Author: Nargizian David

“NAGORNO KARABAKH LIBERATION WAR: 1988-1994”

Azg/arm
3 Feb 05

A new book, “Nagorno Karabakh liberation war: 1988-1994”, by Haykakan
Hanragitaran publishing house was introduced to daily Azg on February
1. The book, being an encyclopedia on Karabakh war, was assembled by
an editorial board headed by eminent publicist and writer, Zori
Balayan. The book’s impartiality and truthfulness makes it immensely
valuable today.

There were many attempts to introduce the Artsakh (Karabakh) war by
now but this new publication is the only one that gives overall
understanding of the liberation war. Zori Balayan said that they
decide to present a copy of thebook to the families of dead freedom
fighters.

By Sergey Galoyan

31 January 2005

U.S. Seeks Peaceful Settlement on Nagorno-Karabakh
State Department fact sheet provides background on conflict, U.S. policy

The U.S. Department of State issued the following fact sheet January 25:

U.S. Department of State
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Washington, DC
January 25, 2005

FACT SHEET
THE UNITED STATES AND NAGORNO-KARABAKH

Background

The armed conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh (N-K) lasted from 1990 to 1994. By
the time a cease-fire went into effect in 1994, Armenian forces controlled
most of N-K, as well as large swaths of adjacent Azerbaijani territory. The
fighting plus the expulsion of Armenians from Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis
from Armenia produced more than a million refugees and internally displaced
persons (IDPs). Approximately 100,000 Azerbaijanis remain in refugee camps
today, where they face desperate living conditions. Turkey closed its land
border with Armenia during the conflict to show solidarity with Azerbaijan
and has not reopened it.

The parties have observed a cease-fire agreement since 1994. Although
cease-fire violations and cross-border sniping occur, all sides insist on
their continued commitment to a peaceful settlement reached through
negotiation.

Peace Process

In 1992, the CSCE (now the OSCE) created the Minsk Group, a coalition of
member states dedicated to facilitating a peaceful resolution of the
conflict. The Co-Chairs of the Minsk Group (Russia, France, and the U.S.)
serve as mediators, working in close and effective cooperation with the
parties. In 1997-98, Co-Chair shuttle diplomacy generated three separate
peace proposals. Each of these proposals was rejected by one or another of
the parties.

Beginning in 1999, Presidents Heydar Aliyev of Azerbaijan and Robert
Kocharian of Armenia began a direct dialogue through a series of bilateral
meetings. Positive developments during a March 2001 Paris meeting among
Presidents Aliyev, Kocharian, and Chirac inspired Secretary of State Colin
L. Powell to invite both Presidents to continue their dialogue in the United
States. Aliyev and Kocharian met with the Co-Chairs in Key West in April
2001. The sides made significant progress but failed to reach a
comprehensive settlement. Presidents Aliyev and Kocharian met on the margins
of multilateral meetings in late 2001 and on the border between the two
countries in August 2002 but failed to narrow their differences. President
Heydar Aliyev died in 2003, and negotiations slowed as both countries held
presidential elections that year.

In 2004, the Co-Chairs initiated a series of meetings in Prague between the
Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan. The “Prague Process” was
designed to reinvigorate dialogue between the sides. Following a series of
meetings between the Foreign Ministers, as well as meetings in Warsaw and
Astana between Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Robert Kocharian, the Co-Chairs
and the parties agreed the Prague Process should continue in 2005, with a
focus on advancing negotiations towards a settlement.

The U.S. As Mediator

The U.S. remains actively engaged in advancing a peaceful settlement of the
conflict. Cooperation among the U.S., Russian, and French mediators is
excellent. The United States does not recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as an
independent country, and its leadership is not recognized internationally or
by the United States. The United States supports the territorial integrity
of Azerbaijan and holds that the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh is a
matter of negotiation between the parties. The United States remains
committed to finding a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
through the Minsk Group process. We are encouraged by the continuing talks
between the Foreign Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan.

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: )

Uniting the potential
Editorial

Yerkir/arm
January 28, 2005

Often a question is asked: “What substantial result does the process
of the international recognition of the Armenian Genocide bear, and
why are we wasting our time and potential when it is used only by the
others.”

It is true that from time to time, the Armenian Question has been
included in the international diplomacy and used. Sadly, it did not
depend on the will of the Armenian people. Other countries have used
the Armenian Question for their interest — to settle their political
issues or expand their influence in the region, while our people,
often being unprepared, had faced the fact that its issue had become a
subject of the international diplomacy. And this is why we have seen
losses.

In its current stage, the Armenian Question has acquired a quite
different quality as it is the Armenian nation that has raised the
issue through the Artsakh struggle. On the way to settle it we have
gained a national sovereignty, and now the national issues lie on the
basis of our national policy. This means that now we are raising our
issue internationally.

The international recognition of the Genocide is the result of the
Diaspora’s decades-long extensive work because during its history, the
Diaspora has gone through several severe stages: from refuges
scattered around the world to a knowledgeable entirety. Later, this
entirety was able to come together, the communities were formed with
their many ties and then the Diaspora tried tomake political steps.

This was reflected in defending the human and national rights of the
Armenian people and formulating them as our claims. After they became
more established in other countries, the masses who had been deported
from their Homeland, continued to claim their right to go back and
receive human or material reparation.

Thus the issue became something that not only could be raised before
the foreigners but also something that could organize the Armenians
since thoseclaims are the powerful means of uniting Armenians living
under different circumstances, as well as their organizations, no
matter what their differences and interests were. We have a powerful
uniting goal – our claims â=80` that also serve our goal of preserving
the Armenian identity.

So they are directed not only outward but also inward and have a great
significance for organizing the communities. Now they have acquired a
new quality because the independent Armenian state has included the
international recognition of the Armenian Genocide in its foreign
policy, thus building adurable bridge between the Homeland and the
Diaspora.

The movement for international recognition of the Armenian Genocide
unites the Armenian potential for a great goal. So the issue is
bigger; it is not only a matter of Armenia’s foreign policy.

POLITICAL FIGURES OF ARMENIA HAVE DIFFERENT EXPECTATIONS FROM 2005

YEREVAN, January 21 (Noyan Tapan). The January 21 discussion organized
by the National Press Club with participation of representatives of
different political forces was dedicated to the discussion of the home
political situation formed in Armenia and representation of possible
scenarios of its development in 2005. The opinions of the participants
of the discussion divided. Thus, Samvel Nikoyan, a member of the Board
of the Republican Party of Armenia, an MP, Tigran Karapetian, Chairman
of the People’s Party, and Hamlet Haroutiunian, Chairman of “Artsakh”
compatriot union, assured that no great changes, including power
shift, will take place in Armenia in 2005. In their estimation, the
confrontation between the authorities and opposition won’t be global,
the struggle will rather move from streets to the NA. Meanwhile, all
of the 3 politicians expressed anxiety in connection with the possible
influence on the situation in the country. “The authorities may face
only external danger,” Tigran Karapetian declared. H.Haroutiunian and
T.Karapetian called on the political forces to unite around the
Karabakh problem. According to Hamlet Haroutiunian, if all the
political forces are united in the Karabakh issue the foreign forces
won’t be able to solve this issue. Aram Sargsian ansd Hrant
Khachatrian, leaders of the Democratic Party of Armenia and the
Constitutional Right Union, assured that great changes will take place
in 2005 and today both the authorities and the opposition are already
getting ready for the future complicated events. At the same time
A.Sargsian and H.Khachatrian for several times pointed to the
possibility to cooperate with coalition forces. Petros Makeyan,
Chairman of the Democratic Homeland party, gave assurance that “2005
will be a year of changes, which will take place in the form of
shocks, as its was in Georgia and the Ukraine.” Vahan Shirkhanian,
former Deputy Minister of Defence, former Minister on Coordination of
Industrial Infrastructures, expressed anxiety about the number of the
challenges, against which Armenia is to stand up. Thus, according to
him, this is not only the situation connected with the settlement of
Karabakh conflict, which starting from 1995 has becoming more and more
unfavorable for Armenians, but also the growing illiteracy among the
population, fall of birth rate, the fact that Armenia is, in essence,
becoming an old country as as the youth leaves the country searching
for a job.

Jerusalem Post
Jan 20 2005

Legislators take ‘Christianity 101’
By ETGAR LEFKOVITS

In the latest sign of the ever-warming Israeli-Christian relations,
Knesset members from the ‘Christian Allies Caucus’ and
representatives of the Chief Rabbinate on Thursday took a snap course
in Christianity, and then visited the heads of different Christian
denominations represented in the Holy Land in an effort to bolster
the cooperation between the two faiths.

The initiative, carried out in conjunction with the Jerusalem office
of the American Jewish Committee, which hosted the seminar, offered
the legislators an opportunity to learn more about the varied and
diverse branches of Christianity, which they are trying to
court as supporters.

“We must understand and internalize that the Christians represent a
strategic interest for the State of Israel,” said caucus co-chairman
MK Yuri Shtern (National Union) at the event, adding that “it
is incumbent upon us not just to look out at the Christian world with
preconceived notions based on relations in the past.”

The Knesset’s increasingly influential Christian Allies Caucus, which
was established last year with 12 MKs from six parties, aims to
garner the support of, and work with, pro-Israel Christians around
the world.

The meeting Thursday, attended by nearly all of the Chief Rabbinate’s
delegation for relations with the Catholic Church, was indicative of
the growing awareness Israel is placing on the Christian world at
large, and the Evangelical Christian community in particular.

“It is important that members of the caucus have a better
understanding of the Christian world at large, and the potential
alliances as well as pitfalls, and it is equally important that they
know that they have the support of the rabbinical establishment,”
said Rabbi David Rosen, the International Director of Inter-Religious
Affairs at the American Jewish Committee who presented the group of
legislators an overview of the different Christian denominations.

After the lecture, several of the legislators went to the Old City of
Jerusalem for separate meetings with the Latin and Armenian
Patriarchs as well as with a representative of the Greek Orthodox
Patriarchate.

Calling the interfaith meet, attended by a delegation from the Chief
Rabbinate, a “breakthrough in Judeo-Christian relations,” caucus
director Josh Reinstein said that the caucus had opened the doors to
cooperation between Christians and Jews “in a way we never thought
possible before.”

Moscow police avert brawl between Azeri, Armenian soccer fans – paper

Zerkalo, Baku
20 Jan 05

Excerpt from Vuqar report by Azerbaijani newspaper Zerkalo on 20
January headlined “We defeated the Armenians” and subheaded “So far,
only on the football pitch”

Azerbaijan proved yesterday that it is superior to Armenia, but only
on the green pitch so far. In a quarter-final match of the
Commonwealth Cup, Neftci beat Pyunik 2-0 at Moscow’s Dinamo
arena. Giorgi Adamia and Vidadi Rzayev were the goal-scorers.

A lot depends on motivation in such tense matches. The game showed
that our footballers were more eager to gain a victory than their
Armenian counterparts. Neftci footballers and coaches, as well as the
club and the management of the Association of Football Federations of
Azerbaijan [AFFA], who had urgently flown to Moscow, realized that
they had no right to lose THIS MATCH [capitals as published]. Some of
the fans recalled the well-known match of principle between Iran and
the USA, and gloomily joked that if the game is lost, they MAY NOT
RETURN HOME [capitals as published].

However, to the joy of all Azerbaijanis, Neftci finally showed its
class. Regrettably, we could not obtain full information about the
match which none of our TV stations broadcast. According to our
information, there was a clash during the first half between the
fans. A trick by the Armenian fans provoked the clash when they placed
their banner in front of the Azerbaijani flag. Naturally, our fans
could not tolerate such daring behaviour by the Armenian fans. The
police intervened in time and separated the instigators. The timely
intervention of the police prevented a mass brawl for which both sides
had prepared. The match was already in full swing by that time and
the referee intervened in time to prevent sporadic clashes between the
footballers.

[Passage omitted: Details of the game]

AzerNews, Azerbaijan
Jan 20 2005

NGOs appeal to CE rapporteur

The National NGO Forum has proposed to make changes to the report of
the Council of Europe rapporteur on Upper Garabagh David Atkinson to
be presented to the PACE winter session on January 25. Following the
discussions, the document will be placed on voting.

The Forum chairman Azay Guliyev says that although Atkinson’s report
is unbiased. He welcomed the fact that the document confirms Armenia
as an aggressor, which perpetrated ethnic cleansing against
Azerbaijanis in Upper Garabagh and adjacent regions, and is trying to
establish a mono-ethnic state there, while Upper Garabagh is
controlled by separatist forces.

At the same time, Guliyev pointed out some drawbacks in the report.
He emphasized the CE rapporteur’s suggestion to the conflicting sides
to take the matter to the International Court. The Forum chairman
continued that at this point that calls to the two countries’ public,
education bodies and mass media to forge ties are inappropriate.
“Establishing any ties with Armenia will be possible only after a
full liberation of the occupied territories.”
Guliyev also termed as unacceptable the fact that the report says
that “talks should be held with both the Azerbaijani and Armenian
communities for the political status of Upper Garabagh to be
determined by the Azerbaijani government”.
Guliyev also pointed out that the issue of Armenia’s holding
Azerbaijani prisoners and hostages was not reflected in Atkinson’s
report.
The appeal, signed by over 100 local non-government organizations,
was forwarded to rapporteur Atkinson, relevant Council of Europe
entities and embassies of CE member-states in Baku. It suggests that
the mentioned report cover liberating Upper Garabagh and seven
neighboring regions, immediately starting the process of returning
refugees home, Armenia’s guaranteeing their security, evaluating and
compensating the financial and moral damages inflicted to Azeris
rendered refugees as a result of occupation and deportation. The NGOs
also called for indicating the atrocities committed by Armenian
forces against civilians in Khojaly in 1992, legally assessing this
at the European Court and demanded Armenia to clarify the fate of
4,852 Azerbaijanis that became captives, hostages and missing persons
in 1990-1994.

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
January 14, 2005, Friday

KARABAKH TALKS

SOURCE: Gudok, January 12, 2005, EV

by Sergei Merkulov

FOREIGN MINISTERS OF ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN MET IN PRAGUE TO DISCUSS
KARABAKH SETTLEMENT

Foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan Vardan Oskanjan and Elmar
Mamedjarov met in Prague this Tuesday to discuss Karabakh.

The 6th meeting of the ministers was attended by Russian, French, and
American chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group.

No “breakthrough” in the 16-year old conflict is to be applauded.
Yerevan and Baku stick to their positions. The basis of the talks
themselves, however, indicates eagerness of the presidents, Robert
Kocharjan and Ilham Aliyev – to intensify the process of settlement.

President of Azerbaijan Aliyev said in his New Year address to the
nation, “2004, became a breakthrough year in the Karabakh
settlement.” He said, “Progress has been made in the negotiations,
the international community is paying closer attention, and the OSCE
Minsk Group as the intermediary is more active.” According to Aliyev,
“if the negotiations (in Prague) are constructive and Yerevan does
not deviate from the positions we agreed on, we will reach a
solution.”

On the other hand, Aliyev emphasized once again, “Where territorial
integrity is concerned, Azerbaijan will never make any concessions.
It will not even discuss the matter.”

Armenia insists on the so-called package accord (all together) while
Azerbaijan wants a systematic solution (it demands the return of the
territories occupied by Karabakh and the return of refugees). Baku is
prepared to discuss Karabakh status only after that.

So, where is the way out? A chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, Russia
thinks that a complex solution is the only way out. Revival of
economy in the conflict zone (including the Caucasus railroad) is one
of the surest ways to accomplish it. It alone will get Karabakh and
Armenia out of the transport blockade. Transport is politics too.

Translated by A. Ignatkin

Le Temps, France
14 janvier 2005

L’UE et la Turquie

C’est vraiment un débat central que cette possible adhésion de la
Turquie à la Communauté européenne. Elle éveille des craintes
fondées, car d’autres pays pourraient eux aussi revendiquer le
rattachement, auxquels il ne sera plus possible de répondre par la
négative. La plupart des limites naturelles de l’Europe sont mises en
cause dans ce dossier, au point qu’il devient difficile de définir
désormais son identité. Plutôt qu’une réalité géographique,
religieuse, démocratique ou historique, elle prend la tournure d’une
construction, opportuniste et volontaire. Que faut-il en penser?

En faveur d’une adhésion, on peut arguer de la nécessité d’un
recentrage géographique et culturel vers le Sud depuis l’arrivée en
masse des pays de l’Est dans une communauté européenne devenue ipso
facto très «Mittel-Ost Europa». Difficile en effet de revendiquer un
berceau méditerranéen, grec et latin, mais aussi égyptien et
assyrien, sans oublier le site religieux israélo-palestinien, tout en
affirmant s’arrêter à Athènes. Sous l’angle des relations avec le
monde arabe, voire avec le monde musulman, cette adhésion peut aussi
présenter quelque intérêt. Si l’Europe revendique des valeurs
laïques, rien ne s’oppose à ce qu’elle inclue un pays d’une autre
religion, sans compter que, de toute façon, une partie toujours plus
importante de ses actuels ressortissants est déjà non chrétienne.

Mais un des meilleurs arguments à l’adhésion serait de raffermir le
caractère laïc de la Turquie pour faire barrage à l’intégrisme, tout
comme les pères fondateurs de la CE ont prioritairement visé la
pacification durable du territoire européen après les trois guerres
mondiales qui l’avaient marqué au fer rouge. La Turquie deviendrait
ainsi à la fois un rempart et un modèle.

Malheureusement, il est doublement trop tard pour se poser toutes ces
questions. Trop tard parce qu’il n’est plus possible de dire non, au
risque de créer un ressentiment durable, voire indélébile, entre des
pays aujourd’hui amis. C’est ce qui explique le vote du 17 décembre
du Conseil des ministres européens, vote positif malgré le double
refus des Turcs, à la fois de reconnaître Chypre et le génocide des
Arméniens. Trop tard également pour qu’une adhésion porte ses fruits,
la Turquie profonde s’étant déjà trop éloignée de l’idéal laïc prôné
et instauré par Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, le gouvernement actuel ayant
été élu sous l’étiquette islamiste. A noter enfin que les Turcs se
disent favorables à l’Europe essentiellement pour des raisons
économiques, et non par attachement profond à ses valeurs
fondamentales.

Que va-t-il donc se produire? Les référendums prévus dans de nombreux
pays montreront une Union européenne au mieux partagée, au pire
franchement négative. Les Turcs qui espèrent beaucoup en l’Europe en
seront pour le moins froissés. Les relations avec eux s’en
ressentiront et une bonne partie d’entre eux pourrait alors verser
dans un islam moins modéré, plus revendicateur de valeurs opposées à
celles de l’Occident. L’Europe, qui s’est lancée imprudemment dans
cette aventure sans tenir compte de l’opinion de ses citoyens, risque
donc bien de récolter la tempête.

PRESS RELEASE
January 11, 2005
Embassy of the Republic of Armenia
2225 R Street, NW, Washington, DC, 20008
Tel: 202-319-1976, x. 348; Fax: 202-319-2982
Email: [email protected]; Web:

Embassy Hosts Christmas Open House, Concert by Armenian Musicians

On January 7, 2005, the Embassy of Armenia hosted the traditional Christmas
Open House reception for the Armenian American community of Greater
Washington area that featured a concert by famous Armenian musicians
performing in the U.S., Noune Karapetian (soprano) and Vahan Sargsyan
(piano).

Before the concert, Armenian Ambassador to the U.S., Dr. Arman Kirakossian
spoke briefly on Armenia’s achievements and challenges in 2004, emphasizing
the need for continued economic, political, humanitarian, and commercial
cooperation between the Diaspora and Homeland to sustain Armenia’s economic
growth and help address the social needs of the vulnerable people in
Armenia. Ambassador Kirakossian also presented his vision for the
U.S.-Armenian bilateral relations and cooperation in 2005.

The Armenian Ambassador then paid tribute and handed out certificates of
appreciation to Armenian-American friends of the Embassy who have
contributed toward maintenance and preservation of the historical building
of the Armenian Embassy in Washington in 2004.

The recital that followed featured selected pieces of Armenian and
international classical and folk music by Noune Karapetian and Vahan
Sargsyan.

The reception was attended by members of the Armenian-American community and
officials from the National Security Council, and State Department. Among
the guests were Chief Economic Adviser to the President, Vahram Nercissiantz
and former U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, Michael C. Lemmon.