�

.

Azeri analysts doubt Armenia to recognize Azerbaijan's territorial integrity
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Sep 27, 2001

Azerbaijani political analysts doubt that the recent Council of Europe decision to equalize the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity will change anything in Armenia's position on the breakaway Nagornyy Karabakh region. They believe that Yerevan would have no problem recognizing Azerbaijan's integrity because it does not see Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan anyway. Following is the text of R. Orucov report by Azerbaijani newspaper Ekho on 26 September entitled "Armenia's signing of the Council of Europe document means nothing":

Political experts Vafa Quluzada and Tofiq Zulfuqarov think that the recognition of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity is a formality

As is known, on the first day of the autumn session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe [PACE] on Monday 24 September, a joint sitting of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers and PACE members adopted a document of special importance for Azerbaijan. On the whole, it was devoted to the CE member-countries' recognition of the inviolability of the principle of the territorial integrity of countries of the world on the basis of previously-adopted basic international acts.

The document was signed by 43 states - members of the Council of Europe (according to CE rules, such documents are adopted only on the basis of consensus, i.e. common consent by all member-countries). The most interesting thing is that Point 396 of this document specifically speaks of recognizing Azerbaijan's territorial integrity by Armenia and that Armenia SIGNED this document.

It also examines the issue of nations' possible self-determination, but emphasizes that it is of lesser importance in settling conflicts than the principle of territorial integrity. This directly supports Azerbaijan's just position on the issue of settling the Karabakh conflict.

Such a situation adopted at the European level gives Azerbaijan obvious benefits, although they are purely moral in nature - this also requires a clear understanding. Over the last few years, Armenia has consistently refused to acknowledge that its armed forces have occupied Azerbaijani territory and has always referred to the existence of a certain state called "Nagornyy Karabakh Republic" and its "national army". Therefore, for reasons of international loyalty and its own prestige, Armenia has signed a document, which it "cannot abide by".

The next logical step by our delegation at the PACE would be to intensify its activities in this direction. Namely, it would not be bad to insist on setting up a special group of Council of Europe observers to observe Armenia's fulfilment of the points of the document because it is constantly violating our state border.

We asked well-known Azerbaijani political experts to answer which tangible consequences the signing of this CE document might have for our country and whether it will have a declaratory nature to a significant extent.

Vafa Quluzada, ex-state adviser of Azerbaijan:

This document contains nothing important. Armenia will not recognize Nagornyy Karabakh as Azerbaijani territory. By signing it, Armenia supports the principle of its own territorial integrity. It is silly for us to make a fuss about it. There will be no talks on the status of Nagornyy Karabakh as an autonomy just because Armenia has signed this document. What does this recognition by Armenia mean in concrete terms? This document has a declarative nature and nothing else. Armenians are just trying to look "good" in the eyes of the Council of Europe, which solves nothing. This is because the Council of Europe cannot and will not solve anything related to the Karabakh conflict, and it has no means for that.

Twenty per cent of our land is occupied, 1m people are down and out. What is going on in Strasbourg are "petty intrigues". Does this mean that we fought for 10 years to achieve only this? We will "fight" for another 10 years and achieve something else of this sort - is that how we should understand it? It is necessary to assess everything from a serious point of view and from realistic positions, and not blow smoke into the eyes of our own people and take them for a ride.

Tofiq Zulfuqarov, ex-foreign minister:

Any document that confirms Azerbaijan's territorial integrity will certainly be a contribution to the consolidation of our position in settling the conflict. From this point of view, I welcome this document. Now it is still difficult to comment on the document itself, but in any case it is necessary to take into account that Armenia has a special resolution by its Supreme Soviet, which bans it from joining any document that confirms Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. However, it has a different formulation - it does not recognize Nagornyy Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan.

The Council of Europe is not an organization that could make a decisive contribution to settling the conflict - we should accept this. The signing of this document, of course, does not mean that the issue of Nagornyy Karabakh has already been solved.

Source: Ekho, Baku, in Russian 26 Sep 01 p3

Council of Europe says Armenia should recognize Azeri territorial integrity
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Sep 24, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency Turan

Strasbourg, 24 September: The Cabinet of Ministers of the Council of Europe decided today that Armenia should recognize Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. A member of the Azerbaijani delegation, Qulamhuseyn Aliyev, has told Turan news agency that the suggestion was put forward by a member of the Azerbaijani delegation, Gultakin Haciyeva.

The document says that the Cabinet of Ministers of the Council of Europe once again confirms its support for international principles of territorial integrity of countries, their independence and internationally recognized borders.

The document notes that self-determination and other principles reflected in the Helsinki document must be implemented unconditionally, equally and interdependently.

Using force with the aim of gaining land is inadmissible, and the consequences of such actions "cannot be deemed legal", the decision says.

Source: Turan news agency, Baku, in Russian 1542 gmt 24 Sep 01

Poll shows most Azeris back tough measures against terrorist countries
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Sep 26, 2001
Text of R. Fataliyev report by Azerbaijani newspaper Ekho on 22 September entitled "It is necessary to take tough measures against countries that hide terrorists"

Most of the respondents of Ekho's virtual poll think

Ekho is continuing to conduct weekly Internet polls on its site - www.echo-az.com.

The question this time on the virtual opinion poll was the following: "Do you think that it is necessary to take tough measures not only against terrorist organizations, but also against the countries that support international terrorism and hide terrorists in their territory?"

Some 238 people took part in the poll. The respondents' opinions divided in the following way: 199 people (83.61 per cent) said yes and 34 people (14.29 per cent) said no. Five people (2.1 per cent) were don't knows.

We asked a political expert, a member of the Milli Maclis from the New Azerbaijan Party [NAP] and the chairman of the Union of Retired Officers to comment on the results of the poll.

Rasad Rzaquliyev, political expert:

"It is necessary to fight terrorism and it seems to me that the opinion of the majority confirms this once more. The new world order that was established during the meeting in Yalta and after the end of WWII is undergoing a certain change today. Naturally, there are states that support terrorism. They inspire and establish terrorist organizations. Armenia is one of them. If we talk about the annihilation of terrorist organizations, the number of which has already exceeded 500, we should start with states that support international terrorism, bankroll and direct it. For this reason, I think that the opinion of the majority is correct in this case."

Mubariz Qurbanli, a member of the Milli Maclis from the New Azerbaijan Party:

"I am in favour of destroying all the terrorist organizations in a tough manner. The countries that support terrorism and hide terrorists on their territory should also be punished both in an economic and military way. Terrorism is not a phenomenon of an individual state, it is common to all mankind. Terrorist organizations should be liquidated and one of them - ASALA (Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia) - should be one of the first to be destroyed. That 84 per cent gave a positive answer to your question shows once again that Azerbaijan has encountered terrorism several times and that Azerbaijanis condemn it."

Isa Sadixov, chairman of the Union of Retired Officers:

"We are doing everything possible to support and welcome the fight against terrorism. Azerbaijan has repeatedly encountered this problem and has been fighting terrorism on its territory for 10 years. It does not do credit to the world community that they only started talking openly about this problem after the terrorist acts in the USA. Turkey has also repeatedly spoken about the fight against terrorism, but at the same time, there were a number of countries, which hid and are still hiding terrorists. Iraq, Iran and Libya are among them. They are no different from the terrorists at all and the toughest measures should be used against them. I am very pleased with the results of the poll."

Source: Ekho, Baku, in Russian 22 Sep 01 p 5

Armenians trying to link Azerbaijan to Bin-Ladin - Azeri paper
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Sep 24, 2001
Text of Kanan report by Azerbaijani newspaper 525 qazet entitled "Another slander from the Armenians"

Is Azerbaijan cooperating with Usamah Bin-Ladin?

"The US Defence and Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy journal reported as far back as in October 1999 that a connection existed between the Azerbaijani leadership and Usamah Bin-Ladin," says an article published in yesterday's issue of Yerevan's Azg newspaper and entitled "Azerbaijan has been cooperating with Usamah Bin-Ladin for a long time". The Armenian newspaper says that this journal claimed that the Al-Qa'idah organization, headed by Usamah Bin-Ladin, established connections with the Baku government in 1997. Azg expands on the report and states that links between Bin-Ladin's organization and Azerbaijan existed even before Heydar Aliyev came to power. Azg especially stresses that Islamic fundamentalists fought on the Azerbaijani side during hostilities in Nagornyy Karabakh: "Lots of Afghan mojahedin fought in the Azerbaijani army in December 1993. They took part in operations in Agdam, Mardakert [Agdara] and Fuzuli."

It is clear that Armenia wants to take advantage of and use for its own ends unsubstantiated accusations against the whole Muslim world following the US terrorist acts. It seems that the Armenian diaspora abroad, which has been trying to pin the image of "barbarians and invaders" on Azerbaijan, is going to use another thesis - "Islamic fundamentalism". Even the most absurd accusations, like the ridiculous speculations about cooperation between Azerbaijan and Usamah Bin-Ladin, are being used to achieve this goal.

If this goes on, it cannot be ruled out that our "neighbours" will start looking for "evidence" proving that Azerbaijan is behind the US terrorist attacks.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Further Information please contact:
Tomris Azeri-President
[email protected]

September 26, 2001
Armenia Once Again Tries to Justify Terrorism

The Armenian Foreign Ministry recently distributed remarks by Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian, who, in addition to making clearly misleading statements about his country's aggression against Azerbaijan, attempted to whitewash Armenia's long-standing and shameful tradition of political terrorism.

Sadly, Mr. Oskanian, instead of addressing the facts of Armenia's involvement in terrorist activities, illustrated, among other things, by lobbying on behalf and sheltering of Mr. Varuzhan Karapetian, a terrorist convicted in France, decided to attack his country's neighbors.

No less disturbing is the fact that former Chairman of the Armenian National Assembly of America (ANCA), a self-described largest grass-roots Armenian -American organization, Mr. Topalian, had links to terrorist activities and was sentenced by an Ohio court.

Armenia's leadership seemingly has not learned even from the tragedy of October 27, 1999, when, as a result of the terrorist attack, the country's key leaders were assassinated in the Armenian parliament. In that case, which has not been fully investigated yet, Armenia's ethnocentric propaganda, violent chauvinism and condoning violence as a tool to achieve political goals provided a fertile breeding ground for homegrown terrorists.

As the international struggle against terrorism is intensifying, Armenian political leaders are uncomfortable that their ties to ASALA, a major international terrorist group, various other infamous terrorist organizations, including the ones in the Middle East, namely the Bekaa Valley, can be exposed. Mr. Oskanian, of course, conveniently "forgets" his country's strategic relations with Iran and Syria, not to mention his recent trip to Iraq. Therefore, Mr. Oskanian, chose to level ungrounded accusations against Azerbaijan, which unlike Armenia, has an admirable record of arresting, extraditing terrorists as well as being actively involved in multilateral efforts to fight terrorism. Azerbaijan, a country that suffered a lot from the Armenian- backed terrorism and has a well -known and clear position on rejecting political violence, immediately condemned terrorist attacks and stated its support for the United States. In short, Azerbaijan's efforts against terrorism are not just lip service, but involve real practical steps.

As the whole world is grieving with America, Mr. Oskanian resorted to divisive and misleading political games. His country should focus on how to overcome its deep-rooted tradition of political violence and join the civilized world in fighting terrorism. In this Armenia could learn from its neighbors Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. Addressing domestic terrorism and the withdrawing of the Armenian troops from Azerbaijan's lands would be a good beginning.

Azerbaijan Society of America is a non-profit organization dedicated to enhancing knowledge about the Republic of Azerbaijan, Azeri people, their culture and history.

Press Release #27

Authors say Karabakh settlement charter reflects will of Azeri people
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Sep 21, 2001

The former officials responsible for the national charter for settlement of the Karabakh conflict have said that it contains nothing new, but sums up the Azerbaijani people's attitude towards a Karabakh settlement. Speaking at a presentation, they said they had drawn up the charter because the Azerbaijani people were demanding that their principles for a Karabakh settlement be articulated and that this was a reflection of the way in which the public has recently started to play a greater role in the settlement process. The four must now wait for the Azerbaijani president's reaction, but they believe that he will admit these principles as the basis for Azerbaijan's stance, meaning that Azerbaijan reserves the right to use force to settle the Karabakh issue if talks fail. The following is an excerpt from S. Aliyeva report by Azerbaijani newspaper Ekho on 18 September entitled "The presentation of the charter of `the four' has taken place":

The document's authors also do not rule out settling the Karabakh conflict by force

For almost three months now the famous "exes" - [former head of the State Oil Company] Sabit Bagirov, [former head of the presidential secretariat] Eldar Namazov, [former foreign minister] Tofiq Zulfugarov and Nazim Imanov - have been holding meetings and discussions with various public and political figures. This was in connection with the draft national charter to settle the Karabakh conflict worked out by them. Yesterday can be officially regarded as the culmination of "the four's" many days of work - the presentation of the charter was finally held in the conference room at the Ayna publishing house. We should just note that prior to that, on Saturday [15 September], the authors and initiators of the charter for settlement of the Karabakh problem submitted the text of the document and a list of those who had signed it to the country's president.

The representative of the Milli Istiqlal Party, Nazim Imanov, believes that this was not simply a presentation of the charter. It was more a case of presenting the position of Azerbaijani society regarding settlement of the Karabakh conflict.

The political scientist Eldar Namazov spoke about the reasons behind the appearance of the charter and its main point. According to him, the role of society in settling the Karabakh problem has increased significantly just recently, in both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Prior to this, as everyone knows, resolution of the problem was confined to just meetings between the presidents of the two countries. As usual, the Armenians were ahead of Azerbaijan when it came to presenting the will of the public. Immediately after the discussions about resolution of the Karabakh problem opened at the start of the year, the Armenian parliament discussed and put forward principles for resolving the conflict, which were supported both by the opposition and the authorities.

These principles were more like an ultimatum and boiled down to the following:

1. The NKR [Nagornyy Karabakh Republic] can never be in a position of vertical subordination to Azerbaijan.

2. Nagornyy Karabakh will not remain an enclave.

3. International organizations should ensure the security of the NKR.

The main essence of discussions in the Milli Maclis [parliament] here boiled down to one thing: forced migrants from the occupied territories live in terrible conditions, therefore we should speed up the conflict settlement process. Not a single word was said about which principles should be taken as a basis for settling the conflict. As a consequence of this, various people started to appeal to independent political scientists asking them to undertake this mission themselves. Therefore, Namazov believes, the charter is primarily a demand coming from Azerbaijani society.

There is nothing new in the principles of the charter - the same ideas can be heard on the lips of many public and political figures, and also in the media. This fact was acknowledged by its authors as well. Namazov thinks that there is no point in seeking anything new in the document. These are the same principles which have been spoken of repeatedly, but they are presented and put in a more laconic way.

What does this charter give us? Namazov thinks that for the first time in many years Azerbaijan has managed to unite and express the common will of all levels of society. This very factor could play a very important role in Azerbaijan's foreign policy.

The national charter was discussed on 11 August at the fifth congress of Azerbaijanis of the world, which took place in the Swedish town of Malmo. Representatives of more than 200 public organizations from the USA, Turkey, Iran and also European and CIS countries unanimously supported the charter.

However, not everyone who signed the charter expressed their unanimous agreement with all its points. Many political and public figures introduced several of their own amendments. [Passage omitted: known details of some of these amendments]

So the public has been given the chance to acquaint itself with the principles of the charter for settling the Karabakh problem. Probably the president has as well. Now we just have to await the head of state's reaction. Representatives of "the four" think there are two possible reactions: either the president will declare the charter's principles unacceptable, which is unlikely, or he will say that there is nothing new in them and that the authorities have been saying this for a long time. That will already be a positive factor and could be seen as the authorities' support for the principles of the charter. It is true to say that a third possibility cannot be excluded - silence. But Nazim Imanov believes that this too, in line with the well-known expression, could be taken as support for the charter.

Source: Ekho, Baku, in Russian 18 Sep 01 p 3
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.

Azeri Karabakh body drafts plan of military action to regain Karabakh
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Sep 20, 2001
Text of Zabil Muqabiloglu report by Azerbaijani newspaper 525 qazet on 20 September entitled "The KLO has prepared new documents on Karabakh" "If we want Karabakh, we should prepare for war"

The Karabakh Liberation Organization (KLO) has prepared a document on solving the Karabakh problem, Akif Nagi, chairman of the KLO, told 525. Nagi said that the document was called "Theses on eliminating the Armenian aggression against Azerbaijan".

The KLO chairman said that the document consisted of three points. According to him, the first and second points of the document touch on the current situation around the conflict. The last point puts forward concrete suggestions on solving the problem: "The third point of the document shows that Azerbaijan should reject any talks with Armenia and start purging its lands of any invader by mobilizing its forces."

The KLO chairman said that the document would be submitted to the Milli Maclis [parliament] after being discussed by the council of elders and supreme council. Nagi said that the document would also be forwarded to international organizations and foreign embassies in Azerbaijan. According to the KLO chairman, the document that has been drawn up will be put up for debate by the country's political parties, public associations and finally the public.

Nagi believes that the talks, which have been conducted since 1994, have shown that the Armenians will not voluntarily give up the idea of a "greater Armenia": "If we do not show our power to the Armenians, they will not clean up their act. We should remember this once and for all. If we want Karabakh, we should prepare for war." The KLO chairman said that it was impossible to return Karabakh without using force: "If someone sees another way out, let them tell us about it."

Source: 525 qazet,Baku, in Azeri 20 Sep 01 p 4
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.

Azeri analyst expects US help in fight against Armenian "terrorism"
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Sep 21, 2001

Azerbaijani political analyst Mubariz Ahmadoglu has said that the US might repay Azerbaijan for its support in the war against terrorism by backing Baku in its fight against Armenia over Nagornyy Karabakh. Saying that Armenia practised terrorism on a state level, Ahmadoglu added that that country might tomorrow blow up the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline or down Azerbaijan-bound passenger aircraft. Following is the text of Faiq Qazanfaroglu report by Azerbaijani newspaper 525 qazet on 21 September entitled "The countries of the world will support Azerbaijan in an anti-terrorist operation":

Rustam Mammadov believes the USA will help our country

After the terrorist attacks in the USA, US President George Bush sent a letter to Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev and thanked our people for expressing solidarity with the people of America. Satisfied with Azerbaijan's support, Bush said that in order to put an end to all manifestations of international terrorism, the USA intended to establish close ties with Azerbaijan and form a coalition.

"Azerbaijan's participation in this coalition is of no military significance, because Azerbaijan's access to the Middle East is through Armenia and Iran. Iran's relations with America are known. If the USA opens military bases in Azerbaijan, Iran might not give permission to overflights by warplanes. Armenia might shoot down these planes for the sake of provocation," Mubariz Ahmadoglu, head of the Centre for Political Innovations and Technologies, said.

He believes that the whole world is now in shock, as this is the biggest terrorist act in the history of humanity. "I personally do not accept this as terror. So many people dies there, as in an average war. For this reason, both the Christian and Muslim world is in shock. The Muslim world is in shock both because of the terrorist acts and because its name is being most frequently mentioned in this issue."

Ahmadoglu, who touched on the coalition created by America, said that it had two meanings: "One of them is that as a big power, the USA is giving its people solace that they are not alone in this terrorist act. On the other hand, the Muslim countries wanting to join the coalition might be in the wrong about their positions. That is to say, when the Muslim world assesses the US steps as a crusade tomorrow, not only America, but the great coalition itself might become a target for attacks. Only three or four Muslim states are against the coalition. The rest of them are either keeping quiet or have joined the coalition. Egypt was the first to support this coalition."

According to him, Azerbaijan is giving the USA moral support today and America is gaining from it. Will America return this support? The political expert thinks that the USA earlier gained much more support from Azerbaijan and has not returned it. The political expert does not expect Azerbaijan to be condemned by any Muslim country for its support for the USA. "Right now the East is awakening. Events might develop in a different direction. Iran is playing a careful game with the USA in the fight against terrorism. They are sitting tight for the moment. Iran cannot blame Azerbaijan tomorrow for giving support to America."

In the opinion of the political expert, who spoke of US aid to Azerbaijan in its fight against international terrorism, if the USA says that it will help Azerbaijan fight terrorism, which implicitly means Nagornyy Karabakh. "Armenia supports terrorism on a state level. From this point of view, Azerbaijan, which is extending great support to the USA, is expecting mutual assistance. Heydar Aliyev is the third Muslim head of state who said he was ready to provide whatever assistance necessary to America to eliminate terror. The USA might help Azerbaijan in its fight against terrorism in the region. This is not restricted only to the Karabakh problem. Tomorrow Armenia might try to blow up the Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline or blow up foreign planes to intimidate those visiting Azerbaijan. If America has sent a message, we should make a move and take advantage of this."

Rustam Mammadov, section head of the public-political department of the Presidential Executive Staff, has said that we are suffering from terrorism ourselves. "Armenian terrorist groups in Nagornyy Karabakh, Armenia and Lebanon have applied terror against Azerbaijan. They have turned the people of Azerbaijan into refugees. Azerbaijan is fighting terrorism anyway. But its scale might expand. If it expands, we can wipe out terrorists in Nagornyy Karabakh more quickly."

He believes that it is a good thing that a joint fight against terrorism is under way in the world. All nations should join forces to rescue humanity from this evil. "Terrorists will be prevented from passing through Azerbaijan. The issue of solidarity with countries combating terrorism will also be raised. I think that the world has understood that the Armenians are a branch of the terror network. Armenian terrorists have also put Armenia and neighbouring countries in a difficult position. Ruthless crimes have been committed against neighbouring countries. I believe that Azerbaijan's fight against terrorism will be supported by the countries of the world."

Source: 525 qazet,Baku, in Azeri 21 Sep 01 p 3
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.

OSCE monitors cease-fire in Azerbaijan's Agdam District, no casualties
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Sep 20, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani TV station ANS on 19 September

[Presenter Rustam Abulfatoglu] Today the OSCE monitoring group conducted its regular monitoring in the settlement of Yusifcanli in Agdam District. The monitoring passed off without incident.

Source: ANS TV, Baku, in Azeri 1600 gmt 19 Sep 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.

TransCaspian Project
Analysis
A WAR FOR THE SAKE OF PEACE?

A WELL-KNOWN ARMENIAN POLITICAL SCIENTIST SUGGESTED A "MILITARY VERSION" OF THE SETTLEMENT OF THE KARABAKH CONFLICT

Activation of mediator efforts of France in the settlement of the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and a series of meetings of the presidents of
Armenia and Azerbaijan called forth a wide public response in Yerevan and
Baku, where the Karabakh problem once again became the main issue of
political and journalistic debates.

The article by a well-known Armenian journalist Igor Mouradian (considered
to be one of the most well-informed experts in Armenia) published recently
in a Yerevan newspaper "Golos Armenii" ("The Voice of Armenia") seems to
be quite interesting in this context.

This political scientist suggests that the current situation around the
Nagorno-Karabakh problem "the starting point of the development of this
political process may be clearly determined". Approximately in mid-autumn
1999 the USA Secretary of State Madeline Albright demanded the
corresponding solutions of the Karabakh problem from the responsible
divisions of the US State Department. However they failed to elaborate a
realistic settlement project. Later various US analytical and expert
institutions were entrusted with the development of such a project. Yet
this resulted merely in a number of individual expert evaluations and
characteristics of the situation. Both pro-Armenian and pro-Jewish
analysts and experts participated in this project. The most realistic
project (according to the US State Department) was suggested by the former
ambassador of the USA in Armenia Harry Gilmore. Nowadays he is
collaborating in an educational institution of the Foreign Service. His
project is tightly connected with the top-priority regulation of the
problem of Turkish-Armenian relations, probably because Harry Gilmore was
working on Turkish problems for a long time. His idea is the following
one: two key problems dominate in South Caucasus: the relations between
Russia and Georgia and between Turkey and Armenia. The policies of the US
and Western community should be directed to increase the distance between
Russia and Georgia by rendering the latter one necessary political and
financial assistance. At the same time the regulation of Armenian-Turkish
relations is the key aim to be achieved by the US and NATO in order to
gain control over the South Caucasian region. According to H. Gilmore (and
probably his co-authors) the Karabakh problem is merely a derivative of
the problematic relations between Armenia, Turkey and Azerbaijan and
should be examined in their context.

Mouradian notes in his article that this American project includes
following ideas:

1. Nagorno-Karabakh cannot be returned to Azerbaijan.

2. Nagorno-Karabakh cannot exist as an enclave, thus the neighbouring
territories of Lachin region have to be annexed to it in order to provide
communication with Armenia.

3. Lack of effectiveness of all other approaches to this problem since
neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan is ready to agree to such methods of
conflict regulation.

4. The elaboration of a fundamental approach to the conflict settlement
based on the use of open institutional communication corridors between
Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan as well as arriving at agreements
concerning the development of economic relations up to mutual political
recognition.

5. The mentioned communication corridors are to be controlled by limited
military corps of the USA, Turkey, France, Greece, Norway and other NATO
countries.

6. Following communication corridors are to be
created: Kars-Gyumri-Kazakh, Kars-Eraskh-Nakhichevan-Megri-Alyat-Baku,
Nakhichevan-Lachin-Stepanakert-Evlakh. These routs may still be subject to
change.

7. Agreements regarding coexistence as well as political and economical
integration of the three states under consideration are to be based on
economic collaboration and assistance of the USA and European Union.

8. All existing and planned methods of settlement of this conflict may be
viewed as secondary in relation to this project, which should be
considered a primary conceptual instrument.

Thus, the Armenian expert summarises: this project concerns above all the
possible solutions of economic problems of Armenia, Azerbaijan and
Turkey. There is no doubt that Armenia is considered the party most
interested in unblocking the communications. The project also proposes
forcing out Russia from the Southern Caucasus and taking the relations of
the countries of this region with Iran under control. According to
Mouradian this plan of the State Department also proposes the creation of
a system of conflict regulation and coexistence and may be understood as
an experiment in resolving similar problems. The project was started in
autumn 1999 and developed through diplomatic channels in 2000. It should
be noted that the US practically did not try to propagate or popularise
it. Actually, the project did not extend beyond rather private political
contacts. However it may be stated that the political leadership and
diplomatic services of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NQR) did not
fully grasp the significance of this project. To some it seemed that it
was a matter of some private project aimed at improving the relations
between the conflicting parties. The role reserved for Turkey in this
project was underestimated too.

In view of the mentioned aims the US should determine the place of Armenia
in its foreign policy strategy.

The Yerevani political scientist notes that the present position of
Armenia seems to be quite similar to that of Syria in the Middle
East. Having no significant universal resources and taking up a vulnerable
geopolitical position, Syria keeps on playing a key role in the region due
to diversified many-sided policies asserting the interests of the Arab
world and preserving its status of a leading regional military
power. Leading Arab states, the US, EU, Russia and Iran are fighting for
gaining influence on Syria. Similarly, understanding that Armenia I the
only country in Southern Caucasus able to develop high technologies and
maintain an efficient army as well as receiving aid simultaneously from
the West and the East, the US try to "reserve" Armenia for the foreseeable
future. The fact that 1.5 million American Armenians are law-abiding and
integrated part of the American nation is very important for the US. As a
result, any strong political or economical pressure on Armenia is
unacceptable for the US.

According to Mouradian, the Gilmore project is practically deactualised
today and seems to be a reserve variant. In his opinion this is due to the
fact that the US are not inclined to intervene actively with South
Caucasian conflicts, since America does not regard them as dangerous for
its own geostrategic and geoeconomic aims and general aims and goals of
the new republican US administration.

According to Mouradian's forecasts the new American administration intends
above all to advance the interests of American corporations basing the
judgements of acceptability of various political regimes and situations
only on the interests of national security (including adequate provision
of resources, military, operative, financial and informational
security). Right-wing Republican ideologists increasingly confident in
taking up the leading positions in the party hold up as a model the
successes of German and French economic expansion with no costs of
maintaining political presence in Central Asia, Iran and Middle East. In
accordance with this foreign political ideology the US work for decreasing
slightly the level of its responsibility in Central Asia and seem to be
considering similar policy variants for South Caucasus.

According to Mouradian, as to South Caucasus so far there are no signs of
realisation of such an ideology of foreign policy. He notes, that
"decreasing the level of responsibility" should be only interpreted as
participation in the maintenance of security, not as political and
informational presence. Further in the article he assumes that the US does
not intend to abandon these regions since they are considered to have rich
resources of energy and raw materials.

In this connection it should be noted that recently George W. Bush
suggested in a phone talk to Jaques Chirac to work towards settlement of
the Karabakh conflict. Mouradian states: the fact that France acknowledged
the 1915 genocide allows the US to effect a more flexible policy regarding
Turkey. The US are willing to acknowledge the 1915 genocide and thus to
create together with the European Union the conditions for controlling
Turkey. This would make Turkey recognise the settlement of relations with
Armenia as necessary thus resolving the Karabakh problem.

In Mouradian's opinion the activities of OSCE, and above all of the Minsk
group, are rather useless or even harmful for the USA. He writes: The
Americans hold that OSCE activities involve certain elements of
corruption. Generally, the US does not accept the "common European
politics" as such. If OSCE will resolve the Karabakh conflict or similar
problems raising the authority of this organisation would let the
Europeans (especially France and Germany) insist on the development of
European atlantism. In this connection the Gilmore project seems to an
instrument of balancing the "common European politics".

According to Mouradian, the suggestion made by Bush to Chirac may be
pointing towards destroying any European political dialogue construction
aimed at settling the Karabakh conflict and towards demonstrating to
Europe the futility of any compromise settlement leaving out the new state
of facts created in the process of war in case of such conflicts. In this
context we may assume that the projects of territorial exchange will get
to the foreground again, the projects allowing territorial unity of
Azerbaijan would be completely discredited, though.

It should be noted that the model of the so-called "common state" was
suggested not by the Europeans but by Americans - Edward Jerijian and
Peter Rosenblatt (E.Jerijian is a Republican ideologist, specialising on
Middle East and conflict resolution). This model practically allowed the
US to drag out the settlement process and undermine the OSCE
initiatives. Now France is very successful in aviation and other high-tech
markets and actually gains control over the largest Caspian oil deposit in
Tenghiz by buying British Petroleum shares. It also leads in oil and gas
extraction in Southern Iran. France and Germany are extremely interested
in transporting Iranian gas to Europe. The governments and largest banks
of France and Germany are working on a project of a continental Iran -
Armenia - Georgia - Black Sea - Ukraine - Europe gas pipe. Despite the
presence of the Iranian factor, the US is interested in decreasing the
dependence of Europe on Russia in energy matters. Liberalisation of gas
prices in Europe will raise them, which will make the usage of Iranian gas
profitable. In this context France as a pilot of a common European
politics is quite interested in guaranteeing security in Armenia and
Georgia since these two countries are the most vulnerable transit sections
of the pipe route. (The usual pipe capacity of such pipelines is
approx. 75 billion m3. Today the countries of the European Union consume
500 billion m3 of gas, 124 billion m3 come from Russia.)

Based on these geoeconomic conditions OSCE may suggest to Armenia certain
variants of concessions in Nagorno-Karabakh in exchange to economic
benefits. The settlement principles proclaimed by Kocharian in Strasbourg
take into account the outlooks of Karabakh problem. These principles
include yielding to Azerbaijan the territories taken in 1993-94, abolition
of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh and
Lachin region to Armenia. The principles of "equal subjects" and
"international guarantees" declared by Kocharian have to do more with the
"common state" model, which nowadays may be perceived only as propaganda.

At the same time the Yerevani expert writes that Russia keeps on
participating more or less actively in the settlement of the Karabakh
problem. At this stage all interested powers apart from Iran face the
problem of the unsettled Karabakh conflict. All powers understand that
this problem is not politically adjustable. In Mouradian's opinion no
Armenian leader would dare to cede territories in the absence of military
actions. Indeed, "has an unfinished war ever led to a stable and
long-lasting peace?" asks the Armenian expert. He notes that here we come
to a paradox: two powers most interested in Nagorno-Karabakh as a
geopolitical and geostrategic element - Russia and the USA - under certain
circumstances may be interested in renewing military actions there. Only
these two powers are able to operate geostrategic "bases" in this
region. Neither Europe nor Turkey or Iran are able to operate these
"bases". The political relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey in the context
of the Karabakh conflict are a serious problem for the US and Russia. Yet
it is quite clear to these powers, just like to the rest of the world
including Turkey, that Azerbaijan will have to face the lost of
Karabakh. In Mouradian's opinion now it is necessary to convince
Azerbaijan of it. Further he notes that in this case a war would be the
most effective method. "Yet no two wars are completely alike. As
consequence of a war, which is inevitable according to this settlement
idea, the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia should demonstrate to their
nations the actual state of affairs, the true possibilities and level of
passion and organisation of their nations. I.e. - everyone gets what he
deserves.

However, if the Armenian army will manage to keep the actual position in
Karabakh, Geidar Aliev's clan may just lose power. In this case for the
Azerbaijani society there will be no strong evidence that it was
impossible to win in the war. This may end in a five or even ten years
long armistice, yet the problem will not be solved. Therefore strong
evidence is needed."

So, according to Mouradian, Azerbaijan has to make certain progress yet
suffering serious losses. These losses have to be significant enough to
make Azerbaijani people beg of their government and the global society for
putting an end to the war. The Armenian leadership will also get the
needed arguments when the Armenian army will retreat on certain sectors of
the front (according to a prearrangement). It will be an "objective
surrender". One should note that for the Armenian political elite the idea
of an "objective settlement of the Karabakh problem" is not
new. Consequently, Russia will hope for a continued conflict in Karabakh,
which will keep on glowing on a lower scale, though. This will allow
Russia to normalise the relations with Azerbaijan with an opposition
between Armenia and Azerbaijan remaining.

"After a failed visit of Putin to Baku this idea of "military
settlement" might be set afoot. Yet there is no doubt that in this case
Russia will lose in the end. The Us will take complete control of Armenia
and set up a strict system of "coexistence" in the region. According to
Mouradian this would mean the "end of Armenian history". He adds that
today there are no agreements between Russia and the US or NATO as to the
settlement of the Karabakh conflict. Such an arrangement may only exist in
the context of general agreements on certain regions - above all Central
Asia and Caucasus. To date there is only a verbal agreement of limited
effect regarding the problems of terrorism and extremism in Central Asia.

"A question arises: which characteristics of the current domestic
situation in Armenia could contribute to the realisation of this project,
so similar to a "plot against the nation"? There is no doubt that foreign
politics makes certain progress. This progress is not as significant as
interesting in the context of the possible outlooks, especially
interesting if one takes into account the lack of financial means for
foreign politics and propaganda. At the same time the country is facing a
rather strange situation: foreign policy is concentrated in the hands of
two people - the president Robert Kocharian and the Foreign Minister
Vartan Oskanian. This is quite understandable. In Armenia there are no due
regime conditions and it is obvious that there is a leak somewhere.

Several Armenian political parties including the ones represented in the
parliament maintain close relations with foreign representatives and
probably - secret services as well. Armenia is practically a "secret
address" for the interested powers. Every retired prime minister becomes
either radical or moderate oppositionist. The parliament including the
speaker seems to be a parody on the state structure. The law-enforcement
organs have no well-balanced staff structure. In this context
confidentiality and concentration of foreign political information in the
hands of few is necessary. However, not in the hands of just two
people. This situation is fraught with serious trouble, first of all, for
these two people.

We have witnessed a serial provocation including the "surrender" of the
Megri wedge, cession of the territories in Karabakh etc. Thinking that
Armenia's position in foreign politics is now strengthened would be a
mistake. The nation suffers enormous moral losses.

Above all it concerns the future defenders of Armenia. Today the largest
part of the problems in the domestic political situation is due to the
complete ignorance of the people responsible for the security of the
country and the destiny of Nagorno-Karabakh. It turns out that sharing
responsibility including risking one's life is allowed, while being
informed is not. So far we are only talking about the informal side of the
matter. However this style of R.Kocharian's approach to foreign policy
will obviously lead to a serious scandal, possibly to a significant civil
opposition."

So according to Mouradian, the interested powers, mainly the US, European
Union and Russia agreed on the fact that Karabakh cannot be returned to
Azerbaijan. Compromises including the model of a "common state", package
and stepwise settlement are not realistic. Neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan
will accept these models. According to Mouradian for Europe the annexation
of Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia, abolition of The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic
and the cession of other territories to Azerbaijan seems to be the most
realistic variant.

"Today America prefers to be isolated and to observe the failures of
Russian and European politics, fearing at the same time that the military
actions according to the Russian scenario could be renewed. The US would
prefer the notion of changing the configuration of the national borders
taking into consideration geostrategic interests and
outlooks. Unfortunately Iran has lost its positions both in Armenia and
Azerbaijan. Thus any model includes the cession of the territories
occupied in 1993-1994. However at the same time certain signs indicate
that Armenian leadership is ready to face the developing
events." According to Mouradian "practical "isolation" of the political
leadership of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic from the real political
process, staff transfers in the armed forces of NQR and the fact that
competent officers are transferred to Armenia, the instructions to charity
organisations and local administrations recommending not to build any
economic objects on the "liberated" territories indicate the intentions of
the political leadership of Armenia". He claims that the "liquidation of
the post of the president of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic may indicate to
Azerbaijan and the rest of the world that Armenia is ready to agree on
groundless compromises". Further he notes that in this context political
leaders of Nagorno-Karabakh "get the real chance to spearhead the Armenian
nationalistic political powers and exert a significant influence on the
army".

Aram Aramian

10.07.2001

Why I Am Not Happy About the Thing Everyone Seems To Praise
By Elin Suleymanov
The views expressed are of the author only

The very name of the Reconciliation Commission sounds nice.  Cheerful media
reports too should convince the readers that something wonderful is
happening.  Why then don't feel I good about the whole "reconciliation
effort"? Is it because, being an Azerbaijani, I am paranoid about Armenians?
Or, perhaps, not being mature enough, I fail to see the benefits of Armenia
and Turkey trying to find a common language?

Maybe.  Still, after hearing a lot about positive implications of
establishing the much - discussed "reconciliation commission," let me say
why myself and others in Azerbaijan are disturbed.

Reconciliation is a good thing.  Of course, the Turks and Armenians have a
lot to discuss, including all the painful moments of common and yet so
differently perceived history.  And they should proceed towards dialogue.

However, around the world, unlike in Armenia, the norm is to live in the
present, not in one's past, either real or imagined.  Turkey's policy
towards Armenia over the last decade has been based not on history, but on
the reality of brutal Armenian occupation of the 20% of Azerbaijan and
ethnic cleansing of 1 million people from their homes.  The Turks may now be
tired of hearing about the Armenian aggression, but that does not change the
facts on the ground.  Without any changes, which would indicate Armenia's
goodwill, Turkey shouldn't change its policy.  Both because this policy of
ceasing cooperation with an aggressor is in line with the international law
(the UN and the OSCE both called for the withdrawal of Armenian troops) and
because the only thing a change would indicate is that the Armenian
persistence is stronger than Turkey's principled approach.

In fact, I feel compelled to bring up the issue of Armenian aggression, as
in discussing Turkish-Armenian rapprochement, this obvious and crucial
reason for Armenia's self-inflicted misfortunes is too frequently omitted or
mentioned only in passing.  Instead of finding ways to restrain a
foreign-backed aggressor, the discussion is focused on "overcoming Turkey's
historic guilt before the Armenians."

I don't know what exactly happened in 1915-1923.  Certainly, nothing good.
It is painful to hear about the Armenian victims of those events, just as it
should be painful to remember scores of civilians in Baku, Naxcivan, and all
over the region as a matter of fact, brutally murdered by Armenian and
Bolshevik gangs over the same very years.  Whatever happened though, I still
fail to understand why suffering of Armenians in the beginning of the
century is so much more important than continuos and ignored suffering of a
real one million Azerbaijani refugees.  We often say that is because the
Western bias towards Armenia.  Is Turkey biased too now?

Beginning the dialogue with Armenian activists at the time when Armenia's
position at the negotiating table with Azerbaijan is getting increasingly
uncompromising sends a wrong message. The wave of various parliamentary
"genocide resolutions" pushed by the Armenians by means distant from
historical justice as well as the release of the Armenian terrorist Varuzhan
Karapetyan (?) in France and failure to convict Murad Topalian on terrorist
charges in the US, resulted in a perception of Turkey's positions weakening.
Consciously or not, by attempting to appease the Armenians at this time,
Turkey justifies Armenian extremism, acknowledges own weakness and
susceptibility to pressure.

Turkey naturally feels that it needs to change the hostile image of itself
in Armenia.  Then there is realpolitik of Turkey's desire to join Europe and
of the pressures Ankara is coming under.   Well, the reality is that
one-sided, unsubstantiated concessions are widely seen as an admission of
guilt, thus both reinforcing the basis of the hostility and opening doors
for further, even stronger pressures.

Normalizing relations with Armenia as an instrument of encouraging and
rewarding it for moving towards peace is a good idea.  Rewarding those
hard-liners in Armenia, who believe that they can achieve their goals by
putting pressure on Turkey and without any compromise with Azerbaijan, is
not.  Should the Armenian forces withdraw from at least some of the
Azerbaijani regions, which the Armenians themselves, incidentally, see as no
more than a bargaining chip in the negotiations, then Turkey's opening doors
for dialogue with Yerevan is most welcome.  Otherwise, Turkey will be
telling the region, where it plays an important leadership role, that ethnic
cleansing and military aggression present a good background for a dialogue
about history?

There are many Armenians, who have suffered and it is only normal that, as
individuals, they, perhaps their descendants, should be heard in Turkey.
Interestingly, members of the reconciliation commission say that their
intention is not a search for truth.  What then? By accepting that the
dialogue is not based on truth, Turkey enters a dangerous web of politicking
and manipulation of history thus fulfilling the very objective of the
Armenian nationalists.

What Turkey should be talking to Armenia, is how to end the aggression
against Azerbaijan and Armenia's subtle and not-so-subtle territorial claims
against its neighbors, including Turkey. Turkey should also work to help
Armenia become an independent country acting in a responsible manner, rather
than an impoverished past-oriented society obsessed with militant ethnic
expansionism and full of foreign troops.  Toying with and thus tacitly
endorsing the ethnically driven mythology, which has already all but
destroyed Armenia and caused much pain to its neighbors, is helping nobody.
As for the Armenian persistence, if the Armenians have managed to
misrepresent the evident and real history of the last decade, should one be
surprised that a fertile ground has been found for misrepresenting much
earlier events.

And whom is Turkey talking to? Is there really a need for reconciliation
with a Kremlin advisor and a proponent of expansionism, Andranik Migranian,
or for that matter, with another, most outspoken member of the commission,
an Armenian-American lobbyist Van Krikorian, best known for his anti-Turkish
sentiments and authoring the shamefully discriminatory Section 907 against
Azerbaijan.  Recognizing these people, living neither in Armenia, nor in
Turkey, as counterparts in the dialogue only increases the Diaspora's
unhealthy hold on Armenia. This in turn further damages prospects of
realistic political decision-making in Yerevan.

How should Azerbaijanis (and hopefully many Turks) feel after hearing over
and over again from our Turkish friends about the strictly informal nature
of the dialogue, and then reading Mr. Krikorian's words in the Washington
Times that "there is no question that they were in constant contact with the
government.  It is a bit of a charade, but it works"?  And what about
another statement of his:" We held secret negotiations for a long time"?

Recently, there has been talk about tensions appearing in the
Azerbaijani -Turkish relations.  There are, of course, some facts. Yes,
Azerbaijan might be getting closer to Russia and Azerbaijani bureaucrats
fully acknowledge the "bir milliyet - iki dovlet" principle by creating
almost as many problems for the Turkish businesses as they do for the
Azerbaijani ones.  And yes, the Azerbaijanis have been very clumsy in making
their case to Turkey, perhaps thinking that we don't have to. On the other
hand, the Azerbaijanis feel disappointed that their excessive hopes for a
greater Turkish support haven't materialized and by the failure of many
Turks to understand that Azerbaijan is not just a "younger brother"
extension of Eastern Anatolia but a distinct country with own national
interests.

Still, I would argue that if there are tensions, they result from
misunderstandings.  Azerbaijan and Turkey are truly fraternal nations and
fundamentally closest of allies.  This closeness and fraternity as well as
partnership with the friendly Georgia create the best conditions for peace
and stability in the region and can ensure Turkey's leadership role, it
deserves.

Turkey should continue standing by Azerbaijan and not to forget the present,
when talking about the past.  Let's not dwell on small things and focus on
those great ones that unite us and on our common responsibility for the
future of the entire region.

Unfulfilled hopes for greater Turkish support were among the reasons why the
Republic of Azerbaijan of 1918-1920 did not survive.  So don't be surprised
by my hope that the history does not repeat itself.

The views expressed are of the author only and are not necessarily endorsed by his
employer.

.

Azeri former officials present final version of charter for Karabakh peace
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Sep 17, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency Sarq

17 September, Sarq correspondent S. Aliyev: A presentation of the final version of the charter for settling the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict took place today. According to its creators, it will soon be presented to Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev, the cochairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group and foreign ambassadors in Azerbaijan so that they can familiarize themselves with its contents.

Eldar Namazov, one of the authors of the charter, thinks that there is no point in seeking anything new or any non-traditional approaches to resolving the Karabakh problem in this document. In his view, "this charter can be regarded as the position of Azerbaijani society, as a mini-referendum, which has played a unifying role," Namazov said. It was noted that the OSCE Minsk Group, in preparing its proposals for settling the Karabakh problem, first and foremost takes into account public opinion. According to the people behind the charter, it is public opinion which is reflected in this document.

It also contains a number of proposals by individuals. It incorporates a proposal from the chairperson of the Helsinki Citizens' Assembly, Arzu Abdullayeva, to specifically define the formula "use of force", which envisages using force against armed separatists, not the civilian population. Similar proposals came from the leaders of other political movements.

When asked whether members of the largest pro-government party, the New Azerbaijan Party, support this charter, another one of the document's creators, Nazim Imanov, said that ordinary members and people with responsible posts, members of this party, have supported their position on more than one occasion, although officially New Azerbaijan has not signed this document.

Touching on the issue of creating an organization on the basis of this charter, Imanov replied: "We have not thought about this, but it is a possibility."

Source: Sarq news agency, Baku, in Russian 1100 gmt 17 Sep 01?
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.

Azeri president, PACE head discuss terrorism, Karabakh
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Sep 17, 2001
Text of report by Azerbaijani news agency Turan

Baku, 15 September: We are ready and we have every possibility to carry out any measures against international terrorism in Azerbaijan if there is a need for this, Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev said at a meeting with the head of PACE [Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe], Lord Russell-Johnston, today.

Aliyev said that tracking down and neutralizing terrorists, and also an "appropriate" response by the USA necessitated serious measures and these measures should be implemented. "Checking and the arrest of suspects in Azerbaijan should be seen as a natural occurrence and this would be justified if there was any need for this," Aliyev said.

The sides also discussed Azerbaijan's commitments to the Council of Europe. Aliyev said that the Council of Europe should also not forget the rights of 1m Azerbaijani refugees, with Azerbaijan joining European conventions on human rights.

In turn, Russell-Johnston said that many things depended on the parties to the conflict - Armenia and Azerbaijan, and on their ability to achieve peace on the basis of compromises to resolve the Karabakh conflict.

Aliyev said in this connection that compromises should be mutual. He said with regret that Armenia was not ready to make any compromises at all, although not everybody [in Azerbaijan] was ready for compromises either.

Source: Turan news agency, Baku, in Russian 1315 gmt 15 Sep 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.

Russian, Azeri leaders discuss action against terror, Karabakh, CIS
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Sep 17, 2001
Text of report in English by Russian news agency ITAR-TASS

Moscow, 17 September: Russian President Vladimir Putin and Azerbaijani President Heydar Aliyev on Monday [17 September] discussed the coordination of efforts against international terrorism.

In their telephone conversation, Putin and Aliyev also touched upon issues of regional security and prospects for closer interaction among the Caucasian states, the presidential press service has said.

ITAR-TASS correspondents in Baku Sevindzh Abdullayeva and Viktor Shulman report that the presidents of Russia and Azerbaijan also discussed a peaceful settlement of the Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict in Nagornyy Karabakh.

Putin told Aliyev about his talks with Armenian President Robert Kocharyan and noted the importance of continued direct dialogue between the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia in order to reach peace.

Putin confirmed Russia will support any agreement Azerbaijan and Armenia may reach. He stressed Russia's interest in ensuring peace and stability in the Caucasus, and said that this was one of the important conditions for the effective work of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Russia.

Aliyev reassured Putin that Azerbaijan is committed to a peaceful settlement in Karabakh.

Putin proposed to hold the next CIS summit in Moscow on 26 September. It was planned earlier that it would take place in Ashgabat. Putin explained the need to move the venue by the new situation after the terrorist acts in the United States.

According to the Azerbaijani presidential press service, Aliyev agreed with the proposal, adding that it would be "expedient" to hold the CIS summit in Moscow.

Source: ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow, in English 1734 gmt 17 Sep 01
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.

Armenia needs Russian base to counterbalance Azeri-Turkish military ties
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Sep 19, 2001

The head of the Armenian parliament's defence, national security and internal affairs commission, Vaan Ovanesyan, said Armenia needs the presence of a Russian military base on its territory as a counterbalance to the close military cooperation between Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. He also rejected the idea that this was the start of a new Russian colonization of Armenia. The following is an excerpt from a Vaan Vardanyan report by Armenian newspaper Ayots Ashkar on 19 September entitled "Armenia needs the presence of a Russian military base":

An interview with the chairman of the Armenian Parliamentary Defence, National Security and Internal Affairs Commission Vaan Ovanesyan.

[Ayots Ashkhar correspondent] Mr Ovanesyan, what impression do you have of the Russian president's official visit?

[Vaan Ovanesyan] I assess the visit extremely highly, it was undoubtedly the pivotal event of the year. I think the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin will really serve as a stimulus for the development of Armenian-Russian relations. It demonstrated that both parties have realized that a military and political alliance constructed on the basis of geopolitical interests may not be strong enough if it is not reinforced by mutually profitable economic cooperation.

In this sense the member countries of the CIS Collective Security Treaty will have the most significant role to play. If I am not mistaken, Armenia has already been given the papers for the recently created Eurasian Economic Union. A number of authoritative economists think that some CIS countries, including Armenia, will find themselves in an advantageous situation if they join this union. I get the impression that resolution of these problems was considered significant during the Russian president's visit. The leadership of the country made the right response to Russia's desire to enlarge and deepen relations.

[Correspondent] The defence ministers of Russia and Armenia have signed an agreement on giving new territories to the 102nd Russian military base. Certain politicians and some of the mass media have been commenting on this as the beginning of Russia's new colonization of Armenia.

[Ovanesyan] Armenia is not becoming the colony of any country. Today Armenia has the independence it obtained following the collapse of the USSR. I do not rule out that there will be different opinions regarding the presence of a Russian military base, but these should stem from an assessment of the objective reality. There was a time when we were the radical opposition to the administrative staff of [former Armenian President] Levon Ter-Petrosyan, but we never expressed mutually exclusive views about issues, which are extremely significant for the country's security.

The presence of a Russian base and its enlargement is to some extent necessary for Armenia for one obvious reason: over the last few years the neighbouring countries of Georgia and Azerbaijan have expanded their military cooperation with Turkey to such an extent that Armenia cannot remain indifferent to such a reality.

[Correspondent] Are you referring to the integration of Georgia and Azerbaijan into NATO?

[Ovanesyan] No, I mean their special military cooperation with Turkey. If these relations were developing in the framework of the "Partnership for Peace" programme, in which Russia, Armenia and other countries also participate, then we would not be seriously concerned. But they are developing relations with Turkey, which is a NATO member and a direct enemy of Armenia.

[Passage omitted: Russia's desire to obtain debts from Armenia understandable and reasonable]

[Correspondent] Are you pleased with the positions expressed by Vladimir Putin regarding the Karabakh issue?

[Ovanesyan] The Russian president was very careful in what he said. This is good, because I am scared of politicians who come to Yerevan, talk about everlasting friendship, and then go to Azerbaijan and sing their national anthem. This is what PACE [Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe] Chairman Lord Russell-Johnston did recently.

[Correspondent] But how acceptable is it for Russia, our strategic partner, to maintain such marked neutrality?

[Ovanesyan] This is the most acceptable option for us. Firstly, because both Armenia and Azerbaijan are CIS member countries and this also shapes Russia's position. On the other hand, the Karabakh issue is a problem which can be settled only by Armenia and Azerbaijan. If we allow intermediaries to force on us a settlement of this problem, they might make an arrangement which would be absolutely unacceptable to us.

[Passage omitted: only compromise possible on Karabakh should reflect results of war and current situation]

Source: Ayots Ashkar, Yerevan, in Armenian 19 Sep 01 p 3
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.

Turkish envoy surprised by European official's Karabakh drugs' route comments
BBC Monitoring Service - United Kingdom; Sep 17, 2001
Text of Rahib report by Azerbaijani newspaper Yeni Musavat on 16 September entitled "I am surprised by the degree to which Russell-Johnston is informed"

As we know, the visiting chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Lord Russell-Johnston, told Azerbaijani MPs that Armenia used Nagornyy Karabakh as a transit point for trafficking drugs brought from Turkey. He also said that Turkish officials should express their attitude to this issue.

The Turkish ambassador to Azerbaijan, Kadri Ecvet Tezcan, who yesterday [15 September] took part in a ceremony to mark Turkish martyrs [killed in Baku in 1918 while fighting against Bolsheviks and Dashnaks], said that he was not authorized to speak on this topic. At the same time, Tezcan said that he was surprised by the degree to which Russell-Johnston was informed on these issues: "As far as I know, all these affairs are a sphere of activity of the state power-wielding structures. The drug trafficking route is not so important. It is important to seriously punish those who buy and sell this inhuman substance, irrespective of who they are".

Source: Yeni Musavat, Baku, in Azeri 16 Sep 01 p 2
/BBC Monitoring/ � BBC.

RUSSELL JOHNSTON�S TRIP TO BAKU TO FINISH
A DemCongress representative is positively estimating the trip�s results.

On September 14-17, chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Lord Russell Johnston was in an official visit in Azerbaijan. During the trip Mr. Johnston has met with a number of Azeri officials, as well with the head of the state Heidar Aliev. Implementation of the obligations of Azerbaijan before the Council of Europe was the object of discussion at the meetings. Chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly has also met with the displaced persons settled in Baku city and acquainted with their living situation. Touching on the Karabakh issue in his speeches, Lord Johnston stated that Karabakh was considered "an occupied territory" at the public opinion, but that question belonged to the OSCE�s authority framework. "The Council of Europe can simply help the OSCE towards the regulation of Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict," stressed Lord Johnston.

A member of the Steering Committee of the Democratic Congress and deputy chairman of the Popular Front Party on political issues Fazil Gazanfaroglu considered this trip successful: "It should be marked that the approach of Lord Russell Johnston to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict during the visit was close to objectiveness. It is only the beginning of the issue. The main thing is the formalization of an opinion at the Council of Europe close to the rightful position of Azerbaijan".

In the opinion of Gazanfaroglu, the fact of Azerbaijan�s being exposed to occupation will be discussed more seriously after that trip and it may result with serious pressures on Armenia.

DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS
BULLETIN No30, September 18, 2001

JAMESTOWN FOUNDATION
THE FORTNIGHT IN REVIEW -- A Biweekly on the Post-Soviet States
14 September 2001 - Volume VII, Issue 18
Vladimir Socor: [email protected]
ARMENIA'S ROAD TO DAMASCUS AND MOSCOW

This past fortnight, Armenia moved toward even closer relations with Russia and simultaneously toward military cooperation with Syria. President Robert Kocharian's closest associate, Serge Sarkisian, led both moves. Sarkisian combines the posts of defense minister, head of the National Security Council and chairman of the Armenian side of the Russian-Armenian intergovernmental cooperation commission. Such a combination of posts, unique in the post-Soviet countries, enables Sarkisian to control Armenia's foreign, defense, security and foreign economic policies across the board.

In Damascus during the last days of August, Sarkisian signed an agreement on military cooperation with Syrian Defense Minister General Mustafa Tlass. Sarkisian has publicly declined to disclose the content of this agreement in Yerevan. He indicated only that a part of it covers deliveries of Armenian arms, ammunition and other military equipment to Syria. According to Sarkisian, the agreement does not require parliamentary ratification and is going into effect immediately.

This move would seem to resume the policy of the late strongman Vazgen Sarkisian (no relation to Serge). In his successive capacities as defense minister and prime minister from 1993 to 1999, Vazgen Sarkisian pursued a specific model of military diplomacy aimed at establishing cooperation with historic enemies of Turkey. During those years, Armenia's military--increasingly out of tune with the civilian state leadership--developed its own ties with the defense establishments of Syria, Iran, leftist-ruled Bulgaria, Greece and Cyprus. The underlying goal was encirclement of Turkey, a goal out of all proportion with Armenia's means, and which added an unnecessary obstacle to Armenian-Turkish normalization.

By now, Yerevan finds fewer countries willing to enter into such combinations. Its need for normalization with Turkey is, however, as topical as ever, even if not recognized by Armenia's leadership. An Armenian-Syrian military rapprochement is to the liking of Tehran, fitting as it does with its notion of a north-south Iran-Armenia-Russia "axis" opposing the west-east Turkey-Azerbaijan-Georgia-Israel "axis."

From Syria, Sarkisian flew directly to Moscow for negotiations with Deputy Prime Minister Ilya Klebanov--who supervises Russia's military industry--on a ten-year economic cooperation agreement. The agreement is predicated on a partial takeover of flagship Armenian enterprises, mostly in defense-related sectors, by Russian companies, in return for writing off portions of Armenia's debts to Russia. The sides are currently negotiating the form of the planned takeovers: as property transfers or as joint ventures. Kocharian and Russian President Vladimir Putin are expected to sign the agreement during Putin's scheduled visit to Yerevan later this month.

Unofficial dialogue between Turkey and Armenia creates excitement among U.S. officials

SAADET ORUC

The recent unofficial chain of meetings between Turkey and Armenia are an important process and are being encouraged by the United States, said American Ambassador to Armenia Michael Lemmon, who has been playing a key role in the formation of business ties between Yerevan and Ankara.

Lemmon, who has taken Armenian businessmen to Istanbul many times, spoke to Turkish journalists visiting Armenia between Sept. 7-11 for the Turkish-Armenian-Azerbaijani Journalists Meeting, entitled "The Role of the Media in Overcoming Regional Conflicts and Eliminating the Enemy Image."

Asked whether he defined his role between Turkey and Armenia as a key one, Ambassador Lemmon kept silent.

"Silence means confirmation," said a Turkish journalist, drawing attention to the silence of the American ambassador after the question.

And Lemmon expressed a very well known phrase to define his role: "Instead of complaining about the darkness, light a candle!"

Speaking at the Paris Consultative Group Meeting in July, Lemmon defined the formation of the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Committee as an important step towards the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia, which he commented to be a bold, courageous and needed effort.

Spending three years as U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, Lemmon has witnessed the most critical developments in the region.

And with the experience of the last three years, Lemmon told Turkish journalists, including the Turkish Daily News, that nothing should be off the table for the unofficial gatherings between Turkey and Armenia.

The thing that was really important was a positive debate and dialogue atmosphere between the average Armenian and Turkish people, he added.

"Through this dialogue a mutual understanding, reconciliation and forgiveness can be reached, which are not political but spiritual activities," Ambassador Lemmon said.

"I have been sincerely telling not only Armenia but also the diaspora that I don't agree with the spending of a lot of time for the approval of parliamentary resolutions on genocide. It is possible to form a dialogue between the people but this can be achieved through the efforts of the two sides. An outsider can only encourage or support this. But this is something to be achieved by the Turkish and the Armenian people," the Ambassador said.

Asked to comment on the negative attitude in Armenia regarding the Reconciliation Committee between Turkey and Armenia, Ambassador Lemmon said that they (the U.S. administration) have been supporting the work of the reconciliation committee meeting. "The Armenians think that the representation in the committee for their side was not sufficient," Lemmon expressed.

"We are lucky that there is not only one road, but there is a multiplicity of dialogue," Lemmon said, stating that the dialogue should continue through various channels.

When reminded that all contacts between unofficial groups were being locked on the so-called genocide issue, Lemmon said that this issue should be handled by serious people, without taking the issue to the public attention, silently.

Lemmon speech at ANI Conference

Ambassador Lemmon, in addition, speaking at the ANI Conference "Armenian genocide: Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, 1914-1923" organized on April 22, 1999, made the following statement:

"... Allow me to speak bluntly, but, I hope, constructively. Turkey's democratic evolution will not be complete until Turkey's scholars, politicians and even ordinary citizens understand and accept as illegitimate the events that turned the multiethnic Ottoman Empire, home of the so-called 'Loyal Millet' into the ostensibly mono-ethnic state we see today. But such understanding is difficult and simply not possible without dialogue in good faith among scholars of good faith. ..." The continuation of the Lemmon speech was a proposal that matched the current unofficial contacts between Turkey and Armenia, between business circles, press and academicians plus the Reconciliation Committee: "Here is where I would differ with many who put so much time and effort into the adoption of statements by politicians and parliaments. The process that I have described will not, it seems to me, be best advanced by the issuing of public declarations and attempting to try contemporary Turks before the court of public opinion for the actions of their forefathers. Reconciliation cannot come about if one of the parties does not recognize that there is anything to feel responsibility for, much less remorse, and the other insists a priori on condemnation. What is needed is a dialogue of civilizations, of peoples, perhaps best undertaken by scholars, that takes us on not just an historic, fact-finding journey, but also on a spiritual, transcendental path that allows us to comprehend, accept and proceed in an effort to build a future where such events never occur again."

As a surprising coincidence, Lemmon met with Turkish reporters on plane on his way back from Istanbul to Yerevan, along with six Armenian businessmen from a fair organized in Istanbul Lemmon was showing the Sept. 7 edition of the Turkish Daily News, which had an article on the meeting of the journalists in Yerevan, to the businessmen accompanying him and noted that it was a very important development.

Lemmon invited the Turkish journalists to the American Embassy in Yerevan after the end of the meeting of the Turkish-Azeri-Armenian journalists and made a broad evaluation of the recent situation of the Turkish-Armenian journalists.

Copyright 2001 Turkish Daily News

News referred from Habarlar-L

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws