Author: Emil Lazarian

Daily Times, Pakistan
May 19 2005
VIEW: Turkey, Armenia, and the burden of memory
-Charles Tannock
The European Parliament is pressing for Turkish recognition of
the Armenian genocide. It is also calling for an end to the trade
embargo by Turkey and its close ally Azerbaijan against the Republic
of Armenia, a reopening of frontiers, and a land-for-peace deal to
resolve the territorial dispute over Nagorno Karabakh in Azerbaijan
and safeguard its Armenian identity
All wars end, eventually. But memories of atrocity never seem to
fade, as the anti-Japanese riots now taking place in China remind us.
The 90th anniversary of the Armenian massacres of 1915, ordered by
the ruling Young Turks of the Ottoman Empire and carried out by the
Kurds, is another wound that will not heal, but one that must be
treated if Turkey’s progress toward European Union membership is to
proceed smoothly.
It is believed that the Armenian genocide inspired the Nazis in their
plans for the extermination of Jews. However, in comparison with the
Holocaust, most people still know little about this dark episode.
Indeed, it is hard for most of us to imagine the scale of suffering
and devastation inflicted on the Armenian people and their ancestral
homelands. But many members of today’s thriving global Armenian
Diaspora have direct ancestors who perished, and carry an oral
historical tradition that keeps the memories burning.
It is particularly ironic that many Kurds from Turkey’s southeastern
provinces, having been promised Armenian property and a guaranteed
place in heaven for killing infidels, were willingly complicit in
the genocide. They later found themselves on the losing end of a
long history of violence between their own separatist forces and
the Turkish army, as well as being subjected to an ongoing policy of
discrimination and forced assimilation.
Historically, the ancient Christian Armenians were amongst the most
progressive people in the East, but in the nineteenth century Armenia
was divided between the Ottoman Empire and Russia. Sultan Abdulhamit
II organised the massacres of 1895-97 but it was not until the spring
of 1915, under the cover of the World War I, that the Young Turks’
nationalistic government found the political will to execute a true
genocide.
Initially, Armenian intellectuals were arrested and executed in
public hangings in groups of 50 to 100. Ordinary Armenians were thus
deprived of their leaders, and soon after were massacred. Many were
burnt alive. Approximately 500,000 were killed in the last seven months
of 1915, with the majority of the survivors deported to desert areas
in Syria, where they died from either starvation or disease. It is
estimated that 1.5 million people perished.
Recently, the Armenian Diaspora has been calling on Turkey to face up
to its past and recognise its historic crime. Turkey’s official line
remains that the allegation is based on unfounded or exaggerated
claims, and that the deaths that occurred resulted from combat
against Armenians collaborating with invading Russian forces during
the World War I, or as a result of disease and hunger during the
forced deportations. Moreover, the local Turkish population allegedly
suffered similar casualties.
Turkey thus argues that the charge of genocide is designed to besmirch
Turkey’s honour and impede its progress towards EU accession. There are
also understandable fears that diverging from the official line would
trigger a flood of compensation claims, as occurred against Germany.
For many politicians, particularly in America, there is an
unwillingness to upset Turkey without strong justification, given its
record as a loyal NATO ally and putative EU candidate country. But,
despite almost half a century of membership in the Council of Europe –
ostensibly a guardian of human rights, including freedom of speech
and conscience – Turkey still punishes as crime against national
honour any suggestion that the Armenian genocide is an historic
truth. Fortunately, this article of Turkey’s penal code is now due
for review and possible repeal.
Indeed, broader changes are afoot in Turkey. The press and government,
mindful of the requirements of EU membership, are finally opening
the sensitive Armenian issue to debate. Even Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan, under increasing EU pressure as accession negotiations
are due to begin this October, has agreed to an impartial study by
academic historians, although he has reiterated his belief that the
genocide never occurred. In France, the historical occurrence of the
Armenian genocide is enshrined in law, and denial of its occurrence
is regarded in the same way as Holocaust denial.
The European Parliament is pressing for Turkish recognition of
the Armenian genocide. It is also calling for an end to the trade
embargo by Turkey and its close ally Azerbaijan against the Republic
of Armenia, a reopening of frontiers, and a land-for-peace deal to
resolve the territorial dispute over Nagorno Karabakh in Azerbaijan
and safeguard its Armenian identity.
