Karabakh peaceful resolution possible, RA PM says

20.12.2007
PanARMENIAN.Net

“The potential of peaceful talks on the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement has not been exhausted yet. It’s important for Armenia to recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, which for its part should recognize the right of Karabakhi people to self-determination,” RA Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan said at a meeting with EU Envoy for the South Caucasus Peter Semneby.

“Presidential elections in Azerbaijan and Armenia should not hamper the negotiations. Candidates should not conceal their views from the publics because of the fear to lose supporters. Positions should be voiced precisely,” he said.

“The European Union is interested in maintenance of previous achievements for efficient continuation of talks. I concluded that Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev sees resolution of the conflict after the presidential elections in both states,” Mr Semneby said for his part.

! Reproduction in full or in part is prohibited without reference to «PanARMENIAN.Net».

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Kocharian-Aliyev meeting if successful will force Turkey to open its border with Armenia

01.06.2007
PanARMENIAN.Net

Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders are due to meet in St. Petersburg, Russia on June 9 to talk on the basic principles of the settlement on Nagorno Karabakh, which if successful will force Turkey to open its border with Armenia, said Omer Luthem, retired ambassador and chairman of the institute for Armenian research at ASAM.

However, settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict is not enough for it, according to him.

The settlement may help normalization but this would not be sufficient in itself. Turkey additionally insists on Armenia giving up claims of the Armenian Genocide, the Turkish diplomat said.

If they agree on the settlement, then Turkey has to give an “award” by opening its border which was closed in 1993, Omer Luthem said. A peaceful solution to Nagorno Karabakh is one of the preconditions set by Ankara for establishing diplomatic relations with Yerevan, he added.

If the two leaders can agree on the status of Nagorno Karabakh, the withdrawal of Armenian forces from seven nearby regions around Nagorno Karabakh is expected to be resolved easily, Omer Luthem said.

However diplomatic sources based in Ankara do not expect a swift solution pointing to other problems such as the timing of withdrawal of Armenian forces from seven regions, the corridor problem between Azerbaijan and Armenia, the timing of the referendum and the return of refugees and so on, the Turkish Daily News says.

! Reproduction in full or in part is prohibited without reference to «PanARMENIAN.Net».

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

The wannabe nation of Nagorno-Karabakh

May 29, 2007
Christian Science Monitor, MA
By Nicole Itano - Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

With a flag, parliament, and prime minister, this 'country' is all dressed up but has nowhere to go.

Stepanakert, self-declared republic of Nagorno-Karabakh - Anoushavan Danielyan's office is resplendent with the signs of his high post. A red, blue, and orange flag adorns a corner. A large seal depicts a regal bird, above whose head floats a crown. Plastic flowers sit in a vase.

Outside, in a grim corridor that has seen better days, a sign indicates this is the office of the prime minister of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic.

Never heard of it? Don't worry. That's because it doesn't officially exist.

[...]

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

US extradites Armenian committed massacres against Azerbaijanis

21 May 2007
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan

The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has extradited Vigen Patatanyan, who committed crimes against Azerbaijanis in Nagorno Karabakh, to Armenia, APA’s US bureau reports.

Former lieutenant of Armenian army was detained in the city of San Diego on America-Mexico border. Patatanyan said during the interrogation in Migration and Customs Service that he closely participated in delivering soldiers and weapons to fight against Azerbaijanis during the first Karabakh war. The lieutenant confessed that the soldiers whom he supplied with weapons committed terrible massacres against the local residents in Shusha, Lachin, Khankendi, Kalbajar, Fuzuli and other regions of Azerbaijan.

Officer of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement Alan Rabinovich stated that they will not allow the criminals committed terrible massacres against civilians during conflicts to hide in the US.

It is the second time that 38-year old Armenian criminal tries to enter the US with forged migrant documents.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement appealed to the people to inform about the men entering the country and suspected of committing crimes. /APA/

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Armenia and Karabakh mark V-Day and Shoushi Liberation Day on May 9

09.05.2007
PanARMENIAN.Net

On May 9 Armenia marks the V-Day and the Day of Yerkrapah (Union of Volunteers of the Karabakh war). In connection with these holidays a number of events will be held in the republic. Particularly events of placing wreaths in “Yerablur” pantheon and Victory Park, as well as attending to the “Mother Armenia” museum are scheduled, Defense Ministry Spokesman colonel Seyran Shahsuvaryan told the PanARMENIAN.Net. Participants of events with a minute of silence will honor the memory of those who perished their lives during battles, after which a military parade will be held. A concert will be organized in the Republic Square, which will be concluded by fireworks.

On May 9 Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh mark not only as V-Day in the World War II, but also as Shoushi Liberation Day, as well as the foundation day of the NKR Defense Army.

On May 9 in the Revival Square of Stepanakert a military parade of NKR Defense Army will be held. After it the Armenian delegation at the head of President Robert Kocharian together with NKR leadership and President Arkadi Ghukassian will visit the Memorial Complex of Stepanakert. They will place wreaths to the monument in memory of those who died during the war. An event of placing flowers to the tank-monument that first attacked Shoushi will be organized in Shoushi. In the center of Shoushi officials will also lay flowers to the monument of Vazgen Sargsyan, military leader and Prime Minister of Armenia, who was killed during Armenian National Assembly’s session in 1999.

Besides the Center of Crafts will be opened in Shoushi. Also a photo exhibition entitled “Shoushi with Children’s eyes” will be held. Participants of events will attend the St. Kazanchetsost Church of Shoushi. The “Shoushi Revival” Fund will organize a number of events in Shoushi. Particularly it is going to open a movie theater in the town and conduct the “Golden Apricot” film festival. In the evening of May 8 video projection and presentation of the new general layout, as well as the new coat of arms and Fund’s plans for reconstructing the town will be shown on the walls of Shoushi fortress. In the evening President of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic Arkadi Ghukassian will held a reception. At the end a holiday concert with participation of local and invited singers will be organized in the Revival Square of Stepanakert. A mass firework will conclude the concert.

! Reproduction in full or in part is prohibited without reference to «PanARMENIAN.Net».

