Author: Alex Jidarian

ATLANTIC MONTHLY MAGAZINE PUBLISHED SCENARIO ON WAR AGAINST IRAN
PanArmenian News
Nov 20 2004
20.11.2004 15:17
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Atlantic Monthly magazine for December 2004
published an extensive article on U.S. policy options regarding Iran.
As reported by the source, at a meeting of the war-game group ret.
Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner presented a war-game scenario, which
suggested using Azerbaijan for special forces and airborne attacks
against Iran, along with major thrusts from Iraq, Persian Gulf, and
additional support action from Afghanistan. It further determined
that air bases in Georgia and Azerbaijan were too small to handle
necessary traffic and suggested they be enlarged, dedicating $700
million for that purpose. These are Azerbaijan air bases in
Baku-Bina, Baku-Kala, Sumgait (Nasosny/Sitalchay), Kara Chala,
Kurdamir, Ganje, Daller, Nakhichevan, Lenkoran, Yevlakh. As it can be
seen, no territories controlled by Armenian forces are mentioned
here. The scenario further suggested: “SECDEF, in coordination with
the Secretary of State, is authorized to begin discussions with
Azerbaijan: – To preposition supplies in Azerbaijan that would
support the global war on terrorism. – To work toward expansion of
air bases in Azerbaijan to increase options for US forces in support
of the global war on terrorism. – To offer limited US assistance to
resolve the issues of Nagorno-Karabakh” Armenia did not figure in war
planning. The recommendations related to Azerbaijan and NK were part
of the initial scenario prepared by Col. Gardiner, however, as
reported by the magazine, they along with other preparations for a
potential war with Iran were turned down by the war game panel as
“detrimental to U.S. interests in Iraq.” In the end the panel
confirmed the conventional Washington wisdom that there is no
attractive military option in Iran, but that the President should
continue to threaten Iran anyway to make progress in negotiations.
The source notes that in the real world, meanwhile, U.S. remains
interested in using Azerbaijan in a potential conflict with Iran and
Azerbaijan conditions that use by America’s help against Armenians.
The original article can be found at
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

NAGORNO KARABAKH PRESIDENT VISITED DETROIT WITHIN HIS VISIT TO USA
STEPANAKERT, NOVEMBER 19. ARMINFO. If Goris-Lachin-Stepanakert highway
is the road of life for Nagorno Karabakh, the North-South highway will
become one of the most important elements for economic development of
Nagorno Karabakh, the president of NKR Arkadi Ghukassian told a public
forum in Detroit with the participation of Armenian community in the
city.
The chief information administration services affiliated to NKR
president told ARMINFO that Ghukassian arrived in Detroit on Nov 17
from New York on the occasion of a telethon slated on Nov 25 to raise
money for North-South highway. The raised money will be spent on the
construction of the highway which has strategic meaning for Karabakh
and connects all regions of the republic to each other.
NKR president called on all Armenians to take part in the telethon and
contribute to the social economic development of the republic. The
Armenian community voiced his support to the democratization process
and civil society development in NKR, economic reform and revival of
spiritual values in the republic. The participants voiced their
belief that the current achievements of Karabakh determine the current
attitudes among the Armenian community to render their support to the
economy of the republic.
Similar attitudes were expressed at Nov 18 meeting of Ghukassian with
the faculty and students of Michigan university. The gathered were
especially interested in Karabakh conflict regulation. Ghukassian
reiterated that Karabakh is principally for peaceful regulation of the
conflict with Azerbaijan which unlike Karabakh tries to use force. If
Azerbaijan seriously thought about peace, it would enter into direct
negotiations with Karabakh,” Ghukassian stated.
During the meeting at schools after Aleg and Mari Manukians, it was
underscored to establish closer contacts between Armenian schools of
USA and Karabakh.
