Author: Andres-Papazian

US ANALYST THOMAS AMBROSIO: “THE NAGORNO-KARABAKH SITUATION ALWAYS HAS THE POTENTIAL FOR BECOMING “UNFROZEN”” – INTERVIEW

APA
July 21 2010
Azerbaijan

“The Obama administration has returned America to the Russia-centric
policy of the Clinton era”

APA’s Washington DC correspondent’s interview with Thomas Ambrosio, US
analyst on South Caucasus issues, an Associate Professor of political
science at North Dakota State University

– The South Caucasus is full of ethnic conflicts, the Nagorno Karabakh
conflict in particular. Also, it has been almost two years after the
Georgia war, how would you estimate the security situation in the
Caucasus region now?

– The security situation in the Caucasus is actually quite stable. The
2008 Russia-Georgia War made it clear that Russia was interested in
securing a sphere of influence in the region and that the United States
had, in effect, acceded to it. This tendency by the United States
became stronger with the inauguration of the Obama administration,
whose ‘reset’ with Moscow has returned America to the Russia-centric
policy of the Clinton era.

As a consequence, a more stable security environment has been created
because of the removal of any real ambiguity about Russian and American
policies: Moscow is assertive, strong (at least within the region),
and an immediate security concern for those states in the Caucasus;
by contrast, Washington appears interested in retrenching, not
willing to assert its power within the region, and is geographically
far away. Thus, it has become less likely that states in the region
believe that the Americans will actively help them if another war
were to erupt.

In terms of new risks of tensions, the Nagorno-Karabakh situation
always has the potential for becoming ‘unfrozen’, the recent shooting
incidents would seem to point to such a conclusion. However, I do
not see this occurring.

– What do you think about the current stage of relations between
Azerbaijan and the United States?

– The US policy toward Azerbaijan is going through an adjustment
period. The Bush administration was very positively disposed toward
Azerbaijan for several reasons like its support for the U.S. war
against terrorism and its oil production. There was a significant
change when the Obama administration came to office — it seemed as if
the new president’s desire to distance himself from his predecessor
meant an almost blind reversal of Bush-era priorities. The Obama
administration realizes that some Bush-era policies were built upon
America’s strategic interests, not just the personal preferences of
a handful of individuals.

However, this correction will only go so far. Azerbaijan — although
strategically located, possessing important natural resources, and
pro-Western — is overshadowed by larger U.S. interests in the greater
Middle East, such as Iran, Turkey, Israel, and, of course, Afghanistan.

– Azerbaijan tries to develop good relations with Russia and at the
same time cooperates actively with US. Anyway could there be any
circumstance for Azerbaijan to make clear choice between the West
and Russia?

– I would not suggest that Azerbaijan even try. Again, the US is far
away, and Russia is on the border and assertive of its interests. For
its part, the European Union has no interest in projecting power
into the region. This does not mean simply accede to all of Russia’s
demands; instead, it means accommodating a greater power and not
adopting policies which could be seen as openly threatening. It
is important to remember that the Caucasus has long been an area of
special security concern for Russia, dating back to the tsars in which
Ottoman, Persian, British empires have challenged Russian hegemony
there. If Azerbaijan ‘chooses’, that will force Russia to make its
own choice: either accede to substantive Western influence along its
southern border or aggressively assert its interests. Tbilisi sought
something similar, and we saw the consequences of that policy.

From: A. Papazian

PROSECUTOR GENERAL TO STUDY VIOLATIONS AGAINST JOURNALISTS

Aysor
July 21 2010
Armenia

By order of Armenia’s Prosecutor General, a working group has been
established to learn the cases for period from 2008 to 2010 related
to violations against journalists, and other incidents in relation
to media.

The working group will study cases and decisions which were ruled
by courts. It has already demanded to deliver media-related reports,
and other documentary, said in the report by representatives of the
Committee for Protection of Freedom of Speech, presented Wednesday
at the press conference.

From: A. Papazian

WHY ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN DON’T MAKE CONCESSIONS
by Armen Hareyan

HULIQ.com
July 21 2010
SC

Mutual concessions are necessary to resolve any conflict in a way to
achieve lasting peace, but for Armenia and Azerbaijan it has not been
possible to achieve for nearly 20 years. However, if it was easy,
Israel and Palestine would have reached peace 40 years ago. How can
Armenia and Azerbaijan achieve peace.

In a very revealing story one political scientist from Azerbaijan tells
Azernews that neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan want to reach peace and
explains why. Arastun Orujlu, the head of East-West research center,
commenting on the recent meeting of the OSCE foreign ministers in
Almaty, says both parties are reluctant to make mutual concessions
because those concessions will have dire political consequences in
both countries.

Orujlu says the Nagorno Karabakh conflict is at national level in both
countries. Because it is at nationwide level, the conflict is also
“a subject of political rivalry in some sense,” he continues and
concludes that making concessions can in reality trigger upheavals
and dire political crisis in both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

“Therefore, the sides are refraining from reaching a stage of signing
a peace accord by various means,” Orujlu says predicting that in
the foreseeable future he does not see the resolution of the Nagorno
Karabakh conflict. Yet, the resolution is needed and above everything
the region needs peace and the Madrid principles provide a good and
fair opportunity to resolve the conflict and reach a peace accord
between the two neighboring countries, which have almost everything
in common, except religion.

If we put these Madrid Principles in a short sentence we will have
the following. Nagorno Karabakh withdraws its troops and Azerbaijan
recognizes its right of self-determination and the consequence of
the referendum. While Armenia has stressed that it accepts these
principles as a base for continuing the negotiations, Azerbaijan has
repeatedly said on various levels of leadership that it does not see
the independence of the Nagorno Karabakh as a possible outcome of
the conflict resolution.

Armenia will not make the concessions and withdraw unless the future
status of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic is agreed. Azerbaijan does
not want to discuss this issue because it thinks the independence of
Nagorno Karabakh will mean its defeat in this conflict. In reality
it is not.

In reality both Armenia and Azerbaijan are defeated by the conflict
itself when there is no peace. There is no full realization of people’s
potential if there is no peace. If Azerbaijan cannot sell the Madrid
Principles to its people, it needs to prepare its society about the
future peace with a neighbor.

Leave everything and restore trust

It is much harder and nearly impossible to make concessions to “the
other side” if there is no trust. Since the Minsk Group in its last
statement in Almaty says the final decision rests with the Azerbaijani
and Armenian leaders then here is what the leaders can do.

If the society in Azerbaijan is not ready to see the independence
of Nagorno Karabakh may be it is better to leave the negotiations
aside and instead negotiate about restoring the trust between the two
people. According to this scenario for about 5 years Azerbaijan can
back down from its request of returning the 7 regions adjustment to
Nagorno Karabakh and Armenia for the time being can back down from
negotiating the status of Nagorno Karabakh. Simply put, just leave
everything as they are now and deal with your own societies to restore
trust in the next 5 years.

The image of enemy should be routed out. Bad things happens. People in
Armenia and Azerbaijan are angry. Yet, let’s look to the future. Do
we want to stay in this anger or look beyond the this image of enemy
and try to see what other future we can build together so neither
Armenian nor the Azeri mothers are afraid that their children can
one day die if another war breaks out.

Azerbaijan can open the means of communications. As a positive sign
Turkey can do the same. People will slowly start trading and restoring
trust. This may take years. Azerbaijan should not be afraid of opening
the communications with Armenia. In case this scenario does not work,
it can always close it and come back to the starting point. However,
the hope is that after 5 years of trading and coming closer, people
both in Armenia and Azerbaijan will care less about the future status
of Nagorno Karabakh and instead focus on their future together. Let
the people, who live in Nagorno Karabakh, decide what future they
want to have and let the societies in Azerbaijan and Armenia applaud
that decision.

From: A. Papazian

KARABAKH CONFLICT SETTLEMENT POSSIBLE WITHIN TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY OF AZERBAIJAN

news.az
July 21 2010
Azerbaijan

Elmar Mammadyarov Azerbaijan`s Minister of Foreign Affairs Elmar
Mammadyarov meets Supachai Panitchpakdi, secretary-general of UN
Conference on Trade and Development.

UNCTAD`s chief said he arrived in Baku to attend the 19th regional
course on key issues on the international economic agenda organized
by the UNCTAD and Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy.

Panitchpakdi said he was impressed of ‘dynamic’ development in
Azerbaijan, praising the progress in non-oil sector of the country.

The Azerbaijani minister stated that the government had been doing
‘great’ efforts to develop the non-oil sector.

Mammadyarov raised the UNICTAD chief`s awareness of the peace
talks over the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and
Armenia, saying the problem must only be solved in accordance with
international legal norms and principles, in particular territorial
integrity of Azerbaijan.

The two also discussed issues of mutual interest.

From: A. Papazian

BAKU DISMISSES CRITICISM FROM ARMENIAN DEFENCE MINISTER

news.az
July 21 2010
Azerbaijan

Eldar Sabiroglu Azerbaijani Defence Ministry spokesman Eldar
Sabiroglu has dismissed Armenian accusations that Baku threatens
regional stability.

Armenian Defence Minister Seyran Ohanyan made the accusations in an
interview with Russian news agency Interfax. A few hours after the
interview was released yesterday, Interfax removed it, but it remains
available on other media with reference to the original source,
1 news.az reported.

Azerbaijani spokesman Eldar Sabiroglu commented that the interviewer
seemed to be biased: “It should be noted that the very formulation of
the questions in the interview favoured the Armenian minister. The
journalist who put the questions clearly had close relations with
Ohanyan, but this is a personal matter for the information agency
and we don’t want to interfere.”

On the Karabakh conflict, Sabiroglu said that the Armenian minister
had spoken openly and in a more excited tone about the commitments
on protection given to Armenia by Russia and the Collective Security
Treaty Organization. “Ohanyan completely showed his hand,” 1 news.az
reported the spokesman as saying.

“To oppose this, I state that the need to settle the Karabakh conflict
within the framework of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan is
an irrefutable fact that will ensure stability in the South Caucasus.

There is no other way. The longer they draw out the occupation,
the more difficult will be the situation in the region,” Sabiroglu
continued.

Referring to the Madrid principles which the OSCE would like to see
as a basis for peace talks, Sabiroglu said, “Ohanyan talks about
everything but the Madrid principles and it’s clear why he does so.

Until the Armenian leadership gives up on the idea of continuing the
occupation, a peace settlement will remain on the back burner.”

“Voicing his concerns that the Azerbaijani military budget has topped
$2bn, Ohanyan accuses Azerbaijan of a bellicose policy. However,
elementary logic dismisses Ohanyan’s words since Azerbaijan has not
occupied an inch of anyone else’s land, not even Armenian territory.

It is Armenia that is occupying Azerbaijani land.

“Therefore, the choice of any admissible way to liberate its lands from
occupation is Azerbaijan’s sovereign right. Armenian aggression has
continued for 20 years. Over a million Azerbaijanis lost their homes
as a result of this aggression and a great many cultural monuments
and cemeteries have been ruined. The world knows about it.

The UN Security Council and the Council of Europe adopted four
well-known resolutions against the occupying policy of Armenia which
name the occupier and the country that is pursuing this bloody policy.

Certainly, the Armenian minister cannot speak about it, since his
role in the unjust policy and the Khojaly tragedy is also great,”
the spokesman said.

“This is all clear. The resolution of the Karabakh conflict beyond
the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan is admissible and President
Ilham Aliyev has said this repeatedly and openly. International
law also does not refute this. The Armenian minister should know
full well that no international organization or state recognizes
Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent structure. This is absurd. The
continuation of unsuccessful attempts in this direction may cause
damage to Armenia,” Sabiroglu said.

The latest spat between the Armenian and Azerbaijani defence
ministries follows the unsuccessful talks at the weekend between the
two countries’ foreign ministers, mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group. In
an uncharacteristically blunt statement after the talks the mediators
said, “The efforts made so far by the parties to the conflict have
not been sufficient to overcome their differences.”

From: A. Papazian

GRIGORY B. KARASIN OF RUSSIA HOSTS OSCE’S SENIOR OFFICIALS

Aysor
July 21 2010
Armenia

Russia’s State Secretary, Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory B. Karasin
has hosted Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, Ambassador Igor Popov
of Russia, Bernard Fassier of France, and Robert Bradtke of the
United States, and Personal Representative of the Chairman-in-Office,
Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk, who were on a visit to Moscow for working
consultations.

Among other highlights, parties discussed issues related to the
Karabakh conflict.

On behalf of the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr Karasin handed over
to Bernard Fassier the breastplate “For contributions and efforts
towards the international cooperation.”

From: A. Papazian

NEW US AMBASSADOR TO TURKEY AVOIDS CALLING THE EVENTS OF 1915 AS “GENOCIDE”

APA
July 21 2010
Azerbaijan

Washington. Isabel Levin-APA. “Rapprochement between Turkey and
Armenia will foster increased stability and prosperity in the entire
Caucasus region”, Francis J. Ricciardone, US Ambassador-Designate
to the Republic of Turkey said on testimony of his nomination at the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Panel on July, 20th.

According to APA’s Washington DC correspondent, Mr. Ricciardone avoided
calling the events of 1915 as “genocide”, saying that “together,
the Turkish and Armenian people will be stronger as they acknowledge
their common history and recognize their common humanity.”

During the testimony Senator Robert Menendez asked how Turkey should
be navigated on its policy concerning 1915 events and normalization
process with Armenia, as well as Cyprus problem.

The new Ambassador-to-be, called the events 1915 “massacre” quoting
US President Barack Obama.

“We commended the governments of Turkey and Armenia on their signing
of the historic protocols on normalization of relations on October 10,
2009 in Zurich. Both countries publicly reiterated their commitment
to normalization this spring. The United States will continue to
urge Turkey to ratify the protocols, and we will support programs
that build understanding between Turks and Armenians” – he said.

He also assured that, Cyprus, normalization process with Armenia,
Iran, Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan issues will be main agenda during
his serve in Ankara.

Speaking about regional developments, the new US Ambassador-to-be
pointed out that, the US welcome the June 7 agreement signed by Turkey
and Azerbaijan on the gas purchase and transit of Azerbaijani gas
to Turkey.

“This agreement is an important milestone in laying the foundation
for the Southern Corridor. This corridor could include the Nabucco
pipeline, the Turkey-Greece- Italy Interconnector (ITGI), or the
Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP). Turkey would play an integral transit
role in all three pipelines. The corridor would provide commercial
benefit for the countries of the Caucasus and Central Asia and also
create a long-term partnership based on mutual interests with Europe.

Overseeing the safe passage of oil through the Bosporus Straits and
the transport of oil through the BTC pipeline, which pumps nearly a
million barrels of oil a day to the Turkish port of Ceyhan, Turkey
plays an important role in world energy markets” – he said.

Mr. Ricciardone also reminded that, building on US-Turkey close
cooperation in the 1990s that helped make Baku- Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC)
a reality, the U.S. and Turkey are working together to bring Caspian
gas to European markets for the first time through a new route called
the “Southern Corridor.”

US Senator Richard Lugar from Indiana, co-chair of Committee mentioned
that Turkey remains a vital partner for the United States, despite
several recent disagreements.

“Our next ambassador must continue to develop opportunities to
reinvigorate the U.S.-Turkish alliance. One such opportunity concerns
energy security and the development of the Nabucco pipeline as a
southern energy corridor to Europe. Completion of the Nabucco project
will directly connect nations of the Caspian region, the Caucasus
and Europe, bringing energy diversification that will benefit supply,
transit, and consumer countries alike”, Lugar said.

In his statement before the panel Chairman of the Committee John Kerry
also expressed his hope that the Senate can confirm Ricciardone’s
nominee in the weeks ahead.

From: A. Papazian

RENEWAL OF ARMED CONFLICT OVER KARABAKH IS NOT IN ANYONE’S INTERESTS
Aliyah Fridman News.Az

news.az
July 21 2010
Azerbaijan

Lyndon Allin News.Az Lyndon Allin, a lawyer based in Washington, DC,
specializing in the post-Soviet region.

What are the main problems in the South Caucasus?

This is a very broad question. I suppose each of the three countries
of the South Caucasus has its own particular problems, which differ
substantially because the countries’ economic and security situations
are so different. Each of the secessionist regions also has its own
particular problems. If I had to highlight one problem that unites
the entire region, it would probably be the security risk posed and
instability created by unrecognized states. These conflicts hinder
the economic development of the region; they also sometimes seem to
provide leaders in each of the region’s countries with an excuse for
not developing their political systems in a more democratic direction.

There is a view that the Russian-Georgian war showed that no republic
in the Russian neighbourhood could rely completely on US assistance
on security. Do you agree?

I have not heard this opinion personally, probably because it is so
obvious and uncontroversial (and should have been even before the
2008 war) as to not be worth stating. I don’t think any responsible
American official would ever have suggested that any former Soviet
republic that is not a member of NATO could “rely completely” on US
assistance in security issues. Some in the US have even called into
question whether we should have made the commitments to the Baltics
entailed by admitting them to NATO, although I think we would honour
those commitments in the unlikely event that the need arose. Anyone
in Georgia (or anywhere else in the CIS) who thought that they could
“rely completely” on US military intervention in case of a direct
conflict with Russia would have to have been misreading messages from
Washington to get this impression.

Can we expect the US to be more active in the Karabakh settlement,
as Hillary Clinton promised during her visit to Baku and Yerevan?

I certainly hope and think so, although any solution will require not
just the involvement of the US (and Russia, and to a lesser extent
the EU) but more than anything will require courage and commitment
on the part of the Armenian and Azerbaijani leaderships to reach a
settlement – they need not to be paralyzed by fear of the domestic
political consequences. The US does realize that a renewal of armed
conflict over Karabakh is not in anyone’s interests, including the
interests of the US, and therefore I think the US will continue to
work as it has been doing to help facilitate discussions about a
settlement. But it is important to emphasize that this has to be
resolved by Armenia and Azerbaijan – although Russia and the US
are fortunately cooperating with each other on this issue (and more
broadly), the two larger powers are not going to be able to work this
out without the participation and willingness to compromise of the
countries which are parties to the conflict.

Could a similar scenario to the 2008 Russian-Georgian war take place
in Karabakh?

A scenario where heavy involvement of Russian military forces is
part of the first phase of a renewal of hostilities does not seem
possible under current conditions. For one thing, Russia does not
have peacekeepers or civilians it claims as its citizens in Karabakh,
which means that Russia lacks the justification it pointed to for
its intervention in the case of South Ossetia. Such a scenario seems
especially unlikely considering that Russian President Medvedev
has recently put considerable public effort into a settlement of
the conflict.

If the question refers more generally to an outbreak of hostilities
and large-scale military action, I think a lot of people are working
to prevent this but it is nevertheless possible that some cross-border
incidents or provocations could escalate into a broader conflict. The
concern of some in Washington is that the situation is fairly unstable
along the line of contact, that there is not a sufficiently robust
international monitoring presence there, and that there is a risk
of minor cross-border gunfire (which does not seem to be uncommon)
rapidly escalating into something much more serious.

Do you expect progress in the Karabakh conflict anytime soon?

I don’t know what to expect. I would be delighted to see any sort
of progress, but I think the best we can realistically hope for is
incremental progress toward an eventual settlement and a stable and
peaceful situation along the line of contact, with efforts to avoid
incidents like the one last month.

Azerbaijan tries to defend its territorial integrity. Do you think
that the Armenian secessionists have any chance of being declared an
independent state?

The war in Georgia should have provided at least one important lesson
to the Azerbaijani leadership – countries which try to “defend their
territorial integrity” using force (or threats of force) against
entrenched secessionists who have de facto control over the territory
they claim risk seeing that policy backfire and lead to the cementing
of secessionists’ territorial positions. If Azerbaijan really wants to
reverse the de facto loss of the territory controlled by the Karabakh
secessionists, it will require a sustained diplomatic effort rather
than a rapid military “solution” which would only create further
problems. As a first step, Azerbaijan should embrace and promote
confidence-building measures and increased civilian contacts between
Azeris and Armenians in general and Karabakhis in particular.

I do not think there will be a final resolution where the
“Nagorno-Karabakh republic” is recognized by anyone as an independent
state. It doesn’t seem out of the question that there may be a
resolution under which some of the territory claimed by Azerbaijan
and currently held by Armenia remains under the control of Armenia,
or alternatively is nominally ruled from Baku but has substantial
autonomy, but I think it will take a lot of negotiation to reach any
final settlement that is acceptable to all parties.

From: A. Papazian

HIGHEST TEMPERATURE TO BE RECORDED TODAY

Panorama
July 21 2010
Armenia

The highest temperature predicted by the meteorologists is supposed to
be recorded in the Valley of Ararat today – 36-37C, Zaruhi Petrosyan
told Panorama.am.

According to her 35-36C temperature was recorded Tuesday, while on
Thursday the temperature will be reduced.

According to rumors 40C high temperature will be recorded in Yerevan.

“I would say we expect 37C high degree,” the meteorologist said.

From: A. Papazian

ELDAR SABIROGLU: “AZERBAIJAN HAS A SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO CHOOSE AN ACCEPTABLE WAY TO LIBERATE ITS LANDS FROM THE OCCUPATION”

APA
July 21 2010
Azerbaijan

“Seyran Ohanian speaks about everything, but he doesn’t mention
Madrid principles”

Baku – APA. Spokesman for the Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan
Colonel-Lieutenant Eldar Sabiroglu made comments on the Armenian
defense minister’s interview to Interfax agency. Sabiroglu told APA
that the Armenian minister was satisfied with a manner of raising
question in the interview. “It needs to acknowledge that the questions
were raised in good fellowship. This is a matter of the agency. We
wouldn’t like to mention its privacy. Regarding the essence, I was
not surprised with the Ohanian’s answers to the questions about the
situation in the region and solution to the Armenian-Azerbaijani
Nagorno Karabakh conflict. He made such statements many times. Only
difference is that the Armenian minister straightly stated about the
Russian and the Collective Security Treaty Organization’s support
to Armenia”.

Sabiroglu said solution to Nagorno Karabkh conflict within the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan was an undeniable fact for
stability in the South Caucasus. “There is no alternative. The
situation in the region will be complicated with delay of ending the
occupation. Seyran Ohanian speaks about everything, but he doesn’t
mention Madrid principles. Its reason is clear – peaceful solution to
the conflict will be sent to back while Armenian authorities are not
leaving their aggressive policy. Emphasizing $2-billion defense budget
of Azerbaijan, Ohanian accused Azerbaijan in militarist policy. It
is not logical because Azerbaijan didn’t occupy lands of anyone,
including Armenia. The lands of Azerbaijan were occupied. Azerbaijan
has a sovereign right to choose an acceptable way to liberate its
lands from the occupation. Armenia continues this aggression for more
than 20 years. Homes of one million Azerbaijanis were ruined as a
result of occupation. A number of cultural monuments and cemeteries
were destroyed. The world knows that. UN Security Council’s four
resolutions, as well as resolutions adopted by the Council of Europe
and European Union condemn the aggressive policy of Armenia and show
who is an aggressor. Of course, the Armenian minister can not mention
it because his role in this unfair policy, bloodshed and Khojaly
massacre is not little. He behaves in same manner now”.

Eldar Sabiroglu said solution to Nagorno Karabkh conflict out of the
principle of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan was impossible.

“President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev stated about that once more. The
international law also confirms it. The Armenian minister should know
that international organizations and countries will not recognize
Nagorno Karabakh’s independence. Continuation of unsuccessful attempts
can damage only Armenia”.

From: A. Papazian