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Azerbaijan leader's talk of Karabakh settlement principles angers Armenia

May 4, 2007
IHT
Source: The Associated Press

RAMANI, Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan's president on Friday laid out what he said were basic principles for the resolution of his country's dispute with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, angering Armenian leaders who disputed his suggestion that they have assented to the terms he described.

Aliev's remarks appeared more likely to deepen distrust between the nations than to bring them closer to resolving the dispute over the territory, which is inside Azerbaijan but has been controlled by Armenian and local ethnic Armenian forces since a six-year war that ended in 1994.

Tensions remain high between Armenia and Azerbaijan, former Soviet republics in the Caucasus, and more than a decade of coaxing from international mediators led by the United States, Russia and France has yet to bring an agreement on the status of the territory.

Aliev said the basic principles of a settlement were the unconditional return of seven districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh that are also under ethnic Armenian control and the return of refugees to Nagornko-Karabakh, followed by the determination of its political status.

Aliev, speaking to refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh in the settlement of Ramani, outside Azerbaijan's capital Baku, said there was general agreement on the principles, which he suggested were the basis for settlement talks shepherded by the international monitors.

The details of settlement talks are usually kept under wraps out of the concern that revealing them could hurt delicate efforts to resolve the dispute, which raises strong emotions in both countries. Aliev said he was discussing them publicly because the Armenian side had broken confidentiality and made misleading statements.

His words drew a swift and angry response from Armenian officials, particularly sensitive about the issue ahead of parliamentary elections later this month, with parliament vice-speaker Vaan Ovannisian calling accusing him of "obvious lies."

"There is no such agreement," Ovannisian said.

Prime Minister Serge Sarkisian cast doubt on Aliev's statement that there was agreement on the unconditional return of all seven surrounding districts. In the past there have indications that Armenia would agree to the return of five of the districts on condition of independence for Nagorno-Karabakh.

"Let him say what he wants, we have already announced our position," Sarkisian said.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Vladimir Karapetian said that Armenia's position has been and remains "based on the recognition of the principle self-determination for Nagorno-Karabakh," according to a ministry statement. "Other questions that are on the negotiating table, that are under discussion, are secondary and will follow from recognition of the basic principle," he said.
___

Associated Press Writer Avet Demourian contributed to this report from Yerevan, Armenia.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Yerevan Dismisses Aliev Claims On Karabakh

Friday 4, May 2007
Armenia Liberty
By Ruzanna Khachatrian and Irina Hovannisian

Armenian leaders on Friday shrugged off Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliev’s claims that they have agreed to the liberation of all seven Azerbaijani districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh as part of a peace accord currently discussed by the conflicting parties.

Aliev made the comments as he inaugurated a newly built settlement for Azerbaijani refugees near Baku earlier in the day. Azerbaijani media quoted him as saying that the Armenian side is ready to pull out of even the Lachin district which serves as the shortest overland link between Karabakh and Armenia proper. He said that under the terms of the peace deal proposed by the OSCE Minsk Group the land corridor would be temporarily controlled by international mediators before being placed under Azerbaijani control.

Armenian and Karabakh leaders have repeatedly said that Lachin’s return to Azerbaijan is non-negotiable. They have also set additional conditions for Armenian withdrawal from Kelbajar, the other Azerbaijani district sandwished between Armenia and Karabakh.

“I don’t known what goals the president of Azerbaijan is pursuing, but it is known to everyone that we have principles and those principles haven’t changed,” Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisian told RFE/RL. “So take Aliev’s statements easy.”

“The statements relating to territorial concessions are untrue,” said Vahan Hovannisian, the deputy parliament speaker and a leader of the governing Armenian Revolutionary Federation. “This is not first such case in his political career.”

In his speech, Aliev also said that Karabakh’s status should be determined after the liberation of the Armenian-occpuied districts “within the framework of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity.” “Those [Karabakh Armenians] that want independence should move to Armenia,” he said.

The Minsk Group’s peace proposals seem to allow for international recognition of Karabakh’s secession from Azerbaijan by envisaging a referendum of self-determination in the Armenian-populated territory. The conflicting parties have yet to agree on the date and other practical modalities of the proposed vote.

In a recent interview with the French-Armenian magazine “Nouvelles d’Armenie,” Sarkisian said the Karabakh conflict can be resolved “only on the condition that Karabakh is will never be under Azerbaijani control.”

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

ARMENIA 'BEWILDERED' BY U.S. VOLTE FACE ON HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT

27/04/2007
Caucaz
By RFE/RL

The U.S. State Department amended for the second time on April 25 the wording of a controversial paragraph of its annual report on human rights in Armenia, restoring the initial wording that caused consternation and protest in Yerevan and among Armenian organizations in the United States.

That wording, affirming that "Armenia continues to occupy the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories," was changed in the wake of Armenian protests to read "Armenian forces have occupied large sections of Azerbaijani territory adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh.

Armenian officials claim they have not 'occupied' Nagorno-Karabakh proper" (see "RFE/RL Newsline," April 24, 2007). Angered by that change, Baku cancelled the planned visit to Washington of a high-level delegation that was to have held bilateral talks on security issues on April 23-24, whereupon U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza telephoned Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov in an attempt to reassure him that the new wording did not imply a retreat from Washington's policy of respect for Azerbaijan's territorial integrity (see "RFE/RL Newsline," April 25, 2007).

Armenian Foreign Ministry spokesman Vladimir Karapetian told RFE/RL's Armenian Service on April 26 that "we thought the mistake was corrected and are bewildered by such an unserious approach." Mammadyarov for his part was quoted by day.az on April 26 as saying the reversion to the original wording of the report is "very important news." LF

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Karabakh: Change of State Department’s report becomes habit

26.04.2007
PanARMENIAN.Net

The point on Armenia of the US State Department’s 2006 report of Human Rights, which touched upon the Nagorno Karabakh, has been restored in its original reduction, the PanARMENIAN.Net journalist was told in the U.S. Embassy of Armenia. Currently the report says, “occupied by Armenia territories of Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh”.

