six full infantry brigades and their deployment to the front reversed the Armenian advances.



The establishment of a balance between the combat forces turned the campaign into a stalemate and eventually a ceasefire agreement was signed in 1994.



After the ceasefire, the Armenian forces continued to fortify their positions in the occupied Azerbaijani territories and the Azeris constructed trenches around the disputed region and the root causes for the conflict remained unresolved.



What had been a little-regarded war would soon become an almost completely forgotten, but still simmering, flashpoint.



Displaced peoples



In the company of two other Canadian journalists and escorted by officials from the foreign ministry, we had been brought to the city to observe first-hand the ongoing plight of the nearly 800,000 Azeris who were forcibly displaced during the 1992-1994 war.

At the Saatly train station in southern Azerbaijan sits a 4-km long stretch of old railway boxcars, which still serve as temporary homes for some 2,000 Azeri internally displaced persons (IDPs).



There is minimal privacy afforded by the fact that, on average, two families share a single boxcar. Despite 14 years of continuous residence, there are still few creature comforts beyond the basic necessities available.



"Every IDP is entitled to a monthly ration which includes flour, rice, sugar and oil," explained Senan Huseynov, the Azerbaijani director for refugees. "On top of that they receive an allowance of 30,000 Manats ($6.50) per month to purchase meat and other foodstuffs."



In addition to the Saatly boxcar compound we visited a camp of crudely constructed mud brick houses, in which approximately 10,000 residents lived. The standard layout for those small shelters is three tiny rooms totalling 240 square feet of space and housing up to seven people.



The luckiest of the IDPs are now being relocated into custom-built compounds complete with community centres and medical centres.



Virtual limbo



But with no real means of employment or proposed developments, the displaced Azeris remain in limbo - political pawns in a political process that has been bogged down for the past 12 years.

When the 1994 ceasefire was first brokered, the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) established the Minsk Group to oversee and monitor the agreements.



To date the United Nations has passed a total of four resolutions calling upon the Armenians to withdraw their military forces from the occupied territories as a first step to resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh situation.



The second phase of the resolutions is the immediate resettlement of the IDPs into their former homes. But with no threat of any international military force being deployed to enforce these resolutions, the Armenians have refused to pull back their forces.



Fact-finding missions and OSCE reports continually cite the fact that the Armenians continue to destroy existing Azeri infrastructures while building their own facilities inside the occupied territories in flagrant violation of the ceasefire agreement.



Roadblocks



One of the key roadblocks to achieving a diplomatic settlement to the crisis is the fact that Azerbaijan and Armenia refuse to budge on their positions concerning a referendum on the future state of Nagorno-Karabakh.



The Armenians want any decision on self-determination to be limited to the residents of the region. If the Azeris are returned to the area prior to such a vote, the Armenians would still represent approximately a three to one majority in Nagorno-Karabakh.



The Azerbaijani position is that any such referendum must be decided by all 8.5 million residents of the country, who would certainly reject any separation of the territory.



Elmar Mammadyarov, the foreign minister, recently conceded that Azerbaijan would grant Karabakh the "highest level of autonomy in exchange for an immediate withdrawal". However, the Minsk Group has grown frustrated with the lack of any real progress.

In a statement released last month, US co-chairman Matthew Bryza chided both the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents for their failure to make any key concessions.



In response to the OSCE report, Aliyev resorted to sabre-rattling with the statement that he remains "committed to peace, but he cannot accept the current situation [of Armenian occupation]".



Upping the ante



To up the political ante, Azerbaijan has recently embarked on a massive military build up.



"By next year we will have doubled our defence budget up to a total of $1.2 billion," said Major-General Najafov. "We will be spending the equivalent of the entire Armenian federal budget just on defence."



While such a build-up will certainly change the regional strategic balance, international observers say that this posturing is a long way from fruition.



"Most of the money being spent is to increase their own salaries, not to add to their tactical capability," said one Baku-based diplomat.



"They are not out purchasing attack helicopters right now, but if they start to do that we’ll know they're serious about settling this by forceful means."

[Hovik]

FOREIGN MINISTERS OF ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN TO MEET IN MID-SEPTEMBER

ArmRadio.am
29.08.2006 17:10

The next round of negotiations between the Foreign Ministers of
Armenia and Azerbaijan over the settlement of the Karabakh conflict
will be held in mid-September, Head of the Information Agency of
the Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tahit Tagizadeh said,
"Interfax" agency reports. Tagizadeh noted that the time and place
of the meeting has not been set so far.

