Author: Jalatian Sonya

Nations Seek U.N. Council Expansion Vote

By EDITH M. LEDERER
.c The Associated Press

UNITED NATIONS (AP) – Brazil, Germany, India and Japan made the first
move Wednesday toward a possible vote next week on their resolution to
expand the powerful U.N. Security Council, despite differences with
Africa and the United States.

The decision by the so-called Group of Four to seek a vote in the
General Assembly without clear support from the 53-nation African
Union is a gamble. But the four countries believe their proposal
gives Africa almost everything it wants – and far more than it has
now.

The Group of Four delivered the resolution to the U.N. Secretariat
late Wednesday to be translated into the world body’s six official
languages, Japan’s U.N. Mission said. The translation of the
resolution is a prerequisite for official distribution to the 191
U.N. member states and consideration by the General Assembly.

There is wide support among U.N. members for expanding the Security
Council to represent the global realities of the 21st century rather
than of the post-World War II era when the United Nations was
created. But the precise size and membership of an expanded council
remain contentious.

The council currently has 15 members, 10 elected for two-year terms to
represent different geographical regions and five permanent members
who wield veto power – the United States, Russia, China, Britain and
France.

The Group of Four resolution would expand the Security Council from 15
to 25 members, adding six permanent seats without veto power and four
non-permanent seats. Brazil, Germany, India and Japan are hoping to
win four of the permanent seats with the two others earmarked for
Africa.

The African Union adopted a resolution on Tuesday calling for two
permanent seats for Africa with veto power and five non-permanent
seats. The Group of Four draft would give Africa four non-permanent
seats.

The Group of Four, also known as the G-4, dropped its initial demand
for veto power for the six new permanent members in the face of
opposition from a number of countries, including some of the current
permanent members who have veto power. Their draft would delay
consideration of granting veto power to the new permanent members for
15 years.

The United States wants a smaller expansion to 19 or 20 seats with the
addition of “two or so” new permanent members including Japan, and
two or three non-permanent members. U.S. officials have also made
clear they don’t want Germany to have a permanent seat; China strongly
opposes a permanent seat for Japan.

To win approval, the G-4 resolution needs support from two-thirds of
the 191 U.N. member states.

Even if the initial resolution is approved, the most difficult step is
a final resolution to change the U.N. Charter. That not only requires
a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly but also the approval of the
five permanent Security Council members.

Japan said the G-4 will request that debate on the resolution start as
early as next week. “Japan intends to direct its efforts towards
adoption of the draft resolution during the month of July,” the
statement said.

Germany’s U.N. Mission said it hopes the text can be distributed
Friday and formally introduced in the General Assembly on Monday,
followed by a debate and vote later next week.

Later Wednesday, the 15-nation Caribbean Community, known as Caricom,
agreed to support the G-4 proposal on the last day of a four-day
summit in St. Lucia, said Paulette Bethel, the Bahamas’
U.N. ambassador. She said Caribbean leaders set several conditions for
their support, including rotating seats to include small states like
those in Caricom.

07/06/05 19:22 EDT

The Times Literary Supplement, No. 5330, UK
May 27 2005

It’s God Guignol by Robert Irwin

Kingdom of Heaven is set in the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the years
immediately preceding the recapture of Jerusalem from the Crusaders in
1187 by Saladin’s Muslim army.

Earlier attempts to make films out of the story of the Crusades have
been dire. Virginia Mayo, playing Berengaria in King Richard and the
Crusaders (1954), caught the essence of that film with the words “War!
War! That’s all you think about, Dick Plantagenet!” As for Richard
the Lionheart’s appearance in the Egyptian film-maker Youssef
Chahine’s Saladin (1963), Time Out’s film critic described Richard as
a “red-wigged mongoloid given to [uttering] lines like ‘We can take
Acre by lunchtime!'” The film as a whole was enough to “boil your
brains”.

Kindom of Heaven is in many respects a much better film than its
precursors. Its visual mix of the chivalric and heraldic with the
Oriental and exotic has proved o be a gift to the designers of sets
and costumes, as well as to the cameramen. It is as if a continuous
diorama of Orientalist canvases by Jean-Leon Gerome were being
unscrolled. Tableaux featuring rich tapestries, ornate stucco, golden
ewers and the leper King of Jerusalem in silk robes and a chased
silver mask alternate with desert landscapes of dust, flies, corpses
and carrion.

Everything appears as if painted with the bright colors of the
world when it was younger. Though the Alhambresque decor of the King’s
palace in Jerusalem certainly owes more to fourteenth-century Granada
than it does to twelfth-century Syria, it is nevertheless successful
in suggesting the mixture of the exotic and the feudal in the Kingdom
at its height. Sir Steven Runciman evoked that life of mingled danger
and opulence, in his History of the Crusades: “Revellers like the
wedding guests at Kerak in 1183 might rise from the table to hear the
mangonels of the infidel pounding against the castle walls. The gay
gallant trappings of life in Outremer hung thinly over anxiety,
uncertainty and fear”.

Ridley Scott, previously the director of Alien and Gladiator, is
successful in reproducing the fearful and violent tenor of the times.
He is a specialist in the direction of scenes of bloody and
fast-moving action. Indeed, his reliance on scenes of surprise
violence, swift dagger blows and unpremediated decapitations is such a
mannerism that, rather than being shocked by them, one waits
impatiently for them to be over. It is a Grand Guignol version of the
war between Christians and Muslims.

The real history of the kingdom in the 1180s makes a good story,
rich in telling incidents and images, as I noted in an essay on the
historiography of the Crusades: “the youthful Saladin playing polo,
the playmates of the young leper prince Baldwin sticking pins in his
arm, the shocking promotion of handsome but foolish Guy de Lusignan to
rule as king-consort in Jerusalem, the swashbuckling pirate raids of
Reginald de Chatillon in the Red Sea…the ill-fated encounter of the
military orders at the Springs of Cresson…the waterless slog of the
Christian army towards their doom at Hattin, Guy’s drink of sherbet
and Saladin’s beheading of Reginald of Chatillon”.

Why then should anyone wish to ditch such a splendid story and
substitute a fiction based on narrative cliches that seem designed to
pander to adolescent dreams of wish fulfilment? Balian in the film
(but not in history) starts out as a blacksmith in France, but he is
also the illegitimate son of the Crusader lord of Ibelin. The
narrative tactic of making the Crusader lord of Ibelin start out as an
outsider provides a pretext for Eastern affairs to be explained to him
and the audience. It may also appeal to the democratic sympathies of
American audiences, as hard work and gritty courage, rather than noble
birth and wealth, will make the fictional Balian a leader of men in
the Kingdom. The ensuing plot owes a little to Walter Scott’s Talisman
(specifically the encounter with an unrecognized Saladin in the
desert), but perhaps more to G.A. Henty’s historical yarning. As in
so many of Henty’s juvenile historical romances, an untried youth sets
out for exotic parts, becomes truly a man, wins the approbation of his
seniors and ultimately the hand of a fair lady. The villains that
Balian is up against are very villainous indeed. One wonders what
possible sort of fun they get out of being so very evil and so
brainless. Kingdom of Heaven seems to be telling us that medieval
people were just like us, only much stupider. One person who would
certainly have enjoyed this film, if only he were alive, is William,
Archbishop of Tyre. William died in 1184, but he would have been
delighted to see the polemical and malicious portraits of Guy de
Lusignan, Reginald of Chatillon and the Patriarch Heraclius that he
presented in his History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea being given
renewed currency in a film in the twenty-first century. The
historical Guy de Lusignan, confronted with Saladin’s invasion of
Palestine in 1187, faced far more difficult and dangerous choices than
either Guy or Balian in the film

Balian, as played by Orlando Bloom, is earnest and quiveringly
alert (in a way which brings to mind his role as the elf Legolas in
the film version of The Lord of the Rings. He is unfailingly pious,
though not in any really medieval way, as there is a great deal of
stuff about the desirability of a multi-faith Jerusalem and about the
real heaven as something that is to be found not in any patch of
earth, but within one’s heart. Kingdom of Heaven is visually
inspiring and thus well worth seeing, but, sounds of battle,
neighboring horses and grunting camels apart, not worth listening to.
It would have been a much better film, if the director had dispensed
with both script and stars.

SwissInfo, Suisse
5 Juillet 2005

Grand Conseil vaudois: le génocide arménien formellement reconnu

LAUSANNE – Le Grand Conseil vaudois a formellement reconnu le
génocide arménien. Il l’avait déjà fait indirectement en 2003. La
résolution adoptée n’engage toutefois que le législatif, le Conseil
d’Etat estimant cette démarche inappropriée.

“Les divergences portent sur la forme plus que sur le fond”, a assuré
le conseiller d’Etat Jean-Claude Mermoud devant le plénum. Le
gouvernement vaudois “préfère faciliter la tche de la conseillère
fédérale Micheline Calmy-Rey”.

En outre, cette démarche n’a plus vraiment de sens, puisque le
Conseil National a reconnu le génocide arménien en décembre 2003,
estimait le Conseil d’Etat. Le gouvernement vaudois proposait au
législatif cantonal d’en rester là.

M. Mermoud a rappelé que la prise en considération de ce postulat en
2003 avait provoqué le report du voyage en Turquie de la cheffe de la
diplomatie. “Les sensibilités sont encore à vif”, a-t-il souligné.

Les parlementaires ont refusé de s’aligner sur la position de
l’exécutif. La résolution a été acceptée par 86 voix contre 35 et 25
abstentions. Elle indique simplement que “le Grand Conseil du Canton
de Vaud reconnaît le génocide du peuple arménien de 1915 et honore la
mémoire des victimes”.

Daily Times, Pakistan
July 6 2005

COMMENT: EU membership is a hurdles race for Turkey

– Ijaz Hussain

Turkey must be admired for the determination it has shown in the
face of hurdles put in its way. It is imperative that it perseveres
till it achieves its objective or the EU’s real face of a `Christian
club’ is fully exposed

The results of the recent French and Dutch referenda on the EU draft
constitution surprised no one. However, they also sent out the
unintended signal that Turks, who are keen to get into the EU, are
not welcome to its fold. The message was further highlighted when the
EU summit broke down on the question of a long-term budget that would
provide funding for newcomers. The EU Commission chief, Jose Manual
Barroso, then stated that the EU needed to discuss the signal that
the French and Dutch voters had sent about Turkey’s accession.

The Turkish government, for its part, tried to put up a brave face.
Its foreign minister observed that, `This result is something that
concerns the French public… not Turkey.’ The EU Commission, too,
announced that the accession talks would start on schedule.

In the French referendum the issues for the voters were the
introduction of a market economy (that many saw as savage Anglo-Saxon
capitalism), the threat of NATO controlling European defence and the
policies of President Chirac, all of which they disapproved of. The
Dutch electorate, on the other hand, voted for keeping the Dutch
persona intact and against dissolving into Europe and the individual
losses suffered because of depreciation of guilder when the country
joined the common currency.

The common theme was a vote of no confidence against expansion –
admission of 10 new members last year and possible accession of more
states in the future. The vote was not just against immigrants from
Eastern Europe but also against those from Turkey. Rightist parties
in both countries worked overtime to scare voters of immigration from
Muslim Turkey.

France and Holland were under no obligation to refer the question of
ratification of the draft constitution to a popular vote. They could
have achieved the desired result by referring the matter to the
parliament as more than 10 countries did. Now that they have
exercised the referendum option, this can have implications for the
Turkish membership when the question comes up.

There could be pressure, particularly on the French government to
hold another referendum because President Chirac is on record having
advocated towards the end of last year an amendment in the French
constitution along these lines. The proposal was at that time
supported by Italy’s right-wing Northern League party, which is
currently part of the ruling coalition. A strong lobby in Germany,
represented by the Christian Democrats, is also opposed to the
Turkish entry. Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg also share this
hostility and may opt for a referendum when the time comes.

But a mandatory referendum in any country would amount to changing
rules for admission to the EU. Turkey has warned in the past against
such shifting of the goal post. Following the recent referenda, the
Turkish prime minister, Recip Erdogan, again warned: `If you impose
new conditions on candidate countries, especially a country about to
start negotiations, that would not be right’.

However, the fact remains that the start of accession talks next
October does not mean that the EU would be content with the
fulfilment of the `Copenhagen criteria’ and that the entry rules
would not change. In fact as far as Turkey is concerned, they are
most likely to change in the future just as they have changed in the
past.

For example, the 1999 Helsinki summit, which accepted Turkey’s
eligibility for the EU membership, while envisaging a political
settlement of the Cyprus issue or its reference to the ICJ within a
reasonable period of time, did not make it a prerequisite for
membership. Subsequently the EU practically made it a prerequisite
and gave a date for accession talks only after it was satisfied that
Turkey had made good faith efforts to solve the Cyprus problem and
after Turkish Cypriots had voted for unification in the 2004
unification referendum.

There are indications that the EU may attach a rider of another kind
for the Turkish entry. It relates to the recognition by Turkey of the
`genocide’ of 1.5 million Armenians, supposedly during 1915-23. The
EU parliament recently demanded – on the occasion of the review of
the Turkish penal code, which punishes any suggestion of Armenian
`genocide’ by the Turks as crime against national honour – that
Turkey own up to its past on Armenia. Earlier, on November 15, 2000,
it had formally accused Turkey of `genocide’.

The sentiment against Turkey on Armenia runs in individual countries
as well. The German parliament recently adopted a resolution
condemning Turkey for killing of Armenians by Turks 90 years ago.
Though, it stopped short of calling the killings `genocide’, it
sparked an angry protest from Ankara. In November 2000, the French
Senate had denounced the killing of Armenians by Turks as `genocide’.
The vote had drawn a sharp and swift criticism from the Turkish
government that forced the French to back down on the issue. However,
like the Holocaust the Armenian `genocide’ is today on the French
statute books and denying it is considered a crime.

The resentment against Turkey on Armenia is not restricted to Europe.
The Americans also seem to share it. During the presidency of Bill
Clinton, the US House of Representatives adopted a draft resolution
that referred to the killing of Armenians as `genocide’.
Subsequently, the House withdrew it on request from the president
following a threat by the Turkish government to stop military
cooperation and cancel a $4.5 billion defence deal.

Turkey denies the slaughter of 1.5 million Armenians. It accepts that
hundreds of thousands of them were killed but argues that even more
Turks died during the partisan conflict resulting from the support
extended by Armenians to the invading Russian troops. It fears that
it would be required by the EU to recognise the killing of Armenians
as `genocide’. Will it eat the humble pie and do what the EU wants?

Indications are that it will – principally, because it is desperate
to get into the EU and seems prepared to do virtually anything to
that end. When the EU accused Turkey of `genocide’ in 2000, the main
opposition, Virtue Party, was prepared to appease it by proposing a
legislative investigation into the matter and removing `wrong and
biased opinions’.

Will Turkey’s acceptance of the EU demand to recognise the killings
as `genocide’ – if and when it comes – signify an end to the hurdles
race to membership? In our opinion, this is far from certain. It
appears that the hurdles – past as well as future – are merely handy
justifications to delay the membership question. There is plenty of
evidence to conclude that the real reason relates to the Islamic
character of the Turkish society. Turkey must be admired for the
dogged determination it has shown so far in the face of hurdles put
in its way beyond the `Copenhagen criteria’. It is imperative that it
perseveres in its efforts till such time that it achieves its
objective or the EU’s real face of a `Christian club’ is fully
exposed.

The writer, a former dean of social sciences at the Quaid-i-Azam
University, is an independent political and legal analyst

AZG Armenian Daily #117, 25/06/2005

Home

ARMENIA ACCORDING TO REPORT OF RA OMBUDSWOMAN

‘Cooperation for Sake of Open Society’ initiated public discussion of the
annual report of RA Ombudswoman.

The ombudsman’s institute managed to get involved in contradictions with
both executive and legislative and judicial powers. They even confiscated
the computer of the ombudsman office with all the information in it. So, the
discussion was also dedicated to protection of the ombudswoman’s institute.

RA Ombudswoman received 1294 written appeals from 2346 citizens. The report
was based on these facts of human rights’ violation cases. “Since last year,
the violation of the property right became widely spread. There is no
response from either Ra National Assembly or any other instance. People are
left alone and face the cruel facts that they are deprived of their own
property. While they can never buy houses with the money they are given for
that property,” Larisa Alaverdian, RA ombudswoman, said, emphasizing the
cases of the Northern Avenue, the Buzand Street residents and the owners of
Dalma Orchards.

RA Ombudswoman conditioned the cases of abuse of official position, bad
management by not only personal but also qualities of the forces. This
seemed to be caused by bad laws. The report touches upon the importance of
such issues too in a separate section.

“This is the first official report on human rights, that includes mainly all
the spheres of violation of human rights in Armenia. It objectively and
often strictly evaluates the situation,” Avetik Ishkahnian, Chairman of
“Helsinki Committee in Armenia” NGO, said during the discussion. In response
to the issue what impression a foreigner will get about Armenia when reading
this report, he said “A foreigner will think that Armenia is a weak
authoritarian country or a state that is imitating democracy.”

By Karine Danielian

A1plus

| 20:09:09 | 21-06-2005 | Politics |

EVERYONE SPEAKS OF WHAT HE WANTS

During the recent several days the Azeri press has been spreading
information that the issue of unblocking the roads was as well discussed by
the Armenian and Azerbaijani FMs. The matter concerns the road connecting
Nakhivachan with Azerbaijan through the Syunik region and the Lachin highway
connecting Armenia with Karabakh.

When responding to the question `What is your reaction to the Azerbaijani
claim that a connecting road was discussed during the most recent meeting in
Paris of the foreign ministers with the co-chairs?’ Foreign Ministry
Spokesman Hamlet Gasparyan said, `First, in the negotiation process, each
side has the right to talk about any subject. But when one side introduces
or talks about a topic, any topic, that doesn’t mean that the topic is
automatically on the agenda, nor that there is any, even preliminary
agreement on that topic.

Second, Armenia’s position on these matters is very clear. The primary
matter is the status of Nagorno Karabakh, and until there is clarity and
agreement on that matter, it is premature to speak about any other issue.’

RIA Novosti, Russia
June 21 2005

Georgia’s foreign debt stands at $1.79 billion
19:56

TBILISI, June 21 (RIA Novosti) – The value of Georgia’s foreign debt
and loans received against government guarantees was $1,798,035,000
as of May 31, 2005. The Georgian Finance Ministry’s foreign debt
department said the country owed $682,154,000 to 15 creditor nations.

At the same time, 12 creditor nations restructured Georgia’s foreign
debt in compliance with a decision made by the Paris Club of creditor
nations. They included Austria ($91,997,000), Azerbaijan
($16,190,000), Turkmenistan ($152,395,000), Turkey ($52,457,000),
Iran ($12,456,000), Russia ($154,488,000), the United States
($39,331,000), Armenia ($19,593,000), Uzbekistan ($551,000), Ukraine
($366,000), Kazakhstan ($27,774,000) and China ($3,096,000).

Germany, Japan and Kuwait are not bound by the Paris Club’s decision
because Georgia planned to start repaying its debt to them later.
Georgia owes Germany $51,637,000 and another $57,204,000 on loans
received from it against government guarantees (a total of
$108,841,000). Georgia also owes Japan $45,281,000 and Kuwait
$14,542,000.

Apart from creditor nations, Georgia also took out loans from
international institutions, in particular, the International Monetary
Fund, the World Bank’s International Development Association, and the
International Fund for Agricultural Development, which it owes
$1,058,679,000. Georgia also received a $30,360,000 loan from the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development against government
guarantees.

The above figures involve acknowledged debt and exclude debt service
funds. Georgia’s foreign debt is based on the exchange rates in
effect on May 31, 2005.

HOW TO RETURN KARABAKH?

Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
20 June 05

For over 17 years the Azerbaijani politicians and political scientists,
journalists, the military and defenders of rights have been racking
their brains over this question. At different times power was taken
away from five leaders of Soviet and post-Soviet Azerbaijan – Kyamran
Baghirov, Abdurrahman Vezirov, Ayaz Mutalibov, Yaghub Mamedov and
Abulfaz Elchibey – for failure in solving the Karabakh issue by Baku’s
scenario. Heydar Aliev left this world and joined Kyamran Baghirov and
Abulfaz Elchibey without undoing the Karabakh knot. Now Aliev Junior
has taken up the job, promising his fellow countrymen, like his
predecessors, to return Karabakh to Azerbaijan. Each of these leaders
of Azerbaijan had their own plan of getting over the `insurgent’
people of Karabakh. Under Kyamran Baghirov they tried to scare us
through assaults of the Azerbaijani mob in Askeran, massacres were
perpetrated in Sumgait, our compatriots were forced to leave
Shushi. These did not work. Abdurrahman Vezirov, who succeeded him,
intended to assuage the Armenians (as well as the Azerbaijanis)
through political clownery until a convenient occasion occurred to
take revenge on the people of Karabakh. However, the Azerbaijanis, and
especially the Popular Front of Azerbaijan were not in the way of
joking. The Azerbaijanis would have hung Abdurahman Vezirov at the
home of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan if
the former USSR troops did not save him. After the famous events in
Baku in January 1990 Ayaz Mutalibov, who came to replace Vezirov,
looking quite respectable, not only did not apologize to more than 250
thousand Armenians for having displaced them through medieval methods,
but also persuaded Mikhail Gorbachov to hold the military operation
`Koltso’ in the Autonomous Region of Nagorno Karabakh to force out the
Armenian population from Nagorno Karabakh. However, the quick
succession of events in Soviet Union in agony prevented the
realization of this idea Yaghub Mamedov who assumed the duties of the
leader of Azerbaijan for a short period after the dissolution of the
USSR and resignation of Ayaz Mutalibov again `failed’ in the Karabakh
issue, signing armistice with the president of Armenia then Levon
Ter-Petrossian in Tehran a day before the offensive of Shushi. Abulfaz
Elchibey adopted a military method of solving the issue. He was
mistaken in his estimations as well. Then Heydar Aliev took up the
work of saving the nation through military ways. As a result
Azerbaijan lost several more regions, adjacent to Nagorno Karabakh.
The `Father of the Nation’ had to alter his tactics manipulating the
factor of oil and hoping to push the third countries to put military,
political and economic pressure on Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh. Once
again failure. Finally, Ilham Aliev came to power. He seems to have
decided not to occupy with the Karabakh issue at all and leave the
whole burden of settlement with the international mediators. This
tactics has not produced sought-after results either. Meanwhile, after
the dissolution of the USSR various NGOs and human rights
organizations appeared in Azerbaijan which no more believe the
government could solve the Karabakh issue and propose their own
prescriptions. The prescriptions come to any liking, ranging from
apparently `constructive’ (by Azerbaijani standards, of course) to
naive and even exotic ones. The head of the Azerbaijani National
Committee of the Helsinki Citizens Assembly, Arzu Abdulayeva has been
raving about the Aland model of resolution for many years now. The
Aland Islands where ethnic Swedish people live belong to
Finland. Aland people have a president, a parliament and a prime
minister, that is to say, also a government. They all meet under their
own flag. Besides, the Aland Islands are considered a completely
demilitarized zone, which supposes the absence of military service. If
I am not mistaken, in 1993 the NKR delegation visited the Aland
Islands for studying the experience of reconciliation and co-existence
of nations. It is notable that the speak er of the parliament of NKR
then Karen Baburian who headed our delegation, was asked what his
attitude toward the Aland model was. He unbuttoned his collar
jokingly: `Karabakh is absolutely for it, but on condition that it is
part of Finland and borders with friendly Sweden.’ Thereby Karen
Baburian let the international organizers of the visit know that Asian
Azerbaijan infected with the militaristic germ is far from being
civilized European Finland. However, Arzu Abdulayeva, apparently, has
a different opinion. `We need to shift from abstract, non-concrete
judgements about the independence of Karabakh and the territorial
integrity of Azerbaijan to the discussion of opportunities of the
South Caucasians to leave at peace, like the Europeans, securing
economic, political and civil liberties,’ she writes in one of her
newspaper articles. Therefore, Arzu khanum goes on, it is worth
considering whether the model of Aland Islands can serve as a ground
for national (i.e. Azerbaijani – A.G.) agreement. Any government
would have to take it into consideration. `Instead of judging about
some highest form of sovereignty (i.e. Azerbaijani – A.G.) the
authorities will have to recognize that our people accept this model,’
concludes Arzu Abdulayeva. Is this naive? Certainly. It is naive
because Arzu Abdulayeva presents the desirable for the real. Or she
lies consciously when she states that the frenzy of nationalism in
Azerbaijan has gone, and during the years of the cease-fire the
Armenians of Karabakh have become convinced that the traditional
standpoint `unification with Armenia or independence’ is fruitless.

Whereas, it is not possible to build real peace based on a lie. The
representative of the political party `New Greens’, political
scientist Oktay Sadekhzade presented an absolutely `constructive’
model of resolution for Azerbaijan last year. Fairly insisting that
further development of Azerbaijan and Armenia and the fates of the two
nations depend on the resolution of the conflict, Oktay Sadekhzade
proposes a three-stage plan of resolution of the conflict. In the
first stage the liberation of the occupied Azerbaijani territories
except Nagorno Karabakh and Lachin, the return of the displaced
persons and stationing of international peacemaking forces in the
region is proposed. The ratio of the international peacemaking forces
stationed in the conflict area must be the following: USA 25 %, France
25%, Russia 25 % and Turkey 25 %. According to the plan of the
Azerbaijani `Green’, the second stage should be launched only after a
public opinion poll is conducted in Azerbaijan and Armenia. In this
stage the status of Nagorno Karabakh will be determined. Oktay
Sadekhzade provides a vertical – horizontal subordination of our
region to official Baku, which is difficult to understand. For the
Armenian population of Nagorno Karabakh he plans double citizenship of
Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan. For this aim an exclusive amendment
is to be made to the Constitution of Azerbaijan. At the end of the
second stage Baku and Yerevan are to sign an intergovernmental
agreement by which the Lachin corridor will be rented by Armenia for
99 years and the Meghri corridor will be rented by Azerbaijan for 99
years. And finally, in the third stage, election to the local
governments will be held in Nagorno Karabakh, in which `both
communities’ of the republic will take part. The republic will not
have a president, and NKR will be a parliamentary republic within
Azerbaijan. In other words, Oktay Sadekhzade proposes a rather long
process of returning the Karabakh Armenians to Azerbaijan and in the
future they will be free to leave the Armenian land for whatever place
they wish. Another project on resolution was presented to the
Azerbaijani public by one of the independent newspapers of Baku.

According to their project, the territory of the former Autonomous
Region of Nagorno Karabakh should be given the status of Free Economic
Zone for 50 years. The zone should be run by the board of directors
set up from the representatives of Nagorno Karabakh, Azerbaijan,
Armenia, as well as the members of the OSCE Minsk Group. The OSCE
Minsk Group will act as guarantor of the new status of Nagorno
Karabakh. The project provides for several other `privileges’ as well,
but the passports of the NKR residents will be Azerbaijani with an
appendix of `Free Economic Zone’. The official languages of the Free
Economic Zone will be Armenian and Azerbaijani. The procedure of
legalization of the new status of NK will be carried out in parallel
with `the liberation of the occupied areas of Azerbaijan’. Well, we
have a more `delicate’ plan of returning Karabakh to Azerbaijan, with
all the famous consequences for the Armenians of Karabakh, i.e. you
can leave your motherland for whatever place you like. Here are the
fresh ideas about the ways of resolution of the Karabakh issue, which
fully correspond to the modern trends. One of the authors of these is
the executive director of the National Centre for Strategic Research,
Farhad Mamedov. According to him, only democratic and powerful
Azerbaijan is able to make the West return Karabakh. One has to admit
that this is already serious. This is what we the Armenians say,
seeking for the international recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic. For this aim Farhad Mamedov points out the necessity for
holding fair parliamentary election in Azerbaijan this November. We
seek for the same in Karabakh. But this is not the real essence. In
all the models of resolution of the Karabakh conflict mentioned above
and many others not mentioned here there is not a single word about
the right of the NK Armenians for self-determination. That is to say,
the Nagorno-Karabakh issue is completely denied. Then the question
occurs: `How is it possible to solve a problem without recognizing
it?’ Therefore, the Azerbaijani inventors of various formulae to
return Nagorno Karabakh to the constitutional environment of
Azerbaijan and other `kind intentions’ will remain kind intentions,
not more. Although, among our neighbours there are such who doubt that
the Azerbaijani government wants to return Karabakh. Among them is the
well-known political scientist from Azerbaijan, Rasim Aghaev.

According to him, Azerbaijan had quite a lot of time to Azerbaijanize
Karabakh (about 70 years of the Soviet rule). `It was the only
reliable way of eliminating the so-called Karabakh issue,’ he states
in one of his articles on the Karabakh conflict. Long live Rasim-Bey!
At least you are frank. Although, on the other hand, the leadership of
Soviet Azerbaijan was guided by the principle of Rasim Aghaev for 70
years, which gave rise to the Karabakh issue as it is now. Anyway, how
could the Azerbaijanis return Karabakh¦?

ALEXANDER GRIGORIAN.
20-06-2005

Azeri minister sees Karabakh talks in Paris as “complicated”

Azadliq, Baku
20 Jun 05

Excerpt from unattributed report by Azerbaijani newspaper Azadliq on
20 June headlined “Mammadyarov-Oskanyan talks have been complicated”

The Paris talks [on 17 June] between the Azerbaijani and Armenian
foreign ministers on the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict
were complicated, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov told
the head of the Foreign Ministry’s information department, Tahir
Tagizada, over the phone after the talks.

[Passage omitted: reported details]

Mammadyarov said that the talks were continuing and he would meet the
[OSCE Minsk Group] co-chairmen again.

The minister went on to say that their meeting had focused on seven or
nine elements which involved the liberation of occupied territories,
the return of refugees to their lands, the future status of Nagornyy
Karabakh, the deployment of peacekeeping forces [in Karabakh] and
others.

Parliamentary voting begins in Azerbaijan’s breakaway region

Regnum, Moscow
19 Jun 05

The parliamentary elections have opened in the self-proclaimed
Nagornyy Karabakh republic, Russia’s Regnum news agency has reported.
International observers and representative of other self-proclaimed
republics are monitoring the polls.

Monitors are expected to give a news conference in the evening,