Author: Andres-Papazian

APA, Azerbaijan
June 22 2010

Azerbaijan says troops from Armenia involved in recent Karabakh fighting

Azerbaijan has said that recent deadly clashes near Nagornyy Karabakh
involved Armenian army servicemen along with troops from the
separatist region.

A spokesman for the Azerbaijani Ministry of Defence, Eldar Sabiroglu,
said that most of those killed and wounded in the clashes had come
from Armenia.

“Most of the dead and wounded Armenian servicemen in the 18 June clash
are citizens of Armenia,” Sabiroglu said in an interview with the
Azerbaijani news agency APA. “This issue has been raised with
international organizations several times. But there has been no
significant result”.

The spokesman blamed Armenia for the clashes, describing them as “provocation”.

“If this provocation is not by you, then what are the soldiers with
Armenian citizenship doing in Karabakh?” Sabiroglu asked.

BBCM note: A total of six troops – two Azerbaijani and four Armenian –
have been confirmed killed in two days of clashes near Nagornyy
Karabakh on 18-20 June. Baku says that the Armenian military is
directly involved in the ongoing occupation of Nagornyy Karabakh and
seven adjacent Azerbaijani districts, but Armenia denies this.

From: A. Papazian

Mediamax, Armenia
June 22 2010

EU envoy condemns recent Karabakh clash – Armenian report

The EU envoy for the South Caucasus has condemned a recent armed clash
near Azerbaijan’s breakaway Nagornyy Karabakh region between Armenian
and Azerbaijani troops, calling it “clearly unacceptable”. In an
interview with the Armenian news agency Mediamax, Peter Semneby said
that for the Karabakh peace talks to go on, there is a need to build
confidence between the sides to the conflict. He also said that there
should be no link made between the process of Armenian-Turkish
rapprochement and the Nagornyy Karabakh peace process, noting that
both were necessary to move forward. He added that the process of
Armenian-Turkish rapprochement has not lived up to expectations since
October 2009 when protocols were signed in Zurich. However, he said,
“the process is not dead”. The following is the text of the interview
published by the Armenian news agency Mediamax in English on 22 June;
subheadings inserted editorially:

Yerevan, 22 June: Peter Semneby, EU Special Representative to the
South Caucasus stated in his exclusive interview to Mediamax that the
armed incident on the contact line between Nagornyy Karabakh and
Azerbaijan was “clearly unacceptable”.

We present the full text of the interview of Peter Semneby to Mediamax:

[Mediamax] On June 19, the next day after the Armenian, Azerbaijani
and Russian Presidents met in St Petersburg, Azerbaijani subversive
group crossed the border, killing 4 and wounding another 4 Armenian
soldiers. What is your reaction to this incident?

Incidents of this kind “clearly unacceptable”

[Semneby] Without obviously having any access to first hand
information ourselves, it is clearly unacceptable that incidents of
this kind take place. I very much regret this fact, in particular, the
loss of life that took place as a result of this incident. It
demonstrates that the conflict is a dangerous one and it should also
be an impetus to reintegrate the negotiation process. We’ve seen
incidents in past and unfortunately unless the negotiations gather
pace again, we will continue to see them, and I would really want to
avoid that.

[Mediamax] You said that you did not have any first hand information
about what took place. Are you going to do some kind of investigation?

[Semneby] We will obviously rely on the OSCE for information about
what has happened as we do not have any personnel on the ground.

[Mediamax] Don’t you think that this time international community and
EU in particular have to publicly condemn this operation realized by
Azerbaijan as the absence of strong international condemnation is one
of the factors that are making such actions possible?

[Semneby] As I said, what happened is clearly unacceptable. We deplore
it and we deeply regret the loss of human life.

Need for confidence-building

[Mediamax] Why the international community is not simply urging
Azerbaijan to stop the militaristic statements?

[Semneby] We need to lower the temperature around this conflict and
that includes refraining from rhetoric that can be perceived as
threatening. In order for the negotiations to move forward, there is a
need to build confidence and it should be built both in terms of what
is being said in public and what is being done in practical terms.

No comment on “renewed Madrid principles”

[Mediamax] What can you say about so called “renewed Madrid
Principles” for the NK conflict settlement? Azerbaijan says that is
has accepted those renewed principles and is expecting the same from
Armenia. Armenia says that the only official proposal is the Madrid
Document itself that was presented to the sides in November 2007. What
is your understanding of the current stage in the negotiations?

[Semneby] I don’t want to comment on the documents, the proposals that
are being discussed. That is something I would leave up to the
co-chairs of the Minsk Group to do.

It was an important signal in Saint Petersburg that the two Presidents
met – a signal was sent by the two Presidents that they need to speed
up the negotiations and pick up the pieces again and I hope that this
will also lead to further results.

No link between two processes

[Mediamax] Don’t you think that the fact that it was Azerbaijan that
killed the Turkish-Armenian process may make Armenian side less
motivated for compromises?

[Semneby] This two processes should each one be treated according to
their own merits. Both processes are obviously necessary to move
forward. There should be no links made between them, but on the other
hand, one should also not deny or ignore the fact that each process
will have an influence on the overall atmosphere, and therefore also
the other process, which means that we need to see progress on both
scores and only by bringing both these issues to successful
resolution, we will be able to stabilize the situation and Armenia
will be able to come to peace with its neighborhood and also with
itself.

Armenian-Turkish rapprochement process “not dead”

[Mediamax] And what do you think about the future of Turkish-Armenian process?

[Semneby] Clearly, there have been many disappointments along the road
in the Turkish-Armenian normalization. I had great hopes myself, when
I was present in Zurich, when the protocols were signed on the tenth
of October last year. It was a very important moment. But since then,
what has happened has clearly not met up to expectations. At the same
time, I think one should at least take note of the fact that the
process is not dead, it has been suspended on both sides, but with the
possibility and will on both sides to bring it forward and to
reintegrate it. But this will require political will and courage on
both sides. I believe very strongly that this is fundamentally the
interest of both countries. Clearly it is for Armenia, but it also is
for Turkey to fully develop its regional role in the South Caucasus,
which has clearly been limited by the conflict with Armenia and the
fact that the border is closed.

From: A. Papazian

Nezavisimaya Gazeta website, Russia
June 16 2010

South Caucasus development needs Karabakh settlement – Russian expert

[Commentary by Professor Alla Yazkova, doctor of historical sciences
and director of the RAN [Russian Academy of Sciences] Centre for the
Study of Problems of the Mediterranean and Black Seas]

An alternative to rising tension could be direct talks between the
conflicting parties.

When assessing the current situation in the Black Sea-Caspian region,
one cannot help but point out the incompatibility of at least two
characteristics of its contemporary development: confirmation of its
role as a transport route for Caspian energy resources, on the one
hand, and the epicentre of a whole number of “frozen” ethnic-political
problems on the other. What this can lead to became clear during the
August 2008 “five-day war,” when the safety of the energy transport
corridors Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum was in
question. In this connection it is worth recalling that after the
Abkhaz-Georgian conflict back in the mid-1990s, the Abkhaz politicians
of that time directly warned the management of the international oil
companies of the high political risks of building pipelines across the
territory of Georgia (see NG-Energiya for 10 February 2009). After
August 2008 there emerged proposals of the need for alternative energy
transport routes through the South Caucasus, this time crossing
Armenian territory. But to do this the Armenian-Azeri conflict over
Nagornyy Karabakh must be “unfrozen.” And it is no accident that
already in August 2008 this problem appeared in the politics of the
regional and world powers.

Turkey, seeing a possibility of increasing its role in the affairs of
the South Caucasus, immediately took advantage of the situation that
had come about. Further negotiations to settle the conflict over the
NKR [Nagornyy Karabakh Republic] were based on the Madrid principles,
which were formulated by the Minsk group of the OSCE in November 2007
and updated in July 2009. The updated version put special stress on
the need to give the Nagornyy Karabakh Republic interim status; the
idea of holding a referendum was put on the back burner. At the same
time it was contemplated that the occupied regions of Azerbaijan
surrounding NKR territory would begin to be liberated by stages (in
different versions). Supplementing the Madrid principles, Turkey and
Armenia signed the Zurich protocols, but they were not ratified and
did not go into force because Armenia refused to tie the opening of
the border with Turkey to the beginning of settlement of the conflict
over Nagornyy Karabakh.

In late April 2010 after Armenia failed to ratify the Zurich protocols
within the set time, Iran offered its mediating services in resolving
the Karabakh conflict – Iran remains Armenia’s principal trading
partner and after the August 2008 conflict practically its only land
route. But after the latest flare-up of the Iran problem and the UN
Security Council’s adoption of a package of new sanctions in relation
to Iran’s nuclear programme, the question faded away of its own.

It is becoming more and more obvious that the alternative to growing
tension over Nagornyy Karabakh could be direct talks between the
conflicting sides, supported by interested regional and world powers.
At this point it is unclear when this will become possible, but it
appears to be the only solution.

The most recent attempt to clarify the positions of the potential
international intermediaries was Resolution 2216, which was approved
by the European Parliament in early June and contains a demand that
“Armenian forces be withdrawn from all occupied regions of
Azerbaijan.” At the same time during the meeting of Russian President
Dmitriy Medvedev and German Chancellor Angela Merkel a decision was
reached to search jointly for settlements to “frozen” conflicts. And
despite its high level of collaboration with Armenia, Russia’s
position on settlement of the conflict over the NKR is worded in
conformity with the principles agreed upon by the Minsk group. The
main thing is that the process should continue on the basis of
observance of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and respect for
the other fundamental rules of international law, without the use of
force, according to the 24 May statement of the Russian MID [ Ministry
of Foreign Affairs], which was adopted the day after parliamentary
elections were held in the NKR.

As for the United States, in the estimation of many experts the
paramount importance of the missions of ending the armed conflicts in
Afghanistan and Iraq and a certain weakening of the American factor in
the South Caucasus have led to a regionalization of the Karabakh
problem. But of course, this does not mean that in case of an armed
conflict the Western, primarily American, monopolies who own billions
worth of energy projects in the South Caucasus will let their capital
be “carried away by the Caspian winds.” Even NATO General Secretary
Anders Fogh Rasmussen spoke recently of the need to avert armed
conflicts in the South Caucasus.

Everything that has been said illustrates that one way or another the
“problem of Nagornyy Karabakh” will have to be resolved. Therefore it
is already important today to think through versions of this
resolution and, equally important, prepare the prerequisites for it in
public opinion in the conflicting sides.

[translated from Russian]

From: A. Papazian

DCIST
June 22, 2010 Tuesday 5:38 PM EST

More Delays for Armenian Genocide Museum

Kriston Capps

Jun. 22, 2010 (DCist delivered by Newstex) —

Photo courtesy the DC Public Library Commons

Michael Neibauer reports today that the Armenian Genocide Museum and
Memorial — the organization that owns the former Federal American
National Bank building downtown and intends to turn it into an
historical museum — received another 2-year extension from the Board
of Zoning. The museum is being delayed as the organization struggles
with litigation — and a mounting tax liability.

Neibauer reports:
The museum owes $298,819 in real estate taxes — $217,280 in 2009 and
$81,539 in 2010 — as well as $57,998 in public space taxes and $4,876
in Business Improvement District taxes, according to D.C. tax records.

The organization collected $2.76 million in grants, contributions and
interest income in 2007, but only $742,474 in 2008, according to its
Form 990 filed with the Internal Revenue Service. The museum ended tax
year 2008 with $22.4 million in net assets.Neibauer says that a former
donor has demanded the return of his or her contributions and placed a
lien on the building; one museum trustee said that the case has scared
off donors. The organization could resolve its legal issues and see
donations rebound quickly.

The economy is picking up, which improves the base for philanthropic
giving. But I’d expect that President Barack Obama’s flipflop on the
issue will be a significant driver for donations. Twice while in
office President Obama has marked the anniversary of the Armenian
genocide without using the word “genocide.” Know how to send the
President a message that this is unacceptable? Park an institution
called “The Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial” in a gorgeous
Beaux-Arts building a couple blocks from the White House.

From: A. Papazian

Science Letter
June 22, 2010

ASTRONOMY;
Studies from L.A. Sargsyan and co-researchers yield new data on astronomy

“We present samples of starburst galaxies that represent the extremes
discovered with infrared and ultraviolet observations, including 25
Markarian galaxies, 23 ultraviolet-luminous galaxies discovered with
GALEX, and the 50 starburst galaxies having the largest
infrared/ultraviolet ratios. These sources have z< 0.5 and cover a luminosity range of similar to 10(4)," scientists in Armenia report (see also Astronomy). "Comparisons between infrared luminosities determined with the 7.7 mu m polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon feature and ultraviolet luminosities from the stellar continuum at 153 nm are used to determine obscuration in starbursts and dependence of this obscuration on infrared or ultraviolet luminosity. A strong selection effect arises for the ultraviolet- selected samples: the brightest sources appear bright because they have the least obscuration. Obscuration correction for the ultraviolet- selected Markarian+GALEX sample has the form log[UV(intrinsic)/UV(observed)] = 0.07(+/-0.04)M(UV) + 2.09 +/- 0.69 but for the full infrared-selected Spitzer sample is log[UV(intrinsic)/UV(observed)] = 0.17(+/-0.02)M(UV) + 4.55 +/- 0.4. The relation of total bolometric luminosity L-ir to M(UV) is also determined for infrared-selected and ultraviolet-selected samples. For ultraviolet-selected galaxies, log (Lir) = -(0.33 +/- 0.04) M(UV) + 4.52 +/- 0.69. For the full infrared-selected sample, log L-ir -(0.23 +/- 0.02) M(UV) + 6.99 +/- 0.41, all for L-ir in L-circle dot and M(UV) the AB magnitude at rest frame 153 nm," wrote L.A. Sargsyan and colleagues. The researchers concluded: "These results imply that obscuration corrections by factors of 2-3 determined from reddening of the ultraviolet continuum for Lyman break galaxies with z> 2 are
insufficient, and should be at least a factor of 10 for M(UV) similar
to -17, with decreasing correction for more luminous sources.”

Sargsyan and colleagues published their study in Astrophysical Journal
(Comparing Ultraviolet-and Infrared-selected Starburst Galaxies In
Dust Obscuration And Luminosity. Astrophysical Journal,
2010;715(2):986-1005).

For additional information, contact L.A. Sargsyan, Byurakan
Astrophysics Observ, Byurakan 378433, Aragatzotn, Armenia.

The publisher’s contact information for the Astrophysical Journal is:
IOP Publishing Ltd., Dirac House, Temple Back, Bristol BS1 6BE,
England.

From: A. Papazian

Trend, Azerbaijan
June 22 2010

Political analyst: In response to provocation Armenia must feel
Azerbaijan’s arm’s force

Azerbaijan, Baku, June 22 / Trend S.Agayeva /

The Armenian armed forces’ regular attacks to the Azerbaijani
positions suggest a desperate situation, which Armenia faced today,
independent Azerbaijani political scientist Fikret Sadikhov said.

The Armenian armed forces intensively violate the ceasefire in recent
days and both sides suffered losses as a result of skirmishes in the
conflict zone.

“Armenians shells our positions for many years, killing our citizens,
and all these actions are suppressed by answering the fire. But now,
Armenia has recognized that it is actually at an impasse. The
political trap that the Armenians fall into does not give them room to
maneuver,” Sadikhov told Trend.

According to Sadikhov, Azerbaijan should take advantage of the
situation and give a fitting rebuff to the Armenian side, them to
estimate the strength of the Azerbaijani weapons.

“Azerbaijan adopted a military doctrine. The country increases the
national budget on defense and ups the military potential, and U.S.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently visited the country. All
this points to the empowerment of Azerbaijan’s capacities and
improving the country’s potential as a key player in the region. This
is very important for partners and allies of Azerbaijan and very
upsetting to the Armenian side,” Sadikhov said.

He said Armenia understands that sooner or later the occupied
territories of Azerbaijan should be released. Moreover, this proposal
has come not from Azerbaijan, but from OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, who
represent the leading nations of the world, Sadikhov said. “Nobody
will ever reckon with the vagaries of Armenia and any patience comes
to an end,” he stressed.

The shelling of Azerbaijani positions and Armenian provocations
indicate the hopelessness of the situation, which Armenia faced.
Yerevan understands that eventually they will be faced with a choice –
either accept the co-chairs’ proposal, or to enter into force fight
with Azerbaijan.

“Armenia will besoundly defeated in the second case, because the time
is not the beginning of the 90 years, Azerbaijan has grown, becoming a
key player in the region and country, which is considered by the
leading nations of the world,” Sadikhov said.

The conflict between the two South Caucasus countries began in 1988
when Armenia made territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Armenian
armed forces have occupied 20 percent of Azerbaijan since 1992,
including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and 7 surrounding districts.

Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement in 1994. The
co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia, France, and the U.S. – are
currently holding the peace negotiations.

Armenia has not yet implemented the U.N. Security Council’s four
resolutions on the liberation of the Nagorno-Karabakh region and the
occupied territories.

From: A. Papazian

Interfax, Russia
June 22 2010

Mediators urge Baku, Yerevan to stick to non-use of force obligation

BAKU June 22

The co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group -Igor Popov (Russia), Bernard
Fassier (France) and Robert Bradtke (the United States) – have
“resolutely” condemned an armed incident that occurred at the
frontline separating Armenian and Azeri servicemen in the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict area on June 18-19.

Such an incident is an unacceptable violation of the 1994 ceasefire
agreement, and it runs counter to the sides’ proclaimed obligation to
refrain from using force or threatening to use force, the co-chairmen
said in a statement posted on the OSCE website.

The aforementioned incident occurred immediately after talks on a
peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that took place
between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan in St. Petersburg on
June 17 and were attended by the Russian president, they said.

Any use of military force at such a moment can be regarded only as an
attempt to hurt the peace process, they said.

The co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group called on the sides to
demonstrate restraint both at the frontline and in public statements,
as well as to promote peace-is-better-than-war principles among the
population.

There is no alternative to a peaceful solution to the conflict secured
through negotiations, they said.

From: A. Papazian

The Armenian Observer
June 21, 2010 Monday 3:22 PM EST

Death tall raises as fighting continues in Karabakh

Jun. 21, 2010 (The Armenian Observer delivered by Newstex) —

At least six soldiers, four of whom Armenians, have been killed as
fighting continued in Karabakh over the weekend.Armenias Defense
Ministry said the fighting began in the northeast of Karabakh late on
Friday. It said an Azerbaijani sabotage unit attacked Karabakh
Armenian positions there, killing four and wounding as many Armenia
soldiers before retreating into Azerbaijani-controlled territory,
leaving one dead.

Exchange of fire has continued over the weekend. Azerbaijans Military
said on Monday, that one more Azerbaijani soldier has been killed
during a night-attack by Armenian forces. It also claimed Å`losses
occurred on the Armenian side, but the statement has been dismissed by
the Armenian side.
Forcing concessions?
This worst fighting in more than two years occurred a day after
presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan met in Saint Petersburg, Russia
for fresh peace talks hosted by their Russian counterpart, Dmitry
Medvedev.

Official Yerevan portrayed it as a further indication that the
Azerbaijani leadership is Å`doing everything to scuttle the Karabakh
peace process mediated by Russia, the United States and France.
Officials in Baku dismissed the claim.

There are speculations in Yerevan, that the Azerbaijani attack was
aimed at prodding the international community to seek more Armenian
concessions to Azerbaijan.
Escalation?
Azerbaijans president Ilham Aliyev left St. Petersburg right after
talks with his Armenian counterpart.

Aliyev didnt attend the economic summit, which was initially presented
as the main reason, why Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents had
visited St. Petersburg in the first place, raised questions about the
talks and the attack that followed. Was Aliyev so displeased with
talks, that he left Russia earlier than planned and ordered an attack?
Is this another sign of escalation? Or was it a coincidence?

There were also rumors, that Karabakh is preparing for war, Defense
Army is being mobilized, etc. A Karabakh-based blogger, Hayk Khanuyan,
dismissed those rumors, saying Football World Cup dominated worries
and news-agenda in Stepanakert, capital of the Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic (Artsakh).

On another note, there was criticism around the Armenian blogosphere,
that the authorities in Yerevan were too Ë`mild and Ë`dilpomatic in
their statement regarding the attack, while the authorities in
Stepanakert kept silent altogether. The reserved tone of the Armenian
authorities was interpreted as a decision to avoid further escalation
of conflict by using inflammatory rhetoric.

P.S. When the Azerbaijani attack was reported on Saturday, it somehow
reminded of the Georgian-Russian war which started on the day when the
Olympic games were starting in China. Likewise, much of worlds
attention is glued to the Football World Cup these days¦

From: A. Papazian

AssA-Irada, Azerbaijan
June 21, 2010 Monday

DEADLY SHOOTING REKINDLES IN GARABAGH

Tensions have escalated between the Azerbaijani and Armenian armed
forces as the two countries troops clashed on the frontline, and
officials exchanged strongly-worded statements following the shooting
that claimed lives on both sides. At around 1.45 a.m. on Monday, a
group of Armenian troops launched an offensive, violating ceasefire,
in another such incident in the past days. A 19-year-old Azerbaijani
serviceman was killed in the shooting, which took place close to a
village of Azerbaijans Fuzuli region, according to the Azerbaijan
Defense Ministry. Azerbaijani armed forces, strengthening their
positions, retaliated with rigor, prompting the enemy to sustain
casualties and retreat, the ministry said.

The Baku-based ANS TV channel reported that another Azerbaijani
soldier was wounded in the clash and is currently in serious
condition. The shooting follows a clash last Friday night in the
northern part of Azerbaijan’s occupied region of Upper (Nagorno)
Garabagh in which five troops were reported killed. Yerevan claimed
four Armenian soldiers had been killed and four others wounded in the
fighting, while one Azerbaijani soldier was later found dead on the
battlefield. Armenia’s Defense Ministry alleged in a statement that
the deaths were caused by fighting with an Azerbaijani
20-people-strong armed reconnaissance group, which had allegedly
attempted to cross to the Armenian side of the contact line. The
reconnaissance group reportedly had to pull back, leaving the dead
body and ammunition on the battlefield. Armenian Foreign Minister
Eduard Nalbandian blamed Baku for what he called a high-level
provocation intended to scuttle peace negotiations. The fighting
follows a meeting between the presidents of Russia, Armenia, and
Azerbaijan that took place in St. Petersburg last Thursday on the
sidelines of a major economic forum hosted by the Russian city. The
Azerbaijanis, who have become convinced that it is impossible to
disrupt peace talks with belligerent statements, resorted to an
outright provocation immediately after the presidential meeting,
claimed Nalbandian, who went as far as accusing Baku of doing
everything it can to derail negotiations. Elkhan Polukhov, the
spokesman for the Azerbaijan Foreign Ministry, responding to
Nalbandian’s statement said, “It was not within the authority of Mr.
Nalbandian to comment on matters, the cause of which lies in the
continuing occupation of Azerbaijani lands.” Armenian President Serzh
Sarkisian has also termed the shooting that followed the leaders talks
as an open provocation. He said that Armenia would not back down from
its goal to achieve so-called independence of Nagorno Garabagh. The
Azerbaijan Defense Ministry said while commenting on the shooting that
it was the Armenian side that launched the attack on the frontline.
The ministry spokesman Eldar Sabiroghlu said the clash had erupted at
around midnight last Friday near a village of the Terter region and
lasted a long time. He also said Yerevan reported fewer casualties
than it had sustained. Sabiroghlu said such shootings have been
frequent of late, however, the Armenian side admitted to its defeat
for the first time. Usually, the Armenians try to conceal the fact of
their casualties. Sabiroghlu noted that Armenia has been violating
ceasefire to backtrack from the ongoing peace talks and the updated
Madrid principles, a proposed peace outline for Garabagh settlement,
and the latest event should be considered nothing but another
provocation on their part. The European Union Special Representative
for South Caucasus Peter Semneby has said in Yerevan that ceasefire
violations on the Armenia-Azerbaijan frontline and instances of human
casualties are unacceptable. This incident shows that the situation
may spiral out of control any time, which necessitates appeasing the
sides and undertaking confidence-building measures. Azerbaijan and
Armenia fought a lengthy war that ended with the signing of a
cease-fire in 1994, but Armenia continues to occupy Upper Garabagh and
seven adjacent Azerbaijani districts in defiance of international law.
Though the separatist regime in Upper Garabagh declared so-called
independence at the time of the Soviet collapse in 1991, this
independence, which blatantly tramples on international law, has not
been recognized by the world community. One million Azerbaijanis have
been displaced as a result of ethnic cleansing. The ceasefire accord
was signed in 1994, but the OSCE-brokered peace talks have been
largely fruitless so far.

From: A. Papazian

AssA-Irada, Azerbaijan
June 21, 2010 Monday

INTL MEDIATORS CONDEMN USE OF FORCE ON ARMENIA-AZERBAIJAN FRONTLINE

OSCE mediators brokering settlement to the Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh
conflict have strongly condemned the use of force on
Azerbaijani-Armenian troops contact line and said they regret the
senseless loss of life. According to reports of the Defense Ministries
of Armenia and Azerbaijan, an armed incident took place during the
night of June 18-19, in the northern part of the line of contact,
resulting in casualties.

Such an incident is an unacceptable violation of the 1994 Ceasefire
Agreement and is contrary to the stated commitment of the sides to
refrain from the use of force or the threat of the use of force”, says
a statement released Monday by the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group –
Igor Popov of Russia, Bernard Fassier of France, and Robert Bradtke of
the United States. The statement notes that the incident occurred
immediately after a meeting between the Armenian and Azerbaijani
leaders, held in St. Petersburg on June 17 at the invitation of
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to pursue a negotiated settlement to
the long-standing dispute. “The use of military force, particularly at
this moment, can only be seen as an attempt to damage the peace
process, the statement said. The co-chairs called upon the sides to
exercise restraint on the terrain as well as in their public
communications and prepare their people for peace and not for war.
According to the statement, the mediators reiterated that there is no
alternative to a peaceful solution of the conflict and that war is not
an option. Finally, the co-chairs urged the sides to cooperate fully
with the Personal Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office and do
nothing that would impede his monitoring activities.

From: A. Papazian