The meeting will be held at the initiative of the OSCE Minsk Group
Co-Chairs, who suggested several versions of terms and places for
the meeting.

It's not ruled out that the Foreign Ministers will arrange to organize
talks on the level of Presidents.

[Hovik]

VARDAN OSKANIAN: THE TALKS TODAY ARE AT A CRUCIAL POINT
Tatul Hakobyan

"Radiolur"
29.08.2006 16:25

Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian delivered a speech at the
"Caspian Prospects 2008" forum organized jointly by the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Slovenia and the Lyublyana Center for Strategic
Studies.

During the discussions on the EU New Neighbors Policy, the Foreign
Minister particularly emphasized the importance of implementation
of the European Neighborhood Policy for the establishment of peace,
stability and development in the region.

Officials from a number of countries gathered in Lyublyana, Neighboring
Azerbaijan was represented by President Ilham Aliev.

In a press conference after the meeting between the Presidents of
Azerbaijan and Slovenia, Azeri President Ilham Aliev declared that
"Currently the negotiation process proceeds in the framework of the
Prague format, which generally envisages phasic settlement of the
question. We consider that it is the most acceptable way, and we hope
that at last Armenia will demonstrate constructive position and will
apply efforts to resolve the issue."

Certainly RA Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian also turned to the
Karabakh settlement, to be more precise, to the current state
of negotiations. The Minister underlined that the settlement is
hindered by Azerbaijani policy of resolving the question in a military
way. Oskanian said that the talks today are at a crucial point, and
the international community should do its best to have Azerbaijan
return to a realistic and constructive field in order to discuss the
principles put on the bargaining table today.

Let's remind once again that June 22 OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs
actually disclosed the last package of suggestions, the so-called
framework agreement discussed by Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents
in Ramboulliet and Bucharest.

To remind, the basic points of the agreement envisage that Armenian
forces should be gradually withdrawn from the Azeri territories
bordering Nagorno Karabakh, special approach should be demonstrated
towards Kelbajar and Lachin regions, the final legal status of
Nagorno Karabakh should be determined via referendum or a general
vote. International peacekeeping forces should be deployed in the
conflict zone.

The Armenian side has been repeatedly stating that the suggestions
are not ideal. Nevertheless, Yerevan accepts these as a basis for
negotiations.

However, two months after the publication of the document Baku has
not said a decisive "yes" or "no" to the mediators. It is obvious,
though, that this time also Azerbaijan does not consider the suggested
principles acceptable and tries to get a better document or to freeze
the settlement of the issue and anticipates to reinforce its positions
through oil dollars.

[Hovik]

LESSONS OF "PEOPLES' LEADERS" OR HOW KARABAKH WILL ELECT PRESIDENT
Melik Avanyan

Lragir.am
29 Aug 06

The question of election of a new president of Nagorno Karabakh
in 2007 stirred the public and political life in this country,
which has not been recognized yet. As it could have been expected,
this important problem has given rise to peculiar moods among the
government and the public. The NKR public, used to making their own
decisions since the very first days of the Karabakh movement, became
less alert in the post-war years having gone through the difficulties
of war. Decision making on important issues for the state went to a
narrow circle of leaders and the government of Armenia.

This produced its consequences. The reality of the unrecognized
republic began irritating people, who had paid such a high price
for their freedom. Many began to realize that if this reality
does not change, their country may lose its future. With regard to
this there are different opinions, and the reasons for problems are
evaluated differently. There is a question, however, which is accepted
unanimously: the society must form government. The time of passive
waiting for "miracles from the outside" is over.

Therefore, everyone is concerned about the election of the new
president. What can be more crucial than this fact. The present
president appears not to accept the reality - it is somewhat
unusual. It is possible to understand him. Very few people around are
able to divide the public life from the private life. Everyone is used
to viewing public life through their I. This is the problem of all
the post-Soviet societies. "Who needs the success of the state if I am
not the leader," thinks everyone who has had the opportunity to rule.

This is not the biggest problem of the situation, however. In one or
two months President Ghukasyan will realize that he has to quit. The
next president will be elected, and the country will go on. The
biggest problem is the Karabakh society. Public problems have become
complicated, and their rational perception does not keep up with the
time. Although it is already apparent that the active part of the
society realizes that urgent problems of the time.

The problems that occur in a public debate are given a rational
evaluation. The role of the society in the current situation is also
perceived. The evidence to this is the wish of the public to hold
public debates on the new candidate of NKR president. Public opinion
surveys, online forums and publications show that the society perceives
the current problem rationally.

It appears, however, that there is a lot to tackle with in the
fossilized thinking from the previous years. There are still a
number of people (by the way, quite literate), who have difficulty
understanding the logic of changes, and shift it into plane of "good"
and "bad" leaders. The Soviet ideology is so deeply rooted in the
consciousness of people that it even survived the war. Democratic
reforms are perceived as slogans, not an effective mechanism of
governance, change and settlement of problems.

This circumstance can hinder the advance of the country for a long
time.

Well, the public in Karabakh is not so experienced. It is not easy for
everyone to understand that democrats set forward the idea of election
and terms of office to get rid of the "ballast" that accumulates in
a definite period of governance and anti-social phenomena within the
government and the society. The leaders are changed not because they
are good or bad but in order to clear space for the use of potential
of the public. The change of leader is the only way of change and
improvement of the system of governance. The legal replacement of
an elected person is also a mechanism of getting rid of leaders,
who are not wanted.

Most leaders and their teams know this, therefore they do not want to
quit on time. God be with you, time finds other ways of making them
quit. The opinion of other people is more interesting. For people
who do not perceive this core principal of democracy look for the
cause of trouble in the wrong place. It is evident that changes of
concepts are occurring in a crucial period for NKR. This needs a
scrutiny. The recent speech of Murad Petrosyan, a famous figure in
the society of NKR is notable. It is interesting that as one of the
ardent supporters of the moral and political revival of NKR, in his
interview on TV Petrosyan tried to "revise" the theory of statehood
in the aspect under consideration.

If this were done at another time, or during some seminar, we could
simply argue his opinion. But when the country is facing an election
of a new president, announcing that the change of the president is
not important, it is important that for running a third term Arkady
Ghukasyan needs to carry out a fundamental reform and manpower policy
changes means at least arousing doubts about one's competence.

It is difficult to believe that Murad does not know the real purpose of
Ghukasyan's manpower policy over the past 9 years, especially during
his second term. It is difficult to believe that Murad refers to the
negative manpower policy and social policy as one of the "mistakes"
of Ghukasyan. At least he should know that the manpower policy is a
consequence of a determined action, which proceeded from Ghukasyan's
perception of the state, the government and his role in this state. And
he did not invent anything new compared with his counterparts in the
post-Soviet space. Although he had to invent for the simple reason
that NKR has not reached its major goal - international recognition
and sustainable security.

And now Murad is proposing him in the tenth year of presidency to
invent something to continue his own presidency instead of the state.

Why? There can be a number of opinions. It is also possible that the
puspose and essence of the democratic change of power is not clear to
Murad Petrosyan. He may believe in "good" leaders, and he suggests
that the "bad" ones, whom he says 90 percent of people dislike,
simply become "good" for their personal interests. Here serious
reflection is necessary. I do not think that the problem is only
waiting on President Ghukasyan. The problem is the false belief that
is harmful for psychology. This way of thinking is more harmful for
the state than servility.

There is a story which was placed at the basis of a film. The film
tells about the tragedy of the wife of a Soviet functionary whom the
Commissar of Internal Affairs had forced into sexual slavery. The wife
hang herself after begging her husband for help, for her "devoted
defender" did not understand her. It was a serious incident for the
Soviet times, an "extraordinary incident".

At that time Stalin personally decided to deal with the incident,
visiting the mourning tchekist at home.

After giving his condolences, the leader nevertheless enquired
whether the "soldier" was disappointed with the party's policy. He
said nothing could make him doubt the Party and the Soviet country. At
that time, history says, the great leader said the important words,
"As long as we have people like you, the country has no future."

There is hardly a more educative story which shows the old truth,
"The servant is not superior to the lord". If the tyrant is surprised
at the way of thinking of his "soldier", such a country in fact cannot
have future. Fortunately, we do not have tyrants and "soldiers" in
NKR. However, the dictate of harmful logic and false beliefs is hihgly
dangerous. But I think that this country could have future because
times have changed. Murad Petrosyan's mates can explain him that it is
not appropriate to speak to the public that way, even if one thinks so.

[Hovik]

Turkic States Going To Unite Against Armenia?

TURKIC STATES GOING TO UNITE AGAINST ARMENIA?

PanARMENIAN.Net
22.09.2006 13:47 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The 10th congress of Turkic states, which completed
its work in Antalya today, has passed a decision on the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict. The document says that the position of all the
Turkic states in unanimous - Armenia should "quit the seized Azeri
lands without any preconditions." "The Turkic states will exert
every effort for the return of million of Azeris to their homes," it
says. The resolution also notes that "if Armenia doesn't abandon the
territories the whole Turkic world will join efforts for the purpose."

[Bulgarian]

An interesting article

Armenia, Azerbaijan Mull the Åland Model

Could the Finnish-Swedish arrangement for the Åland Islands work for Nagorny Karabakh?

By Emil Danielian and Kenan Guluzade in the Åland Islands (CRS No. 359 28-Sep-06)

Finland’s Åland Islands, an archipelago mainly populated by ethnic Swedes, enjoy extensive self-government that makes them effectively independent of Helsinki. It is an example that has long been proposed for the resolution of the Nagorny Karabakh dispute, yet never found universal acceptance.

A visit to the islands by a group of Armenian and Azerbaijani IWPR journalists, supported by the Åland Islands Peace Institute, highlighted the success of the formula of autonomy found for the islands themselves as well as lessons for the unresolved Karabakh dispute.

Perhaps the most obvious difference is that Finland and Sweden never went to war over the cluster of more than 6,000 islands and islets in the Baltic Sea. The heavily wooded region was for centuries part of the Swedish Kingdom before being incorporated into the Russian Empire (along with modern-day Finland) in 1809. Its overwhelmingly Swedish-speaking population demanded reunification with Sweden as the empire crumbled and Finland became independent in 1917. The Finns rejected these demands and turned to the League of Nations for support.

Under a compromise solution forged in 1921, the islands were declared part of Finland but granted a considerable degree of independence. As Peter Lindback, the territory’s Helsinki-appointed governor, puts it, “Åland is not an autonomous region. It’s a partly independent state.”

In line with its internationally-guaranteed status, Åland has an elected legislative assembly, Lagtinget, that forms the local government responsible for economic development, education, healthcare, and policing. Even the region’s governor, whose powers are largely ceremonial, cannot be named by the president of Finland without the assembly’s consent. With Swedish being the islands’ sole official language, few locals speak Finnish or have social or cultural links with mainland Finland. Three-quarters of young Ålanders choose to get higher education in nearby Sweden. Ethnic Finns now make up just five per cent of the 27,000-strong local population.

The picturesque archipelago is also a demilitarised zone, meaning that Finnish troops cannot be stationed there in peacetime. Furthermore, international treaties signed by Finland have to be ratified by Lagtinget if they are to have a legal force on the islands. Finland, for example, had to negotiate a special membership “protocol” for Åland when it joined the European Union in 1995.

Ålanders, who are not just at peace but also prosperous, readily share their success story with visitors, while stressing that their status is not necessarily a blueprint for conflict resolution. “Åland is not a model. It’s just an example,” Robert Jansson, director of the Åland Islands Peace Institute, told visiting IWPR journalists.

Mediators trying to resolve the Karabakh conflict first tried to use the example of the islands when the war was still raging. In December 1993, with the support of the Finnish government, a symposium was held in the islands’ capital Marienhamn for parliamentarians from the region.

Later, a representative of the Peace Institute attended the talks that led to the May 1994 ceasefire and in 1995, Finland, as then joint mediators with Russia of the Karabakh dispute, invited the parties to negotiations in the Åland Islands.

Three years later, the American, French and Russian co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group clearly drew on the example of the islands when they presented a new peace plan under which Azerbaijan and Karabakh would form a “common state” made up of two essentially equal entities. Karabakh would be able to maintain a “national guard” and police force independent of Baku, establish direct ties with foreign states, block the entry into force of any Azerbaijani law on its territory, issue internationally- recognised passports and even have its own currency.

The Armenian authorities in Yerevan and Nagorny Karabakh accepted the proposed deal with some reservations at the time, while Azerbaijani leaders rejected it, saying they are only ready to give the Karabakh Armenians a high degree of conventional autonomy.

However, some are still inspired by the detailed formula for peaceful co-existence provided by the Åland Islands.

“Even twelve years after the end of fighting in Karabakh, the Åland model has not lost its meaning as a symbol of resolving disputes through reason and not through bloodshed and as an intellectual rebuke to those who call for new bloodshed,” Russian diplomat Vladimir Kazimirov, who negotiated the 1994 ceasefire, wrote recently.

“We should use accumulated international experience to settle the Karabakh conflict, taking into account the preservation of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan,” said Fuad Mustafiev, deputy leader of Azerbaijan’s opposition Popular Front party.

Azerbaijani opposition political analyst Zardusht Alizade told IWPR that the principles of the Åland Island dispute “can create a basis for both peoples - Armenians and Azerbaijanis - to get themselves out of the trap we have been driven into”.

Alizade argues that the Åland model would benefit the Armenians by giving them a guarantee of permanent democracy and would suit Azerbaijan in so far as everything would be decided within a legal framework, “Besides Karabakh will not be detached from the territory of our state. The international community will act as a guarantor of security. And most importantly, peace will be established.”

However, some Azerbaijanis see the Åland model as a betrayal of Azerbaijan’s basic interests.

“I am categorically against using the possibility of using any models of autonomy in relation to Karabakh,” Vafa Guluzade, formerly Azerbaijani state foreign affairs aide, told IWPR. “It is Azerbaijani land and there are four UN resolutions on the occupation of our territory.”

And most Armenian politicians are also sceptical, holding out for an even higher level of sovereignty for Nagorny Karabakh.

“In the case of Karabakh, anything falling short of full independence is unacceptable to us,” said Armen Rustamian, a leader of the governing Armenian Revolutionary Federation (or Dashnak) party who heads the foreign relations committee of Armenia’s parliament.

Karabakh Armenians, who remain deeply distrustful of Azerbaijan, argue that the Caucasus is very different from the Baltic.

“May be I would agree to this model if the democratic level in our countries was the same as in Scandinavia for example,” said Karen Ohanjanian, head of the Helsinki Initiative-92 group in Karabakh, calling it a “step backwards”.

“Azerbaijan is no Finland, and Azerbaijan’s demands and actions have been very different from Finland’s,” said Arman Melikian, a Yerevan-based senior aide to Arkady Ghukasian, leader of the unrecognised Nagorny Karabakh Republic (which is still internationally-recognised Azerbaijani territory.)

In his turn former Azerbaijani foreign minister Tofik Zulfugarov responded to the statement that “Azerbaijan is not Finland,” by saying, “And the Armenians are not Swedes.”

Melikian claims that the Åland model would also not work in Karabakh because of the often conflicting interests of major world powers tussling for influence in the South Caucasus. “The Åland islands were not of strategic importance to Finland, Sweden or any external power,” he said. “The Karabakh problem has much more far-reaching regional ramifications.”

The most recent proposal to resolve the issue of the disputed status of Nagorny Karabakh proposes a different path. It is for a referendum on self-determination in Karabakh that would be held years after the liberation of most of the Armenian-occupied Azerbaijani territories surrounding the disputed enclave.

However, this plan is now in trouble following the breakdown of the latest peace talks and the final status of Nagorny Karabakh seems as elusive as ever.

Emil Danielian is a Yerevan-based journalist at Radio Liberty Armenia; Kenan Guluzade is editor of Zerkalo Newspaper in Baku. Nagorny Karabakh journalist Karine Ohanian contributed to this report.

[Joseph]

Former U.S. ambassador to OSCE: Border changes are possible but
quick settlement breakthroughs in post-Soviet conflicts are unlikely

by Emil Sanamyan (Special to the "Armenian Reporter")

Washington, DC--While international norms protect the territorial
integrity of states, borders can be changed by "peaceful means" and
through international consensus. The former U.S. ambassador to the
Organization for Security Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Stephan Minikes
said this during a November 6 lecture on unresolved conflicts in the
former Soviet Union. The lecture was hosted by the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars.

The OSCE is the main forum for international mediation efforts in the
Karabakh conflict. The organization's Minsk Group, to which the matter
is delegated, is led by France, Russia, and the United States.

In 1991, Nagorno-Karabakh used existing laws and international norms
to secede from Soviet Azerbaijan following years of anti-Armenian
pogroms and a Soviet government-enforced crackdown and violence
against the population of Karabakh. Azerbaijan subsequently launched a
full-scale war, trying to expel Karabakh's Armenian population. The
war eventually resulted in Azerbaijan's defeat and a cease-fire
agreement in May 1994.

The OSCE-mediated talks have continued since. In his remarks, Mr.
Minikes noted the difficulty of reversing the outcomes of conflicts
like the one in Karabakh. "Life goes on," he said, and "de-facto
states, much contrary to everyone's expectations, are in fact
functioning." Besides, there is a dearth of interest by major players,
particularly Russia, to see these conflicts resolved, he said.

Another former U.S. official in the audience, Ambassador William Hill,
noted the uniqueness of each conflict and argued that each case
therefore needs a unique settlement approach. This has also been the
official U.S. position on the unresolved conflicts. While Karabakh is
treated as a "disputed area" between Armenia and Azerbaijan, South
Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Transdnistria are viewed in the West as
breakaway regions of Georgia and Moldova, respectively.

Discussing the Karabakh conflict, Mr. Minikes argued that Armenia's
president Robert Kocharian "is willing to make a settlement." But both
the late Azerbaijani president Heydar Aliyev and his son and successor
Ilham Aliyev fear a domestic backlash over a deal that is viewed as a
"defeat" for Azerbaijan.

The most recent Karabakh peace talks focused on settlement formulas
that would formalize Nagorno-Karabakh's secession from Azerbaijan.
Citing threats made by regional leaders to resolve the conflicts by
force, Mr. Minikes stressed the strong U.S. opposition to resumption
of fighting. Mr. Minikes recalled the "difficult meeting" he and the
former U.S. ambassador to Georgia Richard Miles had with Georgia's
President Mikhail Saakashvili, a close U.S. ally, in August 2004. At
the time, Georgia had launched a military buildup in the South Ossetia
conflict area. Mr. Minikes said he and Mr. Miles told Mr. Saakashvili
in no uncertain terms that "if he were to engage in a hot war between
South Ossetia and Georgia, he was on his own."

Asked by this correspondent whether the OSCE should introduce
additional measures to safeguard the twelve-year self-regulated
cease-fire in Karabakh, Mr. Minikes reiterated the need for a
comprehensive settlement rather than cease-fire strengthening. When
asked the same question, Mr. Hill said that "it could be helpful" to
expand international presence in Karabakh to diffuse tensions, but
cited a lack of consensus between the parties and leading OSCE members
as the reason why such a presence has not materialized.

Ambassador William Hill served as the head of the OSCE Mission to
Moldova until 2001 and again from 2003 to 2006. A career foreign
service officer, Mr. Hill had also served as chief of analysis for
Eastern Europe in the State Department, European Division chief in the
Voice of America, and senior advisor for Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, and
Belarus in the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the Pentagon. He
is currently an Associate with the Georgetown University Institute for
the Study of Diplomacy in Washington, DC.

Stephan Minikes was appointed the U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE in 2001.
Prior to the appointment and again since his return from the OSCE
headquarters in Vienna in 2005, Mr. Minikes has been a partner with
the Washington law firm of Thelen, Reid and Priest, LLP. His
presentation was moderated by the Wilson Center's Russia Program
associate Joseph Dresen.

[Gavur]

Armenia Recognizes Azerbaijan and Karabakh’s Territorial Integrity

http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=20253

[Hovik]

Georgia, Moldova and U.S. demand Russia “to stop aid” to unrecognized republics

Georgia, Moldova and U.S. demand Russia “to stop aid” to unrecognized republics

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Georgia, Moldova and the U.S. demand Russia to stop aid to “separatist regimes.” In the OSCE Standing Council in Vienna the missions of these countries to the OSCE called on Russia to stop financial aid to “separatist regimes and join the projects serving the economic development of the regions under the control of international organizations.” According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of Moldova, GUAM and the U.S. expressed their concern about Russia’s activity in Transdniestria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. “Officially receiving the leaders of unrecognized republics in Moscow, holding negotiations with them as presidents contradict Russia’s status as mediator that has to be bias in the conflicts,” the statement says. Georgia, Moldova and the U.S. said that they do not understand Russia’s position with regard to the referenda and elections organized by Tiraspol, Tskhinvali and Sukhumi regimes, controlling over the violation of human rights and freedoms. The GUAM and the U.S. stressed the importance of Russia’s withdrawing it troops and weapons from Moldova and Georgia according to the commitments undertaken in Istanbul summit of OSCE in 1999, reports APA.

[Hovik]

Karabakh problem is Turkey’s bleeding wound, Erdogan says

Karabakh problem is Turkey’s bleeding wound, Erdogan says

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ “The Karabakh problem is Turkey’s bleeding wound,” Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said at the First Conference of Azerbaijani and Turkish Diasporan organizations. When touching on the Armenian Genocide issue he said, “As you know, we have addressed the Armenian leadership and the international community to inform them of our readiness to open all historical archives. Let historians, archeologists and journalists speak on the issue. However, the Armenian side has not issued a response so far,” Erdogan said, reports Day.az.