Author: Baghdasarian Karlen

ARTHUR POGHOSYAN: “AT UNESCO AZERBAIJAN’S NEXT VANDALISM WAS FOR THE BENEFIT OF ARMENIA”

ARMENPRESS
JUNE 24, 2011
YEREVAN

YEREVAN, JUNE 24, ARMENPRESS: “The art of Khachkars” exhibition will
be summarized at the UNESCO headquarter of Paris. The next outburst of
the Azerbaijani and Turkish aggression was recorded at the exhibition.

Arthur Poghosyan, the RA deputy culture minister, reported Armenpress
that the conflict situation at UNESCO once again made the international
community to focus on the Armenian khachkars and intangible cultural
heritage values. He says once again the international community was
informed about the vandalism, committed by the Turkish and Azerbaijani
sides. According to him, the created conflict situation worked for
the benefit of the Armenian side.

The deputy minister said during all the international events the
Armenian side faces the Azerbaijani and Turkish sides’ aggression.

“However this will not frighten us: we will move forward more
dynamically,” he stated.

During “The art of Khachkars – Armenian cross-stones” exhibition,
held June 15 at UNSECO Paris Office, the notes on the origin of
the Armenian khachkars were not available. Only the date of the
khachkars was written under the photos. The reason was that some
of the khachkars are located in the territory of not only Armenia,
but also neighbor countries – Turkey and Azerbaijan.

From: Baghdasarian

ARMENIAN PM: IN THE LAST THREE YEARS THE NUMBER OF INTERNET USERS IN ARMENIA HAS TRIPLED WHILE THE INTERNET TARIFFS HAVE DROPPED BY FOUR TIMES

arminfo
Friday, June 24, 18:30

Due to high growth rate the IT sector has become the leader of our
economy in the last three years, Prime Minister of Armenia Tigran
Sargsyan said while opening 4th Digitec Business Forum and Microsoft
Innovation Forum today.

“In late 2009 we had 1.1mln people using internet by means of mobile
phones. In 2010 we had 1.3mln such users, as of Apr 1 2011 – 1.7mln.

In late 2009 we had just 70,000 broadband internet users, in 2010 –
170,000, as of Apr 1 2011 – 240,000. While the number of users was
growing the tariffs were being reduced: 234,000 AMD for 1 Mb/s in
late 2009, 71,000 AMD in 2010 and 55,000 AMD as of Apr 1 2011,”
the Premier said.

He said that Digitec Business Forum is an opportunity for IT companies
to sum up the results of their work for the past year.

“We give high priority to this forum. This is an opportunity for us
to communicate with all business entities acting in the IT sector,
to familiarize ourselves with their new products and services and to
understand their tasks and priorities,” Sargsyan said.

“It is not a secret that digitization has boosted production worldwide,
so, we must also use internet for enhancing economic efficiency. Five
years ago we proclaimed IT sector as our priority and since then
we have constantly worked to create favorable conditions for its
development. I am sure that Digitec will contribute to this work,”
the Premier said.

Director General of ArmenTel Igor Klimko said that Digitec Business
Forum and Microsoft Innovation Forum are crucial for Armenia’s
information technologies.

“They are a place where we can communicate with our existing and
potential customers and can establish mutually beneficial partnership
with both start-up and experienced Armenian and international
companies,” Klimko said.

He noted that, according to the International Telecommunications Union,
in 2010 Armenia showed one of the highest growths in internet clientele
in the world.

“Armenia has already transited from the rivalry of providers to the
rivalry of technologies, which means that it must develop technologies
so as to be able to develop innovative business and to enhance its
competitiveness in the world,” Klimko said.

He expressed hope that internet will continue active penetration
into Armenia’s regions and will cover the whole of its territory in
the future.

The organizer of Digitec Business Forum is UITE, the general sponsors –
ArmenTel and Microsoft.

From: Baghdasarian

THE POLITICAL IMPLICATION OF THE TURKISH-GEORGIAN “CULTURAL” DIALOGUE

Tamara Vardanyan

Expert, Center for the Armenian Studies, “Noravank” Foundation,
Candidate of Sciences (History)
23.06.2011

Recently the issue of poor condition of the cultural monuments on the
territory of Turkey and Georgia and the necessity of their restoration
has stirred up. There is a pre-history: back in 2007 Turkey and
Georgia initiated negotiations on this issue but the parties did not
come to the agreement. Previous talks failed in a consequence of the
opposition and efforts of the Georgian Patriarch Ilya II. Due to the
public authority (according to the public opinion polls 90% of the
respondents trust in the Georgian Orthodox Church and personally in
the Patriarch) the later managed to put a veto and to prevent the
conclusion of final agreement. The main reason was the concern that
as a result of the agreement the Muslim factor and, naturally Turkish
influence, would get stronger in Georgia. And the Georgian elite,
especially the spiritual one, is well aware of the consequences it
may have. As for the political elite, the later, of course, tries to
maneuver between the Turkish demands on the one hand, and demands
of the Georgian society and spiritual authorities on the other. It
is obvious that the pliability of the political authorities of the
country is conditioned by the strategic partnership with Turkey,
continuous growth of the Turkish investments in the Georgian economy,
and why not, by adopting short-term tactics in this issue. In case of
adopting long-term strategy by the Georgian authorities it would have
been at least obvious to them today that it is necessary to oppose
Turkey’s claims, and at the same time that making concessions may
have disastrous effect for the territorial integrity of the country.

Despite all this, the revival of the unfinished negotiations was
initiated by the efforts of the Georgian side. Thus, in April 2011
during his visit to Turkey the Foreign Minister of Georgia G. Vashadze
spoke about the unfinished negotiations and hoped that in the near
future the parties would manage to come to an agreement on that issue.

The Georgian party explains its eagerness by the circumstance
that on the territory of Turkey the so-called “Georgian” churches
of Tao-Klarjeti are in a poor condition and this issue needs to be
solved urgently. Let us mention that here we speak about four Medieval
monuments – Oshkvank, Ishkhan, Khandza and Otkhta, which are today on
the territory of Turkey. The Georgia party expects that they will be
passed to Georgia in order to carry out restoration works. This claim
is substantiated by that fact that the Armenian Surb Khach (St. Cross)
Church was restored without participation of real proprietors –
the Armenian party, which has its negative effect. In its turn,
in exchange for such concessions, Turkey demands consent of Georgia
for the restoration of three mosques in Samtskhe-Javakhq, Akhltskha
and Kobuleti as well as building of one new mosque and Turkish bath
in Batumi.

It is remarkable that the details of the negotiations are kept secret
from the Georgian public. The first public statement was made by M.

Saakashvili during the live teleconference on January 26, 20111. In
his address the president also mentioned that Georgia was a democratic
country and the Muslims living there had a right to follow their
national traditions. And the Minister of Culture of Georgia N. Rurua
at the beginning of this year stated that the conditions would be
published only after the signing of the protocols2. The Georgian
authorities, using the state propaganda machinery, spread the viewpoint
that this is only a cultural issue and has no religious nature. The
secrecy of the negotiations as well as scrappy information about
the content of the negotiations which appeared in the press caused
both the discontent of the Georgian Orthodox church and Georgian
society. Taking into consideration the poor experience in the past,
the secular Georgian authorities, headed by the president M.

Saakashivili, in fact, this time try to bypass the spiritual
authorities and to come to an agreement with the Turks behind their
back. As justly observes Georgian expert G. Nodia, this issue is a
cornerstone of contradictions between the Georgian Orthodox Church
and secular authorities3.

The importance of those negotiations is in the fact that the considered
issue, being cultural only at the first sign, in reality is not only
a religious but also a political one.

The agreement from the point of view of Georgian benefits The Turkish
party, in fact, is ready to pass Oshkvank, Ishkhan, Khandza and
Otkhta Medieval monuments, which are on the territory of Turkey, to
the Georgians for the restoration. But the point is that the two of
the aforementioned churches – Ishkhan and Oshvank, are the Armenian
Chalcedon cultural monuments. They are not a part of the Georgian
cultural heritage.

Let us bring some extracts from chapter “The Architectural Monuments
of Tayq” of a book “At the wellsprings of the Armenian Classical
Architecture” (2003) by Doctor of Architecture T. Marutyan: “Tayq
and its medieval monuments, including Iskhan and Banak built in the
7th century, such wonderful monuments as Khukhuvank, Oshvank, built
in the 10th century, and many other monuments are the fruits of the
Armenian creative mind and there is nothing to argue about”4. Then
T. Marutyan based on many sources consecutively proves his point of
view. E.g. it is suffice to mention N. Marr’s evidence based on the
Georgian sources, which is mentioned in his book: “In the 9th and
even 10th century Georgian monks in Tayq and Kkhardjk were surrounded
by their coreligionists but they were of other nation – Armenians”
5. Marutyan mentions: “till the last quarter of the 11th century
Tayq was populated by the Chalcedon Armenians and this region is an
integral part of Great Armenia”6.

