Author: Kafian Jirair

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
April 18, 2005, Monday

A STRANGE INSPECTION

SOURCE: Rossiiskiye Vesti, No. 13, April 14-20, 2005, p. 8

by Arif Ikramov

Slovenia’s Foreign Minister Dimitrij Rupel, who is acting OSCE
president, has visited Baku. He again called for speeding up the talks
on settlement of the Karabakh problem. According to reports from the
media agencies based in Baku, Rupel faced a chilling reception in
this city. He didn’t propose any breakthrough decisions to solve the
inveterate conflict. Rotation is taking place at this post annually
and each OSCE president has only paid a familiarization visit, writes
the Zerkalo newspaper.

A short, but tempestuous diplomatic story of the Karabakh conflict
indicates that despite OSCE’s direct involvement in this process,
no decisions are available. Setting up the Minsk OSCE Group is the
main result; this process is only functioning because such large
powers like the USA, France and Russia are leading it. Many political
consultants in Baku hold this opinion.

Nevertheless, the situation in the conflict zone remains tense. The
talks between the sides have become more frequent, as well as the
propagandistic war. Some Western and Russian analysts presume that
serious complications are to come on the “Karabakh front” in the near
future, not because something extraordinary is taking place. Some of
them suspect that at the expense of Karabakh the conflicting parties
are trying to solve their internal problems. This might be the reason
why Rupel stated that OSCE has worked out remarks concerning the
democratization of elections in Azerbaijan.

Of course, these remarks are presented like recommendations. However,
presumes Arzu Abdulayeva, co-chairperson of the Helsinki Group, OSCE
begins linking the situation in Karabakh to the internal processes
in Azerbaijan and Armenia, since elections are coming up in both
states. If the forecast of this Azerbaijani political analysts
has real underlying, the time is right to speak about OSCE’s policy
of double standards in the Caucasus, when the concern for Karabakh
screens sheer targets of conducting so-called “color revolutions”
in Baku and Yerevan.

EurasiaNet Organization
April 18 2005

INTERNATIONAL MEDIATORS SEE NEW OPPORTUNITY FOR KARABAKH SETTLEMENT
Emil Danielyan 4/18/05

French, Russian and US diplomats, acting under the aegis of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Minsk Group,
are guardedly optimistic about the latest push to resolve the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Their optimism is reinforced by the
Armenian government’s apparent efforts in recent weeks to prepare
public opinion for major concessions to Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov and his Armenian
counterpart Vardan Oskanian held “proximity talks” with Minsk Group
officials in London on April 15. The discussions sought to finalize
details of a summit meeting between the Azerbaijani and Armenian
presidents sometime in May. International mediators believe those talks
could prove crucial in breaking the existing stalemate in the Karabakh
peace process. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

In a rare joint statement timed to coincide with London talks, the
mediators declared that the protracted peace process has entered a
“sensitive juncture, where a first step towards an agreement mediated
by the [Minsk Group] Co-Chairs could be at hand in the framework of
the discussions between the parties.” At the same time, the Minsk
Group co-chairs expressed concern about increased ceasefire violations
along the Armenian-Azerbaijani frontline east of Karabakh, warning
that renewed fighting would be “disastrous” for both South Caucasus
neighbors. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Participants have remained tight-lipped, declining to speak about the
substance of the discussions. The Armenian Foreign Ministry said only
that they focused on preparations for the meeting between Presidents
Robert Kocharian of Armenia and Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan. It
is expected to take place in mid-May. Mammadyarov told Radio Free
Europe-Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) that the talks were “productive,” adding
that more discussions were needed “to bring the positions of the two
countries closer together.” Armenian and Azerbaijani diplomats are
expected to hold another round of discussions in Frankfurt on April 27.

Yuri Merzlyakov, the Russian co-chair of the Minsk Group, said earlier
that the two foreign ministers would be presented with new peace
proposals drawn up by the mediating troika. He indicated that Aliyev
and Kocharian should personally discuss and pass judgment on those
proposals. “The co-chairs believe that there needs to be a political
decision at the highest level,” Merzlyakov told RFE/RL.

This might explain why the Minsk Group statement urged the
conflicting parties to “prepare their populations for a balanced
negotiated agreement that will require compromise on both sides.”
Official Yerevan appears to be doing just that, with Defense Minister
Serge Sarkisian, Kocharian’s most powerful lieutenant, taking center
stage in the effort.

“The conflict’s resolution will indeed be painful for both the Armenian
and Azerbaijani peoples because mutual compromise means giving up
some of what you have,” he told parliamentary hearings on Karabakh
on March 30. Speaking to journalists a few days later, Sarkisian,
who commanded Karabakh Armenian forces during their victorious war
with Azerbaijan, derided hard-line nationalist groups opposed to any
compromise with Azerbaijan. “Do we want another war?” he asked. “Did
we lose few of our boys, our comrades [during the first war]?”

Kocharian likewise publicly stated on April 13 that Armenian
concessions on Karabakh are “inevitable.” One of those concessions is
his administration’s obvious retreat from its demands for a so-called
“package” peace accord that would settle all contentious issues at
once. During the Karabakh conflict’s “hot” phase – from 1992-94 –
Armenian forces occupied broad swaths of Azerbaijani territory that
surround the enclave. Yerevan, along with Karabakh Armenian leaders,
have for years insisted that the return of the Armenian-occupied land
is impossible without a determination of Karabakh’s status — the main
bone of contention. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

Azerbaijan, meanwhile, wants a step-by-step solution to the territorial
dispute, in which a determination on Karabakh’s status would be
indefinitely postponed until after the return of occupied Azerbaijani
lands, the restoration of economic ties between Armenia and Azerbaijan,
as well as other confidence-building measures.

Armenian leaders indicate that they are now ready to accept
the step-by-step formula so long as they get other international
guarantees of continued Armenian control over Karabakh. Sarkisian
noted in his parliamentary testimony that this could include a
formal pledge by the international community to hold a referendum
of independence in Karabakh. It also could include an international
guarantee that Azerbaijan would refrain from undertaking offensive
military operations.

Speaking in Yerevan on April 6, Russia’s former chief Karabakh
negotiator and a staunch advocate of the gradual settlement, Vladimir
Kazimirov, said: “Whereas in the past the Armenians were saying,
‘Package, package and nothing other than package,’ it looks as though
they are now considering a phased options as well.”

The new peace proposals are thus widely thought to be based on the
phased strategy of conflict resolution which was embraced by Armenia’s
former president, Levon Ter-Petrosian. He was forced to resign in
February 1998 after publicly advocating a step-by-step Minsk Group
plan rejected by key members of his government, including then Prime
Minister Kocharian.

Ter-Petrosian allies now say time has proved the ex-president right.
“They (the current Armenian leadership) have already abandoned their
‘victorious’ policies and … reverted to our concept of conflict
resolution without shying away from repeating our arguments,” one of
them, former parliament speaker Babken Ararktsian, told the Yerevan
daily “Haykakan Zhamanak” on April 12.

Negotiators have come close to striking a deal on Karabakh on several
past occasions, most recently during the Key West peace conference
in April 2001. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. But
last-minute disagreements and other snags always scuttled the signing
of a formal treaty. Observers therefore caution that, despite the
building optimism, the discussions could collapse yet again.

Oskanian, the Armenian Foreign Minister, guarded against excessive
expectations from the latest push for Karabakh peace as he met
reporters ahead of the London talks. The conflicting parties, he said,
have reached general understandings about the course of the peace
process. “But when we go into details, we see that our positions are
still very far apart,” he said.

Editor’s Note: Emil Danielyan is a Yerevan-based journalist and
political analyst.

Armenian peacekeepers leave for Kosovo

Arminfo
15 Apr 05

YEREVAN

A new contingent of 34 Armenian peacekeepers under the command of
Senior Lt Ruben Papyan left for Kosovo today.

Eighteen of the 34 peacekeepers who left for Kosovo today are
participating in the mission for the second time. They implemented
their peacekeeping mission as part of the platoon which served in
Kosovo from February 2004, Armenian Deputy Defence Minister Lt-Gen
Artur Agabekyan told a news conference today.

Some of the peacekeepers who have been to Kosovo are preparing to go
to Iraq, the deputy defence minister said.

Expanding on the subject of Iraq, he noted that the leadership of the
Armenian Defence Ministry is maintaining constant contact with the
Armenian contingent of 46 people (doctors, sappers, signallers and
drivers) who are implementing their peacekeeping duty in that country.

The deputy defence minister spoke in detail about the work of the
Armenian military doctors saying that they are working in an army
hospital and rendering the necessary medical assistance both to the
local population and to peacekeepers serving in Iraq.

To recap, the second group of Armenian servicemen who had served in
Kosovo since 8 September 2004 returned to Yerevan last night.

[Passage omitted: Details]

Agence France Presse
13 avril 2005 mercredi 1:36 PM GMT

Génocide arménien: Ankara propose à Erevan la création d’une commission

ANKARA

La Turquie a récemment adressé une lettre à l’Arménie proposant la
création d’une commission conjointe afin d’enquêter sur les massacres
des Arméniens de 1915, a déclaré mercredi le ministre des affaires
étrangères Abdullah Gul.

Cette lettre du Premier ministre turc Recep Tayyip Erdogan a été
adressée au président arménien Robert Kotcharian, a-t-il dit,
indiquant que la mise en place de cette commission constituera un
premier pas vers la normalisation des relations avec l’Arménie.

M. Gul s’exprimait lors d’un premier débat au Parlement turc sur les
événements qui se sont produits entre 1915 et 1917, pendant les
dernière années de l’empire ottoman, et que la Turquie refuse de
qualifier de “génocide”.

“Nous les avons informés que si notre proposition était acceptée,
nous serons prêts à négocier avec l’Arménie sur la façon dont cette
commission sera mise en place et comment elle fonctionnera. Une telle
initiative contribuera à la normalisation des liens entre les deux
pays”, a précisé le ministre.

La Turquie a reconnu l’Arménie à son indépendance en 1991 mais sans
établir de relations diplomatiques en raison du profond différend sur
le génocide. La frontière entre les deux pays est fermée depuis 1993.

M. Gul a appelé la communauté internationale à exercer des pressions
sur Erevan pour qu’elle accepte la proposition turque.

Il a répété la position turque et affirmé que l’administration
ottomane n’avait jamais ordonné une extermination systématique et
massive de la population arménienne sur son territoire.

“La Turquie est en paix avec son histoire dont elle est fière”,
a-t-il encore dit, dénonçant le fait que les “tragédies vécues entre
musulmans et non-musulmans soient exploitées à des fins politiques”.

Les massacres et les déportations d’Arméniens ont fait entre 1,2
million et 1,3 million de morts, selon les Arméniens, et jusqu’à
300.000 morts selon les Turcs.

La Turquie reconnaît que des massacres ont été perpétrés et que de
nombreux Arméniens sont morts de fatigue, de maladie ou d’attaques
commises notamment par des bandes kurdes lors de leur déportation
vers la Syrie, province ottomane.

Mais elle affirme qu’il s’agissait d’une répression dans un empire en
déclin contre une population coupable de collaboration avec l’ennemi
russe dans un contexte de guerre et que des dizaines de milliers de
Turcs ont été tués au même moment par des rebelles nationalistes
arméniens.

“Les bandes arméniennes ont poignardé les troupes ottomanes dans le
dos (…) En se soulevant, elles ont facilité l’occupation russe” des
provinces de l’est, a expliqué M. Gul.

Pour étayer la thèse qu’il ne s’agissait en aucun cas d’un génocide,
M. Gul a expliqué que les Arméniens des zones occidentales du pays,
dont Istanbul, n’avaient pas été soumis à un exode forcé.

Le ministre s’en est aussi pris à plusieurs pays, dont la France, qui
ont reconnu dans leurs parlements les tueries d’Arméniens comme un
génocide.

Ces décisions “n’apportent aucune contribution à nos relations avec
l’Arménie”, a-t-il ajouté.

EurasiaNet Organization
April 13 2005

EURASIA INSIGHT

RUMSFELD’S BAKU TRIP STIRS CONTROVERSY
Alman Talyshli 4/13/05

“Rumsfeld is interested in oil!” read a headline in the April 12
edition of the popular daily Echo. The April 12 visit of the Pentagon
chief to Azerbaijan was a natural target for local media hungry for
sensational news. But not only the press is looking for answers.
Rumsfeld’s visit took place under extreme secrecy, with limited
public information, leaving many local analysts and pundits to
speculate about the reasons for the US secretary of defense’s trip,
the third such visit in the past 15 months.

Most observers look to the issue of US military bases in Azerbaijan
as a possible cause. Last year, considerable speculation focused on
the possibility that worsening relations between Washington and
Tehran would push the American military to seek bases in Azerbaijan,
Iran’s northern neighbor, in preparation for any possible attack on
the Islamic Republic. Although the White House has since opted for
diplomatic negotiations to deal with Iran’s nuclear energy program,
many Middle East experts continue to believe that military force
remains an ongoing option.

The Pentagon and US Azerbaijan embassy web sites contained no
information on Rumsfeld’s one-day visit to Baku, and Azerbaijani
officials preferred to keep their explanations general. The purpose
of the defense secretary’s visit, Ali Hasanov, head of the
presidential administration’s political department, told the ANS
television news station on April 10, “is to hold new discussions on
the principles of cooperation between Azerbaijan and the USA in the
sphere of security and [to] solve problems present in this sphere.”
Hasanov also emphasized Azerbaijan’s role in the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization’s Partnership for Peace program, citing
Rumsfeld’s participation “in cooperation issues implemented within
the framework of NATO.”

But, given the recent redeployment of US military forces from
Germany, some Azerbaijani observers take a different view.
Independent military expert Uzeyir Jafarov, in an April 9 interview
with Echo, stated that Rumsfeld was coming to Baku to get a final
answer about establishment of a US military base in Azerbaijan.
Jafarov added that he believed the answer would be positive, and
could come as early as mid-April. Pro-government political figures
such as Jumshid Nuriyev, former head of Azerbaijan’s customs service,
however, disagree with Jafarov, and have argued that Azerbaijan would
never agree to its territory being used for an attack on Iran, a
country with which Azerbaijan shares close cultural and historical
ties.

Analysts’ views on the chances for a US military presence in
Azerbaijan coincide with shifts in Pentagon plans for deployment of
US forces. In a February 2004 visit to Uzbekistan, for example,
Rumsfeld outlined the concept of “operating sites” in Asia that would
allow the US and its allies “to periodically and intermittently have
access and support.” In times of crisis, these “sites,” usually
manned by small groups of personnel, could be expanded to handle
larger numbers of troops and supplies.

Recent statements from Pentagon officials about strategic needs in
the Caspian Sea region appear grounded in this “rapid reaction”
strategy. General James Jones, commander of US troops in Europe,
confirmed in recent congressional testimony the Pentagon’s interest
in creating a special “Caspian guard” that would protect the Caspian
Sea’s oil infrastructure as well as the nearly finished
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline. The Wall Street Journal on April 11
reported that the US plans to spend $100 million on such a “Caspian
guard” capable of responding to crisis situations in the Caspian Sea
region, home to one of the world’s largest reservoirs of oil. This
would include the development of a command center in Baku,
responsible for monitoring ships in the Caspian Sea.

Most analysts believe any kind of American military base in
Azerbaijan would have to be only of a temporary, mobile nature. In
2004, the Azerbaijani parliament adopted a law prohibiting the
stationing of foreign troops on the country’s territory, a move
widely believed to be a gesture towards Moscow and Tehran, which both
oppose any strengthening of military ties between Azerbaijan and the
US.

With that opposition in mind, President Ilham Aliyev has so far shown
restraint in addressing Azerbaijan’s military cooperation with
Washington. Though expected to meet with Rumsfeld, Aliyev instead
departed April 12 on a two-day visit to Pakistan.

Meanwhile, Azerbaijani opposition parties have speculated that
Rumsfeld’s visit also carried a political message. Upcoming
parliamentary elections in November 2005 promise to be heated, and
some media outlets, such as ANS TV, have argued that official
Washington would close its eyes to the Aliyev administration’s
progress with democratic reforms – and with them, any potential
election falsifications – if Azerbaijan would agree to deployment of
US military forces in the country. Pro-government members of
parliament have also not stopped short of charging that recent
closed-door meetings by US Ambassador Reno L. Harnish with regional
opposition leaders make up part of the Pentagon’s negotiation scheme.

In his April 12 interview with ANS, Ali Hasanov rejected these
rumors. “America is a democratic country and would never try to
impose its interests on others,” Hasanov said. “We are a sovereign
state and have our own interests, too.”

Editor’s Note: Alman Talyshli is a freelance political analyst in
Baku.

Turkish press
April 13 2005

Turkish Parliament Sends Letter To Britain On Armenian Claims

ANKARA – Turkish parliament sent on Wednesday a letter to British
House of Commons and House of Lords regarding the so-called Armenian
genocide allegations.

The letter was signed by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
and Deniz Baykal, the leader of the main opposition Republican
People’s Party (CHP).

Demanding that the ”Blue Book” should be declared invalid and
baseless as a historical document, the letter said, ”the Blue Book
was used as an ethic ground for dreadful terrorist crimes committed
by Armenian genocide justice commandos and ASALA.”

The letter also demanded that the fact should be declared that the
book entitled ”Treatment towards Armenians in the Ottoman Empire
between 1915-1916” was actually a tool for propaganda prepared by
the British War Propaganda Office during the World War I.

Noting that the ”Blue Book” did not include words of other sources,
the letter said, ”the Blue Book did not touch on killing of tens of
thousands of Muslims by Armenian rebellions in eastern Anatolia.”

The letter pointed out that the ”Blue Book” did not say that
hundreds of thousands of Armenians who were outside the war area
continued to live in peace and stability.

The ”Blue Book” did neither mention killing of Ottoman officials,
cutting of communication lines, mass killing of Turks in (eastern
city of) Van, and forced migration of more than one million Muslims
from their homes by the Russians and Armenians, the letter said.

The letter stated that a decision made by Malta Court in 1921
indirectly declared that the documents and claims in the ”Blue
Book” were baseless.

VIKTOR DALLAKIAN RESPONDS TO RA PRESIDENT’S STATEMENTS

YEREVAN, APRIL 13, NOYAN TAPAN. “Having many complexes because of mass
falsifications during the elections and voilence he tried to give
advice to opposition. The attempts of former head of Party Committee
of silk complex to represent himself as a reformator of western type,
to represent the uzurpation of power in 1998 as change of generations
are also comical,” Viktor Dallakian, Secretary of Ardarutiun (Justice)
faction, declared during the April 12 RA NA sitting touching upon RA
President Robert Kocharian’s statement during his meeting with
students. The MP didn’t agree to Robert Kocharian’s estimation,
according to which the country’s export has always exceeded import
during the recent years. Taking official statistical data as a basis
the MP said that indeed import exceeds export twice. In connection
with President’s another statement that big tax-payers formed 54% of
budget in 2004 the MP reminded the IMF’s annual report, according to
which this index makes only 23%, shady economy 75%. The goal of
Kocharian’s meeting was to prove that there are no preconditions for
power shift in Armenia. The fact that Kocharian compared Armenia with
the countires where power shift took place proves his horror before
the national movement,” V.Dallakian concluded.

A1plus

| 16:51:15 | 13-04-2005 | Politics |

THE AGENDA OF THE ARMENIAN AND AZERBAIJANI PRESIDENTS’ MEETING CLEARED OUT

During the meetings in Moscow and Warsaw the leaders of Armenia and
Azerbaijan will firstly discuss the problems of eliminating the results of
the war.

According to the internet newspaper day.az, the main themes of the meetings,
however, will be the creation of the security zone, the mutual guarantees
and the return of the refugees to their living places. If certain agreement
is reached about the mentioned issues, the sides will discuss the problem of
the Nagorno Karabakh status.

During the meeting on April 15 in London the Foreign Ministers will once
again clear out the agenda of the Presidents’ meeting.

A1plus

| 18:06:33 | 12-04-2005 | Politics |

DIPLOMATIC HARUTYUNYAN

Justice Minister David Harutyunyan said he will not take part in the round
dance organized by Nig-Aparan friendly association as a minister. As for the
participation as a citizen, he has not decided yet.

To remind, during yesterday’s meeting with students of the Yerevan State
University Robert Kocharyan said he would with pleasure participate in the
event as a citizen but for the clamor that can be caused by his presence.
However he said that if the action is a success he would drink the health of
the initiators.

Today David Harutyunyan was highly diplomatic. «Our people is such; we
should drink the health of all – the residents of Aparan, Yerevan, Karabakh
or Ijevan», he said.

To remind, Nig-Aparan friendly association is headed by RA Prosecutor
General Aghvan Hovsepyan.

AZG Armenian Daily #065, 13/04/2005

Home

40 MILLION AMD FOR SOCIAL WORKS

Kamo Areyan, deputy Yerevan mayor, informed the journalists that this year
40 million AMD were allocated for the Donation for Work program that is
annually carried out in the communities. According to the volume of the
submitted work, the financial sources will be divided among 12 communities
of the capital. The Yerevan Municipality decided to rename the program into
Paid Social Work.

By Karine Danielian