EU Rejects 190 Billion Euro Bailout For Eastern Europe

EU REJECTS 190 BILLION EURO BAILOUT FOR EASTERN EUROPE

PanARMENIAN.Net
02.03.2009 11:27 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ German Chancellor Angela Merkel and other EU leaders
have flatly rejected a new multibillion euro (dollar) bailout for
Eastern Europe, suggesting that additional aid be given to struggling
nations only on a case-by-case basis.

Germany and the Netherlands also shot down suggestions at the
one-day EU summit that Eastern European countries that have seen
their currencies plummet be given a quick entry to the euro, which
has remained strong against the U.S. dollar and Japanese yen. But
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the EU could look at reviewing
the stringent euro currency membership criteria and two-year waiting
period once the global economic crisis ends.

Germany, the region’s largest economy, has been under rising pressure
to take the lead in rescuing Eastern EU members staggering from
sinking currencies, shrinking demand for exports and rising debt,
but Chancellor Angela Merkel insisted a one-size-fits-all bailout
was unwise.

"Saying that the situation is the same for all central and eastern
European states, I don’t see that," Merkel said Sunday, adding
"you cannot compare" the dire situation in Hungary with that of
other countries.

That tough stance came even as Hungarian Prime Minister Ferenc
Gyurcsany warned that the global credit crunch was creating a widening
economic chasm in the 27-nation bloc which threatened to rend Europe.

Noting that eastern members were being hit the hardest, he suggested
setting up an EU fund of up to â~B¬190 billion ($241 billion) to help
restore trust and solvency in eastern members.

"We should not allow that a new Iron Curtain should be set up and
divide Europe," Gyurcsany told reporters.

Eight other EU nations had joined Hungary in vowing to pressure richer
members to back up vague pledges of support with action – Poland,
Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania and the three Baltic
states. But Hungary’s plan was quickly shot down by Germany and others,
who balked at the costs.

EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said Eastern European
countries already were getting billions in emergency rescue funds and
loans from the EU, the World Bank and other financial institutions
and did not need a sweeping new bailout plan.

He said the EU has â~B¬25 billion ($32 billion) in reserve to help
member nations. It already gave â~B¬9.6 billion of that to Hungary
and Latvia, the first EU government to fail because of the global
economic turmoil.

Gyurcsany acknowledged that other EU leaders had questioned his plan
but insisted they would study it. "If you are speaking about Europe
and you are facing this type of complicated challenge, you have
to respond in a way not just concentrating on independent nations,
but some regions as well," he said.

Gyurcsany said Eastern EU countries could need up to â~B¬300 billion
($380 billion), or 30 percent of the region’s gross domestic product
this year. He warned that failure to offer bigger bailouts "could
lead to massive contractions" in eastern economies and "large-scale
defaults" that would affect Europe as a whole because of political
unrest and immigration pressures.

Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, who chaired Sunday’s talks,
promised that the EU would not leave any nation "in the lurch."

Some EU nations – notably Hungary, Poland and the Baltic countries
of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – had urged the bloc to consider
making it easier to join the euro currency. The 16-nation currency
has so far proved a stable financial anchor in turbulent markets.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said his country did not support
changes in criteria for joining the euro, but said it favors shortening
the time prospective members are required to stay in an exchange rate
mechanism, which demands low and controlled inflation, healthy public
finances and a budget deficit below 3 percent of GDP.

Current rules set out a minimum two-year waiting period. "This is
not a Polish initiative, but we would welcome it," Tusk said.

Other EU states said existing economic requirements for joining the
shared currency should not be relaxed.

Dutch Premier Jan Peter Balkenende joined Merkel in rejecting
a "softening" of euro membership criteria that would allow
weaker economies to join and possibly damage the strength of the
currency. Balkenende said if a nation wants to join "it must meet
the minimum economic criteria."

Sunday’s EU summit was the first of three high-level talks EU leaders
have planned to forge a common strategy to combat the worsening
recession. Yet vague statements issued by the leaders hardly appeared
to amount to a unified stance.

French and German leaders made separate calls for more EU funds to
keep European car makers alive and insisted those subsidies would
not be protectionist.

Merkel and Sarkozy called EU subsidy guidelines too stingy and said
they needed to be updated. Sarkozy welcomed EU regulators’ approval
of France’s â~B¬7 billion ($8.95 billion) in loans for Renault and
Peugeot Citroen PSA, which came only after France said it would not
require the two to buy from French suppliers or safeguard jobs at
French plants, the IHT reports.

Hayastan All-Armenian Fund publishes names of philanthropists suppor

PanARMENIAN.Net

Hayastan All-Armenian Fund publishes names of philanthropists
supporting Armenia and NKR
28.02.2009 12:11 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Hayastan All-Armenian Fund has published the names
of philanthropists, who rendered financial assistance to Armenia and
NKR in 2008 and assured that the means will be spent to fill the
homeland’s needs.

The Fund also informed that the amount of donations from Armenian
citizens has quintupled.

Edward Nalbandyan: Armenia Highly Appreciates Warm And Mutually Bene

EDWARD NALBANDYAN: ARMENIA HIGHLY APPRECIATES WARM AND MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL RELATIONS WITH LEBANON

ArmInfo
2009-02-26 12:24:00

ArmInfo. Armenia highly appreciates warm and mutually beneficial
relations with Lebanon, Foreign Minister of Armenia Edward Nalbandyan
said at yesterday’s meeting with President of Lebanon Michel Suleiman
in Beirut.

As the Armenian presidential press service reports, M. Suleiman
said the Lebanese people feels special sympathy to the Armenian
people. According to M. Suleiman, he highly appreciates the existing
close friendly relations between the two countries that are also
contributed by the Armenian community of Lebanon. The president asked
to pass his kind wishes and welcome to his Armenian counterpart Serzh
Sargsyan. For his part, E. Nalbandyan passed S. Sargsyan’s message of
welcome to L. Suleiman and an invitation to visit Armenia. The minister
said Armenia highly appreciates the warm and mutually beneficial
relations with Lebanon, moreover, an Agreement of friendship has been
signed between Armenia and Lebanon.

The parties exchanged opinions on the prospects of development of
bilateral Armenian- Lebanese relations, discussed the processes in the
Near East and South Caucasus, the opportunities of conflict settlement,
as well as the steps towards strengthening of stability and security
in Lebanon.

On the same day, E. Nalbandyan met Chairman of the Lebanese
parliament Nabih Berri. The latter highly appreciated the
two countries’ cooperation in different spheres and said the
parliament will make additional efforts for further development
of the relations. The parties discussed the ways of activating the
interparliamentary relations, as well as emphasized the importance
of the parliamentarians’ visit exchange and promotion of the activity
of the interparliamentary friendship groups.

Investments In South Caucasus Railways To Total 2.8 Billion Rubles I

INVESTMENTS IN SOUTH CAUCASUS RAILWAYS TO TOTAL 2.8 BILLION RUBLES IN 2009

PanARMENIAN.Net
25.02.2009 16:52 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ South Caucasus Railways Director General Shevket
Shaydulin said that investments in the South Caucasus Railways will
total 2.8 billion rubles in 2009.

"The initial condition of the railway is satisfactory, yet labor
productivity and infrastructure of the South Caucasus Railways yield
to those in neighbor states," he told a news conference in Yerevan.

"The company works under strong competitive pressure," he said, adding
that rail traffic makes 29% in the Armenian cargo transportation
system, while motor transportation exceeds 54%.

Touching on personnel selection, Shaydulin said that the SCR is
collaborating with Gyumri technical school and a number of higher
education institutions in Armenia and Russia.

"Presently, some 200 specialists are taking a special course. They
will join our company in the near future," he said.

The Global Crisis Has Not Affected The Railway

THE GLOBAL CRISIS HAS NOT AFFECTED THE RAILWAY
Hasmik Dilanyan

"Radiolur"
25.02.2009 14:58

>From January 1, 2008, 30% of the "Armenian Railway" CJC was handed
over to the "Russian Railway" CJSC for concession management. The
"South Caucasian Railway" is an affiliate company of the "Russian
Railway." The latter has undertaken to invest 74.5 billion drams
in the sphere, 59.3 billion of which should be invested within the
coming five years.

Executive Director of the "South Caucasian Railway" Shevket Shaydulin
met with reporters today to speak about investments, turnover, and
the global economic crisis. He noted that the company’s activity
is targeted at raising the macroeconomic efficiency of the railway
transport of Armenia.

Shevket Shaydulin declared that the crisis has not affected their
activity.

Furthermore, they even offer discounts in this period. "We have already
succeeded to take a leading position in the corresponding market.

Furthermore, we compete with others. Only 10 thousand citizens used our
services in January 2008; the number has now reached 21 thousand. This
is a serious progress, which provides new opportunities for reinforcing
our positions."

First Transaction With CJSC Converse Bank’s Corporate Bonds Worth A

FIRST TRANSACTION WITH CJSC CONVERSE BANK’S CORPORATE BONDS WORTH A TOTAL OF 12.2 MLN AMD CARRIED OUT AT NASDAQ OMX ARMENIA

ArmInfo
2009-02-24 17:42:00

ArmInfo. The first transaction with CJSC Converse Bank’s corporate
bonds worth a total of 12.2 mln AMD was carried out at NASDAQ OMX
Armenia, Tuesday. As NASDAQ OMX Armenia press-service told ArmInfo,
a transaction with 397 bonds of the bank was carried out, the yield
being 10,64%, the total volume of emission – 300 mln AMD and nominal
value of each bond – 30 thsd AMD.

According to the source, during the Feb 24 trade session at NASDAQ
OMX Armenia, aggregate transactions with the corporate bonds amounted
to 242.3 mln AMD. A total of 11 transactions with 42254 corporate
bonds of 7 emitters were carried out, particularly, with the bonds
of Armenian Copper Programme (1 transaction worth 103.7 thsd AMD),
Ardshininvestbank (2 transactions worth 9.1 mln AMD), Converse Bank
(1 transaction worth 12.2 mln AMD), second-issue bonds of ELITE GROUP
(1 transaction worth 40.5 mln AMD), HSBC Bank Armenia (4 transactions
worth 178.2 mln AMD), Shen Concern (1 transaction worth 1.9 mln AMD),
and second-issue corporate bonds of Valletta company (1 transaction
worth 399.7 thsd AMD).

The leader in the amount and number of transactions is HSBC Bank
Armenia: bonds worth 178.2mln AMD appeared on the stock exchange
today with 4 transactions conducted.

To remind, Converse Bank has issued 50,000 bonds worth a total of
1.5bln AMD (30,000 AMD per bond), which will be placed gradually in
4-5 unequal tranches throughout 2009. Coupon payments will be made
quarterly. Converse Bank is among the five leading Armenian banks. It
has 25 branches. It was set up in 1993. Its shareholders are Advanced
Global Investments (95%) and the Mother See of Holy Echmiadzin.

`Turkey and Armenia nearing major breakthrough in relations’

Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Feb 22 2009

`Turkey and Armenia nearing major breakthrough in relations’

Suat KınıklıoÄ?lu , deputy chairman for
external affairs for the ruling Justice and Development Party (AK
Party), has said Turkey and Armenia are within reach of a major
breakthrough, thus an Armenian resolution at the US Congress at this
time would be "extremely detrimental" to these unprecedented efforts
for normalization.

The Armenian diaspora has already started pressuring American
politicians over the "genocide resolution," calling for it to be
brought to the floor of the US Congress. In addition, there are
concerns that US President Barack Obama may use the word "genocide" in
his statement marking April 24 — the day when Armenians commemorate
the alleged genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire during World
War I.

Kınıklıo&#xC4 ;?lu, who is also a deputy for the
AK Party, said the Armenian diaspora appears to be totally indifferent
to the Armenian government’s desire to have normalized relations with
Turkey.

"The diaspora is projecting an extremely negative influence on
Yerevan. If they manage to push this through I believe this would be a
historic example how a small ethnic diaspora subverts US national
interests and causes great harm to a delicate region," he added.

Kınıklıo& #xC4;?lu, who was in Washington, D.C.,
at the time of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip ErdoÄ?an’s walkout at
the Davos summit after an angry exchange with Israeli President Shimon
Peres over Israel’s deadly operation in Gaza last month, elaborated on
the issue and more.

You were in the United States recently. What was the purpose of your
visit?

We went to the United States with the purpose of attending a
conference on the Alliance of Civilizations, an initiative Prime
Minister ErdoÄ?an takes very seriously. I delivered a number of
speeches in Atlanta and then moved on to Washington, D.C. The primary
objective of my visit was really to engage with the new people in
Washington due to the change in administration. We aimed at discussing
the Turkish-American agenda and seeing what issues might come to the
fore under the Obama administration.

Who did you see there and what are your impressions from your trip to
Washington?

First of all, one cannot help but notice the deepening of the crisis
in the US economy. It is on everyone’s mind and President Obama was
struggling to push another financial package through Congress while we
were there. The new administration is very much preoccupied with the
economic crisis and it seems to overwhelm everything else. We met with
a number of congressmen and senators, as well as folks from the State
Department. We also met with leaders of Jewish organizations and spoke
at three events organized by think tanks. Overall we were very much
satisfied with our trip and I thought that it was extremely timely for
us to be there. Our trip, of course, coincided with the Davos
incident. In fact, we were at the CNN International headquarters in
Atlanta when we saw the breaking news on Al Jazeera first. Then, I
received a message on my Blackberry from the Anatolia news agency and
we immediately understood that something important was going on.

Future of Turkish-American partnership

So Davos was very much a part of your trip?

Indeed, it was, but we did not let that incident divert us from the
main mission of our trip. After all, we wanted to talk to our American
partners about the future of the Turkish-American partnership. I do
not think it is necessary to repeat the obvious about the last eight
years but you know the relationship has been strained very much. As
Obama won the election and began to line up a truly impressive team in
the White House and the administration in general, we wanted to get on
with our issues early on and get down to business with our partners in
Washington.

The unfortunate event at Davos has, in my opinion, made our meetings
even timelier as we obtained the opportunity to clarify our position
on the Gaza war and the miserable human tragedy there. Our meeting
with Robert Wexler, the co-chairman of the US-Turkey Caucus in the US
Congress, as well as the leaders of the Jewish organizations proved to
be very constructive. We registered their concerns and took note of
their views but respectfully disagreed on the Gaza war and the
overreaction by the Israeli government. I believe that regardless of
what the causes for the Israeli aggression in Gaza were that the war
resulted in gross human rights violations as well as the violation of
the Geneva Protocol and the Hague Convention. We were particularly
concerned by allegations about the use of white phosphorus shells in
Gaza. The US-based advocacy group Human Rights Watch also called on
Israel to stop using white phosphorus shells. I do not believe the
security of Israel, Palestine or our region has been enhanced by this
war. On the contrary, it is likely to breed more violence. That said,
our meetings were more forward-looking and aiming at containing the
tension between our countries. The leaders of the Jewish organizations
underlined that they value the relationship with Turkey and that they
do not want a break.

Lastly, we cannot overlook the fact that Prime Minister ErdoÄ?an
felt deeply offended by the fact that Prime Minister Olmert visited
Ankara and discussed the fifth round of talks between Israel and Syria
just days before the war on Gaza. In my opinion, Olmert should never
have come to Ankara. It put us in a very awkward position. After all
our efforts in the Israel-Syria talks I do not think we deserved to be
put in such a situation.

Did the issue of anti-Semitism come up?

You know Prime Minister ErdoÄ?an has condemned anti-Semitism on
a number of occasions. In fact he has called it a crime against
humanity. He is very strong on this. We do not accept the charge of
anti-Semitism. This is about concrete policy of a particular
leadership in Israel and has nothing to do with the people of Israel
or Jews throughout the world. On the contrary, Turkey has always been
very hospitable to Jews throughout history — be it in 1492 or after
World War II. We have always embraced them and these lands have been
among the rare places where Jews lived comfortably. I met many Turkish
Jews on a Foreign Affairs Committee trip in May 2008. They are fine
people trying to build a bridge between our countries; however, I have
also visited the town of Sderot near Gaza and seen the rockets fired
from Gaza. While sympathizing with the fear that the citizens of that
city feel and agreeing with them that this cannot be condoned, in no
way could the war on Gaza be justified by that. The true path to peace
in the region goes through the recognition that all parties must be
engaged in a peace process. Regrettably, the Gaza War has increased
the risk for more violence and will not enhance the security of
Israel. The graphic images of the war have been ingrained in the
subconscious of global public opinion.

What about rumors of an Armenian resolution to be brought to the US
Congress again?

While we were in Washington we were informed of a new push to bring an
Armenian resolution to the House. Of course, we are extremely upset
about the necessity to spend our energy on this issue every fall but
we are not going to let the Armenian diaspora get its way. This year,
I am particularly concerned because it would be a pity to see
Turkish-American relations severed at a time when we were preparing to
do what Obama-Biden described in their policy statement on Europe as
"rebuilding the strategic partnership with Turkey." As someone who
spent considerable time in maintaining and strengthening the
Turkish-American partnership I am most concerned with the potential
this resolution — if it is brought to the table — has to damage our
bilateral relationship. It seems totally inconsistent with the
objectives of the new administration in our region to push this
forward, but we do not know what will transpire in the coming
weeks. Secondly, the situation between Turkey and Armenia is
different. A major difference from 2007 when H.R. 106 was stopped at
the last minute is that since last summer Turkey and Armenia have been
engaged in a historic process of normalization between our
countries. We are within reach of having a major breakthrough between
Turkey and Armenia. More importantly, Azerbaijan is also on board and
this is no small achievement given the complexity of the issue. Recent
developments have the potential to turn the South Caucasus into a zone
of real peace, stability and integration. Bringing an Armenian
resolution at this time would not only be extremely detrimental to
these historic efforts but would also be interpreted as very
disrespectful to Turkey’s sincere efforts. Just as we felt offended by
the one-sided action of Israel when we were hosting the peace talks
between Israel and Syria, this would be equally detrimental. If there
is a genuine desire to have a major breakthrough in the South Caucasus
— which I know the State Department has — we need to make sure that
this irresponsible resolution will never make it to the floor.

Also, I think it would be timely to underline an important and for me
astounding fact. The Armenian diaspora appears to be totally
indifferent to the Armenian government’s desire to normalize relations
with Turkey. The diaspora is projecting an extremely negative
influence on Yerevan. All they care about is one word and that is
it. If they manage to push this through I believe this would be a
historic example of how a small ethnic diaspora subverts US national
interests and causes great harm to a delicate region. I am confident
that there are enough responsible people on all three sides to prevent
this from happening, especially when all the stars are lined up to
make a historic rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia a reality.

What about the Jewish lobby’s position on the Armenian resolution?

As you know in the past the Jewish lobby had sided with Turkey on
this, but in 2007 we saw some Jewish congressmen breaking the ranks
and switching to the Armenian side. The late Tom Lantos was a good
example. After Davos, conventional wisdom dictates that the Jewish
lobby will not oppose an Armenian resolution. I am not so sure about
that and really do not want to comment further. We will see how they
will position themselves. After all, this is their decision.

Are you hopeful for the future of the relationship between Turkey and
the United States?

Actually, I am. Despite all sorts of reasons that may point to the
contrary I believe that the tough times are behind us and that we will
be able to work together. If we can overcome the untimely nuisance of
the Armenian resolution there is good reason to be optimistic. We have
a lot of issues on our agenda ranging from Afghanistan to the
nuclearization of the region, Middle East peace process to energy
security and others. US support for Turkey’s membership drive to the
European Union will be more valuable at this time. I believe both
Turkey and the US have mutual interests which necessitate us working
together. Turkey has become a regional power and is destined to
further solidify its position in its immediate environment. As a NATO
member with a UN Security Council seat for the next two years, a G-20
member and a candidate country to the EU, Turkey has a lot to offer to
its neighborhood. Our American and European allies underline the
utility and value of our new regional posture. It is evident in almost
every aspect of our neighborhood policy, ranging from the peace talks
between Israel and Syria to the Caucasus Stability and Cooperation
Platform. We are encouraged by the positive feedback we receive from
our friends. Yet, I am somewhat concerned with some practical facts.

Some Americans should make the mental shift about Turkey

Like what?

About how much time and attention the new administration will have for
Turkey. Is Turkey policy going to be the derivative of Obama’s Middle
East policy or Iran policy or Europe policy? Or will there be a Turkey
policy on its own, which is what is needed. The economic crisis in the
US even further complicates the picture. Obama knows he needs to fix
the economy if he wants to be re-elected. Hence, I doubt that the new
administration will be able to appropriately prioritize Turkey in
their foreign policy agenda. If Turkey were to come into the picture
within the framework of the administration’s Middle East policy this
would be problematic. What we expect first is that President Obama’s
first European trip will include Ankara and that the president
emphasizes to our European partners how much he values Turkey’s
membership in the EU. This would be a marvelous start between our
great countries and a very constructive step in rebuilding the
strategic partnership. As Ambassador [Marc] Grossman used to say, the
Turkish-American relationship is not a natural relationship — it
needs constant care and attention to prosper.

What do you see as a major challenge in Turkish-American relations?

I have said for a number of years now that the primary challenge in
the relationship is the inability of some Americans to make the mental
shift about Turkey. Turkey is no longer the Cold War satellite state
which came under consideration within a purely security
outlook. Turkey has grown into something else. It is a functioning
democracy; it has a young and dynamic population and a growing
economy. Most importantly, it has growing awareness of its past and is
going through a renaissance about its Ottoman heritage. The
neighborhood policy we started to implement in 2002 has sparked an
enormous process whereby Turkey began to reintegrate with its
immediate environment — be it in the Balkans, the Black Sea, the
Caucasus, the Middle East or the eastern Mediterranean. The architect
behind this policy is Professor Ahmet DavutoÄ?lu. He articulated
it in such a manner that it blew me away when I first read his
treatise "Strategic Depth." The greatest challenge in the relationship
is to complete this mental shift and restructure our partnership
accordingly. Once you do that our American friends will see that
Turkey has become a country whose destiny has meaning way beyond its
national borders. What happens in Turkey, what is said about Turkey
and how Turkey is treated is very closely monitored by a wide
geography which includes the Middle East, the larger Muslim world and
even Southeast Asia. Turkey is a great experiment that must
succeed. My measuring stick for that success is that Turkey becomes a
full member in the European Union and is a respectable member of this
new union. The moment we have the US with us on this — I mean
acknowledging that Turkey’s fate has repercussions beyond Turkey’s
borders and therefore should be a primary concern for Washington — we
will have a great possibility to work together.

What are your thoughts on recent comments related to Turkey turning
away from the West?

Turkey’s security is enhanced by its reintegration with its
neighborhood. I would like to reiterate that our neighborhood policy
is not at the expense of our Western vocation. On the contrary, it is
complementary to it. Interpreting Turkey’s neighborhood policy as a
shift in our orientation does gross injustice to our efforts and
totally ignores the sophistication behind our regional outreach.
Turkey will be — just like the double-headed eagle symbolizing the
coat of arms of the Seljuk Turkish Empire — looking to both the East
and West. This is what our geography, our history and regional
identity dictate.

22 February 2009, Sunday
ALÄ° ASLAN KILIÃ?

Events in Khojaly (NKR) and near Agdam

Events in Khojaly (NKR) and near Agdam
on February 25-27, 1992

tml
Download Khojaly Fact Sheet

1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036, phone: (202)
223-4330
e-mail: [email protected]

Khojaly is also often spelled as
Xocali, Khojaly, Khodzhaly, Khojalu, Khocalu, Khocali, Khocaly

Azerbaijan turned Khojaly into a launch pad
for indiscriminate bombardment of Karabakh
In 1991 and early 1992, Azerbaijan used an Azeri inhabited village of
Khojaly in Nagorno Karabakh as a launching pad for indiscriminate
artillery and rocket fire on Stepanakert, the capital of the Nagorno
Karabakh Republic (NKR), located only a short 15-minute drive from
Khojaly. By the end of February 1992, intensive fire from Khojaly and
other Azeri military strongholds in Karabakh had killed 243 people,
including 14 children and 37 women, and wounded 491, including 53
children and 70 women. In addition, systematic and intense artillery
and rocket fire against civilian targets in Stepanakert paralyzed the
city, destroying hospitals, administrative buildings, schools, and
homes. By controlling Khojaly, Azerbaijan also prohibited access to
Karabakh’s airport, the only link with the outside world, which was
used to bring food and medical aid. Furthermore, Khojaly was also used
as a staging area for military offensives on Stepanakert and nearby
Armenian-populated villages. Thus, Khojaly became a legitimate military
target for S
elf-Defense Forces of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic.

Legitimate target for NKR Self-Defense Units
In early January 1992, Nagorno Karabakh authorities decided to
neutralize this military target and informed the Azeris. The NKR
authorities also transmitted this information by radio, TV,
loudspeakers, leaflets and other methods to warn the Khojaly civilian
population of the upcoming operation, giving the civilian population an
opportunity to exit the area through a safe corridor. Azerbaijan’s
leadership in Baku, as well as local authorities, and military
commanders in Khojaly knew about the corridor, its width and direction.
Both Azerbaijani President Ayaz Mutalibov and Khojaly Mayor Elman
Mamedov in their 1992 interviews confirmed this fact. During two weeks
leading to the Khojaly operation, NKR Self-Defense Forces observed a
mass exodus of the civilian population from Khojaly through the
provided corridor (see on the map).
The operation to neutralize Khojaly base of the Azeri armed forces
began at 11:00 PM on February 25 and was successfully completed within
five hours. Nagorno Karabakh forces took full control of the area,
killing dozens of military personnel during the operation.
Unfortunately, 11 civilians became unintended victims. About 700
civilians and military surrendered to NKR Self-Defense Forces. The
captured civilians were returned to Azerbaijan in the following days,
while the military personnel was later exchange for the Armenian
milit
ary prisoners and civilian hostages held by Azerbaijan.

Events on the territory controlled by Azerbaijan,
7 miles from Khojaly, after the Khojaly operation was over

Map of the Events
in Khojaly (NKR) and near Agdam (Azerbaijan)
on February 25-27, 1992 [ view large map ]

When the military operation began in Khojaly, a large group of
civilians and armed military personnel from Khojaly used the provided
humanitarian corridor to exit the battlefield and began moving in the
direction of the Azeri- controlled Agdam. Near Nakhichevanik village of
Karabakh (outside of the provided corridor), the group provoked a gun
battle with the defenders of Nakhichevanik, which resulted in numerous
death on both sides. On February 28 and early March 1992, in the area
then fully controlled by Azerbaijan, Azerbaijani and Turkish
journalists videotaped images of the hundreds of killed and, during the
second video shooting session, also mutilated bodies.

Since then, official Baku has falsified the events and used the human
tragedy to persistently fan anti-Armenian hysteria to demonize the
Armenian people in the eyes of the Azeris and the international
community. It used the images to incite anti-Armenian sentiment and
intolerance, which resulted in murders and calls from Azeris to wipe
out Armenians as an ethnic group.

Conclusion

Responsibility for the tragic loss of civilian life on February 26-27,
1992 on the outskirts of Agdam, te
rritory fully controlled by Azeri
forces, lies with the political and military leadership of Azerbaijan.
First, the Azeri leadership used the territory of Khojaly for
indiscriminate artillery attacks on civilian targets, thus turning the
town into a legitimate military target for NKR Self-Defense Forces.

Second, the Azeri leadership intentionally prevented the civilian
population from leaving the militarized village.

Third, the Azeri leadership failed to safely relocate civilians from
Khojaly after public warnings of upcoming military operation, although
it had many opportunities to do so.

Fourth, retreating Azeri forces provoked an exchange of fire with NKR
Self-Defense Forces some five miles from Khojaly, which resulted in
losses on both sides.

Fifth, those who had continued, full access to the site of reported
close-range, mass killing are responsible for it. The reported killing
of hundreds of civilians with incidences of barbaric mutilation of
bodies took place near Agdam (some seven miles from Khojaly), on the
territory controlled by Azeri forces. Free access to the site by Azeri
and Turkish journalists is clear evidence to that end.

In addition, Azerbaijan continues to create ground for a prolonged
human tragedy by inciting anti-Armenian sentiments and intolerance in
Azeri society. Such a policy stalls efforts to build bridges between
Armenian and Azeri people and achieve eventual, long-lasting peace
between Azerbaijan and Nagorno K
arabakh.

* * *

Background data, journalistic investigation and academic research
materials to support the above information are available at the NKR
Office and can be provided on-demand.

————————————– ———————————–

In the course of discussing the issue "On Violation of Human Rights and
Main Freedoms throughout the World" at the fifty-seventh session of the
UN Commission on Human Rights, the Armenian delegation submitted to the
Chairman of the UN Commission on Human Rights information on the real
events of February 1992, which was spread as an official document of
the fifty-seventh session of the aforementioned Commission.

The text of the document is given below.

THE TRUTH ABOUT THE EVENTS IN KHOJALY
Evidence from Azerbaijani sources
For nine years after the events in Khojaly official Baku has been
obstinately fanning anti-Armenian hysteria with the aim of falsifying
real events and discrediting the Armenian people in the eyes of the
international community.

The events in Khojaly, which led to the death of civilians, were the
results solely of political intrigues and a struggle for power in
Azerbaijan.

The real reasons are most convincingly reflected in the accounts of
Azerbaijanis themselves – as participants in and eyewitnesses of what
happened – as well as of those who know the whole inside story of the
events in=2
0Baku.

According to Azerbaijani journalist M. Safarogly, "Khojaly occupied an
important strategic position. The loss of Khojaly was a political
fiasco for Mutalibov". 1

Khojaly, along with Shushi and Agdam, was one of the main strongholds
from which Stepanakert, the capital of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic,
was shelled continuously and mercilessly for three winter months using
artillery and missiles and launchers for targeting cities.

Knocking out the weapon emplacements in Khojaly and freeing the airport
were the only way for the inhabitants of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic
to ensure the physical survival of a population condemned by Azerbaijan
to complete annihilation. The daily shelling of Stepanakert from nearby
Khojaly took the lives of peaceful inhabitants – women, children and
old people.

Former President of Azerbaijan, Ayaz Mutalibov, has emphasized that "¦
the assault on Khojaly was not a surprise attack"2. In a "Nezavisimaya
gazeta" newspaper interview he stated that "a corridor was kept open by
the Armenians for people to leave"3. However, a column of civilians was
fired on by armed units of the Popular Front of Azerbaijan on the
approaches to the Agdam district border, a fact later confirmed by Ayaz
Mutalibov, who linked this criminal act to attempts by the opposition
to remove him from power, and blamed it entirely for what happened.

In his recent interview with the "Novoye vremya" magazine, Mutalibov 0D
confirms his statement of nine year ago: "The shooting of the Khojaly
residents was obviously organized by someone to take control in
Azerbaijan"4.
Similar comments and views concerning the events in Khojaly are known
to have been made by several other highly-placed Azerbaijani officials
and journalists.

There is, moreover, the conclusion of Azerbaijani journalist Arif
Yunusov, which differs somewhat from the previous statements: "The town
and its inhabitants were deliberately sacrificed for a political
purpose – to prevent the Popular Front of Azerbaijan from coming to
power"5. In this case, though, the Azerbaijanis themselves are named as
the perpetrators of the tragedy.

What resulted from the betrayal of the inhabitants of Khojaly by their
own highly placed compatriots is well known. Azerbaijani propaganda has
railed to the whole world about the "atrocities of the Armenians",
supplying television stations with horrendous pictures of a field
strewn with mutilated bodies. Khojaly is claimed to have been the
"Armenians’ revenge for Sumgait".

Tamerlan Karayev, at one time Chairman of the Supreme Council of the
Azerbaijan Republic, bears witness: "The tragedy was committed by the
authorities of Azerbaijan", and specifically by "someone highly
placed"6.

The Czech journalist Jana Mazalova, who by an oversight of the
Azerbaijanis was included in both of the groups of press
representatives to be shown the "bodies mutilated by the A
rmenians",
noted a substantial difference in the two cases. When she went to the
scene immediately after the events, Mazalova did not see any traces of
barbarous treatment of the bodies. Yet a couple of days later the
journalists were shown disfigured bodies already "prepared" for
pictures.

Who killed the peaceful inhabitants of Khojaly and then mutilated their
bodies, if the tragedy occurred not in a village taken by Armenians or
on the route of the humanitarian corridor, but on the approaches to the
town of Agdam – on territory fully controlled by the Popular Front of
Azerbaijan?
The independent Azerbaijani cameraman Chingiz Mustafayev, who took
pictures on 28 February and 2 March 1992, had doubts about the official
Azerbaijani version and began his own inquiry. The journalist’s very
first report to the Moscow news agency "D-press" on the possible
complicity of the Azerbaijani side in the crimes cost Mustafayev his
life: he was killed nor far from Agdam, under circumstances that are
still unexplained.

The current President of Azerbaijan, Heydar Aliyev, himself recognized
that Azetbaijan’s "former leadership was also guilty" of events in
Khojaly. Already in April 1992, according to the agency Bilik-Dunyasy,
he had commented as follows: "The bloodshed will be to our advantage.
We should not interfere in the course of events". To whose "advantage"
was the bloodshed is clear to everyone. "Megapolis-Express" wrote: "It
cann
ot be denied that if the Popular Front of Azerbaijan actually set
far-reaching objectives, they have been achieved. Mutalibov has been
compromised and overthrown, public opinion worldwide has been shaken,
and the Azerbaijanis and their Turkish brethren have believed in the
so-called "genocide of the Azerbaijani people in Khojaly"7.

One other tragic detail. It has become clear since the events that 47
Armenian hostages were already being held on 26 February in "peaceful"
Khojaly, a fact that the Azerbaijani mass media "covering" the tragedy
have failed to mention. After the liberation of Khojaly only 13
hostages (including 6 woman and 1 child) were found there, the other 34
having been taken away by the Azerbaijanis to an unknown location. The
only thing known about them is that they were led from the village on
the night of the operation, but never reached Agdam. There is still no
information concerning what eventually happened to them or confirming
that they continued to be held captive by the Azerbaijanis.

Obviously, those who wanted to create the impression that bodies had
been mutilated by the Armenians first of all disfigured the bodies of
those same Armenian hostages, in order to make it impossible to
identify them. Precisely for that purpose the outer clothing was
removed from many of the bodies and precisely for that reason the
bodies of the unfortunate victims were damaged so badly that they
became unrecognizable.0D

In the light of the above facts it may confidently be said that the
killing of peaceful inhabitants of the village of Khojaly and of the
Armenian hostages being held there was the work of the Azerbaijani
side, which committed this crime against its own people in the name of
political intrigues and the struggle for power.

__________________________________________ _______

1. "Nezavisimaya gazeta" newspaper, February 1993
2. "Ogonek" magazine, Nos. 14-15, 1992
3. "Nezavisimaya gazeta" newspaper, 2 April 1992
4. "Novoye vremya" magazine, 6 March 2001
5. "Zerkalo" newspaper, July 1992
6. "Mukhalifat" newspaper, 28 April 1992
7. "Megapolis-Express", No. 17, 1992

—————————————— ——————————-
1140 19th Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036, phone: (202)
223-4330
e-mail: [email protected]

http://www.nkrusa.org/nk_conflict/khojaly.sh

Police promises gratuity

A1+

Police promises gratuity
[05:28 pm] 20 February, 2009

On February 20 the RoA Police issued a statement which holds:

Deputy Chief of the Armenian police, Colonel Gevorg Mherian, was
gunned down at the entrance of his apartment at 65 Barbus Street, at
8.30 p.m.

An action has been filed on the murder. An inquiry is in progress in
the Special Investigation Service.

The police promises a monetary award to people who will help identify
the criminal/ criminals or give information on the murder. You can
call on the nearest police station or contact us: 52-78-36, 52-77-46,
1-02.

Privacy is guaranteed.