Armenia, an independent country since 1991, remains dependent on
continued Russian protection, as was the case in 1920 when it joined
the Soviet Union rather than suffer further Turkish invasion. This
is not healthy for the development of Armenia’s democracy and weak
economy. Nor does Armenia’s continued dependence on Russia bode well
for regional co-operation, given deep resentment of Russian meddling
in neighbouring Georgia and Azerbaijan.
There is only one way forward for Turkey, Armenia, and the region.
The future will begin only when Turkey – like Germany in the past and
Serbia and Croatia now – repudiates its policy of denial and faces up
to its terrible crimes of 1915. Only then can the past truly be past.
– DT-PS
Charles Tannock is chairman of the European Parliament’s Human Rights
Committee

ARMENIA, AZERBAIJAN APPEAR TO EDGE CLOSER TO KARABAKH PEACE
Emil Danielyan 5/20/05
Eurasianet Organization
May 20 2005
Armenia and Azerbaijan appear to have moved closer to resolving their
long-running conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, following a face-to-face
meeting between the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents.
Officials in both countries remained tight-lipped about details of
the latest round of talks. But it appears Armenian President Robert
Kocharian and his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliyev built on
progress made by their foreign ministers over the past year. The two
ministers are now expected to start another series of peace talks
to try to flesh out understandings reportedly reached by Aliyev
and Kocharian.
The Armenian and Azerbaijani leaders spoke for nearly three hours late
on May 15 and early on May 16 on the sidelines of a Council of Europe
summit in Warsaw. “I hope that the negotiations will produce results
and the issues between us will be resolved,” Aliyev told Azerbaijani
journalists afterward.
“The Armenian side finds positive the latest meeting in Warsaw
between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan,” the Armenian
Foreign Ministry said in a statement on May 18. “It was yet another
step forward in the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.”
Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov and his Armenian
opposite number Vartan Oskanian have said they were given a mandate
to continue the so-called “Prague process.” The two men held a series
of meetings in the Czech capital last year and in January, reporting
significant progress toward a long-awaited Karabakh settlement. They
both said in April that further headway required the personal
intervention of their presidents.
Russia’s chief Karabakh negotiator, Yuri Merzlyakov, told Radio
Free Europe/Radio Liberty on May 19 that the two leaders had reached
“a point where they can no longer say general things.” Publicizing
details of their discussions at this juncture would be highly
counterproductive, Merzlyakov said.
But some details have emerged. Speaking on Armenian state television
May 19, Oskanian revealed that the agenda of the negotiations
included four basic “elements” — Karabakh’s status (the main bone
of contention), the liberation of Armenian-occupied Azerbaijani
territories that surround the disputed enclave, return of refugees
and post-conflict security. “We have reached common ground on some
issues and serious disagreements on others. Our differences have been
somewhat bridged on one issue,” he said, adding that it relates to
Karabakh’s future status.
The conflicting parties have reportedly been discussing a gradual
resolution of the conflict, under which a formal determination on
Karabakh’s status would be preceded by the evacuation of Armenian
forces from broad swaths of territory in Azerbaijan. Armenian troops
occupied the Azerbaijani territory during the 1991-1994 war. This
so-called “phased” strategy of conflict resolution has always been
preferred by Azerbaijan. [For background see the Eurasia Insight
archive].
Official Yerevan and Karabakh’s ethnic Armenian leadership until
recently insisted on a “package” accord that would resolve all
contentious issues at once. But they now seem ready to embrace the
phased formula so long as they get other international guarantees of
continued Armenian control over Karabakh. Armenian Defense Minister
Serge Sarkisian noted recently that this could include a formal pledge
by the international community to hold a referendum of independence
in Karabakh.
“The issue of Karabakh’s status of paramount importance to us,”
stressed Oskanian. “Without having it clarified [beforehand] we are
simply not prepared for serious discussions on other issues … It can
be said that we registered a small movement forward on the [status]
issue, which enables us to tackle other issues in earnest.”
According to Mammadyarov, the Warsaw meeting focused on a timetable
for Armenian withdrawal from all of the occupied Azerbaijani lands,
including the Lachin district that links Armenia proper to Karabakh.
“We are discussing which district should be liberated and when,”
Mammadyarov told Azerbaijan’s ATV channel. “They (the Armenians)
agree that all the districts should be returned.”
The Armenian side denied the claims, with Oskanian saying that Lachin’s
return is “non-negotiable.” He also rejected Aliyev’s offer to grant
Karabakh a “high degree of autonomy.” The Armenians maintain that they
will never agree to a formula that returns Karabakh to Azerbaijani
jurisdiction.
Baku’s position, at least in public, is diametrically opposite. “We
demand the restoration of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity,” Aliyev
said in his speech at the Warsaw summit.
The French, Russian and US diplomats leading the Minsk Group of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe have so far failed
to reconcile these conflicting approaches, despite coming close on
several occasions in the past. An apparent deal hammered out during
talks at Key West in 2001 fell apart after facing considerable domestic
opposition in both Armenia and Azerbaijan. [For background see the
Eurasia Insight archive]. The recent upbeat statements coming from
Baku and Yerevan suggest that chances for Karabakh peace are better
now than at any time since the Key West talks ended.
Editor’s Note: Emil Danielyan is a Yerevan-based journalist and
political analyst.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE DEVOTED TO THE CULTURE AND HISTORY OF
TALLISH AND THE TALLISH PEOPLE TO TAKE PLACE IN TSAGHKADSOR (ARMENIA)
ON MAY 20-22
ARKA News Agency
20 May 2005
CONFERENCES, EXHIBITIONS, SEMINARS
YEREVAN, May 20. /ARKA/. An international conference devoted to the
culture and history of Tallish and Tallish people will take place
in Tsaghkadsor (Armenia) on May 20-22. According to the Caucasus
Center for Iranian Studies, the speeches of a representative of the
Tallish National Movement (TNM) Fakhraddin Abboszod, rector of Yerevan
State University Razmik Martirosyan, Deputy Head of the Department
for Iranian Studies of Yerevan State University, Professor Garnik
Asatryan will be introduced at the conference. Besides scientists
from various countries of the world also representatives of Tallish
national movement of Azerbaijan, as well as representatives of Tallish
from Iran will participate in the conference.
Tallish are Iranian language speaking people living in Azerbaijan and
Iran. The real population of Tallish makes abut a million of people
in Azerbaijan and a million in Iran. Currently, Tallish live in the
territory of South-West regions of Azerbaiojan, namely Lencoran,
(in Tallish – Lankon), Lerik, Masalin, Asarin and Yardamlin regions.
On June 21, 1993 a group of servicemen under the leadership of Colonel
Alikram Gummatov declared of establishment of Tallish Mughan Republic
on the territory of seven south -eastern regions of Azerbaijan. On
August 24, 1993 TMR was abolished and all the leaders, namely the
President, Minister of Defense and over 20 people were arrested.
The approaching conference already had impetuous feedback in the
Azerbaijani Mass Media.
The organizers of the conference are the Department of Iranian Studies
of Yerevan State University and Caucasus Center for Iranian Studies
(Yerevan).

Local Armenian Girls Closer to Citizenship
by Atle Erlingsson.
KLAS-TV, NV
May 17 2005
Two local Armenian girls who faced deportation earlier this year may
soon be off the radar of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Senator Harry Reid and then Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge
stepped in to halt the deportation. Now, there’s word the girls may
be able to stay for good.
Their father, Ruben Sarkisian, just passed his citizenship test,
which puts him that much closer to becoming a full-fledged citizen.
When that happens, it opens the doors for the girls to be allowed
to stay.
Seventeen-year-old Miriam, a junior at Palo Verde High School, is a
virtual lock since she’s still a juvenile. But 19-year-old Emma must
file extensive paperwork to remain in the U.S. since she’s an adult.
Miriam says getting this far was a challenge in itself. Their dad
speaks very little English. So, they’ve been helping him study for
the test.
“He studied everyday, very night, all day. He would sit here on the
table. He’s knows everything by heart. He would rewrite them. He’d
make us like write the questions and answer them,” Miriam said.
This all started four months ago when the girls went to a local
immigration office to get documents needed to get their driver’s
licenses and to apply for college. The girls were detained and prepared
for deportation.
When the family immigrated to the U.S., the girls were very young
and the parents thought the children were allowed to stay.
The Sarkisian girls were given a six-month reprieve by the government.
They will meet with immigration officials in July to show the progress
their family is making toward establishing citizenship.
It could take several weeks if not more than a month to get Ruben
Sarkisian fully established. After that, they will start making
arrangements for the girls.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

The New Anatolian, Turkey
May 16 2005
‘Germany has the full support for Turkey’
German Ambassador Wolf-Ruthart Born: ‘We’re very happy with the new
secretary-general of the MGK’
By Nursun EREL
The German ambassador complains about the daily Vakit, asking: ‘Using
such a headline for the chancellor — “Nazi Kafas?” (Nazi Head) —
is this good journalism?’
‘The most important issue in Turkey is overcoming social differences.
All the other issues are secondary. If you ask the average Turkish
person, he will ask for a job’
German Ambassador Wolf-Ruthart Born, evaluating bilateral relations
with Turkey, said, “We are at an excellent point, Germany has full
support for Turkey towards its EU ambition.” In his interview with
TNA, Ambassador Born emphasized Germany’s uneasiness about the Vakit
daily — a Turkish daily published in Germany until recently —
and asked: “Is this good journalism? Publishing a headline on the
German chancellor saying Nazi Kafas [Nazi Head]? And publishing
such cartoons? In my opinion it is a horrible thing.” He further
claimed that the prohibition of the Turkish daily newspaper in
Germany was done on a completely legal basis. But as for dealing
with illegal publications of the terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party
(PKK) in Germany, Ambassador Born expressed reluctance: “What kind of
publications are they? If they are doing this from underground, such as
sending the publications in an envelope, it is not easy to deal with.”
Ambassador Born, answering the questions of TNA, gave his views on
a wide range of issues:
Bilateral relations
TNA: How do you see bilateral relations with Turkey?
BORN: Excellent. It is very rare for a German chancellor to visit a
country three times in less than in two years. Chancellor [Gerhard
Schroeder] repeated his full support for Turkey’s European Union
ambition, he repeated again and again that on Oct. 3, the accession
negotiations will start. This is a very clear message. You have the
backing of the Germany.
TNA: The chancellor seemed surprised at getting a critical question
about the prohibition of the Vakit daily newspaper in Germany,
didn’t he?
BORN: Not at all. Vakit was prohibited by legal procedures and for
obvious reasons. If you see what Vakit published in Germany, by the
way, what is published in Turkey, I wonder if you’d think this is
a good newspaper. I’m very tired of this newspaper, actually it is
a horrible thing, not a newspaper. But the chancellor very clearly
said that the prohibition was legal, secondly the administrative
prohibition was possible, because the question was like, ‘Even the
court didn’t prohibit the newspaper.’ In Germany, the legal system
says administrative prohibition is also possible, but you can go
to the court too, then you get the court decision. Now my guess,
and also the chancellor’s, is the court will certainly confirm
this decision. Because Vakit was [trafficking] in racist attitudes,
attacking our Jewish citizens in Germany. I wonder if they don’t have
a lawyer, to undertake legal records or to go to the court. If they
are that sure about their case, why don’t they go to the court? You
see these headlines, and cartoons showing our chancellor as a nazi?
The headline is ‘Nazi Kafas’ (Nazi Head) — is this good journalism?
You see the cartoon, his footprints are the Nazi symbol [the
swastika]. Is there any humor in that?
Turkish cartoonist
TNA: But the Turkish prime minister’s attitude towards Turkish
cartoonist Musa Kart was once severely criticized by the Germans too.
These are just cartoons.
BORN: But our chancellor did not take any action, you see. You have
enormous freedom in Germany, you have the freedom of the press but
within the limits of the law.
TNA: If it’s that easy to prohibit a publication in Germany, what about
the journals or bulletins spread by the PKK calling for violence? Why
don’t we see any action against them?
BORN: Are they officially sold, or are they circulated in envelopes?
So if they are like this [in envelopes], if they are doing this from
underground it’s not easy to deal with, you know it’s not easy to act
like the criminals act. But I have to remind you that PKK is accepted
as a terrorist organization in Germany.
TNA: How do you see the atmosphere that the Turkish press has faced
of late? It seems that the new penal code is not going to be amended
in line with the requests of the press circles. Even though it was
postponed.
BORN: We’re very closely observing the developments. Just before
you came in, I was reading the Christian Democratic Union’s (CDU)
communique about it, so I don’t want to get into details now, but let’s
wait to see what the final product is, it is not the final product yet,
it will come out as I understand on June 1. The Parliament may still
have a look on it, so we will follow the developments very closely
and report about it. My journalist friends here tell me that compared
to previous situations, you’ve got more freedom than before.
The military-civilian relationship
TNA: And the military-civil relationship. Do steps still need to
be taken?
BORN: One of the suggestions by the EU was to put more civilian
elements into this relationship. So the secretary general of the
National Security Council (MGK) now is a civilian. A former ambassador
who does a very good job. All we ambassadors have regular contacts with
him and I must say we appreciate this very much. I suppose these are
the first steps and maybe in the long run, further steps might follow.
TNA: Isn’t it a problem for EU side, that the Turkish chief negotiator
still hasn’t been appointed yet?
BORN: The negotiations will start on Oct. 3 so you have enough time.
During our lunch we met with Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, he
mentioned in his speech himself as the chief negotiator.
The headscarf issue
TNA: The headscarf issue is always very controversial in Turkey. Do
you see this issue also as a matter for discussion in Germany?
BORN: In private life everybody is free to wear or not to wear what he
or she wants. But in public life you have many possibilities, you see
some countries do it this way and some countries do it the other way,
so there is margin for discussion, we discuss that also in Germany
TNA: So what’s the result?
BORN: The result is mixed. It went to the [German] Constitutional
Court. We have the cultural autonomy of the federated states, you
have some states that they say no problem, let them wear headscarf as
teachers. The girls, I mean the students, can do it anyway, there’s no
problem with that anyway. It’s just a matter for teaching personnel,
because it is said that they should not wear it as a visible religious
symbol.
TNA: So in most of the European countries and in Germany, in higher
education there is no such problem?
BORN: To my knowledge, no. We don’t have a Board of Higher Education
(YOK) [as in Turkey], our universities are fairly autonomous.
TNA: Do you think YOK is an obstacle to autonomy?
BORN: No comment on that.
TNA: How do you approach to the Armenian allegations and accusations
towards Turkey?
BORN: A very good idea put forth by Prime Minister Erdogan was
establishing a commission in which historians, experts will take part
from both sides and from abroad. Our chancellor said that we welcome
such an idea and even are ready to participate. So if this committee
is going to be established and if German experts are needed, we will
be there.
TNA: On the Cyprus issue, it seems a total disappointment for the
Turkish Cypriots up to now. How do you see the future?
BORN: Because you did all the right things, we [the EU] didn’t deliver
unfortunately even the financial support, because we couldn’t get
the unanimity to implement this decision. So now we hope that we
will reach this goal. But the basic hope now is the initiative to be
developed by the UN secretary-general to gather both sides’ concerns
and resume [efforts for] a solution to be negotiated, which will end
with a united Cyprus.
The poverty line
TNA: You travel quite a bit. How do you see the regional differences
in Turkey?
BORN: I saw considerable parts of the country from north to south,
from east to west. I met many, many people, I talked to them, listened
to many people. So I have a certain impression of the country. There
is a lot of unemployment and poverty in the southeastern parts
particularly. You grasp the poverty. You hear it, you talk to them,
it is fairly visible. You may discuss the Kurdish, or Armenian issues,
you may discuss many things, you may discuss the civilian-military
issues, but the most important issue in Turkey is to overcome the
social differences. All the other issues are secondary. In my mind
this is the most burning challenge. If you ask the average Turkish
person, he will ask for a job.
The average income is around $4,000 per capita, but look at how many
people are under the average. The numbers I read, that 15 million are
very poor, another 10 million are poor, so 25 million people in Turkey
are around the poverty line, which means [income of] about 100-200
euros per year. That is a big challenge. Therefore let’s deal with
the bread and butter issues.
TNA: And how about Turkish cuisine?
BORN: So many colors and smells. The various fish, they all are so
delicious, and the Turkish bread, the pides with meat or cheese. And
that delicious manti, those fresh herbs and yogurt (cacik), the
delicious big black Turkish olives, they all are mouth-watering
aren’t they? So, these are my favorite dishes, I’m afraid I eat too
much, so sometimes I feel my trousers don’t fit. But how can I stay
away? You’ve got very good wines which I can’t refuse, and I can’t
say no to a glass of good raki. So it is very nice to be here.

ARMENIA TO GIVE GEORGIA 15 BEZOARDIC GOATS BY END OF 2005
YEREVAN, MAY 19. ARMINFO. 15 bezoardic goats registered in the Red
Book will be transported from Armenia to Georgia by the end of 2005
for the renewal of their population.
A representative of the World Wilderness Fund (WWF) in Armenia Karen
Manvelyan informed ARMINFO’s reporter, that the reintroduction of
bezoardic goat will be fulfilled in the Kharagaulian national park
of Georgia’s Borzhomi region. The WWF of Switzerland allotted about
$60.000 for realization of this project.
He also informed that the transfer of red deers from Georgian side
to “Dilijan” national park is delayed for lack of finances. To note,
the red deer has almost disappeared in Armenia, it only occasionally
run into Armenia’s territory from Azerbaijan crossing a contact line
of both countries’ armies.

OSCE report on Upper Garabagh delayed
Baku, May 16, AssA-Irada
The report on Upper Garabagh, to be discussed at the next annual
session of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (PA), is being delayed.
MP Eldar Ibrahimov, member of the Azerbaijani delegation at OSCE
PA, said the Assembly has explained the delay with rapporteur Goran
Lennmarker’s failure to complete the report due to his official trips.
Ibrahimov said the agenda of the OSCE PA session due in Washington will
be ascertained in Copenhagen late in May-early June. It is currently
uncertain whether or not Lennmarker’s report will be discussed at
the session, as including it in the agenda as a separate issue will
not be possible if it is not ready in time, said Ibrahimov.*
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RETURN OF REFUGEES INSTEAD RESOLUTION
Azat Artsakh – Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
16 May 05
In several of my articles I have touched upon the problem of refugees
in the post-Soviet space, as well as outside it in the context of
resolution of ethnic and political conflicts. It was mentioned that
the degree of urgency of this problem is determined by the degree
of willingness of the conflicts sides, as well as the international
mediators, to accept a resolution through compromise. This equally
refers to the problem of resolution of the conflict of Nagorno
Karabakh. One can hardly find an ethnic and political conflict during
which the military actions do not result in partial or complete
ethnic cleansing, that is emergence of refugees and deportees (we
will use the word ‘refugee’ for both). However, in the process of
settlement of these conflicts the problem of return of refugees to
their former places of residence is either considered as one of the
pressing problems or is not touched upon at all. For example, in the
peace process of the conflicts of Nagorno Karabakh and Abkhazia the
problem of refugees is drown to the foreground. This problem once
used to be primary in the conflicts between Osetia and Ingushia,
Georgia and Osia. Whereas, so far no one has insisted on the return
of the Russian-speaking population of Chechnya (Russians, Ukrainians,
Armenians, Georgians, etc.) as one of the primary steps in conflict
resolution. Moreover, the question of return of tens of thousand
native Chechens who had had to leave for Ingushetia and other places
in the Russian Federation was not discussed at all. This is not
accidental. The emergence of the factor of refugees is determined
by the reluctance of one or all the parties of the conflict to solve
it through peace talks, no matter how long it may last. In so far as
mainly the problem of status of this or that state (in other words,
the problem of self-determination of the nation) underlies ethnic
and political conflicts, ethnic cleansing represents to the conflict
parties an extremely effective method of accelerating the political
resolution of the conflict in favour of one of the parties. For
example, there was a time when the Communist leaders of Azerbaijan
adopted a line of artificially changing the demographic state of
the Autonomous Region of Nagorno Karabakh (NKAR) in favour of the
Azerbaijani population, aiming to dissolve the Armenian sovereignty
on the basis of the will of the majority of inhabitants of NKAR, which
would be represented ethnic Azerbaijanis, as the Baku authorities had
planned. However, they did not manage to fulfil their plan. Facing
the constitutional decision of the February 20, 1988 meeting of
the NKAR Soviet of People’s Deputies containing a request to the
central authorities of the Union to join the autonomous region to
the Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan, the Baku authorities
undertook ethnic cleansings of Armenians both in the territory of the
autonomous region and in the entire republic of Azerbaijan presenting
their actions as the consequences of the territorial claims of Armenia
against Azerbaijan. Thereby the Azerbaijani authorities tried hard
(as they do now) to reshape the problem of self-determination into
a territorial dispute. And as the government of the Union came to a
legal deadlock because of the imperfection of the Constitution of the
USSR, not only it did not prevent the ethnic cleansing of Armenians
in Azerbaijan, but also actively accelerated the process through the
military action named “Koltso” in NKAR and the district of Getashen
in May 1991 to maintain passport control there. However, the plan
was not brought into being; first because of the dissolution of the
Soviet Union in December 1991, and second, the pull-out of Russian
troops from Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh. This was followed by
military actions between the two states, Azerbaijan and NKR, as a
resultof which the Azerbaijani population left Nagorno Karabakh. Here
is another example. Before the military actions in Abkhazia (before the
Georgian population leaved Abkhazia) the constitutional solution of the
Abkhazian issue supposed that the sovereign republic would remain in
Georgia because the majority of the population of the Autonomous Soviet
Socialist Republic of Abkhazia were ethnic Georgians. Consequently,
the resolution of the Abkhazian issue on the basis of the will of the
native population of the sovereignty (that is, the Abkhazians, reduced
from an ethnic majority to an ethnic minority in their home land under
the Soviet rule) required a change in the demographic picture of the
republic in favour of the Abkhazian population, which was achieved
through military actions. I gave these two examples to clarify why
in the case of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and Georgian – Abkhazian
conflict Azerbaijan and Georgia insist on the return of the refugees,
while Karabakh and Abkhazia demand the solution of the question of
status. The party for whom the demographic situation is favourable
demands the discussion of the question of status. And vice versa, the
party for whom the demographic picture is unfavourable is first of all
concerned about changing the situation by this parameter. The proof
to the vital interest of Baku in re-drawing the demographic picture
in the area of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict was the OSCE monitoring
of the territories controlled by the NKR authorities undertaken by
official Baku, its aim being finding facts on settlement there. Taken
by surprise by the information of the OSCE fact-finding group that
the region of Kelbajar is inhabited by a small group of Armenian
citizens who had been deported from Sumgait, Baku, Kirovabad and
other areas in the neighbour republic, the vice foreign minister of
Azerbaijan Araz Azimov demanded from the OSCE mission to take actions
at deporting those people. Azimov’s actions can be understood as the
reluctance of Azerbaijan to have Armenians living in their territory
even as citizens of Azerbaijan. Whereas, the return of the refugees
is practically impossible without the final political (or political
and legal) resolution of the ethnic and political conflict, because
the voluntary return of refugees to their former places of residence
is possible only in case of providing guarantees for political, legal
and social security there. However, no one can give such guarantees
to the refugees unless the final political and legal resolution of
the issue is reached. In this respect it is interesting to read the
letter of the Georgian refugee from South Osia Henrich Geladze in the
Georgian newspaper “Sakartvelo ” (# 53, 1998). He writes that despite
the pledges of the Tbilisi authorities that the Georgians who had left
South Osia could be sure to go back to their homes, they will never go
back unless the full authority of Georgia is restored there. Moreover,
Geladze writes that they still remember the tragic fate of the Georgian
refugees who hurried to return to the region of Gali of Abkhazia.
In reference to the Karabakh issue the words of Henrich Geladze mean
that the Azerbaijani refugees from Nagorno Karabakh will never come
back unless Azerbaijan gets full control of Nagorno Karabakh. This
answers the question why not very long ago Baku authorities turned down
the proposal of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs, at the heart of which
the idea of a “common state” was placed which excluded relationships
of subordination between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh. It turned
out that the authorities of Baku were rather interested in a resolution
which would enable changing the demographic picture of Nagorno Karabakh
in favour of the Azerbaijani population by subsequent dissolution
of the Armenian statehood which is still unrecognized than in the
territorial integrity of Azerbaijan actually presupposed by the idea
of a “common state”. It is clear that no single Armenian of Nagorno
Karabakh will accept such a scenario of “resolution”. Thus we come to
the conclusion that including the issue of return of refugees in the
resolution plan as one of the primary steps on the way of conciliation,
in fact, drags the process of political resolution of the issue into
a deadlock. Experience shows that in those cases when the conflict
parties are sincerely willing to discuss the fundamental issue of
ethnic and political conflicts, the issue of formation of a national
state with territorial integrity, the problem of refugees immediately
loses its relevance and sometimes it is even forgotten. Currently,
the same state of affairs is in Transdnestria. What is more, the
issue of refugees is even forgotten in the cases when a resolution
through military force is imposed on one of the conflict parties.
For instance, today no one remembers the refugees who used to live
in Serbian Krajina because Croatia has once and for withdrawn all
the problems of this state from the agenda by occupying this area
inhabited with Serbs with the tacit approval of the international
community. At present no one speaks about the refugees in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. It is notable that the new authorities in the face of the
president Mikhail Sahakashvili who seems to sincerely want to solve
the problem of Abkhazia and South Osia as rapidly as possible, have
come to speak about more frequently about the necessity of economic
and democratic development of Georgia as the primary condition for the
voluntary return of Abkhazians to the Georgian republic than to extend
unreal ultimatums to the Abkhazian party. To sum up we can say that
all the efforts to solve such a sensitive humanitarian problem as the
return of refugees in the course of peace resolution practically do not
have any prospect. This statement is based on the thing that the fact
of existence of refugees is an immediate consequence of the absence
of a final political and legal resolution of this or that ethnic and
political conflict which lies on two planes: “self-determination
of nations” and “territorial integrity of the country”. It goes
without saying that the voluntary return of refugees (which can be
only voluntary) is possible only after the final resolution of the
conflict is reached.
ALEXANDER GRIGORIAN. 16-05-2005
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

SAAKASHVILI: RUMOR ARMENIANS OPPRESSED IN GEORGIA NOT TRUE
Pan Armenian News
19.05.2005 04:09
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ “I do not know who is interested in Armenia in
disseminating rumor that Armenians are oppressed in Georgia. To all
appearance it is due to some political processes in Armenia, however
it is not true,” stated Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili at a
press conference in Warsaw. As the President considers, such rumor is
not casual, they are due to the Georgian Government pursuing a policy
of integration of national minorities for the first time. “We have
a policy of appointment of representatives of national minorities
for diverse offices, training administrative skills, a program of
political and social development of all regions, where national
minorities compactly live,” the President noted, adding that rumor
that Armenians are oppressed in Georgia do not fit the interests of
Tbilisi and Yerevan. “This morning I had a conversation with Robert
Kocharian. We discussed the topic and it was noted that it does not
meet the interests of the Armenian and Georgian peoples. Nothing
and no one can divide us,” Saakashvili emphasized, noting Georgia
historically did not have problems with Armenians, as well as Armenia
did not have problems with Georgians ever. “Robert Kocharian is an
advocate of the Armenian-Georgian relations and establishment of
stability in Georgia, just like I root for stability in Armenia,”
the Georgian President emphasized, Prime-News reported.

Norway to allot $10m for UN projects in S Caucasus
Azer News
19 May 05
Norway is to provide $10 million for UNDP projects in Azerbaijan,
Georgia and Armenia over the next three years.
The United Nations Development Programme and the Norwegian government
signed a Memorandum of Understanding on boosting development in the
Caucasus last Wednesday.
Norway will provide the funding for the UNDP programs in democratic
governance, energy and sustainable development.
The memorandum was signed by Zephirin Diabre, Associate Administrator
of UNDP, and Norwegian Foreign Minister Jan Petersen.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress