Author: Jilavian Emma

Independent Online, South Africa
Aug 1 2004

Six churches bombed in Iraq’s Bloody Sunday

By Edmund Blair

Baghdad – Car bombs exploded outside at least six Christian churches
in Iraq on Sunday, killing at least three people and wounding many
more in an apparently coordinated attack timed to coincide with
evening prayers.

“We are expecting a huge number of casualties,” an Interior Ministry
source said. He said there had been four blasts at churches in
Baghdad and two in Mosul. At least two of the Baghdad blasts were
suicide car bomb attacks, he said.

The attacks were the first to target Christian churches during the
15-month insurgency.

‘We are expecting a huge number of casualties’
Iraqis said the blasts, which scattered chunks of hot metal and
shattered stained glass windows, said they feared the attacks were
designed to stir tensions among Iraq’s diverse religious communities.

“These operations are aimed at creating strife between Christians,
Shi’as, Sunnis and others, nothing more, nothing less,” said Omar
Hussein, 25, a metalworker near the scene of a blast at the Armenian
church in central Baghdad.

Another blast happened about 15 minutes later outside an Assyrian
church in the same area, mangling cars and sending a loud boom
reverberating across the neighbourhood. Medics dragged a wounded man
from a car, his arm almost torn off by the blast.

An ambulance driver told Reuters that two people were killed in the
explosion at the Assyrian church and several wounded.

Police said at least one person was killed in one of the Mosul
blasts.

There are about 800,000 Christians in Iraq, most of them in Baghdad.
There have been a string of attacks in recent weeks on alcohol
sellers throughout Iraq, the majority of whom are Christians of
either the Assyrian, Chaldean or Armenian denominations.

Earlier on Sunday, a suicide car bomber blew up his vehicle outside a
police station in Mosul, killing at least five people and wounding
53.

Witnesses said the Toyota Landcruiser raced towards a police
checkpoint as guards screamed at the driver to stop. When he didn’t,
they opened fire, killing him. But the car ploughed on and detonated
about 20 metres from the police station.

“I was waiting for a taxi when the car approached at high speed,”
said witness Younis al-Hadidi, 32. “It blew up in the middle of
everyone.”

Police said four of the five killed were police officers and the
wounded were both civilians and police. Doctors said many of the
wounded were badly hurt and the death toll could rise.

Another suicide car bomb blast outside a U.S. base in Mosul last week
killed four civilians and wounded a dozen.

Sunday’s bombings came four days after an attack outside a police
recruiting centre in Baquba, north of Baghdad, killed 70 people.
Police are frequently targeted by militants who regarded them as
collaborators with US forces.

The attacks followed another night of clashes between US forces and
guerrillas in the rebellious city of Falluja, west of Baghdad, in
which at least 10 Iraqis died and 35 were wounded, a doctor at the
main hospital said.

There were conflicting reports over the fate of three Indians, three
Kenyans and an Egyptian taken hostage in Iraq this month.

In Nairobi, Kenyan Foreign Minister Chirau Ali Mwakwere had told a
news conference that guerrillas had released the seven hostages. But
the Kuwaiti firm employing the men and an Iraqi mediator who has been
negotiating their release said they were still in captivity.

Scores of hostages from two dozen countries have been seized by
kidnappers in the last four months. Most have been freed but several
have been executed N at least four by beheading.

On Saturday, militants led by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
said they had kidnapped two Turkish truck drivers and would behead
them in 48 hours unless their Turkish employer quit the country.

Iraqi commandos freed a Lebanese hostage on Sunday, a Lebanese
Foreign Ministry source said, but there was no word on a fellow
countryman snatched along with a Syrian driver on Friday.

Gulf News
July 30 2004

Lebanon: Mosaic of the region
Saad Al Ajmi

Special to Gulf News

Lebanon is the “melting pot” of regional politics. The recipe for the
politics of the region is either taken from Lebanon or is contributed
to by Lebanon. In Lebanon you find all regional political players
present: the Syrians, the Iranians, the Americans, the French, the
Palestinians, the Kurds, the Gulfies, and even the Israelis in some
form or another.