The same day, a reception was held in the house of Marta and Diana
Shushanians in the honor of the president where most influential
members of Armenian community in Detroit were invited. -A-
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenian Assembly of America
122 C Street, NW, Suite 350
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-393-3434
Fax: 202-638-4904
Email: [email protected]
Web:
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 18, 2004
CONTACT: Christine Kojoian
Email: [email protected]
ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY LEADERS MEET WITH CALIFORNIA ACTIVISTS, SUPPORTERS
Outreach Part of Leadership Meeting Weekend
WASHINGTON, DC – In a push to expand the Armenian Assembly’s community
outreach efforts, Chairman Anthony Barsamian and Members of the Board of
Directors participated in a series of public forums and member events
during a recent weekend in California.
The events, organized in conjunction with the Assembly Board of
Directors meeting in San Francisco, kicked off with a panel discussion
organized by the San Francisco Bay Regional Committee and moderated by
Board Treasurer Berge Ayvazian. Panelists, including Adam Kablanian of
Virage Logic, Tony Moroyan of Viasphere International, Board Member Gail
O’Reilly of Made in Armenia Direct and Anahid Yeremian of CRD Support
Committee, discussed Armenia’s economic development and advances in
scientific research.
The Regional Council helped organize a second area event hosted by
Assembly Development Co-Chair and Fellow Trustee Suzanne Abnous and her
husband Razmik. More than 50 people, including California State Senator
Charles Poochigian (R-Fresno), Board of Trustees President Carolyn Mugar
and several Board of Directors Members, attended the dinner reception
which welcomed more than two dozen new members into the Assembly family.
“The event at the Abnous’ home was very much an extension of the
Assembly’s effort to share information with the community,” said
Barsamian. “Guests asked interesting and thoughtful questions about
Armenia’s current development and issues facing the Armenian-American
community at large. We thank Suzanne and Razmik for opening their home
and hosting an enjoyable evening.”
Following the San Francisco events, Barsamian, together with Board of
Directors Vice-Chair Annie Totah, Executive Director Ross Vartian and
senior staff traveled to Los Angeles to take part in a public briefing
and meetings with community leaders.
On November 7, the group participated in a luncheon with the leaders of
several community organizations including: the Armenian General
Benevolent Union, the Armenian Council of America, Armenia Fund Inc.,
the Armenian Bar Association, the Armenian Professional Society, the
Armenian Rights Council of America, the Armenian Chamber of Commerce,
Medical Outreach for Armenia, the Knights of Vartan, the Ramgavar Party
and the Western Diocese of the Armenian Church.
Later that day, more than 70 area supporters turned out for an
Assembly-led community briefing. Barsamian and Vartian provided an
overview of Assembly programs in Washington, Los Angeles and Yerevan.
They also discussed developments on the legislative front and encouraged
the audiences’ political activism.
“It was a pleasure to see so many familiar faces in this crowd,
including current Assembly supporters and former summer interns,” said
Barsamian. “We hope the community gained as much from our discussions
as we did.”
The Assembly wrapped-up its two-day swing of Los Angeles with a dinner
with media professionals at the Shiraz Restaurant. That event included
Armen Babajanyan of Zhamanak, Harut Der-Tavitian of Nor Serout TV and
Massis Weekly, Vahan Jansezian of Nor Hayastan and Osheen Keshishian of
The Armenian Observer.
The Armenian Assembly of America is the largest Washington-based
nationwide organization promoting public understanding and awareness of
Armenian issues. It is a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt membership
organization.
NR#2004-099
Photographs available on the Assembly’s Web site at the following links:
-099-2.jpg
Caption: Armenian Assembly Board of Directors Member Lisa Kalustian,
right, with Debbie Poochigan during a reception hosted by Suzanne and
Razmik Abnous on November 6.
Caption: Clockwise from top: Executive Director Ross Vartian, Board of
Directors Members: Lisa Esayian, Edele Hovnanian, Lisa Kalustian, Bryan
Ardouny, Richard Mushegain, Annie Totah, Development Co-Chair and Fellow
Trustee Suzanne and Rasmik Abnous, Board of Directors Members: Ralph
Tufenkian, Peter Vosbikian, Berge Ayvazian, Gail O’Reilly, Van
Krikorian, Board of Trustees President Carolyn Mugar and Board of
Directors Chairman Anthony Barsamian.
Caption: Board of Directors Chairman Anthony Barsamian, left, and
Executive Director Ross Vartian, discuss Armenian-American issues with
community members in Los Angeles on November 7.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

THERE IS NO SMOKE WITHOUT FIRE
A1+
03-11-2004
On Wednesday, opposition activist Arshak Sadoyan, using his legitimate
right to attend government sessions, was present at the government’s
extraordinary session, where the fate of ArmenTel Greek-Armenian
company providing telecommunication services was to be decided.
He is convinced the company is involved in many illegal deals.
Even after the session, Sadoyan remained steadfast in his
determination to stage a protest action outside the government
building.
Sadoyan, as always, accused the government of being involved in
illegal deals.
He said he found out two days ago who takes bribes from Greek side for
giving it extra powers to enlarge its monopoly.
In his words, the bribe-taker is `a member of the government whose
sexual orientation is even unclear’.
Justice minister David Harutyunyan speaking at a news conference after
the session declined to comment Sadoyan’s allegations.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Transitions on Line, Czechia
Nov. 1, 2004
Time for a Change

by TOL
1 November 2004
George Bush talks of the `transformational power of liberty.’ The
post-communist world needs a U.S. leader who would help liberty more.
Everywhere you go in our region there is an unprecedented interest in
the U.S. elections. Some commentators find the interest out of
proportion, arguing that the two presidential candidates’ foreign
policies do not differ vastly.
Their surprise is bizarre and their interpretation of the candidates’
foreign-policy differences probably too narrow. What would be more
amazing is if the world were not so interested. After all, the key
themes of the Bush presidency has been a global `war on terror’ and an
invasion underpinned by a belief in the `transformational power of
liberty’ – and if anyone over the past 15 years has been testing the
`transformational power of liberty’ it is the post-communist world.
Inevitable, then, that these elections are being viewed as crucial. And
for many, the candidates’ utterly different personalities and
approaches make not just for compelling viewing, but ultimately also
for different policies.
Since, in our own way, we monitor the strength and weakness of liberty
in 28 countries, we feel it worth taking this opportunity to consider
the approach and the man best suited to meet our hopes. Those hopes are
for the promotion of democracy, better governance, and accountability,
and for greater security.
Our region, of course, barely featured in the campaign. But in most
other respects, we are making a judgment in the same way as the
American people, based on the candidates’ personalities, approaches,
styles, credibility, and records. And while Bush, as president, has a
bigger record, the senator too has an interesting and important record.
BUSH’S RECORD
John Kerry would of course come to the presidency without a history of
executive power. But that isn’t much of a handicap. Because George
Bush’s list of achievements or policy initiatives in our region is not
very long, and some of it is distinctly disturbing.
The shortness is partly understandable. There is the war in Iraq to
attend to. In Clinton’s time, it was the war in the Balkans that
consumed attention. The United States no longer bears the main
diplomatic burden in the Balkans. Instead, it is the International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the European Union that
are forcing the region to deal with the past. It is Europe that can
offer a vision of the future (EU membership), and, militarily,
increasingly it is Europe that is taking responsibility.
In the `wider Europe’ – Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova – the Bush
administration has held the presidents of Ukraine and Belarus
accountable and promoted cooperation with NATO. Zbigniew Brzezinski, an
adviser to ex-President Jimmy Carter, recently wrote that Bush’s
National Security Council has `studiously ignored’ Ukraine `while
naïvely courting’ Russia’s President Putin. That may be true, but the
vision deficit in this area is primarily Europe’s fault. (If Turkey
deserves special status in the EU’s eyes, so does Ukraine.) There are
question marks, too, over the State Department’s approach to Moldova,
but, overall, in Eastern Europe there has been nothing especially
notable about American activity these past four years.
It is in Russia, the Caucasus, and Central Asia that Bush has left his
mark and, occasionally, earned some points. In Georgia, Washington was
right to put President Eduard Shevardnadze under intense pressure
before and after fraudulent elections that eventually led to the rose
revolution. But it did dismally in Azerbaijan after rigged elections
and feebly in Armenia after deeply flawed votes.
After 9/11, we had expected a major inflow of cash and attention to
Central Asia (thanks to its proximity to Afghanistan) and to the
Caucasus (as a near neighbor of Iraq’s). But, outside the military
sphere, neither the international community nor the United States has
dedicated much in the way of cash or manpower. That is not entirely
their fault (Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan do not even yet allow the
World Bank to help gather statistics), but they have failed
intellectually to grapple with Central Asia’s problems, to push hard
enough for more economic development, and to uphold moral standards. To
be fair, the State Department has made a few good noises in public,
warning that crackdowns on dissent are counterproductive. It has also
said it will withhold a token amount in aid to Uzbekistan ($18
million). But that barely compares with inviting Uzbek President Islam
Karimov to Washington, the centrality of military concerns, and the
lawless example set by Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib in a region where
the term `war on terror’ has been ritually abused and overused. All of
that, and the United States’ new military interests in the region,
leave us skeptical that the United States is working hard enough behind
the scenes to promote a more open society.
Perhaps we should we give Bush more benefit of the doubt. But in the
alacrity of its recognition of Azerbaijan’s `elections,’ Washington
showed how readily national interests – in that case, oil and gas – can
supersede national values. It has also been slow to see and worry about
anti-democratic tendencies, most importantly in Russia. When Bush
looked into Putin’s eyes he famously found love. Over these four years,
when we have looked at his actions, we have found an
authoritarian-in-waiting. Our judgement looks more accurate by the
month. That also strengthens our view on the greatest successes of the
Bush-Putin relationship: Putin’s relatively easy acceptance of NATO
expansion to the Baltics and the war in Afghanistan. Where some saw
great successes for Western diplomacy, we saw a man making a virtue out
of necessity. Putin deserved respect and appreciation for being
realistic but not love and accolades.
In short, in these four years the United States has maintained a
relatively low-key diplomatic approach, quietly completed the landmark
effort to expand NATO to the Baltics, made questionable progress with
Russia, and set a disturbing moral example. More should be expected
from the world’s leader.
Americans should also expect more. Looked at more broadly, Bush’s
presidency has fueled anti-American sentiment, increased cynicism, and
offered people with bad governments and an ugly past – chiefly in the
Balkans–an unhelpful type of comfort: if, in Iraq, the leader of the
greatest power in history can behave cynically and unaccountably (as
they see it), we do not have too much to feel ashamed about after all.
America needs to produce an antidote to such sentiments.
THE NEXT PRESIDENT’S AGENDA
Inevitably, our region has been of secondary importance to Bush. That
will remain the case. But an agenda filled with important issues is
beginning to form for the next president. The European Commission’s
recommendation to invite Turkey to become a member adds weight to the
cross-party U.S. desire to promote the Black Sea as an area of greater
stability. If the United States is serious about that (and, with an oil
pipeline due to run from the Caspian to the Black Sea, it should be),
it will need a more stable Caucasus. With a determined president in
Georgia, it will need to pay more attention to Georgia’s frozen
conflicts, which could in turn focus attention on Nagorno-Karabakh and
Transdniester (Bruce Jackson, chairman of the U.S. NATO Committee, said
on 21 October, that Transdniester is likely to be higher up the next
administration’s agenda). To deal with these issues, the United States
(and Europe) will have to challenge Russia over its role in these
areas.
And if it is serious about security in Central Asia, having beheaded
the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan during the war in Afghanistan, the
United States will have to look deeper at the social and political
problems that fuel unrest and at the drug trade that finances
criminals.
If any of that is to happen, more engagement, a willingness to address
some long-standing problems, a willingness to challenge some difficult
leaders, and a more sophisticated understanding of the `war on terror’
are all required. And since the EU is critically important
diplomatically and economically in the Balkans, the `wider Europe,’ and
Russia, a good relationship with the EU would help.
In other words, a broader understanding is critical, style is a major
tool–not just some embellishment–and a good partnership with Europe
serves U.S. interests.
THE SENATOR’S RECORD
Both style and approach are a problem for Bush. In the days before the
U.S. elections, Bush received a `ringing endorsement’ that he could
have done without–from Putin. The Russian president’s principal
reasoning is that, if Bush is not re-elected, international terrorists
`will celebrate a victory over America and over the entire anti-terror
coalition.’ That endorsement, of course, does not mean the two fully
agree on how to fight the `war on terror’: they disagreed on Iraq and
on Putin’s twisted logic that the Beslan tragedy somehow meant there
must be no local elections in Russia. What it more probably means is
that a man who turned Grozny into Stalingrad and allows his soldiers to
do anything in Chechnya feels happier with Bush’s record, personality,
and attitudes toward him, terrorism, and Chechnya. Not a desirable
commendation.
Kerry offers a better approach and a more promising record. In his 1997
book The New War, Kerry emphasized non-state actors as a source of
instability. As a district attorney, he is credited with major
successes against the local mafia. As a senator, he played a key role
in uncovering the Iran-Contra affair and in efforts to clamp down on
money-laundering and drug-trafficking. All that makes it possible that
he will understand some of the atypical security threats in Central
Asia, Transdniester, and the region as a whole. And with a record of
interest in these issues, there is more chance that he will be
interested in this region. All this also happens to make it likelier
that he will hold some leaders more accountable.
Leaders around the region might, then, not like him much. Russia, for
example, might not take easily to Kerry’s commitment, in a presidential
debate, that he would press Russia to secure its nuclear weapons. But
he also said he would ditch a new nuclear program that Bush is
developing. He has other things to offer as well: a greater willingness
to cooperate, to sign up to international agreements, and – critically – to
work closely with Europe. He would, too, suffer from less of a
credibility gap than Bush. When recently asked in the United States
whether he would send troops to Iraq knowing what he knows now,
Poland’s President Aleksander Kwasniewski, so often cited by Bush in
this campaign, simply replied, `Next question.’ Not a ringing
endorsement from a president whose endorsement is coveted.
A more multilateral approach would, intrinsically, make the United
States more accountable. Whether Kerry would sign up to the
International Criminal Court is another matter. But even if he is
unwilling to hold U.S. troops accountable internationally, he would be
more likely than Bush to bring them to book domestically. As a senator
he criticized the U.S. military’s actions in Vietnam and government
agencies’ relationships with drug-traffickers and gun-runners. Compare
that with a president who brought us Guantanamo Bay and never punished
the man ultimately responsible for the disgrace at Abu Ghraib, Donald
Rumsfeld.
THE VISION THING
Of course, the region will be competing for attention with more
pressing concerns in the Middle East. We do not expect too much (partly
because both houses of Congress may be controlled by the Republicans).
But that is also why we place an emphasis on an appreciation of the
importance of a more multilateral approach, a more nuanced view of
security, and a record of interest in these issues. Moreover, look
again at the agenda we see for the next president and it is clear we
see a problem that needs to be recognized (and that is not too distant
from the problems the United States faces in Iraq): the transition away
from authoritarianism is in trouble and needs help.
Despite a father who was a Cold War head of the CIA, Bush has failed to
recognize that problem – or, at least, to do much to help. Whether Kerry
has or will notice it is open to question. But, as the internationalist
son of a Cold War diplomat who spent a childhood in Europe and a
senator with an interesting record, there is at least a fair chance he
will.
In any case, over the past four years, in this region Bush has given us
little reason to commend him and much to worry about. Kerry offers a
promising alternative and less reason to worry. If Americans opt for a
change, we will be glad.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA
PRESS AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT
375010 Telephone: +3741. 544041 ext 202
Fax: +3741. .562543
Email: [email protected]:
PRESS RELEASE
28 October 2004
Hamlet Gasparian, Spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
answers a question by Armenpress News Agency In Relation to
Azerbaijan’s New Initiative in the UN
Question: Yesterday Azerbaijan raised an issue of “Current Situation
in the Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan” in the UN. How would you
comment on this move?
Answer: Indeed, this issue has been raised in the UN General Committee.
While it has not enjoyed any significant support, it has received
9 pro and 14 abstained votes from 28 member states. The countries
that voted in support of the issue included mostly members of the
Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Ukraine.
We view Azerbaijan’s move as yet another attempt to divert the
attention of the international community from the core issue of the
conflict, i.e. the status of Nagorno Karabagh.
We should also note that in a statement made on behalf of OSCE Minsk
Group, France’s representative stated that the UN General Assembly is
not an appropriate forum for discussing this issue. He further noted
that Azerbaijan’s move to introduce a new item on the negotiations
agenda might have a detrimental impact on the peaceful regulation
process.

Dreaming of Europe
by NEVVAL SEVINDI
Zaman, Turkey
Sept 29 2004
One of the most prominent names in Ottoman Istanbul was a Jewish
doctor named Giacomo di Gaeta, who escaped from Italy’s Renaissance
intolerance, and took refuge in the empire.
In the streets of Istanbul, where Greek, Armenian, Albanian, Bulgarian
and Serbian languages were spoken, besides Turkish, Persian and Arabic,
the attitude that defied nationalism lasted for centuries.
The mutual love and respect that existed in this multinational
and multicultural empire, have not been experienced in Europe yet.
Neighbors celebrated Greek, Armenian, and Turkish festivals together,
one after the other. Istanbul was the place of religious festivals.
Furthermore, they visited each other’s churches and holy graves
together to light candles and pray, as it is today. While Dante
threw Prophet Mohammed into his “hell,” Mevlana called upon all
mankind, saying, “Come whoever you are!” He also said, “This is
not a door.of hopelessness.” When we look at an expanding Europe,
we see that Europeans still have a long way to go. Continuing to see
Western culture as the “superior culture,” in an elite manner, it is
nonetheless incumbent upon Europeans to dream of a new Europe. Along
with the different languages, religions and cultures, Islam will
enter the continent legally for the first time with the help of
Turkey. Turks coming from a culture, where nations and cultures blend
together, can bring a new understanding to the knights of the castle
and the princedoms. Is multiculturalism an ideology that the West
opposes, as Huntington said? Is it not necessary to put and end to
this “only supreme Western Christian culture” ideology of the West,
whose traces from the Middle Ages and later periods have still not
been erased? Europe, which is borderless and multicultural, resembles
a dough that can be reshaped. You can make heart-shaped cookies as
well as bastions. However, can the various cultures from neighboring
countries brought into Western culture form a multicultural world? Or
will the racist views continue, like a caricature published in the
supposedly esteemed Stern magazine? Europe has to cross-examine
itself. It did not do this during the Bosnia War; at least it must
do so while it is expanding.
If Stern can rain insults on Turks as easily as it did, then Neo-Nazis
entering the parliaments in the former East German states should be
no surprise.
Even after 50 years, the existence of strong racist roots, the rise
of neo-Nazism and the far-right indicate that Germany has not yet been
able to grasp the spirit within the EU. Please, dream of a new Europe!
If Europeans, through cross-examination, do not come to face with
their identities and the new multicultural situation in the expansion
process, then this will be left to the fascists and neo-Nazis.
Europeans and Germans, who will be living with Muslim neighbors,
should start opening up their inner senses for discussion right now.
And the Turks have to understand that the European identity is not
only about the economy. The common denominator is humanism and to
share human values.
The debate on whether or not Turkey is a model is on a naive track.
Turkey has become a model as much as it could. It has established a
lifestyle envied by Middle Eastern and Arab countries. It is not an
80-year model, but an-800-year model. Belittling this does not earn
us anything. Does it earn the West anything? For the “alternative”
is Turkey with a working model of Muslim identity. The prejudiced view
of Westerners is normal. Anyway, childish reasons such as Arabs should
not be offended, are by no means materials for books. I hope the hate
channel among nations, divided by artificial borders and antagonism
after the Ottoman rule, will not be Turkey. This is a topic that can
be better understood after reading a little bit of history.
While Europe is admitting us into its fold, it has to dream of
internalizing: A European dream. In this dream, there is love and
toleration of other cultures.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Xinhua News Agency – Spanish
August 12, 2004 Thursday 5:01 PM EST
Azerbaiyán busca ayuda de EEUU para recuperar control en áreas
perdidas con Armenia
MOSCU
Azerbaiyán está buscando la ayuda de Estados Unidos para recuperar el
control de Nagorno-Karabakh y de siete distritos vecinos que perdió
en un sangriento conflicto con Armenia en los 1990’s.
Al hablar hoy en una conferencia de prensa durante la visita a
Azerbaiyán del secretario de Defensa de EEUU, Donald Rumsfeld, el
ministro de Defensa azerbaiyano, Safar Abiyev, dijo que su país pidió
a EEUU apoyar su objetivo de recuperar el control de Nagorno-
Karabakh, un enclave poblado por armenios que se separó luego de la
desintegración de la ex Unión Soviética.
Dijo que Baku quiere que EEUU “pida a Armenia que retire sus fuerzas
de ocupación de tierra azerbaiyana”, según la agencia de noticias
Interfax.
Rumsfeld dijo que EEUU apoyó la integridad territorial de Azerbaiyán
y que espera que el conflicto sea resuelto y que Azerbaiyán mantenga
su integridad territorial.
Agregó que Washington contribuyó a desarrollar relaciones con
Azerbaiyán –un país rico en petróleo– que debe comenzar a enviar
petróleo el proximo año a occidente mediante un oleoducto que
atraviesa Georgia y Turquía.
El presidente azerbaiyano, Ilham Aliyev, dijo a Rumsfeld que
Azerbaiyán está dispuesta a fortalecer las relaciones bilaterales con
EEUU en todas las áreas.
“Nuestra cooperación se está volviendo más fuerte y creo que
continuaremos fortaleciéndo las relaciones en el futuro”, dijo Aliyev
según Interfax.
“Le damos gran importancia a las relaciones con Estados Unidos”,
señaló.
Rumsfeld, que llegó a Baku luego de una visita de un día a
Afganistán, agradeció a Azerbaiyán su apoyo en la lucha contra el
terrorismo y su ayuda a los esfuerzos de estabilización en Irak y
Afganistán.
Alrededor de 150 tropas de Azerbaiyán están laborando en el sur de
Irak como parte de la fuerza internacional en ese país.
Rumsfeld dijo en la conferencia de prensa que los programas nucleares
iraquíes son una amenaza para la región y el mundo entero. También
dijo que había discutido su preocupación acerca del programa nuclear
de Irán con Aliyev, que recientemente recibió la visita del
presidente iraní, Mohammad Khatami.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Chicago Tribune , IL
Aug 1 2004
Insurer settles with Armenian families
Items compiled from Tribune news services
LOS ANGELES — A judge on Friday formally approved a $20million
settlement in a class action lawsuit between New York Life Insurance
Co. and the descendants of Armenians killed nearly 90 years ago in
the Turkish Ottoman Empire.
The landmark legal agreement approved by U.S. District Court Judge
Christina Snyder is thought to be the first ever in connection with
what Armenians say was genocide but what Turkey describes as civil
unrest.
Snyder granted preliminary approval for the unpaid death benefits
earlier this year.
Many of the policies languished because heirs could not be found, the
firm said. The company has located about one-third of the
policyholders’ descendants to pay benefits.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

US mediator urges Armenia, Azerbaijan to make compromises
Golos Armenii, Yerevan
27 Jul 04
The US mediator for the Nagornyy Karabakh problem, Steven Mann, has
said that the OSCE Minsk Group sees the conflict settlement only in
compromises and called on Armenia and Azerbaijan to be ready for
them. He stated that the Minsk Group supports the dialogue between the
foreign ministers and presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan. At the
same time, the co-chairman added that if the conflict drags on for a
long time, the situation in Azerbaijan as well as in Armenia will
become more difficult, which is why the parties should start a
dialogue so that this does not happen. The following is the text of
Regnum news agency’s report by Armenian newspaper Golos Armenii on 27
July headlined “Baku and Yerevan should be ready for
compromises”. Subheadings have been inserted editorially:
An interview with the American co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group,
Steven Mann.
Emotions prevail here and there
Regnum correspondent Mr Mann, what was the purpose of the latest visit
to the region by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen?
Steven Mann That was a planned visit and its purpose was to bring
together the positions of the parties and to help find ways of
settling the Karabakh problem. This time we visited Yerevan as well as
Nagornyy Karabakh and Baku, where we informed the parties that the
Minsk Group will continue its activity and will support a dialogue
between the presidents and foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and
Armenia. The co-chairmen understand the situation of the two
countries’ governments and want to make their positions closer. But
unfortunately, emotions prevail here and there. The problem may not be
resolved when they are guided by emotions. As long as there are
conditions for continuing the talks, we, the diplomats, will do
everything possible to prevent a new tragedy.
Correspondent The position of the Minsk Group is taken negatively by
Azerbaijani society. Sometimes, you are even called “political
tourists”. Are you going to correct your activity?
Mann Harsh criticism is an ordinary thing for us politicians and it
does not disturb us. The point is that the talks are really difficult
and society expects a lot from us. But we are not Gods. The parties
themselves should come to a solution, our aim is to get any decision
from any of the conflicting parties. The success of the talks depends
on the parties’ readiness for compromises. The Armenian and
Azerbaijani leadership, not the mediators, are responsible for the
talks. Progress in the talks also depends on them. Along with it, a
peaceful settlement to the Karabakh conflict by means of negotiations
within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group meets the national
interests of the USA. I will make every effort to represent US
interests fully and I take my duty seriously. If the conflict drags on
for a long time, the situation in Azerbaijan as well as in Armenia
will become more difficult. The parties should start a dialogue so
that this does not happen.
The conflict can be settled only through compromises
Correspondent In Tbilisi you said that the USA supports the actions of
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in the South Ossetia
problem. Will you support Azerbaijan if it makes up its mind to
restore its territorial integrity?
Mann Every conflict has its peculiarities. The US position on the
Karabakh issue is unchangeable – the conflict should be settled
peacefully. Let us think soberly and make a compromise. The mutually
acceptable decision may be found only in compromises. One cannot have
success in any talks if he does not make compromises. The co-chairmen
see the settlement to the conflict only in compromises. Azerbaijan as
well as Armenia should be ready for compromises. A lasting peace can
be achieved in the region only in this way. The parties to the
conflict themselves have chosen the OSCE for its settlement and we are
trying to settle the conflict peacefully and will support the
decisions adopted by the parties.
Correspondent The Russian co-chairman, Yuriy Merzlyakov, said in Baku
that the UN Security Council resolutions on the Karabakh conflict were
adopted in another situation and today they may not be fulfilled. Do
you share such a viewpoint?
Mann You simply misunderstood his statement: at the press conference
in Baku, touching on the fulfilment of the four UN Security Council
resolutions, the Russian co-chair said that he does not think they are
obsolete. In our work we use all the options including resolutions.
Conflicting parties have the last say
Correspondent Do the co-chairmen regard Nagornyy Karabakh as a
participant in the negotiating process?
Mann Nagornyy Karabakh’s involvement does not depend on the OSCE Minsk
Group co-chairmen, it only depends on the conflicting parties. One of
the conflicting parties is against Nagornyy Karabakh’s participation
in the negotiating process. But I think that all the interested
parties should be involved in the talks. I think this will help
accelerate the process of finding ways to settle the conflict. But at
the same time, the parties to the conflict have the last say. They
should decide who will be involved in the negotiating processes.
Correspondent Does the Karabakh conflict have an impact on the energy
interests of the USA in this region?
Mann US policy in this region has a long-term nature and we are in
favour of stability. Of course, the USA is not interested in events
that may threaten st ability. Here the USA supports big energy
projects. The Baku-Ceyhan oil pipeline is one of such projects. It is
significant for the whole region.
Correspondent Some time ago there was information in the press that
you allegedly suggested recognizing the independence of Nagornyy
Karabakh in exchange for three of the occupied Azerbaijani districts.
Mann Yes, there was really such information in the Armenian press. I
would like to say once again that all this information is not true and
is invented. I expressed my indignation in connection with this – I
said nothing concerning three, five or seven districts. I would like
to ask journalists to clarify my position before publishing anything
on my behalf.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress