Tigran Petrosian Internet Chess Memorial – Round 1

Chess Academy of Armenia
Yerevan, Armenia
Contact: Aram Hajian
Tel: (3741) 52-02-46
Fax: (3741) 52-02-46
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:

Round 1 Report
by Aram Hajian

The first round of the Petrosian Internet Memorial was
a hard-fought success. Each team enjoyed one victory,
endured one defeat, and came out of the day with two
out of four points. Winners in the Armenia-Russia
match were GM Sargissian over GM Khalifman on board 3,
and GM Zvjaginsev over GM Minasian on board 4, each
converting for the full point with the white pieces.
On board 1, the event’s top rated player GM Svidler
enjoyed a significant advantage with the black pieces
over GM Aronian, who pulled a rabbit out of his hat in
holding the position despite being down to one minute
for nearly twenty moves. A draw was the fortunate
outcome. Meanwhile on board 2, Lputian played a
strong novelty to equalize with black against GM
Dreev, and a draw was the just outcome.
In the China-France match, GM Ni ground down GM
Fressinet in a tortuous endgame with the black pieces
on board 2, while GM Nataf dispatched his board 4
opponent GM Wang with a strong king-side attack on the
white side of a Sicilian defense. The struggles on
boards 1 and 3 saw GMs Bu and Lautier share the point,
and GMs Zhang and Bauer agree to the peace as well.
Round two sees France take on Armenia, and Russia
facing off against China. Technically, the games went
well, without any disconnections, distractions, or
internet problems in any of the four locales. Visit
for news, information,
interviews, and games from the event, which runs from
December 18-23.

Standings after 1 round:
1st place with 2 points: Armenia, China, France,
Russia

www.petrosian2004.com
www.petrosian2004.com

Armenian Spokesman Urges Azerbaijan To Negotiate With Karabakh

ARMENIAN SPOKESMAN URGES AZERBAIJAN TO NEGOTIATE WITH KARABAKH

Public Television of Armenia, Yerevan
17 Dec 04

(Presenter in studio) The press secretary of the Armenian Foreign
Ministry, Gamlet Gasparyan, has said while commenting on Azerbaijani
President Ilham Aliyev’s remarks concerning Azerbaijan’s inclination
towards a stage-by-stage settlement that Armenia’s position on
the negotiations to resolve the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict remains
unchanged.

We state again that the negotiations to resolve the Nagornyy Karabakh
conflict within the framework of the Prague process are held in a
package form and we are ready to continue doing that.

Gasparyan added that if the Azerbaijani side is still hesitating
as to who to hold the negotiations with, we have to repeat – with
Stepanakert.

Colin L. Powell Holds A Media Availability With The Minister OfForei

Colin L. Powell Holds A Media Availability With The Minister Of Foreign Affairs Of France

The Associated Press

xfdtr STATE-POWELL-FRANCE sked

TRANSCRIPT

December 15, 2004

MEDIA AVAILABILITY

COLIN L. POWELL

U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE

WASHINGTON, D.C.

COLIN L. POWELL HOLDS A MEDIA AVAILABILITY WITH THE MINISTER OF

FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF FRANCEFDCH e-Media, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing
House, Inc.)

322 MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE

2ND FLOOR, NE

WASHINGTON, DC 20002

Tel: 301-731-1728

Fax: 301-731-5147

COPYRIGHT 2004 BY FDCH e-Media, Inc.

NO PORTION OF THIS TRANSCRIPTION MAY BE COPIED, SOLD OR

RETRANSMITTED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORITY OF

FDCH e-Media, Inc.

SECRETARY POWELL HOLDS A MEDIA AVAILABILITY WITH THE

MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF FRANCE,

AS RELEASED BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT

DECEMBER 15, 2004

SPEAKERS: COLIN L. POWELL, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE

MICHEL BARNIER, FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTER

POWELL: It’s a great pleasure to welcome Foreign Minister Barnier, who has
made a very short trip to consult with me and with Dr. Rice, and we’re deeply
appreciative that he would come over. The Foreign Minister and I have done a
lot together in recent days. We were at the Forum for the Future in Morocco
and we had NATO meetings last week, and I think that gives you an indication
of the closeness of consultations that the United States has with France.

We are looking forward in President Bush’s second term to making sure that
we have resolved any of the difficulties and differences that we have had in
the past and remind ourselves once again of all we have been through together
as two nations. And so, I want to extend to the Minister my best wishes for
the holiday season, but especially to thank him for making this trip.

It’s a great pleasure to have you here, Michel.

BARNIER: Thank you Colin. I made this special trip to say goodbye and thank
you to Colin Powell. We have made great jobs over the last eight months
together. We became friends, and I just want to say thank you for that.

And now, let’s opt for the good work to continue.

POWELL: Thank you sir.

QUESTION: Mr. Minister, did you take up with Secretary Powell your —
France’s interest in pushing Mideast negotiations, and specifically a Mideast peace
conference? Did you float that idea, discuss that idea with the Secretary?

BARNIER: If you don’t mind, I’d prefer to answer in French.

QUESTION: Could someone translate?

POWELL: We are.

BARNIER: Yes, what we want to do, of course, is to look to the future in our
relationship between France and the United States and the relationship
between the Europeans and the United States, and that clearly is the frame of mind
that we want to develop and build on.

But of course, the test of an enhanced Euro-Atlantic relationship will be
the ability to relaunch the peace process between Israelis and the
Palestinians, and I’m convinced that that will be our priority in the coming weeks, and
indeed, in the coming days, as soon as the elections on the 9th of January
occur.

QUESTION: Yeah. Is there a peace conference…

POWELL: We had a brief discussion about the conference that the United
Kingdom is planning to hold early in the New Year with Palestinian officials, but
we did not have a discussion about a broader international conference. What
we have to do is see the election take place on the 9th of January, watch how
the Palestinians form their government, and make sure that Israel shows
flexibility and cooperation with the Palestinians during this election period, get
ready for the next series of Palestinian elections, and we talked about
that. But we did not talk about, at this meeting, but we have talked previously,
about the utility of a conference at some point in the future.

QUESTION: Mr. Secretary, did you discuss…

POWELL: OK.

QUESTION: Did you discuss upcoming — your decision about Turkey’s
negotiation talks? And Mr. Foreign Minister, you said a few days ago that Turkey
should recognize the Armenian dead. If there is a refusal from Turkey, do you
think that should be a reason to end the negotiations? And what do you expect is
the decision on the 17th?

POWELL: We did discuss it. There is a historic opportunity coming up later
this week and the Minister is flying back to participate in these discussions,
but I think I will yield to him for his comment on this matter.

BARNIER: I’ll be leaving immediately, I mean, this evening, back to
Brussels, where I will be tomorrow and where the decision will be taken, this very
important decision to start the negotiation talks with Turkey. And as President
Chirac himself said this evening, we want to open the talks and our
ambition, of course, is to succeed and the outcome of the talks should be accession.
But we shouldn’t be complacent, rest on our laurels, or take any shortcuts in
the negotiation.

POWELL: One last one. Yeah.

QUESTION: Yes, Mr. Secretary, I would like to know what will be in your
memoirs about this relationship with this, let’s say, difficult French, and do
you feel relief or regrets not to see them anymore?

(Laughter.)

POWELL: Je ne regrette rien. Thank you. (Laughter.) I regret nothing.

I have given many speeches on this subject. The United States and France
have been friends and allies for well over two centuries. They were instrumental
in us achieving our independence. We came to Europe twice in the last
century to help our French friends. We will remain friends. We will remain allies.
We will have differences from time to time, and the disagreement that we had
last year, that was not the first time we have had disagreements and
differences with France or with our other European friends. And the values and the
ties that bring us together are far stronger than the disagreements that come
along from time to time. Merci.

BARNIER: And could I maybe just add a few words and say that — and recall
that I said earlier my — expressed my thanks and gratitude to Colin Powell
for the friendly relationship we’ve manage to establish over the last eight
months, but I also wanted to acknowledge his great awareness and understanding
of individuals and situations which was very valuable. But I — to complete —
to come to your point, I must say, of course, that there may be
disagreements, there may be talks, there may be differences amongst us but we should
never ever forget that France and the United States have been allies and friends
since the very beginning.

POWELL: Thank you.

END

12/16/04 11:58 EST

‘U.S.A. works best when working with Europe’

Baltic Times, Latvia
Dec 15 2004

‘U.S.A. works best when working with Europe’

A.Elizabeth

Many Europeans are waiting to see whether the second administration
of George W. Bush will change its tune toward Europe – be it “old” or
“new” – and toward Russia, which, after the recent events in Ukraine,
has been much criticized in the West. A. Elizabeth Jones, assistant
secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs and one of the
State Department’s leading experts on the Baltics, was in Tallinn
last month, where she shared some of her thoughts on these issues.
The following are excerpts from her roundtable discussion with
Estonian journalists on Nov. 9.

The Estonian units in Iraq currently have a mandate until July 2005.
Will you request an extension of this mandate?

In terms of the coalition itself, a lot of that depends on our
bilateral discussions – how is it that we are going to address the
particular situation. Of course, we are extremely grateful for
Estonia’s participation in the coalition. Now it is very important
that Estonia participates through the entire period of the run-up to
the Iraqi elections and then into the elections itself and then into
the period right after that. Depending on the situation, I am sure we
will have very detailed discussions between the United States and
Estonia on the military level about what capabilities might be the
most required in Iraq.

Do you expect a change in U.S. policy toward Russia in George Bush’s
second term?

No, I don’t think policy will change. We have for quite some time
been working very hard with our Russian counterparts to impress upon
them the importance we attach to constructive engagement – to working
on, in a constructive way, all of the issues that are of importance
to all of us. For instance, it is very important to us that we engage
constructively on counter-terrorism – particularly in the post-Beslan
period for Russia.

It is very important that we work on the broad range of issues on the
frozen conflicts; very important for Russia to engage constructively
to resolve the issues involving South Ossetia and Abkhazia; very
important for Russia to engage in the OSCE or whatever format – the
most appropriate format – is to resolve the issues involving
Transniestra and Moldova. It is very important for Russia to engage
in the issues of Nagorno-Karabakh. There are a whole set of issues
involved in Chechnya, involving free media, involving rule of law,
involving democracy. All of these issues have to be part of the
discussion that all of us, not just the United States, have with
Russia.

How do you feel about the conflict in Chechnya, and do you feel that
it can be resolved through military means?

We maintain very strongly, especially with Russia, that it cannot be
solved by military means. The only way to resolve the issue in
Chechnya is to address the political, economic, social issues that
underlie the conflict.

What do you plan to discuss with Population Minister [Paul-Eerik]
Rummo?

Well, I want to get his sense of what he sees as the situation here
with the Russian minority-that is, are the programs working? One of
the things that we are proud of, as members of NATO, is all of the
work that was done in order to assure that these minority issues were
addressed in the run-up to being invited to join NATO. It was one of
the requirements on the table, actually, in terms of membership, to
address minority issues in an appropriate way. I am interested in
checking with him to see how that issue has progressed.

Is there a problem with the Russian-speaking national minority?

Our sense is that the issue is being addressed very well here,
actually.

Do you foresee an improvement in the U.S.A.’s relations with Europe,
especially with France, over the next four years?

One of the things that is very interesting to focus on is the
extremely good work and good cooperation that have been underway
between the EU institutions and the U.S. on counter-terrorism. This
has particularly been the case since 9/11, obviously. The kinds of
arrangements and agreements and exchanges that have been agreed
between the home and justice affairs ministers of the European Union
and the United States are really terrific. Intelligence exchange, law
enforcement cooperation – all those things work extremely well.

We are in constant conversation with the European Union on issues
involving border controls, issues involving Central Asia, the
Caucasus and particularly on issues involving Ukraine and Belarus.
We, the United States, find, that when we collaborate and cooperate
with the European Union to work on free and fair elections in
Ukraine, or to work on changing the situation in Belarus, or to work
on best ways to assure stability and prosperity in Georgia, we do a
much better job when we can do it together.

We find that our representations in Ukraine or in Uzbekistan or in
Azerbaijan – or, wherever it is – work better when the United States
and the European Union work together. It is received better when the
message is the same. We have huge collaboration, and it is not hard
to get to the point of what to do next in each of these countries in
our conversations with the European Union.

The biggest issue that divided us was Iraq. We still have a
disagreement with several European countries-certainly not all of
them-about whether we should have gone to war in Iraq. Now, that
question is over. We find that every single one of our European
friends and allies, including France and Germany, say that we
disagreed then, but it is now behind us. Now we must find a way to
address all of the issues that remain.

While the human rights situation in Russia has been deteriorating,
the U.S. has avoided criticizing Russia. Is there a reason for this?

Well, you are not reading or listening to many of the things that we
have been saying. Let me just lay out for you a few of the things
that underpin the public statements that we make. First, I would
point you to the op-ed piece that Secretary [Colin] Powell put in
[the Russian newspaper] Izvestia at the end of January. That was a
very, very clear and very detailed statement about the importance to
us of all of the issues on the agenda – along the lines I outlined at
the beginning of our conversation this morning. We use those themes
in a variety of ways.

That said, our goal is to get the kind of improvements that the
international community seeks in Russia. The question then is how
best to get those improvements. Is it better to have quiet
conversations, or is it better to say things publicly? We try to find
the balance with that so that in public we say some things and we
have a much more extensive conversation in private in order to
accomplish our goals. That’s always the key. Are we trying to make
statements or are we trying to get things done?

EU Executive, Parliament, Support Turkish Entry Talks

PolitInfo, Germany
Dec 15 2004

EU Executive, Parliament, Support Turkish Entry Talks

Brussels

The European Parliament has urged European Union leaders to open
membership talks with Turkey when they meet in Brussels Thursday and
Friday. The parliament voiced its support for the beginning of talks
just after the head of the EU’s executive body said the moment has
come for negotiations on Turkey’s membership in the 25-nation bloc to
begin.

The decision that EU leaders must make at their two-day summit this
week is whether to start entry talks with Turkey. They will not be
deciding whether to let Turkey join the Union.

But even the decision to start talks with a relatively poor,
populous, overwhelmingly Muslim country sitting on the cusp between
Europe and the Middle East has sparked a huge debate within the EU.

Doubts about whether Europe has been able to or ever can absorb its
growing Muslim population has turned many ordinary Europeans against
the idea of bringing Turkey into the EU. And many politicians are
playing to those fears in the run-up to the summit. Opposition to
Turkish membership is especially strong in Austria, France and
Germany.

Richard Howitt, a British member of the European Parliament’s
Socialist bloc, says domestic political considerations could still
thwart an EU decision to start negotiations with Turkey, despite a
recommendation by the European Commission — the EU’s executive body
— that such talks begin.

“The assessment was done. It was done by the European Commission. It
showed that political and human rights and democracy criteria, known
as the Copenhagen criteria had been met by Turkey. And it is only
political intervention, perhaps some of the countries playing to
their own electorates, that could get in the way between now and a
positive decision,” Mr. Howitt said.

Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, the commission’s president, told French
television Wednesday that EU nations should recognize Turkey’s
efforts and set a date for talks to begin next year, although he
acknowledged that Turkey is still not ready to join the bloc.
Negotiations are expected to take at least 10 years.

Analyst Kirsty Hughes, at the London School of Economics, says she
expects the EU leaders to decide in favor of starting talks with
Turkey.

“I think we’re going to get the EU leaders saying ‘yes’ to Turkey,
that it can start negotiations. That’s going to be the big decision
and the big plus. It’s going to come wrapped with some slightly more
conditional language, perhaps some slightly grudging language, but
that’s what we’re looking for on Friday,” she says.

EU diplomats are working on a compromise package that will try to
satisfy governments that oppose Turkey’s eventual membership. One
diplomat involved in putting together the statement says it will say
that the negotiations will be open-ended and that their outcome
cannot be guaranteed.

The European Parliament, in a non-binding resolution, called on EU
leaders to open negotiations with Turkey. But the legislators also
urged Turkey to recognize Cyprus and suggested Ankara acknowledge the
mass killings of ethnic Armenians from 1915 to 1923.

Turkey has always denied that such killings occurred, and it refuses
to recognize the government of Cyprus.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan says his country will say
“no” to the EU if the bloc imposes what he calls “unacceptable
conditions” on starting negotiations.

EU diplomats say the Armenian issue will not be used as a
pre-condition for Turkish entry talks. But they say that the bloc’s
leaders will urge Turkey to sign a protocol extending its customs
union with the EU to the 10 members that joined this year, one of
which is Cyprus. That, they say, would signal a de-facto recognition
of Cyprus.

No way to build a safer world

Ha’aretz
Dec 16 2004

No way to build a safer world

By Yossi Sarid

As someone who was declared persona non grata by the Turkish
government, in response to the declaration he made in his role as
minister of education regarding the Turkish responsibility for the
murder of the Armenian people, I – of all people – would like now to
come to Turkey’s defense regarding the matter of international
responsibility.

In recent years, Turkey has amazed me. Turkey of today is the only
Muslim country in our region that bears any resemblance to a
democratic country. Not only is the country overwhelmingly Muslim, so
is the ruling party, and the prime minister himself is a devout
Muslim. And despite that, Turkey is perhaps the proof that Islam and
democracy are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

This coming weekend, the leaders of the European Union will decide
whether to launch official talks regarding Turkey’s joining the EU as
a full member. Turkey has been courting Europe for 40 years now, only
to be spurned and rebuffed. Even if the EU leaders decide in Turkey’s
favor this week, the talks themselves will only begin months from
now, and they are expected to last about 10 years. And even in 2015
there is no certainty that Turkey will in fact be recognized as a
member state.

Europe has no interest in Turkey and has been conducting the affair
with Turkey against its will. Why in fact should the 25 countries of
the EU want it? Turkey is too big and has too many Turks; it is too
poor; they are not “like us”; and they may cover the entire continent
with traditional Muslim veils.

In order to abort the entire development, the EU has now set
“preliminary conditions” for the talks. First, Turkey must
immediately recognize the Republic of Cypress, the Greek part of the
island; second, it must improve the “state of human rights” in the
country.

True, Turkey is still not yet Sweden, but its prime minister, Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, made a far-reaching and surprising step in the right
direction, and the “Midnight Express” is no longer roaring forward;
it has definitely been slowed down.

While Turkish democracy is not yet a role model, the American
president can only dream of a similar democracy in liberated Iraq. If
Europe rejects Turkey with grimaces of fear and loathing, and if
America for its part does not spur the Europeans to accept it, they
will in fact be pushing it in the direction of Islamic fundamentalism
as it sends out its tentacles all over the world.

The West is signaling to the Turks that they will forever remain on
the outside, that they have no real chance of being desired and
accepted, that they are wasting their time and efforts on introducing
reforms. This signal is both unfair but even more important, it is
dangerous: The Muslims of the world, from Pakistan to Palestine,
understand and are taking in the message, and together they will
unite in their vengeful fanaticism, creating a catastrophic reality
of the entire world against all of Islam and Islam against the whole
world.

Saudi Arabia, although not a candidate for the European Union, is
warmly welcomed there. Red carpets are rolled out in honor of its
royal family – the king, the crown princes and others – in all the
countries of Europe and especially in the United States. Of this
corrupt family, in whose schools the global terror of Bin Laden and
his ilk incubates, no demands like those made of Turkey are made
before it may be accepted in enlightened company. The depraved Saudis
can be found in all international parlors and under every crystal
chandelier.

In Saudi Arabia, they still amputate the hands of anyone who as much
as steals an apple in the marketplace, and still stone to death women
suspected of committing adultery. But that in no way cramps the style
of the leaders of the “free world” in their rush to join the Saudi
fan club.

If one can be a sought-after and pampered Saudi Arabia, why take the
trouble to be a rejected Turkey? There is nothing like rewarding
democratization and moderation, but why take a chance on internal
conflicts?

In any case, impoverished Turkey has no chance of intoxicating the
world with oil and drugging it with bribes. In their destitute state,
the Turks will find it very difficult to replace the Saudi friends of
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, who needs to care for his huge
corporation, Halliburton, which without the nectar of contracts will
dry up.

It will not be long before Turkey becomes sick and tired of the
humiliating attitude toward it and disgusted with the American
hypocrisy, which reeks of French perfume, and the European
sanctimoniousness that smells of American apple pie.

When that happens, when Turkey moves further and further away from
its pro-Western orbit, all that will remain will be Bush and Cheney’s
Iraqi democracy as a model incentive for all the Arabs and Muslim in
our region; along with Saudi Arabia, of course, as long as it holds
on and doesn’t fall apart. That is no way to build a safer world.

Reconnaissance turque du genocide armenien: prealable incontournable

Agence France Presse
13 décembre 2004 lundi 10:02 PM GMT

Reconnaissance turque du génocide arménien: “préalable incontournable” (CDCA)

PARIS 13 déc 2004

Le président du président du Comité de Défense de la Cause Arménienne
Harout Mardirossian a déclaré lundi que la reconnaissance du génocide
arménien par la Turquie devait constituer “un préalable
incontournable” à toute négociation sur l’entrée de la Turquie dans
l’Union européenne.

“La reconnaissance d’un génocide ne peut être un élément de
négociation, mais bien un préalable incontournable car il s’agit d’un
problème de dignité humaine (…) De plus, on ne construit pas la
paix et la réconciliation sur le sacrifice de la mémoire d’un peuple
vieux de plus de 3.000 ans”, a estimé M. Mardirossian dans un
communiqué envoyé à l’AFP.

Le ministre français des Affaires étrangères Michel Barnier a déclaré
lundi à Bruxelles que Paris souhaitait que la Turquie reconnaisse le
génocide arménien de 1916 dans le courant des futures négociations
attendues en vue de l’adhésion d’Ankara à l’Union européenne.

“La France fera la demande, dans le courant de la négociation, d’une
reconnaissance de la tragédie du début du (20e) siècle qui a touché
plusieurs centaines de milliers d’Arméniens”, a dit M. Barnier devant
la presse.

Pour sa part, Mourad Papazian de la FRA Dachnaktsoutioun (parti
socialiste arménien) a souhaité que le résident de la République
Jacques Chirac, qui doit s’exprimer mercredi soir sur TF1 sur
l’admission de la Turquie dans l’UE “s’engage dans cette voie”.

“Comme l’Allemagne n’aurait pu adhérer à l’Union européenne sans
reconnaître la Shoah, la Turquie ne peut engager les négociations
d’adhésion sans faire son devoir de mémoire envers le peuple
arménien”, a estimé M. Papazian.

Le CDCA et la FRA Dachnaktsoutioun ont également appelé “les
Européens d’origine arménienne et les défenseurs des droits de
l’homme” à manifester vendredi prochain à Bruxelles devant le Conseil
européen.

L’Organisation Arménienne Démocrate Libérale ADL-Ramgavar, qui
réclame la condamnation et la réparation du génocide de 1915, s’est
félicitée lundi soir de la déclaration de M. Barnier qui, dit-il, “ne
peut être plus claire dans le langage diplomatique” et qu’il qualifie
de “gifle aux déclarations mensongères de l’Etat turc”.

For Armenia, deepening isolation and little hope

International Herald Tribune, France
Dec 15 2004

For Armenia, deepening isolation and little hope

By Susan Sachs
The New York Times
Wednesday, December 15, 2004

YEREVAN, Armenia Landlocked and stuck in a cold war with two of its
four neighbors, Armenia has rarely seemed so alone as in the past few
months.

Citing terrorism concerns, Russia abruptly sealed its border with
Georgia in September and kept it closed for nearly two months,
effectively cutting off the road that was the main transit route for
Armenian trade with Russia.

At the same time, Armenians had to watch from the sidelines as
Azerbaijan and Georgia celebrated the completion of a large section
of the pipeline to carry Caspian Sea oil to the Turkish port of
Ceyhan. The $3 billion regional energy project bypasses Armenia
entirely.

Another bitter pill came in October, when the European Union’s
executive commission recommended that Turkey start negotiations for
full membership without first having to end its rail and land
blockade of Armenia.

For many people in this impoverished country, the events added up to
a scary reminder of their deepening isolation.

“If nothing changes, Armenia will be left as an island,” said Levon
Barseghyan, a political activist in Gyumri, a rundown town on the
railroad line that was closed by Turkey in 1992. “Everyone will
forget about Armenia.”

As winter closes in, bringing the risk of new hardships in a country
heavily dependent on imports and foreign aid, the prospects for
change appear slim without outside intervention.

Armenia’s long-running conflict with Azerbaijan, its oil-producing
neighbor to the east, remains one of the more intractable problems
left from the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Both countries claim Nagorno-Karabakh, a slice of land that is
geographically inside the borders of Azerbaijan but is controlled by
ethnic Armenian separatists. Their six-year war over Karabakh ended
with a ceasefire in 1994, after 35,000 people were killed and an
estimated one million people, most of them Azeri, became refugees.

Turkey, Armenia’s big neighbor to the west, has backed its Turkic
ally, Azerbaijan, and closed its land border with Armenia. Turkish
leaders have said they would not reopen the border until Armenia
takes steps to withdraw its troops from in and around Karabakh.
Meanwhile, peace negotiations have stalled despite mediation efforts
by Russia, France and the United States.

“On neither side is there a public mood that is conducive to
compromise,” said a western diplomat in Yerevan, speaking on
condition of anonymity.

The stalemate has left Armenia boxed in from the east and the west,
excluded from the giant Caspian Sea energy pipeline that should
provide hefty transit fees for the other countries it passes through.

Turkish and Russian goods make their way to Armenia – Turkey is its
seventh largest trading partner – but with the added cost of road
transit through third countries like Georgia or by the planes that
operate flights between Yerevan and Istanbul.

Georgia’s roads, however, have sometimes been closed because of
political instability or, as was the case this fall, because of
action by Russia. Armenia’s only other direct outlet is through Iran
to the south, where trade has been hampered by a poor road network
and lack of rail lines.

Given the impact of their unresolved conflict with Azerbaijan,
Armenian officials have been eager to revive peace talks. But they
have also have refused to make unilateral concessions on Karabakh,
which they refer to as liberated Armenian territory, in exchange for
Turkey’s reopening of rail and road traffic.

“We won’t trade off Karabakh for a railroad,” said the foreign
minister, Vardan Oskanyan, adding that Armenians have learned to cope
with their isolation. “Things are evolving around us. Let it be.”

Many Armenians, foreign donors and economists are not nearly as
sanguine. While the economy has recovered from the near-total
blockade on Armenia in the early 1990s, the gross domestic output is
no higher than it was in 1988, before a devastating earthquake. A
reopening of the eastern and western borders, according to
international studies, would quickly boost its growth rate by as much
as 50 percent.

Meanwhile, despite infusions of cash from Armenians living abroad
that account for more than 20 percent of the country’s income, nearly
half of the country’s 3 million people live in poverty on less than
$2 a day. The limited opportunities have contributed to an exodus of
working-age Armenians since independence 13 years ago, with some
estimates putting the population loss at nearly 30 percent.

Such dire circumstances might be expected to provoke political
unrest. But they have not noticeably weakened President Robert
Kocharian, a Karabakh native and former commander of the separatist
forces who was reelected to a second term last year.

“Every day the government tells us our economy can flourish without
opening the Turkish border and without solving the Karabakh problem,”
said Aram Abrahamyan, editor of the Aravot daily newspaper. “And the
government propaganda succeeds with the common people.”

A very different scenario was predicted by a private research group
called Armenia 2020, which has commissioned studies of the country’s
future based on a range of possible developments.

One prediction was based on the status quo continuing for another 10
years. It concluded that “if there are no changes, there is no
prosperity,” said Arashes Kazakhetsyan, the director of the group.

The Armenian government has focused much of its efforts on a
two-pronged approach to Turkey. It has appealed directly to Turkish
leaders to normalize relations. At the same time, it has tried to
increase diplomatic pressure on Turkey, openly questioning Turkey’s
fitness to start European Union entry talks before it addresses
Armenian grievances.

In an interview, Oskanyan said he did not understand why European
leaders ignored what he called Turkey’s “faults and shortcomings”
with regard to Armenia. “What is regrettable,” he said, “is that
Europe is closing its eyes on Turkey’s petulance.”

Oskanyan stopped short of saying Turkey’s bid should be rejected,
although Armenian lobbying groups have been making that argument in
Brussels. While Turkey has changed many of its policies over the last
two years to win European Union acceptance, there has been no
indication of a shift in its official line toward Armenia.

Private contacts between Turks and Armenians will continue to be
encouraged, said a senior Turkish diplomat in Ankara. But the
diplomat said the political impasse must be broken by Armenia. “We
can’t change our policy on the Azeris,” he said. “So the first move
has to come from Armenia. We would like to see an opening, even a
small opening, on Nagorno-Karabakh.”

Did OSCE MG Submit New Settlement Suggestion to Kocharian & Aliyev?

DID OSCE MINSK GROUP SUBMIT NEW SETTLEMENT SUGGESTION TO KOCHARIAN AND
ALIYEV IN ASTANA?

Azg/arm
15 Dec 04

Armenian and Azeri Foreign Ministers to Meet in January

The participants of OSCE Ministerial Meeting welcomed the creation of
the so-called “Prague process.” According to Mediamax agency, the
statement adopted as a result of the OSCE Foreign Ministers’ sitting
reads: “The fourmeetings between RA and Azeri foreign ministers took
place within the framework of this format. These meetings help carry
out the double investigation of all the further settlement
viewpoints.” The sitting of the OSCE Foreign Ministers was held in
Sofia last week.

“We welcome the progress fixed in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict
settlement in 2004. Particularly, we welcome the three meetings
between RA and Azeri foreign ministers held by the support of the OSCE
co-chairs,” the statementsays.

“We emphasize that Minsk group co-chairs in Astana submitted the
negotiation structure that could serve as a base for the settlement to
RA and Azeri presidents based on “The Prague Process” – “We suggest
taking into consideration this ground and go forward based on it.”

One can suppose from this statement that the OSCE Minsk group
submitted a new or innovated settlement version to the sides in
conflict in Astana, rooted in the Key West treaty that was turned down
by Azerbaijan in 2001. By the way, in Astana Robert Kocharian and
Ilham Aliyev negotiated for about 5 hours, in the beginning face to
face (in the presence of the OSCE co-chairs), afterwards RF President
joined them (1,5 hour) and the meeting ended with the presidents
exchanging their views with the participation of the Minsk group
co-chairs.

Aliyev stated in the press conference that followed the Astana
negotiations that the settlement versions had been discussed, while
Kocharian noted: “Principally, the process is in progress, though we
can’t boast that we were a success. The main point is that the
settlement process is in progress and constructive. We are able to
calmly and patiently discuss issues that we have inherited and are
determined to solve.”

During one of the September conferences, in reply to a question put by
Azg Daily, whether a negotiation ground was created as a result of the
foreign ministers’ meeting, Vartan Oskanian stated: “According to the
foreign ministers, some grounds were created and passed to the
presidents. There have been some expectations that the presidents
would agree or make corrections and give special instructions to the
foreign ministers to continue in the given direction. There was such
an expectation but it didn’t happen in Astana. Certainly, it doesn’ t
mean that the presidents refused us.”

Recently, in the interview given to Reuters Vartan Oskanian stated
that “the warmer attitude of the sides towards each other” in the
latest period allows to hope that it will be possible “to fix some
progress”. By the way, the next stage of the meetings between RA and
Azeri presidents is envisaged to be held in January. Araz Azimov,
Azeri deputy foreign minister, stated that the results of Prague
meetings’ four stages had been discussed in the course ofthe last two
Oskanian-Mamediarov meetings, as well as “the issues of Armenian
illegal actions in the occupied territories were discussed.”

Azimov said that it is early to speak of “concrete decisions.”
Commenting on the possibility of liberating Azerbaijan’s occupied
territories, Azimov said that “it is a big process that can’t be done
in one day.”

It’s worth mentioning that the Azeri side stated on different
occasions that Armenia asked for some time to specify about the
further course of negotiation process after the four meetings of the
foreign ministers and the Astana meeting between Aliyev and
Kocharian. Official Yerevan responded that Armenia is prepared for the
second stage of the Prague process.

It is not known what kind of grounds were submitted to the sides in
conflict by the mediators, as it is said in the statement of the OSCE
Foreign Ministers’ sitting. It’s worth mentioning that a day before
the Astana meeting and several days after that there had been
publications in the RussianKommersantdaily, according to which, as if
the Kremlin suggested the so-called “Moscow formula” of the settlement
to Kocharian and Aliyev. According to this formula, the Armenian
forces should be withdrawn from the Azeri territories neighboring
Nagorno Karabakh and a referendum on NKR’s status should be held
inKarabakh and Azerbaijan.

By Tatoul Hakobian

BAKU: Alitev warns ministers over infighting; Says No Opp in Azerb.

President warns ministers over infighting; says no opposition in Azerbaijan

Azarbaycan, Baku
13 Dec 04

The Azeri president has urged the government to stop infighting and
bad-mouthing. In a speech at an expanded government session on 7
December, Ilham Aliyev said that the ministers should do their job
“with a clear conscience, properly and professionally” and not engage
in politics as this will pay no “dividends”. He also said that there
is no opposition in the country as such. “The opposition has only
itself to blame,” he told the meeting. The following is an excerpt
from the report by the Azerbaijani newspaper Azarbaycan on 13 December
headlined “The conclusive speech by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev
at an expanded session of the Cabinet of Ministers on 7 December 2004
summing the results of 2004”; subheadings have been inserted
editorially:

Well, we should sum up our meeting. I believe that a very important
discussion was held as we examined the work done this year. We have
witnessed once more that economic success is obvious.

[Passage omitted: Aliyev says he is satisfied with the work of the
government and repeats similar ideas from his opening speech]

No bad-mouthing

As I said, I positively assess the activities of the government and I
highly value its work. But in some cases, the government interferes in
the affairs outside its remit. Everyone should do his job and be
responsible for his sphere of competence. It is only natural for
people to have proposals or make claims. There is every opportunity
to make claims or proposals and the Cabinet of Ministers, the prime
minister, the presidential executive office and the president are
there for this purpose. But it is wrong to make [claims] in public and
in a very bad-mannered fashion at that. I do not appreciate this and I
do not like this. This contradicts our working principles. Each member
of the government, minister and official should do his job with a
clear conscience, properly and professionally. And that’s it.

A member of the government is an official, not a politician. If
somebody wants to be a politician, it is his own business. But the
task of an official is to do his job. That is to say, I do not reckon
that offices or forums other than that are [appropriate] places for
assessing each other’s activities. No, it is not. It could be
appropriate for a politician, a deputy or a public figure. But there
are limits when it comes to officials.

I want to reiterate that all issues can be resolved at meetings of the
Cabinet of Ministers, through written or verbal reports containing
claims or proposals to the president and the prime minister. I am in
favour of such principles and anything else is unacceptable.

You know, these cases happen rarely. But they are usually seen in
society as messages with the wrong meaning. We, the Azerbaijani
authorities, are carrying out our activities as one team both before
and after the elections. I have been observing these principles since
my appointment as prime minister and election as president. I have
stated these principles clearly and been faithful to them. I am
keeping all my promises. Along with other factors, our strength is in
our unity. If there are any contradictions within our ranks, I will do
my best to eliminate them.

Therefore, I am not satisfied with the fact that such cases are taking
place. It is only natural that they cause a certain reaction. Some
people, openly or secretly, and sometimes with the involvement of the
mass media, are fighting against each other. If you want to fight, you
can do so through very good legal channels which involve the departure
from your post and involvement in politics. There will be no big
tragedy here. Anyone who wants this is free to do so. Everyone who
wants to engage in politics is free to do so and we will see how good
he is at politics. I do not want to protest against those who want to
become public figures.

Opposition

Now there is a gap in this field in Azerbaijan. Since the presidential
elections, especially since the opposition has dealt a blow to itself,
it has been unable to recover. In fact, one cannot say that there is
any opposition in Azerbaijan now. The opposition has only itself to
blame. Everyone knows that the authorities had no plans to take steps
or measures against the opposition. In general, we do not think about
it at all. Because it’s existence in the Azerbaijani social and
political life is hardly visible. That’s to say, there is a gap here.

Now the opposition leaders confine themselves to foreign visits,
meetings with minor officials of international organizations and
wearing bow ties at rallies abroad. Let them come and hold a rally
here. If they have power, let them hold at least one rally here and
make speeches wearing bow ties or something else. No, they cannot. And
this is the reality. The Azerbaijani people will never allow any
actions to be held on squares against Azerbaijan and its national
interests. This is impossible. The Azerbaijani people are fed up with
such opposition and the presidential elections clearly proved
that. Over a year has elapsed since the presidential elections: they
have been absent over that period of time and there is not room for
them [in future]. Because this is the people’s order and demand.

Infighting will pay no dividends

Azerbaijan is developing in quite a different direction. Our
activities assume creativity and build-up. We are strengthening our
country and its international image and increasing the economic
potential. Our strict positions on international issues are
praiseworthy. Azerbaijan’s strict position on the Armenian-Azerbaijani
Nagornyy Karabakh conflict is being understood. Even if it is not
understood, we will not retreat from our position because it is in the
interests of the Azerbaijani people.

I would like to note that the absence of the opposition, does not mean
that somebody can fight against somebody else within our ranks. This
is impossible and will never be possible. My advice is that one should
not resort to such actions. That will pay no political dividends. In
general, a minister must not think about engaging in political
activities. On the contrary, he should think about how to justify the
president’s trust. We all should justify his trust in our activities,
our work and our service to the people and the motherland. I – to the
Azerbaijani people as the Azerbaijani people believed in me and
elected me. You – to the president who believes in you and the
people. That is it and there is no other way.

I don’t want to go into any details now. I believe that what I said is
enough. I hope that, as always, there will be a working partnership
among members of the government which will allow us to carry out all
our economic plans. Thank you.

Azarbaycan newspaper note: Prime Minister Artur Rasizada, the head of
the presidential administration, Ramiz Mehdiyev and other officials
attended the session.