Tweet
Just role play/Lying bastards that they are
Momentarly keeping up apparences.
Originally posted by Gavur
-
"All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) -
Will Ilham (d)aliev Stand The Peaceful Attack Of Mediators?
Azat Artsakh, Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
27 April 2006
Recent developments regarding the settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh
issue show that the international mediators, namely the OSCE Minsk
Group co-chairs have launched a peaceful offensive. Hence, the
suggestions that the West would seek for stability in the region are
confirmed. After the failed talks of the presidents of Armenia and
Azerbaijan in Rambouillet, France, the activity of the mediators
resembles a blitzkrieg. The activity of the co-chairs is gathering
momentum, and there is hardly any time left for the conflict parties
to think. Judge yourselves. Recovering from the shock after the
fruitless meeting of Ilham Aliev and Robert Kocharian in Rambouillet
on April 11, the co-chairs met in Washington on March 7 to assess the
results of the talks between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan
and to work out an action plan for the current deadlocked
situation. Commenting on the Washington meeting of the co-chairs, the
US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Rino Harnish told news reporters in Baku
that arrangements on a peace settlement of the Karabakh issue are not
behind the mountains. In the meantime, Ilham Aliev, who is to blame
for the failure of the talks in Rambouillet, visited one of the
regions of Azerbaijan bordering with Nagorno Karabakh, and stated that
the talks in France failed due to the Armenian party, since Yerevan is
temporizing and therefore the Baku may review its approach towards the
settlement. Moreover, he accused Armenia more aggressively, stating
that the latter is conducting a policy of genocide against Azerbaijan,
perpetrating crimes against the humanity. `We are a party that lost
and this allows us to resolve the Karabakh problem by nay means.' In
other words, Ilham Aliev continued to blackmail the international
community, threatening to start military actions. His plan is
extremely simple: the West does not want a new war in the region,
which is determined by the factor of oil, and will press Armenia. If
this fails to happen, let everything remain the same. In several
years, thinks Aliev Junior, weak Armenia will have to make concessions
to Azerbaijan, which will have become stronger. In the meantime, the
Aliev family will stuff their pockets with oil dollars from the
Baku-Tbilisi-Geihan and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzrum pipelines. The Armenian
party naturally responded to the actions of the Azerbaijani
president. President Robert Kocharian and Foreign Minister Vardan
Oskanian used aggressive speeches to respond to Aliev. The foreign
minister of Armenia made a statement that can be characterized as a
threat to strike the positions of the Azerbaijani army. For his part,
Robert Kocharian told news reporters in Yerevan that if Azerbaijan
rejected compromise, Armenia would recognize Nagorno Karabakh
Republic. In addition, official Yerevan notified to Azerbaijan that
Armenia had already made its compromise and now it was Azerbaijan's
turn. However, let us consider the current plans of the international
mediators. They need to manage to reach an agreement based on
documents on the basic principles of settlement as soon as possible,
or at least signing of an agreement by the presidents of Armenia and
Azerbaijan, reflecting their commitment to pursuing a peace settlement
of the Karabakh issue. Hence, the peaceful offensive of the Minsk
Group co-chairs after the talks in Rambouillet. After the meeting of
the co-chairs in Washington US Assistant Secretary Daniel Fried and
the American co-chair of the Minsk Group Stephen Mann visited the
region. On March 13 and 14 they negotiated with the leadership of
Azerbaijan. During the news conference of Daniel Fried and Stephen
Mann in Baku it became clear that the mediators had seriously
undertaken peaceful strictures against the presidents, particularly
Ilham Aliev. Hence, Stephen Mann conveyed that the resumption of
military actions would affect investments in Azerbaijan. Besides, the
American co-chair of the Minsk Group hinted at the threats, which are
directly related to the security and territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan in case it resumes military actions.
Later on March 15 and 16 the American envoys visited Armenia. It is
notable that on March 17, Daniel Fried left for Istanbul on March 20
to participate in another meeting of the co-chairs. During the meeting
of the PACE Ad-hoc Committee for the Settlement of the Conflict over
Karabakh in Paris Lord Russell Johnston, Chairman, called the parties
(read Azerbaijan) for a halt of hatred and preparation of the peoples
of Armenia and Azerbaijan for a peace settlement of the conflict. In
two days the EU also clarified its standpoint through its new
representative on the South Caucasus Peter Semneby, who also visited
the region. The EU Special Representative emphasized that a military
way of settling the conflict does not favor any of the parties,
therefore the standpoints of Azerbaijan and Armenia need to be brought
closer. Moreover, Mr.
