Author: Badalian Vardan

ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY STATEMENT ON TURKISH GOVERNMENT’S ANNOUNCEMENT

Panorama
Sept 1 2011
Armenia

The Turkish government’s announcement of its decision to abide
by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights to return
long-ago confiscated properties of minorities comes as a step in the
right direction. While it remains to be seen how the government will
implement this new measure, the policy holds the promise of restoring
the rule of law for minorities long discriminated against in Turkey.

The announcement comes in the wake of a series of developments in
Turkey resulting in increasing civilian oversight of several branches
of the Turkish government previously controlled by the military. Some
of these reforms stem from Turkey’s aspirations for membership in
the European Union.

However, with the increasingly Islamist policies of Prime Minister
Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party and a recent
turnabout for the worse in its relations with the Kurdish population
in Turkey, we hope the timing is not just another effort to burnish
the government’s image as a reform-minded administration.

The timing of Erdogan’s new policy on minority properties also
coincides with the fact that the Turkish Parliament failed to act on
the Armenia-Turkey protocols to establish diplomatic relations and
open the border, despite its international commitments to do so.

Turkey’s failure to enact the protocols reflects a continued pattern
of nonperformance, including its existing obligations under the
Treaties of Kars and Moscow guaranteeing Armenia access to the Black
Sea. Instead, Turkey, in solidarity with Azerbaijan, maintains its
illegal blockade of Armenia and seeks to isolate Armenia and Nagorno
Karabakh.

As far as the Armenian minority in Turkey is concerned – after a
century of violent persecution, official discrimination, and public
racism – the decree to return some of the confiscated properties is a
welcomed development, but cannot begin to redress the magnitude of the
damage inflicted. This indirect admission that Turkey discriminated
against minorities for over three quarters of a century does nothing
to reverse the lasting consequences of the Armenian Genocide. Turkey
has shown no evidence that it is prepared to deal with the legacy of
the Armenian Genocide.

Designed to undermine the remaining minority institutions in Turkey,
the confiscation of properties mostly deeded to minority endowment
dates to the 1930s when Turkey ramped up its discriminatory practices
under the influence of Nazi racial policies. These practices of the
Kemalist regime followed upon the earlier policies of the Young Turk
Committee responsible for the Armenian Genocide and continued with
punishing taxation policies specifically targeting the Armenian,
Jewish, and Greek minorities remaining in Turkey.

Turkey never redressed the result of its official policies dating from
that era. Instead, it sustained pressure on minority communities by
continuously denying or depriving community-based institutions and
endowments that support schools and churches from legally registering
the donation of properties. The policy, as a result, succeeded
in reducing the presence of minority groups to a mere fraction of
their former numbers. In a country with a population of 78 million,
the total minority presence of Christians and Jews in Turkey numbers
less than 100,000.

The decree also does nothing to protect the Armenian architectural
heritage in Turkey represented in countless monuments, many
of a religious nature, that have been subjected to vandalism,
deliberate neglect, if not outright destruction. The sorry state of
the antiquities in the historic city of Ani that sits astride the
border with the Republic of Armenia remains a constant testament
to offenses committed in denying the Armenian Genocide as Turkish
officials continue to drag their feet about salvaging what little
remains of the medieval capital city.

After 75 years, the announcement demonstrates the need for Congress
to adopt the Royce-Berman legislation calling for the safeguarding
of the Christian heritage in Turkey. It was precisely these issues
that noted Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink raised publicly
for the first time in Turkey, and as it turned out tragically, at
the cost of his life. Much more can and should be done to address
the concerns of minorities in Turkey.

OVER BEFORE IT’S OVER

Russia Profile

Sept 1 2011

As a Unified Entity, the Soviet Union De Facto Disappeared Long Before
Its Official End

Two thousand eleven is a year rich in significant anniversaries,
but it’s easy to note that many of them are directly connected to
the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The unsuccessful attempt
to rescue the Soviet Union by cutting its first and last President
Mikhail Gorbachev off from power further promoted the process of
ethno-political self-determination in the allied and autonomous
republics at the end of August and the beginning of September 1991.

On August 24, 1991, Ukraine declared independence. Three days later,
on August 27, Moldova also proclaimed itself an independent state.

However, what seemed to be impromptu political decisions were in
fact very well thought-out. Long before the “hot August” of 1991,
both Kiev, and especially Chisinau, had expressed their interest in
an independent political life.

Moldova’s sovereignty was announced on June 23, 1990. The republic
refused to take part in the referendum on preserving a “renewed”
Soviet Union on March 17, 1991, and in the “Novo-Ogaryovo process,”
which dealt with preparations for signing a new confederate agreement.

Ukraine’s Declaration of Independence came on July 16, 1990. This
document included certain elements of fully-fledged statehood,
particularly non-aligned status, which was in itself a claim
to conduct an independent foreign policy. In March of 1991 the
Ukrainian republican leadership took part in the referendum on
preserving the Soviet Union, but with one significant deviation. The
main question posed in the nationwide poll in Kiev was accompanied
by another one, which specified the republic’s special status: “Do
you agree with the fact that Ukraine should be part of the Union of
Soviet sovereign states on the basis of the Declaration of Ukraine’s
state sovereignty?” Unlike Moldova, Ukraine did participate in the
“Novo-Ogaryovo process,” but after the failure of the August putsch
in Moscow it began actively preparing to leave the Soviet Union. This
process came to a logical conclusion on December 1, 1991, during a
republican referendum on retiring from the union state.

The political decisions made at the end of August and beginning of
September by the leaderships of Azerbaijan and Central Asian states
were “surprising” to a certain degree. Until August 1991, Azerbaijan
was seen by many as Moscow’s outpost in Transcaucasia. It was the
only Transcaucasian entity to partake in the referendum on March 17,
1991, and also in the “Novo-Ogaryovo process.” Unlike Armenia, where
the Communist Party had lost its leading position back in 1990,
in August of 1991 Azerbaijan’s Supreme Soviet was headed by the
leader of the republican Communist Party Ayaz Mutalibov. But this
role of an “outpost” was ad hoc. Baku tried to preserve control over
Nagorno-Karabakh and tried to lean on the unionized authorities,
although by 1991 it already had a long list of complaints for the
Kremlin. As soon as Baku realized that the union was on the verge
of disintegration, an intensive process of state self-determination
began. On August 30, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of Azerbaijan passed
a declaration “On the reestablishment of the Azerbaijani Republic’s
state independence.”

On August 31, 1991, declarations of state independence were adopted
in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. On September 9, 1991, during an
extraordinary session of Tajikistan’s Supreme Soviet, the declaration
of state independence of the Republic of Tajikistan and decrees
on making amendments were passed unanimously as were additions to
the “Declaration of the Sovereignty of the Tajik Soviet Socialist
Republic,” approved on August 24, 1990. Here it is important to note
that on August 19, 1991, Tashkent and Dushanbe officials de facto
associated with Gorbachev’s opponents from the State Committee for
Emergency Rule (GKChP) and supported a union state. But following
the failure of the putsch, Tashkent and Dushanbe quickly reoriented
themselves toward a strategy called “a way toward independence.”

Next on the list was Armenia’s independence. This case deserves a
separate discussion. The history of Armenia’s self-determination
in 1988 to 1991 rhymed with the struggle over Nagorno-Karabakh. At
the beginning Yerevan hoped to achieve a “miatsum” (unification with
Karabakh) with Moscow’s help. But as soon as it became clear that the
union authorities would be of no help in this matter, Armenia set the
course for self-determination. It was outlined by the Declaration of
Independence of August 23, 1990, which eliminated the Armenian Soviet
Socialist Republic and de facto proclaimed all the attributes of new
statehood. In the end, Armenia was the only one of the 15 republics
that made up the Soviet Union to leave the union in accordance with a
procedure stipulated by Soviet legislation. The republican referendum
on independence was announced six months in advance. At that, Yerevan
ignored both the union plebiscite and the “Novo-Ogaryovo process.” On
September 21, 1991, the inhabitants of Armenia supported the creation
of their own national state. But unlike Georgia and Azerbaijan,
Armenia constructed its statehood instead of reconstructing it.

The events of August and September of 1991 didn’t pass the autonomous
republics by, either. On September 2 the former Nagorno-Karabakh
Autonomous Region declared its independence from Azerbaijan,
and announced the creation of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR)
together with the Shaumyan District. September 6, 1991, 20 years ago,
marked the beginning of the history of post-Soviet Chechnya, synonymous
with wars, infighting, refugees and terrorist attacks. On this day,
power on Chechnya changed hands, going from the Supreme Soviet of
the Chechen-Ingush Republic (an autonomous entity within the Russian
Soviet Federative Socialist Republic) to the All-National Congress
of the Chechen People (OKChN). The mechanism behind this change was
not legitimate or legal, but forceful. That day in September of 1991
was the first tragic incident in a myriad of mishaps that continue
to this day.

Thus the events that took place in August and September 20 years ago
speak against the popular contemporary myth that the “Belavezha pact”
was the main reason behind the disintegration of the Soviet Union. As
a unified entity, the Soviet Union de facto disappeared long before
its official end. And the reasons behind its demise were not the
“Novo-Ogaryovo process” and not the refusal to use force (in 1989 to
1991, it was used multiple times), but the country’s leadership’s
unpreparedness for the systematic modernization of society and the
state. The national factor wasn’t given proper consideration when
choosing and implementing the course of reforms. Moreover, over many
years of the existence of the Soviet Union, nationalism and territorial
segregation were encouraged in some way or another. Who, if not the
Soviet state, institutionalized ethnic groups as the main subject
of policy and state legislation? As the Soviet state’s integration
potential weakened and the integrating ideology – Soviet communism –
faced a crisis, the process of ethnic-national self determination
began in the republics that made up the Soviet Union.

And the last leadership of the Soviet Union is mainly to blame not
for the fact that it failed to prevent the disintegration of the
unified state (the groundwork for this was laid by all of its previous
development), but for the fact that it failed to make the state,
firstly, manageable, and secondly, ruled by law. Each one of the
allied republics and autonomous territories was determined based on
political expedience, often not based on the law, but on force. This
resulted in eight inter-ethnic and civil conflicts on the territory
of the former Soviet Union, as well as in unresolved problems along
the borders and inter-state disputes, which in some cases lead to
a severing of diplomatic relations between separate parts of what
once used to be one country. Alas, this period in history deserves
a separate discussion.

Sergei Markedonov, Ph.D., is a political analyst and a visiting fellow
at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Russia
and Eurasia Program, Washington, DC.

AZERBAIJANI FM NOT AWARE OF NEXT SARGSYAN-ALIYEV MEETING

news.am
Sept 1 2011
Armenia

YEREVAN.- Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov has no
information about the next meeting of Armenian and Azerbaijani
Presidents.

“I have no information about the next meeting of the Armenian and
Azerbaijani Presidents. I got this information from the press. I
can confirm that Azerbaijan is ready to continue talks over
Nagorno-Karabakh,” Trend agency quotes Mammadyarov.

According to him, much has been done in the peace process up to now.

“I do not want anyone to deal with propaganda, saying that Azerbaijan
abandons the negotiation process. The conflict must be resolved in
a phased manner, on the basis of the Madrid Principles,” he said.

The Minister expressed confidence that time will come when “the
Armenian troops will be withdrawn from the occupied territories
of Azerbaijan.”

Earlier press reported the OSCE Minsk Group was preparing meeting
between the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents on the sidelines of
UN General Assembly session.

President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan will attend UN General Assembly
session on September 23.

A diplomatic source told Armenian News-NEWS.am President Sargsyan is
not scheduled to meet with his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliyev
in New York.

BAKU MUST ENSURE ARMENIA’S SECURITY

07:21 pm | September 01, 2011

Armenia is still discussing its participation in the 2012 Eurovision
Song Contest to be held in Baku on May 22-26, 2012.

“The Armenian delegation not only places importance on the Azerbaijani
government’s security warrants, but also those of the European
Broadcasting Union. That is why we will present our decision on
participation in the next couple of months,” head of the Armenian
delegation for Eurovision, Gohar Gasparyan told “A1+”.

Let us inform that the organizers of Eurovision-2012 are in Baku
to find out how the Ictimai television is preparing to broadcast
the contest.

Negotiations with the Azerbaijani authorities over the guests’ security
and letters guaranteeing freedom of speech and press are underway.

Azerbaijan won last year’s Eurovision Song Contest with 221 points.

Singer Emmy represented Armenia and didn’t move on to the final stage.

TOUCHING UPON NK CONFLICT WITH STATE SECRETARY

08:53 pm | September 01, 2011

Chairs of the NA standing committees on defense, national security and
internal affairs and on foreign relations Hrair Karapetyan and Armen
Rustamyan had a meeting with Parliamentary State Secretary for the
Federal Ministry of Defense of Germany, Christian Schmidt. Attending
the meeting were RA First Deputy Minister of Defense David Tonoyan
and German Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Armenia
Hans-Johen Schmidt.

Armen Rustamyan registered that Armenia’s foreign policy is linked to
Euro-integration processes and that Armenia is carrying out projects
that are particularly aimed at matching the country’s security system
with European standards. Rustamyan said Armenia is interested in
establishing sustainable peace in the region and highly appreciated
the cooperation with European partner countries in issues such as
Armenian-Turkish relations and a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict that falls in line with the principles of international law.

Hrair Karapetyan expressed gratitude for Germany’s support in
Armenia’s defense sphere, particularly military, medicine and military
education. Karapetyan introduced the guest to the reforms taking place
in Armenia’s defense sphere and the legislative amendments, adding
that this year the National Assembly will adopt a disciplinary rule
book that will specify the rights and responsibilities of officers
and soldiers.

Christian Schmidt expressed satisfaction with the Armenian-German
military cooperation and voiced hope for more active
inter-parliamentary cooperation in that direction. Schmidt expressed
gratitude for the Armenian regiment’s participation and important
contribution to the German forces in Afghanistan.

During the meeting, the sides also discussed issues related to
Euro-integration processes, regional security, the development of
Armenian-German parliamentary and military cooperation and peaceful
settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, reports the NA press
service.

LA FRA SEPTIQUE QUANT A DES ELECTIONS ANTICIPEES
Stephane

armenews.com
vendredi 2 septembre 2011

Deux partis d’opposition en desaccord avec le Congrès National Armenien
(HAK) ont affirme que le bloc de l’opposition n’etait pas serieux
quant a ses engagements repetes d’obtenir des elections anticipees.

Les chefs de la Federation Revolutionnaire Armenienne (Dashnaktsutyun)
et du parti Heritage (Zharangutyun) ont affirme que le President
Serge Sarkisian n’appellera pas a des elections anticipees suite au
dialogue avec le HAK.

Hrant Markarian de la FRA a pretendu que le Chef du HAK Levon Ter
Petrossian tient seulement a ” gagner du temps “.

” La politique qu’ils ont poursuivie au cours des trois ou quatre
dernières annees les laisse sans d’autre choix ” a dit Hrant Markarian
au service armenien de RFE/RL. ” Ils ont besoin de tenir [leurs
partisans] occupes par quelque chose pour que la vague [d’appui
populaire pour le HAK] reste haute et leur permette de realiser
quelque succès lors des prochaines elections. ”

” Je ne considère pas des elections presidentielles anticipees
comme probable ” a consenti Armen Martirosian, un membre du parti
Zharangutyun. ” Aucun tel processus politique ne semble etre en route
a l’heure actuelle. ”

Armen Martirosian a pretendu qu’en engageant dans le dialogue le HAK
a seulement blanchi la reputation de Serge Sarkisian a l’etranger et
a ainsi renforce ses positions en Armenie.

Armen Markarian a de la meme facon pretendu que les deux parties sont
seulement concernes par la monopolisation de l’arène politique.

FOREIGN MINISTER EDWARD NALBANDYAN TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CIS MINISTERIAL SUMMIT

Noyan Tapan

01.09.2011 | 12:03

Politics

On September 2, Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan will participate
in the CIS Ministerial Summit in Dushanbe.

As the department of press, information and public relations of the
RA Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed “Noyan Tapan”, the drafts
of documents which will be presented in the CIS leaders’ summit,
issues of international agenda will be discussed.

The drafts of documents, cooperation in jurisdiction, security and
fight against terrorism are also envisaged to be discussed.

ANALYST DOES NOT EXCLUDE PROGRESS IN NK PEACE TALKS

ARMENPRESS
14:05, 1 September, 2011

Progress in the process of negotiations over the peaceful regulation of
Nagorno Karabakh conflict is not excluded till the end of the year,
head of the “European Integration” NGO, political analyst Karen
Bekaryan said at a news conference today.

According to him, as far as Russia is actively mediating in the
process, the outcome mainly depends on forthcoming presidential
elections in that country. “If Dmitry Medvedev puts forward his
candidacy in presidential elections, he will try to stimulate the
negotiation process, creating positive opinion of both himself and
his country”, Bekaryan stressed. “The cease in the negotiation process
will continue till November-December,” he pointed out.

K. Bekaryan said that even if things change in Russia, the negotiation
process will not stop as the USA and the European countries will come
forth with initiatives.

EX-CHIEF OF ARMENIA’S TRAFFIC POLICE MURDERER?

Tert.am
15:38 01.09.11

Armenia’s police have no information on murder charges against the
ex-chief of traffic police Margar Ohanyan, Chief of Armenia’s police
Alik Sargsyan told journalists, following a cabinet sitting Sept 1.

He said that an incident that occurred as far back as 1992 has been
pointed to. “I have ordered the information t be verified. In any case,
we have no such information now,” General Sargsyan said.

Margar Ohanyan was detained on a charge of abuse of office.

AZERBAIJANI FOUNDATION SPONSORS BRITISH OFFICIALS

Lragir.am News:

13:00:29 – 01/09/2011

Bureau of Investigative Journalism

The European Azerbaijan Society (TEAS), which was launched in the
House of Lords in 2008, acts as the secretariat to the UK’s All Party
Parliamentary Group for Azerbaijan and the Conservative Friends
of Azerbaijan. The group has been sponsoring MPs and journalists
on visits to Azerbaijan since its inception. TEAS is run by Tale
and Nijat Heydarov, members of one of the country’s most powerful
families and sons of Azerbaijan’s Minister for Emergency Situations,
Kamaladdin Heydarov.

A US diplomatic cable leaked to the Wikileaks site last year referred
to TEAS as purporting to be an independent advocacy group, but said:
‘its talking points very much reflect the goals and objectives of
the GOAJ [government of Azerbaijan]’.

The cable, written in 2010 by Charge d’Affairs Don Lu, also reported
concerns that Colonel-General Heydarov, father of the men who head
TEAS, had obtained ‘massive wealth’ as an alleged result of illicit
payments while chairman of the State Customs Committee.

In 2010, Azerbaijan was listed as ranking 134 out of 178 in the World
Corruption Index by Transparency International.

There is no evidence that Tale and Nijat Heydarov were involved in or
benefited from this alleged corruption. And Colonel-General Heydarov
has never been found guilty by a court of law of any such accusations.

But with details lacking on who exactly is funding TEAS British
politicians have still been ready to accept its hospitality. The
Society has been particularly generous in 2011.

In May a delegation of parliamentarians including Bob Blackman,
Stephen Hammond, Gerry Sutcliffe, Lord Kilclooney, Lord Rogan and Mark
Field and his assistant, Julia Dockerill, enjoyed a five day visit
to Azerbaijan, paid for by TEAS. This trip was estimated as costing
£3,500 each in flights, accommodation and internal travel expenses.

According to the register of MPs’ interests the purpose of the trip
was to ‘meet senior Azeri political and business figures, British
diplomats and visit some of the regions’.

In a Commons debate on Azerbaijan in June this year, Mr Blackman, Mr
Sutcliffe, Mr Hammond and Mr Field had only good things to say about
the country. It was left to others to raise the issue of Azerbaijan’s
human rights record and repressive laws.

Some of these reticent politicians have visited the country at
TEAS’ expense on several occasions. As well as the May visit, Mr
Field received a trip worth £2,500 in July 2010 to ‘speak at a
Nato conference and meet senior Azerbaijani political and business
figures’. In addition, Mr Field, who is the Conservative MP for Cities
of London and Westminster and chairman of the All Party Parliamentary
Group for Azerbaijan, is paid as a member of TEAS’ advisory board
and received £1,000 for six hours’ work done in April and May 2011.

The Bureau asked Mr Field whether he had looked into the sources of
TEAS’ funding. He was unavailable for comment.

Five members of the Conservative Friends of Azerbaijan, all
Parliamentarians, also visited the country on 28 July this year. Lord
Laird, chairman of the EAS advisory board, appears to have enjoyed
two trips to Azerbaijan funded by TEAS within a few months of each
other in 2010, inJune and October. He was accompanied on the June
trip by Lord Kilclooney, though there is no mention of this in the
latter’s entry on the Lords register of interests for that year.

The Bureau made several attempts to contact Lord Kilclooney for
comment. He too was unavailable.

And in March this year ConservativeHome thanked TEAS, the ‘generous
sponsors’ of a party at the Tory Spring meeting. The event, which
featured Liam Fox as guest speaker, was apparently the hit of the
conference. TEAS is set to sponsor further drinks receptions at all
three Party Conferences this autumn as well as managing its new office
in Brussels, which opened there last November.

Who’s funding the funders?

A spokesman for TEAS said it receives funding from individual and
corporate membership fees and donations and ‘complies with all statutes
and regulations’.

TEAS advisory board member Nigel Peters, a director at British
Expertise, told the Bureau his understanding was that TEAS is partly
funded by company subscriptions with the balance coming from the
Heydarov family in Azerbaijan. ‘That’s always been my understanding. I
can’t see where else the money would be coming from,’ he said,
though he stated he had not seen the organisation’s accounts. ‘My
role on the advisory council is partly to help TEAS recruit company
members. I believe they now have 30-40 members paying subscriptions –
a big increase over the last year.’

‘Platinum’ membership of TEAS costs £10,000, while gold membership
is £4,000 and ordinary corporate membership £750-1,500. But TEAS’
accounts report that it was £1,849,087 in the red in March 2010,
with assets of just £168,273. The abbreviated, unaudited accounts
filed with Companies House do not reveal the size of TEAS’ income.

Its outgoings, though, are large. The Society is supporting at least
ten staff in London as well as having to meet its hospitality bills.

TEAS’ directors, Tale and Nijat Heydarov, are also directors of United
Enterprises International Limited, whose December 2010 accounts –
also abbreviated and unaudited – record a debt of some £23,000. TEAS
is listed as an affiliate on the company’s website, and UEI and TEAS
share an address at 2 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1.

UEI promotes Jala Juice, which the UEI website says has been the
market leading pomegranate juice in Azerbaijan for 10 years. Jala
Juice is also a ‘gold sponsor’ of TEAS’ business forum.

This fruit juice was also referred to in the Wikileaks cable, which
said: ‘The Heydarovs have largely cornered the fruit juice market in
Azerbaijan, maintaining extremely high prices for locallyâ~@¨ produced
juices and watered-down juice drinks, while making life difficult –
with the help of state customs – for cheaper competitors from Turkey,
Ukraineâ~@¨ and Russia. When USAID tried to support the production
and distribution ofâ~@¨ pomegranate products in Azerbaijan, they
quickly learned that no one sellsâ~@¨ pomegranate juice, concentrate,
or derivatives from Azerbaijan without Heydarov’sâ~@¨ permission.’

UEI denies that Jala Juice is the beneficiary of a monopoly based on
Heydarov family influence.

The cables also allege that many of the Heydarov family operations
are part of the ‘Gilan’, ‘Qabala’, ‘Jala’, or ‘United Enterprises
International’ family of companies. Gilan Holding is listed as an
‘affiliate’ on the UEIholding.com website. Gilan Holding, a major
conglomerate in Azerbaijan, has the same Baku telephone number on
its website as UEI Holding. The Gilan conglomerate includes AFB Bank,
which is another ‘gold sponsor’ of the TEAS business forum.

UEI declined to expand on the nature of its links with Gilan.

A spokesman for TEAS said: ‘Both TEAS and the Azerbaijani Government
want to see a peaceful resolution to the conflict with Armenia,
which is slowing economic and political progress across the entire
South Caucasus region.’

He added: ‘Our activities are geared towards raising awareness
about the conflict and the humanitarian plight of the almost one
million refugees and Internally Displaced Persons living in camps
in Azerbaijan. We have no problem highlighting the fact that four UN
Security Council Resolutions and one UN General Assembly Resolution
remain unimplemented, verifying Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity
regarding Nagorno-Karabakh.’

TEAS also said it had a policy of not commenting on leaked US cables
‘of doubtful provenance.’

None of the Parliamentarians who went on the TEAS trips was available
for comment.

Labour MP for Newport West Paul Flynn, who has previously criticized
Prince Andrew for his activities as trade envoy in Azerbaijan,
said he was worried by apparent Parliamentary links with the Azeri
regime, which he said had a ‘dreadful record of corruption and
jailing opponents’.