In terms of democracy & Human Rights, Armenia is on par with some EU

IN TERMS OF DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS ARMENIA IS ON PAR WITH SOME EU
MEMBERS, OFFICIAL SAYS

ArmenPress
May 12 2004

YEREVAN, MAY 12, ARMENPRESS: Deputy parliament chairman Tigran Torosian
reiterated today that there is no alternative to Armenia’s integration
with Europe. In a keynote speech at the presentation of “Wider Europe-
New Neighborhood Policy” initiative, organized by the Armenian-European
Policy and Legal Advice Center (AEPLAC) and moderated by Per Gahrton,
member of the European Parliament and a special rapporteur on the South
Caucasus, Torosian admitted that Armenia has still a lot to do and to
carry out a range of reforms to make its judiciary, local management
bodies and constitution comply with accepted European standards, but
argued that in terms of the current level of democracy and observance
of human rights Armenia is on par with some EU member countries. He
said Armenia’s membership in the EU will give it many privileges.

Per Gahrton said Armenia lacks geographic and economic commonalities
with the EU and added that in order to comply with EU membership
requirements Armenia must improve the level of democracy, human rights,
promote resolution of ecological problems, close its nuclear power
plant and get involved in all regional projects. Another condition,
according to him, is that Armenia must pull out its troops from some
Azeri regions, now under Armenian control and continue talks with
Azerbaijani president to end the confrontation. Garhton said the EU
would provide financial support to the sides to achieve these goals
and would exert also pressure on Russia and Turkey to facilitate
the process.

The aim of the presentation was to describe the EU’s notion and
spirit of the “Wider Europe – New Neighborhood Policy” initiative,
elaborate on the European Parliament Recommendation to the Council
on EU policy towards South Caucasus and what Armenia can expect from
the EU’s “Wider Europe – New Neighborhood Policy” initiative.

The event hosted members of the government, the National Assembly,
governors, heads and representatives of diplomatic representations
in Armenia, as well as international organizations located here.

ANKARA: Turkey Wants Good Relations With Armenia

Turkey Wants Good Relations With Armenia

Anadolu Agency
May 12 2004

ANKARA – Turkey wanted good relations with Armenia, Turkish Foreign
Ministry Spokesman Namik Tan said on Wednesday.

Tan told a weekly press briefing that the Caucasus and Armenia were
important regions for Turkey.

Turkish Foreign Ministry Spokesman Tan stated that there were chronic
problems in the region.

Everybody should fulfil his responsibilities, Tan noted.

Tan added that only Turkey`s efforts would not be sufficient to
overcome those chronic problems.

Legacy of Trauma in Karabakh

Legacy of Trauma in Karabakh

Institute for War and Peace Reporting
may 12 2004

Armenian veterans continue to feel the shock of the conflict as if it
ended yesterday.

By Ashot Beglarian in Stepanakert (CRS No. 233, 12-May-04)

“This is how we live,” said Gennady, a weathered former soldier, as he
ushered us into a modest home furnished with only the bare essentials –
a table and a couple of chairs in the middle, and beds by the walls.

“I’ve never craved fame or wealth, and I never treasured life that
much, never feared death,” he told IWPR. “I just want my children to
live. And I pray to God that their lives will be different from ours.
We saw too much blood.”

Gennady is intense and gesticulates a lot when he speaks, but he
appears preoccupied rather than intimidating. “Sometimes dad’s mind
wanders off,” said his son, and Gennady himself did not disagree.

Ten years after a ceasefire was called, the Armenians of Nagorny
Karabakh still live in daily recollection of the war fought over their
territory. The memories are especially fresh among men – every male
between the ages of 18 and 45 was called up to fight.

Even though they ended up on the winning side, they have bad memories
of the war.

Zoya Mailian, a psychologist who often sees patients haunted by the
horrors of the war, said ex-combatants most commonly suffer from
chronic post-traumatic stress, which creates a range of psychiatric
disorders.

“The stress factor can hit you a few days, months or even years later,”
she explained. “In most cases, it makes itself felt through haunting
memories and recurring nightmares. Not infrequently, people suffering
from this kind of trauma lose interest in activities that made sense to
them before. Others may become wary to the point of paranoia, or very
tense and irritable. This condition can be treated by psychotherapy,
but it’s important to see a doctor at an early stage.”

War veteran Mikhail Sarkisian still hears the noises of war. “I was an
artillery gunner, and all that horrendous noise had a terrible effect
on me. Now I can’t stand the slightest sound. I’m very irritable.”

Sarkisian admitted that, “At times I have an inexplicable yearning
for the sound of an artillery barrage.”

Another veteran said, “Whenever I hear a noise, my arm seems to hear
it first – any sudden loud noise echoes with pain in my old bullet
wounds. It’s as if you expect a punch out of nowhere all the time. It
must be a subliminal memory of the Azerbaijani gunfire and bombardment,
which used to start out of the blue.”

Life in peacetime has hit many veterans hard as they have tried to
adjust to new conditions and find employment. Shortly before Karabakh
celebrated May 9, the anniversary of the Soviet victory over Nazi
Germany, the local parliament passed a law granting a 20 per cent
pension raise worth between 700 and 2,000 dram (1.2-3.5 US dollars)
for former soldiers maimed on active service, as well as the families
of those killed. Invalids and families are expected to receive extra
help next year.

But this hasn’t cured the sense of alienation experienced by many
veterans.

“I’m so ashamed to be staying at home, looking after the kids while
my wife is at work. I don’t have a job,” said Gennady resignedly,
stroking his two sons’ hair.

As the years have gone by, veterans have had to cope with growing
indifference from the society around them.

In 2000, Nagorny Karabakh’s government launched a memorial campaign
entitled “No one is forgotten, nothing is forgotten”, designed to
extend social benefits to all registered war veterans, including
those who fought as guerrillas before a regular army was formed in
1992. However, very few have benefited so far.

Sergei Khachikian, who received several combat awards, is unable to
find a steady job, and lives in poverty.

“I’ve been trying forever to renovate my place, which is pretty small
as you can see,” he complained. “It looks terrible, like a war ruin.
The government pledged some help, but nothing’s happened yet.”

Retired general Zhora Gasparian is adamant that veterans shouldn’t
wait for the government to help them, but should look after themselves.

“Laziness and reluctance to work causes a lot of problems,” he said.
“We have really good, fertile soil, but it needs care. I have retained
my love for farm work since my schooldays…and I still work hard,”
he said, displaying his hardened, blistered hands.

A career officer with 40 years of service behind him, Gasparian
receives a pension of 120 dollars from the government, which is
hardly enough to live on – certainly not if you want to live like
a general. But he manages, and also helps out several war-widowed
families. “We’ve got to help them in every way,” he said.

Major-General Vitaly Balasanian, who chairs the Union of Karabakh War
Veterans, believes the veterans do need help and recognition. “The
armed forces and the soldiers of yesterday – the army’s chief reserves
– must always be at the centre of the government’s attention. It is
important that our veterans are valued and esteemed by everyone,”
he said.

Karabakh remains unrecognised as a state, and the tense atmosphere of
“neither war nor peace” which has characterised the truce since 1994
has created a sense of continuing unease and sensitivity to any change
in the status quo.

Despite the reconstruction work, economic growth and improved living
standards seen over the last 10 years, the legacy of war continues
to make itself felt as people suffer from deprivation, the threat of
sniping along the ceasefire line, and unexploded mines.

Many people in Karabakh believe these problems – including the tough
situation facing veterans – can only be resolved properly once there
is a lasting peace deal in place – whenever that might happen.

Ashot Beglarian is a freelance journalist and regular IWPR contributor
in Stepanakert

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Azerbaijan: No Glory for Veterans

Institute for War and Peace Reporting
May 12 2004

Azerbaijan: No Glory for Veterans

Former combatants struggle to survive, and veteran status offers
little solace or practical help.

By Mamed Suleimanov in Zakatala and Baku (CRS No. 233, 12-May-04)

Rahim volunteered to go to the front in the war against the Armenians
in 1992, when he was 23. In January 1993, he was wounded and taken
prisoner near the town of Fizuli.

Eleven years on, Rahim is reluctant to talk about his time as a
prisoner-of-war. “I’ve told this story so many times to the state
commission on prisoners, so go and talk to them,” he told IWPR.

But over a cup of tea, he relented and agreed to tell his story.

“I spent more than a year in captivity. For about a month they kept me
behind bars next to another Azeri man called Oktay. Then I ended up in
the family of an Armenian man whose son had also been taken prisoner. I
spent many long months in the countryside around Hadrut, in this
man’s house. His name was Kamo. They treated me much better there.”

After more than a year in captivity, Rahim’s family managed to win
his freedom after paying a ransom. He was exchanged for a body of an
Armenian plus some money. He declined to say how much money changed
hands, but said that it was the intermediary who kept it anyway –
a field commander nicknamed Fantomas, a former tractor driver who
spent the war involved more in the “business” of trading prisoners
than in the actual fighting.

Rahim returned an invalid to the small town of Zakatala in
north-western Azerbaijan where he lives. Even though he cannot move
the fingers on his left hand because of war wounds, he managed to
become a professional hairdresser.

The local authorities gave him a small room in a local hotel, which
he turned into a hairdressing salon. Then his luck turned sour again.
Survivors of a fire in an apartment block were re-housed in the hotel,
so Rahim lost his means of making a livelihood.

Now Rahim is unemployed. He has a family and three children, but
no house and nowhere to turn to for help. The town authorities have
long forgotten about him, and now he is saving up to move to Russia,
where he hopes he can find a job as a market trader.

Another veteran, 38-year-old Azer, had more luck. He too volunteered
for the war, serving as a driver ferrying ammunition to the front. He
was badly wounded by a landmine in Aghdam, and spent over a month in
intensive care. Twelve years later, he still gets bad headaches from
the skull injury he suffered.

After he left hospital, Azer managed to get a fairly lucrative job by
local standards, working at a customs checkpoint on the border with
Georgia. He says that to avoid standing out from his colleagues, he
took bribes and shared them with his superiors, just like the other
customs officers.

After ten years on the job, he managed to save up a decent sum, got
married, bought a house in Baku and started his own business. But a
year ago he was sacked from customs because, he says, “they sold my
workplace to someone else”.

The stories of both Rahim and Azer illustrate how Azerbaijan’s veterans
of the Nagorny Karabakh war have had to fend for themselves in the 10
years since the ceasefire agreement of 1994. Most say they are ignored
by the state they fought for, and that they survive only on their wits.

