Yerevan Press Club of Armenia presents `MediaDialogue” Web Site as a
Regional Information Hub project.
As a part of the project web site is maintained,
featuring the most interesting publications from the press of Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey on issues of mutual concern. The latest
updates on the site are weekly delivered to the subscribers.
************************************* **********************************
============ ================================================== =============
REGION
============================= ==============================================
AMB ASSADOR OF GEORGIA IN ARMENIA VERSUS GEORGIAN INTERESTS
—————————————- ————————————
Source: `Akhali Taoba’ newspaper [March 19, 2006]
Author: Georgi Udzilauri
In the interview to `Azg’ Armenian daily, Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary of Georgia in Armenia, Revaz Gachechiladze stated that
the construction of Kars-Akhalkalaki railway is allegedly unfavorable
to Georgia. Gachechiladze holds that there seems to be no need for
constructing this section of the railway. It would be more efficient
to launch another railway route `Kars-Gyumri (Armenia)-Tbilisi’.
This statement of the Georgian diplomat seemed so unlikely that we
tried to contact both the Georgian Embassy in Yerevan and the Foreign
Ministry of Georgia. Bringing apologies, the Embassy refused to give
comments, while the press service of the Foreign Ministry did not even
do this much, no one answered the phone calls there.
If the Armenian journalists do not make inventions and Gachechiladze’s
statement is not the product of their imagination, that is the
Ambassador really criticizes the state plans on the construction of
`Kars-Akhalkalaki’ railway, he is incompetent. Or may be it is the
Turkish President Ahmed Necdet Sezer, having visited Georgia a week
ago, that is incompetent. He stated that Turkey is interested and
keeps working on the project of constructing
Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi-Baku railway.
Almost a year ago, in May 2005 the Presidents of the three countries,
Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan – Sahakashvili, Sezer and Aliev agreed
on the implementation of Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi-Baku project and
stated in particular that the construction of Kars-Akhalkalaki needs
450 million Euros. They asserted the public that these funds should
immediately be recalled because of the anti-Georgian interests
involved.
In a normal democracy, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs tries to give
an up-to-date explanation of such absurd situations. However,
unfortunately our Ministry does not care about the image of the
Georgian state on such a serious issue. If Gachechiladze confirms his
statements in the Armenian press, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs
Gela Bejuashvili, similarly to the Minister of Interior Vano
Merabishvili, starts defending his staff, the opposition will have the
right to demand resignation of two Ministers at a time.
========================================= ==================================
CONFLICTS
===== ================================================== ====================
“NEGOTIATIONS CONTINUE IN A `PLACE CONVENIENT TO ALL…”
—————————————— ———————————-
Source: `Novoye Vremya’ newspaper (Armenia) [March 18, 2006]
Author: Tamara Hovnatanian
The regional visit of American diplomats Daniel Fried and Steven Mann
came to an end, developing into a stage of numerous post-comments,
especially active in Armenia and Azerbaijan. The process will be
underway until the meeting of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairmen in
Istanbul, scheduled for March 20. Why on the territory of Turkey in
particular? The American Co-chairman answered this question as
follows, `there is no political implication here’, simply Istanbul
appeared to be `a place convenient to all’…
In Yerevan, the American diplomats were not very
outspoken. Introducing the purpose of his visit to the region, Daniel
Fried singled out three main points. In Armenia and Azerbaijan, there
was a discussion of Karabagh conflict; further on the issue of energy
security in the face of the January crisis after the explosion of the
gas pipeline was raised. Finally, attention was centered on the future
of the South Caucasus. It is when, as Fried put it, `all the current
conflicts are resolved, the countries of the region enter into a
period of peace and the authorities can make decisions without
external pressure”. All the other implications of the visit seem to
keep to the mentioned frames. Also the agenda of the discussions in
Turkey that Fried preferred avoiding, and the Iranian issue that is
still to be considered. The press conference, given by Daniel Fried
and Steven Mann after the meetings with RA President, Foreign Minister
and the Minister of Defense, as well as the business lunch with the
representatives of Armenian political parties was extremely brief. The
diplomats managed to answer only 5-6 questions. The priority is
Karabagh settlement.
The current stage of negotiation process was characterized by Daniel
Fried as `absence of stagnation”. “On the basis of the meetings
between Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia, we may state with
confidence that the negotiations will continue”, Fried stated.
On his behalf, Steven Mann noted that both Presidents show interest in
the progress, and USA is ready to support them by all means. He
refuted the rumors about the contradictions among the mediators and
assured the assembled journalists that he acts with the support of all
members of OSCE Minsk Group, secured in advance.
Raising the issue of energy security, the assistant to the secretary
of state said, `In the newly-formed situation of diversification of
energy sources, the European Union and USA again started discussing
the prospects of using nuclear energy”.
“For the time being, I cannot really say what conclusions we will make
on the results of these discussions in general and with reference to
Armenia in particular. The people I spoke with in Armenia mentioned
the interest of Yerevan in the new, safe and commercially viable
sources of nuclear energy. I will take these proposals to Washington
and we will attentively discuss these issues’, Daniel Fried noted.
Baku reacted to this quite negatively. `Armenians are very smart –
they are trying to solve the problem of energy supply at the expense
of Americans’, Baku `Zerkalo’ writes. `No doubt, it is reasonable
tactics. If the Americans need conflict settlement and control over
the South Caucasus so much, why not do good bargaining’…
The American diplomats had not left Baku before they again took up the
old record of the military budget growing like mushrooms and the
`limitless patience of Azerbaijani people’.
The issue of patience was raised by the President at the 2d congress
of Azerbaijanis of peace. “Hoping for efficiency of negotiations, we
participate in the talks, but for how long? This process cannot be
permanent. The patience of Azerbaijani people cannot be limitless”,
Ilham Aliev stated.
Taking up the reference to patience, the Azerbaijani press nourished
it with another, no less disputable thesis on the tolerance of its
people. At the same time, it expressed discontent with Lord Russell
Johnson. Making a speech at the recent session of PACE ad hoc
committee on Karabagh settlement in Paris, he stressed the necessity
of `refraining from instigation of enmity”. “Instead of calling for
tolerance, he better mind the fact that Armenia is an aggressor
country”, the Baku press, discarding the thesis of tolerance, brings
its claims to the Lord.
“We are devoted to the peace process, and our participation shows that
we want to resolve this issue peacefully, not by war”, one more
quotation of Aliev, who started his speech at the PanAzerbaijani
congress `to the good health’ of the peace process and came up to `a
bad end’ at the finish. `…However, if we see that the process is of
imitational nature and Armenia is still not sincere at the
negotiations, continuing its attempts to mislead the international
community… we will refuse to participate and will try to return our
territories”.
“What will happen if we start the war?’ the press develops the
topic. `Naturally, we will not be allowed to have a real war given the
interference of the international organizations, cochairmen,
transnational corporations, with a flow of telephone calls from the
capitals of world powers… In other words, the military operations
will have to be terminated, probably very quickly. However, if the
Azerbaijani army is really capable of liberating at least several
occupied regions, why not starting a little blitzkrieg?”
“No war will be quick and decisive”, Steven Mann stated in
Baku. However, apparently they did not hear him or pretend not to
hear, characterizing the regional visit of the representatives of the
Department of State as a `shuttle visit”, in the process of which they
`will try to reanimate the negotiation process, hopelessly blocked
after the obvious failure in Rambouillet”.
Under this approach, the talks about the future, mentioned by the
American diplomats within the visit framework, are left in the fog.
“Neither now nor in 20 years, the military option will be decisive in
conflict resolution’, these are the words Steven Mann said in Baku,
just to remind.
“The resolution of the Karabagh issue by military means is not
possible either now or in 15-20 years”, RA Defense Minister Serj
Sargsian expressed his agreement on this issue.
“Neither in 10 nor in 100 years, will we allow secession of
Mountainous Karabagh”, Ilham Aliev responded.
Still more interesting is the indirect dialogue of RA Foreign Minister
Vartan Oskanian and AR President Ilham Aliev.
“I set a target to equalize the military budget of Azerbaijan to the
Armenian budget in the short term. Armenia will never be able to
compete with us. The sooner the Armenian authorities realize it, the
better for them”, Aliev stated at the PanAzerbaijani congress, which,
judging by the reports from Baku, was almost totally devoted to
Karabagh issue.
“In the civilized world, the volume of military budget has long ceased
to be subject of competition between the countries and the peoples’,
RA Foreign Minister stated in the interview to the Second Armenian
Channel. `For several years, Azerbaijan has daily produced 400
thousand barrels of oil; however, Armenia is still ahead of its
neighbor by the volume of GDP per capita”.
“The Mountainous Karabagh has always been historical Azerbaijani land,
and the Armenians moved to this region in mid XIX century. They came
as guests and then, having acquired numerical advantage, they
instigated separatist trends”, Ilham Aliev assures the delegates of
PanAzerbaijani congress.
“Karabagh is Armenian land. For thousands of years, these lands were
populated by only Armenians, preserving their sovereignty’, Vartan
Oskanian parries back. `Azerbaijan has no moral right for any claims
to Mountainous Karabagh, having lost it in the 90s, when several times
it tried to exert pressure and even start ethnic cleansing. If not for
the resistance of the Armenians, we would not have Karabagh today”, RA
Foreign Minister emphasized.
Aliev also referred to the future of the whole region. “Today one of
our priorities is implementation of the project of constructing
Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway. It will promote basic cargo transportation
in the region. This project, similarly to all the other regional
projects, leaves Armenia out. We will never allow a country, having
occupied our territories, to have equal cooperation in the
region. With time, the gap between Azerbaijan and Armenian will keep
growing”.
We should note that Aliev spoke about it at the moment when Daniel
Fried made his speech in Yerevan about the future of the countries of
the region, `when they leave in peace and make their choice themselves
– without any external pressure…’
=================================== ========================================
INT. STRUCTURES
======================================= ====================================
EU WOULD DEPLOY PEACEKEEPING FORCES IN THE SOUTH CAUCASUS
—————————————– ———————————–
Source: `Zerkalo’ newspaper (Azerbaijan) [March 18, 2006]
Author: F. Teymurkhanli
According to EU Special Representative Peter Semneby, it is possible
after concrete results on Karabagh issue
“When the sides arrive at concrete results in Karabagh issue, it is
possible that the European union will send its peacekeeping forces to
the region and render assistance in rehabilitation of the war-torn
territories. EU may carry out a peacekeeping operation both by its own
efforts and in coalition with other international structures”, as
stated by new Special Representative of EU in the South Caucasus,
Peter Semneby.
At the same time, he added that EU does not intend to interfere in the
mandate of OSCE Minsk Group, acting as mediator in conflict
settlement. He was also uncertain about the composition and the
concrete location of the peacekeeping contingent.
As for the settlement of Karabagh conflict proper and a possible
`breakthrough’ in this issue in 2006 with a variety of statements
frequently voiced on this issue, P. Semneby said, `I still hope for
the conflict to be settled peacefully, and not all the possibilities
are exhausted. None of the sides needs war”.
At the same time, P. Semneby stated that the high claims put by the
Armenian and Azerbaijani sides prevent reaching a maximum positive
decision. `Definite amendments are essential in the positions of the
opposite sides, the important part is to start the process of peaceful
settlement. In the future, this willingness will help us facilitate
the final resolution of Karabagh issue’, EU Special Representative in
the South Caucasus emphasized.
According to P. Semneby, he intends to continue the activity of former
Special Representative Heike Talvitie, however, his mandate will
include larger powers. In particular, the European Union intends to
allot greater attention and resources to resolution of `frozen’
conflicts in the South Caucasus region.
Besides, if the headquarters of H. Talvitie were in Finland, the
office of the new Euro-Parliamentarian will be based in Brussels. The
new location is not accidental. According to P. Semneby, this
circumstance will help improve coordination of the activity of various
European structures.
Recently, the interest of the European Union in the South Caucasus
region has considerably increased. As P. Semneby thinks, it is
conditioned by two basic reasons. First, two South Caucasus countries
at a time (Georgia and Azerbaijan) aspire to EU membership. Second,
Turkey, now under negotiations for EU accession, has borders with all
the three countries of the South Caucasus region. In his opinion, with
ratification of the European Neighborhood Action Plan, the ties
between EU and the South Caucasus will be intensified.
Answering the question of `whether the EU will support the South
Caucasus countries if they face a tangible threat from the North or
South”, P. Semneby stated that his mandate embraces regional
cooperation, including the relations of South Caucasus countries with
the neighboring states. “Naturally, all the emerging problems interest
EU. However, I am not sure how the EU will act when there is a
concrete problem in place. In any case, we are interested in the
regional stability”, EU Special Representative stated.
As for the issue of human rights and democracy in Azerbaijan,
P. Semneby stated that EU views these aspects as priorities.
Besides, EU Special Representative stated that on his two-day visit,
he met the Head of State Ilham Aliev, Parliament Speaker, Prime
Minister and other officials.
As reported by `Turan’ agency, in the conversation with EU Special
Representative, I. Aliev wished P. Semneby successful implementation
of his mission. I. Aliev pointed to a progress in the cooperation
between Azerbaijan and EU, and expressed hope that these relations
will be strengthened in the future. On his behalf, P. Semneby noted
that he started his mission in the region from the visit to
Azerbaijan. He referred to the growing interest of EU in the South
Caucasus. P. Semneby expressed confidence that the relations between
EU and Azerbaijan will be developing in the future as well.
P. Semneby also met the opposition leaders. During the meetings, they
discussed the social political situation in Azerbaijan, parliamentary
elections of November 6 and the post-election period, paths for
settlement of Karabagh conflict, prospects for developing the
relations between Azerbaijan and EU.
============================================ ===============================
NEIGHBOURS
======= ================================================== ==================
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: “TURKISH DEMOCRACY ON COLLAPSE”
—————————————- ————————————
Source: `Milliyet’ newspaper (Turkey) [March 15, 2006]
Author:
The article in The Wall Street Journal criticizes the member of the
governing board of the Turkish Lawyers’ Union Kemal Kerincsiz, who
filed a suit against the organizers of the scientific conference on
the Armenian issue, and Orhan Pamuk. Bearing the signature of Philip
Shishkin, Istanbul correspondent of the newspaper, the article
characterizes Kemal Kerincsiz as a person trying to isolate Turkey
from the West.
In his article, Shishkin states that the claims of Kerincsiz to limit
the freedom of expression reduce to zero Ankara’s efforts for raising
the democratic prestige of Turkey in the period of EU membership
negotiations.
Shishkin writes that the actions taken by Kerincsiz fit in the
strategy of nationalistic forces, pursuing the aim of isolating Turkey
from USA and Europe, and transforming it into a regional superpower,
similarly to the Ottoman Empire at the time.
The article stressed that intensive efforts of Kerincsiz have not yet
brought any effect, since civil society is developing in Turkey and
people speak about the necessity of rejecting the archaic means of
accusation in Turkey.
In the article, Shishkin calls attention to the fact that in the
process of Turkey-EU negotiations quite a number of laws and
traditions changed. Overall, the Turks opt for closer relations with
Europe. So the statement of Kerincsiz that Turkey does not need EU,
likely to strengthen its positions in the region, does not enjoy the
support of the majority in the society.
The article mentions that last year Kerincsiz brought suits against
two universities that organized `Armenians in Turkey” joint
conference, writer Orhan Pamuk and Editor of `Agos’ newspaper Hrant
Dink. In particular, the Lawyers’ Union brought charges to the
organizers of the conference and their supporters. Despite all
obstacles, the conference on the Armenian issue was held on September
24-25, 2005 at Bilgi University. The organizers asserted that its most
positive result was `academic freedom”. Last year, lawyer Kemal
Kerincsiz and two other persons in the interview to `Die Welt’ German
newspaper accused Orhan Pamuk of insulting a Turkish soldier. There
was an attempt to accuse Joost Lagendijk, deputy of European
Parliament from Netherlands of insulting the Armed Forces of
Turkey. None of the suits brought the desired result.
The Wall Street Journal also quotes the statement of the Foreign
Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Abdullah Gull that the laws,
directed against freedom of expression, have a negative impact on the
image of the country. However, the newspaper writes that the
government has not yet made any real steps towards supporting freedom
of expression.
************************************ ***************************************
You can subscribe or unsubscribe to this newsletter either at
or by sending a message to the Editor:
[email protected].
For comments or questions please contact the Editor: [email protected].