Azat Artsakh, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh (NKR)
April 6, 2004

DO WE NEED EDUCATIONAL REFORM?

The delegation of the RA Ministry of Education headed by minister
Sergo Yeritsian visited NKR to get acquainted with the educational
system in Artsakh and to discuss the project of the new state system
of secondary education. Apparently, our educational system is on the
threshold of serious reforms as a result of which Artsakh and Armenia
will have a system similar to the European system of secondary
education. The essence of these reforms is making secondary school 12
years as the schoolchildren are now overloaded. If starting from this
point, we must admit that 5-6 year old children will now be
overloaded. And besides, this system will shorten the childhood of our
children. Perhaps it is preferable to consider seriously the program
of physical training of our children. If the schooling age is
nevertheless lowered, the school should be divided to junior and
senior schools, but is this possible in our conditions? Another
important fact: a twelve-year secondary education is directly
connected with military service. Boys will have to go to the army
immediately after finishing school and most of them will simply have
no chance to get a higher education. Our poll of public opinion showed
that the approach of the society to this reform is not
unanimous. Heads of educational departments and certain teachers
welcomed it, and at the same time cautiously expressing their
disagreement to the current complicated school curriculum, they
implied that pupils of senior classes had better spend one more year
at school than join the ranks of unemployed or tramps. Parents are
absolutely against the 12-year secondary education. After school boys
will not have time to enter a higher educational institution. The
opinions of the schoolchildren are also different: some of them are
for the Western system of education, but the majority is worried about
spending two more years at school. The relief is that adoption of the
new system is planned gradually, during 12-13 years. It is important
to work out the mechanisms of implementation of this plan properly. It
is time to give up the idea that the school is a link preparing to
enter a higher educational institution. According to the NKR minister
of education, culture and sport Armen Sarghissian, the pupils will
have the opportunity to get narrow specialization in senior
classes. It is not obligatory to have a higher education especially
that a greater part of them will be employed in the sphere of economy
and service. Therefore, it is important to open different technical
colleges. And on the whole do we need this school reform? According
to the RA minister of education Sergo Yeritsian, we are of a high
opinion about our educational potential, which is not, however,
justified. S. Yeritsian cited the following fact: UNESCO conducted
checking of the knowledge of natural sciences of learners in 50
countries and Armenia was in the 45th place. This means that we have
problems in our educational system. Therefore it is necessary to think
about fundamental changes in the educational system. It is desirable
that it was not merely adding two more years to the 10-year
course. And finally, the words of the NKR minister of education that
our educational system should not fall behind the European and world
educational level. And on the other hand, we do not have the right to
accept this new system without taking into consideration the national
peculiarities.

EVIKA BABAYAN

Azat Artsakh, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh (NKR)
April 6, 2004

“MOVEMENT-88” UNIFICATION AROUND STATE BUILDING

On April 2 the founders of the new public-political organization
“Movement-88” member of parliament Edward Aghabekian and candidate of
sciences in physics and mathematics Gagik Baghunts gave a press
conference. At the beginning of the press conference it was mentioned
that in the current political situation Karabakh is facing the problem
of to be or not to be. In order to survive, live and develop we need
to mobilize all our material, mental and spiritual potential to build
a self-sufficient democratic state. Edward Aghabekian mentioned that
the new organization will neither be opposition, nor support the
authorities. “We will raise problems; whether these will coincide with
the opinion of the government, or not, is not our problem,” said
E. Aghabekian. Nevertheless, the organization will be nominated at the
parliamentary elections in 2005. The participants of the movement say,
with our foreign problems we must have a strong civil state. As ways
of achieving this Gagik Baghunts mentioned transparency and balance
between the power branches, adoption of the new Constitution,
reconsideration of the manpower policy, development of the economy
based on investment of high technologies. According to E. Aghabekian,
the Constitution must clearly distinguish the duties of the power
branches. E. Aghabekian characterized the authorities as an elite
specialized in illegal economic activities. According to the
participants of the movement, economic development in Karabakh is
obvious but there is a problem with its even distribution. “Economic
polarization causes loss of human capital. We say everyone should be
equal before the army and before the law,” said E. Aghabekian. During
the press conference the problem of Karabakh was also touched upon.
E. Aghabekian mentioned that it is time for Armenia and Karabakh to
clearly outline their relationships and confirm the independence of
NKR. As to the home political situation in Armenia, the members of the
movement said they do not want to deal with these processes. E.
Aghabekian said, Karabakh must enter dialogue with Azerbaijan on a
horizontal plain. He thinks that we must live, develop and build a
state not overlooking the outer threat. The founding group will soon
publish the program of the organization. Then the founding meeting
will take place and the organization will be registered. During the
press conference the leader of the National-Democratic Party Murad
Petrossian announced that the party is declaring itself member of the
“Movement-88”. He mentioned that the principles declared by the
founders of the movement – correct manpower policy, rule of law and
public control – are close to his heart. The members of “Movement-88”
promised to meet regularly with the mass media.

NAIRA HAYRUMIAN

Azat Artsakh, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh (NKR)
April 4, 2004

MILITARY ACTIONS NOT PROFITABLE FOR ARMENIA

In his interview to the Baku newspaper “Echo” the chairman of the
Helsinki Association Mikael Danielian announced that the authorities
of Armenia have no way out in solving problems with the opposition but
to resume military actions with Azerbaijan. In the announcement it is
even mentioned that the military actions in the conflict area will be
resumed in April. Several days after the publication M. Danielian
appeared in hospital after an assault. In this reference the chairman
of the NKR National Assembly committee of foreign relationships Vahram
Atanessian mentioned that such announcements are based upon
suppositions and personal opinions on the home political tensions. He
mentioned that the resumption of the military actions is possible as
long as the conflict is not settled. On the other hand, the
destabilization of the situation is unreal on the part of the Armenian
authorities. He proves this opinion by two circumstances: first, any
destabilization arouses a more uncontrollable situation, and second,
if Yerevan officially declares war, it will have to assume the
responsibility for today’s situation as well, which is
favourable for Baku. That is to say, the authorities of Armenia do not
need the resumption of the military actions. According to V.
Atanessian, neither the government, nor the opposition of Armenia use
the whole potential of the dialogue. “Even if there is serious
disaccord between the government and the opposition of Armenia, there
exist constitutional ways of settling it,” mentioned V. Atanessian,
supposing that in the upcoming months a buffer force will form in
Armenia, which will undertake the responsibility of starting dialogue
between the government and the opposition. Commenting on the mentioned
announcement, the coordinator of the Karabakh non-governmental
organization “Helsinki Undertaking 92” Karen Ohanjanian said that in
the current situation it is almost impossible to solve any home and
foreign problem through military ways, as any disruption of the
maintained balance may bring about sad consequences for the
breaker. According to K. Ohanjanian, judging by the results of the
OSCE Minsk Group monitoring, at the Karabakh-Azerbaijani border
nothing prompts about preparations for starting military actions. As
to the accident with Mikael Danielian, K. Ohanjanian appeals to the
government of Armenia to start a serious prosecution involving the
public representatives. “The protector of human rights is the face of
the state. If something similar takes place, it means the country is
approaching a dangerous line,” said K. Ohanjanian.

NAIRA HAYRUMIAN

Geology, Oil and Gas Potential, Pipelines, and the Geopolitics of the
Caspian Sea Region

Ocean Development & International Law
35:19-40, 2004

BY PHILIP D. RABINOWITZ, MEHDI Z. YUSIFOV, JESSICA ARNOLDI, EYAL HAKIM
Department of Geology & Geophysics
Texas A & M University
College Station, Texas, USA

EXCERPT

Legal Issues in the Caspian Sea

The exporting of fossil fuels from the Caspian region will require the
development of pipelines that traverse political boundaries. There are
many scenarios for pipeline routes, as discussed above, each having
both political and economic problems. What is discussed below are the
current legal status of the Caspian Sea and the regional conflicts
that pose political risks that must be taken into consideration before
decisions are made. Before the breakup of the Soviet Union, treaties
of 1921 and 1940 established an exclusive 10-mile fishing zone for the
Soviet Republics and Iran and referred to the Caspian Sea as the
Soviet-Iranian Sea. However, these treaties did not cover ownership of
seabed boundaries or which state had jurisdiction respecting oil and
gas exploration. In the post-Soviet era, conflicting approaches have
been proposed to dividing the offshore regions among the five
independent countries bordering the Caspian Sea. Some important
agreements have been reached, but there are still a number of
outstanding problems. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea (UNCLOS) provides that a state may claim a 12-nautical-mile (nm)
territorial sea and a 200 nm exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The
Caspian Sea is not wide enough to allow for the full extent of 200 nm
EEZs for states on opposing coasts. The threshold legal question is
how the Caspian Sea is to be classified. If the Caspian Sea is
classified as a sea, then UNCLOS is applicable; however, if it is
classified as a lake, then UNCLOS is not applicable and the Caspian
Sea is free of the international rules governing oceans (Oxman,1996;
Sciolino, 1998).

The initial Russian position, addressed to the UN General Assembly in
1994, was that international ocean law, particularly those pertaining
to territorial seas and EEZ, do not apply since the Caspian is a
landlocked body of water without natural links to the worlds’ oceans
(Gouliev, 1997). Their position was that there are no grounds for
unilateral claims to areas of the Caspian and that the entire sea is a
joint venture area (a “condominium” approach). The implications are
that any activity with respect to utilizing the seabed by one country
encroaches upon the interests of all the other bordering countries. In
1996 Russia softened their position by suggesting the establishment of
a 45 nm EEZ for all littoral states with joint ownership beyond the 45
nm limit.

The Azerbaijan position differed considerably from that of the initial
Russian position. Azerbaijan claimed that the Caspian Sea falls within
the jurisdiction of the international Law of the Sea. Using this
approach, a median line is drawn using the shores with the coastal
states having full sovereignty in their respective sectors. In 1997,
Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, as between themselves, agreed to an
approach based on the median line principle. Russia and Kazakhstan in
1998, and Russia and Azerbaijan in 2001 also agreed to this approach
to delineate their respective offshore areas. Thus, Russia,
Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan have agreed to divide the seafloor into
sectors or zones between corresponding neighboring and oppositely
located states.

Turkmenistan agrees to this approach in principle, but not in method,
claiming that application of a median line does not take into account
the peculiarities of the shore line, in particular, the potentially
oil rich Absheron Peninsula that is presently claimed by
Azerbaijan. Iran, however, still disagrees with any division of the
Caspian using median lines. Iran originally favored the “condominium”
approach but later considered dividing the Caspian into five equal
areas with each state having sovereignty over 20% of the seabed
resources and water. Utilizing median lines, Iran’s sector of the
Caspian does not have the potential fossil fuel resources. Iran’s
method of dividing the Caspian gives them not only a larger share of
the Caspian Sea than the median line approach but as well would place
potential oil-rich seafloor regions claimed by Azerbaijan in their
sector (Croissant, 1998; U.S. Energy Information Administration,
2001).

Because of the above disagreements, there are conflicts between
Azerbaijan and Iran. In 1999, Azerbaijan accused Iran of licensing
Royal Dutch Shell to do seismic exploration in an area the Azeri
government claimed was in their sector. In July 2001, the Iranian Oil
Ministry issued a warning to foreign energy firms not to work with the
other four Caspian states in the disputed areas of the Caspian
Sea. The day after the warning was issued, Iranian ships intercepted a
British Petroleum (BP) seismic exploration ship (the Geofizik-3) that
was undertaking exploration in the Araz-Alov-Sarq fields in the South
Caspian Basin. These fields, located ~90 miles southeast of Baku,
Azerbaijan, were licensed by the Azeri government to a BP consortium
and are in a region over which Iran claims sovereignty. This incident
was the first overt military act in the Caspian Sea since the breakup
of the Soviet Union (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2002).

According to Dr. Elmar Mamedyarov, Charge d’Affaires, Embassy of
Azerbaijan, the dispute between Iran and Azerbaijan regarding the
legal status of the Caspian is a “component of the tension that has
arisen in the area” (Calabrese, 2001). This tension includes the
Iranian support of Armenia in the conflict over Nagorno-Karakh, a
highly contentious region, and one that pits Armenia and Azerbaijan in
a state of “cold war.”

The U.S. presence and influence in Azerbaijan has also fueled tension
in the region, especially since Iranian companies are excluded from
U.S. energy projects in the Caspian. Conflicts regarding seabed
sovereignty also exist between Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. Though as
noted earlier Turkmenistan has agreed in principle with Azerbaijan,
Russia, and Kazakhstan respecting use of a median line to divide up
the seabed, exactly where to draw this line has created a major
dispute with Azerbaijan. The Absheron Peninsula of Azerbaijan juts
into the Caspian Sea. Because of this coastline “anomaly,” strict
application of a median line gives Azerbaijan more of the mid-Caspian
than Turkmenistan would agree to cede. Turkmenistan claims the border
should lie on a line drawn using the shores of the two states lying
opposite. This would give Turkmenistan a larger share of the
mid-Caspian, an area where there is significant oil potential (the
Serdar/Kyapaz oil fields). Though considerable rhetoric has arisen
between the two countries, hostilities have thus far been
nonexistent…

Copyright: Taylor & Francis Inc.

CIS countries to hold joint air-defence exercise

ITAR-TASS news agency
6 Apr 04

MOSCOW

Over 100 military units and subunits of the CIS countries’ unified
air-defence system will be taking part in command-and-staff training.

ITAR-TASS was told today by the head of the Russian Air Force press
service, Col Aleksandr Drobyshevskiy, that “on Wednesday 7 April there
will be command-and-staff training under the leadership of
Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force Army Gen Vladimir
Mikhaylov – the chairman of the coordinating committee of the CIS
countries’ air defence – and involving management bodies and duty
forces of the unified air-defence system of the member states of the
CIS”.

The training will be directed from the central command post of the
Russian Air Force.

“During the training, about 10 different points will be practised,
relating to the improvement of the CIS unified air-defence system,”
Drobyshevskiy said. “More than 100 units and subunits of the air
forces and air-defence forces of the CIS countries and 80 aircraft
will be taking part in the training.”

Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Ukraine,
Uzbekistan and Russia are taking part in the command-and-staff
training of the CIS unified air-defence system.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenian press body condemns attacks on reporters covering opposition rally

Mediamax news agency
6 Apr 04

YEREVAN

The National Press Club of Armenia (NPC) issued a statement today,
condemning attacks on journalists by unidentified people during an
opposition rally in central Yerevan on 5 April.

During the rally, 15 to 20 young people with an athletic build
attacked the filming crews of the Armenian Public TV and the private
TV companies Kentron, HY Noyan Tapan and Shant, and reporters of
Aravot and Aykakan Zhamanak newspapers. They deliberately broke video
and photo cameras that belonged to the abovementioned mass media.

“This odious step is directed against freedom of speech and pursues
one aim – to hamper the reporting of unbiased information about the
developments in Armenia,” the NPC statement read.

The NPC demanded that the Armenian authorities punish the perpetrators
of the attack on the journalists and prevent such incidents in the
future.

The authors of the statement also appealed “to respect their
professional duty” to those journalists who the NPC said “have
distorted facts thus rendering support to the bandits”.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenian police arrest 127 opposition members, party leader says

Mediamax news agency
6 Apr 04

YEREVAN

Leader of the National Unity Party Artashes Gegamyan said in Yerevan
today that the Armenian president and the defence minister bore
personal responsibility for the provocation that took place during an
opposition rally in central Yerevan on 5 April.

During the rally, some unidentified people tried to throw eggs at
Artashes Gegamyan. Seeing that journalists were filming this, 15 to 20
young people attacked the filming crews of the Armenian Public TV, the
private TV companies Kentron, Hai TV and Shant, and the reporters of
Aravot and Aykakan Zhamanak newspapers. The video and photo cameras of
the abovementioned media were broken.

Addressing a briefing in Yerevan today, Artashes Gegamyan said that
“the plan of provocations was approved on the previous day at a
meeting with the Armenian president, and only the fact that people
exercised restraint helped prevent disorder”. According to the
opposition politician, the persons who attacked media representatives
during the rally were the “bodyguards of some oligarchs”.

Artashes Gegamyan expressed confidence that the authorities were
preparing for more provocations on 9 April, the day when the National
Unity Party and the Justice bloc will start their actions of protest
in the streets.

At 1019 gmt, Noyan Tapan news agency quoted Gegamyan as saying that
the police arrested 127 members and activists of the National Unity
Party on 4-5 April.

Azeri MPs concerned at possible opening of Turkish-Armenian border

ANS TV, Baku
6 Apr 04

Today’s session of the Azerbaijani parliament discussed the
probability of opening the Turkish-Armenian border.

MPs said they should support Turkey which had come under the West’s
pressure. Baku should invite the Turkish speaker to Baku. The
parliament should appeal to the international public, the European
Union and the Council of Europe over the issue.

Azerbaijani Speaker Murtuz Alasgarov said that the opening of the
border would deal a blow to Turkish-Azerbaijani relations.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenian servicemen desert their units in Karabakh

Ayna, Baku
6 Apr 04

By Casur Mammadov

Starting from this year, the number of deserters among Armenian
soldiers stationed in Nagornyy Karabakh and other occupied Azerbaijani
districts has reached yet unseen figures.

According to Armenian sources, over the last two months a total of 94
Armenian servicemen have deserted regiments stationed in Nagornyy
Karabakh. This brings the number of deserters from the “Karabakh army”
to a total of 5,000 people since 1994. The sources say that a
significant portion of the deserters – 1,400 people – have fled to
Iran.

According to another report available to us, the stand-off between the
Nagornyy Karabakh and the Armenian troops stationed in the occupied
Azerbaijani territories has become extremely intense. The report says
that this confrontation is particularly fierce on the
Armenian-occupied part of Azerbaijan’s Fuzuli District. For instance,
a recent exchange of fire registered in this area between two brigades
claimed the lives of several Armenian servicemen. Karabakh Armenians
put the blame for the incident on the Armenian military command.

Passage omitted: minor details

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Agency sees rapprochement between Armenia, NATO

Mediamax news agency, Yerevan
5 Apr 04

Armenia might one day bid for NATO membership, Armenian news agency
Mediamax has reported. The alliance’s presence in the Caucasus is only
a matter of time, and Armenia does not want to be sidelined, the
agency said. But Yerevan cannot ignore Russia’s interests in the
region, like did Georgia, thus spoiling relations with Moscow. On the
other hand, Russia does not have a clear-cut position on NATO
expansion, which gives Armenia an opportunity to get closer to NATO
“without much noise”, the agency said. The following is an excerpt
from the report in English by Mediamax headlined “Armenia sent NATO a
message” and subheaded “Armenia ready for the alliance’s ‘arrival’ in
the South Caucasus”; subheadings inserted editorially:

Last week, seven new members joined NATO, and the Armenian parliament
ratified the multilateral PfP Status of Forces Agreement (PfP
SOFA). This coincidence can be considered as symbolic, especially if
we take into account that both Yerevan and Brussels approach the
ratification of the agreement as something more than a simple
formality.

At first sight, there is nothing special in the ratification of the
PfP SOFA by the Armenian parliament. Armenia’s neighbours in the South
Caucasus joined this agreement several years ago – Georgia in 1995
(ratified in 1997) and Azerbaijan in 1998 (ratified in 2000).

However, if we take into consideration the specific character of
Armenia-NATO relations, there will be no doubt that making the
decision to join the PfP SOFA, Yerevan decided to send a definite
message to NATO, which can be interpreted as follows – Armenia is not
categorical any more about prospects of beginning a new stage in
relations with NATO as published , the result of which might one day
become a claim to join the alliance.

Summing up the results of 2003, Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan
Oskanyan said in early January that “Armenia’s political dialogue with
NATO and our participation in the Partnership for Peace programme are
gradually acquiring a more purposeful and coordinated character”. But
in our opinion, Oskanyan’s most important statement was this one:
“Building armed forces compatible with the allies, Armenia will
contribute to the peacekeeping operations carried out by NATO.” The
representative of the Yerevan government for the first time stated
that Armenia would build armed forces compatible with NATO, and this
statement cannot be considered as accidental.

There is another nuance too: having ratified the agreement, Yerevan
deprived of a powerful trump card its neighbours, and Azerbaijan in
the first place, who had been trying to convince the alliance that
Armenia was not capable of pursuing an independent foreign policy and
acted “looking back” at Russia.

Another symbolic coincidence is that at the time when the Armenian
parliament ratified the PfP SOFA, the Russian State Duma adopted a
statement “In connection with NATO expansion”, which said that “NATO’s
military doctrine continues to take on an offensive character”.

Passage omitted: quote from Russian parliamentary newspaper

NATO values relations with Armenia

NATO’s reaction to the ratification of the agreement was also
noteworthy. Ariane Quentier, press officer at the NATO Press and
Media Service, said in a telephone interview with Mediamax that “we
welcome every step aimed at developing relations with Armenia and view
the ratification of the PfP SOFA in this context”.

Moreover, Ariane Quentier expressed satisfaction with the fact that
“the tragic Budapest incident” did not affect Armenia’s readiness to
develop relations with the alliance.

On 19 February, 26-year-old Lt Gurgen Margaryan of the Armed Forces of
the Republic of Armenia, who was attending the NATO Partnership for
Peace Programme’s English language training course in Budapest, was
brutally murdered while he was asleep. He was axed by an Azerbaijani
military officer attending the same course.

Passage omitted: reaction by the NATO secretary-general

The fact that the alliance representative herself mentioned the
Budapest incident speaks for itself. It testifies to the fact that
NATO values its relations with Armenia and that the alliance did not
want the Budapest incident to retard the intensive pace of
cooperation.

We must not overlook the fact that the demarche of Azerbaijan which
did not allow Armenian officers to Baku to take part in the planning
conference of the Cooperative Best Effort 2004 military exercises came
as an unpleasant surprise to NATO. The statement made in Yerevan last
week by Director of Plans and Policy, Headquarters US European
Command, Maj-Gen Jeffrey B. Kohler was more than unambiguous.

“The US government made it clear to Azerbaijan that we fully support
the participation of Armenian servicemen in the Cooperative Best
Effort 2004 exercises. When NATO is the organizer of exercises within
the PfP framework, they must be open to all the partners,” Jeffrey
Kohler said.

Most likely, a sober calculation is behind Armenia’s new policy with
regard to the alliance – the statements made recently by US and NATO
representatives testify to the fact that the alliance’s firm presence
in the Caucasus is just a matter of time, and Armenia does not want to
be sidelined.

Passage omitted: quotes from statements of different officials at
different times; quote from Armenian president’s statement two years
ago

Armenia – “bridge” between Russia and NATO

The main factor affecting the pace and character of Armenia’s
integration into NATO has been the position of the Russian leadership,
which Yerevan cannot and does not want to ignore. The main reason for
the aggravation of Georgian-Russian relations in the last years was
not “Moscow’s imperial ambitions” but the policy of the Georgian
leadership that demonstratively ignored Russia’s interests in the
Caucasus. It is obvious that Armenia will never follow this path.

On the other hand, if we trace the statements by Russian leaders on
prospects of relations with NATO made after Russian President Vladimir
Putin came to power in 2000, it becomes obvious that the Russian
leadership does not have a clear-cut position on this issue. It could
seem that this makes the situation more complicated for Armenia. On
the other hand, this gives Armenia an opportunity to think over real
steps to get closer to NATO and the alliance’s standards without much
noise and public statements. These efforts will not be in vain in any
case.

Armenia, as well as Russia and NATO, understand that if it was not for
close Armenian-Russian military and political relations, which have
been and continue to be an objective necessity for Yerevan, Armenia
would have become the first country in the South Caucasus to declare
its desire to become a full member of the alliance. Moreover, there is
every reason to assume that the alliance, in turn, would have given
Armenia “the go-ahead” much earlier than to Georgia and Azerbaijan
because of a number of reasons.

However, this must not be spoken about with regret. The modern world
is changing rapidly and there can arise a situation when Armenia’s
role as a “bridge” between Russia and NATO in the Caucasus will be
extremely important to both Moscow and Brussels.