Last week by demand of the Armenian side “occupied Nagorno Karabakh” formulation was removed from the text of the report. However it was restored on April 24.

In the interview to AzerTaj OSCE MG American Co-Chair, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Matthew Bryza stated, “The statement in its original variant of the report was wrong. If we take into account the current stage of talks over the Nagorno Karabakh, it was our mistake. Let us consider one more time: the amendment says that the Armenian forces have occupied territories, but Armenian officials state that they have not occupied Nagorno Karabakh. As you see, we just indicated the statement of the Armenian side. Currently we are on the stage of peace process over the Nagorno Karabakh, when the sides negotiate over its final status. This status will be determined through peaceful ways via the OSCE Minsk Group, basing on such international principles as resolutions of the UN Security Council and OSCE decisions.

That’s why if we mistakably stated that Armenia has occupied Nagorno Karabakh, like in the original variant, that statement as if will predetermine results of negotiations concerning the status. We cannot determine results, they must emerge in the process of talks. That’s why I repeat we’ve committed a mistake. Now we corrected our mistake. I will also notice that we have not fallen under anybody’s influence. There are some people who say that we have done it under the pressure of some Diasporan groups. That’s not right.”

! Reproduction in full or in part is prohibited without reference to «PanARMENIAN.Net».

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

A bad-looking model

25 April 2007
guardian.co.uk/commentisfree
Ilana Bet-El

Despite what US and EU officials claim, an independent Kosovo would set a precedent in many ways - and an exceedingly dangerous one at that.

US and EU officials have been clocking up a lot of soundbites lately, explaining how independence for Kosovo would not set an international precedent. They are wrong: an independent Kosovo would be a precedent in many ways - theoretical, political, moral, to name a few - and an exceedingly dangerous one at that.

Separatist movements around the globe could and probably would seek to redraw maps based on the Kosovo model, not least in the already strife-ridden Iraq, where the three main ethnic groups - the Sunni and Shia Muslims, and the Kurds - could each or all use the precedent to demand independence. And especially with regard to the Kurds, this could have exceedingly negative implications on both regional and global stability.

There are at least four reasons for this act being a precedent.

First, there is the diplomatic precedent. The problem at stake is not whether Kosovo should go independent - a people's right to self-determination should not be debated - but rather in the way it is achieved. At present, the process is being driven as a sort of crusade, to culminate in an imposed solution rather than a negotiated one between the sides. It is this imposition, a de facto annexation of part of a sovereign state, which would be the precedent - not the resulting state.

Second, it would be a theoretical precedent: it would put the principal of self-determination above the principal of territorial integrity, which has been the bedrock of international affairs since the end of the second world war. Since then the international community has systematically stuck with this principal, effectively upholding the rights of the sovereign state above those of groups of peoples or individuals within them. What's more, all the previous settlements in the Balkans, from the early 1990s onwards, were created upon this basis - as underlined in every security council resolution (SCR) from 1991 onwards.

To gloss over this reality, senior officials of the state department and the EU claim this is but the last element of the break up of Yugoslavia, a neglected issue which the international community allowed to fester while focusing on other parts of the Balkans. As such the Kosovars are "owed" independence, in line with the other warring parties of the 1990s.

This reasoning poses the third precedent, in two ways. First, it is effectively a recasting of history. The break-up of Yugoslavia always referred to its six constituent republics, and it was their territorial integrity that was respected. Kosovo is a province in Serbia, a constituent republic, and referred to as such in every SCR on the province since 1993. Suggesting its ills were part of the break up is therefore a retroactive enhancing, indeed redefinition, of its status.

In addition, the moral reasoning of "owing" the Kosovars must set a precedent for every oppressed people in the world. Upon this basis, and currently in Africa alone, the international community owes it to the people of Darfur to grant them independence from Sudan, which has aided and abetted in having them displaced, murdered and raped; or to the people of Zimbabwe to remove their bizarre dictator Robert Mugabe who has led them to famine and destruction.

The fourth precedent already exists: it is the reality of Kosovo today - which in itself is based upon the precedent of the 1999 Nato bombing campaign, undertaken without security council authorisation. The International Independent Commission on Kosovo convened in 2000 defined it as "illegal but legitimate" due to the dire humanitarian circumstances. It also defined the post-bombing institutional arrangements "a unique institutional hybrid, a UN protectorate with unlimited power whose purpose is to prepare the province for autonomy and self-government - but in the framework of FRY [Serbia]". In other words, a precedent - but one which upholds the territorial integrity of Serbia above the rights of Kosovar self-determination.

Regardless of whether Kosovo deserves independence or not therefore, this move would be a precedent for every separatist group in every sovereign state - a fact which has already led several EU member states to not back the drive for independence.

Beyond Europe, independence for Kosovo could and probably would set the theoretical precedent for the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, for example, while the moral precedent could serve to give Chechnya independence from Russia. These could definitely cause a raucous in the Caucuses. However, it would be as nothing to the mess that would result from the creation of independent Sunni and Shia states, which could break away from Iraq - or an independent Kurdistan.

This latter would not only be totally unacceptable to Turkey, but to Iran, Syria and Armenia too, all of which have restive Kurdish minorities. However, more than most other minorities the Kurds could claim parallelism with Kosovo: they have been an oppressed minority for decades, especially in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, when they were gassed and murdered in their thousands. No one then (or since, in reality) did anything to help them - and yet they have an ethnic majority in Iraqi Kurdistan, and also in their provinces in the other states. Moreover, and taking the parallel to its logical conclusion, they too have achieved a degree of autonomy under international supervision due to an invasion unauthorised by the UN security council.

On the back of this, if Kosovo were to go independent due to an imposed solution rather than one negotiated between Serbia and the Kosovar leadership, there could be little to stop the Kurds demanding - or declaring - an independent Kurdistan. This move would undoubtedly provoke Turkey into invading the province into order to forestall its own Kurds from joining with the independent Kurdistan - a move that could then also provoke Iran and Syria, not to mention the rest of the Iraqis.

In a region that is already on the edge of wide conflict, such a scenario could easily tip it over - with devastating implications. Keeping this in mind, independence granted to Kosovo unilaterally by the international community would be a dangerous, destabilising precedent. A just resolution must be found to the status of the province, possibly one of partition - but it must be one negotiated and agreed by the sides, not one imposed.


Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Azerbaijan postpones high-level U.S. visit over wording on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

April 22, 2007
IHT
Source: The Associated Press

BAKU, Azerbaijan: Azerbaijan said Sunday that it postponed a high-level visit to the United States because of what it claimed were changes in U.S. wording describing its dispute with Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh territory.

The Caspian Sea coast nation's Foreign Ministry warned that the issue "may become a serious impediment to further security-related cooperation between our countries" — a possible reference to Azerbaijan's contribution to the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq.

The government postponed the two-day visit for security talks, which was to have started Monday and to have included high-level officials from several ministries, because of "changes to the provisions" on Nagorno-Karabakh in the State Department's 2006 report on human rights abroad, a ministry statement said.

The changes "distort the essence of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Nagorno-Karabakh conflict" and their introduction "puts in doubt the U.S. position of the 'honest broker' in the resolution of the conflict," the statement said.

It did not offer details, and officials were not available for comment after the statement's release.

Nagorno-Karabakh is a territory inside Azerbaijan that has been controlled by Armenian and local ethnic Armenian forces since a six-year war that ended in 1994. Tension remains high between Armenia and Azerbaijan, ex-Soviet republics in the Caucasus.

There was speculation in Azerbaijan that the government was angry at the absence, in the State Department's country report on human rights practices in Armenia, of a statement saying that Nagorno-Karabakh is Azerbaijani territory occupied by Armenia.

The country report on Azerbaijan, posted on the State Department Web site, states that in 2006 "Armenia continued to occupy the Azerbaijani territory of Nagorno-Karabakh and seven surrounding Azerbaijani territories" — wording that is apparently acceptable to Azerbaijan.

The report on neighboring Armenia, however, says: "Armenian forces occupy large portions of Azerbaijani territory adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenian officials maintain that they do not 'occupy' Nagorno-Karabakh itself."

The Azerbaijani statement said resolution of the conflict "based on the territorial integrity of ... Azerbaijan, with Nagorno-Karabakh as its inalienable part, is a primary and foremost element" in its security cooperation with the United States.

The United States said its policy had not changed.

"Any interpretation that our policy regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has changed is not correct," State Department spokeswoman Nancy Beck said Sunday. She said the U.S. was aware of Azerbaijan's statement announcing the postponement and was in contact with its government.

"These talks are important and we look forward to them taking place at the earliest date," Beck said.

On Friday, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack also said there had been no change, adding: "The United States reaffirms its support for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and holds that the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh is a matter of negotiations between the parties."

The United States, Russia and France, under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, have been encouraging Azerbaijan and Armenia to resolve the conflict for more than a decade.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Armenian Minister Says Karabakh Meeting 'Constructive'

Thursday, April 19, 2007
RFE/RL

Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian says international mediators are attempting to organize a meeting between Armenia's and Azerbaijan's presidents aimed at resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, RFE/RL's Armenian Service reported.

Oskanian told RFE/RL today that the three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group -- representing France, Russia, and the United States -- will likely visit the region in the near future to organize the meeting.

"The co-chairs most probably will visit the region and meet directly with our presidents to get their reactions to these particular views and on the basis of the result of that visit they will decide when and where to organize the presidents' next meeting," Oskanian said.

Oskanian made his comments one day after meeting his Azerbaijani counterpart, Elmar Mammadyarov, and the Minsk Group co-chairs in Belgrade. Oskanian said the meeting focused on suggestions the co-chairs had to resolve outstanding differences between the Armenian and Azerbaijani side.

Oskanian described the meeting as "constructive" and "businesslike."

He added it was "much more relaxed and well-intended" than a similar meeting in Geneva on March 14.

Oskanian said that based on the content of a current framework agreement overseen by the Minsk Group, Armenia and Azerbaijan have never been so close to resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as they are now.

"I compare this document to all the previous ones that have ever been presented by the co-chairs in the past 10-12 years, and this document content-wise is very balanced and very reasonable," he said. "And that is why I think this document should provide a promise for making further progress in our talks."

More than 25,000 people were killed between 1991-94 in the battle for control over Nagorno-Karabakh, a predominantly ethnic-Armenian region located on Azerbaijani territory.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

OSCE mission concludes dry and hot weather caused fire in contact line

27 Mar 2007
APA

“The fires occurred along the contact line around Nagorno Karabakh and other regions from June till September of 2006. Heavy rainfalls in winter followed by dry and hot weather caused fires.

Fires caused economic-ecological damage and posed threat to people’s safety and health. Sometimes lack of corresponding equipment and practice on fire fighting did not allow local people and fire fighting services’ localizing fires. Subterranean mines and unexploded ordnances as well as length of the contact line caused difficulties,��? reads the report drawn up by the OSCE mission, coordinator of OSCE Economic and Environmental Activities Bernard Snoy told the APA.

The mission’s mandate was determined on the consensus of Azerbaijan and Armenia on September 25, 2006 was approved after the letter exchange between the Foreign Minister of the two countries and OSCE Chairman-in-Office Karel de Gucht. The mission is to estimate long-term and short-term ecological consequences of fires, prepare recommendations on preventing negative results of fires and on carrying out ecological operation envisaged in the UN General Assembly’s resolution # 60/285. The UN resolution stresses the importance of carrying out extraordinary ecological operation for extinguishing fires and removing heavy consequences. The Assembly called on the relevant bodies and programs of the UN to assist OSCE in this sphere. The resolution says that OSCE Chairman-in-Office is to submit a report on this problem by April 30, 2007.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Erdogan challenges Armenian diaspora at joint forum in Baku

10 March 2007
Today.Az

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, your words below sound hollow as Ara Sarafian who attempted to use the archives has concluded in the Armenian Forum 2, no. 1 (Spring 1999), pp. 35.44, that "The Ottoman archives debate was hatched in a continuing effort, orchestrated by the Turkish government, to deny the Armenian Genocide of 1915. The promise of Ottoman records in the mid-1980s was simply a way to shift the focus of debate from existing Western archives on the Genocide. The Ottoman materials that were promised were not made available for the scrutiny of Western scholars, and Turkish state intellectuals have failed to utilize Ottoman materials to exculpate the Ottoman state in the genocide of Armenians. Furthermore, despite the limitations of the Ottoman archival materials under discussion, i.e. despite the intellectual absences within these records and the restrictions on their use, these Ottoman materials corroborate Western accounts of the Armenian Genocide. They show that the Ottoman authorities were very much in control in 1915; that there was no effective resistance by Armenians to liquidation; and that the destruction of Ottoman Armenians (like the liquidation of other groups) was part of a grand design to recast the empire in a Turkish nationalist mold. Turkish authorities are now committed to a semblance of an open-archives policy while restricting access to critical scholars and encouraging partisans to prop up the Turkish nationalist agenda.", here, as recently as 7 March 2007, the Gomidas Institute complained "a comment made by Dr. Yusuf Halaçoğlu, the head of the Turkish Historical Society, that vital Ottoman records on the 1915 deportation of Armenians--including in Harput--do not exist in Turkish archives today.", here , besides it is a well known fact that "Destroying documents is an essential part of government culture.", here. In addition you mention that "Nagorno Karabakh dispute "a bleeding wound for the Turkish people,"" but you forget to mention that the self preservation of Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh was the result of the Sumgait massacres of Armenians by Azeris under the watchful eyes of Azerbaijan's government , here. Finally you mention Khojaly which in essence the story was made up after the fact as a talking point to smear the Armenians, here. Please give up the pretenses and the hollow words that only echo in your mind and those who are like you.

Truth cannot be built on lies, Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Friday in Baku, as he called on the Armenian diaspora to prove their allegations of genocide by the Ottoman Empire with documents.

Erdogan's remarks came as he was delivering a keynote speech at the First Forum of the World Azerbaijani and Turkish Diasporas Organizations, in order to counter the intensifying attacks from the Armenian diaspora, which has been striving for international recognition of the so-called Armenian genocide. The congress also intended to prompt Turks and Azeris abroad to take action.

Turkish Cypriot President Mehmet Ali Talat also participated in the forum, which was hosted by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev -- a clear sign of Baku's support for easing international isolation of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC).

In his speech, Erdogan called the Nagorno Karabakh dispute "a bleeding wound for the Turkish people," and referred to a December 2006 referendum in the region by Armenia. Ankara has already announced that it will not recognize the outcome of the referendum backing independence in the Nagorno Karabakh region, saying the referendum was held while "ignoring international law."

"Did the world recognize [the outcome of the referendum]?" asked Erdogan.

"It didn't, because what was exercised there was fake, wrong, a lie and fabricated. Sooner or later, justice will prevail. We believe this," Erdogan said.

The border gate between Turkey and Armenia has been closed for more than a decade. Turkey shut the gate and severed diplomatic relations with Armenia after Armenian troops occupied the Azeri territory of Nagorno Karabakh.

"This is a common characteristic of Armenia, -- unfortunately -- a large portion of Armenians and the diaspora. Now there are Armenian genocide campaigns all around the world ... alleged Armenian genocide ... nobody will fall for this trick. Turkey and the Turks will never fall for this trick," Erdogan said.

Turkey vehemently denies that Armenian allegations of a genocide under its predecessor the Ottoman Empire. Facing a mounting Armenian campaign to get international recognition for the alleged genocide, Turkey called for a joint committee of Turkish and Armenian experts in 2005 to study the allegations.

At the time, Erdogan sent a letter to Armenian President Robert Kocharian proposing the establishment of such a committee. Nevertheless, Yerevan hasn't given a positive answer to Ankara's proposal up to date, instead arguing that such a committee should be inter-governmental.

Armenian fear of facing Hojaly

In Baku, Erdogan brought to mind his call to Yerevan and reiterated that conducting historical research was not an issue for politicians. "Let historians, political scientists, archeologists, lawyers and historians of art study this issue. If it is eventually understood that there is a grievance, then we will do what we're supposed to do," he said.

"There is still no answer, because then they will have to face the Hojaly massacre," he added.

The city of Hojaly in Nagorno Karabakh, which is still under Armenian occupation, was seized by Armenian armed forces and Russian troops based in the region on Feb. 25, 1992. About 2,500 civilians, the majority of whom were women, children and the elderly, were bombarded before military forces seized the city. People in the city, which was largely burnt down, had fled for Agdam, the only open direction allowed by the occupying powers, but after a short while it was reported that this way was blocked, too, and those who had started to flee were ambushed.

A total of 613 Azerbaijanis, including 106 women and 63 children, were massacred by Armenian and Russian forces, in addition to earlier attacks in Hojaly. Armenian forces occupying the city captured 1,275 people and 150 were reported missing.

Meanwhile, Erdogan thanked Aliyev for inviting Talat to a meeting, saying this "meant a lot" for Turkey. State ministers Besir Atalay and Mehmet Aydin accompanied Erdosan at the Baku meeting, which was also attended by representatives from Australia, Iraq, the KKTC and the US as well as from European and Central Asian countries. Today's Zaman

URL: http://www.today.az/news/politics/37635.html


Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

German foreign minister calls for Armenian-Azerbaijani agreement

Tuesday 20 February 2007
Jurnalo

At the end of his trip to the Caucasus, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier on Tuesday in the Armenian capital Yerevan called for Armenia and Azerbaijan to resolve quickly the conflict over the disputed exclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. The two former Soviet republics did not require any further offers of new mediation from outside for the talks to continue, Steinmeier said after meeting with his Armenian counterpart Vardan Oskanyan.

The Armenians and Azerbaijanis had had successes in recent months that had to be built upon, Steinmeier said.

The predominantly Armenian region of Nagorno-Karabakh currently lies entirely within Azerbaijan's borders. The region declared itself independent after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, but this has not been recognized by any country, including Armenia.

During negotiations, the Armenian side declared itself willing at the end of 2006 to return to Azerbaijan all other areas it occupied apart from Nagorno-Karabakh.

This was seen in the Azerbaijani capital of Baku as an encouraging sign for a possible agreement with Armenia.

What remained unclarified was the future status of Nagorno- Karabakh itself.

The 4,400-square-kilometre region is officially a part of Azerbaijan, but in a war between 1992 and 1994, the local population drove out Azerbaijan's troops with support from Armenia.

Some 750,000 Azerbaijanis are believed to have lost their homes in the conflict.

There has been a ceasefire in the region since 1994.

Alongside the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the so-called Minsk Group under the leadership of Russia, the United States and France has been searching for a solution. dpa sv wjh ds

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Ethnic Armenians debate their future by Ashot Beglarian

February 16, 2007
Baku Sun
By Ashot Beglarian


KHANKENDI, Azerbaijan — A series of broad public debates in Nagorno-Karabakh suggest public opinion amongst Karabakh Armenians is highly skeptical of the compromises being proposed by international mediators on the future of the territory. The Armenia-based organization, the International Centre for Human Development, organized a series of public meetings with the aim of soliciting a wide range of views on the future of Karabakh. Now an unrecognized territory with an overwhelmingly Armenian population, Karabakh has been de facto separate from Azerbaijan for a decade and a half. A ceasefire has maintained an uneasy peace between the two parties since 1994.

The meetings were held on the eve of the visit to Karabakh on January 25 by the three international diplomats of the OSCE’s Minsk Group responsible for negotiating a peaceful settlement of the conflict, the American Matt Bryza, Russia’s Yury Merzlyakov and France’s Bernard Fassier.

Tevan Poghosian, executive director of the International Centre for Human Development and chief organizer of the initiative, said a key aim of the debates was to bring the views of ordinary people to the attention of the mediators, despite the fact that their talks were held behind closed doors.

As well as a meeting in the regional center, Khankendi (Armenian name Stepanakert), two debates were also held in the towns of Xocavand (Martuni) and Agdara (Martakert). The organizers said they gave the discussions an open format to encourage the free exchange of ideas. Alisa Mkrtchian, a participant in one of the debates, described it as a kind of “brainstorming”.

More than 217 ideas were voiced and written up on large screens for everyone to consider and discuss. Mkrtchian noted that there was wide support for the preservation of the current status quo for Karabakh in which, despite being unrecognized internationally, most local residents believe the territory enjoys a measure of stability. “Considering that there were representatives of different social groups, political views, ages and so on, round the table, this level of unanimity was quite telling and it reflects the attitude of society to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem and to ways of solving it,” said Mkrtchian.

The Karabakh Armenians do not have a place at the table in the Minsk Group negotiations, held between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Elements of a peace deal under discussion include the return of the seven Azerbaijani districts under Armenian control outside Karabakh and a referendum on the future status of the entity.

Masis Mailian, deputy foreign minister of Karabakh, welcomed the discussions because he said that the public in Karabakh had been left “on the sidelines” in the debate over their own future. “I believe that the authorities should always rely on public opinion and the position of society for its actions,” said Mailian. “There are a lot of interesting ideas, which the authorities should definitely take into account in the course of its work.”

The participants debated five future scenarios: the status quo; independence for Karabakh; Karabakh joining Armenia; Karabakh becoming an international protectorate and giving up the surrounding Azerbaijani territories; and Karabakh ceding the territories in return for potential independence in the future (the closest option to what is currently under negotiation). The option that Karabakh should return to being part of Azerbaijan was not put forward and no one even mentioned this as a possibility. At the end of the debate, the majority of participants - 31 people in all - voted for the option of independence, twelve said they wanted to keep the status quo, with other options receiving much weaker support.

There was widespread opposition to some of the ideas being discussed during the current peace talks - the deployment of international peacekeepers in the conflict zone, giving up of the occupied districts surrounding Karabakh, return of the pre-war Azerbaijani population and a referendum on the future status of Karabakh.

One participant said, “Since the truce of 1994, the ceasefire regime has been maintained thanks to the balance of forces that has formed. This is a unique case. The introduction of a third force can disturb this balance and lead to unpredictable consequences.”

A fairly typical view came from Eleonora Gazarian, who said, “One thing became clear in the course of our discussions - we will not make any kind of compromises under someone else’s diktat. I think that we need a comprehensive solution with the definition of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh first and then mutual concessions.” On a broader point almost everyone was agreed - that the Karabakh Armenians should proceed at full speed with the project of building up democratic and civic institutions in their unrecognized state, whatever their international status.

Eduard Agabekian, the mayor of Khankendi, said, “We must create the state of which we dream - with a stable economy, socially just, where there is no conception that some are allowed to do everything and others are not even allowed to do what is permitted by law.”

Poghosian said he was pleased with the debates and planned to hold similar initiatives in the future. “People had the chance to check certain items of information and to give their own views of the problem,” he said. “Initiatives like this also have the aim of inculcating young people with the ability to negotiate and solve conflicts.”

Ashot Beglarian is a freelance journalist and IWPR contributor in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

WHITE HOUSE PROPOSES TO RENDER AZERBAIJAN MORE ASSISTANCE

06 February, 2007
A1+

WASHINGTON, DC - The Bush Administration, in its FY2008 federal budget, has proposed a 49% cut in aid to Armenia, and is - once again - seeking to break the agreement it struck with Congress more than five years ago to maintain parity in military aid levels to Armenia and Azerbaijan, reported the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA)

The President's budget recommends cutting U.S. economic aid to Armenia from the FY2006 actual level of $69 million to a proposed FY2008 level of $35 million. The budget proposal does not include any specific assistance figures for Nagorno Karabagh.

The proposed military aid cuts come in two broad categories, Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and International Military Education and Training (IMET). The proposed FY2008 FMF figure for Armenia is $3 million, a cut of $960,000, fully 30% less than the proposed FY2008 figure for Azerbaijan of $4.3 million. The President is seeking only $300,000 in IMET for Armenia, down $538,000 from FY2006, a dramatic cut of 64%. In sharp contrast, the White House is proposing that Azerbaijan receive $1 million in IMET, a considerable increase over their FY2006 level of $823,000 and more than three times the IMET levels being proposed for Armenia. Overall, the President's budget proposes 38% less in U.S. military aid for Armenia than for Azerbaijan.

"We are troubled, once again, both by the President's breach of his agreement with Congress to maintain parity in military aid appropriations to Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as by the drastic cut that he is proposing in economic development assistance to Armenia," said ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian.

"We look to our friends in Congress to help restore military aid parity and to substantially increase aid levels to Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh that reflect Armenia's growing partnership with the United States, as well as the shared values and enduring friendship between the American and Armenian peoples."

The Foreign Operations Subcommittees of the Senate and House Appropriation Committees will now review the budget and each draft their own versions of the FY 2007 foreign assistance bill.

The agreement to maintain parity in U.S. military aid to Armenia and Azerbaijan was struck between the White House and Congress in 2001, in the wake of Congressional action granting the President the authority to waive the Section 907 restrictions on aid to Azerbaijan. The ANCA has vigorously defended this principle, stressing that a tilt in military spending toward Azerbaijan would destabilize the region, emboldening the Azerbaijani leadership to continue their threats to impose a military solution to the Nagorno Karabagh conflict. More broadly, the ANCA has underscored that breaching the parity agreement would reward the leadership of Azerbaijan for obstructing the peace process, and undermines the role of the U.S. as an impartial mediator of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

ARMENIA: ARREST OF GOVERNMENT CRITIC ON COUP CHARGES PROMPTS CONCERNS

Posted December 14, 2006
Eurasianet
By Onnik Krikorian

As political tensions in Armenia rise ahead of next year’s parliamentary elections, the arrest of a former Nagorno-Karabakh military commander critical of the Armenian government’s talks with Azerbaijan is raising fresh concerns about how the vote will be conducted.

In a December 10 raid carried out by masked agents of Armenia’s National Security Service (NSS) at a Yerevan restaurant, Zhirayr Sefilian, an ethnic Armenian from Lebanon, was taken into custody on charges of plotting a government coup. Sefilian, a former commander in Armenia’s war with Azerbaijan over the predominantly ethnic Armenian breakaway territory of Karabakh, is a decorated, hard-line war hero. He is an outspoken opponent of any deal with Azerbaijan that includes the return of territory currently under Armenian control.

The press service of the NSS, the successor to Armenia’s Soviet-era State Security Committee (KGB), has alleged that Sefilian "planned to interfere in the upcoming political processes [2007 parliamentary elections] with the use of force." Sefilian has been accused of "conspiring to overthrow the constitutional order" under Article 301 of the Criminal Code. On December 12, a Yerevan court, in a closed session, ruled that Sefilian could be jailed for two months while the NSS further investigates the case.

Pro-opposition media outlets have reported that dozens of members of Sefilian’s Union of Armenian Volunteers, a small nationalist group opposed to concessions with Azerbaijan, were also temporarily detained in separate raids.

Armenia’s main opposition parties see the arrest as a warm-up for crackdowns against government critics prior to the country’s May 2007 parliamentary elections, or against those who would question the vote’s conduct. In a December 11 statement, they accused the government of resorting to Soviet-style repression to stamp out political dissent. The government has not yet responded to the accusation.

The arrest has also set off alarm bells in nationalist circles, which see Sefilian’s detention as linked to his position on the Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations. Recent statements from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the talks’ mediator, indicatedthat the basic principles for the resolution of the conflict are close to being finalized. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

A December 5 statement from the OSCE after a meeting in Brussels between the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers urged both countries to "double their efforts in the coming year to finalize these basic principles as soon as possible."

Although possible breakthroughs in the negotiations are regularly reported, this time a flurry of other reports about a possible deal suggest that certain agreements are being reached, albeit behind closed doors. Last month, for example, the Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya Gazeta added fuel to such speculation when it published details of what it said was the peace deal currently being discussed by the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides. According to that information, as well as periodical leaks from both Armenian and Azerbaijani officials, most of the seven Azerbaijani regions currently under Armenian control surrounding Karabakh would be returned to Baku. A 40-kilometer wide "corridor" through the strategic town of Lachin, now known as Berdzor, would remain under Armenian control, connecting Karabakh to Armenia proper.

Lending credibility to such speculation are a series of articles published this summer by the local and international media, including EurasiaNet, reporting that the area around Lachin is experiencing a massive exodus of ethnic Armenians. A few weeks after these reports surfaced, Sefilian accused the authorities in Yerevan and Stepanakert of pursuing a deliberate policy to clear the region in preparation for a concessionary peace deal with Azerbaijan.

Speaking for the Protection of Liberated Territories organization, Sefilian, who holds the rank of a retired lieutenant colonel, alleged that the population of what is now called the Kashatagh region by Armenians had declined to 7,500. In 2001, the number of settlers in what are the Armenian-controlled Lachin, Zangelan and Qubatli regions of Azerbaijan was around 15,000. A 2005 census, however, put the population at just under 10,000.

Official sources speaking to EurasiaNet on condition of anonymity put the number as low as 6,000.

In November, other groups of Karabakh war veterans also made similar accusations and threatened a campaign of civil disobedience if any of these territories were returned to Azerbaijan. A written statement by one such group, the Brotherhood of the Liberation Struggle, urged all war veterans to unite "to save Armenia and Armenians and restore justice in all spheres. The lands that we liberated are in danger today. We urge all our compatriots . . . [to] stop our homeland from falling into an abyss."

The Armenian newspaper Zhamanak Yerevan already sees a connection between Sefilian’s arrest and official fears that Karabakh war veterans might involve themselves in political life ahead of next year’s parliamentary elections. "It was no coincidence that they arrested Zhirayr Sefilian, a representative of the defiant section of the freedom fighters, on the same day that they advised members of the Yerkrapah Union [of Karabakh War Veterans] to stay away from politics," the paper wrote on December 12.

In March 2006, the Iravunk newspaper reported that Sefilian had been warned by the NSS to refrain from criticism of the government’s position, and of Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisian, at the risk of possible expulsion from the country. Another newspaper, Azg, similarly quoted opposition politician Albert Bazeyan as saying that "threats [...] to deport Zhirayr Sefilian, former commander of [the] Shushi battalion, is conditioned by [...] recent tendencies in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement."

Undaunted by such threats, Sefilian upped the ante in July by calling a press conference in which he declared that a "group of former civil guardsmen" had "already agreed upon certain steps which will allow us take real and drastic measures to avert vote rigging at the coming parliamentary and presidential elections." He also spoke of realizing a "power shift to avert the launching of a new military conflict with Azerbaijan."

Following Sefilian’s arrest, the NSS issued a written statement stating that it had irrefutable proof that the ex-commander was planning an armed uprising to "prod the country’s opposition into staging violent anti-government protests." No evidence to support this claim has yet been made available, however.

Few analysts believe that the Armenian or Azerbaijani presidents would risk a nationalist backlash over a deal ahead of sensitive parliamentary and presidential polls in both countries during 2007 and 2008. However, with the lack of public evidence against Sefilian and a recent assertion by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev that negotiations are entering their final phase, suspicions about the authorities’ actions continue to grow.

"I don’t exclude the possibility that he was arrested in connection with the liberated lands, but I don’t think that any document connected with Karabakh will be signed in the near future," one of Sefilian’s associates, Armen Aghaian, stated on December 13. Commented opposition parliamentarian Grigor Harutiunian, secretary of the People’s Party: The government’s handling of the case against Sefilian provides "the basis for some serious conclusions."

Editor's Note: Onnik Krikorian is a freelance journalist and photographer working for a variety of publications and international organizations in Armenia. He has a blog at http://oneworld.blogsome.com.

© Eurasianet

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

Azerbaijani President Says Karabakh Talks In 'Final Stage'

Wednesday, November 29, 2006
RFE/RL

PRAGUE, November 29, 2006 (RFE/RL) -- Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said today that negotiations on a settlement with Armenia over the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh are entering their 'final stage, RFE/RL's Azerbaijani Service reported.

"It has been almost three years that the Karabakh negotiations have been conducted within the Prague [peace] process," Aliyev said. "During this period we have had many meetings at the levels of presidents and foreign ministers. Of course, in these meetings ways of resolving the problem were discussed. There were different stages, but I can tell you we are approaching the final stage of negotiations."

Aliyev's comments, broadcast on Azerbaijani State Television, came a day after his talks with Armenian President Robert Kocharian on the sidelines of the CIS summit in Minsk.

Constructive Talks

Aliyev assessed the results of his November 28 meeting with Kocharian as "good," saying that the "negotiations were held in a constructive matter." The success of future negotiations, he added, will depend on the two presidents.

"The most contentious issues were at the center of the negotiations," Aliyev said. "Lately we have succeeded in resolving some of them. On some of the issues on which we previously disagreed, we now have agreement. But we still have some principal issues on which we have different opinions. And both presidents addressed these issues."

Armenia has not yet commented on Aliyev's statement. However, upon arriving in Yerevan on November 28, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian provided a similar appraisal of the presidents' talks that day.

"I can't give you an assessment yet whether there was a progress during the talks or not, but I can tell you that both presidents positively evaluated the meeting itself in terms of atmosphere and constructive approaches," Oskanian said. "I think in coming days the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan will analyze everything in detail, after which they will give concrete instruction to the ministers about further steps to be taken."

The two countries are still officially at war over the predominantly Armenian territory that seceded from Soviet Azerbaijan in 1988. About 30,000 people died in fighting between the two sides before a Russian-brokered cease-fire was reached in 1994. The conflict has been "frozen" ever since, with Armenian forces occupying Nagorno-Karabakh.

Clear Stance

The Azerbaijani president clearly outlined the stance his country is taking in negotiations on a settlement to the longstanding conflict.

"Azerbaijan hasn't changed its position," he said. "Azerbaijan insists on the resolution of the issue [of Nagorno-Karabakh] on the basis of our territorial integrity. The four resolutions of the UN Security Council should be implemented. Azerbaijan's land should be vacated by the occupying forces, and more than 1 million of our citizens should be able to return to their lands.

"Again, Azerbaijan's position has not changed. [Azerbaijan's] territorial integrity should be restored and within that [restoration], the people who live in Nagorno-Karabakh should be given the highest status for self-rule."

Aliyev had strong praise for the role international mediators have had in trying to resolve the dispute. The OSCE Minsk group, co-chaired by representatives of Russia, the United States, and France, has overseen negotiations since the 1994 cease-fire went into effect.

"Respected international organizations saying that the issue should be resolved within the principle of our territorial integrity -- of course this approach strengthens our position," Aliyev said. "Generally, every issue should be resolved in keeping with international law and norms. No issue can be resolved outside of this approach. Because the creation of any kind of precedent can also create problems in the future for other countries."

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.

EXCEPTIONAL $13.7 MILLION DONATED IN A TV MARATHON TO ARTSAKH

25/11/06
Panorama.am

TV marathon organized by All Armenia Fund recorded exceptional $13.7 million result. The fund has never had such outcome with the highest being $12 million. The 9th marathon of All Armenia Fund aimed to raise money for the implementation of “Revival of Artsakh” project. Such outcome could be predicted since the fund had received donations before November 23, the day of TV marathon.

Public relations department of the fund said before the start of the marathon $2.4 million were collected – $1.2 million from Armenia and $1.4 million from Europe.

Sargis Hakobyan made a promise to donate $550 thousand for the development of Hadrut region of Artsakh. Luiz Simon Manukyan promised to donate another $500 thousand. Alber Boyajyan, member of board of director of All Armenia Fund, announced about a donation of his friend, Jery Turpanjyan – in the amount of $1 million 250 thousand. Another big donation was made by Vahe Karapetyan – $1.5 million. Kirk Kirkoryan donated $2 million through Linz Foundation. Ara Abrahamyan, chairman of the Union of Armenians in Russia, promised to donate $1 million. American Project Cure announced about its donation in the amount of $2 million. The same organization also sent medical equipment amounting $1.5 million to a regional hospital in Martakert.

The foundation will provide the complete list of benefactors in its May, 2007 newsletter.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.