Author: Babajanian Karo

RUSSIA’S GOOD RELATIONS WITH BOTH ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN ALLOW SETTLEMENT OF KARABAKH CONFLICT – EXPERT

Vestnik Kavkaza
Jan 24 2012
Russia

During the recent meeting of the Azerbaijani, Armenian and Russian
presidents the parties issued a joint statement saying that they are
ready to speed up preparation for signing an agreement. However,
no concrete steps were made. VK asked Andrey Areshev, the head of
the Strategic Research Center, to comment on the situation.

“This meeting was a very important one. It’s good that the parties
managed to arrange this meeting. I believe that this meeting is
especially important from the point of view of the recent developments
in the Middle East. In today’s circumstances, Russia is interested
in both Azerbaijan and Armenia,” the expert says.

According to him, Russia’s good relations with both countries will
allow for a settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

THE NAGORNO-KARABAKH PROCESS: NO PROGRESS IS EVIDENT

Politkom.ru
Jan 18 2012
Russia

by Sergey Markedonov, Visiting Fellow at the Centre for Strategic
and International Studies, Washington, D.C., USA

The year that has begun brought certain changes over time in the
Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. On 23-24 January, a meeting is
scheduled in a trilateral format among the presidents of Russia,
Azerbaijan, and Armenia. On the one hand, the upcoming summit meeting
is significant because it will occur after a break of many months. And
the point here is not the calendar. The previous trilateral meeting
in Kazan in June 2011 ended in failure. In the process the failure
followed an upsurge of too high expectations that the representatives
of the three countries, the cochairmen of the Minsk Group of the
OSCE, spread in the month before the summit meeting in the capital of
Tatarstan. It was clear to many experts even before the Kazan talks
that there would be no breakthrough, since the parties in the conflict
were not ready for compromises. But the political reality to no small
degree is formed from ideas being imposed. And so the landing after
flights in clouds of optimism is more difficult. Be that as it may,
after the trilateral meeting in Kazan, the negotiation process entered
a state of stagnation.

However, that is perfectly explainable. After the December elections
to the State Duma in Russia, foreign policy became secondary because
of the revival of the domestic political public process. As for the
Western countries, the consequences of the Near East “awakening”
together with the “Iranian problem” reduced interest in the South
Caucasus – which was not too significant anyway – almost to zero. Now
in the United States and in Europe, this region attracts attention
perhaps only in the context of the discussion of the possible scenarios
of an American-Iranian confrontation. The new meeting in Sochi in
theory is supposed to change the trend and give a certain impetus to
the business of settling the chronic conflict.

But that is only in theory. In reality the positions of the parties
have not undergone fundamental changes. In his New Year’s address to
the nation, the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev was announcing
increased military expenditures by his country in 2011. And in the new
year, this course, according to the Azerbaijani leader, will remain
steady. At the recent expanded session of the republic’s government,
Aliyev gave his interpretation of the negotiation process with the
Armenian side: “If some people believe that the main topic of the
talks is preventing war, I do not agree with that opinion. No one
wants war, and especially the Azerbaijani State, which has achieved
such big successes, does not want it. But that does not mean that the
negotiation process will be moved aside and that all efforts will
be directed to preventing war. That will not happen.” In that way,
the head of Azerbaijan showed that the objective of the negotiation
process is not to find a compromise but a conversation from a position
of strength. In this connection it is no accident that at that same
session of the government, he did not forget to mention that the
Azerbaijani armed forces are the most powerful in the South Caucasus.

However, Azerbaijan is not entering the new year just with impressive
military indicators. Held on 4 January was the first session of the UN
Security Council in its new membership, in other words, with the new
non-permanent members of this prominent United Nations structure. For
the first time in the period since the dissolution of the USSR, this
honour was in fact awarded to Azerbaijan, which in the fall of 2011
survived a complicated competition to become the representative from
the group of countries of Eastern Europe. At that time, let us recall,
Baku’s chief rival was Slovenia. And the fact that Azerbaijan received
support shows that many countries that are members of the United
Nations are interested in friendship with this country. It is true,
however, that there are several important nuances here. Azerbaijan
retains its appeal to others as a stably developing secular state
that follows a reasonable and balanced fo reign policy (oriented to
maintaining equal relations with the West and the East). But a country
that is going to be involved in a bloody conflict with unpredictable
consequences would hardly be so interesting to the world community. To
put it more precisely, this interest would be expressed not at all in
the way that it is today. In any case Baku considers its positions
sufficiently strong to make concessions. Of course, the growth in
the military budget and the alarmist rhetoric are not an invention
of 2011 or 2012. Such instruments have long been rationally used by
Azerbaijani diplomacy. And it is far from a fact that what was said
by the president of the Caspian republic will be put into practice.

However, the hard-line style altogether obviously indicates an
unwillingness to make compromise decisions.

The Armenian side today cannot boast of achievements in the United
Nations field. It is difficult to compare its social-economic
indicators and resources with Azerbaijani capabilities. But Yerevan
also has its reasons to be obstinate and hold to the old line. In
the first place, no one has as yet ruled out the factor of the CSTO
[Collective Security Treaty Organization]. Scepticism regarding this
structure is enormous, both inside it and outside its limits. This
scepticism applies to both Russia and other countries that are members
of the Organization, especially countries from Central Asia that are
linked with Baku by hundreds of threads. But Armenia’s membership in
a military-political structure that Azerbaijan is not a member of has
a definite psychological effect. In the second place, the escalation
of the “Iranian problem” is also making Baku look not only in the
Armenian but also in a different direction. Tehran has been expressing
its dissatisfaction with the level of Azerbaijan’s contacts with the
United States and Israel for a long time. In this situation building
up the confrontation with Armenia and the NKR [Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic] in view of the unclear prospect of playing a new Near
East game is dangerous. After all, in the event of the escalation of
the American-Iranian disagreements, even successful actions against
Armenian forces might be very strongly mixed. So should it take the
risk when behind it are subjects that are many times more dangerous?

The question, of course, is a rhetorical one. But it is difficult to
imagine that it is not being raised in Baku and in Yerevan. And in
the last case, they understand that to give in and seek compromises
is also not too advantageous, since the one across from you is no
less vulnerable than you yourself are. But since the Armenian side
considers itself the victor, it is not in its interests to stir up
the public with militaristic statements. Its calculation is altogether
different – to make time work to its advantage.

In that way, on the threshold of the Sochi meeting, Armenia and
Azerbaijan are not providing any reasons to believe that concessions
or compromises are possible. What is the sense of another summit
meeting other than to continue negotiations? That is not an idle
question. There are several reasons here that pertain both to
individual interests and to the peace process as a whole. If we are
speaking of the peace process, the Sochi meeting will give a certain
impetus to the talks and bring them out of the “sleeping state.”

Another question is that there are no other options for resolving the
conflict other than raw “updated Madrid principles.” But in any case
the dialogue and the parties in conflict remaining in certain confines
and under “supervision” are better than their pupation and being locked
up in their own radical agenda. The West today believes that Russian
“supervision” may not be an altogether good thing, but it is by no
means an infernal evil. I must speak specially about the “supervision.”

After Dmitriy Medvedev in September 2011 became a “lame duck” (whose
lameness was intensified by the domestic politi cal failures of the
ruling party in the Duma elections), the format whose initiator is
customarily considered to be the man who at this point is still the
incumbent president of Russia was in a suspended state. In post-Soviet
space, politics is strongly personified. And so many people in
Baku and in Yerevan thought that the trilateral format might not
be of too much interest to Vladimir Putin (or any other leader of
Russia). It is not out of the question that at the meeting in Sochi,
Medvedev will give important explanations regarding Moscow’s plans
for a Karabakh settlement. Most likely the point of them will amount
to saying that the person of the head of state is not primary. The
most important thing is Russia’s interest in the South Caucasus and
its desire to preserve the position of mediator. Consequently, the
meeting in Sochi is needed to “mark out the position.” And at the
same time to demonstrate “constructiveness” to the West.

France today is not in the best position. On the one hand, the sharp
deterioration in bilateral relations with Turkey specifically on the
“Armenian question” (in Baku there have already been voices heard
regarding the bias of Paris on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue). On the
other, the rating of the current head of state Nicolas Sarkozy on the
eve of the president election is frightfully low. In the United States,
the “Iranian issue” (and parallel with that the “Israeli” one as well)
has become paramount. And in fact election matters weighed down by the
economic crisis in no way promote the formulation of some alternative
to the current model of a resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani
confrontation. In that way, as of today the Sochi meeting is for the
most part advantageous for Moscow, which, however, will not bring
the keys to peace on a saucer with a light blue border.

Simply because it does not have them. It can only create certain
conditions to look for them.

[translated from Russian]

FRANCE HAS ANGERED TURKEY BY PASSING A BILL RECOGNIZING THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Business Insider

Jan 23 2012

In a historic move, the French Senate has passed a bill making it
illegal to deny that the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Armenians
in 1915 Turkey was genocide, the AP reports.

Saskya Vandoorne, a CNN reporter in Paris, tweets that the final vote
stood at 127 for, 86 against.

This controversial vote may have cause repercussions.

Earlier on Monday, Turkey threatened to impose more, “permanent”
sanctions on France if the bill was passed by the Senate (the upper
house), Turkey’s foreign minister told France 24. The bill had already
received the seal of approval by an overwhelming majority in the
lower National Assembly last month.

In what is seen as an attempt to appease Ankara, the draft law outlaws
public denial of any genocide recognized by the French state (and not
just that of the Armenians), Reuters reports. The bill — which will
punish denial with a year’s jail and a fine of up to 45,000 euros
($58,000) — was supported by both the ruling conservatives and the
opposition socialists.

France officially recognized the Armenian killings as genocide in
2001, joining 20 other countries in doing so. According to Armenian
historians, up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed by the Ottoman
Turks during World War I, and their assets appropriated by Kemal
Ataturk to establish the Turkish republic in 1923. Turkey claims only
about 500,000 Armenians were killed in the context of the world war
and an invasion by Russia, according to France 24.

The next step for the bill is for Prime Minister Nicolas Sarkozy
to ratify it before parliament is suspended in February. The bill
can still be rejected by the country’s highest court if that body
considers the text unconstitutional, according to Reuters.

Over the weekend, thousands of Turks from all over Europe protested
the bill. Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said it impinged
on freedom of expression. “This bill would punish me for having an
opinion on an historical event. It goes against all European and
French values of freedom of expression,” he told France 24.

Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has also accused France of committing
its own genocide during the war in Algeria in the 1950s and 1960s.

While Turkey, a candidate for EU membership, may not be able to impose
economic sanctions on France due to various accords and agreements, it
will create diplomatic tension between the two NATO allies, especially
given Turkey’s roles in the events unfolding in the Middle East.

France-Turkey trade could also be impacted; according to CNN, it
stands at $13.5 billion.

And Turkey does not make empty threats. When the genocide bill was
passed by France’s lower house, Turkey briefly withdrew its Paris
ambassador and froze military cooperation with France.

DOES DINK TRIAL VERDICT INDICATE A REVIVAL OF POWER POLITICS IN ANKARA?
by Dorian Jones

EurasiaNet.org

Jan 23 2012
NY

Almost a week after the conclusion of a trial concerning the murder
of Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink, the verdict continues to
reverberate in Turkey. It is shaking the faith of minority groups that
they can get a fair hearing in the country’s courts and is raising
questions among rights activists about the judiciary’s independence.

And some political analysts are worrying that the country’s leaders
are giving in to anti-democratic tendencies.

In its January 17 ruling, the Turkish court gave a life sentence to
one individual, Yasin Hayal, for the 2007 slaying — the second such
conviction in the case — but acquitted all 19 defendants on trial
on the charge of being part of a larger conspiracy in connection
with the slaying. Popular shock and outrage over those acquittals
was on prominent display January 19, when tens of thousands of Turks,
ethnic Armenians and ethnic Kurds marched in Istanbul to commemorate
the fifth anniversary of Dink’s death.

“I do not believe in justice in this country anymore,” commented Ara,
an ethnic Armenian university student who took part in the march,
the largest such public demonstration since Dink’s funeral.

Many cannot shake the belief that Dink’s murder was the product of a
conspiracy, involving some participants who acted with the police’s
knowledge, and that the court deliberately turned a blind eye to
this possibility. Dink had outraged nationalists and faced state
prosecution in the past for describing as genocide the mass killings
of ethnic Armenians during World War I.

The perception that the Turkish government is not willing to
investigate the Dink case thoroughly – a perception also echoed in
a 2010 European Court of Human Rights ruling — has enraged many of
the country’s estimated 70,000 ethnic Armenians, who see the slain
journalist as a symbol of the violence and discrimination that they
have faced over the years. The Ministry of Education’s recent decision
to block public schools’ access to the website of the Turkish-Armenian
newspaper Dink founded, Agos, is cited as fresh evidence of the
government aligning itself with the traditional state mentality that
views ethnic Armenians as a threat. Agos is now challenging the ban
in court; the ministry has not issued a public explanation.

“If this country is my country, can I say the same thing for the
state? Do I want to call it my state for what it is now?” wrote
ethnic Armenian columnist Karin Karakasli, who worked closely with
Dink, in the daily Radikal on January 22. “For once, let the courts
be the place of justice … [t]o do this is an obligation, a debt,
a responsibility.”

In comments to the daily Hurriyet last week, Council of Europe
Commissioner for Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg noted that the case
could be referred back to the European Court of Human Rights if the
court verdict is upheld on appeal.

“The case shows the low point we are at the moment in Turkey,” said
Emma Sinclair Webb, the Turkey researcher at the New York City-based
Human Rights Watch. Turkish and international human rights groups,
as well as the international community, saw the trial “as a test of
Turkey’s abilities to secure justice for grave crimes, to secure
accountability to protect minorities and to uphold freedom of
expression,” she continued.

“The trial encapsulates many of the problems facing Turkey. But
the whole trial has been a resounding failure so far of the Turkish
judiciary,” Sinclair Webb said. The government on January 18 announced
a package of roughly 100 changes for the judicial system, but no
date has been announced for the bill’s submission to parliament. The
reforms do not appear to address the issues raised in the Dink case.

The government has treaded gingerly in responding to such
dissatisfaction. Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arınc
acknowledged the criticism over the verdict, but stressed that the
trial is not the final word on the case. “The ruling over the Hrant
Dink case has not satisfied the conscience of the people. But the
process is continuing; it is not over yet. There still remains the
court of appeals,” Arınc said in a Turkish television interview the
night of the verdict.

The governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) earlier had promised
that any state involvement in Dink’s death would be uncovered, and
those responsible would be brought to justice. Last January, President
Abdullah Gul said he might launch a presidential investigation into the
killing, but since then, he appears to have quietly dropped the idea.

The prosecutor in the Dink trial claimed at one point that the slain
journalist had been a victim of the so-called Ergenekon conspiracy,
an alleged plot by active and retired army officers to overthrow the
government. The judges, however, rejected the allegation, saying the
perpetrators acted alone.

Prosecutors previously asserted that the Ergenekon conspiracy targeted
those, who, like Dink, believe that Ottoman Turkey committed genocide
against ethnic Armenians during World War I. Some observers reason that
that argument, first advanced when the AKP was locked in a political
struggle with Turkey’s state bureaucracy, now no longer serves any
purpose, and, so, has been dropped.

Having pushed opponents out of the state apparatus, the AKP now sees
this structure as part of its own domain, and wants to protect it,
suggested political scientist Cengiz Aktar of Istanbul’s BahceÅ~_ehir
University. Among those arrested last year for supposedly being part
of the Ergenekon conspiracy is journalist Nedim Sener, who was writing
a book about alleged police involvement in Dink’s murder.

“We’ve always had a difference between the government and state. The
state was actually working against the AK government in the early
years of its power. But now it is one and the same,” said Aktar. “Now
the democratic process has stalled. We are seeing the return of all
the old mentalities. It has immediately resurfaced and this is what
is happening today.”

Editor’s note: Dorian Jones is a freelance reporter based in Istanbul.

FRENCH SENATE VOTING ON GENOCIDE LAW RISKS TURKISH BACKLASH

Bloomberg

Jan 23 2012

The French Senate is due to vote on a bill making it a crime to deny
that the mass killing of Armenians early last century was genocide,
risking further deterioration in relations with Turkey.

The bill that the Senate began debating at 4 p.m. in Paris, which
Turkey’s foreign minister has lobbied against by summoning executives
of Credit Agricole SA (ACA) and Groupama SA (GPAS) in December,
would make the offense punishable by as long as a year in prison and
a 45,000-euro ($58,600) fine. Thousands of Turks are protesting the
measure outside the Senate, separated by a 200- meter (650-foot)
police corridor from Armenians supporting the law, according to
Turkey’s state-run Anatolia news agency.

Turkey froze political and military relations with France after the
lower chamber’s Dec. 22 vote and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
is threatening additional steps should the Senate pass the measure.

Erdogan says President Nicolas Sarkozy’s governing party, which
introduced the legislation, is using it to shore up public support
before presidential elections in May. Sarkozy also opposes Turkey’s
membership of the European Union.

“We will take steps depending on today’s decision,” Erdogan said in
televised comments from Istanbul. “It’s incomprehensible for Sarkozy
to push a verdict on a matter historians should decide upon, just
for his own political purposes.”

Euronews Partnership TRT, Turkey’s state-run broadcaster, is planning
to suspend its 15.5 percent partnership with Lyon-based Euronews if
France approves the bill, Anatolia reported today. TRT is the third-
biggest of 10 stakeholders in the news channel that the French helped
establish to counter Time Warner Inc. (TWC)’s CNN, according to the
news agency.

Turkey, a North Atlantic Treaty Organization ally of France, has
threatened economic as well as political reprisals should the law
pass. French carmakers including Renault SA (RNO) control a fifth of
Turkey’s market and French banks such as BNP Paribas SA (BNP) have
assets in the country exceeding $20 billion. French direct investment
in Turkey between 2002 and 2010 was $4.8 billion, the Turkish embassy
in Paris has said.

Armenians say 1.5 million ethnic Armenians were killed from 1915
to 1923 in a deliberate campaign of genocide in Anatolia. Turkey
maintains the deaths occurred as part of clashes in which tens of
thousands of Turks and Armenians died after Armenian groups sided
with an invading Russian army.

About 20 countries including Greece, Canada and Russia, Turkey’s
second-biggest trading partner behind Germany, recognize the events
as genocide.

Socialist Party candidate Francois Hollande would beat Sarkozy by 57
percent to 43 percent in a May 6 face-off in the second round of the
elections, according to a Jan. 21 BVA poll.

NO BREAKTHROUGHS REPORTED IN NAGORNO-KARABAKH TALKS

Monsters and Critics.com

Jan 23 2012

Moscow – Discussions between Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan on the
disputed status of the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave have failed to produce
significant progress, according to news reports Monday.

The talks in the Russian mountain resort city of Krasnaya Polyana, some
1,350 kilometres south of Moscow, were the tenth round of trilateral
discussions on the status of the Caucasian region, which obtained de
facto independence from Azerbaijan in a civil war that ended in 1994.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev held private talks with both Armenian
President Serzh Sargsyan and Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev before
the three leaders met together, the Interfax news agency reported.

An official statement later referred only to progress on ‘the General
Principles of resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute.’

In the first round of the talks, in 2008, Russia proposed ending the
conflict by giving Baku control over Nagorno-Karabakh, while at the
same time allowing the territory broad self-government rights.

A 2008 draft agreement also suggested Russia deploy peacekeepers to
the region and head up a programme to draw international investment.

Differences on the degree of control Azerbaijan would receive over
Nagorno-Karabakh, the creation of a road corridor connecting the
region with Armenia, repatriation of war refugees, and the possible
presence of peacekeepers other than from Russia, are among the issues
that have blocked a signing of the draft agreement.

Nagorno-Karabakh is heavily populated by ethnic Armenians who adhere
to the Orthodox Christian faith, while a majority of Azerbaijan’s
population is ethnic Azeris following the Sunni branch of Islam.

DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTERS OF RUSSIA AND TURKEY DISCUSS THE SITUATION AROUND NAGORNO-KARABAKH SETTLEMENT

Vestnik Kavkaza
Jan 23 2012
Russia

The Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, Grigory Karasin, and the Deputy
Foreign Minister of Turkey, Firrudin Sinirlioglu, held consultations
in Moscow on Monday, the official website of the Russian Foreign
Ministry informs.

The participants of the meeting discussed a number of international
and regional issues, including the situation in the South Caucasus
and the situation around the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. They also
touched upon relations between Russia, Turkey and Central Asia.

The Deputy Foreign Ministers noted the high level of the
Russian-Turkish cooperation.

TURKEY THREATENS SANCTIONS OVER ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL

France 24

Jan 23 2012

Turkey has threatened “permanent sanctions” against France if the
Senate approves a bill that would criminalise denying genocides that
are officially recognised by the French state.

By Tony Todd (text) Ankara will impose “permanent” sanctions against
France if the Senate approves a bill to criminalise denying that
the mass killing of Armenians in 1915 amounted to genocide, Turkey’s
foreign minister told FRANCE 24 on Sunday.

The Senate, the country’s upper house of parliament, is due to vote
on Monday to approve a bill that was passed by the lower National
Assembly last month.

Senators from both the ruling conservative UMP party, as well as
opposition Socialists, have indicated that they will vote in favour
of the bill which is expected to be passed.

The draft law would outlaw any public denial of genocides recognised
by the French state, including the Holocaust of the Second World War
as well as the massacre of ethnic Armenians in Ottoman Turkey in 1915.

France officially recognised the Armenian killings as genocide in
2001. The new bill would punish denial with a year’s jail and a fine
of up to 45,000 euros.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told FRANCE 24 that the
proposed law was an affront to freedom of expression that would make
him a criminal for openly discussing an “historical tragedy”.

“If I am asked a question by a journalist, how could I remain silent?”

he asked. “This bill would punish me for having an opinion on an
historical event. It goes against all European and French values of
freedom of expression.”

‘Political opportunism’

The bill was passed by the French National Assembly on December 23,
2011 – a move that sparked outrage in Turkey which briefly withdrew
its ambassador and froze all military cooperation with France.

Davutoglu accused French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who is languishing
in the polls ahead of elections in May, of using the bill to gain
approval from France’s significant Armenian population of some
500,000 voters.

“The painful history of Armenians and Turks is being used … for
political opportunism and against the basic values of politics,”
he said.

He added: “There will be further sanctions [if the bill is passed]
and they will be permanent.”

According to Armenian historians, up to 1.5 million of their forbears
were killed by the Ottoman Turk forces in 1915.

They also say that property and cash criminally appropriated from
the Christian Armenian minority helped Kemal Attaturk, the founder
of modern Turkey, establish his Turkish republic in 1923 – something
they say Turks are nowadays loath to admit.

Turkey rejects this figure and denies that the massacre amounted
to genocide – claiming that 500,000 Armenians were killed in the
context of a world war and an invasion of the country by Russia that
was supported by the county’s ethnic Armenian minority.

TURKEY THREATENS FRANCE WITH NEW SANCTIONS OVER GENOCIDE BILL

Novinite

Jan 23 2012
Bulgaria

Ankara is prepared to continue its measures against France if the
French Senate passes a bill criminalizing the denial of the genocide
against Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.

“Turkey will continue to implement sanctions as long as this bill
remains in motion,” Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu told
reporters ahead of the debate, expressing his hope that “common sense”
will reign in the French Senate.

Turkish officials have claimed that the bill would compromise freedom
of expression in France.

MPs in the French lower house approved the bill last month, leading
to a crisis in the country’s diplomatic relations with Turkey.

Senators from both the ruling conservative UMP party, as well as
opposition Socialists, have indicated that they will vote in favour
of the bill which is expected to be passed, according to France 24.

If the bill passes the French Senate, people who deny that the mass
killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks during World War I constituted
genocide will face a one-year jail term and a fine of up to EUR 45 000.

RUSSIAN DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER DISCUSSES NAGORNO-KARABAKH WITH OSCE MG AND US AUTHORITIES IN WASHINGTON

Vestnik Kavkaza
Jan 23 2012
Russia

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin has discussed the
Nagorno-Karabakh peace process with co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk
Group and the personal representative of the OSCE chairman for
Nagorno-Karabakh, 1news.az reports.

The talks were held as part of preparations for the 10th trilateral
meeting of Russian, Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents in Sochi today.

Karasin discussed the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict with US Deputy
Secretary of State William J. Burns and US Assistant Secretary of
State for European and Eurasian Affairs.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said last week that Russia
plans to continue mediation in settling the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.