Lebanon is a beautifully bizarre mélange – Muslims, Christians, and
even Jews are present. The latter, though, are very few. Even the
various sects of the major religions are present – Sunni, Shiite and
Druze Muslims, and Catholic, Orthodox and the predominant Maronite
Christians. Numerous ethnic groups are present – Arabs, Kurds,
Iranians, and even Armenians. Burj Hammoud, a neighbourhood of Beirut
is dubbed “little Armenia”.

As for politics, it is more diverse than anything else, with active
groups of pan-Arabists, Communists, Baathists, and socialists. Within
the Shiite community, two are more dominant than others – the Amal
and the Hezbollah. Within the Christians, the Phalange Party is the
largest.

All political parties in Lebanon are said to have outside
connections. Thus Hezbollah is said to be financed by Iran, Amal is
supported by Syria and the Phalange have European and American
sympathy and so on. You go to the south of Beirut and banners of
“martyrs” of Hezbollah are everywhere.

Pictures are indicative of your location in Lebanon. In Amal areas,
pictures of the founder of the Shiite movement, Mousa Al Sadr,
confront you. Al Sadr disappeared in Libya after a visit in 1978.

Pictures of the late Ayatollah Khomeini – leader of the Islamic
Revolution in Iran – and pictures of the current Iranian spiritual
leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenie and Iranian president Mohammad Khatami
are all over the southern suburbs of Beirut.

Pictures of late Syrian President Hafez Al Assad and his son, Bashar,
the current president, can be seen, but not as much as a few years
back. In the mountains of Lebanon, just a few minutes drive from the
capital, pictures of late Druze leader and founder of the Progressive
Socialist Party, Kamal Jumblatt compete with the ad banners of
concerts and festivals of the summer. Jumblatt was assassinated in
1977. No one says who assassinated him.

Israeli occupation

In East Beirut, the pictures of the Bashir Gemayel spring up with a
slogan: “Bashir lives in us”. Bashir was assassinated hours after he
was “chosen” president in September 1982, when the country was
occupied by Israel. The Israelis invaded Lebanon in June 1982. Ariel
Sharon was the Defence Minister who led the invasion, dubbed by the
Israelis as “Operation Peace for the Galilee”.

After three months of the siege of Beirut and constant bombardment,
then American president Ronald Reagan described it as a holocaust. In
a telephone conversation with then Israeli Prime Minister Menachem
Begin he pleaded for stopping the attack. Sharon succeeded in driving
the Palestine Liberation Organisation, PLO, out of Lebanon.

The massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps were committed
just hours after the assassination of Bashir. Elie Hobeika, widely
thought to have been the leader of the Phalange who committed the
atrocity at Sabra and Shatila, was also assassinated two years ago in
Lebanon in a car bomb attack.

As in the case of Jumblatt, no one says who assassinated Bashir
before he was sworn in as president. Nor does anyone say who
assassinated Hobeika. Most recently, huge billboards featuring
pictures of the Saudi prince Al Waleed bin Talal have sprung up, with
inscriptions that read: “Lebanon awaits Al Waleed impatiently”.

A multi-billionaire, Al Waleed is the nephew of King Fahd bin
Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia and is said to be aiming at becoming
Lebanon’s next Prime Minister. His mother is Lebanese and he enjoys
dual citizenship.

Incidentally, the current Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri, is a
dual citizen of Saudi Arabia. It is no secret that for anyone to hold
an official post in Lebanon, however small, Syrian consent is
required.

Thousands of tourists pour into Lebanon each year from all over the
world. Last year’s count was half a million tourists from the Gulf
and thousands more from other parts of the world.

Many Arabs are returning to Lebanon, once known as “Switzerland of
the East” and so are many Lebanese, who live all over the world.
Arabs, who are carefully scrutinised in Western airports after 9/11,
find Lebanon a more hospitable respite.

Millions of Lebanese are thought to be living in Latin America alone.
The Lebanese exodus has also had many success stories. The Lebanese
are adaptable, easy-going and hardworking people. No Arab emigrants
have achieved as much success as they have. In the US, they have
become senators.

Twice presidential hopeful Ralph Nader, and a former American
vice-president are of Lebanese descent. Not only in politics, but
even in show business and fashion Lebanese emigrants have made great
strides: the singer Shakira, actress Salma Hayek and fashion tycoon
Eli Saab to name just a few.

Business oriented

The Lebanese have strong, business-oriented minds. In diamond trading
and industry in South Africa, Holland and Belgium, they are second
only to the Jews. Perhaps, sometimes the Jews are second to them.

Lebanon has everything a tourist seeks: mosques, churches, beaches,
discos, bars, a variety of food, and most importantly, beautiful
scenery and Mediterranean weather. Scars of the vicious and hapless
civil war that destroyed the country for 15 years from 1975-1990 are
still visible, though.

In Lebanon, one may be in Beirut where the weather is perfectly humid
and warm for the beach.

A few minutes drive up Mount Lebanon and one finds cool weather and
mountain air. One may even ski in any of the ski resorts in Faraya
and Sofer. All tourist services are presented with efficiency,
professionalism and a cordial attitude. Lebanon is truly a very
hospitable country.

If you want to see the riches of the Middle East, the diversity of
its cultures, the hospitality of its people, you must go to Lebanon.

Dr. Saad Al Ajmi is a former Minister of Information in Kuwait, an
academic and analyst. He can be contacted at [email protected]

PanArmenian News
July 23 2004

ARMENIAN MILITARY INSTITUTE CADET TO ENTER GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS
BOOK

Zarzand Mkhitarian, cadet of the Military Institute of the Armenian
Defense Ministry will enter the Guinness Book of World Records for
performing a peculiar exercise called “lift with rotation around the
horizontal bar”. As reported by the press service of the RA Defense
Ministry, the registration ceremony will take place in the Military
Institute on July 27.

Armenian, Georgian foreign ministers discuss regional problems

Arminfo
21 Jul 04

YEREVAN

Armenian and Georgian Foreign Ministers Vardan Oskanyan and Salome
Zourabichvili have discussed bilateral relations and some issues of
regional significance in Yerevan.

Welcoming the guest, Oskanyan said that Zourabichvili’s visit and her
high-level meetings will lend a new slant to the issues on the agenda
of Armenian-Georgian relations, the Armenian Foreign Ministry press
service told Arminfo. The ministers discussed the main tasks of
bilateral relations and the region’s prospects. They voiced their
approaches to the issue of European integration and noted the
potential for mutually beneficial cooperation in terms of
strengthening relations with the European and North Atlantic
structures, such as the EU and NATO. They said that this will have
greater importance in connection with the South Caucasian countries’
admission to the Expanded Europe programme.

Oskanyan stressed the importance of developing roads and means of
transport both in the West-East and South-North directions. He said
that the proportional development of these directions will help turn
the South Caucasus into a busy crossroads. In this connection, the
parties exchanged their views on the possibility of restoring the
existing railway lines in the region, particularly the
Kars-Gyumri-Tbilisi railway and the Abkhaz section of the
Russia-Georgia-Armenia railway.

The parties also discussed issues of supplying energy to the region
and the processes going on in this sphere. In this connection, they
touched upon the implementation of several programmes with Iran.

The regional countries’ relations with Turkey were also discussed at
the meeting. Oskanyan spoke about the current state of
Armenian-Turkish relations and the possibility of making progress on
the issue. Then the parties discussed the region’s sore points – the
Nagornyy Karabakh, Georgian-Abkhaz and Georgian-Ossetian conflicts,
and possible ways of settling these conflicts.

ROBERT KOCHARIAN: ARMENIA CANDIDLY INTERESTED IN STABILITY IN GEORGIA

22.07.2004 14:12

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenia is candidly interested in stability in
Georgia, Armenian President Robert Kocharian stated at a meeting with
Georgian Foreign Minister Salome Zurabishvili in Yerevan today. The
President said he hoped that the Georgian leaders would find ways to
overcome problems in the country as soon as possible. In the course of
the conversation R. Kocharian said he was satisfied with the current
level of relations between the two countries. At the same time the
parties considered the opportunities of further development of
Armenian-Georgia ties, as well as discussed the key questions of
future prospects in the region.

SPEAKER OF ARMENIAN PARLIAMENT RECEIVES FOREIGN MINISTER OF GEORGIA

YEREVAN, JULY 21. ARMINFO. Speaker of Armenian parliament and Minister
of Foreign Affairs of Georgia Salome Zurabishvili, who is in Yerevan
on an official visit, discussed issues of deepening of
Armenian-Georgian interstate relations.

ARMINFO was informed in the press office of the National Assembly of
Armenia, during the meeting the participants have stressed the
necessity of simultaneous integration of the South Caucasian countries
into the economic programs being implemented in the region. They
mentioned that establishment of peace in the region of the South
Caucasus and deepening of the cooperation between the countries of the
region opens prospects for the development. The sides considered
necessary the deepening of the cooperation of the parliaments of the
two countries in international structures, as well as intensification
of the activities of the South Caucasian parliamentary initiative. In
his turn, Arthur Baghdasarian expressed hope for that the large-scale
reforms in Georgia will result in the improvement of the welfare of
the Armenians who live in the territory of the neighbor republic. He
stressed that Armenian community of Georgia is a “bridge”, which links
Georgia with Armenia.

ArmenPress
July 21 2004

PSYCHOLOGISTS ASSOCIATION HELPS INMATE GET SECONDARY EDUCATION

YEREVAN, JULY 21, ARMENPRESS: The Armenian Association of
Psychologists has conceived and fulfilled a project with the support
of the Armenian branch of Soros Foundation and World Bank Armenia
office to help 15 inmates of Kosh prison to get secondary education.
The subjects were taught by teachers of secondary schools from
nearby town of Ashtarak. However, the education ministry has refused
to grant certificates to the graduates on grounds that the prison
school must have the appropriate license and the inmates must pass
exams. The Association has decided to issue its own certificates. The
project may continue if new funds are secured.

CHAIRMAN KOLBE’S STATEMENT ON THE SCHIFF AMENDMENT

July 16th, 2004 – –

Washington, D.C. – Foreign Operations Appropriation Subcommittee
Chairman Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) issued the following statement on the Schiff
Amendment.

`Yesterday during the late night deliberations on the FY05 Foreign
Operations bill, the House adopted by voice vote an amendment by
Representative Adam Schiff. I allowed this because I determined that
the amendment had no practical effect and simply restates current law
prohibiting the use of federal fundsto lobby Congress. As the chair
of pending conference committee on the Foreign Operations bill, I will
insist this meaningless language be removed in conference.’

###

;PressRelease_id=3D412

ArmenPress
July 19 2004

ARMENIAN TENNIS PLAYERS DEFEAT BOTSWANA, MALTA AND MAURITIUS

CHISINAU, JULY 19, ARMENPRESS: Eight nations were competing in the
Davis Cup by BNP Paribas Europe/Africa Zone Group IV event last week
in Chisinau, Moldova. Armenia defeated all his rival – Botswana,
Malta, Mauritius- and won the first place in its subgroup. Moldova,
who also plays in Group 4 defeated Rwanda and Uganda and lost to
Bosnia and Herzegovina.

[15-07-2004 ‘Karabagh Conflict’]
————————————————- ———————
WHAT TO TALK ABOUT?
Source : “Golos Armenii” newspaper (Armenia)
Author: Ruben Margarian

The `Dialogue of Civilizations’ Falls Flat

It is a fact that despite the absence of tangible results in
diplomatic settlement of Mountainous Karabagh conflict, still there
are certain principles the international community thinks binding for
the sides, principles that are viewed by the mediators as a sort of
tools for working out the formula of settlement. First, these are the
requirements of the peaceful resolution of disputes and non-resumption
of military operations. Second comes understanding of the necessity
for mutual compromise on the way to settlement. Third, there is to be
understanding that the main formula of agreement should be reached by
the parties to the conflict themselves: the mediators may become
guarantors of the agreement, help organizing the negotiation process
or working out corresponding documents, but they should not be
expected to impose their decision. This third principle presupposes
presence of certain atmosphere of trust among the parties to the
conflict without which there can be no consensus.

At first sight, the parties to the conflict undertook the obligation
of meeting these principles because otherwise settlement is really out
of the question. However, it is only at first sight. At a closer look
it becomes clear that even in these issues the sides keep to
diametrically different approaches. Let’s consider them in order.

Through Peaceful Settlement

With their accession to the Council of Europe both Armenia and
Azerbaijan undertook such an obligation. Moreover, this obligation was
one of the main conditions for CE membership.

It is common knowledge that Europeans do not like to accept the
membership of the countries that are carriers of potential threat of
military operations and regional conflicts. By the way, it may be put
the other way: the membership of Armenia and Azerbaijan in the Council
of Europe was conditioned by the intention of preventing resumption of
military operations in the region (we should not forget Baku-Ceyhan
pipeline, the investments and strategic programs related to it). The
cease-fire agreement, to which Armenia, Azerbaijan and MKR are
signatories, is still in force but the approaches of the sides differ
considerably.

The Armenian side, represented by both Armenia and MKR, repeatedly
emphasized its adherence to the cease-fire regime, its intention of
preserving the truce and even declared that in case of resuming
military operations, it is the initiating side that will be
defeated. To a certain extent, it may be considered a sort of an
obligation for not being the first to violate the cease-fire regime.

Official Baku has a different stance. Its representatives, up to the
Minister of Defense and President of the country repeatedly stated
that in case the negotiation process does not yield favorable results
for Baku, Azerbaijan reserves to itself the right for a military
resolution of the conflict. In fact, Azerbaijan rejects the
commitments to the Council of Europe. These statements should not be
viewed in internal perspective. There is no sense for Azerbaijani
authorities to threaten the people with a new war. These statements
are rather intended for external audience and do not pursue the goal
of killing two birds with one stone: blackmail of the international
community with the menace of war resumption and regional
destabilization, including public opinion poll in case Azerbaijan
really resorts to restarting military operations. In the second case,
the leadership of official Baku was repeatedly notified on the highest
level about all the consequences that might ensue for Azerbaijan with
the war resumed. However stating that constant blackmail leaves no
consequences is hardly the right way to go.

Willingness for Compromise

Herein as well no identical approaches may be considered. The position
of the Armenian side is obvious. President Kocharian in person stated
many times that the Armenian side in Key West was ready for the
greatest concession Yerevan and Stepanakert might afford:
reconsideration of the results of military operations between
Azerbaijan and MKR in 1992-1994, that is ceding to Azerbaijan a number
of territories presently controlled by the Armenian side. The
willingness of the Armenian side for return of Azerbaijani refugees
and other `trifles’ of similar kind is also evident. It is clear that
the Armenian share of `mutual compromise’ notion is defined by
official Yerevan quite unambiguously despite negative response of
public opinion towards this approach. At least the recent press
publications of the polls confirmed the latter.

However, it is quite difficult to understand what the Azerbaijani side
means by `mutual compromise’. Ilham Aliev speaks only of the
necessity for restoring territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, meaning
the borders of Soviet Azerbaijan and the Armenian terrorism. Thus it
may be assumed that the notion of `mutual compromise’ is simply not
perceived by Azerbaijan: Baku does not intend to cede anything since
the promise for reactivating Baku-Nakhichevan rail route or the
promise for providing the Armenian side with additional guarantees for
non-resumption of military operations cannot be taken
seriously. Obviously, it is not the promises of Baku but the armed
forces of RA and MKR that are main peace guarantees for the Armenian
side.

Formula of Settlement – the Result of Mutual Efforts

Joint productive and effective work on the package of future agreement
is possible only with mutual aspiration of the sides for the
atmosphere of trust among the parties to the conflict. Moreover, it is
the peoples of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Mountainous Karabagh and not
the Foreign Ministers or personal representatives of Presidents that
are meant by the parties of the conflict. Herein, the positions of the
sides are again diametrically controversial.

If the Armenian side and official Yerevan in the first place take all
effort for development of regional cooperation, Baku is persistent in
reducing to minimum all possible contacts of its citizens with not
only MKR but Armenia as well. In case such contacts are inevitable,
they are used by official Baku to one aim: to smear Armenia and MKR by
all means possible and to impede the progress of the two countries by
urging not only `brother’ Turkey but also public, economic and
political structures of other countries to impose blockade on Armenia
and MKR.

Apparently, there is no room for optimism. Despite the lobby talks
about the progress in the meetings of Foreign Ministers and
Presidents, such objective factors promoting settlement as the
exploitation of Baku-Ceyhan pipeline in the coming year or the
forthcoming discussions about possible EU membership of Turkey,
despite all of this it is clear that even in the stage of diplomatic
settlement, the parties to the conflict demonstrate such different
approaches that the notorious `dialogue of civilizations’ becomes a
failure. The parties to the conflict are guided by different value
systems, different outlooks. So different that it is hardly possible
to talk about real prospects for settlement.

Editor’s Note: Dear readers, the next update of MediaDialogue will be
made in early Septmeber.

[15-07-2004 ‘Region’]
———————————————————————-
RUSSIA, GEORGIA SEEK TO KEEP GOOD TIES AMID CRISIS

Source : “Turkish Daily News” newspaper (Turkey) Author: Reuters

Russia and Georgia should not allow a mounting crisis over Georgia’s
breakaway region of South Ossetia to derail improving bilateral ties,
top officials from both states were quoted as saying.

The two states have engaged in an angry war of words after Georgia’s
nationalist President Mikhail Saakashvili — who recently subdued
another independent-minded region, Adzhara — launched the latest
drive to restore control over South Ossetia.

Russia accuses Georgia of violating a peace deal, which ended bloody
conflict in South Ossetia in 1992, and trying to trigger a military
confrontation. Georgia in turn accuses Russian peacekeepers in the
region of siding with separatists.

“Unfortunately, the conflict has become part of our relations, thought
not the central part,” Itar-Tass news agency quoted Gela Bezhuashvili,
secretary of Saakashvili’s advisory Security Council as saying.

“We should not become hostages to the conflict situation,”
Bezhuashvili told his Russian opposite number, Igor Ivanov, ahead of
trilateral talks scheduled for Wednesday in Moscow.

Long list of complaints

Russia and Georgia have prepared long lists of complaints to discuss
at the talks, which Ossetian officials will also attend.

Moscow has accused Tbilisi of covertly sending hundreds of troops to
the conflict zone in violation of the peace deal and provoking clashes
with separatists.

Georgia in turn blames Russia for supplying separatists with weapons
and giving them political support. It also accuses Russia of turning a
blind eye to hundreds of armed volunteers pouring in from its
territory to assist the Ossetians.

The situation came close to a climax last weekend when Russians said
peacekeepers in the area had the right to use force to impose peace
and Georgians said they were prepared to use arms to repel a Russian
aggression.

Ivanov said he hoped Wednesday’s talks would ease the confrontation.

“In the past months relations between Georgia and Russia have become
increasingly dynamic,” Interfax news agency quoted him as telling
Bezhuashvili. “This creates good grounds to solve problems, which
have been mounting for years.”

Saakashvili, now on a visit to Britain to drum up support for his
drive to restore control over South Ossetia and another breakaway
region, Abkhazia, said he is counting on Putin to personally
intervene.

“I count on the pragmatism and reasonable approach of President
Putin,” he told a news conference in London.

Last November Putin sent Ivanov to Tbilisi to persuade veteran
President Eduard Shevardnadze to leave peacefully in the face of a
coup staged by Saakashvili and his supporters.

In May Ivanov flew on Putin’s orders to the Adzhara region, which
Moscow had backed, to persuade regional strongman Aslan Abashidze to
resign. Abashidze fled to Moscow on Ivanov’s plane.

But analysts predict Putin may find it harder to compromise on South
Ossetia. More than half of ethnic Ossetians — who form the majority
of the population — have Russian passports and relatives living in
the Russian province of North Ossetia.

[12-07-2004 ‘Karabagh Conflict’]
———————————————————————-
ARMENIA WILL NOT CEDE US A SINGLE REGION
Source : “Zerkalo” newspaper (Azerbaijan)
Author: M. Yasharoglu

Political scientist Vafa Guluzade thinks it absurd to discuss the
application of the Cyprus option to Karabagh problem resolution.

Today both Azerbaijani and international political scientists are
engaged in a hot discussion of the possibility for applying the Cyprus
issue to the settlement of Mountainous Karabagh conflict provoked by
Armenian occupation of 20% of Azerbaijani territories. Media also pay
adequate attention to the discussion of this issue. In the
conversation with `Zerkalo’ correspondent vice state advisor,
political scientist Vafa Guluzade noted that despite numerous
discussions in the media, nobody explained to the society what lies
under Cyprus option.

– From Turkish perspective, Kofi Annan’s plan on joint accession of
the two Cyprus communities in the European Union has failed. If Turkey
has accepted this option, it means a failure for the latter as
well. The Turks were humiliated by the accession of only the Greek
part of the island to the EU. In case of implementation of Kofi
Annan’s plan, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus would cease to
exist, Turkey would lose its military presence on the island and the
Turkish population would be in the minority. Turkey itself is not a
part of EU and nobody is going to let it in.

Thus, it turned out that both Cyprus and Greece would be EU members
and Turkey would not gain any advantage. It is a no less significant
factor that Europe promised to lift the blockade of Northern Cyprus
and allegedly intended to allocate financial assistance for its
development amounting to 260 million Euros. However, subsequent events
showed that nobody intended to lift the embargo of Northern Cyprus and
the discussion on the mentioned sum proved to be empty talk.

– What does that option mean for Azerbaijan?

– It might imply joint annexation of Mountainous Karabagh and Lachin
to Armenia and return of Azerbaijani `minority’, reduced to this
plight by the Soviet authorities, to Mountainous Karabagh. That is,
Azerbaijanis of Mountainous Karabagh will get some autonomy as a part
of Armenia. There can be no other interpretation of the Cyprus option.
Thus application of the Cyprus option to Azerbaijan is simply
absurd. We may only consider liberation of Karabagh territories from
Armenian occupation and return of Mountainous Karabagh to the
sovereignty of Azerbaijan. Any other proposals for settling the
conflict using Cyprus, Maldiv or Folkland options are all absurd.

– Will Azerbaijani authorities be able to stand firm on this issue in
the face of Western pressure whose demands for more concessions on our
part increase daily?

– The current authorities of Azerbaijan should have it clear that in
case of ceding the Azerbaijani territories to Armenia, all our
population will be against it. I don’t think the authorities will be
able to resist their own people. The power representatives are also a
part of the people.

There is an on-going fuss for over 10 years, particularly increasing
since 1999 – what dressing should be provided for the return of
Azerbaijani territories to Armenia? It is also called liberation of 9
regions. What does that mean? What 9 regions? Will Shushi region also
be liberated? What they mean is liberation of occupied territories
around Mountainous Karabagh in exchange for its annexation to Armenia,
including Lachin as well. We need to ask directly – Does Azerbaijani
people accept it? In case of its agreement, it is a
possibility. However, I am confident that no single Azerbaijani will
accept it.

I hold that Americans are absolutely unaware of Karabagh problem,
similarly to Western Europeans. They think Azerbaijan does not lose
much in ceding these territories to Armenia and that we should do that
by all means. Why should Azerbaijan cede its legal territories is not
in any way explained, even on our part. No one raises this issue. It
is only various options that are discussed. There can be no options in
this case. Either we restore our sovereignty or say farewell to
Mountainous Karabagh and Lachin for the sake of liberating six
territories.

Unlike us, Armenians have a clear stance. When discussing the
Mountainous Karabagh status, it may be interpreted in the following
way – granting independence to Mountainous Karabagh or annexation of
these territories to Armenia. They do not accept a high level of
autonomy so profoundly discussed by ex-President of Azerbaijan. This
fact needs to be explained to everybody. It might be much better if
media addressed a concrete issue instead of articles on empty options
and solutions. It is not options but our territories that we need.

You see, when in office as a state adviser we discussed all the
options. All of them were initially still-born. From the very outset
they were rejected by us because they implied ceding Mountainous
Karabagh. We mean all the previously proposed options.

– What do you think, will we have to freeze the conflict and stop
negotiations before reaching the decision to win our territories back?

– We should voice our clear position all over the world that we will
never reconcile with losing Mountainous Karabagh by any reason. All
are to know that we will strive for restoring our sovereignty over
Mountainous Karabagh. It should be emphasized as well that it is
Russia that raised either Karabagh, Abkhaz, Ajar or all similar
problems on post-Soviet space. We should always have them remember it.

USA should also understand that we will not accept any option of
unfair settlement of the conflict even if this will meet the oil
interests of the White House. Such an attempt for settlement will
destabilize the situation in the region and will threaten American
interests. Americans, reluctant to get deeper into anything and
viewing themselves as power, should be informed about it somehow. The
notions of truth and justice should be driven in their brains.

—
Yerevan Press Club of Armenia, ‘Yeni Nesil’ Journalists’ Union of
Azerbaijan and Association of Diplomacy Correspondents of Turkey
present ‘Armenia-Azerbaijan-Turkey: Journalist Initiative-2002’
Project. As a part of the project web site has
been designed, featuring the most interesting publications from the
press of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey on issues of mutual
concern. The latest updates on the site are weekly delivered to the
subscribers.