[29-11-2004 ‘Armenia-Turkey’]
————————————————- ———————
IS ARMENIA CHANGING?
Source : Haberanaliz.com portal (Turkey)
Author: Yildiz Deveci
Article 11 of the Armenian Declaration of Independence, proclaimed by
the Parliament on August 23, 1990, the eastern Anatolian region of
Turkey was recognized to be `Western Armenia’. Despite the fact that
the second paragraph of Article 13 of the Armenian Constitution
describes the Armenian coat-of-arms to be featuring Ararat mountain,
Turkey is
The occupation of 20% of Azerbaijani territories by Armenia in 1993
resulted in a process during which the relations of the two countries
were spoilt, the border was closed and the issue was transferred to
the international arena as it stands today.
In an article `The Importance of the First Step’ (`Birgyun’ newspaper,
November 18, 2004) Hrant Dink, the Chief Editor of `Agos’ newspaper
writes about how Armenian transfer the problem from the part into
present: `Armenians cannot have a secure future until they get rid of
the trauma passed down from a generation to generation. The mere
existence of this trauma means that the historical process is in a
dead-end that it cannot overcome. It is a pity that Armenians cannot
get rid of it. Of course, many people could make an objection to
this, saying: `so what, does this mean we must forget what has
happened?’ But it would have been wrong to think that getting rid of
the trauma and the normalization of relations is equivalent to
`forgetting the past’.
In his article Dink explains how exactly the problems between Turkey
and Armenia could be solved by themselves and notes that recently a
certain mildening of Yerevan’s position can be noticed: `the Armenian
question must be discussed not on the level of the parliaments of
third countries, but directly by the countries themselves’.
Statements by Kocharian inspire hope
Kocharian, who is linking the blockade of Armenia by Turkey to the
problem of Mountainous Karabagh announced that the relations between
two countries «must not be determined by the intervention of the
third one». In an interview to press Kocharian also announced that
Armenia «is not linking the development of relations with Turkey
with the problem of Cyprus». While retaining a negative attitude to
the intervention of Turkey into the Karabagh problem between Armenia
and Azerbaijan, Kocharian considers to normal to introduce the
problems of his own country to the agenda of the world community.
`The international recognition of the genocide is extremely important,
but it is not a pre-condition for the development of relations’, this
statement by Kocharian who has been unable to get international
recognition can be qualified as a first step towards the resolution.
Bilateral relations today
The mildened stance of Kocharian, actively covered by the media of
Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey has various reasons. Kocharian refused
to take part in the NATO summit that was held on June 28-29, 2004,
motivating it by the failure of Turkey to recognize the alleged
genocide and made the relations between the countries even tenser by
saying `Armenia can survive without Turkey’.
In an interview to `Die Welt’ German newspaper of November 20, 2004
Kocharian said that Armenia will not be insisting on the recognition
of the `genocide’ by Turkey, which was previously posed as à
pre-condition for the start of negotiations on normalization of
relations.
The question of `Die Welt’ journalist of `Don’t you expect an apology
for hundreds of thousands of Armenian arrested, deported and killed in
1915?’ Kocharian responded: `It is very important for us that the
Armenian genocide be recognized. But it has never been a pre-condition
for the development of bilateral relations’. He also noted that the
reality of what had happened cannot be denied and added: `If Ankara
recognizes this truth, it will make a huge step towards the
normalization’.
These statements of Kocharian are contrary to those, made before the
NATO summit. It should also be remembered that Armenia has not as yet
recognized the Kars treaty of 1921, defining its borders with
Turkey. Thus, Armenia, while quoting its aspiration for rapprochement
with Turkey, does not make any steps itself, while demanding that
Turkey stop intervening in Karabagh conflict. The spokesman of the
Armenian Foreign Ministry Hamlet Gasparian announced: `The Armenian
policy directed at the international recognition of the Genocide has
not changed, this issue remains a priority of our foreign policy’.
Conclusions
As it follows form Kocharian’s statements, our neighbor who was unable
to gain ground on international arena, currently looks for
resolution. Possibly, as a response to the mildened position of
Armenia Turkey too will make steps directed at rapprochement,
particularly in the context of EU accession. The following factors
prepared ground for similar statements:
1. Kocharian has understood that his policy is futile and strives to
new tactics.
2. Armenia has understood how economically adverse the 11-year embargo
can be.
3. the possible negative impact of the closed borders with Armenia to
the international image of Turkey, particularly in the context of
Turkey’s accession to EU
4. The possible railroad Kars (Turkey)-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi (Goergia)
that nullifies the significance of the railroad through Armenia.
5. Kerry’s defeat at presidential elections in the USA and the
frustration of Armenian lobby.
But a most important point should be remembered here: no strong
relationships can be formed with a neighbor that does not recognize
your borders.
[27-11-2004 ‘Armenia-Azerbaijan’]
———————————————————————-
POLITICAL REANIMATION OF LEVON TER-PETROSSIAN
Source : “Echo” newspaper (Azerbaijan)
Author: Nurani
The possibility for Armenian President Levon Ter-Petrossian to return
to big politics becomes one of the most discussed issues in Armenia.
Everything was in full accordance with the laws of political
PR. First, Levon Zurabian, press-secretary of former president
severely criticized the policy of Kocharian’s team on Karabagh issue
at the seminar, organized by `Ter-Petrossian’ Armenian Liberation
Movement (ALM). In his opinion, the political course of First
President of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrossian was directed at ensuring
long-term peace under the conditions of de facto independence of
Karabagh and Armenia’s control over Lachin corridor, connecting
Karabagh with Armenia. The administration of the First President did
their best to prove to the international community that it is a
conflict between Karabagh and Azerbaijan, in which Karabagh people
fight for self-determination. As a result of Kocharian’s policy,
Karabagh was ousted of the negotiation process, and the confrontation
came to be viewed as Armenian-Azerbaijani territorial dispute. In the
documents of Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, Azerbaijani
territories are referred to as under Armenian occupation. Besides, the
report of former PACE speaker Terry Davis contains a proposal on
consideration by the international court of the legitimacy of
Armenia’s control over a number of Azerbaijani territories.
Further on, ex-President himself stepped into the political
scene. Everything was arranged in an effective and intriguing
manner. Levon Ter-Petrossian, whose name for a long time did not `pop
up’ in media, got an invitation to participate in the opening of
Clinton’s library in Little-Rock town, state of Arkansas – the
homeland of 42-d President of USA. Certainly, theoretically there was
a chance for reducing the opening of the library to `the session of
exes’ club’ but in Little-Rock, Levon Ter-Petrossian managed to meet
“current” President of USA George Bush, as well as two ex-Presidents,
Bush the Senior and Jimmy Carter. Moreover, he conducted negotiations
with Hillary Clinton, who does not exclude the possibility that in
2008 she will fight for the White House… On his return, he held a
brief press conference at `Zvartnots’ airport. True, Levon Akopovich
did not say anything certain about his return to `big politics’. The
journalists, who by the way were notified in advance about the
`mini-briefing’ at the airport, had to be content with the statements
that ex-President always took part in the congresses of ALM. As for
the rest, future will show, and Ter Petrossian does not regret today
the proposal he initiated once for the candidacy of Robert Kocharian
as premier. Afterwards, he made a number of notable statements
already on Karabagh problem. Thus, Levon Akopovich did not exclude the
fact of restarting military operations, not going into details however
on who and how will start second Karabagh war. Besides, he
categorically excluded the possibility for return of the negotiations
to the point where they were in 1997, i.e. when Ter-Petrossian was
forced to leave the presidential post, and after which, according to
his press secretary Zurabian, the situation got much worse for Armenia
and Karabagh separatists.
“We will no longer be able to get what we had in 1997′ Regnum agency
cites Ter-Petrossian. `Even if God descends, it will not be possible.”
Besides, according to ex-President’s opinion, Armenia has lost `very
much’ for the past, see – Kocharian, years, `In the first place, it
lost people. For me it is the most serious loss. I mean migration. It
may become an inevitable process. Second, we lost much time in the
context of economic development, lagging behind our neighbors. All of
this is irreversible.” So-called `wise patriarch’ in politics, who
does not want cheap PR and tricks of the sort `I am the only one who
knows things’.
Armenian politicians unanimously assert that ex-President’s return to
`big politics’ is of little possibility. Anyway, head of Dashnak
faction in Armenian Parliament, Levon Mkrtchian and leader of `New
Times’ party Aram Karapetian, head of the faction of Republican Party
Galust Sahakian, Deputy chairman of the `National Unity’ party Aleksan
Karapetian, leader of Democratic Party Aram Sargsian are sure of that.
Nevertheless, in Armenia signatures are already collected in open
letters with an appeal to Ter-Petrossian for `returning’ either to big
politics or presidency. In contrast to party leaders, here the
journalists unanimously interpret the meeting of Ter-Petrossian with
George Bush as a sign of the willingness of the West to stake on the
First President of Armenia – otherwise why should Bush have talks with
Ter-Petrossian, if he met Robert Kocharian only once – during
negotiations in Key-West? Armenian newspapers already cite his famous
letter “War or Peace? Time for Thinking’, in which he, first among
Armenian politicians, spoke about the necessity for compromise with
Azerbaijan. Whereas within Armenian political “milieu” they already
openly voice the opinion that on the considerably deserted `political
field’ of Armenia, Ter-Petrossian’s ALM is in essence the only
political force, seriously resisting the authorities. Still, the next
presidential elections in Armenia are only in four years, and Levon
Akopovich thinks it premature to discuss the issue of putting his
candidacy at the elections. However, the biography of Ter-Petrossian
himself, to say nothing of the fresh lessons of Georgian `rose
revolution’, is the best proof of the fact that Presidents leave not
only during elections. One should not possess phenomenal political
intuition to understand: today Armenian political field has an acute
need for a sufficiently reputable political grouping, capable of
assuming the role or a `peace party”. On the one hand, the number of
those, exhausted by the confrontation with Azerbaijan and Turkey,
constant threat of restarting war, periodic `mobilizations’ and
increasing lag in economic development from the neighbors, grows. On
the other hand, such a party is ensured the attention of Western
political structures. Theoretically, Ter-Petrossian is a quite logical
candidate for the role of the leader of this pro-Western peace party.
[26-11-2004 ‘Karabagh Conflict’]
———————————————————————-
RESOLUTE: BOTH SIDES DETERMINED AS DRAFT RESOLUTION ON KARABAKH
ENTERS UN DEBATE
Source : ArmeniaNow.com online weekly
Author: Aris Ghazinian
With Azerbaijan on one side, Armenia on the other, and Nagorno
Karabakh where it has always been – at risk in the middle – the United
Nations General Assembly entered debate this week that could have
considerable impact on the 10-year old settlement process.
Responding to an appeal by Azerbaijan to introduce `the question of
occupied territories’ to the UN main body, the General Assembly has
been hearing arguments on why it should adopt a resolution favoring
Azerbaijan’s position in the 16-year old dispute over sovereignty of
the Armenian-populated territory.
(Azerbaijan maintains that the territory of some 13,000-square
kilometers is an illegal occupation — some 147,000 Armenians live in
the self-declared republic. Armenia argues that the region rightfully
belongs to the nearly 100 percent Armenian population there, who have
formed a de facto republic since the break up of the Soviet Union.)
The Azeris’ appeal to the General Assembly carries the support of
members of the Organization of Islamic Conference, whose votes swung
the decision for a hearing in favor of (Islamic) Azerbaijan.
The draft resolution calls for the UN to condemn Armenia for
repopulating seven territories around the disputed enclave and, the
Azeris claim, for planning to relocate 300,000 Armenians into Azeri
territories by 2010. Official Yerevan denies any such plan and says
Baku’s attention to the `occupied territories’ hampers discussions of
a peaceful settlement.
The General Assembly was expected to hold a vote on Tuesday, but put
it off after Azeri Foreign Minister Elmar Mamedyarov withdrew his
request for a vote. Mamedyarov’s decision apparently was influenced by
a meeting he had with all three co-chairs (US, France, Russia) of the
Minsk Group of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe. Susan Moore, U.S. Envoy speaking for the co-chairs, said that
interference by the GA could damage Minsk Group peace efforts.
`The OSCE is dealing with the question of Nagorno Karabakh and the
shift of the problem to the level of the UN General Assembly does not
promote its solution,’ Moore said. `Anything in the direction of
building confidence and of avoiding a division of the General Assembly
is helpful.’
Mamedyarov, who was present at the session, emphasized in his turn
that: `Baku does not pursue the goal of putting the settlement of the
conflict on the agenda of the United Nations, however if the questions
stated in the draft resolution are not eliminated, it will lead to a
humanitarian disaster.’
Predictably, the Azeri initiative has drawn blusterous debate from
both Baku and Yerevan. `Azerbaijan has made a mistake, having
resorted to such a step,’ said Armenia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs
Vardan Oskanian.
Almost simultaneously, Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev, claiming a
victory of sorts that the discussions were even being held, was
predicting that not only would the UN side with the Azeris but: `I do
not rule out that subsequently PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe) may apply sanctions against Armenia.’
Thousands of miles away from the debate, the opposing statesmen were
engaged in their own slugfest of words . . .
Oskanian: `The process of the search for ways of peaceful settlement
of the Karabakh problem is within the competence of the Minsk Group
and this circumstance hardly needs to be reconsidered.’
Aliyev: `Putting this question up for discussion in the UN, Baku does
not seek to change the OSCE Minsk Group. We need a political
evaluation of the conflict. Discussions in various international
organizations do not impede, but on the contrary promote the common
cause.’ Oskanian: `We are not concerned over the possibility that the
resolution proper may be adopted, we are more concerned with the
settlement process. However, if the resolution is adopted, Armenia
does not see the necessity for further conducting bilateral
negotiations. Azerbaijan should deal with elected representatives of
Nagorno Karabakh.’
Aliyev: `The statements of the Armenian side that in that case
Azerbaijan will have to conduct negotiations with Nagorno Karabakh are
ridiculous. Armenia is a party to the conflict and therefore
negotiations are conducted with it.’
Oskanian: `If the resolution is adopted, the Prague process of
negotiations between the personal representatives of the presidents of
Armenia and Azerbaijan will be interrupted. Baku will have to put up
with the necessity of negotiating with the authorities of Nagorno
Karabakh, which does not at all mean Armenia’s withdrawal from the
negotiating process.’
Aliyev: `If Armenia wants negotiations to be conducted with Nagorno
Karabakh, let it disengage troops from the occupied territories and
stop allocating funds to Karabakh from its budget. Then we will solve
the problem much more quickly and differently.’
While the vote is pending, the General Assembly has proposed sending
a special delegation to the conflict zone to assess the claims and
counter claims of the opposing sides. The idea met with approval by
Armenia’s representative to the United Nations, Armen Martirosyan.
A decision has not been reached on whether to send a delegation, nor
is it clear when a vote might be taken on the resolution.
What is clear, is that both sides will look for advantages in the
debate, while political analysts speculate on the outcome.
`I think that the world community shares the opinion of the OSCE and
for this very reason Azerbaijan failed to carry out its intention,’
says analyst Tatul Hakobyan. `However, what was said does not yet mean
a victory for Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh.’
—
Yerevan Press Club of Armenia, ‘Yeni Nesil’ Journalists’ Union of
Azerbaijan and Association of Diplomacy Correspondents of Turkey
present ‘Armenia-Azerbaijan-Turkey: Journalist Initiative-2002’
Project. As a part of the project web site has
been designed, featuring the most interesting publications from the
press of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey on issues of mutual
concern. The latest updates on the site are weekly delivered to the
subscribers.
Newsletter from Mediadialogue.org, date: 23-11-2004 to 30-11-2004
www.mediadialogue.org