Yerevan Press Club of Armenia presents `MediaDialogue” Web Site as a
Regional Information Hub project.
As a part of the project web site is maintained,
featuring the most interesting publications from the press of Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey on issues of mutual concern. The latest
updates on the site are weekly delivered to the subscribers.
***************************************************************************
===========================================================================
CONFLICTS
===========================================================================
MINSK GROUP WORKS OUT `BASES FOR SETTLEMENT’ OF THE CONFLICT
—————————————– ———————————–
Source: “Azg” newspaper (Armenia) [July 12, 2005]
Author: Tatul Hakobian
In the course of the visit, the Co-chairmen will discuss `the options’
Sunday evening, OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairmen arrived in the
region. This visit is the first one after the parliamentary elections
in Mountainous Karabagh on June 19 assessed by the international and
local observers as complying with democratic standards.
Yesterday in Baku, Yuri Merzlakov (Russian Federation), Steven Mann
(USA) and Bernard Fassier (France) met Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan
Elmar Mamediarov. After the negotiations, the journalists were
informed about some details by the head of the so-called Azerbaijani
community of Mountainous Karabagh Nizami Bakhmanov, who participated
in the meeting. As reported by `Armenpress’, the negotiations raised
the issues of opening transport communications from Azerbaijan to
Armenia via Mountainous Karabagh territory and the issues of returning
the refugees to the places of residence.
Bakhmanov stated that `the priority is the issue of displaced
Azerbaijanis’ and `without their return to Mountainous Karabagh it is
impossible to resolve the status of this region’. There is a progress
in the negotiation process, we hope the public will be informed about
them on August 26 in Kazan at CIS summit after the meeting of
Azerbaijani and Armenian Presidents’, Bakhmanov stated.
`Mediamax’ reports that the meeting of the co-chairmen and Elmar
Mamediarov `considered the current stage of Karabagh settlement, the
situation after the Warsaw meeting of the Presidents of Armenia and
Azerbaijan’. After the meeting with President Aliev, the Minsk Group
will arrive in Yerevan to meet the Armenian authorities and to visit
Stepanakert afterwards for the negotiations with the authorities of
Mountainous Karabagh on settlement.
Recently, Baku authorities discuss joint use of transport corridors
with Armenia. In this respect, former mediator of OSCE Minsk Group
from Russia, Vladimir Kazimirov expressed an opinion in his article
published in `Novoye Vremya’ that the suggestion of official Baku `is
directed at the electorate and the world at large’.
`Azerbaijan is getting ready for parliamentary elections, and the
electoral calculations already impact the Baku tactics in the
negotiation process’, Kazimirov stated. He thinks `Armenians, who are
not yet influenced by elections factor, assess the process of the
dialogue positively but with more restraint’.
Kazimirov noted that despite the aggressive statements and toughening
of positions on the main issues, Azerbaijan already started discussing
events on confidence, something it did not want to hear about in the
past. In particular, former mediator mentioned about the Baku proposal
on joint control of Agdam-Nakhichevan route with Armenians (via
Mountainous Karabagh, Lachin and Armenia).
`The problem of communication in the conflict zone is very important,
however it is not a key to problem solution’, Kazimirov stated, adding
that `the status of Mountainous Karabagh and liberation of the
territories occupied by Armenians 11-12 years ago are still in the
spotlight’.
On the eve of the visit, Russian Co-chairman Yuri Merzlakov stated
that the mediators will continue discussing the bases of settlement
with the sides. `The atmosphere is very good and friendly. I think
this visit will be extremely useful’, he stated.
This visit of the co-chairmen will last up to July 16. At August 26
unofficial CIS summit, a regular meeting of Kocharian and Aliev will
take place in Kazan. Prior to that, 1-2 meetings of the Foreign
Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan are expected. }
SCANDAL AT OSCE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY SESSION
—————————————————————————-
Source: “Zerkalo” newspaper (Azerbaijan) [July 11, 2005]
Author: K. Guluzadeh
The Azerbaijani and Armenian delegation `gave a fight’
Head of Armenian delegation at OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (PA), Vice
Speaker of Armenian Parliament, Vahan Hovhannissian declared about
diplomatic victory over Azerbaijan. In his opinion, the report on
Karabagh settlement by the special representative of OSCE Secretary
General, Goran Lenmarker, made at OSCE PA 1-5 July session in
Washington, largely reflects the position of official Yerevan.
V. Hovhannisian states that `the balanced and objective’ report of
G. Lenmarker `Invaluable Opportunity – Some Considerations on
Mountainous Karabagh Conflict’ is the outcome of hard work by both
G. Lenmarker, the Armenian delegation and the authorities of
`Mountainous Karabagh National Assembly’. V. Hovhannissian cites the
following postulates from the report as evidence.
According to the head of Armenian delegation, G. Lenmarker emphasizes
that one of the most acceptable ways for settling the conflict is
annexation of Mountainous Karabagh to Armenia. “Armenia wants
independence for Mountainous Karabagh, and this option ensures most
security’, the report notes. Besides, the documents stresses the
necessity for establishing cooperation between Armenia and Azerbaijan
within European Union `Enlarged Europe: New Neighbors’ project and
unblocking communications without any preconditions. The document also
contains a call on Azerbaijan to start direct negotiations with
Mountainous Karabagh. The speaker presents Mountainous Karabagh as a
party to the conflict (“Arminfo”).
V. Hovhannisian emphasized that all these provisions meet the
interests of the Armenian side and are not fixed in any international
document.
However, V. Hovhanissian states the report contains such theses as for
instance inexpediency of granting independence status to Mountainous
Karabagh since `small populations’ in the South Caucasus may lead to
regional disintegration.
Besides, the document stresses the necessity for the return of the
refugees and the territories controlled by the Armenian side `in case
of definite security guarantees for the people of Mountainous
Karabagh’. The report also refers to the deployment of international
peacekeeping forces on the territories controlled by the Armenian
side.
According to V. Hovhannissian, G. Lenmarker suggested setting up a
reconciliation committee including not only parliamentarians of the
conflicting sides but also the delegations of OSCE PA. Vice Speaker
referred to this idea as quite acceptable for the Armenian side.
Thus, it was previously planned that on the basis of G. Lenmarker’s
report OSCE PA will adopt a special resolution on Karabagh
settlement. However, it turned out that both Azerbaijani, Armenian
delegation and G. Lenmarker himself gave a halt to this process.
First, the report of G. Lenmarker was not discussed at OSCE PA because
of its incompliance with procedural norms, based on which the assembly
cannot consider two documents on the same issue. The point is that
before the planned discussion G. Lenmarker did not present a full text
of the report to the Azerbaijani side but submitted only the
theses. As stated to `Zerkalo’ by member of Azerbaijani delegation
Eldar Ibragimov, our delegates made their amendments to the theses of
G. Lenmarker after which they returned the report. However when
G. Lenmarker stated that he is against adopting the resolution by OSCE
PA at the current stage, the head of Azerbaijani delegation Sattar
Safarov submitted his draft of resolution.
The standing committee of OSCE PA delegations rejected the Azerbaijani
draft with a three-vote difference, which E. Ibragimov explains by the
activity of pro-Armenian delegations.
Second, due to the intention of the Azerbaijani delegation to
introduce provisions from Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
resolution on Mountainous Karabagh qualifying Armenia as aggressor, in
G. Lenmarker’s draft, its consideration was impeded by the Armenian
delegation. V. Hovhannissian thinks that in this issue the Armenian
delegation was supported by the delegations from Russia, France and
USA. The head of Armenian delegation states `we all are well aware
that the Armenian side will accept only the resolution ratifying that
Fizuli and Kelbajar are originally Armenian territories, and at the
current stage adoption of such a resolution by international
structures is out of the question’.
As for G. Lenmarker, E. Ibragimov states that special representative
of OSCE Secretary General opposed the resolution. G. Lenmarker holds
that it is essential to give OSCE Minsk Group one more year for
achieving positive results at peace negotiations. The resolution may
be adopted at OSCE PA summer session in 2006, G. Lenmarker states.
‘We invited G. Lenmarker for private conversation and accused him of
deliberate delay in adopting the resolution. It is already two years
he has worked on this problem and we really expect to see concrete
results of this activity. Why is Council of Europe PA adopting a
special resolution, qualifying Armenia as aggressor and OSCE PA is
silent?’ E. Ibragimov asks.
Yesterday, V. Hovhannissian spoke about another interesting
meeting. According to Vice Speaker of Armenian National Assembly, back
in Washington Elizabeth Ruff, Assistant of American Co-chairman of
OSCE Minsk Group stated in a private conversation with the delegations
of Azerbaijan, Turkey and Armenia that the Armenian side should return
the controlled territories, however the principle of the people’s
right for self-determination should be respected.
According to V. Hovhannissian, representative of OSCE Chairman on
Karabagh conflict Andjey Kasprshik, participating in the meeting,
noted on his behalf that each of the conflicting sides has its own
myth. Thus, Armenia holds that it may exist and develop in `hostile
environment’ similarly to Israel. However, according to A.Kasprshik it
is only an illusion, since in the near future Armenia will not have
enough resources for further development. There is a myth in
Azerbaijan that oil dollars may help to increase military potential of
the Republic and resolve the Karabagh conflict by force. However,
according to A. Kasprshik it is also an illusion, `since the defensive
capacity of the Armenian side is so high that any army will have
difficulty breaking it’, V. Hovhannissian states. Alongside this,
A. Kasprshik emphasized that there is an agreement on conventional
armed forces in Europe based on which the fixed armament quotas cannot
be surpassed.
In the conversation with `Zerkalo’ E. Ibragimov accused
V. Hovhannissian of telling lies. In his opinion, victory at the
session and lobby discussions went to the representatives of
Azerbaijan, since Armenians `could not respond to our just
arguments’. E. Ibragimov states that in the course of discussions and
private conversations with G. Lenmarker, E. Ruff and A. Kasprshik the
representatives of international organizations mostly supported the
position of Azerbaijan.
Thus, E. Ibragimov holds that the thesis of G. Lenmarker on the
possibility for annexing Mountainous Karabagh to Armenia is no more
than a point in the list of the wishes by the conflicting sides. Thus,
G. Lenmarker just enumerates the positions of the sides in the draft
resolution: Azerbaijan wishes to restore its territorial integrity;
Mountainous Karabagh wants independence, Armenia aspires to annex
Mountainous Karabagh.
Besides, E. Ibragimov stated that the draft resolution does not
contain a call to Azerbaijan for opening communications with Armenia
without any preconditions. `Lenmarker, Ruff and Kasprshik fully
understand and agree with us that without liberating the occupied
territories and return of the refugees to their homes it is impossible
to open the communications’, E. Ibragimov states.
Thus, after the OSCE PA session the situation was not clear. Both
sides, contradicting each other, proclaim their diplomatic
success. However, no concrete documents were adopted on the results of
the session that might serve as a basis for objective conclusions on
the success of diplomacy.
However, for the current moment it is not the resolutions adopted and
rejected by the parliamentarian structures of various international
organizations that matter but the active negotiations between the
parties to the conflict. Thus, during the August meeting of the
Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia working out `main settlement
options’ is to be completed. Russian Co-chairman of OSCE Minsk Group
Yuri Merzlakov stated about it, commenting on the mediators’ visit to
the region fixed for July 10-16 (`Trend’). In his opinion, the Baku
meetings with the officials are scheduled for July 11. `The atmosphere
is very good, work-disposing. I think the visit and our stay in Baku
will be very useful for further negotiation process. We planned it
right in this context’, the diplomat added. }
REFERENCE BOOK EDITORS FINED IN FRANCE ON ALLEGED GENOCIDE
—————————————————————————-
Source: “Turkish Daily News” newspaper (Turkey) [July 08, 2005]
Author:
A court in Paris fined the editors of a French reference book the
symbolic amount of one euro for not portraying the killings of
Armenians in eastern Anatolia during World War I, which Armenians
claim are tantamount to genocide, in a balanced manner.
The court said the Quid reference book favored Turkey’s position and
only briefly described the Armenian point of view.
Turkey categorically denies allegations of genocide and says
Armenians were killed as part of civil unrest sparked by the Armenian
revolt against Ottoman rule in collaboration with invading Russian
forces.
The court issued the one-euro fine and ordered publication of its
verdict in three daily newspapers, three weekly newspapers and on the
Quid Internet site.
The court ruling was in response to a 2003 complaint against the
encyclopedia by the Committee for the Defense of the Armenian Cause
(COCA).
Defense lawyers for the reference book cited its editorial freedom
and pointed out that the book mentions a 2001 French law that
recognizes the killings as genocide.
The same court fined renowned historian Bernard Lewis in the past for
not portraying the Armenian killings in a balanced way in an article
he wrote for Le Monde. The court issued a fine of one French franc in
that ruling.
Turkish-French relations have been strained in the past over French
recognition of the alleged genocide. The alleged genocide is a source
of tension between Turkey and Armenia. Turkey closed its border with
Armenia more than a decade ago in protest of the Armenian allegations
and an Armenian invasion of the Azerbaijani territory of
Nagorno-Karabakh. }
===========================================================================
ECONOMY
===========================================================================
KARS – CAUCASUS GATES?
——————————————- ———————————
Source: `Khvalindeli Dge’ newspaper (Georgia) [July 06, 2005]
Author:
The last month meeting of entrepreneurs and representatives of the
local authorities of Turkish Kars city, Georgian regions of
Akhaltsikh, Ninotsminda and Akhalkalak considered the possibilities of
economic cooperation between the border regions of Georgia and Turkey.
The visit of Samtskhe-Javakheti to Kars was organized by the European
Center for Minority Issues (ECMI) by the official invitation of the
Turkish side. The meeting discussed the possibilities of economic
cooperation and creation of job places through joint projects mainly
in the tourism sphere for the current period. The meeting participants
think that the first step to intensive cooperation may become opening
of one more, third check point on the Georgian-Turkish border. Before
that, it is necessary to restore a whole set of highways. Afterwards,
we will be able to speak about Kars getting the unofficial status of
`Caucasus gates’ lost in the previous century.
The Georgian border regions in their turn seriously considered close
cooperation with a powerful southern neighbor. Setting direct ties may
improve the economy and raise life standards. Economic integration of
Samtskhe-Javakheti with the neighboring Turkish regions is as
promising and tangible as the developing integration of Ajaria with
the Black Sea regions of Turkey. The meeting participants agreed that
their next meeting will take place in Akhalkalaki for further
consideration of cooperation possibilities. `The two border regions,
where the uniqueness and cultures of Georgia, Turkey and Armenia are
closely intertwined, have a chance for being transformed into a key
point of Caucasus integration process’, the leading expert of Caucasus
Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development, Paata Zakareshsvili
thinks.
He wonders what impeded Kars to return to its previous activity with
all the positive tendencies for the Georgian side. Kars lost the
status of a border city in 1993 after the land routes between Turkey
and the Soviet Union via Dogukap-Akhurian checkpoint were
closed. Akhalkalaki, administrative center of Javakheti, was located
in a prohibited area due to its military strategic significance in
Soviet times. At present this territory, because of its distance from
the center and weak infrastructure, turned into one of the poorly
developed regions of Georgia. The distance from Armenian and Turkish
borders to Akhalkalaki is 35 and 30 kilometers respectively. Kars is
at 70 kilometers distance from both borders – Georgian and
Armenian. Opening of communications with Kars has been one of the
priorities of Georgian-Turkish cooperation for several years. To solve
this issue, a joint Turkish-Georgian economic commission was set up,
however with no obvious results in its activity. The expert thinks
that efficiency was not achieved because of the poor state of regional
highways both on the Turkish and Georgia sides. In other words,
Zakareshvili thinks that repairing the roads is a start, whereas the
rest will be settled by itself. }
***************************************************************************
You can subscribe or unsubscribe to this newsletter either at
or by sending a message to the Editor:
[email protected].
For comments or questions please contact the Editor: [email protected].