The Daily Star, Lebanon
May 13 2004

Greek-Turkish relations mending for EU

Cyprus accession puts added strain on historical enemies

By Sarah Khoury
Special to The Daily Star

ATHENS: December 2004 will be known as a new stepping-stone in the
triangular Greek Turkish Cypriot relations. It is when the European
Union will accept or reject accession negotiations with Turkey. If
the green light is given for consultations between both parties,
Turkey will be on a concrete path toward becoming an EU member. But
will southern Cyprus, a new EU member, veto Ankara’s entrance? And
how is this going to affect Greek-Turkish ties?

To satisfy EU demands for its entrance into the union, drastic
changes have to be made based on the 2002 Copenhagen summit criteria
that stipulates Turkey must complete a series of economic political
and human right reforms before the December due date.

The EU council will judge notably progress on human rights issues and
democratization. If the feedbacks are positive, the commission will
recommend start of accession negotiations. Athens, an EU member since
1981 has taken the initiative to offer technical assistance to its
neighbor.

In an interview with The Daily Star, director of the Greek-Turkish
relations department at Greek Foreign Ministry Vassilis Pistinis said
that, in its support for Turkey’s orientation into the EU, Greece has
created a task force to help Ankara establish or re-model its
legislations and economic cooperation to fit

EU criteria’s.

During his historical trip to Greece last week Turkish Premier Recep
Tayyip Erdogan pledged to seek “new horizons” with Greece. Greek
Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis repeated his backing for Turkey’s
bid to join the EU.

Analysts have seen Turkey’s public debt as a burden to its entrance
to the EU. But in an interview with The Daily Star, Turkish
Ambassador to Greece Yigit Alpogan took the opportunity to compare
his nation to Greece.

“Greece is an EU member. It has a population of 10 million and a
public debt of $60 million. Turkey has a population of 70 million
with $120 billion public debts. This is not an issue.”

After Cyprus’s entrance into the EU on May 1, Nicosia is now one step
ahead of Ankara, as it can stall and veto Turkey’s path toward the
EU.

Consequences of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s failed blue print
in a bid to end Cyprus’s 30-year separation have topped discussions
among concerned parties. Both Pistinis and Alpogan have reiterated
the failed referendum will not strain bilateral ties.

Pistinis reiterated Athens stance on the need to avoid negative
consequences to the failed referendum. But Greek media have predicted
Cyprus would be sidelined from the diplomatic spotlight, especially
after Annan warned his blue print would not get a second chance.

Alpogan hailed Annan’s plan as an optimum compromise and said “in
modern diplomacy there must be some compromise a party can not get
all its demands fulfilled.” He said if Annan’s plan had passed it
would have been a “win-win” situation for all parties involved but
stressed Turkish-Greek relations would remain intact despite the
referendum.

Pistinis, for his part, added the EU would economically assist the
needs of Turkish-Cypriots. According to a draft EU document the union
pledged nearly $305 million to boost the economy of northern Cyprus
after the referendum left it out of the EU’s enlargement. Among
Turkish Cypriots some 65 percent approved Annan’s plan, which called
for a reunification of the island that would have abolished sanctions
and embargos on the northern part of the Cyprus.

Turkey is the only country that recognizes Turkish enclave on the
island.

When asked how Turkey felt about Greek Cypriot’s acceptance into the
EU, Turkish Ambassador to Greece Alpogan stated their application was
illegal because it only represents a portion of Cypriots.

“This government only represents the Greek side, so from the legal
sense the government did not and still does not represent all of
Cyprus that will one day unilaterally apply for EU membership. This
should be a legal application,” he said.

Alpogan added that according to the 1960 Zurich and London agreement,
Cyprus can only become a member of an organization in which both
Greece and Turkey are in. “Turkey is not a member of the EU,
therefore in 1990 that was one of our basic points of our objection
that this could not happen.”

He accused the EU of not listening to Ankara’s objection.

Director of the Greek-Turkish relations department at Greek Foreign
Ministry Pistinis agreed that under the agreements Cyprus could only
enter an organization in which both Greece and Turkey are part of. He
stressed NATO was an example of such an organization, but that the EU
did not fall under that specific legal definition.

Cyprus is not the only disagreement issue linking the two historical
enemies, but in recent years efforts have been made from both sides
to mend ties. Alpogan highlighted the 1999 rapprochement policy
drafted by Athens and Ankara, which he hailed as the beginning of “a
new era” in Turkish-Greek ties.

On a closer to home level, Greek and Turkish stances on the Aegean
Sea issue have been an ongoing difference between both Mediterranean
countries. Turkey says some Greek islands are situated on its
geographical shell calling it a “political issue,” while Greece
disputes that according to the 1975 delimitation of the continental
shell such a problem should be solved by the International Court of
Justice.

Pistinis hailed exploratory talks that are being held between both
countries and stressed: “Their purpose was to find common agreements
to solve problems and the delimitation of the continental shell.”

Pistins and Alpogan declined to give information on the
“confidential” content of discussions but expressed improvement and
optimism.

Another topic weighing down Greek-Turkish relations is the status of
minorities in Turkey which includes not only Greek Orthodox, but also
Assyrian, Armenians and Kurds.

Greek official Pistinis emphasized the right of religious freedom
under the Copenhagen agreement. He stressed Greece was concerned for
all non-Muslim minorities and not just for Greek Orthodox.

PRESS RELEASE

REF: PR/04/05/011

Assembly of Armenians of Europe
Rue de Treves 10, 1050 Brussels
Tel: +32 2 647 08 01
Fax: +32 2 647 02 00

CONFERENCE ON ARMENIAN ARCHITECTURE IN BRUSSELS

Brussels, 13/05/04 – On May 7th 2004 at the CIVA (Centre International
pour la Ville, l’Architecture et le paysage) in Brussels, the Assembly
of Armenians of Europe organized a conference dedicated to Armenian
Medieval Architecture. Mr. Bernard Coulie (orientalist, rector of the
Catholic University of Louvain,), Mr. Sarkis Shahinian (co-chairman
of the Swiss Armenian Association, researcher at the EFP, Zuirch) and
Mr. Patrick Donabedian (PhD in the history of fine arts and fellow
worker at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of France) contributed to
the conference, to which architects, members of the cultural units
of the European Commission as well as students and professors were
invited. The idea behind inviting the latter group was to introduce
European specialists and academics to Armenian cultural heritage,
emphasize its role in world heritage and reveal the unknown traditions
of Armenian Architecture.

At the opening of the conference Mr. Bernard Coulie expressed his
condolences to the Belgian Armenian Community on the occasion
of the decease of Arbak Mkhitarian, famous Egyptologist,
armenologist-orientalist and active member of the Armenian community.

Mr. Bernard Coulie gave the audience insights into Armenian history,
culture and Christianity, which became the integral part of the
Armenian identity, while Mr. Sarkis Shahinian presented in detail the
architecture of Armenian Churches in the Middle Ages and revealed the
connection between the Armenian pagan and Medial Christian cultures,
as well as presented a glance to Modern Armenian architecture, in
particular the urbanism of Yerevan, capital of the Republic of Armenia.
Mr. Patrick Donabedian elaborated on the subject of ‘khatchkars’,
cross stones, in which the Armenian valley is abundant. This
conference came to highlight the fact that the majority of those
Armenian monuments concerned are in the territory of Turkey and are
in danger of disappearance. Moreover, none of the mentioned monuments
are under the protection of UNESCO.

The conference was followed by the photo exhibition on Armenia by
the French photographer Wojtek Buss. It was in Armenia that Wojtek
Buss discovered his vocation of photographer and some years later he
returned there in order to realize his dream. His book publish in Paris
in 1998 was entitled “Armenia, Splendour of a secret country”. His
wonderful photos of Armenian monasteries, churches and landscapes
bear witness to the love, mysticism and courage of Armenians.

GEORGIAN FIRST LADY VISITED SAMTSKHE-JAVAKHETIA

13.05.2004 17:37

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ May 12 spouse of the Georgian President Sandra
Saakashvili visited the Samtskhe-Javakhetian region mostly populated
by Armenians. She visited the market of Akhalkalaki town, familiarizing
herself with local prices. Then Sandra Saakashvili visited Poka village
of Ninotsminda region, where she met with acolytes of Georgian cloister
complex recently founded on the Parvana lakeside.

WNNE-TV, VT
May 12 2004

Developer Hopes To Buy Church To Give To Other Church

NASHUA, N.H. — A real estate developer plans to buy a Catholic
church for $1 million and then donate the property to the Armenian
Orthodox Church.

Vatche Manoukian, of Hollis, N.H., has entered an agreement with the
Catholic Diocese of Manchester to buy St. Francis Xavier Church and
give the property as a gift to his church, said Manoukian’s lawyer,
Gerald Prunier.

The sale faces several obstacles, however, including a lawsuit filed by
former St. Francis Xavier parishioners who argue that church officials
have no right to sell the property. A century-old deed at the center
of the debate states that the property must always hold a place of
religious observance.

Azerbaijan Ready To Fight For Nagorno-Karabakh

Radio Free Europe, Czech Republic
May 12 2004

12 May 2004 — Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliev today marked the 10th
anniversary of the end of fighting with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh
by saying Azerbaijan was trying to settle the still-unresolved dispute
by peaceful means, but if that failed, Azerbaijan was ready to go to
war “at any moment” over the territory.

Aliyev said Azerbaijan needs to increase its military potential in
order to “restore its territorial integrity.”

More than 30,000 people were killed and 1 million were left homeless
during five years of war over the territory. The 1994 cease-fire left
ethnic Armenian forces in control of Nagorno-Karabakh, but Azerbaijan
still wants control of the territory.

Internationally mediated talks have so far failed to convert the
cease-fire into a permanent political settlement.

The Age, Australia
Sydney Morning Herald, Australia
May 13 2004

Mistake burdens officials

The president of the Australian Weightlifting Federation, Sam Coffa,
has accepted part of the blame for an “outrageous” blunder that
resulted in Australia having just one men’s representative in the
sport for Athens.

The men’s team finished second to the tiny island nation of Nauru
at last week’s Oceania championships in Fiji and will take its
smallest-ever weightlifting team to an Olympic Games.

The Australian women’s team finished first in Suva and qualified
one lifter.

The ignominy of the men losing out to a country of 11,300 people was
compounded by the fact coaches left behind a lifter ranked No. 1 in
the world – because they thought Australia would qualify first anyway.

“The one or two lifters needed to get us over the line were left
behind,” Coffa said yesterday.

“This was following advice from our coaching panel that we had enough
buffer to take us over the line and it didn’t prove to be the case.

“I won’t apportion the blame to anyone in particular but we are all
guilty and that includes me.”

Sergo Chakhoyan, currently training in Armenia and rated world No. 1
in the 85 kilograms class, was the weightlifter told he was not
required.

With his bronze medal in the clean and jerk at last year’s world
championships, he pre-qualified for the Games and he’ll now fill the
sole men’s spot for Australia. Nauru will take two lifters.

The bungle left Chris Rae, who won the 105 kilograms-plus class in
Suva, a shattered man.

The 23-year-old Sydney Olympian was in line to fill the second spot
pending results at the Games selection trials in Melbourne in June.

“It’s a huge error. It’s devastating for me and it has cost me the
chance of making the Olympics,” Rae said.

“The coaching staff said we didn’t need him (Chakhoyan) but the result,
where no athlete performed exceptionally badly and we still lost,
has proved the coaching staff has made a mistake.

“I thought it was odd – even on paper (before the Oceania
championships) it looked like the Australians weren’t going to win.

“For us to lose the position is a massive blow to me and it hurts to
know not picking the best team has probably cost me a chance to go
to a second Olympics.”

Rae is second in the Australian selection criteria for Athens and was
confident of qualifying for the Games, at which he said a top-10 spot
had been on the cards.

Australian coach Luke Borreggine refused to comment about the selection
mistake yesterday.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Azerbaijan’s maneuver in the Caspian Sea: Who is the hypothetical enemy?
By Bahman Aghai Diba, PhD. Int. Law of the Sea

Payvand, Iran
May 12 2004

The Republic of Azerbaijan will be conducting naval maneuvers in the
Caspian Sea. The aim of the maneuver is declared as upgrading the
ability of the Azeris Coast Guards for protection of boundaries in
the Caspian Sea. But the question is: What boundaries?

There are no borders in the Caspian Sea yet. Even the Russian tailored
and imposed formula of Modified Median Line (MML) is only supposed to
divide the seabed in the case of the countries that have accepted it
(including Azerbaijan) and it has nothing to do with the maritime
territories, over-flight, navigation of the commercial and military
units of the coastal and non-coastal states and so on.

The Caspian Sea littoral states have not yet succeeded to define
commonly accepted formula for the legal regime of the Caspian Sea.
Azerbaijan has no arrangements with Iran and Turkmenistan in
the Caspian Sea. The existing agreements of Azerbaijan with
the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan are only about the Seabed.
Iran believes that MML is not able to create an equitable situation
in the division of the Caspian, and Turkmenistan believes several
oil fields that Azerbaijan controls them according to the MML must
be the Turkmenistan’s share.

The failure in the agreement has led to several instances of
conflict like 2001 incident of Iran-Azerbaijan dispute and the
Azerbaijan-Turkmenistan dispute. The latter led to the closure of
the respective embassies in their capitals for some time.

Another phenomenon of the failure was the militarization and
naval maneuvers. This was first started by the Russian Federation.
The biggest maneuver since the collapse of the USSR was conducted
immediately after the Asghabat Summit Conference failed even to produce
a final document. Now it’s the turn for Azeris. As always, every
military maneuver has a hypothetical enemy. Who is the enemy for
the Azerbaijan Republic? It is not definitely the Russian Federation
because the Russian Federation is a great nuclear power with the
ability to kill all population of the earth 10 times, and its naval
fleet in the Caspian Sea is a powerful force. Kazakhstan has no
special problems with the Azeris, but in the south Caspian there are
several disputes:

Azerbaijan believes that the seabed must be divided according to
the MML. This gives Azerbaijan 21% of the Caspian Sea and control
over all 15 major oil fields that it is claming now, including the
Alborz Field claimed by Iran. This area is not the biggest share
of the seabed for a single country in the Caspian (the biggest share
goes to Kazakhstan with almost 29% of the Caspian seabed), but it is
the home to the vast resources of the Caspian oil (compared to the
Iranian hypothetical share of the seabed, using the MML, which is
almost 13 percent and free from any major known resources. The deep
Sea in the Iranian part makes the exploration and exploitation even
more difficult). Azerbaijan’s position in this field is supported by
the Russian Federation, the founder of the MML in the Caspian Sea,
and it is also supported by US. US has clearly rejected Iranian
positions for the division of the Caspian Sea and almost all other
matters (routes of the oil and gas pipelines, navigation of the
non-littoral states, military presence and so on).

So far, a clear case of confrontation has happened in July 2001 between
Iran and Azerbaijan. The incident, which has been played down by both
sides, had many elements of a dangerous hostility. Iranian gunboats
asked the British research vessel that worked for Azeris to leave the
disputed area. The Iranian aircraft flew over the area constantly.
The Azeris claimed that the Iranian aircraft had violated the airspace
of Azerbaijan and threatened the country. A short while later, several
Turkish Air Force jets flew to Baku, apparently to take part in an
air show, but everybody in the involved countries knew that it was a
demonstration of support for Azerbaijan by the big Turkish brother.
The Azeris extensively welcomed the Turkish show of support and
arranged street demonstrations, shouting slogans against the Islamic
Republic of Iran and they condemned the violation of their “rights.”
The British Petroleum, which operated the research ship, declared
that it would not return to the concerned area until the two sides
have made some kind of agreement. A cursory look reveals that the
characteristics of this incident look exactly like the stated aim of
the maneuvers of the Azerbaijan forces in the Caspian Sea.

At the same time, the problems of the two states are not limited to
the Caspian per se. The special interest of Azerbaijan to affect the
Azeri section of Iran is an important problem for both sides. The
Azeris on both sides of the border have common culture and language.
In fact a large part of the present Azerbaijan Republic consists
of the territories separated from Iran, after 20 years of unequal
wars between the Iran and Tsarist Russia, and two imposed treaties.
Therefore, there are important unifying feelings on both sides.

Although at the moment Azerbaijan Republic only tacitly confirms the
inclination to attract the Iranian Azeris, and the government of Iran
(and sometimes people of Iran) deny that there are such important
social forces in the region, the issue is as alive as it can be.

The Iranian Azeris, who have been deprived of their fundamental
rights and freedoms, are also humiliated, despite being an important
part of the Iranian population, and they are stopped from using the
local language. They have been subject to mockery as idiots (usually
resembled to donkey as a symbol of idiocy). Now, the political
movements of the Iranian Azeris, like the Chehreghani group, are
benefiting from the discriminatory and humiliating behaviors to follow
their political goals. The problem of Iranian Azeris may turn into
an international crisis in a short time unless the Iranian government
takes serious steps to defuse the situation.

Another point of contention is the foreign policy of the two
countries. Azerbaijan considers itself a European country and wants
to become a member of the European Union (EU) and NATO as soon as
possible. Therefore, it has been inclined to invite the Western forces
to Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan has taken part in any NATO program that
it could, and it has invited US and NATO to establish a military base
in Absheroon Peninsula in the Caspian Sea. Also due to the military
stand off with Armenia over Nagorno Karabagh, it has entered into an
Axis of Azerbaijan-Turkey-Israel. Iran on the other hand is afraid
of the Western presence and considers this as a part of preparations
for possible military intervention in all or parts of Iran by US
(after getting the tacit agreement of the Russians who have always
wished to see the disintegration of Iran). Iran is worried about the
standardization of the Azeris army with NATO rules and the existing
reports about contacts with Israel, which has constantly threatened
to attack the nuclear facilities of Iran.

Let us add to this picture the prospects of starting to use the
Baku-Jeyhan pipeline. The famous pipeline, which has been called
by some experts as the most important development in the Caspian
region since the collapse of the USSR, will be operational in 2005.
The pipeline, which will be the major outlet of the Caspian oil for
the foreseeable future, is the symbols of several points:

Defeat of Iran in the pipeline diplomacy (It will probably mean the
death of Iranian swap plans and discarding the pipelines that Iran
is building unilaterally)

Defeat of Russians in the implementation of their policies in the
reign.

Victory of US-Azerbaijan-Turkey axis in implementation of a project
based on political considerations (support of the US allies, depriving
the US opponents from the transportation of oil from the landlocked
states of the Caspian Sea region).

Undoubtedly, the NATO and Azerbaijan will be in charge of providing
security for the expensive pipeline, and the Azeris maneuvers are
somehow based on the same notion up to a limit.

There are two more points that should be added: The war against
terrorism and the combat against the trafficking of the narcotic drugs.
Terrorism hotbeds are very close to the Caspian Sea area and all
countries around the Caspian Sea have to make themselves ready to
confront the effects of the international terrorism activities.
Also, since the independence of the new republics in the south of
the former USSR, the traffickers of the narcotic drugs are showing
new interests to use the Caspian route rather the traditional the
Golden Triangle Afghanistan-Iran-Turkey route.

Conclusion

The end result is that the main hypothetical enemy in the Azerbaijan’s
military maneuvers in the Caspian Sea is the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Although, there are several other issues of concern for the Azeris,
what is stated as the official reason of the maneuvers is compatible
with a possible situation that Iran may cause. At the same time,
the different policies of the two countries are going to constitute a
great source of threat between the only two Shiite states of the world.

About the author:

Bahman Aghai Diba, PhD Int. Law, is a consultant in international
law to the World Resources Company in the Washington DC area.

5 ARMENIAN NGO TO RECEIVE $40,000 IN GRANTS FROM WORLD BANK AND SOROS FOUNDATION

ArmenPress
May 12 2004

YEREVAN, MAY 12, ARMENPRESS: Five Armenian non-governmental
organizations will receive a total of $40,000 in grants from the World
Bank and the Open Society Institute (Soros Foundation) in 2004 as
part of World Bank’s Small Grants Program. The relevant agreements
were signed today. The program was started six years ago and two
years ago the Soros Foundation joined it.

Naira Melkumian, a senior official of the World Bank Yerevan office,
said the main goal of the program is to help resolve the most pressing
problems of the vulnerable segment of the population “or at least to
outline ways for their resolution.”

Larisa Alaverdian from the Armenian branch of the Soros Foundation,
said the five organizations were selected from a pool of 115
applicants. She said the Bank and the Foundation will continue to
support the implementation of the program.

One of the organizations, Atur, of Assyrians, living in Armenia,
will use the grant for publication of 2,000 copies of a book in
their mother tongue. The other organization, called Millennium, will
publish a book of seven successful stories of Armenian refugees from
Azerbaijan who settled in Armenia’s rural regions. The stories then
will be used for shooting a documentary.

UKRAINE, ARMENIA FIRM TO FURTHER DEVELOP TIES

ArmenPress
May 12 2004

KIEV, MAY 12, ARMENPRESS: Ukrainian prime minister Viktor Yanukovich
told the visiting Armenian counterpart, Andranik Margarian on
Tuesday that Kiev was satisfied with the level of cooperation with
Armenia. Speaking to a joint news conference after the session of a
joint Ukrainian-Armenian inter-governmental commission on economic
cooperation, the Ukraine’s prime minister said a significant progress
has been achieved since the two governments decided to boost their
trade, economic and other ties. He said the trade turnover between
the two countries grew by 1.4 times last year and this figure is
expected to double this year.

Yanukovich said the main focus in his talks with Margarian was that
sweeping measures should be applied to eliminate all obstacles to
developing partnership relations, the major one of which is transport
communication.

Yanukovich said Ukraine is planning to take part in the construction
of Iran-Armenia gas pipeline. “We have sufficient resources and
technical means for that,” he said.

Andranik Margarian said that the construction of the pipeline
would become a very promising pattern of bilateral cooperation with
Ukraine. He said “technical consultations are being conducted with
the Iranian side now” after which decisions will be made on funding
and selection of contractors through tenders. “Ukraine will have a
chance to participate in them,” Andranik Margarian said.

Prime minister Margarian also both governments will continue to
elaborate around 60 bilateral documents to facilitate relations between
the two nations. Margarian also invited his Ukrainian counterpart to
visit Armenia.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

KARABAGH MUST BE INVOLVED IN TALKS, FORMER TOP OFFICIAL SAYS

ArmenPress
May 12 2004

YEREVAN, MAY 12, ARMENPRESS: A former top official in the
administration of ex-president Levon Ter-Petrosian backed up today
the idea that Nagorno Karabagh authorities must be involved in talks
over its future. Babken Ararktsian, a former parliament chairman,
told a news conference, which he called on the occasion of the 10-th
anniversary of the establishment of ceasefire on the line of contact
between Armenian troops of Nagorno Karabagh and Azerbaijan forces that
Karabagh had been involved in all talks with various international
peace-brokers, held prior to the ceasefire.

Reverting to the details of the ceasefire agreement, Ararktsian
said it was a key decision by all the sides to the conflict, who
realized that continuation of the war would bring only new losses.
Ararktsian recalled today that one of the provisions of the agreement
was that Nagorno Karabagh should continue participating in all talks
and that the overland connection between Armenia and Karabagh through
the Lachin corridor should operate.

The first international mediation effort to resolve the Nagorno
Karabagh conflict was attempted by the presidents of the not yet
independent Russia and Kazakhstan, Boris Yeltsin and Nursultan
Nazarbayev, respectively, in September 1991. Their visits to Baku,
Stepanakert, and Yerevan, and subsequent talks between the leaders of
Armenia and Azerbaijan in Zheleznovodsk, Russia produced an agreement
to negotiate the conflict; this was negated by the government of
Azerbaijan almost immediately.

The international involvement in the resolution of this conflict began
in earnest in 1992, after successor states to the Soviet Union had
been admitted to the Conference (later Organization) for Security and
Cooperation in Europe. The CSCE (OSCE) thus became the primary venue
for the resolution of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict, and remains so
to this day.

On March 24, 1992, a CSCE Council meeting in Helsinki decided to
authorize the CSCE Chairman-in-Office (i.e., the presiding officer
of the CSCE who is usually the foreign minister of the country
presiding in the organization, based on rotation principle) to
convene a conference on Nagorno Karabagh under the auspices of the
CSCE. The purpose of the conference was “to provide an ongoing forum
for negotiations towards a peaceful settlement of the crisis on the
basis of the principles, commitments and provisions of the CSCE.” This
decision launched the so-called Minsk Process, which spearheads the
international effort to find a political settlement of the conflict.
(The process is so named because the city of Minsk, Belarus had
been originally selected as the site of the future conference on
this problem.)

The objectives of the Minsk Process are to provide an appropriate
framework for conflict resolution to support the negotiation process
supported by the Minsk Group; to obtain conclusion by the Parties
of an agreement on the cessation of the armed conflict in order to
permit the convening of the Minsk Conference; and to promote the
peace process by deploying OSCE multinational peacekeeping forces.

Ararktsian argued today that after the Karabagh conflict transformed
into “a territorial dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Azerbaijan
has snatched off the ceasefire becoming its master to ground that it
can revoke the ceasefire agreement any time in order to restore its
territorial integrity.” In concluding Ararktsian aid the resolution
of the conflict must be based on the principle of self-determination
of Karabagh Armenians and mutual compromises.