Negotiations and settlment
#21
Posted 17 April 2001 - 07:17 AM
BAKU (RFE/RL)--Azerbaijan's President Heydar Aliev said over the weekend that
he is satisfied with the latest round of negotiations with Armenia over
Nagorno-Artsax, described by international mediators as a significant step
towards a peaceful settlement. In his first public comments on the results of
the peace talks in Florida, Aliev appeared to share Armenian leaders' cautious
optimism about the possibility of a breakthrough in the peace process.
"Everything is alright," the Azeri leader was quoted by Turan news agency as
telling reporters in Baku upon his return from the United States late on
Saturday. Aliev, 77, ended his two-week stay in the US with a medical
examination at a clinic in Ohio.
His Armenian counterpart, Robert Kocharian, on Tuesday gave a positive
assessment to the four-day "proximity talks" in Key West, Florida earlier this
month with Russian, American and French negotiators acting under the auspices
of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Kocharian said he
looks forward to the next round of talks due in Geneva next June.
Aliev declined to comment on Kocharian's assertion that new peace proposals
currently prepared by the mediating troika will be in tune with the Armenian
position on how to end the Artsax conflict. Some Azerbaijani politicians
have
accused Yerevan of breaching the confidentiality of the talks. Aliev, however,
said Kocharian's statement "will not damage the future negotiations."
Aliev's son and most likely successor, Ilham, told reporters on Friday that
Baku is ready to grant Artsax the "highest degree of autonomy," or a status
similar to that enjoyed by the Republic of Tatarstan within the Russian
Federation.
#22
Posted 17 April 2001 - 03:40 PM
YEREVAN (combined sources)--Artsax President Arkady Ghoukasian, said on
April 17, that conditions are ripe for a decisive breakthrough in the settlement of
the conflict with Azerbaijan, following the recent flurry of diplomatic activity by international mediators. "Favorable conditions for the conflict settlement have now been created, and the great powers' interest in the peaceful settlement of the conflict and in the establishment of stability in the region is quite obvious. The parties' interests also coincide, and they are sure that the problem is impossible to solve in a military way. I think that we
have a real opportunity to settle the conflict. I am optimistic," Ghoukasian
told a visiting group of US Congressional aides in Stepanakert.
Ghoukasian's remarks followed similarly upbeat statements by the presidents of
Armenia and Azerbaijan who, earlier this month, held four-day intensive peace
talks in Florida, sponsored by the US, Russian and French co-chairs of the
OSCE Minsk Group. Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliev told reporters over the
weekend that he is "very pleased" with the results of the negotiations and his
subsequent meeting in the White House with President George Bush.
Though no breakthrough has been announced yet, the parties now appear to be closer to hammering out a peace deal than ever before. The mediators have said that they will draft a new peace plan on Artsax, based on agreements reached in Key West, Florida, in time for the next round of negotiations due in Geneva next June.
Official Stepanakert has repeatedly made it clear that any peace deal that might be signed by Aliev and Kocharian would need its approval.
The visit of top US politicians was organized and sponsored by the Armenian
Assembly of America (AAA). During their stay, the guests were informed of the
restoration works during the post-war period in Stepanakert. The guests also held a number of meetings with representatives of humanitarian organizations operating in the NKR and visited several medical establishments. During a meeting with the president, the guests pointed out the serious progress in eliminating the aftermath of the war.
In his turn, Ghoukasian addressed his thanks to the US Congress for the financial assistance and moral support to the people of Artsax. He pointed out that the states of the region are interconnected, therefore no serious economic progress is possible in any individual state. "Equal development of
the whole region should be ensured. As regards to our country, due to the
implementation of the current programs, Artsax may find its worthy place in the region's economic system," the NKR president said. According to him, a favorable atmosphere for investments was created: relevant legislation and government guarantees are the achievements the NKR has gained during the last few years.
#23
Posted 22 April 2001 - 06:30 PM
April 21, 2001 U.S. Edition
Crossroads in Artsax?
AT LEAST until this month, when prospects suddenly brightened for the settlement of a bitter 13-year-old feud between the Armenians and the Azeris, western talk of a rosy future for the southern Caucasus sounded like a sick joke. Now there really is fresh hope of a lasting peace.
In diplomatic theory, the region's three small states--Georgia, Armenia and
Azerbaijan--were supposed to provide a natural thoroughfare between Europe
and Asia for gas and oil from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. In practice, more than a decade of conflict has turned the region into a patchwork of poorly-observed ceasefire lines, minefields and dead ends--preventing humdrum local trade, let alone big international deals.
Few ends are deader than Talysh, a community of Armenians surrounded on two sides by troops guarding a ceasefire line at its most north-easterly point in Nagorno-Artsax, a disputed Armenian-held territory that is
internationally recognised as part of Azerbaijan. The villagers' freshwater
supply, the river Indzhachai, is now out of reach on the front line. In the old days, the Azerbaijani town of Ganje and all its business opportunities were just 50km (30 miles) away. Now the nearest metropolis is Armenia's capital, Yerevan, a twisting and circuitous eight-hour drive to the west.
After six years of worsening strife, when the two sides took turns to bombard, shell and ethnically cleanse territory with scant regard for civilian life, some locals may have been grudgingly thankful, in 1994, when
the losing Azerbaijani side cut its losses and agreed to a truce. But economic development has been frustrated by the lack of a long-term settlement.
Things look better, though, after a five-day conference that ended earlier this month at Key West in Florida, bringing together Presidents Heidar Aliev and Robert Kocharian of Azerbaijan and Armenia respectively, the
American secretary of state, Colin Powell, and senior French and Russian officials. The State Department said "substantial progress" had been made after international peace-makers relayed proposals between the Armenian and Azeri leaders, who later flew to Washington to see President George Bush.
More talks are planned for Geneva in June; there are hopes that at a further meeting in Moscow the two Caucasian presidents may even sign a binding accord.
The contours of a possible deal are becoming clear. The Armenians would give Azerbaijan back six of the seven regions they captured.
Nagorno-Artsax and the adjacent Lachin region that links it to Armenia would be granted self-governing status. Azerbaijan would be compensated with an internationally protected road, linking it to its isolated enclave of Nakhichevan.
If the logjam were at last to break, it would be a rare example, these days, of co-operation among the big powers. The Bush administration has been energetic in the Caucasus, even as it vows not to micro-manage the Balkans or the Middle East. It seems willing to accept Russia as a partner
in diplomacy; for its part, Russia may have been persuaded that it has more to gain from co-operation than from wrecking.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin has begun to repair relations with Azerbaijan, which had, until recently, been among the most Russophobic of ex-Soviet republics. If the Azerbaijani position has become less rigid, that may be
because Mr Aliev, a 77-year-old veteran of the Soviet Politburo, wants to bequeath a settlement to his son and heir-apparent, Ilham. France's president, Jacques Chirac, has also been involved in negotiations. And,
intriguingly, the senior American negotiator at Key West, Carey Cavanaugh, said Iran was being kept informed of developments too.
So the region may finally emerge from its morass of sputtering conflict and closed borders. Not before time: the combined GDP of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia is a pitiful $10 billion a year; and the talented from all three countries have been steadily emigrating.
But to win a lasting peace, you have to persuade people like the villagers of Talysh of its virtue. So far the region's leaders are adopting the Soviet practice of keeping their citizens in the dark.
Talysh was captured and recaptured during the Artsax war; three-quarters of its 600 houses are still in ruins. The inhabitants, most of them old, scrape a living from their animals and pensions of around $12 a month.
Securing peace will mean persuading such people that the benefits of a settlement, such as the possibilities of trade with Azerbaijan all around them, outweigh the perceived risks, such as the return of people they see as enemies to live among them. That job has barely begun.
#24
Posted 14 May 2001 - 05:49 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YEREVAN, May 11 (Noyan Tapan). The ex-speaker of the Armenian parliament (1992-1998) Babken Ararktsian, who is now one of the leaders of the "Armat" ("Root") Center for the Development of Democracy and Civil Society, disagrees with the wording that the drafting of a certain plan of settlement of the Nagorno-Artsax problem is the result of the latest round of talks between the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Key West. He expressed this opinion during a meeting with journalists at the National Press Club on May 11. Actually, Ararktsian believes, the result of these talks is the re-shaping of the geopolitical map of the region, in which the issue of Nagorno Artsax's status is but an insignificant part. The ex-speaker said that the format of the negotiations was changed with the "revolt of 1998" when the necessary dialogue between Stepanakert and Baku was replaced by bilateral meetings of the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan, and Nagorno Artsax transformed from the subject of the negotiations into an object. He emphasized that the real geopolitical change is the following circumstance: Turkey will get a land link with "mainland" Azerbaijan. In Ararktsian's estimation, by signing the final document of the OSCE summit in Istanbul, the current president of Armenia, in fact, confirmed the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Babken Ararktsian recalled some events of 1997 when President Levon Ter-Petrossian agreed to compromises but not to the detriment of Armenia's sovereignty. For that very reason he was removed from power by "external forces". The "external forces" relied on a leader in Armenia who would agree to a transformation process: to reform the Nagorno Artsax problem into a new geopolitical scheme of the region. It was for that "service" that Robert Kocharian (Ararktsian emphasized that "the revolt of 1998" was led by the current president of Armenia) was awarded the "Legion of Honor" Order in 2001. The current economic forum in New York on Armenia, in which the Cochairman of the OSCE Minsk Group Carey Cavanaugh is taking an active part, is only a stage in the matter of fixing a price for the consent to the mentioned deal, Ararktsian claimed. Speaking about Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian, the former top legislator said that this man should not be rebuked, as he is only a "mouthpiece of Robert Kocharian" and the executor of the political will of the current president of the country. Answering the questions of journalists concerning the status of the decision made by the Armenian parliament of 1992 to restrict the mandate of the president at talks around Nagorno Artsax, Ararktsian said that this decision remains in vigor, as it was not abolished by anyone. As for possible predictions regarding the settlement process in general, Ararktsian said he did not believe in the "legends" that the real positions of Russia, the USA and France coincided in this matter. He stressed that "... Russia has not had its say yet". In his opinion, the only country which is really concerned in the process is the United States. Babken Ararktsian finds that: first, the real format of talks within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group on Nagorno Artsax should be immediately restored; secondly, any solutions infringing upon Armenia's sovereignty are unacceptable; thirdly, the current leaders of the country must resign immediately and a new, legitimate president is to be elected. The ex-speaker believes that the tough statement of the parliamentary factions and groups on the Artsax settlement made on April 27 was initiated by the president and pursues the ultimate goal of delaying the signing of the final documents for at least another year, i.e. the next presidential election (2003). Ararktsian thinks he will win another bet in the visible future, as no document on the Artsax settlement will be signed in the visible future. *01/-2e--p c32 $e17 11/05/2001 Copyright © 19
#25
Posted 14 May 2001 - 03:05 PM
The ARF Bureau held a conference in Yerevan from May 11-12, to deal with the
latest phase in the ongoing negotiations in the Artsax conflict.
The conference reviewed the variants in the resolutions which have been
proposed by the three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. It is presumed that
these proposals will most likely be presented to the parties of the
conflict in
the next few weeks.
Conference participants included the ARF Bureau, the ARF Executive Council of
Armenia, the Central Committee of Artsakh, representatives from various other
ARF central committees, members of the ARF factions in the Armenian and
Artsax parliaments, and other invited members of the party.
The conference, putting faith in the negotiation process as a peaceful
solution to the conflict at its present stage, affirmed the ARF position
calling for the reunification of Artsakh with Armenia, which is part of the
party program and is of strategic value. The assembly upheld the position of
the ARF regarding the negotiation process, which was outlined in a statement
released by the ARF Bureau on March 20, 2001.
The conference also clarified the party’s positions on the variants proposed
by the OSCE Group.
The conference affirmed that even at the first phase of the peace
negotiations, the ARF stressed the necessity of fully involving Armenian
political forces in the process. The security of not only Artsakh, but also
the
national security of Armenia and the Armenian people, is on the negotiating
table. A unified position, unanimous adherence, and especially the
strengthening of internal political stability must be displayed by the
Armenian
side, so that a victorious outcome can be realized in the negotiations.
Furthermore, the conference called on the Armenian president to consult with
Armenian political forces in the examination of the various proposals that
have
been made, so that a single consolidated policy can be adopted. The conference
also found it necessary the full participation of the Nagorno Artsax
leadership in the decisive phases of the negotiations.
The conference closed with the conclusion that the ARF supports a fair and
peaceful resolution which could come about as a result of the ongoing
negotiations, as long as the following principles are upheld in the peace
process:
- Securing the reunification of Artsakh with the Republic of Armenia or at
least the recognition of Artsakh’s independent status
- Guaranteeing the security and defense of Artsakh and Armenia,
- Protecting the Armenian Republic’s sovereignty over its territory, as well
as affirming Armenia’s strategic importance in the region.
The conference concluded that all those who expect the Armenian people to
renounce the gains made in the Artsax conflict simply because of the current
social-economic conditions, are mistaken. The conference also reaffirmed the
ARF’s commitment to the Armenian Cause and the resolution of the Artsax
conflict which must secure the gains achieved during the 13-year struggle.
#26
Posted 15 May 2001 - 06:58 PM
ITAR TASS
BAKU, 15 May: A meeting of the "Caucasus four" will be held in early June in
Minsk within the framework of a summit of the Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS), Russian First Deputy Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Trubnikov
announced in Baku today. Trubnikov said meetings of the "Caucasus four" are
now held regularly.
The presidents of Russia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia have of late been
meeting twice a year. Their efforts have concentrated on achieving security
and stability in the region.
Commenting on statements by a number of Western politicians about the
possibility of settling the Nagornyy Artsax conflict by the end of 2001,
Trubnikov said that "not a single sober-minded politician would speak of a
specific timeframe for the conflict's solution". "This problem is quite old,
serious and complicated to be solved by a certain date. It requires thinking
over and working on," Trubnikov said...
#27
Posted 16 May 2001 - 03:07 PM
May 16 2001
Leaders Need Majority Support in Compromise to Win Favor for
Nagorno-Artsax Peace Settlement - Expert
Jessica O'Brien: 5/16/01
In an Open Forum at the Open Society Institute on May 11, a month
since OSCE peace talks on Nagorno-Artsax were held in Key West,
U.S. Minsk Group co-chairman Carey Cavanaugh said "significant,
concrete progress was made in Florida" and the Presidents of Armenia
and Azerbaijan felt "closer to peace than ever before." According to
Cavanaugh, the greatest obstacle to a peaceful settlement is no
longer at the negotiating table.
"The people will have to be brought farther along by their leaders to
understand the need for a settlement and to be able to embrace the
settlement that may emerge from the peace process," said Ambassador
Cavanaugh. "I think that's the hardest challenge facing Presidents
Aliyev and Kocharian."
Years of negotiations have worn down the intransigent positions of
Armenian President Robert Kocharian and Azerbaijan President Heidar
Aliyev regarding Artsax, but the public has been isolated from the
evolving phases of the discussions, negotiations and, now, peace
talks between the presidents. As a result, says Cavanaugh of Aliyev
and Kocharian, "I think that they, themselves, are mentally in a
different place than their populations."
Kocharian and Aliyev have evolved an understanding of the fact that
great compromises are the essential and only means of diffusing a
situation that, status quo, leaves great room for renewed hostility
to develop and is of no benefit to either country. Still, with few
people privy to the negotiations that have been ongoing over this
frozen conflict, the loyalties of the people in Armenia and
Azerbaijan are more closely connected to the unbending terms that
sent these nations to war over Artsax in the first place.
Cavanaugh asserts that the peoples' resistance to compromise is not
an indication that they favor renewed conflict. "You tend to hear, in
Armenia and Azerbaijan, strong support for the idea of peace," he
said.
Ambassador Cavanaugh surmises that these unbending attitudes toward
compromise are at least a partial result of the secrecy surrounding
the negotiation process that has kept, and will continue to keep
people from growing used to the exact terms of a settlement as they
are established. Aliyev and Kocharian will only take their peace
package to the people once it is complete. Until then, its precise
terms will be known only to the parties and the mediation teams from
the U.S., France and Russia.
Cavanaugh defended the inevitability of secret peace talks with a nod
to the efforts by Barak and Arafat to offer great compromises in a
settlement that would resolve the longstanding conflict between
Israel and Palestine. "As those elements of a solution for the Middle
East became public they were ripped apart by oppositions who said,
`you cannot do this - you cannot divide Jerusalem, you cannot
compromise on the right of return - you cannot do this creative
solution on the Temple Mount'."
The terms of any single facet of compromise might unearth innumerable
religious, cultural and historical debates, and this could hinder
progress toward the ultimate goal of peace, obstructing a big picture
view. Encouraging long-term perspective, Cavanaugh pointed to the
increasing meaninglessness of borders between countries in Europe.
"France and Germany spent two great world wars fighting with one
another and now, if you want to drive from one to the other, you hop
in your car and you go." This would clearly take a very long time to
happen in Artsax, he said, but it was essential that the Azeri and
Armenian people be encouraged to have a future-forward perspective
that is not so bound up on particular aspects of the settlement.
Still, the secrecy of the process may effect the public's ultimate
acceptance of a peace settlement, and this is the ultimate paradox
facing Aliyev and Kocharian. "[The peace process] requires secrecy
but it complicates the very task I just spoke to before," says
Cavanaugh, indicating the need to gain slow public favor for
compromises that as yet remain unnamed. Aliyev and Kocharian have
been countering this problem by speaking with leading political
figures and members of their respective Parliaments in hopes of
spurring an informed public dialogue on the subject of a peace
settlement, and to spread the idea of the need for compromise.
Neither is reported to have firmed up a plan for selling a settlement
built on compromises to their people.
For myriad reasons, it is an opportune time for Aliyev and Kocharian
to introduce a peace settlement. These leaders are the beneficiaries
of a mediation process facilitated by a "seamless cooperation"
between the U.S., Russia and France; they are between election
periods; and there is, in Cavanaugh's words, "no competing crisis" on
the international scene at the present time.
Still, Cavanaugh would not set what he called an "artificial
deadline" on the peace process, as a partial peace settlement is in
many ways no peace settlement at all. "The dilemma in working peace
settlements is if you don't have the whole thing, in many ways you
don't have anything," he said, likening the process to the successful
construction of a bridge. Even if you have completed 80 or 90%, you
will fall into the water if you try to drive across it prematurely.
"Kocharian and Aliyev have made significant progress-- but it doesn't
mean they'll succeed," said Cavanaugh. The road ahead remains
difficult, but he is encouraged by their commitment and their
preparedness to make serious compromises to bring a new future to the
region and a far better life for their people.
http://groong.usc.ed...s/msg31728.html
#28
Posted 18 May 2001 - 12:59 AM
Source:ANS
16.05.01--BAKU--The President of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev said during his meeting with the Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, Vyacheslav Trubnikov that official Baku was satisfied with what Russia and other co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group were doing toward resolution of the Artsax conflict. Said Mr Aliyev: «But it’s important that this work gives practical results. Thoughts that some agreements will be signed in Geneva or later create great hopes among people.» The Russian deputy minister recommended not to hurry and be realistic. According to him, the parties must find solution not to «second-rate» issues but those being of more importance. Mr Trubnikov said one would deceive himself if believed the problems will be solved tomorrow. The Russian diplomat noted that the major problems to be solved are determination of the status of Lachin and Shusha, Azeri regions occupied by Armenia. But Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister Vilayat Guliyev said no concrete city name was discussed during the talks. According to Mr Guliyev, «Azerbaijan struggles for the entire Artsax.» Mr Guliyev said it was unacceptable to divide Artsax into separate regions. It should also be noted that Armenian President Robert Kocharian announced that the peace agreement will be based on a package variant of adjustment of the conflict. But instead of saying «NO» to the package variant like he always did, the Azeri foreign minister said he felt difficulty with evaluation of those documents since he knew nothing of their contents.
By Etibar Mamedov
#29
Posted 20 May 2001 - 05:06 PM
20 May 2001
STEPANAKERT
Nikolay Gribkov, the Russian co-chairman of the OSCE's Minsk Group for a
Nagornyy Artsax settlement, believes that Artsax is "a major independent
factor".
"No stable or real settlement can be achieved without taking its interests
into account or, worse still, disregarding these interests," Gribkov told the
press on Saturday [19 May] during a visit by a Minsk Group delegation to
Nagornyy Artsax. "Whether the others like it or not, Artsax is a serious
party in the conflict."
Concerning the possibility of involving a representative of Nagornyy Artsax
in the talks between the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents, Gribkov said
that "this will happen by all means". He noted, though, that he cannot name
the exact date when this will happen.
"Taking into account the place where [Armenian President] Robert Kocharyan
was born, he represents the interests of Nagornyy Artsax, as well, during
his talks with Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev," he said.
Following his confidential talks with the parliament chairman, prime
minister, and foreign and defence ministers of breakaway Nagornyy Artsax,
Gribkov told journalists before his departure for Armenia that the talks were
useful for finding new solutions in the settlement process.
Earlier, the delegation of the Minsk Group had arrived in Nagornyy Artsax
and walked across the engagement line in the Agdam sector. Mines had been
removed from this sector before the delegation's arrival and laid again
afterwards.
The American co-chairman of the Minsk Group Carey Cavanaugh described this
fact as "rather interesting". Thus, the co-chairmen opened a symbolic path
for the peacekeepers, he said, adding that hopefully roads between Azerbaijan
and Nagornyy Artsax will be opened after the peace settlement.
#30
Posted 22 May 2001 - 07:20 AM
Mediamax
21 May 2001
YEREVAN
The Russian co-chair of the OSCE Minsk group Nikolay Gribkov said the
mediators hope to meet with the NKR President Arkady Ghukasian today in
Yerevan. He is returning from a working visit in France.
Corespondent of Mediamax informed from NKR that Gribkov said the meetings
with the Chairman of National Assembly, Premier, Foreign and Defense
Ministers of NKR held on May 19 in Stepanakert were "efficient".
The co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk group arrived in NKR on May 19. For the first
in the history of this conflict, they crossed the contiguity line of the NKR
and Azerbaijani armed forces on the road of Aghdam-Barda. Under the
observation of the OSCE representatives a mine clearing and demining of the
area was carried out. According to the American co-chair Carey Cavanaugh, the
observation of the line allows to hope that after a peace settlement is
achieved, the roads between Nagorno Artsax and Azerbaijan will be opened.
Nikolay Gribkov said that the arrival of the mediators in the region has also
a business aim. Besides the meetings in Baku, Stepanakert and Yerevan, the
co-chairs visit also the regions that must be reconstructed in case if a
peace settlement is achieved. "As far as there is a tense situation in the
Transcaucasus, there will hardly be a large inflow of investments," Gribkov
said.
The French co-chair of Minsk group Philippe de Suremain noted that the
mediators take interest in the public opinion of Nagorno Artsax, in order
to know what do the people think about the problem and its settlement.
"Everybody's interests must be taken into account, for not creating an
impression that we are working against one or the other party," he said.
#31
Posted 22 May 2001 - 07:23 AM
By Rosalind Russell
YEREVAN, May 21 (Reuters) - The people of Azerbaijan and Armenia are
ill-prepared for a peace deal to end their 13-year conflict over
Nagorno-Artsax and hardline public opinion may undermine efforts to reach
one, mediators said on Monday.
Leaders from both sides have been engaged in intensive negotiations towards a
comprehensive peace accord in recent months, but have done little to prepare
their people for compromise, the international mediators said.
"The people haven't got a lot of signals from the top that they have to start
thinking about reconciliation," U.S. mediator Carey Cavanaugh told Reuters at
the end of a two-day trip to the disputed territory.
"The leaders aren't sending positive messages that everyone has to accept
compromises if they want to live in peace."
Armenian President Robert Kocharyan said the reason for his relative silence
was that he did not want to build up the hopes of the population unduly.
"This is a sensitive issue and we don't want to arouse expectations that will
be difficult to satisfy, because then the disappointment will be greater," he
told reporters on Monday.
CONFLICT MORE THAN A DECADE OLD
The war over the rugged peaks of Nagorno-Artsax began in 1988 when its
mainly ethnic Armenian population tried to break away from Azeri rule as the
Soviet Union began to collapse.
Around 35,000 people died in the six years of fighting that ensued and at
least 800,000 people fled their homes. Armenian forces eventually inflicted a
humiliating defeat on the Azeri army and a truce was called in 1994.
Thousands of troops still face each other across the "Line of Control" which
separates opposing forces and hundreds of thousands of refugees remain
homeless.
Mediators believe they are closer than ever to a peace deal after Kocharyan
and Azeri President Haydar Aliyev held four days of negotiations last month
in the Florida resort of Key West.
The new U.S. administration has tried to breathe life into the flagging peace
process in the hope that a deal would allow a pipeline to carry oil from the
Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean.
But changing the mindsets of ordinary people, fed on a diet of belligerent
propaganda for more than a decade, is the final and most challenging hurdle,
the mediators say.
Officials from the United States, Russia and France made a whistle-stop tour
of Nagorno-Artsax at the weekend, crossing the Line of Control to take the
pulse of public opinion.
On both sides of the front line they met people who said they wanted peace,
but also called for vengeance.
In a sprawling refugee camp of tin-roofed shelters in Agcebedi in western
Azerbaijan, Azeri refugee Gani Kasumov said he wanted to return home to the
ancient Artsax town of Shusha.
"We have nothing here," said the 47-year-old economist. "We must go home --
through war if that must be."
STRUGGLE TO SURVIVE
In Shusha itself, perched high on grassy slopes above the Artsax capital
Stepanakert, Armenian refugees have taken over abandoned Azeri homes, but say
they are struggling to survive.
"Everything was taken from me, everything," said a tearful old woman who
lived in the Azeri capital Baku for 50 years.
The mediators have kept details of their proposal secret, but say both sides
must be prepared to make significant concessions for a peace deal which will
unlock millions of dollars of aid to the impoverished south Caucasus region.
"We are trying to make it a win-win solution," said one diplomat involved in
the negotiations under the auspices of the Organisation for Security and
Cooperation in Europe. "The problem is that that idea is anathema to the
mentality of this region where people think if you win, the other side must
lose."
Mediators say the next round of peace talks, scheduled to take place in
Geneva in mid-June, would be postponed while the two presidents prepare the
ground at home.
"There are some last minute jitters," said Cavanaugh. "Making concessions for
peace is a dangerous game. Many world leaders have paid for it with their
lives."
12:03 05-21-01
Copyright 2001 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
#32
Posted 25 May 2001 - 06:57 AM
Armenian News Network / Groong
May 24, 2001
By Onnik Krikorian
YEREVAN, ARMENIA
Attempts by international mediators to end the decade-long conflict
between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno Karabagh looked less
likely to succeed after the three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group
toured the region at the weekend. In the seven years since the
ceasefire agreement signed in May 1994, neither side has made any
appreciable attempt to promote reconciliation between its people.
According to Carey Cavanaugh, the US negotiator, the "missing link" in
following up reported progress in talks held between Armenian
President Robert Kocharian and his Azerbaijani counterpart Heidar
Aliyev in Key West last month remains public opinion at home.
The latest visit by the American, Russian and French co-chairs
illustrated to an accompanying group of foreign journalists the need
for lasting peace. After visiting refugees who fled their homes in
Aghdam eight years earlier, the delegation crossed into Karabagh from
Azerbaijan in an unprecedented move across the frontline. "It was an
extraordinary experience of traveling between two worlds," explains
Tom de Waal, a British journalist accompanying the delegation and
currently writing a book on the Karabagh conflict. "I've spent a lot
of time traveling between Karabagh and Azerbaijan, and it has taken
days to adjust, but suddenly we were moving between the two in just
five minutes."
Over the contact line that separates Karabagh from Azerbaijan, the
OSCE delegation then toured the now deserted town of Aghdam to show
journalists the destruction evident throughout. Despite the intact
mosque, Armenians in the disputed enclave have virtually stripped the
town bare. Earlier, the OSCE negotiators had attempted to persuade its
former inhabitants now living in refugee shelters in Agcebedi,
Azerbaijan, that peace would allow them to return, but journalists
instead found them unable to forgive and forget.
The same message came from encounters with Armenians from Baku and
Sumgait now living in Shushi, and in the northern Armenian town of
Spitak, the epicenter of the 1988 Earthquake and representative of why
peace might be beneficial to the ailing Armenian economy. "There was a
particular atmosphere to be found throughout the region," says de
Waal. "People were quite emotional and besieged the three co-chairs
with their problems. On both sides, they asked the negotiators for
compensation, but a lot of contradictory messages were coming from
these people."
Despite belief that the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents are
genuine in their attempts to reach a mutually acceptable solution to
the conflict, recent statements from opposition groups in both
republics stating that compromise was unacceptable were borne out on
the ground. "No one has spoken to people about compromise or
friendship," continues de Waal. "Although they want peace, such ideas
haven't gone through their minds. They really only want peace on their
terms. In Azerbaijan, they want Karabagh returned as well as the
occupied territories, while in Armenia, people are unwilling to
compromise on its status."
However, many observers believe that both countries desperately need
peace in order to ensure future economic prosperity, and some even
believe that after Aliyev, there is the possibility that war could
break out again. In Armenia, lack of investment and high levels of
unemployment have resulted in emigration from the country believed to
be far in excess of that from other former soviet republics. However,
speaking to the Armenian President on Monday, he denied any direct
relationship between the conflict and poverty at home. "The conflict
has had a negative impact on the economy in the whole region, but
poverty exists in Armenia to the same extent as it does elsewhere in
the NIS. While the conflict deepens and complicates the issue,
emigration is more linked to problems encountered after independence."
Even so, there is no doubt that a solution to the conflict would help
both republics attract investment. At the recent Armenian Investment
Forum in New York, Cavanaugh was present to circumvent concerns that
peace might not come to fruition, but few have attempted to explain to
people living in Armenia and Azerbaijan that peace and stability might
yield positive results for them as well. "The argument that peace and
investment will help is correct," says David Stern, an AFP and
Financial Times correspondent based in Baku who also accompanied the
OSCE co-chairs. "However, I haven't heard anyone say that they need to
get this over with. At the moment what they're saying is what we have
and what we're being offered hasn't any guarantees. Karabagh or
prosperity? What prosperity?"
Therefore, if there is still a genuine attempt to find a solution to
the conflict, the two Presidents must now attempt to explain why peace
is important to their people. "This is a very sensitive issue," says
Kocharian. "We do not want people to be disappointed if there is no
settlement. If there were nothing in common however, it would be
pointless to talk. The most important thing is that peace will benefit
all parties to the conflict, and in the final solution, all three
sides should agree on compromise. The question is the definition of
that compromise, but lets just say that we hope that there won't be
too many more meetings before the final one."
However, despite the cautious optimism still evident in official
circles, that solution still looks far away, and the task of preparing
public opinion for mutual compromise will be difficult.
#33
Posted 29 May 2001 - 08:37 AM
By Farhad MAMMADOV
AZERBAIJAN
BULLETIN No:21 (275),
May 24 2001
Co-chairs return empty-handed from the trip to the region.
The trip of the OSCE Minsk Group's co-chairs to Baku and Yerevan that
has begun since May 18th has finished resultless. The main goal of the
visit was to prepare the next talks of the Azerbaijani and Armenian
presidents planned to be held in Geneva and at the first day of the
trip the co-chairs stated that they would try strengthening "the
important progress" gained at the Key West talks. It is notable that
co-chairs, concretely American co-chair Carry Cavanaugh was very
optimistic before the trip to the region and has several times given
statements expressing great hope for the settlement of the conflict
during this year. Even before the co-chairs' trip to the region, there
was spread news on being held of Geneva meeting on June 15 citing on
Mr. Cavanaugh.
But after their meetings in Baku and Yerevan, as well as in the
so-called "Nagorno Artsax Republic", the co-chairs stopped thinking
on gaining a peace in near future and left the region
empty-handed. And its reason is strong reaction of public opinion to
possible compromises both in Azerbaijan and Armenia. In the words of
Cavanaugh, the presidents- Heidar Aliev and Robert Kocharian go in the
forth of their nation by being ready to compromises. But the nations
are far from the idea of adopting the compromises.
Naturally, such a peace can not be firm. Mr. Cavanaugh himself
confirms it: "To go to concessions for the sake of peace is a
dangerous game". After the trip to the region co-chairs have come to
such an opinion that there is no use of holding the next stage of
talks without agreeing the parties with compromise. This is why, it is
not known when and whether the Geneva talks will take place.
In fact, the probability of breaking the Azerbaijani-Armenian talks
again was strong yet before the trip of co-chairs to the
region. Armenian president Kocharian has received the leaders of
fraction and groups at the Armenian parliament and informed them of
the course of talks after returning back from Key West talks. And a
week later after that meeting, fraction and group leaders of the
Armenian parliament issued a very aggressive statement and rejected
any compromise.
According to that statement, Upper Artsax either should be unified
to Armenia together with another 2 regions of Azerbaijan or get a
status of full independent state. Naturally, the Azerbaijani community
did not approach silently to becoming the territorial integrity and
sovereignty of the country to an object of compromise at the
talks. Major oppositional forces of the country, as well as the entire
public opinion regarded as impossible of abstaining from these two
principles and called Aliev to come out from this position at the
talks, as well. Generally, the method used by co-chairs for the
settlement of the conflict was wrong and over 7 years of history of
Artsax talks also confirms the impossibility of gaining any positive
progress by this method.
That method considers that the moderators while knowing Armenia is an
occupant party, do not pressure on him, and on the contrary, are
trying, indirectly, legalize the military successes of the
occupant. Having been lasting the resultless talks for many years and
Armenia's use of its military successes as a pressure increase the
probability of beginning the war again. Aliev himself has confirmed
it, as well. In his meeting with the representatives of the European
parliament on May 22, he has confirmed that there has increased
dissatisfaction in society with extending Artsax question and stated
that "the situation is very dangerous". At last, Aliev has admitted
that the impossibility of settling the Artsax conflict without
regarding the opinion of the community, as well as opposition. "If
Armenia does not go to compromise, then I can not do anything
alone. This is why, the probability of war will increase
time-by-time".
#34
Posted 29 May 2001 - 08:42 AM
May 29 2001
NO SECOND ARMENIAN STATE NEAR AZERI BORDERS: PRESIDENT ALIYEV
Source:ANS
29.05.01--BAKU--The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, Alexiy II was
received by President Heydar Aliyev on the Republic Day, Azerbaijan's
Independence Day. This caused the Russian Patriarch's special joy
which he expressed to the Azeri leader. Alexiy II presented President
Aliyev with Saint Daniel Order. After that, Russia's Ambassador to
Azerbaijan, Nikolai Ryabov passed to the head of the Azeri state
Russian President Vladimir Putin's congratulations on the occasion of
the Independence Day. Mr Aliyev rated the Russian Patriarch's first
ever visit to Azerbaijan as a momentous event. Touching upon historic
relations between Azerbaijan and Russia, the Azeri president noted
that although various religions exist in the world, the God is one
for all. As for the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict, President Aliyev
noted that the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs suggested to solve the
problem between the two nations' presidents. But Mr Aliyev added that
one needs to take into account the fact that the two countries are
not on equal terms. Said the Azeri president: «The co-chairs insist
three proposals should be accepted. They demand to grant independent
status to Nagorno Artsax. There can't be a second Armenian state
near Azerbaijan. According to international law, UN and OSCE
principles, territorial integrity of any country is untouchable.
Armenians want our lands in Nagorno Artsax in exchange for those
occupied around this region. It will take 50 years to restore all
those occupied lands.» Reminding that he's been conducting meetings
with his Armenian counterpart since 1999, President Aliyev noted that
meetings of religious leaders sometimes have bigger impact in
solution of conflicts than those held between political leaders. The
Azeri leader also said a meeting of Azeri and Armenian religious
leaders was necessary at Patriarch Alexiy II's initiative.
By Natavan Babayeva
#35
Posted 30 May 2001 - 11:56 PM
Russian news agency Interfax
29 May 2001
Stepanakert
The head of the unrecognized Nagornyy Artsax Republic Arkadiy Gukasyan, is
for the republic's participation in the talks on the future of Artsax, he
declared at a news conference in Stepanakert on Tuesday [29 May].
"The dialogue between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan has brought
important elements into the settlement process, but today it is necessary to
include Nagornyy Artsax in the talks," he said.
He ruled out the submission of Nagornyy Artsax to Azerbaijan since that
variant, in his view, "would sooner or later cause the situation to explode".
The way to peace and stability lies through either recognizing the
independence of Nagornyy Artsax or uniting it with Armenia."
Gukasyan expressed doubts regarding the chances in signing an agreement on a
final settlement by the end of this year, as many questions, in his opinion,
have not been resolved.
#36
Posted 05 June 2001 - 09:49 AM
Karabagh issue
RUSSIAN PLAN OF POPULATING SHUSHI WITH AZERIS WILL HURDLE KARABAGH
CONFLICT REGULATION
Armenia can't accept the idea of dividing Karabagh into communities
Karabagh conflict surely has four sides; Armenia and Azerbaijan as
conflict sides, and Karabagh and Karabagh's Azerbaijani community-
as interested sides. In 1991-92 this format was implemented", - said
OSCE Minsk group's Russian co-chairman Nickolay Gribkov to Armenian
and Azeri reporters in Minsk on May 31.
This announcement surprised and angered Armenian reporters who were
elucidating the CIS summit, and Azeris understood its implication as
a try to secure Russia's military presence in Azerbaijan and Karabagh.
Several times after Key West Peace Talks and on different levels official
Moscow hinted on both involving "Karabagh's Azeri community in the
negotiations as an interested side", and on populating Shushi with
Azerbaijanis. So, about ten days ago in Shushi the same Gribkov said
almost the same what he said in Minsk. And before that Russian deputy
foreign minister V. Trubnikov announced in Baku that the "issue of
returning Shushi to Azeris is important".
N. Gribkov is right: negotiations in the format of Armenia and Azerbaijan
being conflict sides and Karabagh and the so-called Karabagh's Azeri
community as interested sides already took place; but he forgot one
important element- they failed ã not registering any results neither
in negotiation process, nor in cease-fire issue. We'd like to remind
that the memorandum adopted in September 1991 by the mediation of Russian
and Kazakhstan presidents Eltsin and Nazarbayev, which presupposed
concluding cease-fire and lifting blockade imposed by Azerbaijan,
normalization
of Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, granting cultural autonomy to Karabagh,
was signed by Levon Ter-Petrosian, Mutalibov, Eltsin and Nazarbayev-
which was very unfavorable for Karabagh. In the negotiations the Karabagh
side (Leonard Petrosian and Robert Kocharian) didn't sign the memorandum-
reasoning that Armenia can't accept the idea of divide Karabagh into
communities.
It is important to pay attention to one thing here- the Karabagh side
didn't sign Jeleznovodsk memorandum when Karabagh was isolated by enemy,
there was no land communication with Armenia and Azeri forces captured
dozens of Armenian villages by the help of Russian weaponry. At present,
when Karabaghi army won brilliant victory in the war, official Stepanakert
will hardly negotiate with "Karabagh's Azeri community". It is
incomprehensible
how Russians imagine populating Shushi with Azeris. A question arises:
in case of populating Shushi with Azeris who is going to provide physical
security of Shushi's Armenians. Or maybe Russians want to divide the
city into Armenian and Azerbaijani parts? Today most part of Shushi's
5000 Armenians are those who escaped Sumgayit and Baku slaughters.
How can these people live side by side with yesterday's barbarians?
Russian plan of populating Shushi with Azeris will only make the regulation
of Karabagh conflict more difficult. It is not only unrealistic, but
is also full of unpredictable consequences. All this doesn't seem to
worry Moscow. The main thing is that the Russian plan is what Aliyev
wants. At present circumstances the primary thing for Russia is not
the regulation of Karabagh issue, but the buffing up of Russian-Azerbaijani
relations with Karabagh issue's speculation. South Caucasus is historically
the zone that interests Russia, and Moscow just can't keep this region
in the sphere of its influence- having good relations only with one
of the region's countries- Armenia.
The position of USA is also incomprehensible, which considers South
Caucasus a zone of its vital interests. OSCE Minsk group US co-chairman
Carey Cavanaugh says that peacekeeping forces must be located along
the Karabagh-Azerbaijani contact line. Karabagh-Azerbaijan armed conflict
ended seven years ago; there is no division line in Karabagh-Azerbaijani
conflict zone between the sides, the military equipment of the sides
is not withdrawn from there, and there are no international peace-keeping
forces. It is incomprehensible whom Carey Cavanaugh's peacekeeping
forces are going to protect. Maybe themselves? And isn't the location
of peacekeeping forces going to cause the re-launch of military action?
Nowhere in the world can the peacekeeping forces secure peace if the
conflict sides don't want it.
Russia and USA shall find out between themselves what they really want
ã before acting as mediators. In this case maybe it will be easier
to find the way of Karabagh conflict regulation.
By Tatoul Hagopian
*********************************************
Karabagh issue
STUPISHIN: THERE WAS NO STATE WITH NAME AZERBAIJAN BEFORE 1918
The ex-ambassador of Russia to Armenia Vladimir Stupishin, talking
about Karabagh conflict in a large article published in Russian
"Nizavisimaya
Gazeta" newspaper, writes that Karabaghi people built their own state
ã according to all international laws: "Karabagh people ground their
independence from Azerbaijan based on Soviet laws, which were severely
violated not by Karabaghis, but by Baku's politologists".
"It is not a secret, and Aliyev announced many times about Azerbaijan's
territorial claims to Armenia. Armenia doesn't present territorial
claims to Azerbaijan, although it can, and on legal basis, demand back
Nakhichevan, which was a part of Yerevan province, and was put under
guardianship of Azerbaijan by efforts of Bolsheviks and Kemalists.
There was not even smell of a state with a name Azerbaijan back at
the beginning of the 20-th century",- writes Stupishin.
In the opinion of ex-ambassador, the establishment of security in the
region is necessary for the West in order to draw Russia out of the
region under the name of communication and energy programs. "Why shall
we support those programs ã and especially at the expense of our Armenian
ally. Pax Americana is not a gift for Russia in South Caucasus- it
is going to work against our national and state interests",- says the
ex-ambassador.
"Did Russian diplomacy become so dull to fully back "small empire"
(i.e. Azerbaijan)? The latter received Karabagh from Bolsheviks in
1921. There can be or can not be territorial disputes between Armenia
and Azerbaijan, but they can't have any connection with Karabagh",-writes
Stupishin, concluding that "Karabagh never belonged to Turks, and it
came out of Azerbaijan ã violating neither Turks', nor Lezgis', nor
Talishis' and nor any other people's territories, who happened to be
in one artificial state union".
[ June 05, 2001: Message edited by: Berj ]
#37
Posted 12 July 2004 - 04:44 PM
AMERICANS AND THEN PREPARE FOR WAR AGAINST ARMENIA
YEREVAN, JULY 10. ARMINFO. Americans like West Europeans
are absolutely unaware of the Artsax conflict, Ex-State Adviser,
politologist Vafa Guluzade said in his interview to the Zerkalo
newspaper.
The politologist said that the USA thinksa that Azerbaijan can easily
leave these territories to Armenia and that we must do it. The USA
must understand that Azerbaijan will never agree with unjust
settlement-scheme, even if it satisfies the interests of the White
House in oil, the politologist added. He said that such an attempt
will destabilize the situation in the whole region and endanger
America' interests.
Speaking of the "Cyprus settlement scheme," the politologist said
that its application to the Artsax conflict "would mean inclusion
of Artsax and Lachin into Armenia's territory and return of the
Azerbaijani 'minority,' which has become such due to the Soviet
authorities, to Nagorny Artsax." That is, he explained,
Azerbaijanis will receive an autonomy as part of Artsax and will be
included into Armenia. "There is no other understanding of the Cyprus
settlement-scheme," he said. Guluzade pointed out that only
liberation of the occupied territories and return of Artsax under
sovereignty of Azerbaijan is possible.
Guluzade said that Azerbaijan must either restore its sovereignty or
it will loose Artsax and Lachin forever for liberation of the six
regions.
He pointed out that "if a country part of whose territory is occupied
does not prepare for war, it is a criminal country." Azerbaijan must
prepare for war even more than the country which occupies its
territories, he said, adding that he means Russia and not Armenia.
"Armenia has no intention to return anything to us. We must increase
the public awareness of this idea, in order that everyone understands
that we must achieve justice by ourselves," the politologist said.-M-
#38
Posted 12 July 2004 - 04:46 PM
RFE/RL Caucasus Report
FROM SIMMERING CONFLICT TO SIMMERING PEACE PROCESS. There must surely have
been moments over the past 12 years when the task of the Organization for
Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk Group seemed only marginally
less frustrating than that of a team of conservationist zoologists who,
having brought together in one cage two giant pandas from zoos at opposite
ends of the planet, find to their chagrin and consternation that even though
the survival of the species is in jeopardy, there is no way they can induce
the pair to mate.
That is not to deny that the Minsk Group has come very close on at least two
occasions to brokering a settlement acceptable to all three parties to the
conflict. In 1997, Azerbaijan agreed to a phased settlement of the conflict
that Armenia too accepted, albeit with reservations, while the unrecognized
Nagorno-Artsax Republic rejected it. But further negotiations on that
model for resolving the conflict were thwarted by the forced resignation in
February 1998 of then-Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian. Then in early
2001, the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan reportedly reached a
tentative oral consensus, which was apparently never committed to paper, and
which Azerbaijan's President Heidar Aliyev subsequently retreated from.
It is a truism that any number of factors can imperil attempts to reach a
political settlement of a decade-old conflict. At the most banal level,
personal antipathy between the mediators can inhibit progress. (In a 1991
interview with the German weekly "Die Zeit," then-Czechoslovak President
Vaclav Havel confessed to being "surprised and shocked" by the realization
of how great a role such personal sympathies or animosities play in
decisions that affect the lives of millions of people.) The fact that the
Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers have met three times between
mid-April and late June, and that a fourth meeting may take place in August,
suggests, though, that at present the negotiating process is not stalled by
the quirks of personal chemistry.
But to an even greater degree, the outcome of any peace progress is
inevitably hostage to domestic political considerations, specifically, the
willingness, or conversely the reluctance of national leaders to risk their
careers by agreeing to concessions that many voters consider not only
politically unacceptable but an insult to the memories of those who gave
their lives fighting. While success could be rewarded by a nomination for
the Nobel Peace Prize, failure, or even badly judged timing, can spell the
end of a political career -- as in the case of Ter-Petrossian. Azerbaijan's
current President Ilham Aliyev, who hopes to win a second presidential term
in 2008, has little incentive to undermine his chances of doing so by making
major concessions before then, and indeed has said on several occasions that
he will "never" do so.
The conflict sides and the OSCE Minsk Group have a gentlemen's agreement not
to divulge either specific proposals under discussion or the reactions of
one side to statements by the other. That insistence on the confidentiality
of the negotiating process is intended to preclude the leak of details that
could destroy a tenuous consensus reached in months or even years of talks
by provoking a domestic political backlash that might even endanger the
stability of one or other government. Although stage-managed, the
Azerbaijani parliament debate that followed the leak in February 2001 of
three successive Minsk Group draft peace proposals demonstrated the kind of
groundswell of anger and resentment that an unfavorable settlement could
unleash (see "RFE/RL Caucasus Report," 23 February 2001).
But the lack of detailed information also serves to engender any amount of
speculation, disinformation, and rumors concerning peace proposals that have
no formal status -- such as that by EU rapporteur Per Gahrton early this
year that Armenia withdraw its forces from five occupied Azerbaijani
districts in return for the resumption of rail communication between
Azerbaijan and Armenia. Deliberate disinformation can, nonetheless, serve a
useful purpose during long-drawn-out negotiations insofar as it may serve to
deflect attention from what is really on the negotiating table. Cautiously
worded statements by Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian and the Minsk
Group co-chairs following the most recent meeting between Oskanian and his
Azerbaijani counterpart Elmar Mammadyarov in Prague last month suggest that
the talks at present focus on ways to narrow the gap between the two sides'
preferred approaches. Since 1998, Armenia has insisted on a "package"
solution to the conflict that would address and resolve all disputed issues
in a single agreement, without leaving any "loose ends," even if the various
provisions of that agreement were implemented not simultaneously but
consecutively, over a period of time. Azerbaijan, by contrast, favors the
"step-by-step" approach under which a series of separate aspects of the
problem would be addressed and resolved one at a time, and the second
problem or set of problems would only be addressed after measures to
implement the first had been successfully completed. That approach would
theoretically enable Azerbaijan to demand a major concession from Armenia
(such as the withdrawal of Armenian forces from the regions which they
currently control bordering on the unrecognized Nagorno-Artsax Republic)
without making a concession of similar magnitude in return. That approach is
anathema to Yerevan, insofar as it entails the possible danger of Armenia
surrendering its biggest "bargaining chip" -- the occupied districts --
without securing in return what it considers most important, namely a
cast-iron agreement that Nagorno-Artsax should not be vertically
subordinated to the Azerbaijani central government.
RFE/RL's Armenian Service quoted Oskanian as saying on 17 May after his
meeting with Mammadyarov in Strasbourg that "the essence of the problem is
Nagorno-Artsax's status. Everything else is the consequence of the failure
to resolve that problem. So if we are to resolve the conflict, we must
concentrate on Nagorno-Artsax's status, rather than try to find solutions
to secondary issues, putting the main issue aside." Four weeks later,
Oskanian told RFE/RL's Armenian Service after his talks with Mammadyarov in
Prague on 21 June that the "nature of the ongoing talks is such that one
should really opt for a synthesis" of the Armenian and Azerbaijani
positions.
Speaking in Moscow on 24 June, Russian OSCE Minsk Group co-Chairman Yurii
Merzlyakov said that the co-chairs are drafting a new peace proposal that
would "allow us to synthesize incompatible things," meaning the diverging
approaches of the two sides. He predicted that "this is possible...if the
parties display goodwill."
Merzlyakov's disclosure suggests that there are indeed grounds for cautious
optimism that a solution to the conflict can be reached. But Mammadyarov
warned that it will take time: the Azerbaijani daily "Ekho" on 24 June
quoted him as comparing the negotiations to cooking, implying that for the
best results, neither process should be rushed. At the same time,
Mammadyarov expressed confidence that the final product will be both "tasty"
and "digestible" to everyone.
On 1 July, Oskanian said the Minsk Group co-chairs will travel to Yerevan,
Stepanakert, and Baku later in July, but will not bring a new peace
proposal, RFE/RL's Armenian Service reported. He added that "negotiations at
the level of presidents and foreign ministers have not yet reached a point
where the co-chairs have enough material to put something on paper." On 8
July, Armenian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamlet Gasparian said the
co-chairs will visit Yerevan on 12 July, Stepanakert on 13 July, and then
Baku, Noyan Tapan reported. (Liz Fuller)
#39
Posted 12 July 2004 - 05:44 PM
Martin, correct me if I am wrong, but is this not the same person that proposed to have NATO bases in Baku?
#40
Posted 12 July 2004 - 06:25 PM
Martin, correct me if I am wrong, but is this not the same person that proposed to have NATO bases in Baku?
I don't know.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users