Month: February 2012

AZERBAIJAN HOLDS WAR GAME IN N KARABAKH

Hurriyet Daily News
Feb 21 2012
Turkey

The Azerbaijani Armed Forces launched a military exercise in
Nagorno-Karabakh, the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry press service
announced yesterday, Anatolia news agency reported. “The Azerbaijani
army launched a large-scale military exercise on the frontline,
including land and air forces headed by Azerbaijani Minister of
Defense Safar Abiyev,” said the statement released by the ministry.

The training will last till the end of this week and modern weapons
acquired by the Azerbaijani Army will be used.

DINK MURDER CASE SHOULD BE REOPENED

Hurriyet Daily News
Feb 21 2012
Turkey

The State Supervisory Council (DDK) of the Turkish Presidency
released the findings of its 649-page report of the murder case of
Armenian-Turkish journalist Hrant Dink. The DDK has started a separate
audit on the case with the directive of President Abdullah Gul upon
reactions from the Dink family and general public opinion regarding
the fairness of the trial.

The case was closed by the Istanbul 14th Specially Authorized Court
last month, Jan. 17, sentencing hit man Ogun Samast and his instigator
Yasin Hayal to life imprisonment; Samast’s sentence was reduced to
23 years because of being under 18 years old when he killed Dink
in Istanbul on Jan. 19, 2007. The reactions are based on the claims
the court – which decided the crime was not committed by an illegal
organization – did not properly examine the evidence showing links
and causalities between the murderer and some public servants within
the police force, gendarmerie and intelligence.

The statements of Judge Rustem Eryılmaz following the ruling that
he did not examine the evidence well despite believing in his heart
there might be an organization having links within the state security
system caused a probe to be opened against him later on.

The findings of the DDK are not legally binding. But the highly
credible institution’s suggestions could be used as a legal ground
for both the Supreme Court of Appeals (Yargıtay), where the case is
waiting to be approved by the prosecutors to open the case anew.

Metin Feyzioglu, the chairman of the Ankara Bar, said yesterday on the
phone that one of the most important parts of the DDK report was the
paragraph underlining the negligence of the court in considering the
accusations against the government officers as separate cases; instead
they should be considered as a part of the main case, i.e. the murder
trial. “The report says that negligence caused lack of investigation
to understand whether there is a causality link between the murder and
the evidences on the links to public servants,” Feyzioglu explained.

“This could and should be considered as new evidence, and the case
has to be opened again.”

It is not possible to read all parts of the report, so we cannot
share them with you. But it is clear at least some parts of those
censored paragraphs are related to the links in the eastern Black Sea
port city of Trabzon where both Samast and Haya and also the released
police informant Erhan Tuncel are from.

The importance of the DDK report, thanks to the common sense of Gul,
is high. This could be a chance to consider the Dink case once again,
which turned into a symbolic case regarding the Christian minorities in
Turkey, as well as the human rights situation and the murder cases not
properly solved, and even examined by the courts. If the case is going
to be opened again, which should be the case, and end up revealing the
illegal structures within the state apparatus, it would be considered
an important step in improving the level of democracy in Turkey.

CRIME OF NEGLIGENCE

Today’s Zaman
Feb 21 2012
Turkey

A report prepared by the State Audit Institution (DDK) regarding the
murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink has revealed that
mistakes were made in the investigation of public officials who were
suspected to have acted negligently in preventing the murder. Dink,
the late editor-in-chief of Agos, was shot dead by an ultranationalist
teenager outside the office of his Ä°stanbul-based newspaper in broad
daylight on Jan. 19, 2007.

The investigation into his murder stalled when the suspected
perpetrator and his accomplices were put on trial whereas those who
masterminded the plot to kill him have yet to be exposed and punished.

In the face of growing calls from the public, Gul ordered the DDK to
investigate the Dink murder in 2011.

Noting that the DDK report presents significant clues and makes crucial
assessments on clarifying the murder, Radikal’s Oral CalıÅ~_lar
says the summary of the DDK report made mention of the method adopted
during the investigation of public officials. This method supposedly
led to the failure of not investigating all allegations regarding
public officials as a whole. The report noted that as a result of
this failure, the seriousness of the actions by public officials in
the run up to the murder has not been understood.

However, CalıÅ~_lar notes that it was not only public officials
who had been negligent. The prosecutors, too, were negligent by not
interrogating the Trabzon Gendarmerie Command, the head of the Trabzon
Police Department and the head of the Ä°stanbul Police Department. They
were all allegedly informed about the murder beforehand, yet they
did not take the necessary measures, such as protecting Dink. There
was also negligence on the part of the state bureaucrats because
they allegedly said there was no relation between the murder and
a terrorist organization — namely Ergenekon. Finally, the people’s
negligence constituted remaining silent when Dink was verbally attacked
for expressing his opinion when he was still alive. In other words,
CalıÅ~_lar says the perpetrator of the murder is obviously the
Ergenekon organization; but negligence, specifically deliberate
negligence, is a crime as well and, hence, we are all implicated in
this crime, he says.

Describing the Dink case as “a course that the students at police
academies should take to learn how not to deal with a murder case,”
Yeni Å~^afak’s Abdulkadir Selvi says the worst article is an article
in which the writer repeats the things he wrote in the previous one.

Selvi, however, says he feels like he has no choice because it
always boils down to the same issue in the Dink case: Everyone knows
everything about why and who conducted this murder. Yet, we are
disappointed to see that the judiciary fails to see or accept these
facts that everyone else knows about, he says. However, the DDK report
gave Selvi the hope that the law will finally function and that —
though it may take a long time — justice can actually be served in
the Dink case.

From: A. Papazian

DINK REPORT VS. MÄ°T LEGISLATION

Today’s Zaman
Feb 21 2012
Turkey

Turkey has many laws that vest public officials with immunity from
judicial review. One might suggest that these laws and special
regulations are needed for the continuation of the functioning of
the state mechanism.

However, as the immunity shields public officials have get stronger,
the system is becoming less and less a state governed by the rule
of law where everyone is treated equally before the law and everyone
accounts for their deeds in court, irrespective of their positions. It
is a serious source of concern that the system of immunity has recently
started to expand, although it is expected to diminish due to criticism
that it is already covering too many people and areas. The politicians
who promised to introduce transparency and accountability at the
election rallies are now acting quite contrary to their promises,
which further reinforces these concerns.

Despite the sheer number of legislation that must be prioritized —
such as the drafting of a new civilian constitution that will catapult
Turkey to higher standards in fundamental rights and freedoms or
the passing of numerous bills to ensure harmonization with the legal
system of the constitutional amendments ratified in the referendum held
on Sept. 12, 2010 — the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP)
passed amendments to the match-fixing law and the National Intelligence
Organization (MÄ°T) law posthaste. This has certainly created in the
public the perception that the alleged illegal activities of certain
people and institutions are being protected against due process of
law. The practical aspects of the MÄ°T bill aside, the government has
come to be perceived as suffering from a dangerous shift that is in
stark contrast to the principle of rule of law.

Fortunately, not all actors or components of the state are on the
wrong track. The AKP government has just passed a bill to reinforce the
immunity certain public officials already have, and the Presidency’s
State Audit Institution (DDK) issued a report on the investigations
concerning the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink,
who was shot dead in Ä°stanbul on Jan. 19, 2007. This report clearly
shows why this MÄ°T bill is a flawed attempt.

The 650-page DDK report, also sent to the Prime Ministry and Ä°stanbul
Chief Prosecutor’s Office, reads: “Although the person who shot Dink
dead was apprehended shortly after the murder, the investigation
and prosecution processes were not conducted as effectively and
swiftly due to certain systemic problems. For this reason, the
general public and the Dink family have not been satisfied with the
investigations/prosecutions conducted by administrative and judicial
authorities. In particular, the general criticism is that the public
officials who were allegedly involved in the murder of Dink were not
tried, and the people who masterminded the murder were not found. On
the other hand, in Dink v. Turkey, the European Court of Human Rights
(ECtHR) ruled on [Dec. 14, 2010], that Turkey failed to protect the
applicant’s right to life and breached the right to fair trial and
didn’t conduct an effective investigation for the protection of the
right to life and failed to provide effective remedies. Accordingly,
the negligence of public officials was substantiated, and the
criticisms that the public officials who failed to prevent the murder
were being protected increased, and this made the nature and outcome
of the administrative investigations dubious.”

The DDK report also criticizes the immunity afforded to public
officials against legal processes. Referring to two basic systems
for investigating and prosecuting public officials, it explains that
in the judicial guarantee system, the investigation and prosecution
concerning public officials’ offenses related to their duties are
completely conducted by judicial authorities according to general
provisions. Indeed, in this system, the judiciary is considered a
“guarantee” for public officials as it is for other members of the
society, the report adds. In the administrative guarantee system,
it notes, a public official is considered a state representative.

“Therefore, the state tends to protect those people who perform state
services… The state protects the bureaucracy that represents its
sovereignty with laws and endows its servants with privileges… In
sum, the administrative guarantee system has been developed in
countries with a central state structure out of concerns for
the protection of the administration and public servants as its
representatives in parallel to the development of the administrative
law,” it says.

The report also makes some recommendations to the decision-makers
concerning the prosecution of public officials. “The system that
requires prosecutors to ask for the permission of the administration
to launch a judicial investigation on public officials facing
certain charges is currently being implemented so broadly that this
undermines the public’s sense of justice and cannot be reconciled
with contemporary legal norms. In this regard, a method should be
developed to eliminate the current inconveniences of the judicial
guarantee system and to ensure greater harmony with contemporary
legal norms,” it suggests.

The report also stresses the legal fuzziness concerning the prosecution
of public officials and notes that Turkey has rich experience in
cases like the murder of Dink. As examples, it refers to the murder
of Christian missionaries at the Zirve publishing house in Malatya,
the murder of priest Andrea Santoro in Trabzon, the Cage (Kafes) action
plan, the cases against Ergenekon — a clandestine organization nested
within the state trying to overthrow or manipulate the democratically
elected government — the Revolutionary Headquarters, Odatv — which
is accused of acting as a media outlet to propagate the cause of an
organization that attempted to forcibly overthrow the government — the
Sledgehammer (Balyoz) action plan, the Anti-reactionaryism Action Plan,
the bombing of a bookstore in Å~^emdinli, the Council of State attack
and the unsolved murders. The report mentions there are claims against
public officials in these cases. “It is a must that the whole incident,
including how Dink was ‘otherified’ and made a target and threatened,
should be investigated, and certain negligent and other acts of public
officials, before and after the murder, should be investigated and
prosecuted directly by judicial authorities as part of the main case.”

At a time when a potential pruning of the powers and authorities
of specially authorized courts and prosecutors has started to be
discussed in the circles close to the government after judicial
authorities attempted to investigate the controversial relations
between some MÄ°T members and the terrorist Kurdish Communities Union
(KCK), the DDK report completely negated these arguments. Indeed,
this report reveals the saddening fact that specially authorized
courts and prosecutors are incapacitated in their efforts to collect
evidence against public officials who allegedly acted negligently
in the murder of Dink. In other words, it underlines that the powers
and authority of specially authorized courts and prosecutors are not
as broad or extensive as claimed, but fall short of enabling them to
effectively investigate the offenses attributed to public officials.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

PRESIDENTIAL REPORT BACKS PROBE INTO PUBLIC OFFICIALS FOR ROLE IN DINK MURDER

Today’s Zaman
Feb 21 2012
Turkey

A new report from the country’s top office is expected to put much
needed support behind judges and prosecutors who are currently
conducting investigations into several public officials for their
role in the murder of Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos’ editor Hrant Dink.

The State Audit Institution (DDK), which started the investigation
into the issue last year in January and posted it on the website of
the presidential office on Monday, has stated that a threat against
Dink’s life was known by the police and gendarmerie officials who
failed to take the necessary measures in light of early warnings and
tips about the plot to kill Dink.

The report also noted that the seriousness of the actions of public
officials in the run up to the murder has not been understood and the
link between their actions and the murder could not be established,
leading to the failure of all of the investigations into public
officials.

The DDK report came out at a time when there is a secret investigation
into some public officials who allegedly had roles in preventing the
murder of Dink, who was shot dead by an ultra-nationalist teenager in
broad daylight. Dink was convicted in 2005 for “insulting Turkishness”
in a newspaper article, despite an expert report that he had not
committed the said charge. He received threats from extremist rightist
groups and ultranationalist circles until he was murdered, causing
outrage among many Turks who joined a massive demonstration on the
day of his funeral.

The 650-page report stated that the DDK’s authority is limited in
conducting such an investigation, and it should avoid influencing
the judiciary, but it evaluates the situation in the face of the
ECtHR ruling, which declared in September 2010 that Turkey failed to
fulfill its duty to protect the life of Dink and included a reference
to possible links between the 2007 murder of Dink and Ergenekon,
a clandestine terrorist group accused of plotting a military coup
against the government.

“In that context, there is a decision to evaluate laws and regulations
criticized in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruling in
relation to the prosecution of the public officials,” the report
stated, adding that only a part of the report — the conclusion with
some parts covered with black — was made public because of an ongoing
investigation by the prosecution into some public officials. “The
first point is that it is understood that there are structural problems
in the security sector related to the failure to protect the life of
Hrant Dink.

In this framework, in the murder of Hrant Dink and in similar
events (murder in the Council of State, murders of intellectuals
and journalists, Sivas and MaraÅ~_ events), there were problems in
institutional structures and practices in relation to the collection
and evaluation of intelligence and providing individual security;
therefore, there is a need to touch on the ‘need for reform’,” the
report stated.

Cem Halavurt, a co-plaintiff lawyer for the Dink family, told Today’s
Zaman that there are several positive elements in the DDK report,
and there are some unknowns due to the secrecy of some parts.

“The report made the point that we have long been making in regards
to Law 4483, which protects public officials,” he said. “It also
makes another point that we have long been making, and it is that
public officials who are suspects can be tried in accordance with
the Turkish Penal Code’s related articles.”

Co-plaintiff lawyers for the Dink family have been defending the
view that in order to solve the murder of Dink, the whole picture
should be seen, and this cannot be done with one separate case in
Trabzon, another in Samsun and yet another in Ä°stanbul; therefore,
all the separate cases should be combined. One example of that is in
a separate case in Trabzon in which a public official was punished
with a prison sentence of six months for dereliction of duty. However,
the lawyers of the Dink family say if that case was part of the main
murder trial, then it would be possible to ask for this official’s
punishment under Articles 83 and 220 of the Turkish Penal Code [TCK].

Article 83 relates to malicious murder by dereliction of duty. And
Article 220 clearly states that if someone contributes to organized
crimes intentionally, then that person needs to be tried and punished
accordingly.

“We don’t know yet if the DDK report goes further to reveal
organizational links of the public officials in the murder,” Halavurt
said. “The team from the DDK worked well. They called us for submission
of many documents. But we don’t know yet how far they went.

We expect to receive the full report from them. And as this report
comes from the top office of the Turkish state, judges and prosecutors
should feel the courage to reveal all the facts, all of the wrongful
acts of public officials.”

The Dink case was closed last month in the five-year-long murder
trial with a verdict saying that the suspects had no ties to a larger
crime network but acted alone — even though government officials,
politicians and commentators have asserted that this cannot be true.

Even Judge Rustem Eryılmaz, who delivered the verdict, said —
amid growing outrage over the trial that many feel has failed to
shed light on alleged official negligence or even collaboration —
that while he personally cannot deny the murder was the work of
an organized network, the evidence submitted to the court was not
sufficient to issue such a ruling.

The trial ended with conviction of the hitman and his instigator. The
ruling was appealed as both the prosecution and lawyers on behalf of
the Dink family believe the killers are affiliated with the Ergenekon
network, whose suspected members currently stand trial on charges of
plotting to overthrow the government.

The gunman, Ogun Samast, and 18 others were brought to trial. During
the process, lawyers for the Dink family and the co-plaintiffs in the
case presented evidence indicating that Samast was not acting alone.

Samast stood trial in a juvenile court because he was a minor at
the time of the murder, and he was sentenced to 22 years 10 months
in prison.

The report by the DDK made a reference to Samast — who was
photographed after being captured, posing in front of a Turkish flag
and holding another flag next to security officials, indicating that
he was given the hero treatment — saying that it is necessary “to
confront with marginal understandings that gave a flag to the killer
of Hrant Dink.”

In a separate trial, two gendarmerie officers were convicted on
charges of “dereliction of duty” in the run-up to the Dink murder.

Another suspect, Yasin Hayal, was given life in prison for inciting
Samast to murder.

“The DDK report presents new opportunities,” said law professor
Hakan Hakeri.

Since opinions in the Turkish press indicate that a new investigation
should be started into the murder of Dink, he added that it is not
technically possible to start another investigation into the suspects
because the case is under review by the Supreme Court of Appeals.

“However, if the top court overrules the verdict, then a new
investigation can be possible. Additionally, with the DDK report,
investigations can be started against people who have never been
investigated before,” he said.

In late January, a group of people who identify themselves as “Hrant’s
Friends” released a press statement pointing out “untouchable”
officials allegedly responsible for Dink’s murder. The list included
Muammer Guler, who was the governor of Ä°stanbul at the time and
currently a lawmaker. Guler was listed as being responsible because
Dink was threatened by two MİT officials, Ozel Yılmaz and Handan
Selcuk, at the office of Deputy Governor Ergun Gungör.

Other individuals listed as being responsible for Dink’s assassination
include Osmaniye Governor Celalettin Cerrah, who was the Ä°stanbul
chief of police at the time of the murder; Ahmet Ä°lhan Guler,
then head of intelligence at the Ä°stanbul Police Department;
ReÅ~_at Altay, then Trabzon police chief; Engin Dinc, then head of
intelligence at the Trabzon Police Department and the man who told
the Ä°stanbul Police Department that Dink was going to be killed;
and Ali Oz, the then commander of the Trabzon Gendarmerie Command,
who covered up information regarding plans to murder Dink.

“IRAN’S POLICY ON AZERBAIJAN IS NOT A POLICY OF FRIENDLY NEIGHBORHOOD”

MilAz.info
Feb 21 2012
Azerbaijan

Gudrat Hasanguliyev: “I am against the political coloring of Taksim
action”

APA’s interview with chairman of All Azerbaijan Popular Front Party,
MP Gudrat Hasanguliyev

– 20 years have passed since the Khojaly genocide. How do you assess
the work done on the eve of its commemoration?

– The government, NGOs and political parties have done a great work
toward the recognition of the tragedy in the world. I think we should
acknowledge it. This issue began to attract more attention when Heydar
Aliyev Foundation started “Justice for Khojaly” campaign led by Leyla
Aliyeva. This campaign plays an important role in recognition of
the genocide in the world. Our Diaspora organizations in the world,
as well as societies in Europe joined this action. UK-based The
European Azerbaijan Society has done much work and campaigned for
recognition of the genocide in the world. Milli Mejlis also focused
attention on this issue and established working groups. It brought
results. The parliaments of several countries officially recognized
Khojaly genocide and several countries adopted official documents. I
hope the work will continue and the number of countries recognizing
the genocide will increase. I would like to underline the role of
the press in this field. Azerbaijani press was very active to keep
the issue on the agenda.

– What do you think about the action to be held in Istanbul’s Taksim
Square on the day of genocide – February 26?

– I would like all political circles of Turkey, both government and
opposition to support this action that it will be a grandiose event
echoing throughout the world and involving hundreds of thousands of
people. It will depend on heartily support giving by all political
parties of Turkey. Azerbaijani state, people and society set great
hopes on Turkey. Every time, when Azerbaijan says “it will liberate
territories by all means, including military way”, there is a Russian
general who responds that “if ceasefire is breached in the region,
Russia will take measures to reach forcible peace”. Privately, I
expect from Turkish officials to say that “if ceasefire is breached
and Armenia continues its destructive activity, Turkey will not remain
indifferent to the interference of a third country when Azerbaijan
has to liberate its territories”. Such response of Turkey will force
Armenians to think seriously about the peace. Taking all of these
issues into account, I consider the Taksim action very important and
wish to continue.

By the way, I do not accept the authorities-opposition approach to
this action. Regrettably some forces attempt to cast shadow upon this
action, or take advantage of it for the political purposes. I think
that we should call on the Azerbaijani authorities, opposition, the
Azerbaijanis living in Turkey to support this action. We should address
the political circles of Turkey and say that this is the nationwide
issue. This is the tragedy of the Turkic people. All efforts should
be mobilized in order to inform the world about this tragedy. They
should invite their supporters to Taksim square. We have the right to
ask this. If thousands of people gather in the squares with the slogan
“We all are Armenians”, hundreds of thousands of people should gather
in this square. On February 26, Taksim square will be the test of
our unity.

-How right is it to politicize it?

-This is a protest against a humanity crime. It would not be right to
approach this problem in the context of Armenia-Azerbaijan relations.

Irrespective of nationality everyone must condemn this act of
genocide. The action that will be held in Taksim is not a political
one, it serves the protection of human values.

-Iran is one of the most discussed issues. The number of Iran’s
threats has increased. This country openly accuses Azerbaijan of
hiding terrorists. Ordinary citizens face problems on Azerbaijani
border. We would like to know your opinion.

-First of all I must say that the problems created by the Iranian
side for the ordinary citizens are not new. Simply, they have been
complicated. I have repeatedly said at the Azerbaijani Parliament
that the documents of the Azerbaijani citizens traveling to Nakhchivan
through Iran or in the opposite direction are taken away and held there
without showing any reasons. Our citizens undergo oppression. As we do
not have other way, our citizens are obliged to use it. The problem
has recently become more complicated. Iran’s policy on Azerbaijan
is not the policy of friendly neighborhood. One should speak openly
about it. Iran’s policy with respect to Azerbaijan is against the
Islamic community and tramples down the Islamic values. If Islam
suggests that Muslims are brothers, how it can be that your brother’s
lands are occupied and you support the state that has done it. For
example, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has no embassy in Armenia,
it has recognized Khojaly genocide. Iranian officials use groundless
articles as a pretext. According to the article published in The Times,
Israeli intelligence services carry out some activities against Iran
in the territory of Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan has allowed this. I read
this article attentively. Even a person, who is not a politician,
knows that a secret-service agent would not publicize his identity
or intention. The whole world, including Iran knows that the British
media publishes articles against Azerbaijan. The boxing scandal,
the articles against The European Azerbaijan Society and the campaign
against Eurovision show that the country’s media has biased approach
to Azerbaijan. I am sure that Iranian intelligence services are also
observing this process. The campaign against Azerbaijan started by
Iran due to the article published in the British media is nothing
but pressure. 30 million Azerbaijanis live in Iran. There are people
among the Persians, who also want normal relations because we have
historical relations and share the same tradition. I regret that
the Iranian president’s brother expresses opinion on this issue and
accuses Azerbaijan. The purpose is to pursue hostile policy against
Azerbaijan. They want to establish theocratic regime under Islamic
state governing by Iran in Azerbaijan. Azerbaijani society rejects
it and will never receive. Ministry of National Security prevented
terrorist act. To pursue such policy against Azerbaijan is wrong. Iran
must change its policy against Azerbaijan, because more than 30
million Azerbaijanis live in this country and the hostile policy
against Azerbaijan will cause a protest by 30 million people. It will
create serious decomposition and national confrontation in Iran.

That’s why Iranian officials must think seriously about this. They
also must consider that Azerbaijan told powerful countries that it is
neighbor of Iran and Azerbaijan will never allow using of its lands
against Iran. Iran must estimate Azerbaijan’s position.

– You put forward a proposal in the parliament to rename our country
as North Azerbaijan. You make this proposal when the tensions were
escalated.

A group of Iranian MPs raised an issue to reconsider Turkmenchay
agreement. They even said that Azerbaijan was ancient Iranian lands.

But my proposal wasn’t a response to this statement. Thus issue
was reflected in my election platform during presidential election
campaign in 2008. Azerbaijan’s territory was occupied by Iran and
Russia when its territory was in the form of khanates. It became
official with Gulustan and Turkmenchay agreements. Today Western and
Eastern Azerbaijan provinces were kept as an administrative territory
in Iran. Iran confessed that this territory is Azerbaijan. If a
place has a south, it also has a north. It is an undeniable and
unavoidable reality. Iran officially recognizes the Republic of
Azerbaijan. The Republic of Azerbaijan forms one third of entire
Azerbaijan’s territory, one third of its population. In this case,
it will not be right to be named as Azerbaijan only. Every nation
has a chance to change the name of its country. The recognition of
our country under the name of North Azerbaijan will be approval by
UN and the world that our nation was divided. Those who oppose my
statement couldn’t find serious argument. There were narrow-minded
opinions as well. A scientist, whom I respect, said that the founders
of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic were not uneducated than the authors
of this idea…

That’s why it is impossible to change the country’s name. You know, the
unpleasant situation is that he assesses the issues not as historian,
but as politician. In addition, every period has its political
realities and according to the political realities, education
and patriotism are not on the agenda during the decision-making
processes. Approaching with this logic, were the persons leading
the country in that period careless that they agreed to give Iravan
to Armenia as a capital? There are documents. Of course no, but the
political realities of that period demanded it. But the political
realities of present period is that today divided nations unite and
declared that they were divided. We must work in order to inform
the world that we are divided nation. Some assess it as a political
conjuncture. It proceeds from the national interests.

Irrespective of the way of approach, we must include this issue in
the agenda.

– Speaking about South Azerbaijan, there was a serious polemics in the
press about Babek and Shah Ismayil. What is your opinion on this issue?

– I condemn the attack on Babek. If you investigate the life of any
historical figure, you can find there something private. But one
needs to consider that Babek turned into the symbol of unity of our
people in the South Azerbaijan. Millions people march to fortress of
Bazz every year. I also condemn such approach against Shah Ismayil
Khatai who established a state in Azerbaijani lands.

From: Baghdasarian

NIKOLAY BORDYUZHA: IN CASE OF CRITICAL SITUATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO NAGORNO KARABAKH CONFLICT ARMENIA WILL GET ALL NECESSARY ASSISTANCE

APA
Feb 21 2012
Azerbaijan

Baku – APA. In case of critical situation Armenia will get all
necessary assistance, said Nikolay Bordyuzha, Secretary General of
the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), APA reports.

“Armenia is a full member of the Collective Security Treaty
Organization. It has the commitment to offer opportunities to ensure
the collective security of the other state and the right to get
assistance from its allies,” he said.

Asked what steps CSTO will take in case of critical situation between
the parties to Nagorno Karabakh conflict, Nikolay Bordyuzha said it
is impossible to say how the critical situations in the member states
will develop.

“There are variants like in Kyrgyzstan, in Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan.

Everything depends on the concrete format of the crisis in a state.

Decisions will be made basing on this,” he said.

AMERICAN ANALYST: SNIPERS ALONG THE LINE-OF-CONTACT BETWEEN AZERBAIJAN AND ARMENIA ARE THREATENING A COMPROMISE SOLUTION OVER THE NK CONFLICT

APA
Feb 21 2012
Azerbaijan

Washington. Isabel Levine – APA. Mark Dietzen, a prominent American
analyst and specialist on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, believes that
snipers along the Line-of-Contact between Azerbaijan and Armenia are
threatening a compromise solution over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,
APA’s correspondent reports.

“Since 1994’s Ceasefire Agreement, sharpshooters have claimed about
30 victims annually on both the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides”,
he says, adding, “but as tensions mount over Nagorno-Karabakh,
sniping’s tit-for-tat bloodletting is slowly claiming another victim-
compromise”.

Mr. Dietzen, who has researched the conflict for many years, reminds
that, the OSCE’s Minsk Group has proposed the Madrid Document,
“a gradational peace plan”.

“Regrettably, the increasingly militarized nature of the conflict-
most notably through snipers’ habitual ceasefire violations- are
preventing the development of the mutual trust needed as a prerequisite
for compromise”, he adds, underlining, that as a result, the prospect
that the territories will be returned is becoming more and more remote.

The analyst also mentioned that, if implemented, the Madrid Principles
would seek to address the security concern through its provision for
“international security guarantees that would include a peacekeeping
operation.” However, he adds, with every new sniper attack, however,
this “if” becomes less likely.

“The Line-of-Contact no longer risks becoming a Line-of-Death: it
already is”, he says, adding that absent change, the final hopes for
a peaceful compromise to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will be buried
beneath it.

ICRC REPRESENTATIVES VISIT THREE ARMENIAN PRISONERS OF WAR AND FIVE MEMBERS OF A FAMILY HELD IN CUSTODY IN AZERBAIJAN

APA
Feb 21 2012
Azerbaijan

Baku. Kamala Guliyeva – APA. On February 17, the representatives of
the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) visited three
Armenian prisoners of war and five members of a family held in
custody in Azerbaijan, media contact person for the ICRC Delegation
to Azerbaijan Ilaha Huseynova told APA.

ICRC representatives delivered seven “Red Cross” letters to the
persons held in custody in Azerbaijan and received three “Red Cross”
letters from the Armenian family.

Currently there are three Armenian prisoners of war and five civilians
in Azerbaijan.

The civilians are the members of one family – Yegishe, Ruzanna, Alfred,
Gayane and Petros Gevorkian. They crossed the Azerbaijani borders in
January, 2010.

Two the captives – Ohan Arutunyan and Gevorg Tovmasyan passed into
Azerbaijani side in May, 2009, another one – Karen Arutunyan passed
into Azerbaijani side in July, 2009. All of three soldiers wish to
be sent to a third country.

An Azerbaijani serviceman is held captive in Armenia. The person,
who is held in Nagorno Karabakh, is corporal of the Azerbaijani Army,
Akhundzadeh Mammadbagir Talib, 22. He was captured by Armenians near
Yukhari Chayli village of Terter region on January 23, 2012.

From: Baghdasarian

FRANCE TO INCREASE PRESSURE ON ARMENIA IN NAGORNO-KARABAKH ISSUE

Trend
Feb 21 2012
Azerbaijan

France will increase the pressure on Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh
issue, head of the Center of Political Innovations and Technologies,
political scientist Mubariz Ahmedoglu said a briefing on Tuesday.

He noted de facto head of Nagorno Karabakh Bako Sahakyan makes
unintelligible and hard-to-explain steps.

“While important people were in Nagorno-Karabakh, Sahakyan made a
surprise visit to Greece and met there with leaders of the Armenian
community, the Armenian Church in Greece and the Armenian Revolutionary
Federation party. Despite the fact that the Armenian media has always
covered widely few meetings of Sahakyan, this time they distributed
only short information,” the political scientist said.

Sahakyan, in his interview with “Hayastan” newspaper after a meeting
in Greece, made two sensational statements.

“First, Sahakyan noted the possibility of returning some land to
Azerbaijan before determining the status of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Secondly, he noted the existence of settlement option. Despite the
fact that the first statement attracted attention of the Armenians
and caused their dissatisfaction, they didn’t not pay attention to
the second statement,” Mr Ahmedoglu said.

He said formerly such statements of Armenian leaders were perceived
as having no real grounds, spoken for the sake of politics or
negotiations.

“But the fact that these statements were made in presence of
the Armenian lobby in Greece, which faced a very serious crisis,
significantly affected Sahakyan’s opportunities for maneuver. Until
that time, the maneuver of Armenia in the Nagorno-Karabakh issue
was as follows: the Armenian leaders had a manner to speak freely,
but they linked everything to Nagorno-Karabakh: “Without the consent
of the Nagorno-Karabakh no document will be accepted”. But today
Sahakyan has to repeat what President Sargsyan said two years ago
for the maneuver,” Mr Ahmedoglu said.

He said one of the countries which has been most affected by the
sanctions of the European Union on Iran’s oil is Greece. Greece buys
daily 100,000 barrels of oil from Iran.

“The termination of oil supplies for unknown for Greece reasons could
further complicate the hopeless situation in this country. The French
President may ask the President of Azerbaijan to supply oil to Greece,
and on compromise terms,” Mr Ahmedoglu said.

Statements Sahakyan made after his visit to Greece, lead to the
conclusion that in the case of improving the position of Azerbaijan
towards Greece at the request of French President Nicolas Sarkozy,
in return Sarkozy will increase the pressure on Armenia in the
Nagorno-Karabakh issue, the political analyst added.

“It can be assumed that Sahakyan’s statements are based on the
principle “Consent to return the seven regions of Azerbaijan before
determining the status of Nagorno-Karabakh”. Greece and France should
not rely on statements of Sahakyan in an interview with “Hayastan”
concerning his willingness to compromise. Making promises and not
fulfilling them is the national trait of Armenians,” Mr Ahmedoglu said.

From: Baghdasarian