Armenia, Azerbaijan `Close To Karabakh Deal'

[Joseph]

http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=22651

Karabakh belongs to Armenia and cannot be a part of Azerbaijan
13.06.2007 16:51 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ If Kosovo is granted independence it will mean that the struggle of Artsakhi people was right, Jane’s Intelligence Center expert Richard Giragosian told a news conference in Yerevan. “A question arouses: why can Kosovo be independent but Karabakh cannot?” he said.

“Nagorno Karabakh belongs to Armenia. It cannot be a part of Azerbaijan. The events of 1988 in Sumagit, Baku and Kirovabad proved this fact. Time works for Armenia. Development and settlement of the buffer zone around NK is a priority task. If Azerbaijan really wants war, it’s just an unrealizable and losing dream. With Safar Abiyev at the head of the Defense Ministry, the Azeri army faces no serious reform, despite the announced budget of $1 billion” he said.

The expert thinks the presidential meeting in Saint Petersburg produced no effect. “The last wave of progress in talks appeared in Key West in 2001. After that the process slumped. As to “the window of possibilities”, it has never existed,” Giragosian said.

[Joseph]

www.defacto.am News/News 2007-06-13

MOURNFUL DATE

It has been fifteen years since an ancient Armenian region – Shahumian – has been occupied.


Shahumian region – Nagorno-Karabagh’s integral part – was artificially seized in 1923. Let’s again recall: in the course of a plenum of the Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee of the Russian Communist Party it was decided to include Nagorno-Karabagh in the territory of Azerbaijan. It referred to the whole Nagorno-Karabagh, not only to the five regions making Nagorno-Karabagh Autonomous Region, but at the least fourteen more regions, including Shahumian. However, in 1923 Azerbaijani SSR limited the territory of the Nagorno-Karabagh’s Armenian autonomy, hypocritically calling them ‘’inhabited by Armenians’’. For all this the regions inhabited solely by Armenian were separated from the autonomy: Shahumian, Khanlar, Dashkesan (Karkhat), Shamkhor, etc.
All these regions were put to pressure by the Azerbaijani leadership. Their goal was to destroy Armenian villages or evict their population.
There is no necessity to write much about Azerbaijan’s political urban development, which may serve as visual aids of misanthropy. Shahumian region, situated next to Martakert and Khanlar regions, had no automobile road connecting it with these regions.
Since the beginning of the Karabagh movement Azerbaijan blockaded all the Armenian regions of Nagorno-Karabagh. Estranged from the Armenian autonomy and Armenia, the Armenian regions fell, unable to withstand the onslaught of the enemy’s superior forces. However, Shahumian opposed.
The inhabitants of the Shahumian region unanimously decided to require the reunification of Artsakh’s separated parts. September 2, 1991 Shahumian region became the Nagorno-Karabagh Republic’s integral part by the will of its population and the decision of the deputies of all levels, according to international law and the laws of USSR.
Infuriated with the failures of the plans of Armenians’ deportation, Azerbaijan sent 23d division of the USSR aerial-landing troops against the Shahumian region. The Soviet army dislodged the region’s defenders from three villages and returned to Kirovabad, while the detachments of pillagers from Azerbaijan People’s Front began playing the master in the captured Armenian villages. However, the region’s defenders organized lightning attack, making the enemy leave the battlefield.
However, Azerbaijan again turned to the 23d division and its mercenary commander, colonel Budejkin. This time tens units of tanks and fighting aviation was used against the region’s defenders, armed with machine carbines. It became impossible to oppose, and the Armenian detachment were drawing off, sheltering the population’s retirement.
Shahumian region fell. However, the spirit of a Shahumian man, who has lived and created under the canopy of sublime Mrav for ages, has not been broken. The enemy should know: we’ll be back. Wait a little, Motherland!
Alexander AZARIAN

[Joseph]

http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=22719

Who is Azerbaijan trying to assure in high alertness of his army?
20.06.2007 14:50 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ “Armed forces of the Republic of Azerbaijan are rather equipped and trained to settle the Karabakh problem by power of arms. We only need president’s order for it. However, not all possibilities of peaceful solution are expired yet. We think the peace method is the best variant to liberate occupied territories,” Spokesman for the Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan Eldar Sabiroglu stated, commenting on statements made by local public figures that it is necessary to forcefully settle the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

The Spokesman for the Azeri Defense Ministry called groundless some analytical reports in foreign press, according to which the army of Azerbaijan is weak and is not ready to fulfill successful military operations. “Those statements carry political hidden motives and do not reflect the reality. Our army is equipped with modern armaments, it has a high level of military discipline and moral spirit of servicemen,” he underlined, “Novosti-Armenia” reports.

During debates held in the Johns Hopkins University, Washington, senior associate at the American Foreign Policy Council Wayne Merry described Azerbaijan’s constant threats to start blitzkrieg as unreal. “Nagorno Karabakh is a natural stronghold, which was consolidated by the Armenian army. Even the U.S. army will face hardships in case of attacking it,” the expert said. “The Armenian Armed Forces excel their rival several times. It’s not a secret that Armenia has an army while Azerbaijan has ‘armed forces’ only,” Merry said. In his opinion, in case of resumption of war Azerbaijan will hope for human resources while Armenia will rely on armament and efficiency. Armenians will defend Karabakh while Azerbaijan will have to conquer it, what is unreal, he added. Taking into account these factors Merry considers that Azerbaijan will never succeed in settling the Nagorno Karabakh conflict by force. According to him, Baku’s military rhetoric constitutes a threat of war.

[Joseph]

http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=22719


Who is Azerbaijan trying to assure in high alertness of his army?
20.06.2007 14:50 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ “Armed forces of the Republic of Azerbaijan are rather equipped and trained to settle the Karabakh problem by power of arms. We only need president’s order for it. However, not all possibilities of peaceful solution are expired yet. We think the peace method is the best variant to liberate occupied territories,” Spokesman for the Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan Eldar Sabiroglu stated, commenting on statements made by local public figures that it is necessary to forcefully settle the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

The Spokesman for the Azeri Defense Ministry called groundless some analytical reports in foreign press, according to which the army of Azerbaijan is weak and is not ready to fulfill successful military operations. “Those statements carry political hidden motives and do not reflect the reality. Our army is equipped with modern armaments, it has a high level of military discipline and moral spirit of servicemen,” he underlined, “Novosti-Armenia” reports.

During debates held in the Johns Hopkins University, Washington, senior associate at the American Foreign Policy Council Wayne Merry described Azerbaijan’s constant threats to start blitzkrieg as unreal. “Nagorno Karabakh is a natural stronghold, which was consolidated by the Armenian army. Even the U.S. army will face hardships in case of attacking it,” the expert said. “The Armenian Armed Forces excel their rival several times. It’s not a secret that Armenia has an army while Azerbaijan has ‘armed forces’ only,” Merry said. In his opinion, in case of resumption of war Azerbaijan will hope for human resources while Armenia will rely on armament and efficiency. Armenians will defend Karabakh while Azerbaijan will have to conquer it, what is unreal, he added. Taking into account these factors Merry considers that Azerbaijan will never succeed in settling the Nagorno Karabakh conflict by force. According to him, Baku’s military rhetoric constitutes a threat of war.

Things Azerbaijan should consider:

1. The Armenian forces have higher morale and training. The current army is learning from those who have achieved victory. Though not perfect, the Armenian military has year after year improved in every facet since 1994.
2. The Armenians have not choice but to win. To be defeated would mean the deaths of their families who reside just behind the frontlines therefore they will fight with much more tenacity and ferocity than an Azeri conscript from Baku or Lenkoran.
3. The Armenians hold the strategic high ground. It would take about 4-5 times the amount of Azeri troops and overwheming superiority in tanks for the Azeris to overrun the defenses and even then, the cost would be too dear. The Azeris would have to achieve success quickly because a protracted struggle will end in their inevitable defeat
4. The Armenians have for the past 13 years (since the ceasefire) been strengthening their defenses and procuring the correct equipment and material for defense whereas the Azeri procurement is rife with corruption and the from top to bottom (starting with Safar Abiyev) the Azeri military is led by fools only loyal to the Aliyev clan.
5. The Russian factor; the Russian will not allow one side to overwhelm the other in case of a renewed conflict but they will favor Armenia.

[Joseph]

http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg193375.html

RA IS RETURNING TO THE YEAR OF 1996 IN THE KARABAKH CONFLICT RESOLUTION

A1+
[08:29 pm] 20 June, 2007

"We are returning to the very beginning, to the stage of 1996 when
the negotiations were held in favour of Nagorno-Karabakh," RA Foreign
Minister Vartan Oskanian told A1+.

Vartan Oskanian refuted the forecasts on the possible change of
negotiation format.

"The issue of involving Karabakh has always been on the table of
talks. Karabakh's engagement in the talks does not imply a change
of the format. Just on the contrary, Karabakh's involvement restores
the format, because you know that in the beginning, until 1996-1997
Nagorno-Karabakh participated in the Minsk Group-mediated talks,"
the RA FM said.

Vartan Oskanian also commented on the Azerbaijani Deputy Foreign
Minister Araz Azimov's statement that allegedly the Armenian side
took a break in the negotiations. Azimov suggested that the Armenian
side needed the break to review its approaches.

"The Armenian side did not take a break. We don't need to reconsider
our stance. We are ready to continue the negotiations on this
document. But Azerbaijan displayed signs to reject the agreement in
Saint Petersburg and I think Azerbaijan is making such statements to
attack the first and to blame it on someone else," Vardan Oskanyan
says.

Oskanian declined to reveal the details of the current stage in
the talks. "At the moment I wouldn't like to reveal details. I have
already said there is a change in Azerbaijan's stance, a tendency
to reject agreement. It began outlining in Saint Petersburg. We need
to wait to judge the consequences by Azerbaijan's future steps. Time
will show whether it tends to become harder or it leads to a change
of policy. It is a little early to draw conclusions, but at least we
started to notice such tendencies," Vartan Oskanian says.

The Armenian foreign minister also touched upon the meeting of the
foreign ministers of the unrecognized post-Soviet states in which
the NKR foreign minister allegedly participated.

Vartan Oskanian said it was a misunderstanding.

Karabakh participated not as a member but as an observer, and
the adviser to president went to this meeting, not the foreign
minister. The stance of Karabakh regarding the relations with the
unrecognized post-Soviet states has undergone no essential changes.

"Because according to Armenia and Karabakh, the issue of
Nagorno-Karabakh differs from others and should not be viewed in the
context of others. And the international community perceives the issue
of Nagorno-Karabakh this way," said the Armenian foreign minister.

[Gavur]

To odar's what may seem to be a trait of stubberness in our character is in actuality our strong will which is tempered with century's of kindness to our fellow man.

[Joseph]

To odar's what may seem to be a trait of stubberness in our character is in actuality our strong will which is tempered with century's of kindness to our fellow man.

That and not wanting to be slaughtered again in order to make their national interests less complicated.

If you read the interview below, that is what the US State Dept. is basicaily staying. Im my opinion, Armenians worldwide should press even harder because as the interviewee states below, this is detrimental to US-Turkish relations. We should do all we can to break their ties and to seperate Turkey from the West. Armenia will never benefit from strong US-Turkish relations. The good news is that I see US-Turkish relations daily growing weaker and eventually Americans may one day wake up from their slumber and finally acknowledge the true face of our enemy. If Turkey invades Southern Kurdistan, this will speed up that process. Let the Turks and Kurds have their bloodbath; they deserve each other.

http://www.panarmenian.net/interviews/eng/?nid=81

Cory Welt:
Turkish-Armenian relations are held hostage to Karabakh conflict more than to issue of Genocide recognition
The geopolitical situation in the South Caucasus and Near East, in general, is changing with the appearance of new players. The problems available in the South Caucasus have recently attracted attention of great powers like the United States and Russia. Mr Cory Welt, Deputy Director and Fellow of Russia and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) comments to PanARMENIAN.Net on the future of the region and possible settlement of conflicts.
21.06.2007 GMT+04:00

How do you assess the geopolitical situation in the South Caucasus?

The situation is, for now, stable and should remain so, barring an unforeseen renewal of conflict over Nagorno Karabakh or other disputed territories, which could have deeply destabilizing consequences for the region.

One concrete question involves the future of Georgia and NATO. Whether Georgia enters into a Membership Action Plan with NATO in the near future will have important consequences for its relations with its neighbors, most of all Russia. What we don't know, however, is whether a more realistic prospect of NATO membership for Georgia will pull Azerbaijan and even Armenia closer to the organization and whether such a situation would be tolerable to Moscow. On the other hand, if Georgia’s integration with NATO stalls, this will also have a considerable impact on the region but exactly how is uncertain. Optimists suggest that Georgia’s relations with Russia would improve, leading to a resolution of territorial conflicts and an increased atmosphere of stability in the region. Pessimists, however, are certain that this would only encourage Russia to continue keeping all three states of the Caucasus in a state of political and economic dependency.


Is normalization of the Armenian-Turkish relations without preconditions possible?

I think only if internal developments in Turkey create a situation in which a Turkish government deems it in their interest to change its policy toward Armenia. I think this is unlikely, however, without a significant move on Armenia’s part to ease the Karabakh conflict. Though the current peace process appears to have failed, I still have hope that a "package" deal can at some point be arranged by which Armenia returns most of the occupied territories outside Nagorno Karabakh in exchange for the normalization of relations with Turkey, postponing resolution of the political status of Nagorno Karabakh for a later date.

It is ironic that Turkish-Armenian relations are held hostage to the Karabakh conflict more than to the issue of genocide recognition, but I believe that this is indeed the case. If genocide recognition within Turkey happens at all, it will only come after a normalization of relations with Armenia, not before.


Will Russia weaken its positions in the region, specifically in Armenia?

I don’t see that Russia’s position is weakening significantly in Armenia, or even so much in Azerbaijan. Thanks to its excessively punitive measures against Georgia, however, Russia has done more than NATO ever could to weaken its influence among Georgians. Economically, Russia could easily maintain and strengthen its position in the Caucasus for years to come. The question is whether it is willing and able to separate economic power from military and political power in the region, where its control cannot be taken for granted.


It’s supposed that the Jewish and Armenian lobby in Washington are among the strongest. What about the Turkish lobby if taken separately from the Jewish one?

I wouldn’t say that the "Jewish lobby" serves as a proxy for a Turkish lobby in Washington, only that the "pro-Israel" lobby sometimes has interests that coincide with Turkish ones.

Regarding the Armenian lobby, I can say that it does not always appear to act in the best interests of the Armenian nation. U.S. attention to Armenian interests would be higher if the U.S. Congress confirmed the appointment of an ambassador to Armenia, and if Congress was more sensitive to the importance of maintaining close relations with Turkey as the United States enters a new stage in its relationship with Iraq. I understand the immense importance of genocide recognition to Armenia and Armenian-Americans, but if this goal interferes with fundamental elements of U.S.-Armenian and U.S.-Turkish relations, it risks worsening those relations to the detriment of all parties.


How Kosovo’s independence can influence on the ‘frozen conflicts’?

There are many differences between Kosovo and the disputed territories in the Caucasus: demographics, population size, size of territory, and even the former constitutional relations between autonomous units and Soviet republics. And even if Kosovo becomes independent, no one is suggesting that it should become, for example, a precedent for Iraqi Kurdistan’s independence. At the same time, independence for Kosovo will make Georgia and Azerbaijan more aware than ever before that independence for breakaway territories is theoretically a possible outcome for their conflicts as well. Possibly, this could encourage Georgia and Azerbaijan to think more creatively about how to preempt such outcomes by introducing more peaceful and positive mechanisms of conflict resolution.
«PanARMENIAN.Net», 21.06.2007
! Reproduction in full or in part is prohibited without reference to «PanARMENIAN.Net».

[Joseph]

Interesting, Artsakh is rated "partly free" and Azerbaijan "not free".

ARMENIA AGAIN RATED 'PARTLY FREE'
By Emil Danielyan

Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
June 27 2007

Armenia remains a "partly free" country while having a better human
and civil rights record than most other members of the Commonwealth
of Independent States, according to a respected U.S. watchdog.

In an annual survey released late Tuesday, the New York-based Freedom
House rated more than 200 countries and territories in terms of
their respect for political rights and civil liberties. Each of them
was evaluated on a 7-point scale, with a rating of 1 indicating the
highest degree of freedom and 7 its virtual absence.

Armenia's average score of 4.5 put it into the category of 58 "partly
free" independent states. Freedom House pointed, among other things,
to the country's post-Soviet history of electoral fraud and accused
its government of continuing to abuse human rights and limit civil
liberties.

"Armenia is not an electoral democracy," it said in its latest Freedom
in the World survey.

The survey covered the events of last year and did not take into
consideration the Armenian authorities' handling of the May 12
parliamentary elections. Western observers described the vote as
a major improvement over the previous Armenian elections marred by
serious fraud.

Freedom House again found "considerable limits on press freedom" in
Armenia, citing the government's tight grip on electronic media. It
also deplored a lack of judicial independence and widespread
ill-treatment of suspects in custody.

"Police make arbitrary arrests without warrants, beat detainees during
arrest and interrogation, and use torture to extract confessions,"
reads the report. "Cases of abuse go unreported out of fear of
retribution."

Freedom House also faulted the government in Yerevan for restricting
freedom of assembly. "The authorities' violent response to spring 2004
protests [by the opposition] represented a low point for freedom of
assembly in Armenia," it said.

Also designated as "partly free" were three other CIS countries,
including neighboring Georgia. With an average score of 3, Georgia
moved close to being rated "free" by Freedom House. The human rights
watchdog singled out it as one of the few "relatively bright spots"
in the CIS, citing the Georgian government's extensive reform agenda.

Armenia's other ex-Soviet neighbor, Azerbaijan, was again found to be
"not free" along with Russia and five other ex-Soviet republics.

Freedom House also assessed the state of freedom in over a dozen
dispute territories of the world, including Nagorno-Karabakh. It
described the Armenian-controlled region as "partly free."

[Joseph]

News analysis: Independent Karabakh hosts first-ever visit by
Azerbaijani official

* Does the trip herald a departure from existing Armenian-Azerbaijani tensions?

by Emil Sanamyan

WASHINGTON -- In a striking departure from longstanding policy,
Azerbaijan sent a delegation to Nagorno-Karabakh on June 28. The
delegation was received by President Arkady Ghoukassian. The visit
became a sensation in Azerbaijan, where the public has long been
banned from visits to Karabakh and discouraged from any contacts with
ethnic Armenians in general.

The group, comprising Azerbaijan's ambassador to Russia Polad
Bul-Bul-ogly and heads of major state institutions, then proceeded to
Yerevan for a meeting with the president of Armenia. Later on the same
day, a similarly composed Armenian delegation went to Baku to meet the
president of Azerbaijan.

At a press conference on June 29, Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian
of Armenia said that the visit was agreed upon during the most recent
meeting between Presidents Robert Kocharian and Ilham Aliyev in Saint
Petersburg on June 10.

But both the Armenian and Azerbaijani governments kept the plan
secret until after the Azerbaijani delegation left Stepanakert.

ArmInfo reports that in welcoming the visitors, NKR President
Ghoukassian said, "How can we settle a conflict without speaking [with
each other]? When we are told [by Azerbaijan] 'You must do this, or we
will go to war with you,' this does contribute to mutual trust, but in
fact has the opposite effect. We should proceed from international
standards of settling problems."

Mr. Bul-Bul-ogly told journalists that the visit aimed at building
that missing trust. "Our generation lived together, at least in the
Soviet Union, and not everything was so bad, as is presented today,"
the Regnum news agency quoted him as saying. "Our generation knows one
another, and while we are still around, we need to develop a dialogue,
contacts, openly express our opinions, find ways out, compromises."

Mr. Bul-bul-ogly added that there is a need for more contacts
between journalists, parliament members, and other representatives.
"We need to pick people who can communicate with each other in a
tolerant way, express their views, and look for mutual interests,
those opportunities that serve to resolve the crisis."

Before this visit, no Azerbaijani official had ever made a public
visit to the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan had refused to
engage in confidence-building measures with either Armenia or
Nagorno-Karabakh.

As a matter of policy, ethnic Armenians, no matter their citizenship
or political views, are still barred from entering Azerbaijan. One
Azerbaijani official recently suggested legally banning all
Azerbaijani citizens from visiting Armenia or Karabakh.

Even individual Azerbaijanis who have gone to Karabakh have been
harassed as "traitors." An Azerbaijani journalist, Eynullah
Fatullayev, who visited Karabakh in early 2005 was imprisoned earlier
this year on charges related to an article he wrote after his visit.

Dispatching an official delegation to "build bridges" in Karabakh is
a significant departure from this policy, although it is yet unclear
if it will lead to a more positive tone in the Armenian-Azerbaijani
dispute.

In addition to being his country's ambassador to Russia, Mr.
Bul-bul-ogly is widely recognized in Azerbaijan. He is a son of a
locally reknowned Azerbaijani folkloric singer (whose grave in Shushi
Mr. Bul-bul-ogly reportedly visited during the trip), and himself
achieved celebrity status as a singer and actor in the 1970s and 80s.
>From 1988 to 2006 he was minister of culture.

The visit was met with incredulity in the Azerbaijani media, with
Zerkalo, one of the better known local newspapers, leading with a
headline "Shock!" the next day.

Vafa Gulizade, a top advisor to the late President Heydar Aliyev,
condemned the visit as "an unacceptable step."

Other commentators see President Aliyev following the example of
Georgia's President Mikhail Saakashvili, who has adopted more
conciliatory rhetoric toward breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and
Abkhazia. They see the visit as an effort to placate international
mediators long annoyed with Mr. Aliyev's war mongering, while making
Armenians more willing to discuss unilateral compromises.

Yet other Azerbaijani commentators suggested that President Aliyev's
war threats have always been hollow. With official talks essentially
stalled, these commentators believe that Mr. Aliyev is looking for a
new policy that would provide an excuse both not to deliver on the
threats and not commit to unpopular compromises.

Whatever the original intention, this visit can have a positive
impact on the mutual climate and lead to more dialogue and possibly
even some mutual confidence-building.

[Joseph]

PanARMENIAN.Net

Russian analyst: `Does Azerbaijan need Karabakh? No'
30.06.2007 14:27 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ `Karabakh. Does Azerbaijan need it? Certainly, no,'
said Ramil Latypov, director of the center of terror threats analysis
and minor intensity conflicts. `The Azeri people don't need and have
never needed the territory of Nagorno Karabakh. Moreover, there have
been no preconditions for it,' he told Yerkramas, the newspaper of
Armenians of Russia.

`The Azerbaijani government has taken an unswerving stance - war till
victory, victory that can't be. This stance is a synthesized catalyst
of an artificial process. It promises destabilization in the region
for many years. It's pregnant with destabilization, weakening of
economy, deterioration of living conditions, atmosphere of fear and
diffidence, hysteria, waves of internal protests in Azerbaijan,
Karabakh and Armenia,' the expert said.

All this is beneficial for those, who wish to take control over the
world energy resources in a long-term outlook, according to him.

`It's time to stop and resolve the problem, guiding by historical
justice, reason and interests of ordinary citizens, who carry the load
of this theater of absurdity where the director and stage manage is
Mister X.' Ramil Latypov said.