Semneby announced that if he were not convinced of the existence of
possibilities of settlement of the Karabakh conflict, he would not
accept the position of a special representative on the South
Caucasus. Already on March 20 the Minsk Group co-chairs, as it had
been planned, met in Istanbul, this time without Yuri Merzlyakov, who
was ill; another official of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
replaced him. After the top-secret meeting in Istanbul Stephan Mann
gave an interview to Radio Liberty, and stated that the parties should
reach an agreement in 2006, and they would have to finish the
important work they had started to arrive somewhere. The next day the
report on the role of the EU in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh
issue was presented in Brussels, which had been prepared by the
International Crisis Group. In her speech the director of the
Caucasian Bureau of the International Crisis Group Sabine Freizer said
the final political and legal status of Nagorno Karabakh must be
decided in 15-20 years through a referendum. By that time the Armenian
forces must be withdrawn from the Azerbaijani territories adjacent to
Nagorno Karabakh, controlled by the Armenian troops, that must be
followed by stationing of international peacemaking forces, return of
refugees and lifting of the blockade of transport routes. Hence,
Sabine Freizer revealed the essence of the plan of settlement,
proposed by the co-chairs, which, in fact, establishes the right of
the people of Nagorno Karabakh for self-determination, thus upsetting
Azerbaijan. What is the difference, they say in Baku, between losing
Karabakh today or in 15-20 years. In the meantime, in early April the
foreign minister of Azerbaijan Elmar Mamedyarov met with Condoleezza
Rice. During the talk Ms. Rice hinted that the United States would not
have a destabilization in the theatre of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict
and confirmed the invitation of an official visit to the United States
sent by the White House to the president of Azerbaijan Ilham
Aliev. Some time later the president of the PACE Rene van der Linden
announced that the country which would use force to settle the
Karabakh conflict would be discharged from the Council of Europe. He
also invited the parties to give up militaristic statements and admit
that the conflict defies any other settlement except the peace
settlement. After the talks in Rambouillet NATO was not indifferent
towards the process of settlement either. Robert Simons, the
representative of the Secretary General of NATO, said NATO supported a
peace settlement of the conflict. Then the French co-chair Bernard
Fassier and his American counterpart Stephan Mann supported the high
rates of the peace attack of the mediators. While in Baku, Bernard
Fassier said those who call for a war, call for new victims, new
destruction, new refugees. Azerbaijan should remember, said the French
co-chair, that wars threaten developing economies. In addition, he
advised Azerbaijan not to look back, to go forward, for one may have
an accident if they go forward but look back. Terry Davis, Secretary
General of the Council of Europe, gave recommendations to Azerbaijan
too. He told the Azerbaijani agency APA he believed Azerbaijan would
discharge its commitments or it would be facing troubles. These are
the commitments Azerbaijan assumed before the Council of Europe in his
presence, namely a peace settlement of the Karabakh issue. Considering
the peaceful blitzkrieg of the mediators, we should not overlook
another important fact, namely the visit of the president of Turkey
Ahmed Nedjad Sezari to Baku. It is notable that the head of state of
Turkey had planned to visit Azerbaijan two months before. However, the
visit was cancelled due to bad weather. And during his April visit the
Turkish president even endorsed a peace settlement.
It should also be mentioned that after the meeting of Ilham Aliev and
Robert Kocharian in Rambouillet the foreign minister of Armenia Vardan
Oskanian visited the United States and Russia. New meetings and
statements are coming up in the framework of the peaceful
defensive. The new round of consultations of the Minsk Group co-chairs
will take place in Moscow. In the capital of Russia the co-chairs
will discuss the agenda of their next visit, scheduled in early
May. By that time the outcome of the visit of the Azerbaijani
president to the United States will have become known. In Moscow the
mediators will consider the possibility of the meeting of the foreign
ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan in a third country. All these
activities are aimed to organize another meeting of Ilham Aliev and
Robert Kocharian, and this time there can be no failure. Otherwise,
there is no point in holding another meeting. The statements of the
Azerbaijan president are becoming less militaristic, whereas his
subjects are not. Ali Hasanov, an official of Aliev administration
announced in an outburst of emotions: `We are hopeful that the problem
will be settled through talks, we are conscious of the disasters and
destruction that war would bring about, and we do not want this to
happen. We aspire to spend oil revenues on development,
infrastructures, construction of roads, airports, reconstruction of
seaports, regional prosperity. We are thinking of development and not
war. At the same time, we cannot accept the occupation of our
territories. Therefore, if necessary, we will spend all the wealth of
our country for the liberation of our territory.' Here is a `peace
loving aggression.' We do not think, however, that Ali Hasanov did not
have the permission of the Azerbaijani president when he was uttering
these words. Nothing of the like happens in Azerbaijan. Even if it
happens, the daredevil would appear out of office.
Consequently, Ilham Aliev is presently saying one thing but implying
another thing. The powerful of the world made him to do it. How long
will he behave that way? We will probably get the answer to this
question after his official visit to Washington in late
April. However, we do not think that George Bush invited Aliev to
assure him that the United States will return Nagorno Karabakh to
Azerbaijan. It will be the opposite rather. Ilham Aliev will have to
listen to George Bush attentively what his actions regarding the peace
settlement should be. Will the Azerbaijani president stand such an
intensive peace loving attack of the West? , Anyway, there is little
time to wait.
ALEXANDER GRIGORIAN.
26-04-2006"All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)Comment
-
Ilham Aliyev: “Everybody knows, Armenia could never occupy our territories
REGNUM » News » Ilham Aliyev: “Everybody…
Ilham Aliyev: “Everybody knows, Armenia could never occupy our territories without Russian army’s assistance”
Read it in Russian
“We hope, that USA as a superpower and co-Chair of OCSI Minsk Group will contribute to Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement, and peace will be finally established in the region,” President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev stated in Washington. “Karabakh is the main question, which hinders in Azerbaijan’s development, excepting this, we are quite okay: the budget is growing, energy programs are expanding,” Aliyev stressed speaking at the Foreign Affairs Council.
Answering the question, to what extent Armenia, which has won the war, is ready, in Aliyev’s opinion, to compromise, the Azerbaijani president stated: “First of all, from my point of view, Armenia has not won the war. Perhaps, the country achieved some advantages with considerable assistance of other states. Everybody knows that Armenia could never occupy our territories without Russian army’s assistance, which played a vital part. Nevertheless, the war is not over.” “I think it is time for the Armenian authorities to imagine, what it will be with the country in five, ten or fifteen years, if the conflict is not settled. Azerbaijani people’s patience is not everlasting,” Aliyev stated. According to him, “Azerbaijan’s future is rather clear; our country will be strong, prosperous, with strong economy and society. Azerbaijan will become a country, with which it will be worthy to be a neighbor or not to be at all.”
According to Aliyev, peace is profitable for all the parties. In exchange for compromises, Armenia will get communication ways, a way out to Russia, and a very important circumstance – the country will be able to participate in regional projects and developments. As for Nagorno Karabakh population, it will obtain a right for peaceful and legal life, Aliyev stressed. “Our position in the question is very clear: the conflict should be resolved in context of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. Nagorno Karabakh population will receive right for high level of autonomy in the framework of Azerbaijani territorial integrity. They should receive rather clear political guarantees, that there will be eternal peace in the region,” head of the Azerbaijani state pointed out.
It should be mentioned, American mediator on Karabakh settlement Steven Mann, who was present during Aliyev’s speech, stated that “it is important to reject attempts to solve existing questions quickly and finally. Reverse approach should be preferred – to move slowly and to put some complicated questions aside,” Radio Liberty informs."All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)Comment
-
"All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)Comment
-
Karabakh: There Are No Reasonable Alternatives To Peaceful Resolution
Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
May 12, 2006 Friday
KARABAKH: WHY DO BREAKTHROUGH AND PEACE REMAIN AN IMPOSSIBILITY FOR
THE TIME BEING?
by Ambassador Vladimir Kazimirov, the head of the Russian mission for
truce in Karabakh
VLADIMIR KAZIMIROV, THE HEAD OF THE RUSSIAN MISSION FOR TRUCE IN
KARABAKH: THERE ARE NO REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES TO PEACEFUL RESOLUTION
OF THE KARABAKH CONFLICT; The very idea of a resolution of the
Karabakh conflict by force must be abandoned for good.
Debates over Nagorno-Karabakh are becoming heated: if a peaceful
resolution of the conflict is possible or the Azerbaijanis and the
Armenians are doomed to another test of bloodshed. The opponents may
be counted on to loose a propagandistic barrage to celebrate the next
anniversary of the cease-fire accord. Established with Russia's help
on May 12, 1994, the accord is actually the only tangible result of
the peace process turned over to the OSCE. This truce is all twelve
years of the talks have to show for the effort.
A year of relative quiet in the political lives of Azerbaijan and
Armenia, 2006 created the illusions of a breakthrough. The meeting of
Presidents Ilham Aliyev (Azerbaijan) and Robert Kocharjan (Armenia)
in France on February 10-11 confirms the old axiom that considerable
expectations usually result in disappointment. And yet, search for
the peaceful resolution of the conflict must continue.
Everyone knows that the Azerbaijanis and the Armenians thoroughly
distrust each other and that's probably the most distinctive feature
of the old conflict. Distrust of the other side and fear of
deception, treachery, or sabotage account for the sides'
uncompromising stand on the matter. It is as if they are doomed to
striving for fulfillment of their own demands first and foremost. The
Armenians want the status of Karabakh determined. The Azerbaijanis
want seven occupied districts liberated and returned to them. As a
result, the clumsy process of talks breeds blind alleys one after
another instead of progressing from one concession to another.
How can this fatal distrust be lessened? It is this distrust that
precludes accords. Not even their signing will guarantee
implementation. Leaderships should be responsive and tolerant, they
should stop this endless fault finding that encourages mutually
shared hostility. Contacts between structures of the two societies
are needed. This is precisely what is missing.
Nothing feeds mutual distrust as effectively and profusely as threats
and hatred. Needless to say, Azerbaijan is the leader of the two
where threats are concerned. Yerevan and Stepanakert barely manage to
keep up with Baku where state officials never miss a chance to
threaten to settle the matter by sheer strength of arms.
The "peace or war" dilemma in the meantime is false because there are
no alternatives to a peaceful resolution of the conflict. Not only
because of something as vague as humanism - because of the rigid laws
of logic, because of the correlation of forces in the region that
does not really call for military adventures. The existing
correlation of forces is going to preclude success for a long time to
come, and a protracted war will deadly. Its advocates cannot even
hope for victory. Even success which is highly unlikely will only
shift the conflict to a new generation.
Everyone objects to continuation of the conflict: Russia, United
States, France, European Union, Commonwealth, NATO, and many others.
What pressure will be applied to the aggressor without even
accomplishing anything yet? Fiasco instead of victory!
It did not take Baku long to forget the bitter years of 1992-1994.
Elaborating at length on occupation of their land, the Azerbaijanis
never display the willingness to get to the root of the matter and
think of how their lands came to be occupied. Moreover, this is an
outright taboo. In the meantime, Azerbaijani leaders have spent years
trying to resolve the conflict by force, refusing to honor and even
wrecking cease-fire. I remember my conversation with President Heydar
Aliyev in Baku on July 20, 1993. I remember his scream "We'll crush
the Armenians!" This refusal to heed common sense resulted in the
loss of seven districts. Baku is saying that it will win them back in
a war all over again now.
All these calls for vengeance are unlikely to work. They are not
going to compel the Armenians to leave the "security zone" around
Karabakh or to win Azerbaijan support in the international community.
The other way round is more likely. It will be, however, a mistake to
believe that all these calls are made for "domestic use" only and
that Azerbaijan does not really have the strength to do what it
pledges to accomplish. Deceiving the people, sawing enmity, and
maiming psyche of new generations, troubadours of the war only
aggravate distrust and thus interfere with the attempts to resolve
the conflict, slow down the process of tackling moot issues.
Incidents and victims on the line where the warring sides stand face
to face serve to mount tension. The Armenians claim they are prepared
to observe the accord between Azerbaijan, Armenia, and
Nagorno-Karabakh dated February 6, 1995, a document aimed to resolve
incidents and lessen losses. Baku does not bother to honor the accord
and does not even pledge to try to. Neither does the OSCE seem to
care. This latter does not care about the only existing accord on
Karabakh, and the monitoring missions it mounts every now and then
cannot prevent new victims or complications. The arms race President
of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev openly cultivate could only be condemned.
The OSCE is silent on that subject too.
All of these are artificial barriers erected by the ruling elites
because even mutual concessions imply dangers to them. Avoiding
concessions, the elites are trying to retain their positions of power
at the cost of the two peoples. This ostentatious patriotism and
demonization of the enemy are all too frequently corollaries of the
domestic political situation.
Seeking to finally establish peace in Karabakh, the very idea of a
resolution by force must be abandoned for good. That should be a
priority in 2006. No progress is possible without it. Responsibility
for resolution the conflict accepted, the OSCE should become more
determined and never hesitate whenever something compromises its
peace mission. It should not dismiss the threats uttered by state
officials or the hosannah they sing to the arms race. It should not
feign not to notice bloodshed. Both peoples need a breakthrough that
will lead to peace. At least in 2009 or 2010!
Source: Vremya Novostei, May 4, 2006, p. 5"All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)Comment
-
Mediators Will Not Tolerate Another ‘rambouillet’
Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents May Be Forced to Agree in Bucharest
Touching on the Nagorno Karabakh issues in February daily Azg ruled out that the conflicting sides can come to terms at the Rambouillet meeting. The reason we mentioned was that Azerbaijan’s public opinion is not ready for any compromise settlement. Once such a document was signed, the country’s leader would have problems back home. What is the situation prior to the Bucharest meeting and how probable it is that the meeting will yield if not an agreement than at least a breakthrough?
Contrary to the Rambouillet meeting, the get-together in Bucharest preceded by international pressure on the sides to come to terms. Thus we can conclude that this time the co-chairs are instructed by the states they represent to bring the stances of the sides closer. For that reason during the last visit of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to the region they were accompanied by the heads of foreign affairs departments of their state. They visited only Azerbaijan and Armenia but Not Nagorno Karabakh. It also speaks well for the fact that the European delegation had a specific message to the heads of Armenia and Azerbaijan and was not another "acquaintance with positions of the sides". It’s not accidental that after the European delegation’s visit the sides announced about the Bucharest meeting.
This means that the mediating states hope to achieve an agreement and are not going to tolerate another Rambouillet. It seems the slightly edited settlement option of Rambouillet will be imposed upon Armenia and Azerbaijan. But will the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan give in to the mediators’ pressure? Will an agreement be signed? This is going to be the toughest trial for both Robert Kocharian and Ilham Aliyev. Yet, one thing is clear: refusal to sign an agreement can have bad consequences for the two leaders. What agreement do the mediators put forward?
Judging from the statements of Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents and foreign ministers as well as mass media reports, the principles of conflict resolution are roughly as follows: Armenia withdraws from 5 of 7 occupied territories neighboring Karabakh, Azerbaijan recognizes the right for self-determination of the people of Karabakh and agrees to hold a referendum there. Before the referendum Nagorno Karabakh gets an interim status. According to the Western media, the issue of Kelbajar region is still disputable.
Agreeing to these principles can cause serious inner political problems for Kocharian and particularly Aliyev. Some of the principles are extremely unbeneficial for Armenia and some for Azerbaijan. But the Azeri president is in even tougher situation as the Azerbaijani society does not even want to hear of Nagorno Karabakh’s self-determination.
However, we cannot rule out the possibility of a signed agreement in Bucharest due to the international pressure.
By Ara Martirosian"All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)Comment
-
Originally posted by Gavur
Interesting article. It wouldn't be the worst situation if the Armenians retain in addition to Artsakh; Karavachar (Kashatagh) and Berdzor.General Antranik (1865-1927): “I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.”Comment
-
Armenian, Azeri leaders may sign peace accord at Bucharest talks
Yerevan daily
Azg, Yerevan
30 May 06
Text of report by Armenian newspaper Azg on 30 May headlined
"Mediators will not agree with a second Rambouillet"
It cannot be ruled out that under pressure from the [OSCE] mediators,
the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents will reach an agreement in
Bucharest [early June].
Prior to the Rambouillet meeting [between the Azerbaijani and Armenian
presidents in February 2006], Azg newspaper ruled out the signing of
an agreement on a settlement of the Karabakh conflict, and this
happened. We gave a reason as well. Azerbaijani society is not ready
to any scenario of a settlement based on compromises. If a document of
this kind was signed, the country's president would have had serious
problems after returning home.
What a situation we have before the Armenian-Azerbaijani meeting in
Bucharest? It is possible that not an agreement, but serious progress
will be achieved. Unlike Rambouillet, the international community
exerts serious pressure on both sides for reaching an agreement. We
can say that the co-chairmen [of the OSCE Minsk Group] have their
countries' authorities approval to bring the two sides' positions
closer. The fact that not only the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen but
also senior officials of these countries' foreign ministries have paid
a visit to the region testifies to this.
They visited only Armenia and Azerbaijan, but not Karabakh. It means
that they held concrete talks with the Armenian and Azerbaijani
officials involved in the [Karabakh] negotiations. This was not a
fact-finding visit, and it was not unexpected that the announcement
about a meeting of the two countries' presidents in Bucharest was made
after the visit. What does it mean? It means that the mediator
countries hope to reach a specific agreement and are not planning the
second Rambouillet. Probably, Armenia and Azerbaijan have to agree
with some changes to a settlement scenario proposed in Rambouillet.
Here is another question. Will the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents
compromise under pressure from the mediators? Will a settlement
agreement be signed? True, this will be a difficult problem for both
[Armenian President] Robert Kocharyan and [Azerbaijani President]
Ilham Aliyev. It is impossible to give an exact answer to this
question. Though we can say that a refusal to sign any kind of
document will be very difficult for them as this will have negative
results. But what kind of document has been offered to the sides?
According to media claims about what the Armenian and Azerbaijani
presidents, the foreign ministers and other officials have been told,
the principles of the Karabakh settlement are approximately as
follows. Armenia will pull out from five districts neighbouring
Nagornyy Karabakh (there are seven [occupied by Armenia] of them). In
return, Azerbaijan will recognize the right of the people of Nagornyy
Karabakh for self-determination and agree to hold a referendum
there. Nagornyy Karabakh will get a transition status till the
referendum.
In his recent TV address, the Armenian president said that the sides
could not reach an agreement on one issue. According to the western
media, this could be the issue of Kalbacar District [occupied by
Armenia].
According to available information, Robert Kocharyan and especially
Ilham Aliyev will have serious political problems in their countries
if they agree with these principles. Some principles of a document are
completely unacceptable for Armenia, and others for Azerbaijan.
But the Azerbaijani president is in more difficult situation from this
point of view because if Armenian society is a bit ready to the idea
of returning the occupied territories in return for security
guarantees, Azerbaijani society does not want to hear about Karabakh's
self-determination. Unlike Rambouillet, where we ruled out the signing
of any agreement, in Bucharest we cannot rule out that an agreement
may be signed because of international pressure."All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)Comment
-
Russia Rules Out Imposed Solution to Karabagh Conflict
BAKU, May 31 (RFE/RL) - Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov today said that talks between Azerbaijan and Armenia are the only way to resolve the conflict over Nagorno Karabagh. Speaking in Baku, he said a solution imposed from outside could be counterproductive and dangerous. Russia, the United States, and France co-chair the Minsk Group of nations tasked with helping solve the 18-year-old conflict. (Turan, Interfax)"All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)Comment
-
Armenia, Azerbaijan Agree To Resume Karabakh Talks
Monday, 12 June, 2006
By Anna Saghabalian
Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian said on Monday that he will fly to
Paris early Tuesday for talks with his Azerbaijani counterpart Elmar
Mammadyarov which he hopes will salvage the Nagorno-Karabakh peace
process.
`I don't know yet whether the negotiations will be direct or in the
so-called proximity format,' he told reporters, adding that they were
initiated by the American, French and Russian mediators.
The Paris meeting will come just one week after the failure by the
presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan to reach a framework agreement on
Karabakh conflict during two days of intensive negotiations in
Bucharest. The apparent collapse of the Armenian-Azerbaijani summit, the
second in four months, dealt a severe blow to the mediators' efforts to
find a solution to the conflict this year.
Oskanian insisted that there is still a chance for peace. `There are
still unresolved problems,' he said. `But there are also difficult
issues on which we had for years failed to agree but on which there is
agreement now. So there is that positive element in the process.'
He declined to disclose those issues or give other details of the talks.
Other Armenian officials have said implicitly that the summit did not
result in a peace accord because of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliev's
last-minute rejection of the mediators' idea of enabling Karabakh's
predominantly Armenian population to decide its status in a referendum.
The referendum would reportedly take place at least a decade after the
liberation of most Armenian-occupied territories around Karabakh.
Politicians and commentators critical of Armenia's leadership have also
raised questions about President Robert Kocharian's commitment to this
formula. The Yerevan daily `Haykakan Zhamanak' said on Saturday that
Kocharian told senior Armenian officials after the Bucharest talks that
he is relieved by Aliev's alleged rejection of the peace plan."All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)Comment
Comment