ASBAREZ ONLINE
TOP STORIES
03/29/2005
TO ACCESS PREVIOUS ASBAREZ ONLINE EDITIONS PLEASE VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT <;HTTP://
1) Armenia Warns of Azeri War Preparations
2) Parliament Committee Hearing on Mountainous Karabagh
3) Longtime ARF Member Natalie Lazian Passes Away at 105
4) Arab Tribal Leaders Pay Tribute to Genocide Victims
5) Armenian among Kidnapped Journalist in Iraq
6) Oskanian Speaks at National Assembly Hearings on Karabagh
1) Armenia Warns of Azeri War Preparations
YEREVAN (RFE/RL)–Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian said on Tuesday that
Azerbaijan may be preparing for another war in Mountainous Karabagh, and
revealed that Azeri troops have moved closer to Armenian positions along the
heavily militarized frontline in recent weeks. He said the Armenian government
has already alerted international mediators about what it sees as a
possibility
of renewed fighting.
“They have been bringing their trenches closer to ours and more casualties
are
suffered as a result,” Oskanian told reporters. “We just don’t see the
rationale for that and are starting to think that maybe they want to torpedo
negotiations; maybe they have serious intentions to start military actions.”
The remarks are the starkest yet warning about a resumption of the Karabagh
war voiced by a senior Armenian official since the signing of the May 1994
ceasefire agreement. They follow recent deadly skirmishes reported along the
line of contact northeast of Karabagh, with each side blaming the other for
truce violations.
“The Armenian army is ready to give an adequate response to any Azerbaijani
offensive,” Oskanian said. He added that Armenia has conveyed its concerns to
the United States, Russia, and France that jointly co-chair the Minsk Group of
the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Azeri leaders regularly threaten to take by force Karabagh and territories
surrounding, if the long-running peace talks remain deadlocked. “The people of
Azerbaijan will never put up with the loss of their lands,” President Ilham
Aliyev repeated over the weekend. “The people will liberate their native lands
at all costs.”
Addressing a congress of the governing Yeni Azerbaycan party, Aliyev at the
same time claimed that recent trends in the peace process bode well for
Azerbaijan, pointing to recent meetings between Oskanian and Azeri Foreign
Minister Elmar Mammadyarov.
Oskanian and Mammadyarov were due to continue their talks in Prague on March
2. They were cancelled due to Oskanian’s illness. Mammadyarov was quoted by
the
Azerbaijani media this week as saying that the meeting will take place at the
end of April.
But Oskanian insisted that no new dates have been set yet. He also indicated
that a possible meeting in May between Armenian and Azeri presidents would be
far more important. “We believe that quite a lot of work has been done by the
ministers and it is time for the presidents to step in,” he said.
2) Parliament Committee Hearing on Mountainous Karabagh
YEREVAN (RFE/RL)–Armenian parliament’s foreign relations committee on Tuesday
began two-day hearings on the Karabagh conflict. Senior government officials
and representatives of political groups in the National Assembly will review
possible resolutions.
“Common ground is on the horizon,” Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian told the
hearings. “But at the same time we are still far apart in our positions.”
Oskanian and other speakers were unanimous in ruling out Karabagh’s return to
Azeri rule under any circumstances. Opinion only differed on whether the
Armenian-populated enclave should be independent or formally become part of
Armenia.
ARF faction’s Armen Rustamian, who chairs the committee and is presiding over
the hearings, called for the creation of an interagency body that would
coordinate Armenia’s Karabagh policy. He also urged Armenia to formalize its
close political, economic, and military links with Mountainous Karabagh
Republic (MKR).
3) Longtime ARF Member Natalie Lazian Passes Away at 105
ATHENS–ARF member Natalie Lazian passed away in Athens on March 24 at the age
of 105. A woman loved and respected by all, Lazian, along with her husband ARF
Bureau member Gabriel Lazian, traveled from country to country, finally
settling in Athens where they carried on their nationalistic work.
Born in Izmir of Greek ancestry, Natalie Lazian became acquainted with
Armenians, embraced our struggles, and faithfully followed her husband.
Serving
the Armenian Cause, her travels were risky–going from Izmir to Batumi, from
Batumi to Yerevan, Alexandropol, Alaverdi, Porchalou, Tbilisi, back to Izmir,
then Greece, Egypt, Lebanon, and finally, Athens. After learning to speak
Armenian fluently, the couple established the “Nor Or” newspaper in Athens
from
1932-40.
Funeral services for Natalie Lazian took place on March 25, at the Nea Smirni
Cemetery. She is survived by her son, Aidan, who currently resides in Athens.
4) Arab Tribal Leaders Pay Tribute to Genocide Victims
YEREVAN (Combined Sources)–A delegation of 12 Arab tribal leaders,
accompanied
by National Assembly’s Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF) faction and the
ARF Armenia Supreme Body members, visited the Dzidzernagapert Memorial on
Tuesday to pay tribute to the victims of the Armenian genocide.
Praying for the victims’ souls, the delegation members stressed that the
reality of the Genocide cannot be denied, noting that it is proven by numerous
documents.
The influential tribal leaders, some of whom reside in Saudi Arabia, Jordan,
Iraq, and Qatar, are in Armenia to take part in the events commemorating the
90th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, to pay tribute to the Genocide
victims, and remind the world of the unpunished vicious crime. The trip has
been organized by the Armenian community of Aleppo.
Leader of the Tal tribe, Mohamed Elfarif, said the Arabs gave shelter to
Armenians who were deported by the Turkish government to the desert and were
condemned to death. Commenting that some Armenian girls even married young
Arab
men, Elfarif said, `Now we have the same blood,’ adding that he had heard such
stories from his grandparents.
He said they wish to see Armenia in its historic borders, and expressed that
the viewpoint of the tribes does not differ from the viewpoint of the Arab
people as a whole.
Armenian chief consul in Aleppo Armen Melkonian said, `The visit of such
people who are considered rather influential in their country will promote the
establishment of friendlier relations between our countries.’
According to another leader of a Syrian tribe, Noaf Alpashiri, 100 families
are currently living in their tribe who are the descendants of Armenians who
survived the Turkish massacre.
The delegation arrived in Yerevan on Monday, accompanied by
representatives of
the Armenian Church’s Beria Prelacy.
Armenian National Assembly’s ARF faction secretary Hrair Karapetian and ARF
Bureau’s Political Affairs Office director Giro Manoyan greeted the guests at
Yerevan’s Zvartnotz airport.
Their hospitable ancestors gave refuge to the fragments of Armenians who
miraculously survived in the Genocide; today, many of those Armenians and
their
heirs still live side-to-side with the friendly Arab people and enjoy equal
rights.
The leaders of the tribes met with Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian and
Yerevan mayor Yervand Zakharian. They are also scheduled to meet with Prime
Minister Andranik Margarian, parliamentary factions, and Defense Minister
Serge
Sargsian.
5) Armenian among Kidnapped Journalist in Iraq
BUCHAREST (Combined Sources)–Three Romanian journalists kidnapped in Baghdad,
among them Romanian Armenian Ovidiu Ohanesian, managed to send desperate text
messages to relatives and colleagues just before disappearing on Monday, as
they became the latest foreigners to be abducted in Iraq.
“We’re kidnapped. This is not a joke. Help!!!!,” one of the three, Prima TV
reporter Marie Jeanne Ion, managed to message her mother from her mobile
phone,
her mother Magdalena Ion told Realitatea TV on Tuesday.
“Don’t kill us, we are from a poor country and we have no money,” Ion was
quoted as saying.
Ion’s cameraman Sorin Miscoci and journalist Ovidiu Ohanesian of the Romania
Libera daily newspaper, all on a short reporting trip to Iraq, were also
missing, authorities said.
President Traian Basescu said both local and foreign secret services had been
alerted and he chaired a meeting of a crisis committee set up to handle the
situation.
“We have alerted all the secret services and the foreign intelligence
services
of our allies to solve the case,” Basescu told the Romanian TVR1 television
after the three journalists were snatched on Monday night.
“President Traian Basescu assures Romanians that Romania has the will and the
capacity to defend its citizens,” his spokeswoman Adriana Saftoiu said.
The three were seized while Basescu was on a whistle-stop visit to
Afghanistan
and Iraq, where staunch US ally Romania has sent 800 troops to join the US-led
force.
Like other east European countries grateful to Washington for its support in
shedding communism, Romania is a faithful US ally that has unwaveringly
supported the war in Iraq, providing logistical support and troops.
Amid wide political consensus, it joined NATO in 2004 and is eager to host
permanent US military bases on its Black Sea coast.
The kidnappings appeared to cause no immediate political backlash for
Romania’s role in Iraq, with officials saying they suspected the motives were
financial rather than political.
“I would like to believe that only economic reasons triggered their
situation.
I don’t want to believe that their kidnapping was politically motivated,” said
Simona Marinescu, an adviser to the Romanian embassy in Baghdad.
More than 150 foreigners have been seized in Iraq over the past year. Most
have been freed after negotiations or payment of ransom, but about a third
have
been killed. Many more Iraqis have been abducted, often for ransom.
The news editor of Prima TV, Dan Dumitru, said Ion managed a quick call to
her
newsroom before disappearing and that he had heard her desperately pleading
with her kidnappers.
“I heard Arabic, English, and Romanian words shouted,” he said. “I heard her
imploring the attackers not to kidnap them because they come from a poor
country which won’t be able to pay the ransom.”
Her mother appealed to authorities not to rush into rescue operations before
hearing out the abductors.
“Please don’t send special troops to look for them,” Magdalena Ion said. “We
must wait and see what the kidnappers want.”
Prime Minister Calin Tariceanu told reporters: “We will make every effort so
that the three journalists return home safely.”
Journalists at Romania Libera had a difficult time believing their colleague
had been kidnapped since there was no demand from the kidnappers.
“We cannot say we are absolutely positive he was kidnapped. We have tried to
contact our colleague and we will continue to try,” said fellow journalist
Cornel Popa.
The disappearance of the three Romanians is just the latest kidnapping
incident involving journalists in Iraq.
Earlier this month Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena was freed after the
intervention of the Italian secret service, after nearly four weeks as a
captive.
But Nicola Calipari, the international operations chief of Italy’s military
intelligence service who masterminded her release, was shot and killed by US
troops at a checkpoint as Sgrena was being driven to Baghdad airport.
In January Liberation correspondent Florence Aubenas and her translator,
Hussein Hanoun al-Saadi, were snatched outside a Baghdad hotel and are still
missing.
And Christian Chesnot, a freelance journalist kidnapped in Iraq while working
for Radio France International and Georges Malbrunot, Le Figaro’s Iraq
correspondent, were released just before Christmas, after more than four
months
in captivity.
6) Oskanian Speaks at National Assembly Hearings on Karabagh
YEREVAN (Yerkir)–Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian on Tuesday made a statement
at the Armenian National Assembly’s Foreign Relations Committee hearings on
resolving the Mountainous Karabagh conflict. Below is an excerpt of his
statement:
`I welcome this opportunity to discuss aloud and together the history,
development, present situation, and future prospects for the resolution of the
Nagorno Karabakh issue. I believe that such joint, public explorations are
useful and should facilitate a healthy civic debate on premises and prospects,
always with the purpose clearly in mind: that what we seek is a peaceful,
lasting resolution to this conflict.
I’ve looked at the agenda of these two days–the topics and speakers are
diversified and reflect varying political perspectives and political forces.
Such a diversified spectrum will provide us with a better picture of the range
of opinions in our republic on this issue.
I will try to be as open as possible, to present not just Armenia’s position,
but also our take on those international situations and events which may
affect
the Nagorno Karabakh process, our perception of the adversary’s views, and
also
the evolution and dynamics of the resolution process.
Really, we must understand the dynamics and evolution of the process if we
are
to understand our situation today and the choices before us.
Let me break down the NK process into stages during which both the format and
nature of the negotiations evolved, as did the content of the discussions.
This most recent phase became a conflict, when, in 1988, Azerbaijan used
force
to respond to peaceful demonstrations and demands, thus resulting in military
activities. During those early years, there were various incongruent,
uncoordinated, random, impulsive efforts at mediation from within the former
soviet space. These efforts did not turn into a coherent process, however, and
no documents were produced.
In 1992, the resolution process became internationalized. The Conference for
Security and Cooperation in Europe, of which both Armenia and Azerbaijan were
members, took a decision to resolve the issue of Nagorno Karabakh’s status
through a conference in Minsk. As a result, the CSCE Minsk process was born,
with the participation of Nagorno Karabakh.
The Russian Federation continued to remain engaged, often competing with the
Minsk Group. At the same time, the conflict itself extended beyond the borders
of Nagorno Karabakh, when as a result of Azerbaijan’s aggression, Armenian
forces were compelled to bring certain territories under Armenian control, for
the purpose of assuring Nagorno Karabakh’s security. By May 1994, there was a
mutually agreed upon ceasefire, and therefore, a halt to military activities.
As military activities ceased, the OSCE, at a Summit in Budapest, harmonized
the various negotiation tracks. They created the Minsk Group co-chairs
structure, formalized the negotiation process, and put an end to competition
among the various mediators. Thus the end of militarization coincided with the
creation of a mechanism for serious negotiations.
This cycle of negotiations that has now gone on for over a decade, can be
divided into 4 stages: the first stage began with the OSCE Budapest Summit and
ended with the OSCE Lisbon Summit; the second stage covered the post-Lisbon
period through the change of presidential administration in Armenia; the third
stage stretched to the death of Father Aliyev; and the fourth stage is the one
we’re in now, that started with the change of administration in Azerbaijan.
Despite Azerbaijan’s engagement, and the efforts of the sides to search
for an
acceptable resolution of the issue, Azerbaijan continues to attempt to
simultaneously introduce the Nagorno Karabakh issue in those international
forums which continue to abide by a traditional, conservative approach to the
issues of territorial integrity and self-determination.
Their answer to claims of self-determination is simply greater human rights
and certain economic benefits. This approach ignores a great many factors
including the role of history in shaping of one’s identity and destiny.
Today, everyone recognizes that these principles cannot be universally
applied, that there are places in the world where more acceptable solutions
can
and are being found, and states–new and old– continue to live in new
relationships to each other. In our time, we have witnessed East Timor’s
independence through referendum, we witnessed the signing of an agreement in
Sudan putting an end to a decades-old conflict on the basis of the notion of
referendum to be held in one portion of the country in six years.
We are all following serious deliberations about the possibility of a
referendum to determine Kosovo’s status. Among the political, legal, academic
experts working in and around those places, there is a growing awareness of
the
possibility and reality of recognizing the right of self-determination in
certain circumstances.
In all cases, one must judge existing self-determination struggles each on
its
own merits, each in terms of its own historical, legal circumstances, as well
as the realities on the ground.
As such, we can divide today’s self-determination conflicts into four types
determined by the combination of degree of control the state exercises over
its
entire territory (including the territory occupied by those striving for
self-determination) and the degree of self-determination achieved by them.
Quebec, for example, falls in Category I. In this case, the territorial
integrity of Canada is preserved, while the province of Quebec has voted to
remain part of Canada; that is, they have exercised their right to
self-determination.
The overwhelming majority of today’s secessionists fall in Category II, where
the movements struggle without any degree of self-determination and the state
continues to fully control the territory under question. The Kurdish people’s
struggle in Turkey falls into this second category.
Those in Category III are the borderline cases where the state is not able to
control those desiring self-determination, while they themselves are not
strong
enough to maintain control over their territory with any certainty of
permanence, and the outcome can go either way.
Today, Nagorno Karabakh falls in a completely different, fourth, category.
Azerbaijan has no control whatsoever over those territories, as Nagorno
Karabakh has enjoyed, for the last 15 years, all the attributes of complete
sovereignty. In this case, to attempt to win over the people of Nagorno
Karabakh by enticing them with human rights and economic advantages in
order to
attempt to return them to Azerbaijani jurisdiction, is a simply senseless
exercise.
Azerbaijan’s new authorities are having a hard time coming to terms with
these
indisputable realities. Clear-cut, categoric changes are obvious in their
approach to negotiations and the search for a resolution. Worse, and more
worrisome, there are new myths and premises –public and official–on which
their positions are being constructed.
First, they have convinced themselves that the essence of the issue is the
issue of their territories. When this conflict began, there were no
territories
outside Nagorno Karabakh under Armenian control.
Those territories came under Armenian control because not only was there not
an agreement on Nagorno Karabakh’s status, but also because Azerbaijan saw the
solution in cleansing Nagorno Karabakh of all Armenians. Therefore, the
solution today necessarily revolves around the determination of Nagorno
Karabakh’s status, and continued control over those territories guaranteeing
the security of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh.
Second, they want to believe that if they do not receive their maximum
demands
through negotiations, they can always resort to military solutions. It is
obvious that it has not been possible nor will it be possible to conclusively
resolve this issue militarily. In order for a successful military solution,
arms and munitions are not sufficient against the people of Nagorno Karabakh
who are defending their own homes and hearth. Azerbaijan must succeed in
ethnically cleansing Nagorno Karabakh of all Armenians.
Under today’s circumstances, that is simply not possible. This has been
proven
impossible in Serbia, for example, where the former authorities nearly
succeeded in their efforts at ethnic cleansing using military might. But
today,
they are standing trial for their crimes, and the right of the people of
Kosovo
to self-determination is on the table.
Third, Azerbaijan thinks that time is on their side. Of course, the obvious
reason for this is their confidence in future oil revenues to enhance their
military capacity.
This is the greatest deception, because time is not guaranteed to work in
favor of any one side. Further, international tendencies today are moving
towards reinforcing the right to self-determination. The longer that Nagorno
Karabakh maintains its de-facto independence, it will be that much harder to
reverse the wheel of history.
Fourth, they think that an isolated Armenia will be economically unable to
sustain its positions, and will sooner or later agree to serious concessions.
This is in itself a faulty assumption, because it is the people of Nagorno
Karabakh who must first agree to concessions.
Additionally, a people who lived through the deprivations and hardships of
the
last decade and a half have demonstrated that they can do so again if it is
life and liberty that is at stake. On the contrary, both in Armenia and
Nagorno
Karabakh, the societies have gone past survival, and are recording economic
growth.
Finally, Azerbaijan has convinced itself that by presenting Armenia as
aggressor, it will become possible through resolutions in international
organizations to force Armenians to capitulate. However, Armenians have
succeeded in consistently demonstrating that Azerbaijan is a victim of its own
aggression and that today’s situation is a consequence of that aggression.
If those territories must be returned to assure Nagorno Karabakh’s security
and future, that is possible. If those territories must be kept in order to
assure Nagorno Karabakh’s security and future, that, too, is possible. The
purpose is security and self-determination and not territories.
To conclude, the point is the solution will not be found through military
action, it will not be found through the creation of documents and resolutions
in international forums, nor can there be a solution imposed on the sides from
the outside. The only way to a solution is to demonstrate political will, to
sit and discuss openly and honestly, by embracing realistic positions.
Armenia remains faithful to its initial premises that there cannot be a
vertical link between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh, that it must have a
geographic link with Armenia, and that the security of the people of Nagorno
Karabakh must be assured.
Today, for us, the basis of the resolution, is the affirmation of the
right of
the people of Nagorno Karabakh to self-determination and the international
recognition of that right.
Azerbaijan’s simply accepting this fact, and its formalization in an
agreement,
will make possible the start of a resolution of the matter, and the
elimination
of the consequences of the conflict.
All subscription inquiries and changes must be made through the proper carrier
and not Asbarez Online. ASBAREZ ONLINE does not transmit address changes and
subscription requests.
(c) 2005 ASBAREZ ONLINE. All Rights Reserved.
ASBAREZ provides this news service to ARMENIAN NEWS NETWORK members for
academic research or personal use only and may not be reproduced in or through
mass media outlets.