Recently a local television channel reported that a war invalid from
the town of Imishli has been living with his wife and children in an
old bus for three years, because he lost hope that he would ever be
able to get a proper home.

The primary concern for most veterans is feeding their families. The
pension for invalids from the war is about 27 dollars a month, well
below the bread line.

Veterans used to enjoy some benefits, travelling free on public
transport and receiving gas and electricity supplies for nothing.
However, former Azerbaijani president Heidar Aliev cut those benefits
from the beginning of 2002.

Rei Kerimoglu, a spokesman for the Karabakh Gazileri (Karabakh
Warriors) organisation, one of several veterans’ groups, told IWPR that
benefits for invalids are sometimes misappropriated. For instance,
specially-adapted vehicles should be provided to invalids free of
charge, but officials demand a bribe of 300 to 400 dollars to hand
them over.

Kerimoglu said that in recent years, abject poverty has driven 36
war invalids to kill themselves, and 75 more have been treated by
doctors after attempting suicide.

Mekhti Mekhtiev, chairman of the Public Union of Karabakh War
Invalids, Veterans and Families of Martyrs’ Families, told IWPR, “We
have been facing a difficult situation since our benefits were cut.
When Baku mayor Hajibala Abutalibov had illegally-built structures
demolished, some trading booths belonging to Karabakh veterans also
got destroyed. These people are unable to work due to their health,
and trading is their only source of income. Now many veterans are
simply starving.”

Labour and welfare minister Nagiev denies that veterans are being
neglected. He said the 8,000 Karabakh war invalids on his ministry’s
books get priority treatment from the state. “Compared with others,
they have much higher pensions, they receive free medical treatment
at home, and those who need to have treatment abroad are given a
certain amount of money every year,” he said. The minister said the
state has handed out nearly 800 cars and 350 apartments to veterans
free of charge since 1997.

Altay Mamedov, who heads the Azerbaijani Association for Veterans of
the Great Patriotic War, an organisation originally set up to help
Second World War participants, said part of the problem is that there
are so many different veterans’ groups.

“In other countries there is one centralised body that deals with all
the problems facing veterans. But we have nine state organisations
doing it, and as a result there are differing interpretations of the
criteria for granting veteran status, and varying numbers of veterans
are cited,” said Mamedov. “The state claims there are 74,000 veterans
of the Karabakh war in the country. But our data indicates that the
number of war veterans is exaggerated. Our association is proposing to
unite all organisations that [have the power to] grant veteran status.”

Neither Rahim nor Azer is a member of any of the veterans’
organisations.

“It’s all politics, and the heads of all those organisations just
want to grab a piece of the pie,” said Rahim. Azer agreed, saying,
“If you hang around waiting for help from the state, you could easily
starve to death.”

Neither man likes reminiscing about the war, and they do not take
part in army reunions. The memories of what they did then are a burden
they carry alone.

Mamed Suleimanov is a reporter for the Baku newspaper Novoe Vremya.

Armenia to sign gas agreement with Iran

Armenia to sign gas agreement with Iran

RosBusiness Consulting
May 12 2004

RBC, 12.05.2004, Yerevan 16:10:45.Iranian Petroleum Minister
Bijan Namdar-Zanganeh will arrive in Armenia on a one-day visit.
According to the press service of the Armenian Energy Ministry, the
main aim of the visit is to sign an agreement on constructing the
Iran-Armenia gas pipeline. Namdar-Zanganeh will meet with Armenian
President Robert Kocharian and Prime Minister Andranik Markarian.

The length of the pipeline will amount to 141km. It is planned
to start the construction this year and to finish it in 2006. The
cost of the project has been estimated as $120m. At the first stage,
it is planned to receive some 700m cubic meters of gas from Iran with
later up to 1.5bn cubic meters.

Armenian authorities deny the possibility of transit of Iranian
gas to Europe through Armenia since this project implies “certain
difficulties”.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

‘Special’ Liberal foreign policy advisers ridiculed

The Vancouver Sun (British Columbia)
May 12, 2004 Wednesday Final Edition

‘Special’ Liberal foreign policy advisers ridiculed: Two MPs who quit
to make way for Martin candidates get post-election advisory jobs

by Peter O’Neil

OTTAWA

OTTAWA — Two Liberal MPs who quit politics to make way for Prime
Minister Paul Martin’s favoured candidates were ridiculed Tuesday for
accepting posts as “special” foreign policy advisers to the prime
minister.

B.C. Liberal MP Sophia Leung and Ontario Liberal Sarkis Assadourian
gave up their $140,000-a-year jobs in Parliament to provide
post-election advice to Martin, who is known for his expertise in
world affairs and has access to countless policy and trade experts in
the federal bureaucracy.

Neither of the MPs, nor Martin’s office, would say whether the MPs
would draw salaries and have office and travel budgets in the event
Martin is prime minister after the next election.

“It’s just a pork-barreling way of filling their pockets with money,
and making them feel important, because they’re giving up their jobs
as MPs,” said Conservative House leader John Reynolds. “It’s not
doing one iota of good for Canadians.”

Reynolds (West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast) said Martin is insulting the
many policy and trade experts in Canada and abroad who work at the
departments of foreign affairs and international trade, which
together have budgets totalling $1.8 billion.

The government would provide no information on remuneration for the
new positions.

“For the time being, they remain MPs and are therefore unpaid in
their advisory roles,” said Melanie Gruer, a Martin aide.

“What happens after a possible election will be decided at that
time.”

The MPs bluntly rejected the pork-barreling claim.

“No, it’s not patronage,” said Leung, who will sacrifice her
Vancouver-Kingsway seat for Martin’s friend, B.C. businessman David
Emerson, to be Martin’s special adviser on international trade and
emerging markets.

“I have the background. I’ve been on the finance committee. And I’m
very interested, and I know so many people, in the business sector,
especially Asia-Pacific,” said Leung, 69, who was born in China.

“The prime minister feels I can really make a contribution.”

Assadourian, 56, the only MP of Armenian descent, will be special
adviser on near eastern and south Caucasus affairs. That covers the
countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia.

The MP gave up his Brampton-Springdale seat to Ruby Dhalla, a Toronto
chiropractor who worked on Martin’s leadership campaign.

Assadourian refused numerous opportunities to speak to The Vancouver
Sun Monday and Tuesday about his new job, but an aide said the MP is
qualified.

“In terms of of why he has the position? Of course it is because of
his background and knowledge [and his] language capabilities,” said
Daniel Kennedy, an aide to Assadourian, pointing out that the MP
speaks Armenian, Arabic, and Turkish.

[email protected]

GRAPHIC: Color Photo: CanWest News Services; …Ontario MP Sarkis
Assadourian quit their $140,000-a-year jobs to make way for Prime
Minister Paul Martin’s favoured candidates and provide post-election
advice for the prime minister.; Color Photo: CanWest News Services;
B.C. MP Sophia Leung and …

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

NK: A Decade Of Frustration In Search Of A Negotiated Peace

Nagorno-karabakh; A Decade Of Frustration In Search Of A Negotiated Peace

Eurasianet Organization
May 12 2004

On May 12, 1994, a ceasefire brought a halt to fighting over
Nagorno-Karabakh, a conflict that embroiled Armenia and Azerbaijan
and Karabakh Armenians. In the decade since then, the two countries,
along with representatives of the unrecognized Karabakh Republic,
have been unable to agree on a political settlement. Despite an
increased international interest in promoting lasting peace, the
near-term prospects for a Karabakh deal appear bleak. In early 2004,
international mediators, operating under the auspices of the OSCE Minsk
Group, took action to reinvigorate the peace process, facilitating
several top-level meetings of Armenian and Azerbaijani officials. In
late April, for instance Armenian President Robert Kocharian met with
his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliyev in Warsaw. And on May 12-13,
the foreign ministers of the two countries were scheduled to meet on
the sidelines of a Council of Europe gathering. [For background see
the Eurasia Insight archive].

Amid the flurry of recent diplomatic activity, both Armenian and
Azerbaijani officials have used terms such as “productive” to
characterize the discussions. The Russian news agency Itar-Tass on
April 30 quoted Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov as
saying the presidential meeting in Warsaw featured “a useful exchange
of opinion.” No one, however, sounds optimistic that the existing
deadlock will be broken any time soon.

Indeed, Armenian and Azerbaijani authorities in recent days have
stressed that while they remain open to talks, their respective
negotiating positions are unchanged: Yerevan will not accept any
settlement that leaves Karabakh a constituent part of Azerbaijan;
Baku will not consent to a deal in which Karabakh operates beyond
the control of Azerbaijani authorities. [For additional information
see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Baku also is pushing for Armenian
forces to withdraw from occupied Azerbaijani lands before addressing
a Karabakh settlement.

Armenian Prime Minister Andranik Markarian said on May 11 that
Yerevan is seeking a “comprehensive” Karabakh solution that attaches
no pre-conditions to peace talks. “We want this issue to be dealt
with comprehensively, instead of having to vacate the [occupied
Azerbaijani] lands and then discussing Nagorno-Karabakh’s status,”
the Russian Itar-Tass news agency quoted Markarian as saying while
on a visit to Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Azerbaijan has grown increasingly frustrated with
international mediation efforts. Aliyev said that the Minsk Group
co-chairs “have to stop just observing” peace talks and do more to
promote a settlement, the publication Baku Today reported on May
8. In recent months, Aliyev has repeatedly suggested that if the
negotiating stalemate was not broken soon, then Azerbaijan would
consider resorting again to force to resolve the Karabakh issue. Few
political observers believe Aliyev would follow through on his threat,
however, given that such action would likely prompt international
sanctions. Military analysts also believe that Armenia’s armed forces
retain the ability to repulse a potential Azerbaijani offensive.

The Karabakh conundrum has its roots in the late Soviet era, a time
when former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev’s efforts to restructure
the Communist system unleashed pent-up nationalist feelings among
ethnic minorities. Under the Communists, Karabakh existed as an
administrative entity within Azerbaijan that was inhabited mainly
by ethnic Armenians. In February 1988, the regional legislature
debated the issue of Karabakh’s transfer from Azerbaijani to Armenian
jurisdiction. The transfer question sparked a chain reaction in which
popular demonstrations in both Karabakh and Armenia were followed
by anti-Armenian pogroms in Azerbaijan. In a flash, two peoples –
Armenians and Azerbaijanis – who had co-existed in peace for decades,
if not centuries, developed into mortal enemies.

In 1992, military operations engulfed Karabakh. At first, Azerbaijani
forces held the upper hand. But in 1993 Karabakh Armenian forces,
with considerable support from Yerevan, broke an Azerbaijani siege,
and went on to occupy about 15 percent of Azerbaijani territory before
the cease-fire brought military operations to a halt.

In trying to negotiate a permanent political solution, both Armenian
and Azerbaijani leaders have found that they have less room for
maneuver than expected. Attempts to forge Karabakh compromises have
more often than not proved politically dangerous. The first such
instance came in late 1997, when then-Armenian president Levon
Ter-Petrosian indicated that he might accept a political formula
that would allow Karabakh to remain a part of Azerbaijan with
strong security guarantees for the region’s Armenian population.
Ter-Petrosian immediately faced stiff opposition from hardliners
within his administration, and, ultimately, was forced to resign. His
successor, Robert Kocharian, was the political leader of Karabakh
who led regional forces in defeating the Azerbaijani army in the
early 1990s. Since assuming the Armenian presidency, Kocharian has
been unswerving in his efforts to secure a settlement that leaves
Karabakh outside of Azerbaijan.

So far, the closest the two countries have come to agreeing to a
deal appears to have occurred in April 2001 during a round peace
talks at the Florida resort island of Key West. Although nothing
was ever formally announced, Azerbaijan’s leader at the time, Heidar
Aliyev, the now deceased father of Azerbaijan’s incumbent president,
reportedly agreed in Key West to a deal that would have severed Baku’s
administrative ties to Karabakh. [For background see the Eurasia
Insight archive]. When the elder Aliyev returned to Baku, however, he
faced broad opposition to the proposed settlement terms. Accordingly,
Baku backed away from the supposed Key West settlement parameters.

The question of whether or not Heidar Aliyev tentatively agreed to a
deal in Key West remains politically sensitive for Baku. Azerbaijani
officials claim the former president never made any actual commitments
at Key West, while Armenian leaders insist that he did. Whatever the
case, little progress on Karabakh peace talks has occurred since the
Key West meeting, as the sides have been unable to set aside mutual
suspicion to restart a substantive dialogue.

Editor’s Note: Haroutiun Khachatrian is a Yerevan-based writer
specializing in economic and political affairs.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Special Report: Karabakh: Missing in Action – Alive or Dead?

Institute for War and Peace Reporting
May 12 2004

Special Report: Karabakh: Missing in Action – Alive or Dead?

Ten years after the Nagorny Karabakh ceasefire agreement, hundreds of
Armenians and Azerbaijanis are still missing, presumed dead.

By Karine Ohanian in Stepanakert and Zarema Velikhanova in Baku (CRS
No. 233, 12-May-04)

On December 9, 1994, a meeting took place on the Karabakh ceasefire
line and an unusual transaction was made.

Two young captive soldiers – Azerbaijani Rauf Budagov and Karabakh
Armenian Levon Babayan, both aged 23 – were exchanged for one another
and allowed to go home.

The two men shook hands, each finding the other’s – like his own –
chafed rough by the cold and coated in dirt. Both trembled with
emotion.

“I’ve become a different person, quite different,” said Levon. “I
don’t sleep a wink all night,” said Rauf. “And even now I don’t
believe I’m going home. It’s like being born a second time, like
coming back to life from my coffin. Basically, you’ve given me back
your life and I’ve given you yours.”

Levon replied, “And what a life, 100 years long…. I wouldn’t wish
what I’ve been through on my enemies.” Then each man moved on and
returned home.

Sadly, the return from the dead of these two men, seven months after
the Nagorny Karabakh ceasefire agreement of May 12 1994, was a rare
happy ending in what is one of the most ignored and tragic aspects of
the unresolved conflict.

As the tenth anniversary of the truce is observed, thousands of
people are still reported missing and their fate remains a mystery.

Most independent observers believe that all those still missing are
in fact dead. But many relatives refuse to give up hope – and they
will be encouraged by occasional cases where captives are traded for
money through Georgia.

>>From the very beginning of the Karabakh dispute in 1988, both sides
took hostages.

At the beginning of 1993, a year into the full-blown war, Azerbaijan
and Nagorny Karabakh – the latter still unrecognised as a state –
formed government commissions to deal with prisoners of war and
hostages. Armenia later set up its own commission.

As the fighting raged, the Azerbaijan and Karabakh Armenian sides
kept up a constant dialogue and continued to exchange prisoners.

“There were several corridors along the front-line, where meetings,
negotiations and exchanges took place,” said Albert Voskanian, deputy
head of the Karabakh commission from 1993 to 1997. “It all helped us
to work realistically and fruitfully. Several hundred people from
both sides were sought out and exchanged.”

The formal end of hostilities with the 1994 ceasefire, which sealed a
de facto victory for the Armenians, resulted in a sharp decrease in
captive numbers, but the fate of thousands remained uncertain.

In 1997, the Azerbaijanis stopped working directly with the Karabakh
commission. After that, the Karabakh Armenians engaged with Baku
mainly through the Red Cross.

Since 1995, an International Working Group – led by Bernhard Clasen
of Germany, Russia’s Svetlana Gannushkina and Paata Zakareishvili of
Georgia – has worked with all sides, going back and forth to visit
sites where prisoners might be detained.

The Azerbaijani State Commission says 4,959 Azerbaijanis are still
missing in action from the Karabakh conflict, a figure that includes
71 children, 320 women and 358 elderly people. Furthermore, the
Azerbaijanis say they have information that 783 people, again
including civilians as well as combatants, were taken captive by the
Armenians and have not been released.

On the Armenian side, the Karabakh State Commission lists around 600
people as missing, 400 of them civilians.

The vast majority of these missing people have not been heard of for
more than a decade, and it is presumed they are dead, buried in
graves whose location is known only to a few people or to no one at
all.

But every year, a few soldiers still go missing across the front
line, generally in places where the trenches of the two opposing
militaries run closest to one another. Some of the men may simply
have got lost and blundered into enemy lines, others may have got
caught on reconnaissance missions, and others still may have been
trying to desert.

Each side alleges that the other is hiding captives – and each
strongly denies this charge.

The Azerbaijani commission says it does not trust the Armenians. In a
statement to IWPR, it said that between 1993 and 1999, the Armenian
side consistently said it was holding no more than 50 or 60 captives,
yet from 1992 to 2000 the far higher figure of 1,086 Azerbaijanis was
freed.

“There is information about a few possible burial sites of
Azerbaijani soldiers after certain battles,” Viktor Kocharian, head
of the Karabakh commission, told IWPR. “From time to time we hand
over remains which are discovered in the searches we carry out. But
the figure of 5,000 is ridiculous! It should be obvious that it’s
simply impossible to secretly hold this number of prisoners of war or
even human remains within Karabakh.”

It has mainly fallen to a partnership of non-government organisations
on either side, together with the International Working Group, to
investigate the allegations that captives are still being detained.

“To debunk myths, we’ve had to climb into quarries in Azerbaijan and
check out information we’d received that hundreds of Armenian
prisoners were working there,” Svetlana Gannushkina told IWPR. “We
didn’t find a single Armenian.” To investigate similar allegations
about the other side, the Helsinki Initiative 92 group organised a
trip by a group of Azerbaijan women to Karabakh last August. Carrying
a list of 50 soldiers missing in action, the women were allowed to
visit Karabakh’s two prisons, one in Shusha (which the Armenians call
Shushi) and one in Stepanakert (which the Azerbaijanis call
Khankendi) – and found no one.

The three international investigators point out that for purely
practical reasons, it is difficult and expensive to keep prisoners
over a long period and hide them from prying eyes.

This is not enough to satisfy all the relatives. After the trip to
Karabakh, one Azerbaijani mother, Tamara Eyubova, told IWPR, “We are
not entirely certain that there are no Azerbaijani prisoners in
Karabakh. We were shown one prison and one detention centre, but
where’s the guarantee that they are not being held in other prisons?”
Vera Grigorian, an Armenian mother whose son is missing in action,
told IWPR, “We have definite information that there are Armenian
prisoners of war and hostages in Azerbaijan. We receive various kinds
of information through different channels about this or that person.
Former prisoners come to us and identify one and the same person with
whom they shared their captivity.”

The most explosive allegation made by both sides is that prisoners
are being traded for money via their common neighbour Georgia.

Arzu Abdullayeva, a well-known human rights activist who is head of
Azerbaijan’s Helsinki Committee, spent a long time in the early
Nineties investigating this trade, particularly at the market in
Sadakhlo in Georgia. In 1994, Abdullayeva personally paid 1,000
dollars that she had been awarded with the Olof Palme peace prize,
allowing Azerbaijani father Fikret Mamedov to buy back his son. She
said the decision to pay the ransom was made because it was feared
that the criminals said to be holding the boy would kill him before
normal channels could be made to work.

“People are bought for cash,” said Donara Mnatsakanian, whose son
Nelson went missing in 1996, two years after the ceasefire. “Today no
one makes a secret of that. But I won’t name any names because the
problem still exists and unfortunately money is just about the only
way of freeing hostages.”

Donara said that her son was found through the efforts of relatives
in Kiev and acquaintances in Azerbaijan. Nelson had grown so
desperate in captivity that he tried to commit suicide by jumping out
of a window – but he survived. He was finally freed for a cash
payment in Georgia four years after he went missing, and after an
initial attempt to free him in Tashkent had failed.

Donara refused to answer IWPR’s questions as to who was the
intermediary, what sum was paid and how Nelson was finally freed,
because she didn’t want to wreck the chances of a similar transaction
helping someone else.

“It’s easier to come out with fine slogans about how people mustn’t
be bought and sold – until your own son is over there,” said another
Karabakh mother, Vera Grigorian. “The thing is that money,
unfortunately, is the last thread that connects relatives on either
side of the border.”

One desperate Azerbaijani, Hamlet Badalov, has gone to great lengths
to secure the release of his son Vugar, who he is convinced is still
alive after vanishing in 1993. Badalov paid over some money in return
for some news about his son, and then bought a fax machine and waited
all night for the promised information.

But as Russian investigator Gannushkina reports, “Eventually a fax
came through with a Moscow address and the surname of a man
supposedly holding Vugar. I checked – that address in Moscow is the
Stanislavsky Theatre, and no one by that name works there.”

The experts believe Badalov is the victim of a cruel hoax.

All the relatives of the missing agree that what they want more than
anything else is certainty. Not knowing what happened to their loved
ones, they say, is worse than knowing for sure that someone is dead.

“We want real help in the search for our relatives,” said mother
Svetlana Martirosian. “We want to know for sure whether a person has
or hasn’t died. We need just one thing – true information.”

Sadly, ten years after the Karabakh ceasefire, hundreds of families
are still waiting to find out the truth.

Karine Ohanian is a freelance journalist based in Stepanakert,
Nagorny Karabakh. Zarema Velikhanova is a freelance journalist based
in Baku.

Editor’s Note: This article is a unique collaboration by two
journalists from the opposing sides in the Karabakh conflict. The
terminology used to refer to aspects of the conflict was chosen in
London in an attempt to achieve neutrality. It may not necessarily
reflect the original wording.

Karabakh Ceasefires Troubled Anniversary

Institute for War and Peace Reporting
May 12 2004

Karabakh Ceasefire’s Troubled Anniversary

A decade after war ended in Nagorny Karabakh, the peace is still as
fragile as ever.

By Thomas de Waal in London (CRS No. 233, 12-May-04)

Appearances can be deceptive.

The 200-kilometre strip of land that marks the ceasefire line around
Nagorny Karabakh is one of the most peaceful places on earth. In the
last ten years it has become overgrown with wild vegetation and tall
thistles.

The main sound is of soft birdsong. The main scourge appears to be
the locusts and other insects that range freely here.

Yet no one can set foot here, because the land is heavily mined. And
for ten years, two armies have faced each other across the line. The
Azerbaijani and Karabakh Armenian soldiers looking at one another
through binoculars do not even have telephone or radio contact.

Perhaps only the militarised border between North and South Korea is
a more forbidding dividing line than this one. Although the ceasefire
agreement of May 12, 1994 halted more than two years of heavy
fighting – sealing a de facto Armenian victory – it did not resolve
the conflict.

The ceasefire line continues to scar the southern Caucasus and
prevents hundreds of thousands of refugees from returning to their
homes. Peace plans have come and gone, yet nothing has shifted.

Looking back on a decade of truce, Vladimir Kazimirov, the Russian
diplomat who negotiated the 1994 ceasefire agreement, told IWPR that,
“it really does summon up mixed feelings. It’s good that it’s held
for ten years – that the mass bloodshed has stopped in the gravest
armed conflict on the territory of the former USSR, but it’s sad that
in all that time the mediators have not managed to achieve a
breakthrough in the political resolution of the conflict.

“Back then, I knew it could take several years – but not that it
would take so long.”

Moscow’s original plan to deploy Russian peacekeepers along the
ceasefire line was vetoed by Azerbaijan, with the result that the
conflict effectively has a self-regulating truce with no neutral
troops in between.

“There are pluses and minuses in the fact that the parties to the
conflict bear all the responsibility for observing the ceasefire,”
said Kazimirov. “It means no one but them is responsible for
incidents along the line of contact.”

That makes for a truce that is particularly vulnerable. The last year
has been one of the most difficult of the whole decade. In 2004,
around 30 soldiers died in shooting incidents across the front line,
a reverse in what had been a positive trend. Others continue to be
killed by mines.

International mediators and analysts worry that the situation of “no
war, no peace” is unsustainable in the long-term, and needs to be
buttressed by a proper peace settlement. A second Karabakh war, given
the weaponry that both sides have acquired since 1994, would be far
more devastating than the first.

That war of 1991-94 was tragic enough, resulting in the deaths of
perhaps 20,000 people, the wounding of more than three times that
number, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of refugees.

“There is a saying that once a year a gun fires itself – there is
always a temptation to use it,” warned Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk in
an interview to IWPR by telephone. Kasprzyk is the personal
representative of the chairman-in-office of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, with responsibility for the
Karabakh conflict – in other words the international official who
most closely monitors the situation on the ground.

“The Armenian side likes to say that the ceasefire holds because of a
balance of power; that there is no chance for either of the two
parties to win,” said Kasprzyk. “But in a situation where you have
two armies facing each other, there is always a temptation to start
something.”

US diplomat Carey Cavanaugh – who convened talks at Key West, Florida
in 2001 that came closer than ever before to a peace plan – noted
that the first thing the mediators did when the talks failed was to
support the ceasefire.

Some in Azerbaijan argue that the coming billion-dollar oil revenues
the country is about to earn from the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline
project will change the balance of power, especially if the price of
oil remains at levels of more than 30 dollars a barrel.

In Azerbaijan, there have already been vociferous calls this year for
the government to resort to the military option to reclaim its lost
territories. A pro-war group, the Karabakh Liberation Organisation,
is currently orchestrating a march from Baku to the ceasefire line.

The murder of Gurgen Markarian, an army officer from Armenia, by his
Azerbaijani colleague Ramil Safarov at a NATO language course in
Budapest in February showed how quickly passions can become inflamed
around this issue. As soon as the news broke, defence groups formed
for Safarov in Azerbaijan, while Markarian was given a public funeral
in Armenia and his death provoked angry denunciations of Azerbaijan.

Foreign diplomats point out that Azerbaijan currently has a
poorly-equipped army, which is far from ready to go back to war. It
would take years for that to change – but the perception inside
Azerbaijan that the power balance is shifting could in itself be
enough to halt the peace process in its tracks.

The Karabakh conflict has created a strange world in the south
Caucasus, in which two countries are almost hermetically sealed off
from one another and from the other’s attachments and concerns. That
means that the views that both societies have about each other are
still basically stuck back in 1988.

Two surveys taken in parallel by the Baku and Yerevan Press Clubs in
2001, the year of the Key West talks, suggest why those talks were
doomed to failure.

Asked what would be an acceptable status for Nagorny Karabakh, the
disputed territory at the heart of the conflict, 45 per cent of
respondents in Armenia said they wanted to see Karabakh become
independent and another 42.7 per cent said it should become part of
Armenia. Less than one per cent of those asked believed Karabakh
should be part of Azerbaijan.

The Azerbaijani poll produced answers that were polar opposites of
the Armenian ones. Fifty-six per cent of respondents said Karabakh
should be “within Azerbaijan, without any autonomy”, and 33.7 per
cent favoured Karabakh returning to Azerbaijan with autonomous
status. Only 0.9 per cent were prepared to countenance Karabakh
becoming independent or part of Armenia.

Yet the bold innovation of the document discussed at Key West was
that Azerbaijan was ready to cede sovereignty over Nagorny Karabakh
to Armenia, along with a land corridor through the town of Lachin
connecting Karabakh to Armenia.

In return, Azerbaijan was to get back the occupied parts of seven
provinces surrounding Karabakh, and a land corridor was to be built
through Armenia to link the Azerbaijani exclave of Nakhichevan with
the rest of the country. The town of Shusha, inside Karabakh, which
formerly had a majority Azerbaijani population, was to be placed
under international administration.

One problem with the scheme was that the Armenian side was unhappy
about giving up Shusha. More fundamentally, Azerbaijani president
Heidar Aliev had not prepared even some of his top advisers for the
idea of giving up sovereignty over Karabakh.

Boxed in by public opinion that they themselves had helped entrench,
the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia were unable to build on the
relative success of Key West.

Some observers including Kazimirov argue that it is impossible to
achieve a “package agreement” for Karabakh, in which everything is
decided at once.

However others involved in the process resist this idea, with the
Karabakh Armenians for instance opposing any deal in which their
final status is not determined at the outset. Others say that nothing
will be possible until Azerbaijan opens a dialogue with the Karabakh
Armenians – but it still refuses to do so.

As the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers meet in Strasbourg
in May 12-13, they find themselves as far from a solution as ever.
The silence on the front line is becoming a little ominous.

Thomas de Waal is IWPR’s Caucasus Editor in London.

Enlarged E.U. defines policies towards its new neighbours

Deutsche Presse-Agentur
May 12, 2004, Wednesday

Enlarged E.U. defines policies towards its new neighbours

Brussels

The European Commission on Wednesday mapped out a vision of closer
political and economic ties with the European Union’s neighbours in
the east and the south, saying the newly-enlarged 25 member bloc must
be surrounded by a “ring” of stable and prosperous friends.

Countries from Morocco to Ukraine were not eligible for E.U.
membership but could be given a “real stake in the enlarged E.U. so
that they too can develop and prosper,” European Commissioner Gunter
Verheugen told reporters.

“A ring of well-governed countries around the E.U., offering new
perspectives for democracy and economic growth, is in the interests
of Europe as a whole,” Verheugen said.

The Commission – the European Union’s executive arm – said it did not
want the E.U.’s latest expansion to create “new dividing lines” in
Europe.

Officials said countries eligible to benefit from increased aid,
trade and political links with the E.U. should include Russia,
Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova as well as Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Georgia.

All so-called southern Mediterranean nations, including Israel and
the Palestinian territories, should also become part of the new
neighbourhood policy, they added.

Countries opting to forge closer relations with the E.U. will have to
sign up to joint action plans committing them to democratic and
economic reform as well as respect for human rights.

“The pace at which the E.U. develops links with each partner will
reflect the extent to which these common values are effectively
shared,” the Commission said.

Countries which draw up the action plans will also have to engage in
an intensive political dialogue with the E.U., covering issues such
as the fight against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction as well as efforts to resolve regional conflicts.

If successful, the countries could then enjoy access to the E.U.’s
market of 450 million people, participate in a number of E.U.
programmes in education and training, research and innovation and
achieve improved interconnection and physical links with the E.U. in
the fields of energy, transport, environment and information
technology.

Close co-operation will also be demanded in areas like border
management, migration, the fight against terrorism, trafficking in
human beings, drugs and arms, and combating organised crime.

Verheugen insisted that the action plans will be differentiated and
tailor-made to reflect the existing state of relations with each
country.

Once the action plans are implemented, the E.U.’s new neighbours
could sign up to “privileged partnerships” with the bloc, the
Commission said.

The policy will be backed up by an aid package worth 255 million
euros (303 million dollars).

The first wave of countries to join the programme are expected to
include Moldova, Ukraine, Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Jordan,
Tunisia and Morocco, with Egypt and Lebanon set to be included in the
autumn.

The new strategy has to be approved by E.U. governments before it is
implemented by the Commission. dpa si pmc