British press responsible for false claims about PKK bases in Karabakh

22.01.2008
PanARMENIAN.Net

Allegations that Nagorno Karabakh had hosted outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) camps are sheer nonsense, Armenia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Arman Kirakossian said in an interview with the Cumhuriyet daily. “These false claims appeared in the British press four years ago. Places referred to as camps are in fact Kurdish and Yezidi villages in the region,” he said.

In December 2007 Azerbaijan announced that Kurdish rebels are trained in camps deployed in Nagorno Karabakh.

! 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.

NKR Comparison to Kosovo: “. . . much in common” MFA says

ArmeniaNow.com, Armenia - Jan 10, 2008
By Aris Ghazinyan
ArmeniaNow reporter

“Despite the fact that every conflict is individual, Nagorno-Karabakh and Kosovo have much in common,” Armenia’s Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian stressed at a press conference on January 9.

Thus, Oskanian voiced the position of official Yerevan regarding U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns’ statement at the Madrid summit of OSCE Foreign Ministers last November. The American diplomat said then that “any agreements that would be reached on Kosovo could not be applied to other conflicts.”

“The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict acquired a military component after the start of ethnic cleansings and Armenian pogroms in the Azerbaijani town of Sumgait,” the minister said. “It is these tragic events that are a major argument for the impossibility of Nagorno-Karabakh’s being part of Azerbaijan. From this point of view, the conflicts are similar and the only difference here is that ethnic cleansings in Kosovo were stopped by NATO, and in the case with Nagorno-Karabakh we did it ourselves.”

According to Oskanian, if it is assumed that Kosovo cannot return under Serbia’s control because of the ethnic cleansings, “the same can be said about the Nagorno-Karabakh issue as well.”

Pogroms of Armenians were staged in the Azerbaijani capital’s suburban town of Sumgait on February 26-29, 1988. Whole families, including elderly people, women and children were murdered. The criminal case launched by the USSR Prosecutor General’s Office was dismissed later in view of the Soviet Union’s collapse.

Oskanian said that “the genuine cause-and-effect relation of the origin of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict” will be presented to the international community this year as Armenians in Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic will be holding various events to mark the 20th anniversary of the Sumgait massacre.

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 conflict emerged from Sumgait ethnic cleansing

10.01.2008
PanARMENIAN.Net

The ethnic cleansing in Sumgait marked the beginning of the Karabakh conflict, Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian told a news conference in Yerevan.

Reminding about the 20th anniversary of Sumgait pogroms, the Minister said, “Ethnic cleansings were carried out in all Armenian-inhabited regions of Azerbaijan. The events in Sumgait proved the necessity of Karabakhi people’s struggle for independence. We should remind the international community about February of 1988.”

February 27-29, 1988 Azerbaijan, taking advantage of the USSR leadership’s indifference, committed mass pogroms in the town of Sumgait. By official data, 32 Armenians were killed, hundreds wounded. The survivors fled to Armenia. Some 20 thousand Armenians used to live in Sumgait before the pogroms.

! 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.

Kosovo independence to be precedent for other conflicts, RA Foreign Ministry says

09.01.2008
PanARMENIAN.Net

“The Kosovo and Nagorno Karabakh conflicts have much in common but there are certain differences as well. The most important fact is that the people of Karabakh won their independence in war while Kosovars were granted it by NATO,” Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian told a news conference in Yerevan.

Whether the international community wants it or not, proclamation of Kosovo’s independence will become a precedent for other conflicts.

“Azerbaijan always speaks of territorial integrity without clarifying what it means. Anyway, the matter can concern the safety zone around NKR but never Nagorno Karabakh itself,” the Minister said adding that no decision can be taken without consent of Karabakhi people.

“I am hopeful that Armenia’s next President will preserve the bases of negotiation process,” he said.


! 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.

Karabakh Armenians Told To Accept Azeri Rule Or Emigrate

Jan 4, 2008
Armenialiberty.org, Armenia
By Emil Danielyan

This one gets high marks of diplomacy! With the backing of Turkey's army the second largest in NATO (which is by the way asserting itself in the region)and all that oil money provided by the West one can afford to make such statements. Will it work? I doubt it. I believe it is for local consumption, but one cannot be too careful.

Azerbaijan’s tough-talking President Ilham Aliev has said that Nagorno-Karabakh’s predominantly Armenian population must agree to return under Azerbaijani rule or emigrate from its homeland.

“We will never allow the creation of a second Armenian state on Azerbaijani soil,” Aliev said in his New Year’s address to the nation cited by Azerbaijani media. “If the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh want to self-determine, they should do that within the framework of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. If they don’t want that, they should leave Nagorno-Karabakh and create their second state elsewhere.”

The remarks came just two weeks before international mediators’ crucial visit to Baku and Yerevan which should finally clarify whether the Karabakh conflict can be resolved before presidential elections due in both Armenia and Azerbaijan in 2008. The French, Russian and U.S. co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group still hope to hammer out a framework peace accord before the Armenian election slated for February 19. Sources close to them say the conflicting parties essentially agree on the main points of the Minsk Group’s current peace plan.

The plan calls for a gradual settlement of the bitter dispute which would start from the liberation of Armenian-occupied lands in Azerbaijan proper and end in a referendum of self-determination in Karabakh. Although it sets no time frame for the holding of such a referendum, the mediators seem to accept the very possibility of eventual international recognition of the disputed territory’s secession from Soviet Azerbaijan.

However, Aliev again insisted that his country will never come to terms with the loss of Karabakh. “Nagorno-Karabakh will never be granted independence,” he said. “The leadership and the people of Azerbaijan will never agree to that.”

Aliev also pledged to carry on with a military build-up which Baku hopes will eventually enable it to win back Karabakh. He said Azerbaijan’s defense spending will rise by at least 20 percent to $1.2 billion this year as a result. “We are reinforcing our army because we must be ready to free our lands of occupiers at any moment and by any means,” he added.

Armenia’s defense budget, although more modest in absolute terms, is likewise set to increase by over 30 percent to $400 million in 2008. In the intensifying arms race with Azerbaijan, Armenia can also capitalize on its close military ties with Russia which allow it to receive Russian weapons at knockdown prices or even free of charge.

In a televised speech on December 31, President Robert Kocharian said his government further boosted the combat-readiness of Armenia’s Armed Forces in the course of 2007. “The strengthening of the army will remain a top priority,” he said.

Kocharian said that Yerevan will also “step up efforts to bolster the Nagorno-Karabakh by helping our brethren to build viable statehood. A statehood which is able to defend itself.”

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.

Misinformation regarding ties between Armenia and Kurdistan Workers Party is possible prelude to aggression

26 Dec. 2007
Regnum
By Armen Ayvazyan

Recently, the Azeri mass media disseminated information claiming that “Armenia is settling Armenians and Kurds, emigrants from Syria and Iraq, in Nagorno Karabakh and now it also plans to host terrorists from the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK).” REGNUM asks Armen Ayvazyan, political scientist and Director of the “Ararat” Center for Strategic Research, to comment on this.

The new Turkish deliberations regarding ties between the PKK and Armenia that were voiced in recent weeks and the immediate joining-in of the official Baku should be considered in several aspects: first, in the context of Turkey’s consistently hostile policy towards independent Armenia; second, in the light of the acceleration in the pace of Azerbaijan’s preparation for a large-scale war of aggression against Artsakh and Armenia; and third, in the context of the continued passive information policy of Armenia.

The Turkish propaganda campaign alleging that Armenia supports and even provides bases for the PKK was first launched in 1993 and continued at varying degrees of intensity up to 2000, when the PKK temporarily extinguished the insurgency. The following headlines from the Turkish press convey an idea of the scale of the initial campaign: “Syria Flies PKK Militants to Armenia;” “PKK Will Attack with ASALA in the Spring;” “Intelligence Report Details Armenia-PKK ties;” “PKK Reportedly Moving to Iran, Armenia.” (1) Moreover, the Turkish Daily News article published on April 16, 1998, asserted without any proof that purportedly the PKK has 7 bases in Armenia, 11 in Iran, 4 in Russia and 1 in Cyprus. At the time Azerbaijan joined in this Turkish propaganda campaign when its defence minister declared that supposedly "200 Kurdish terrorists are being trained in the Lachin region, occupied by the Armenian aggressors, and another 457 Kurdish fighters are receiving full military training in Armenia, to be later deployed in the territory of Turkey. (2)

A number of high-ranking Turkish officials, including the Chief of Staff of the Turkish army, have made statements regarding ties between the PKK and Armenia. On October 11, 1998, Turkey’s Secretary of State Metin Gurderen openly threatened Armenia with war: “If Armenia supports separatists, then we have made our decision, the button has been pressed. A war might break out any moment.” (3)

Many suggest that the Turkish allegations regarding Armenia-PKK ties are intended only for “domestic consumption”, that they are put forth to explain the prolonged nature of the Kurdish armed resistance and to satisfy the hostile sentiments of the Turkish public towards Armenia. However, the reality is even more dangerous. The true purpose of this continuous and well planned false propaganda, coordinated with Azerbaijan, regarding Armenia-PKK ties is to create new and additional causes for exerting constant pressure on Armenia, to demonise Armenia and NKR in the eyes of the international community and to prepare the information front for the planned military aggression by Azerbaijan, with a possible direct intervention of Turkey. Let’s not forget that using the pretext of pursuing PKK, Turkey has periodically been invading Northern Iraq. Within the period of 1991 and the beginning of 1999 Turkey carried out 55 incursions into Northern Iraq, which the international community although did not authorize, but neither did it condemn. Four of them were large-scale operations with the participation of over 20,000 Turkish soldiers. (4)

Recently, new information was published revealing that Turkey planned an incursion into Armenia in October 1993, using the very same Kurdish bases as a pretext. (5) Leonidas Khrisantopolos, the Greek Ambassador to Armenia in 1993-1994, stated that the then Turkish Prime Minister Tancu Chiller had come to an agreement with the speaker of the Russian parliament Ruslan Khasbulatov on launching a few “surgical” strikes against Armenia. This information was indirectly confirmed by RA Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan in his interview to “Azg” daily (October 4, 2001), as well as by the former head of the National Security of Armenia Eduard Simonyan. (6)

Before that Western sources had reported that twice in 1993, in April and September, Turkey deployed its tank, mechanized and other units on the border with Armenia, the Turkish armed forces were brought to high state of combat readiness and Prime Minister Tancu Chiller warned she would ask the parliament for authorization to start military action, if Armenia touched any part of Nakhijevan. (7) Consequently, it is no accident that reports about PKK bases allegedly located in Armenia started to appear in the Turkish press as of Fall 1993. It is even less of an accident that in the above-mentioned reports the Turks indicated a number of locations in Armenia for supposed PKK bases (including the surrounding areas of the Armenian Atomic Power Plant and the Lachin region). (8)

Well affected by the Turkish propaganda some Western information agencies and think tanks presented the non-existent ties between Armenia and the PKK as a widely known fact. (9) Thus, in 1999, after the declaration of cease-fire by the PKK, one of the most famous American institutions of geopolitical research, Stratfor, apparently at the bidding of the Turks, trumpeted twice (on August 23 and November 23, 1999) to the whole world that the PKK squads were supposedly retreating to Armenia, for rearming and retraining in bases prepared for them beforehand. (10)

The halting of the Kurdish guerrilla war since 2000 (formalized only in 2002 (11)), to some extent deprived Turkey of the possibility to play the Kurdish card against Armenia. That is why the Chief of Staff of the Turkish armed forces Hussein Kivrikoghlu made a new false statement in the beginning of 2002, which alleged that Armenia possesses weapons of mass destruction, and, consequently, the same measures of punishment should be applied against Armenia as those against Iraq. (12)

On June 1, 2004, the PKK, now operating under the name CONGRA-GEL, terminated its 5-year old unilateral truce, (13) thus confirming that the Kurdish insurgents in Turkey are a long-term strategic factor in the region.

The latest insinuations coincided almost to the date with the intensification of Baku’s war rhetoric and particularly with the statement made by the Azeri Defence Minister Safar Abiyev that “as long as the Azeri territories remain occupied by Armenia, the probability of war is almost 100 percent.” Mr Abiyev’s statement was made on November 27 at the closing press conference of the Meeting of the CIS Defence Ministers Council in Astana. On November 30, with a direct reference to the Turkish intelligence, the Turkish pro-government newspaper “Zaman” disseminated misinformation about talks between Armenia and the PKK and alleged about the installation of bases for Kurds in NKR, in the towns of Shushi, Lachin and Fizuli. (14) This bait was immediately caught and circulated by the American United Press International. (15) On December 10, Araz Azimov, the Deputy Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani President’s Special Representative on Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, stated about “readiness of Baku to launch anti-terrorist operations against the PKK’s military detachments stationed in Nagorno-Karabakh.” (16) It is exactly the coordination of activities between Baku and Ankara with respect to the timing and target of information attack that should be cause for concern. All these could be a prelude to not so virtual attacks.

The corresponding government bodies of Armenia should treat this newly unleashed campaign of Turkish-Azerbaijani propaganda in all seriousness. The brief refutations voiced by the Armenian MFA in this case are not at all effective. A well-supported clarification and condemnation of all the underpinnings of this old/new anti-Armenian row is necessary, including an exposition of all the dimensions, of its true purpose and possible consequences for the peace and stability in the region. Otherwise, it is impossible to expect the understanding and support of the international community for Armenia’s foreign policy positions, including for the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

(1) Sezai Sengun, “Syria Flies PKK Militants to Armenia,” Hurriyet, 10 November, 1993, in Foreign Broadcast Information Service Daily Report (further in FBIS Daily Report): West Europe, 15 Nov. 1993, p. 72; Gorsel Polat, “PKK Will Attach with ASALA in the Spring,” Cumhuriyet, 27 December 1993, in FBIS Daily Report: West Europe, 5 January 1994, p. 29; Sinan Onus, “Intelligence Report Details Armenia-PKK ties,” Aydinlik, 29 January 1994, in FBIS Daily Report: West Europe, 3 February 1994, p. 36; “PKK Reportedly Moving to Iran, Armenia,” Turkish Daily News, 1 February 1994, in FBIS Daily Report: West Europe, 7 February 1994, p. 44.

(2) Elmira Akhundova, "Defense Minister Abiyev: “We are keen on privileged partnership with NATO,” Azernews/Azerkhabar 2/17/99 — 2/23/99.

(3) RFE/RL Newsline Vol. 2, № 197, Part I, 12 Oct. 1998, Transcaucasus and Central Asia.

(4) Ed Blanche, “Terrorism: Turkey seizes PKK commander,” Jane's Intelligence Review-Pointer, 1 June, 1998. The same source notes that since the start of the Kurdish rebellion in 1984 through 1998 Turkey destroyed or deported 3000 Kurdish villages. According to data of the Turkish army, 39900 PKK fighters were taken out of action. The losses of the Turkish army amounted to 4600 deaths.

(5) См. Leonidas T. Chryzantopoulos, Caucasus Chronicles: Nation-Building and Diplomacy in Armenia, 1993-1994 (Princeton & London: Gomidas Institute Books, 2002), pp. 76-78, 155. “The Sensational Announcement of Leonidas Chryzantopoulos”, Golos Armenii, 19 September 2002 (in Russian).

(6) “'Turkey Really Was Going To Attack Armenia in Autumn 1993', Former Head of State Department of National Security, Major General Eduard Simoniants Says,” Noyan Tapan News Agency, Yerevan, September 23, 2002.

(7) R. Ernest Dupuis and Trevor N. Dupuis, World History of Wars. Book Four: 1925 – 1997 Saint Petersburg — Moscow: Polygon – Ast., 1998), pg. 754 (in Russian).

(8) Rouben Paul Adalian, “Armenia's Foreign Policy: Defining Priorities and Coping with Conflict,” in Adeed Dawisha and Karen Dawisha, eds., The Making of Foreign Policy in Russia and the New States of Eurasia (Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc., 1995), p. 318.

(9) For example, see Ed Blanche, “Terrorism: Turkey seizes PKK commander,” op. cit..

(10) Stratfor.com: “Where, oh where, has the PKK gone?” 1999.08.27; “PKK Wields Pipeline Leverage,” 1999.11.23.

(11) Officially the temporary halt in the armed resistance was announced after the regular 5th assembly of the PKK. It became known on February 6th, 2002, from the announcement of MED TV (see Akop Chakryan, “PKK decided to halt armed resistance in Turkey”, Azg, February 8th, 2002, #24, in Armenian).

(12) Here is an excerpt from the announcement distributed by PanARMENIAN.net on that occasion: “Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Turkey Hussein Kivrikoghlu stated the other day that Armenia possessed mass destruction weapons … This statement is included in the list of the six ‘apprehensions’ of Turkey that Kivrikoghlu had presented to Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit before the latter's visit to the U.S.A. Speaking about the negative response of Turkey to the possible U.S. strikes on Iraq, Kivrikoghlu stated not only Saddam Huseyn regime, but also Armenia, Syria, Iran and some other countries possessed weapons of mass extermination. In the words of the chief of the general staff of Turkey, sanctions like those used against Iraq, should be applied to Armenia.” See also. “Azeri ex-military men on threat if Armenia has weapons of mass destruction,” Azerbaijan News Service TV January 8, 2002; “Does Armenia Possess a Mass Destruction Weapon?” Azerbaijan News Service, January 9, 2002; “Armenian Defence Ministry spokesman calls Turkish general's statement 'absurd',” Arminfo, January 7, 2002.

(13) Selcan Hacaoglu, “Turkey's Kurdish Rebels End 5-Year Truce”, Associated Press News, 1 June 2004.

(14) Ercan Yavuz, “PKK looks into relocating to Karabakh,” 30.11.2007 http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=128340. It must be noted that even a month before this, on October 29 the same “Zaman” newspaper published an article titled “Relations between Armenian and PKK terrorism”, full of myths about Armenian-Kurdish relations during the 1980’s and 90’s, with an indication of dates and locations, intended to give the “information” semblance of veracity. That article seemed to prepare ground for the subsequent direct accusations.

(15) “PKK reportedly planning move to Azerbaijan,” United Press International, Published: Dec. 1, 2007 at 1:49 AM.

(16) Araz Azimov: Azerbaijan is ready to launch operations against the Kurdish guerrillas in Nagorno-Karabakh, REGNUM News Agency, 10:22 11.12.2007 (in Russian).

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.

Nagorno-Karabakh: Risking War

14 novembre 2007
International Crisis Group, Belgium
Europe Report N°187

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Armenia and Azerbaijan have failed to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, even though the framework for a fair settlement has been on the table since 2005. A comprehensive peace agreement before presidential elections in both countries in 2008 is now unlikely but the two sides still can and should agree before the polls to a document on basic principles, which if necessary clearly indicates the points that are still in dispute. Without at least such an agreement and while they engage in a dangerous arms race and belligerent rhetoric, there is a risk of increasing ceasefire violations in the next few years. By about 2012, after which its oil revenue is expected to begin to decline, Azerbaijan may be tempted to seek a military solution. The international community needs to lose its complacency and do more to encourage the leaderships to prepare their societies for compromise and peace.

In 2006 the co-chairs of the Minsk Group (France, Russia, the U.S.), authorised by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to facilitate negotiations, proposed principles for settlement: renunciation of the use of force; Armenian withdrawal from parts of Azerbaijan surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh; an interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh, with substantial international aid, including peacekeepers; and mutual commitment to a vote on Nagorno-Karabakh’s final status after the return of displaced Azeris. These principles, which were essentially identical to those proposed by Crisis Group a year earlier, still offer the best framework for a deal. Indeed, the sides have publicly said they generally agree with the concept but lack of political will to resolve the remaining key issues, especially the Lachin corridor, has undermined the process and turned stakeholder optimism into cynicism. None of the parties feels that there is any urgency to settle the conflict.

Azeri and Armenian leaders have also failed to engage their constituents in discussion of the merits of peace. The European Union (EU), the U.S. and Russia have not effectively employed political and economic pressure for a settlement. The anticipated focus on domestic politics in Yerevan and Baku as well as several of the Minsk Group countries in 2008 means that even the incremental diplomatic progress that has been made could well be lost.

Oil money has given Azerbaijan new self-confidence and the means to upgrade its armed forces. It seems to want to postpone any peace deal until the military balance has shifted decisively in its favour. Yerevan, which itself has done surprisingly well economically, has also become more intransigent and increased its own military expenditures. It believes that time is on its side, that Nagorno-Karabakh’s de facto independence will become a reality increasingly difficult to ignore. Playing for time is dangerous for all concerned, however. The riskiest period could be around 2012, when Azerbaijan’s oil money is likely to begin to dwindle, and a military adventure might seem a tempting way to distract citizens from economic crisis. Important oil and gas pipelines near Nagorno-Karabakh would likely be among the first casualties of a new war, something Europe and the U.S. in particular have an interest in avoiding.

The wider international community, not just Minsk Group co-chairs, should coordinate efforts to impress on Baku and Yerevan the need for progress, specifically early agreement on a basic principles document. Nagorno-Karabakh needs to be put at the centre of relations with both countries. The EU special representative in the region should become more active on the issue, and the EU should use the first reviews of its action plans with both countries to promote conflict resolution and the development of transparent, credible institutions which can underpin peace efforts. Engagement is needed now to avoid the danger of war in a few years.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To the Governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan:

1. Agree before the 2008 elections on a document of basic principles making provision for:

(a) security guarantees and the deployment of international peacekeepers;

(b) withdrawal of Armenian and Nagorno-Karabakh forces from all occupied territories adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh, with special modalities for Kelbajar and Lachin;

(c) return of displaced persons;

(d) Nagorno-Karabakh’s final status to be determined eventually by a vote, with an interim status to be settled on until that time; and

(e) reopening of all transport and trade routes.

2. Failing consensus on a comprehensive document, agree what can be agreed and clearly identify the points still in dispute.

3. Encourage politicians to make positive references to peace and the need for compromise in their 2008 election campaigns.

To the Governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan and the De Facto Nagorno-Karabakh Authorities:

4. Respect the 1994 ceasefire, refrain from the use of force, halt the rise of defence budgets and cease belligerent and provocative rhetoric directed at the other.

5. Promote track two diplomacy and debate about compromise solutions, including on the above principles, encourage parliaments to lead these debates and facilitate contacts between Azeris and Armenians.

6. The de facto Nagorno-Karabakh authorities should end support for settlement of occupied territories with Armenians, including putting an end to privatisation, infrastructure development and establishment of local government structures in those areas;

7. Azerbaijan should allow Karabakh Azeris to elect the head of their community and make a concerted effort to increase transparency and reduce corruption so that oil revenues are used to benefit all citizens, particularly internally displaced persons (IDPs).

To the Minsk Group Co-Chairs (France, Russia, the U.S.) and the Wider International Community:

8. Make a renewed effort to secure agreement on basic principles, with remaining points of disagreement clearly indicated, in order to maintain continuity in the process and to provide a starting point for negotiations between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan after the 2008 elections.

9. Raise the seniority of the co-chair representatives and make resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict a key element of bilateral and multilateral relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan.

10. Make public more information on the substance of negotiations and avoid artificially fuelling expectations by overly optimistic statements.

11. In the case of the European Union:

(a) increase the role of the Special Representative for the South Caucasus (EUSR), who should observe the Minsk process, support direct contacts with all parties, travel to Nagorno-Karabakh, visit IDPs in Azerbaijan and, with the Commission, assess conflict-related funding needs; and

(b) use European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) reviews and funding to promote confidence building, as well as institution building and respect for human rights and the rule of law.

Tbilisi/Brussels, 14 November 2007

Click here to view the full report as a PDF file in A4 format. For more information about viewing PDF documents, please click here. This document is also available in MS-Word format

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.

Frozen Karabakh war could flare again -think-tank

Tue Nov 13, 2007

MOSCOW, Nov 14 (Reuters) - A 20-year-old conflict between ex-Soviet neighbours Armenia and Azerbaijan could re-ignite into a war that would threaten the region's oil exports, an influential think-tank said on Wednesday.

The two countries fought a war in the 1990s over the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh which killed about 35,000 people and displaced over one million. A ceasefire was agreed in 1994 but the search for a lasting peace is stalled.

The Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) said in a report the fragile truce is under threat because Azerbaijan is using cash from oil exports to beef up its military and both sides are refusing to compromise.

A major oil pipeline linking Azerbaijan's Caspian Sea oilfields to the Mediterranean Sea runs a few kilometres (miles) to the east of Nagorno-Karabakh. Operated by a BP-led (BP.L: Quote, Profile, Research) consortium it will soon pump one million barrels of oil a day.

"The international community needs to take the threat of war seriously," said Magdalena Frichova, ICG's Caucasus Project Director. "The risk of armed conflict is growing, and the dangers of complacency enormous."

The report said the riskiest period could be around 2012, when Azerbaijan's oil exports are expected to start slowing, possibly triggering economic problems.

"A military adventure might seem a tempting way to distract citizens from economic crisis," ICG said in a preface to the report.

"Important oil and gas pipelines near Nagorno-Karabakh would likely be among the first casualties of a new war, something Europe and the U.S. in particular have an interest in avoiding."

The dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh is one of four so-called frozen conflicts which erupted across the former Soviet Union in the early 1990s and are still unresolved. The other conflicts are in Georgia and Moldova.

Nagorno-Karabakh is recognised internationally as part of Azerbaijan but since the war it has been under the de facto control of ethnic Armenian separatists.

The separatists, who are supported by neighbouring Armenia, also control a large chunk of Azerbaijan's territory adjacent to Nagorno-Karabakh.

Azerbaijan says it will restore control over the territory, and has refused to rule out using force.

The ICG report said the United States and European Union should make resolution of the conflict a condition of their relations with Azerbaijan and Armenia.

It also said Baku and Yerevan should sign a document of basic principles to establish ground rules for peace talks. It said this should be done before elections in both countries next year which could complicate the search for peace. (Editing by Catherine Evans)

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.

Breakaway state still struggling for recognition

By Levon Sevunts
September 30, 2007

STEPANAKERT, Nagorno-Karabakh

Even if a draft law forcing the govern-ment of Armenia to recognize the inde- pendence of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is rejected by the Armenian parliament, residents of this breakaway republic say they will continue their struggle for international recognition.

Populated mostly by Armenians this lush mountainous region, slightly larger than Rhode Island, broke away from Azerbaijan after a bitter war between 1990 and 1994.

Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, supported by their brethren in Armenia, emerged victorious from a bloody conflict that killed more than 35,000 people on both sides.

The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic formally declared its independence in 1992. At the time, many critics dismissed the move as a shrewd political maneuver by Armenians — who were starting to win the war — to deflect international criticism from Armenia proper.

Today, Karabakh possesses almost all the trappings of a state. It has its own flag and its own army. It issues entry visas to foreign visitors and its residents regularly vote in elections to all levels of government.

But Nagorno-Karabakh's de facto independence hasn't been recognized by any country, not even its closest ally: Armenia.

And Armenian authorities have made it clear they have no plans to recognize the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as an independent state despite pressure from a major opposition party.

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 DEPARTMENT OF STATE CONSIDERS KARABAKH “OCCUPIED”

18 September, 2007
A1+

“The Armenian (Apostolic) Church, which has formal legal status as the national church, enjoys some privileges not available to other religious groups”, says the US Department of State's International Religious Freedom Report. According to the report, “the law places some restrictions on the religious freedom of adherents of minority religious groups, and there were some restrictions in practice. In general, societal attitudes toward some minority religious groups were ambivalent, and there were reports of societal discrimination directed against members of these groups.

During the reporting period, the Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists reported that low-level government officials denied them the use of public space for religious gatherings. However, the Jehovah's Witnesses noted that, in general, they were free to assemble without harassment by police or other government entities. Jehovah's Witnesses reported that judges sentenced them to longer prison terms for evasion of alternative military service than in the past, although the sentences were still within the range allowed by law”.

The report says that “a customs issue pertaining to the Jehovah's Witnesses ability to obtain shipments of religious literature was not resolved at the end of the reporting period On March 29, 2007, customs officials in Yerevan reevaluated a shipment of religious periodicals received by the Jehovah's Witnesses at a significantly higher rate than the group expected, making it financially difficult for them to arrange clearance of the shipment. Customs officials maintained that the reevaluation complied with the customs code”.

By the way at the end the report says: “The U.S. Government discusses religious freedom issues with the Government as part of its overall policy to promote human rights. During these discussions, the U.S. Government emphasized to authorities that continued eligibility for the $235 million (approximately 79 billion AMD) Millennium Challenge Compact remained contingent upon the Government's performance in meeting good governance indicators, which include standards of respect for religious freedom”.

ABOUT KARABAKH IN THE UNIT ON AZERBAIJAN

The US State Department reflects on Karabakh in the unit referring to Azerbaijan. Here it was mentioned that the Armenian Apoistolic Church has a special status in Nagorno-Karabakh.

“In 1990s during the war with Armenia all ethnic Azerbaijanis have fled, mainly Muslims, from Nagorno-Karabakh and occupied 7 territories and are unable to return”, says the report . The US Department of State uses “occupied” noting that “the occupied region of Nagorno-Karabakh--a predominantly ethnic Armenian area over which the Government of Azerbaijan had no control--officials reportedly released jailed Baptist conscientious objector Gagik Mirzoyan and transferred him to a military unit to complete the remainder of his military service. Also in the occupied region of Nagorno-Karabakh, Jehovah's Witness and conscientious objector Areg Hovhanesyan remained in jail after being sentenced in 2005 to 4 years in prison for evading military service, a sentence he did not appeal”.

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.

Minsk Group hopes for Karabakh's role in the talks

Sep 16 2007
Interfax

STEPANAKERT. Sept 16 (Interfax) - The co-chairmen of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's Minsk Group for Nagorno Karabakh settlement said on Sunday that broader contacts were needed with the leaders of the breakway republic.

Representatives of Nagorno Karabakh must appear at the negotiating table one day - the sooner the better, France's Bernard Fassier, a Minsk Group co-chairman, told reporters after talks with Nagorno Karabakh's new President Bako Saakian in Stepanakert on Sunday.

This format existed previously, but Karabakh's return to the negotiating table does not depend on the mediators alone, he said.

Co-chairman Mathew Bryza of the United States said changing the format of the talks would be impossible to discuss now that new political seasons were beginning in Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Bryza said the discussion of the proposals, on the negotiating table already, must be continued.

Russian co-chairman Yury Merzlyakov said his impression of the new Karabakh president was good and that the mediators needed to discuss and assess what the talks had addressed.

Saakian told the press that the current format of the talks was not effective and that the mediators had been informed of that.

"We must thank Armenia for the efforts made, but think that if the settlement is to be carried through to the end, Nagorno Karabakh must necessarily participate in the talks," he said.

The co-chairmen are expected to return to Yerevan on Sunday. sd

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 TERRITORY UNDERGOES POLITICAL TRANSITION

EurasiaNet, NY - Jul 23, 2007
Elizabeth Owen

The self-declared Nagorno-Karabakh Republic has a new leader, Bako Saakian, who currently serves as the territory’s security chief. Saakian has tried to cast himself as a proponent of democratization, but his policy agenda at present contains few specifics.

Saakian captured more than 85 percent of the vote in Karabakh’s July 19 presidential vote, with de facto Deputy Foreign Minister Masis Mailian garnering just over 12 percent, according to final figures released by the territory’s Central Election Commission. The remaining ballots were split among three other candidates. Given the lack of outside recognition of the territory’s independence, the international community did not pass judgment on the legitimacy of the vote. [For details, see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Despite the landslide win, Saakian has not yet issued any statements about his election. At a July 20 press conference, Mailian, his chief rival, depicted as the "pro-reform" candidate, stated that he accepted the results, and described his contest with Saakian as a sign of democratic progress for the breakaway state. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Saakian’s security background – a fact often cited to indicate his alleged "pro-Russian" orientation – may be the first trait that comes to mind when outsiders analyze what lies ahead for his de facto presidency. Supporters and opponents alike, however, stressed that characterizing Saakian as a creature of the old Soviet KGB would be a mistake.

Saakian, a Stepanakert native, began his career as a mechanic, and went on to work on the restoration of historical monuments before joining the pro-independence Artsakh Movement in 1988. Toward the end of the 1988-1994 war with Azerbaijan, he acted as deputy commander of rear defenses. After additional time in the military command, and a short stint as a ministerial advisor, he was named interior minister in 1999 and appointed head of the National Security Service in 2001.

"He’s not a Chekist. He’s not a career representative of the special services," commented outgoing de facto President Arkady Ghukassian in an interview with EurasiaNet. "[Karabakh’s] security service … and the security service of the Soviet Union are completely different things."

Mailian supporter Gegam Baghdassarian, deputy chairman of the opposition Movement 88 party, asserted that the support of security structures was less influential in securing Saakian’s victory than was the strong backing of the incumbent executive, Ghukassian. "The key role was played not by the security structures, but by the president-in-office," Baghdassarian said. Ghukassian has rejected the allegation, saying that his office maintained a neutral stance during the campaign.

Both sides dismissed allegations that Russia played an influential part in Saakian’s selection, while differing on Armenia’s role. Outgoing President Ghukassian insisted that outside forces had, at most, a minimal influence. "The last word is left to Nagorno-Karabakh," he said. Meanwhile, Baghdassarian described alleged pro-Saakian Armenian television news programs broadcast in Karabakh as "done deliberately."

In apparent contradiction to his official responsibilities, Saakian portrayed himself as "not a pro-government candidate." To burnish his outsider image, he stressed that his candidacy was supported by a "civil initiative" that included non-governmental organizations. As if to reinforce that point, Saakian’s official platform emphasized his commitment to "broadening" the role of civil society in Karabakh’s affairs – a process for which there is "no alternative," he stated at a July 17 briefing.

Details of Saakian’s policy goals, however, remain vague. At the briefing, Saakian stated that consideration will be given to examining the "shortcomings" of outgoing President Ghukassian’s 10-year term in office, but he declined to elaborate. "I don’t think there’s a need to focus our attention right now on the concrete problems," he said. Ghukassian told EurasiaNet in an interview that he plans to stay in Karabakh but does not "count on holding some sort of post."

Conflict resolution with Azerbaijan, which recently hit the $1 billion mark for military spending, also looms large. Saakian has indicated that he supports "a large format" solution to the problem of Karabakh’s status, with the self-declared state directly participating in the negotiations. At the same time, he declined to elaborate on concerns about Baku’s military buildup, stating that this was "a question to be discussed at the negotiating table. Not with journalists." [For additional information see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Few doubt that Saakian will act resolutely to defend Karabakh’s political interests during the continuing peace talks.

Saakian’s rival, Masis Mailian, built his campaign around commitments to strengthen the rule of law and crack down on corruption. The resulting image was one of a candidate struggling for something – an image "very much respected" in Karabakh, commented presidential administration analyst David Babayan.

Babayan, a supporter of Saakian, maintains that the territory’s newly elected leader is also "a reformist," who will take into account the varying points of view of the two pro-government and two opposition parliamentary parties that supported his candidacy.

Some might question how Saakian’s lack of political experience will play into his ability to maintain political unity in the territory. But Saakian sees it differently. "I was a member of the Security Council, I held a certain position in our state," he told a reporter. "If I didn’t deal with politics officially, this doesn’t mean that I didn’t deal with politics."

Commented Babayan: "This is the balanced way. We want deep changes, but we want stability."

After over a decade of struggling to rebuild from the region’s war with Azerbaijan, that message appeared to resound with many voters – at least for now. "Orderly," "honest" and "predictable" were the words most frequently used by voters to describe the former security service chief, whose win at the polls came as no surprise to most residents interviewed.

His background in intelligence is often cited as proof of an intimate knowledge of Karabakh’s internal situation. "What he says he’ll do, he does," said a Stepanakert gas inspector who gave his name as Vladimir and claimed personal acquaintance with Saakian. "If he says he’ll solve a problem, he’ll solve a problem, and, as you know, Karabakh has a lot of problems."

Added one refugee from Azerbaijan living in the southern Hradout district: "He used to be a simple person like us. Maybe that will make a difference."


Editor’s Note: Elizabeth Owen is EurasiaNetÆs Caucasus news editor in Tbilisi. Sophia Mizante is a freelance photojournalist also based in Tbilisi.

Posted July 23, 2007 © 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.

Former security chief wins Karabakh presidential vote

Jul 20, 2007
Anatolian Times, Turkey

A presidential election in Azerbaijan's breakaway region of Nagorny Karabakh was won by a former head of security for the territory, Bako Sahakian, election officials said on Friday.

Sahakian won 85 percent of the vote at Thursday's polls in the unrecognised territory, the central election commission said after all votes had been counted.

His nearest rival, deputy foreign minister Masis Maylian, came a distant second with 12 percent of the vote.

The results were preliminary, with final confirmation expected late Friday.

Slightly more than 77 percent of the ethnic Armenian-controlled region's 92,000 registered voters took part, the elections commission said.

Backed by their ethnic brethren in Armenia, separatists seized Karabakh and seven surrounding regions from Azerbaijan in the early 1990s.

The war was one of the bloodiest of the many conflicts that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, claiming 30,000 lives and forcing nearly one million people on both sides to flee their homes.

Armenia and Azerbaijan remain officially at war over Karabakh and the dispute is a major source of instability in the strategic South Caucasus region wedged between Iran, Russia and Turkey.


STEPANAKERT, Azerbaijan (AFP)

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 Armenians Elect New Leader

Jul 19, 2007
Armenialiberty.org, Armenia

By Karine Kalantarian in Stepanakert

Polls closed across Nagorno-Karabakh late Thursday in a presidential election which is widely expected to formalize the handover of power from the unrecognized republic’s outgoing President Arkady Ghukasian to his preferred successor backed by some of his political opponents.

According to the local Central Election Commission (CEC), almost two-thirds of Karabakh’s 90,000 eligible voters cast their ballots as of 5 p.m. local time. The CEC is due to release the preliminary vote results within 24 hours by Friday evening.

“Once again the people of Nagorno-Karabakh have confirmed their support for democratic values,” Bako Sahakian, the presumed election frontrunner backed by Ghukasian and the main local political parties, told reporters at a polling station in Stepanakert. “For us, elections are a way of forming civil society.”

However, Sahakian’s main challenger, Masis Mayilian, already alleged vote irregularities after casting his ballot in another Stepanakert precinct in the morning. His campaign headquarters lodged more than a dozen written complaints detailing alleged irregularities to the CEC by the time voting drew to close at 8 p.m.

Both Ghukasian and Sahakian were quick to reject the allegations as “black PR,” saying that the elections are free and fair. “I regret that black PR, dirty political techniques have been brought to Karabakh from Armenia,” said Ghukasian. “I am convinced that the vast majority of those complaints do not correspond to reality.”

But as Sergey Nasibian, the CEC chairman, said later in the day, some of the alleged irregularities, including an attempt at multiple voting in one polling station, were found to have taken place. Nasibian said the CEC will closely look into the other claims made by the Mayilian camp.

The vote was monitored by about one hundred monitors from Armenia, Russia, the United States and Europe, including a member of the European Parliament. The Italian parliamentarian, Giulietto Chiesa, told RFE/RL that he did not witness violations in any of the polling stations he visited.

Ghukasian and the presidential candidates were unanimous in dismissing international criticism of the election. “The elections are held not for the international community but the people of Nagorno-Karabakh,” he said.

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 Election Closely Fought

Jul 18, 2007
Institute for War and Peace Reporting, UK

Observers say that official Karabakh Armenian candidate not assured of victory.

By Ashot Beglarian in Stepanakert (CRS No. 401, 18-July-07)

There are two favourites amongst the five candidates competing in the the July 19 election for the leadership of Nagorny Karabakh, making this ballot the first genunine contest since the end of the war over a decade ago

Both men come from within the governing elite but one is the official candidate while the other is positioning himself as a potential reformer.

Bako Sahakian, head of Karabakh’s national security service, has the support of the main political parties in the local parliament as well as most of the government and the elite in Armenia. Masis Mailian serves as the unrecognised republic’s deputy foreign minister, but is gathering more support from circles outside government.

The poll was triggered by the end of the second term of current Karabakh leader Arkady Ghukasian. Although Karabakh has passed a new constitution which might have enabled him to serve a third term, he took the decision to step down after two periods in office.

Around 90,000 people are registered to vote in the poll. If no candidate gets more than 50 per cent of the vote on July, a second round will be held between the two main candidates in two weeks’ time.

“The defining feature of this campaign is its fierceness,” said Karabakh Armenian political commentator David Karabekian. “If in a previous campaign one of the candidates won because he...got in the worst case 86 per cent of the vote, this battle has a completely different character.”

Sahakian, 47, was not a public politician before the election campaign began. During the 1991-4 war, he was one of the leading officers on the Armenian side. He has been campaigning on a programme to raise living standards in the territory.

He is promising support for war veterans, pensioners, schoolchildren and families with multiple children and has pledged that there will be a fivefold increase in mortgage credits available from the government in 2008.

Karabekian said that in the campaign Sahakian had managed to demonstrate he was his own man and not just a puppet of the elites, “Several times he has distanced himself from steps recommended to him and initiated by these people.”

On the overarching issue for Nagorny Karabakh - its future status and their stance on negotiations with the Azerbaijani government - the two men express similar views. Both say that they want to see Karabakh recognised as an independent state and represented in peace negotiations with Baku. Currently, the Karabakh Armenians do not have a place at the table and are represented by the government in Yerevan.

Both are also against making concessions on the occupied territories outside Karabakh until the sovereignty of the republic is determined.

“Negotiations between the Nagorny Karabakh Republic and Azerbaijan about defining current borders can be held only after the unconditional recognition of the sovereignty and state independence of Nagorny Karabakh,” said Mailian.

Mailian, 39, has worked in Karabakh’s foreign ministry since it was created in the middle of the war in 1993 and took part in a series of negotiations with Baku in the Nineties.

Mailian has focussed his campaign on the need for Karabakh to be more transparent and democratic and said the elections are a test of its credentials.

“Everyone has to be equal before the law,” he said. “Only if all the laws we have adopted actually work will be able to guarantee development, a good life and a bright future and receive international recognition.”

Mailian said that the authorities were cut off from the people of Karabakh, a situation he said was “unacceptable”.

“In recent days I have had many meetings with voters and all with one voice have said that no one listens to them and their statements are not received in the offices of the powerful.”

In a lively campaign, both main candidates have had the chance to present their views on television, although there have been no public debates. Both have toured Nagorny Karabakh and had public meetings with voters.

There have been no violent incidents but members of Mailian’s campaign team have complained that the government has been unfairly agitating on behalf of Sahakian on Karabakh television.

Karabekian believes that, although he is not the official candidate, Mailian has a genuine chance of success.

“Some analysts say that there isn’t a real contest between the candidates and that the authorities of Armenia and Nagorny

Karabakh have basically agreed who will be president and Masis Mailian is needed just as a sparring partner,” he said referring to Bako Sahakian.

“That is primitive logic. If the elections are just a backdrop for the transfer of power from one representative of the elite to another, an echo of the coming change of power in Armenia, then the question has to be asked: why have the authorities played, to use chess terminology, such big pieces and why are the different officials and bureaucrats agitating on behalf of their own candidate, acting so nervously?”

Gegham Baghdasarian, independent member of parliament and editor of the independent newspaper Demo, agrees that not everything has been decided in advance.

“Even before the electoral campaign began some people and some forces maintained and are still stating that the elections were pre-determined and it’s already clear who will be the next president of the country,” Baghdasarian said on public television.

“A person must really despise his own people and hold a low opinion of it, about its mental and moral level, to say something like that. It’s you, us, who will decide this. So don’t believe these fairy tales and go to the elections, not as though you are doomed but with the will to be masters of your own fate, in the frame of mind that who gets elected really depends on you.”

Ashot Beglarian is a freelance journalist and IWPR contributor in Nagorny Karabakh. Editor's note: The terminology used in this article was chosen by IWPR, not the author.

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.

RA MFA: PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN NKR ARE KARABAGH PEOPLE’S SOVEREIGN DECISION

Jul 18, 2007
DeFacto Agency, Armenia

Presidential elections in Nagorno-Karabagh Republic are Karabagh people’s sovereign decision, RA MFA Acting Spokesman Vladimir Karapetian told Novosti-Armenia Agency.

"To hold Presidential elections in the Nagorno-Karabagh is Karabagh people’s sovereign decision, and it is natural that we support steps targeted at NKR’s further democratization", he said commenting Turkish MFA statement concerning non recognition of Presidential elections in NKR.

Karapetian noted Karabagh people had the right to decide their fate by choosing democratic way of development. In his words, they will choose their President themselves, the way they held Parliamentary elections in 2005 and a referendum, on the results of which NKR Constitution was adopted in December, 2006.

The Presidential elections in Nagorno-Karabagh will be held current July 19. 5 nominees will run for the post – ex Director of the NKR National Security Bako Sahakian, Deputy FM Masis Mailian, a deputy of NKR National Assembly Armen Abgarian, a lecturer of the Artsakh State University, professor Vania Avanesian and Karabagh Communist Party leader Hrant Melkoumian.

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.

Who is Azerbaijan trying to assure in high alertness of his army?

20.06.2007
PanARMENIAN.Net

“Armed forces of the Republic of Azerbaijan are rather equipped and trained to settle the Karabakh problem by power of arms. We only need president’s order for it. However, not all possibilities of peaceful solution are expired yet. We think the peace method is the best variant to liberate occupied territories,” Spokesman for the Ministry of Defense of Azerbaijan Eldar Sabiroglu stated, commenting on statements made by local public figures that it is necessary to forcefully settle the Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

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

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

! 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.

Nevertheless, EU Special Representative in South Caucasus to visit Nagorno Karabakh

Jun 19, 2007
PanARMENIAN.Net, Armenia

EU Special Representative Peter Semneby’s visit to the Nagorno Karabakh Republic will take place in the near future, NKR President Arkadi Ghukassian told journalists in Yerevan commenting on Special Representative’s canceled trip to Nagorno Karabakh because of unknown reasons on June 16.

Instead of P. Semneby his advisors –Mark Fawcett and Kaupo Kand visited NKR, who prepared the coming visit of the Special Representative. P. Semneby himself will visit Nagorno Karabakh in the near future,” Ghukassian said, “Novosti-Armenia” reports.

EU Special Representative Peter Semneby returned Yerevan on his halfway to Stepanakert. Still there is no information on this decision of the diplomat. In Nagorno Karabakh meetings were scheduled between Peter Semneby, NKR President Arkadi Ghukassian, Foreign Minister Georgi Petrossian and representatives of non-governmental organizations.

! 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.

Nobody in Armenia and NKR knows why Peter Semneby canceled his scheduled visit to Karabakh

19.06.2007
PanARMENIAN.Net

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Armenia still does not possess any information why EU Special Representative in Southern Caucasus Peter Semneby canceled his scheduled visit to Nagorno Karabakh during his regional tour. Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian stated that after it happened he did not have any chance to meet P. Semneby himself to clear up the situation. At the same time the minister noted one of these days a meeting between P. Semneby and an Armenian diplomat is scheduled in Brussels, during which he will give reasons for what happened. “When we have any information, it will be possible to comment on that case,” Oskanian stated.

In his part President of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic Arkadi Ghukassian answering the same question said during his meeting with the EU Special Representative’s advisors they assured that currently P. Semneby plans to pay a visit to Stepanakert, IA Regnum reports. On June 16 EU Special Representative in Southern Caucasus Peter Semneby departed for Nagorno Karabakh. However, on the halfway to Stepanakert he changed the route and returned to Yerevan. There are no explanations for this decision both from officials in Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh and from Semneby’s political advisors – Mark Fawcett and Kaupo Kand, who visited Stepanakert instead of P. Semneby himself June 16-17.

! 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.

Arkady Ghukasian and EU representatives discussed implementation of EU programs in NKR

18.06.2007
PanARMENIAN.Net

Nagorno Karabakh President Arkady Ghukasian received political advisors to EU Special Representative for the South Caucasus to discuss possible proposals and approaches to expansion of humanitarian and rehabilitation programs implemented in the region by the European Union.

The experts said discussion of works to be carried out in NKR for establishment of mutual trust in the region will take place in the framework of upcoming visit of EU Envoy Peter Semneby to Stepanakert.

By the guests’ request Mr Ghukasian commented on Karabakh’s vision of the conflict settlement as well as on approaches to programs realized under the aegis of European structures in Nagorno Karabakh, the NKR President’s press office reported.

! 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.