Correspondingly, Georgian and Turkish parties are partially negotiating
about the Armenian cultural heritage in Turkey too.

Georgian party considers those churches Georgian, substantiating
this only by the inscriptions in Georgian made on the churches. The
inscriptions in Georgian are explained by the fact that the church
rites among the Chalcedon Armenians in that region were held in
Georgian. And it is obvious that the inscription for the Chalcedon
churches built for the Armenian community were in Georgian.

Thus, this Turkish-Georgian agreement proceeds from the Georgian
interests because they manage to proclaim publicly that those monuments
are Georgian, which falls within the logic of the Georgian cultural and
historic claims. But Georgian interests and achievements are restricted
to that. Here one detail is important: if the aforementioned monuments
are restored as Georgian, the liturgy will not be served there due to
a simple reason that there are no adherents of the Georgian Orthodox
Church there. Thus, the restored “Georgian” churches in Turkey will
acquire the status of cultural monuments and not working religious
facilities. So such an “achievement” cannot be of religious or
political importance for Georgia. After the restoration, but being
inactive, the history of those churches or even the churches too will
fall into oblivion.

The agreement from the point of view of Turkish benefits The situation
is different for Turkey. So, according to the variant of the agreement
which is being discussed, Turkey will acquire a right to restore
mosques in Samtskhe-Javakhq, Akhltskha and Kobuleti and to build a new
mosque and a bath in Batumi. The most important is the fact that they
will be active religious facilities. This is the item which caused the
discontent of the Georgia Orthodox Church. The activity of the Muslim
religious organizations will, of course, serve to stirring up of the
local Muslim elements, the strengthening of the Muslim world-outlook
and, why not, the proselytism among the local Christians. And if those
organizations have constant financial assist from Turkey, it will be
clear what kind of bomb is planted on the territory of Georgia. The
considerable part of the Georgian community which is opposing to this
scenario has a serious concern that it will result in a kind of tension
between the Muslims and Christians living in the country. This is the
reason why the Georgian Patriarchate has already twice made statements
(on January 18 and February 4) in which it was mentioned that signing
of the protocols in the current condition was unacceptable.

The most dangerous for Georgia is considered to be the construction
of a new mosque in Batumi – the capital of Adzharia.

Today, 30% of population of Adzharia is Muslims (the population is
376.016, of which 115.161 are Muslims). They are Adzharians who are
known as the Georgians who adopted Islam. At present they preserved
their Georgian identity mainly due to the Georgian language, culture,
Georgian environment and Georgian citizenship. In past, during the
Russian-Turkish wars the Muslims from Adzharia mainly supported Turks.

Thus, during the Crimea war in 1853-1856 Adzharians rendered great
assistance to the Turkish army and during the 1877-1878 Russian-Turkish
war there were about 6000-10000 Adzharians, including high-ranking
officers in the Turkish army7. And when the territory, by the decision
of the Berlin summit, passed to Russia, many Adzharians moved to the
territory of the Ottoman Empire (Muhajirs). The other part stayed at
the territory of the Russian Empire where “Avengers” terrorist group
was formed. The targets of the terrorist group were Russian officers
and officials; they were mainly funded from the Ottoman Empire and
Great Britain8.

Later, at the end of the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century,
alongside with the growth of the nationalist moods, pro-Turkish
orientation got stronger among the Adzharians, pan-Turkic and
pan-Islamist party was created and its aim was to join Turkey. At
the same time, the local nationalist moods which pursued the idea of
creation of independent Adzharia, stirred up.

Nevertheless, after declaring the independent Georgia in 1918, “The
People’s Congress of Adzharia” in Batumi adopted pro-Georgian stance.

In past, they constituted 70% but recently, due to the efforts of the
Georgian Orthodox Church a vast number of them have been reconverted
to Christianity. Today there are a number of families in which
the representatives of the older generation are Muslims and the
younger generation is Christians. Under A. Abashidze Adzharia was
almost independent from Tbilisi, but M. Saakashvili managed to put
the end to the factual semi-independent status and to establish the
authority of Tbilisi in Adzharia. However, Adzharia still preserves the
status of autonomic republic which was guaranteed by the 1921 Moscow
Treaty. The item 6 of the aforementioned document stipulated that
Turkey is the guarantor of the Muslim majority living in Adzharia. This
circumstance, as well as the presence of the Muslims in Adzharia,
serves ground for the periodically manifested Turkish claims. They
were more vividly manifested in Turkish media and expert community
after the Georgian-Ossetian war in 2008. Thus, Hassan Ali Karasar,
the expert at SETA, immediately after the war presented extensive
analysis9 in which he urged the Turkish authorities to stir up the
Georgian direction of foreign policy, to reshape it, in particular,
shifting from the approach from Tbilisi-oriented to multi-vector one
and set direct ties with Adzharia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The
expert mentions that Turkey is involved in the processes in the
region in historical and demographic (here he means the Muslim
population) aspects. He remembered with pain the fact when, after
the events in 2004, M. Saakashvili’s cross (implying the new flag
of Georgia) was placed on Adzharia’s flag to which Turkish media
responded rather harshly. Particularly the segment which was close
to the authorities blamed M. Saakashvili and called him chauvinist10,
irresponsible person who used national and religious symbols without
any restrictions11. Thus, according to one of the Turkish experts “the
main problem of modern Georgia is marginalization of non-Christian
population, as this new state is based on past and Christian values”12.

At present the conclusion of this kind of Georgian-Turkish agreement
will be a prominent step in increasing of Islam and Turkish influence
among the Muslim population of Adzharia (let us mention that the
Muslims in Adzharia are Sunnites which is also an advantageous factor
for the Turkish party).

In the same way the restoration of mosques in Samtskhe-Javakhq,
Akhltskha and Kobuleti should be considered. They all will serve for
strengthening the positions of Islam on the spot, which is not an
equal worth concession on behalf of Georgia for the restoration of
inactive monuments on the territory of Turkey.

Conclusion For Georgia undertaking the restoration of the Armenian
churches of Tayq, in fact, declaration them as a part of Georgian
culture, is a cultural achievement because this church should have
a status not of an active church but status of a monument. But
in exchange for this concession Turkey will get 4 mosques in the
vulnerable regions of Georgia which will be a great political
achievement for Turkey and great political defeat of Georgia.

It is not difficult to forecast that in a consequence of the activity
of the mosques the stances of Islam on the territory of Georgia will
get stronger. So, this supposedly “cultural” initiative has definite
political purposes. Opposing of the Georgian Patriarchate to this
agreement is not only in Georgian interests but also in Armenian ones.

If the agreement is concluded in the form which is today submitted
for the negotiations, it becomes obvious that Turkey will appear in
the most profitable position. Turks estimated everything clearly – on
the one hand passing of the Armenian Chalcedon churches to Georgia will
cause new tension in the complicated Armenian-Georgian relations which
are especially tensed in religious issues and issues connected with
the churches. But the Turkish estimations are not restricted to that.

On the other hand it will considerably strengthen Turkish influence
in the domestic live in Georgia. The mosques in Georgia, thus turning
into a crucial weapon of Turkish expansionist policy, will threaten
Georgian identity and territorial integrity.

1

2

3 See Nodia G., Georgia’s Showdown
Between Church And State, 20.02.2011,

4 Õ~UÕ·Õ¯Õ¾Õ¡Õ¶O~DÕ” Õ¶Õ¸O~@Õ¸Õ£Õ´Õ¡Õ¶ Õ£Õ¸O~@Õ®Õ¨
Õ°Õ¡Õ¶Õ±Õ¶Õ¾Õ¡Õ® Õ§ Õ~NO~@Õ¡Õ½Õ¿Õ¡Õ¶Õ”Õ¶, 27.11.2008,

5 Ibid

6 Ibid

7 Asari Moin, Islamic Emirates of Tiflis-Georgia: Ajara & Meskhetia,
Feridun, 21.08.2008,

8 Ibid

9 Hasan Ali Karasar, Sahakashvili Pulled the Trigger: Turkey between
Russia and Georgia, Foundation for Political, Economic, and Social
Research, Policy Brief, August, 2008,

10 Hakan Albayrak, “SaakaÅ~_vili ve Å~^ovenist Siyasetin Ä°flası,”
Yeni Å~^afak, 11 August 2008. – reference by Hasan Ali Karasar,
Sahakashvili Pulled the Trigger: Turkey between Russia and Georgia,
Foundation for Political, Economic, and Social Research, Policy Brief,
August, 2008,

11 Ä°brahim KaragÑ~Ll, “Bir Delinin BaÅ~_ımıza Aзtıgı Belaya
Bakın,” Yeni Å~^afak, 12 August 2008. – reference by Hasan Ali
Karasar, Sahakashvili Pulled the Trigger: Turkey between Russia and
Georgia, Foundation for Political, Economic, and Social Research,
Policy Brief, August, 2008,

12Bayram Balci, Is there a place for Islam in Mikhael Saakashvili’s
Christian Georgia?

”Globus Energy and Regional Security”, issue 3, 2011

——————————————————————————–
Another materials of author

â~@¢ARMENIANS OF TBILISI: NEW REALITIES [14.04.2011] â~@¢PECULIARITIES
OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE NATIONAL
IDENTITY[20.10.2010] â~@¢The Armenian community in Tbilisi:
conclusion[11.12.2006]

From: Baghdasarian

VLADIMIR SARUKHANYAN WINS EUROPEAN AMATEUR BOXING CHAMPIONSHIPS BRONZE

PanARMENIAN.Net
June 24, 2011 – 14:01 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net – Armenia’s Vladimir Sarukhanyan won bronze at Men’s
2011 European Amateur Boxing Championships going on in Ankara, Turkey.

In a clash against Fatih Keles of Turkey, Sarukhanyan (under 60kg)
suffered a 10:5, 9: 5, 9: 6 loss as a result of 3 rounds.

At the Championships, Armenian team was represented by 7 boxers,
which dropped out in different competition stages.

From: Baghdasarian

HRAYR KARAPETYAN SAYS ARMENIAN AF HAVE A NUMBER OF PRIVILEGES

ARMENPRESS
JUNE 24, 2011
YEREVAN

“The Armenian side has a great privilege toward Azerbaijan both of
psychological and military nature”, chairman of the NA’s National
Security, Home Affairs and Defense Standing Committee Hrayr Karapetyan
told Armenpress.

“Today the soldiers of the Azerbaijani and Armenian armed forces are
young people born in 1993. Our privilege here is that those who serve
in the Armenian Armed Forces know where Artsakh is, were born in that
country, have grown there and know that it is their homeland. Thus,
they will be defending their homeland and will fight for it. And
those serving in the Azerbaijani army do not know even where Artsakh
is, they do not know what that country presents from itself. If war
starts tomorrow they will fight with invasion motives and for the
land of the other. This psychological privilege is great for us and
resolute”, he pointed out.

According to him, we have a big privilege as we have a more organized
Armed Forces, we are conducting more serious reforms in the military
system. “Of course we register negative cases as well but it is
necessary to note that the recent reforms in the legislative field
of educational and upbringing nature give their fruits, which
is impossible to say about Azerbaijani Armed Forces. Our army is
transparent, mass media first learns about each case and the recent
incidents in the Azerbaijani army are being hidden or burdened on
the Armenian party. With unknown reasons at the armed forces of the
rival the soldier dies “either from lightening or heart attack”,
Karapetyan said.

From: Baghdasarian

MFA: Armenia never negotiated Karabakh with Turkey

June 25, 2011 – 10:34 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net – Armenia has never negotiated the Nagorno Karabakh
issue with Turkey, spokesman for the Armenian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs said.

`Consequently, there was no agreement on return of five, three or even
one region,’ Tigran Balayan said when commenting on PACE President
Mevlut Cavusoglu’s statement, according to which Yerevan and Ankara
`reached agreement on return of five of three’ liberated territories
of Karabakh.

`Similar statements are just a manipulation,’ Balayan said, reminding
of assertions that Cavusoglu allegedly did not want restoration of the
ad hoc subcommittee on Karabakh.

From: Baghdasarian

Agence France Presse
June 23, 2011 Thursday 11:31 PM GMT

Obama calls Armenian, Azerbaijan leaders

WASHINGTON, June 23 2011

US President Barack Obama on Thursday called the presidents of Armenia
and Azerbaijan to urge progress in talks to end the long conflict over
the disputed Nagorny Karabakh region, officials said.

Obama spoke to Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian and Azerbaijani
President Ilham Aliyev ahead of a summit Friday in Kazan, Russia, to
be hosted by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, the White House said.

The US leader called on the bitter enemies to sign a “basic
principles” agreement amid fears that a failure to show progress could
lead to a new war over Karabakh, where some 30,000 people died in
fighting in the 1990s.

“President Obama told both leaders that now is the time to resolve
this conflict and to offer the people of Armenia, Azerbaijan, and
Nagorny-Karabakh a better future for themselves and for their
children,” the White House statement said.

The “basic principles” document envisages an Armenian withdrawal from
areas around Karabakh seized during the war, the return of refugees,
international security guarantees, and a vote on the final status of
the territory at some point in the future.

The US, Russian and French presidents urged both countries to “move
beyond the unacceptable status quo” and “take a decisive step towards
a peaceful settlement” in a statement issued at the G8 summit last
month.

The general secretary of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation
in Europe, which has been mediating the negotiations, expressed hope
this week that a breakthrough might be possible at Friday’s talks.

“Very rarely have we observed moments when our hopes for a final peace
settlement have been as high as they are now,” said OSCE General
Secretary Marc Perrin de Brichambaut.

But a basic principles agreement does not represent a peace deal and
the two sides remain deeply divided over the final status of Karabakh,
which was seized from Azerbaijan by ethnic Armenian forces backed by
Yerevan during the war.

Tensions have been escalating amid firefights along the Karabakh
frontline and threats from Azerbaijan to seize the region back by
force if talks don’t yield results.

mkh-emc-col/tr

From: Baghdasarian

New York Times
June 24 2011

Azerbaijan and Armenia Fail to End Enclave Dispute

By ELLEN BARRY
Published: June 24, 2011

MOSCOW – Hopes for a breakthrough on a conflict between Azerbaijan and
Armenia were deflated Friday when Russia, which convened talks in the
city of Kazan, released a statement saying that the leaders of the two
countries had not agreed to the framework for a deal.

International mediators had set the bar high for the presidential
talks on Friday, calling for approval of a set of basic principles
that would defuse the standoff over Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian
enclave that sought to break away from Azerbaijan toward the end of
the Soviet period.

After a meeting that lasted more than an hour, the sides released a
statement saying that a `common understanding had been reached on a
number of issues whose resolution will help create the conditions for
approval of the basic principles.’

Russia, France and the United States had applied concerted pressure on
the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan to approve the basic principles
in Kazan. Russia’s president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, has invested
abundant time and political capital in the project, but the approach
of the Russian election season will make that more difficult now.

`This was supposed to be the moment,’ said Thomas de Waal, a Caucasus
specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in
Washington. `Every year that this goes on, the positions of the sides
harden, and therefore it becomes easier to have a war.’

A diplomat involved in the talks, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media,
said that Friday’s talks were `not a make-or-break meeting’ and that
work on an agreement would continue. The diplomat said, however, that
the two sides had made less progress than mediators had hoped.

`It was clear in the talks that there is still a great deal of
mistrust between the sides,’ he said. `We all felt it would be
possible to achieve more.’

Domestic politics have proved to be a formidable obstacle to a resolution.

The two-decade stalemate over Nagorno-Karabakh has stoked ferocious
passions in both Armenia and Azerbaijan, and their leaders risk an
angry domestic reaction if they are seen as conceding. As the Kazan
meeting approached, mediators said substantive differences were small,
but it was not clear whether the leaders had the political will to
present a deal to their citizens.

Like the ethnic enclaves of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in neighboring
Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh had limited autonomy in the Soviet system.
When its predominantly Armenian population tried to break away from
Azerbaijan and join Armenia near the end of the Soviet era, war broke
out, leaving as many as 20,000 people dead and more than a million
displaced.

A cease-fire has been in place since 1994, but about 30 people have
been killed annually on the boundary, and stalled negotiations have
ratcheted up talk of war. Azerbaijan, in particular, has channeled its
oil wealth into a military buildup; it plans to flaunt its power in a
parade in the capital, Baku, on Sunday.

Agreement on the basic principles would allow work to begin on a peace
treaty. The principles include granting Nagorno-Karabakh an interim
self-governing status, returning a buffer zone to Azerbaijani control,
guaranteeing refugees the right of return, providing a safe corridor
between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia, creating an international
peacekeeping force, and – perhaps the thorniest challenge – beginning
the process of determining the enclave’s ultimate status.

Svante E. Cornell, a Caucasus expert at the School of Advanced
International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, said this round of
talks felt too familiar to give him much optimism.

`To be disappointed, you have to have expectations,’ Mr. Cornell said.
`I did not. Having tracked this conflict for a decade, there have been
so many moments when co-chairs and others have expressed hopes, but
nothing came out of it.’

From: Baghdasarian

EIN News (press release)
June 24 2011

Innovative Post-Conflict Reconstruction Study for Nagorno-Karabakh
Territories of Azerbaijan Launched in Brussels
PR Newswire

BRUSSELS and LONDON, June 25, 2011 /PRNewswire/ —

– International Bank of Azerbaijan Commits to Help Finance
Reconstruction Estimated $60 Billion to Rehabilitate All Affected
Territories

– Study Based on World Bank and EBRD Post-Conflict Reconstruction Models

Latvian MEP Inese Vaidere held a dinner debate to present a new study
on the rehabilitation of Azerbaijan’s post-conflict territories at the
European Parliament on 20 June. The discussion completed a three
capital cycle in London and Washington. The forward-looking study
offers a “businessman’s blueprint” for post-conflict reconstruction of
the Nagorno-Karabakh related territories. The status of these
territories and their economic development remains unresolved since
the 1988-1994 war between Armenia and Azerbaijan that left one-fifth
of Azerbaijan occupied by Armenian forces.

The book, Basic Principles for the Rehabilitation of Azerbaijan’s
Post-Conflict Territories, is the undertaking of an independent team
of experts, economists and scholars led by Dr. Eldar Ismailov,
Chairman of the Baku and Stockholm-based Institute for Strategic
Studies of the Caucasus (ISSC) and former Opposition Member of
Parliament, Dr. Nazim Muzzafarli. The International Bank of
Azerbaijan (IBA) supported the research. The new study provides a
sector-by-sector analysis and order of battle for rehabilitation and
reconstruction of $30 billion in basic infrastructure and services for
territories around Nagorno-Karabakh. Total reconstruction costs top
$60 billion by Government estimates for all affected territories.

“IBA commits itself with its international partners to helping to
finance reconstruction of the affected territories, if and when that
time comes,” stated Chairman of the International Bank of Azerbaijan
Dr. Jahangir Hajiyev in London. “We hope to see the soonest possible
start to reconstruction of the damaged areas when the two sides have
agreed. The opportunity cost to all the peoples of the region for
social, economic and political development has been too high,” he
added. The Caspian region is recognized as the fastest growing trade
corridor in the world.

Dr. S. Frederick Starr, Chairman of Johns Hopkins University’s Central
Asia and Caucasus Institute (CACI) and author of the book’s
introduction, explained that currently in these territories there is
little or no electricity, telecommunications, water, police and other
critical infrastructure and services vital to the return of
populations and economic development. Alexandros Peterson, Research
Director at the Henry Jackson Society, warned that unaddressed, the
conflict region could become a larger haven for the export of
instability, drug trafficking and other threats to regional political
and economic stability.

London launch host, Lord Waverley, Chairman of the Central Asia
All-Party Parliamentary Group at Westminster, urged “a balanced
hearing of issues on both sides of the conflict which may be
resolvable” and “modicum of common sense.” Co-host Lady Barbara
Judge, Chair of the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)’s
Middle East Institute Advisory Council, asked if there were additional
good auspices in the EU, think tanks and research organizations that
could broaden communications.

CONTACT: Lyndsay Howard, PANGAEIA Communications, [email protected] US
+1-203-542-7777 and UK +44-207-7321-3900

From: Baghdasarian

news.am, Armenia
June 24 2011

Armenian President to meet OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs

June 24, 2011 | 18:29

KAZAN. – Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan is expected to meet with
OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs Igor Popov (Russia), Bernard Fassier
(France) and Robert Bradtke (U.S.) in Kazan on June 25, Armenian
News-NEWS.am correspondent reports from Kazan.

The mediators will also meet with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev.

Presidents of Armenia, Russia and Azerbaijan Serzh Sargsyan, Dmitry
Medvedev and Ilham Aliyev arrived in Kazan to hold talks on Karabakh
conflict resolution.

From: Baghdasarian