Author: Maghakian Mike

The Netherlands did compensate for omission on Armenia
Haagsche Courant (Dutch daily newspaper)
January 4, 2005
By Inge Drost
Just before the Christmas Holidays the House of Representatives has
unanimously adopted a motion of Christian Union leader André Rouvoet in
which Turkey is asked to recognise the Genocide of the Armenians in 1915.
With this action the Netherlands rehabilitated itself as a country of the
international law. In spite of the recall of the European Parliament and in
spite of efforts of minister Bot the Dutch EU Presidency did not succeed to
regulate this question at European level. In the motion of Rouvoet the Dutch
government is asked to bring up continuously and expressly the recognition
of the Armenian Genocide in the dialogue with Turkey. Minister Bot
considered the motion as a support for his policy and for this reason he
even Œwelcomed¹ it. With the unanimous support of the parliament and the
government at least now in the Netherlands the era of the taboo around the
words ŒArmenian genocide¹ has been definitely closed. End of era, end of
taboo: naturally it would have been better if this new sound had sounded
loudly and clearly at the European Union summit on 17 December. But finally
the important fact is the message to Turkey, who will have, under European
observance, to consider her own past, how painfully it is. The message is
arrived: in Turkey it has been already regretted that as thanks for the
Dutch Presidency a street in Ankara was named Holland Road. It is still to
be hoped that now a start will be made for the recognition of the Armenian
tragedy and for the reconciliation with the past.
Inge Drost represents the 24 April Committee of the Armenian Federation

The Jamestown Foundation
Thursday, December 2 — Volume 1, Issue 138
IN THIS ISSUE:
*Moscow slaps economic sanctions on Abkhazia
*Will Ukraine crisis make Moscow tighten its grasp on Central Asia?
*Kazakh election monitors found no problems with Ukrainian vote
*Baku asks UN to rule on Armenian settlements in Karabakh
————————————————————————
RUSSIA BLOCKADING ABKHAZIA TO OVERTURN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
On December 1, Russia’s government introduced a set of blockade
measures against Abkhazia for the declared purpose of preventing the
inauguration of president-elect Sergei Bagapsh, victor over the
Moscow-backed candidate Raul Khajimba in Abkhazia’s October 3
presidential election. Gennady Bukayev, an aide to Russian Prime
Minister Mikhail Fradkov, announced the sanctions at a news briefing
in Moscow.
The measures, mainly economic but also apparently entailing some
military aspects, include: cutting off the railway connection between
Abkhazia and Russia; severely restricting cross-border passage for
Abkhaz residents and transport at checkpoints manned by Russian border
troops on the so-called “Russian-Abkhaz border” (legally a section of
the Russia-Georgia border); quarantining the transport of Abkhaz-grown
citrus fruit to Russia at that border; placing Russia’s coastal navy
on alert along that border’s maritime sector; and preparing for a
complete blockade, “If further unlawful actions by Bagapsh result in a
further deterioration of the situation in Abkhazia.”
Bukayev was explicit about the sanctions’ political purpose: “The
Russian leadership supports the legitimate Abkhaz president Vladislav
Ardzinba’s decision to stage a new election for Abkhazia’s
presidency. Bagapsh and the criminal organizations that back him are
trying to seize power by force of arms. The Russian leadership has
made its earnest decision in order to prevent the escalation of
violence and ensure the safety of Russia’s citizens. These measures
are not directed at the people of Abkhazia and will be lifted as soon
as the situation stabilizes” (Interfax, NTV Mir, December 1).
It was apparently on November 25 that the Kremlin decided to step in
forcefully and reverse the momentum in Abkhazia toward recognition of
Bagapsh as winner and his scheduled inauguration on December
6. Consequently, and characteristically, Moscow’s rhetoric is now
“criminalizing” the president-elect, notwithstanding the fact that he
has been declared winner by Abkhazia’s electoral commission,
legislature, high court, and other bodies that Moscow itself had all
along touted as Abkhazia’s lawful bodies. The invocation of “Russia’s
citizens” is key to the above-referenced statement. Having conferred
its citizenship en masse to Abkhazia’s residents, Russia has until now
used this fait accompli to claim rights of protection over them. Now,
however, Moscow uses the same argument in claiming a right to impose
sanctions on “its” citizens. In sum, Russia reserves the right to deal
with “its” citizens as it sees fit. The message to Abkhazia is that
“stabilizing the situation” means overturning the election of Bagapsh
as a condition for lifting the Russian sanctions.
The sanctions’ impact could be devastating. Employment in Russia
(often in the shadow economy) and cross-border shuttle trading are
survival matters for Abkhazia’s residents. In winter, citrus fruit
exports to Russia are the main source of revenue. The “temporary”
sanctions are timed precisely to the citrus harvest in Abkhazia and
the pre-Christmas peak of Abkhaz citrus sales in Russian cities.
Governor Alexander Tkachov of Krasnodar Krai (adjacent to Abkhazia)
had called for the imposition of sanctions on November 22-23, publicly
urging that the border be closed in response to the political
situation in Abkhazia. He added a call for stopping the payment of
pensions to Abkhazia’s freshly baked Russian citizens, unless Bagapsh
yields ahead of December 6 (Itar-Tass, Interfax, November
22-23). Tkachov’s statements often seem out of line because he belongs
to the establishment’s ultra-nationalist fringe. However, it sometimes
turns out that he heralds government decisions shortly before these
are officially announced. For example, in August 2003 he urged the
construction of the dam in the Kerch Strait toward Tuzla Island,
encroaching on Ukraine’s territory — a move that soon turned out to
be Russian government policy. In June 2004, Tkachov threatened that
Cossack and other “volunteers” would be sent to South Ossetia against
Georgia; they were indeed sent and advertised by Russia’s authorities
shortly afterward.
The economic sanctions are clearly designed to pressure Bagapsh’s
supporters into withdrawing their support and accepting Ardzinba’s
decision to stage a new presidential election. But even the Russian
government functionary Nodar Khashba, a native Abkhaz recently
installed as prime minister in Sukhumi to support Ardzinba and
Khajimba, opposes the sanctions. Within hours of the Russian
government’s announcement, Khashba told Russian media, “Ordinary
inhabitants, an overwhelming majority of whom are Russia’s citizens,
must not be made to suffer.” Khashba announced that he would appeal to
the Russian government to rescind the sanctions, implying at the same
time that Moscow’s political demands should be met (Itar-Tass,
December 1).
In Sukhumi, the outgoing and deeply ailing president Ardzinba — or
those acting in his name — and hard-line pro-Moscow groups are using
the argument that a Bagapsh presidency would irreparably damage
Abkhazia’s relations with Russia (the sanctions are cited as evidence)
and conversely, overturning the election result and staging a new
election are prerequisites to restoring relations with
Russia. Ardzinba’s November 29 proclamation, and an accompanying
statement by paramilitary groups supporting him, vows to stop Bagapsh
supporters from duplicating in Abkhazia the current events in Ukraine
or the earlier ones in Tbilisi, Ajaria, and Serbia that led to regime
change (Apsnypress, November 29).
–Vladimir Socor

RUSSIA’S SECURITY INFLUENCE IN CENTRAL ASIA INCREASES AS UKRAINE
CRISIS UNFOLDS
Central Asian political leaders are watching events in Kyiv closely,
as the Ukrainian crisis may affect the future foreign policy choices
they make between the West and Russia. Meetings of the CIS Defense
Ministers Council, at the Staff for Coordinating Military Cooperation
in Moscow on November 25, indicated a strong desire for further
strengthening the existing CSTO security mechanisms within Central
Asia. Indeed, these meetings, partly under the umbrella of the
Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), appear to pave the way
for the future expansion of the CSTO Rapid Deployment Forces (CRDF),
to as much as 10,000 personnel (Nezavisimaya gazeta, November 26).
Nikolai Bordyuzha, Secretary-General of the CSTO, confirmed the
interest in enhanced levels of CSTO military cooperation, as member
states examined a model concept for forming a joint group of troops in
the Central Asian region. In his words, the document approved at the
meeting provides for creating a large joint group of troops including
formations from the armed forces of CSTO states (Russia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan). This potentially numbers a total of
10,000 personnel. The group could therefore become up to four times
the current strength of the CRDF, currently tasked with operating in
Central Asia during a security crisis. Moscow’s foothold in this
mechanism is secure, since it has guaranteed the main striking force
of the group will be elements drawn from the Russian military base in
Tajikistan and its air force base in Kant, Kyrgyzstan.
Of course, attempts to strengthen Russia’s security influence within
Central Asia are not new, and have been a recurring theme in the
region since the deployment of U.S. and Western military forces into
the region in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in 2001. But
recent developments within Central Asian capitals seem to present a
window of opportunity for Moscow to reclaim lost ground in the region.
Kazakhstan has been the only Central Asian member of the CSTO that has
espoused clearly autonomous and pro-Western military cooperation
policies. While the others have more readily accepted
collective-security arrangements with Russia as the linchpin in this
system, Kazakhstan, for instance, has advanced its plans to forge
ahead with reforming and building its Navy in the Caspian Sea by 2007
with U.S. support. However, as the situation in Ukraine is played out,
there will be clear lessons for those pursuing pro-Western policies in
Kazakhstan, which may favor Moscow’s efforts to stem the westward
drift of the former Soviet republics along its borders.
On November 25 in Moscow, a protocol was finally ratified that creates
the legal basis for increasing and offering supplies of military
hardware to CSTO countries at preferential financial rates. Valery
Loshchinin, Russia’s First Deputy Foreign Minister, believes that the
agreement will facilitate further military integration among CSTO
member states and compel greater levels of security cooperation.
Kazakhstan’s military reform priorities, announced on November 26,
included a commitment to raise the level of defense spending from one
percent of GDP to 1.2 percent by 2007. The Kazakhstani Ministry of
Defense also defined a set of priority investment projects, which will
be implemented in the next three years. These include constructing
housing in Astana, military facilities in the country’s south and
west, improving the facilities of military airfields, and building a
national defense university, as well as developing modernized
communications systems. All these plans, from the Caspian-orientated
military facilities in Kazakhstan’s western region to procurement of
communications equipment, demand closer cooperation with the United
States and Western countries in order to be effective.
Kozy-Korpesh Dzhanburchin, Deputy Defense Minister for Economy and
Finance, commented that Kazakhstan is determined to tailor its
military development to its security needs: “In accordance with
national security priorities, close attention is currently being paid
to the southern and western directions, where military and other
facilities are planned to be built actively as well,”
(Interfax-Kazakhstan, November 25).
The uncertain political situation in Ukraine, a key state for the
future transportation of Central Asian energy into European markets,
has raised fears among the governing elites in Central Asia
considering overtly pursuing close relations with the United
States. The impetus towards democracy, notoriously slow in these
states, is a risk that each has weighed carefully in recent years,
while recognizing that similar pressures do not attend close relations
with Moscow. Elections looming in Uzbekistan later in December and
those in 2005 in Kyrgyzstan, coupled with the recent bombings of Otan
offices in Almaty, (see EDM, November 30) magnify still further the
concerns in the regions’ capitals. For the Soviet-bred autocrats
running these states, democracy may be coming too close to the
region. In security terms at least, Moscow has prepared the ground for
improved levels of security integration, should its uncertain allies
in Central Asia choose this option.
–Roger N. McDermott

KAZAKHSTAN’S OPPOSITION TAKING NOTES ON YUSHCHENKO’S STRATEGY
With their own presidential election drawing nearer, officials in
Astana might prefer to turn off all television channels broadcasting
the contentious presidential election events in Ukraine. Instead,
state-run media in Kazakhstan have done little more than re-broadcast
a few images of the street demonstrations in Kyiv every day.
In contrast to the seeming indifference of state officials toward the
Ukrainian elections, a group of opposition leaders flew to Kyiv to
observe the November 21 runoff. On returning home, one observer,
Marzhan Aspandiyarova, a leader of Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan
(DCK), said that she was impressed by the transparency of election
procedures at the polling stations she visited in Ukraine. She said
there were fewer cases of vote stealing and fraud than in
Kazakhstan. Unlike Kazakhs, Aspandiyarova speculated that Ukrainians
did not tolerate any pressure from the authorities. She also admitted
that the opposition movement in Kazakhstan failed to rally people for
mass protests after the September parliamentary elections, which the
opposition declared to be unfair and illegitimate. According to
Aspandiyarova, the roots of the Kazakh opposition’s weakness lie in
the fact that many of its leaders come from government or business
circles (navi.kz, December 1).
Indeed, the popular support enjoyed by the opposition after the
creation of Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan has waned since the
September elections. One explanation for that appears to be the
relative social and economic stability and much-publicized government
programs to reduce the rate of unemployment, solve housing problems,
and raise pensions. These steps, however belated, are helping the
state to disarm the opposition ahead of the 2006 presidential
elections. However, Tolen Tokhtasynov, a member of the Coordinating
Council of Opposition Forces in Kazakhstan who also observed the
Ukrainian elections, believes that the main reason for the dwindling
popularity of the opposition in Kazakhstan is the inability of its
ambitious leaders to work out a common strategy. Nevertheless, he is
convinced that in the upcoming elections, the main opposition groups
— the DCK, the pro-democratic Ak Zhol party, and the Communist Party
of Kazakhstan — will join forces and put up a single candidate for
the presidency. Paradoxically, Tokhtasynov, a prominent opposition
figure and irreconcilable critic of the regime, thinks that Dariga
Nazarbayeva, the daughter of President Nursultan Nazarbayev would be
the best choice for this position (navi.kz, December 1).
The assertions that the opposition in Kazakhstan is not as active as
it is in Ukraine or Georgia may be only partly true. Protests over the
controversial September parliamentary elections are ongoing. The
co-chairman of Ak Zhol, Alikhan Baimenov won a seat on the party-list
ballot but has refused to work in the newly elected parliament,
alleging that the elections were undemocratic and unfair and that it
is unethical to be part of the “illegitimate” parliament. But such
isolated protests go almost unnoticed by the general public, which was
greatly influenced by the observers who overwhelmingly recognized the
parliamentary elections in Kazakhstan as democratic and free of
serious violations. In this situation, the opposition is largely seen
as a power-hungry political force without any clearly defined and
socially important objectives. “Our opposition would like to pose as
staunch fighters like the Ukrainian ranks. But three major political
organizations [international observers] could not convincingly show
the world the shortcomings of the parliamentary elections in
Kazakhstan. The Ukrainian elections revealed how immature and weak are
our democratic groups, which are incapable of consistently defending
the interests of the people who follow them,” writes the independent
weekly Altyn Orda (Altyn Orda, November 26).
It is hard to imagine the Ukrainian scenario playing out in
Kazakhstan’s presidential elections, although the alignment of
political forces and the authoritarian system inherited from the
totalitarian Soviet system display some similarity. Political analyst
Dos Koshim, an observer in Ukraine, argues that Ukrainian-style
standoffs between the opposition and the ruling elite cannot take
place in Kazakhstan, where the society is split into Kazakh- and
Russian- speaking populations, rather than united for a common
political goal. Any political action not supported by Kazakhs is
doomed to failure. But if the state does not make an effort to improve
the current course of social and political development, it may lead to
a crisis of Ukrainian proportions in the next decade (Ak Zhol
Kazakhstan, November 26).
Some analysts hold the view that the outcome of the Ukrainian election
crisis may have palpable geopolitical consequences for Kazakhstan,
rather than an impact on its internal policy. If Russia loses Ukraine,
then it will probably strengthen its military and political presence
in Kazakhstan, using such instruments as the Eurasian Economic
Community. The director of the Kazakh Institute of Socio-Economic
Analysis and Forecasting, Sabit Zusupov, warns that by openly
interfering with the election process in Ukraine, Russia revealed its
geopolitical intentions and resorted to a hard-line policy reminiscent
of the Cold War era (Epoha, November 26). Official sources in
Kazakhstan, unlike opposition media and independent analysts, are too
circumspect to express their views on the Ukrainian elections. Perhaps
this wait-and-see attitude is the best policy for the Nazarbayev
regime in this unpredictable and precarious situation.
–Marat Yermukanov

AZERBAIJAN TAKES KARABAKH CASE TO THE UN: A STEP BACK OR FORWARD?
Perhaps for the first time in the past ten years, Azerbaijan has
departed from the traditional path of peace negotiation on the
Karabakh conflict and taken its case to the UN General Assembly. On
November 23, the plenary meeting of the 59th session of the General
Assembly began discussing an Azerbaijan-sponsored resolution entitled,
“The Situation in the Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan.” Since 1993
the Karabakh peace process has been under the patronage of the OSCE’s
Minsk group, co-chaired by Russia, the United States, and France. This
latest action taken by Azerbaijan’s political leadership shows Baku’s
desire to seek alternative ways to break the deadlocked process.
Speaking at the session, Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister, Elmar
Mammadyarov, noted that for the past ten years Azerbaijan had remained
committed to the 1994 cease-fire, which indicated the country’s desire
to solve the conflict through negotiation. At the same time,
Mammadyarov expressed Azerbaijan’s concern over Armenia’s growing
settlement programs in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan. “While
the negotiations are being held, the Armenian side is conducting a
mass settlement of the occupied territories . . . This program is
implemented by the Department of Refugees and IDPs [internally
displaced persons] of the Armenian government and is called ‘Return to
Karabakh.’ It is financed by a special fund in Armenia in violation of
UN General Assembly resolutions, international humanitarian law, and
the Geneva Convention of 1949,” he noted (Turan Info, November 24).
The Azerbaijani side claims that thousands of Armenian families have
been settled in Lachin, Kelbadjar, and other occupied regions of
Azerbaijan, with the aim of increasing the Armenian population in
Karabakh to 300,000 by 2010. Armenia vigorously denies this. Armen
Martirosyan, Armenia’s representative to the UN, has noted that the
Armenian government was not supporting this process and that there was
no need for the UN to interfere in this issue, the Azerbaijani daily
Zerkalo reported on November 25. “Nagorno-Karabakh has never been and
will never become part of Azerbaijan,” Martirosyan added.
Meanwhile, Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian warned that
discussing the Karabakh conflict at the UN General Assembly could put
an end to the ongoing “Prague talks” between the foreign ministers of
Armenia and Azerbaijan. “Should Azerbaijan choose the latter approach
[taking the issue to other venues, seeking separate solutions], the
Azerbaijani authorities will have to negotiate with the
Nagorno-Karabakh leadership” (RFE/RL Newsline, November
10). Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliev, while attending the 55th
anniversary of the “Oil Rocks” city on the Caspian Sea on November 22,
said that these statements cause him only a “smile,” and he noted that
it was Armenia who is behind the occupation of the Azerbaijani
territories, not Karabakh (Turan Info, November 22).
Interestingly enough, the Azerbaijani government initiative has
sparked opposition even among the co-chairs of the Minsk group.
Speaking on behalf of the three co-chairs, U.S. representative Susan
Moore noted that Azerbaijani concerns could have been addressed by the
OSCE and that she supported the idea of a fact-finding mission within
the framework of the Minsk group (Echo, November 24). The three
co-chairs have asked the UN General Assembly not to take any action
that could negatively affect their efforts.
The Azerbaijani leadership has tried to convince the interested
parties that their initiative with the UN is not an effort to derail
the existing Minsk process. “Azerbaijan does not put the solution of
the conflict within the UN as a goal” said Deputy Foreign Minister
Araz Azimov (525-ci Gazet, November 27). Yet, perceiving the draft
resolution as Azerbaijan’s attempt to seek alternative ways to solve
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Armenia and the co-chairs of the Minsk
group became fearful of opening Pandora’s box. Armenian Diaspora
groups in the United States have launched a broad campaign against the
draft resolution. A press release from the Armenian National Committee
of America reported that Congressman Frank Pallone (D-NJ), known for
his strong support of Armenia, was urging U.S. Secretary of State
Colin Powell and U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Danforth to vote “no”
on the “destructive resolution” (, November 23).
Azerbaijan, meanwhile, sees no concrete results from the ten years of
activity by the Minsk group and therefore feels pressured to knock on
other doors. Recently, the Council of Europe’s political committee
began discussing a report on the Karabakh conflict prepared by British
deputies David Atkinson and Terry Davis.
–Fariz Ismailzade

————————————————————————
The Eurasia Daily Monitor is a publication of the Jamestown
Foundation. The opinions expressed in it are those of the individual
authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Jamestown
Foundation. If you have any questions regarding the content of EDM, or
if you think that you have received this email in error, please
respond to [email protected].
Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution of EDM is strictly
prohibited by law.
The Jamestown Foundation
4516 43rd Street, NW
Washington, DC 20016
202-483-8888 (phone)
202-483-8337 (fax)
Copyright (c) 1983-2004 The Jamestown Foundation.

ArmenPress, Armenia
Jan 1 2005
President Robert Kocharian’s New Year Congratulatory Address
Dear compatriots: We are bidding good-bye to 2004. For Armenia
this year was peaceful, stable and fruitful. Accomplished works
provided for significant economic growth, which translates into new
enterprises, irrigation for new gardens, and new jobs. This is a
difficult but the shortest road toward prosperity for our country and
our people.
To have a qualitatively new country we must work hard. Social
polarization in our country is still deep. The number of our citizens
living in poverty is still large. It means that the process of
reforms must continue, and the cornerstone of this process is the
rise of living standards and fight against poverty. To achieve these
goals we have developed a mid-term plan of action, which is being
implemented persistently.
Results of the accomplished works in this passing year will be
noticeable in 2005. In a number of areas we plan a significant
increase of salaries. The state budget has a qualitatively new
structure, where shares allocated to health care and education are
substantially augmented. Greater attention toward education is
emblematic, since in 2005 we celebrate the 1600 Anniversary of the
Mesropian alphabet.
Dear friends:
In the sphere of foreign affairs important has been involvement of
Armenia in the European `New Neighborhood’ initiative. This fact
underlined the readiness of the European Union to build special
relations with our country. Cooperation with our partner-foreign
states has been enhanced, and Armenia has continued active
participation in international processes.
Armenia-Spjurk relations have been further advanced. I would like
to distinguish `One Nation-One Culture’ first Armenian festival,
which was performed enthusiastically. Allying with the `Hayastan’
All-Armenian Fund the Armenians of Diaspora managed to collect a
considerable amount of money to conclude construction of the
Karabagh’s North-South highway. This is an important step in
strengthening the factual independence of Karabagh – independence,
which is nonnegotiable.
Peaceful and creative year for our country has been secured also
by our Armed Forces, which in the passing year have become even
stronger. I congratulate our military – defenders of our state. I bow
to the memory of fallen heroes.
Dear compatriots from Armenia, Artsakh and Spjurk:
I wish you a Happy New Year. For Armenia and our people 2005 will be
a more productive year. All the preconditions are set for that. I
wish you all good health and happiness. Let this New Year bring to
your homes good happenings, success, and joy.
Happy New Year!

Georgia, Azerbaijan, Turkey sign rail construction declaration
Kavkasia-Press news agency
29 Dec 04
TBILISI
Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey signed a joint statement on the
construction of a Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi railway at the Georgian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs today. The statement was signed by
Georgian Economic Development Minister Aleksi Aleksishvili, Minister
of Transportation of Turkey Binali Yildirim and Deputy Minister of
Transport of Azerbaijan Musa Panahov.
Aleksi Aleksishvili said at a news briefing after the signing ceremony
that a foundation had been laid for the implementation of a historic
project of the century. “We have agreed that the
Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi railway project will be implemented at an
increased pace. A working group will be set up to work on specific
details of the project,” said he.
Aleksishvili also said that the estimated cost of the project was 350m
dollars, of which 200m dollars will have to be spent on the
construction of a railway link between Kars [Turkey] and Akhalkalaki
[Georgia] and 150m dollars on restoring the Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi
section. The project will be financed by all three parties.
“The Turkish side will start working on the project for the
Kars-Akhalkalaki section in 2005. Thanks to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
oil pipeline, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey have acquired extensive
and important experience in the implementation of joint projects,”
said Aleksishvili.
Binali Yildirim said that modern roads would be built along the
Kars-Akhalkalaki-Tbilisi railway, providing a direct link with Europe.

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Dec 28 2004
Armenia Trying to Withdraw Karabakh Problem From UN Session Agenda
Russian co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Yuri Merzlyakov has told
Armenian media that the OSCE fact-finding mission, which will visit
Azerbaijan’s occupied territories soon, will conduct monitoring not in
Nagorno Karabakh itself, but only in the seven regions adjacent to it.
Merzlyakov said that Armenia will provide suitable conditions for the
work of the OSCE mission, while Azerbaijan will allegedly withdraw its
proposal to discuss the illegal settlement of Armenians its occupied
territories at the United Nations.
Azerbaijani officials have not expressed their position on the matter
yet.
Director of the Political Innovation and Technology Center Mubariz
Ahmadogu says that Merzlyakov’s statement was distorted by both
Azerbaijani and Armenian press.
`Even if his statement was not distorted, it still hurts Armenia’, he
added.

ARMENIAN, AZERI FOREIGN MINISTERS WERE ONE STEP AWAY FROM STRIKING PEACE DEAL
ArmenPress
Dec 24 2004
YEREVAN, DECEMBER 24, ARMENPRESS: In an interview with Russian Regnum
news agency Russian cochairman of the OSCE Minsk group, Yuri Merzlyakov
said foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan were one step away
from striking a peace deal during their recent meeting in Prague that
would put an end to more than a decade-long Armenian-Azeri opposition
over Nagorno Karabagh.
Merzlyakov said provisions of a draft agreement, reached by the
ministers in Prague were to be considered by presidents Robert
Kocharian an Ilham Aliyev after their meeting on the sidelines of
a CIS summit in Astana, Kazakhstan, together with the Minsk group
cochairmen to make the final decision “to either accept it or not.”
The Russian diplomat said Azerbaijan’s decision to push for a debate
at the UN General Assembly on the “situation in Azerbaijan’s occupied
territories” has spoiled all plans.” Merzlyakov praised the UN for
suspending debates, adding that Azerbaijan’s motion has blocked the
conflict resolution for several months, but despite this the Russian
diplomat said he hoped that next year meetings of Armenian and Azeri
foreign ministers in Prague would produce positive results.
“I believe that the 2005 will become a decisive year to mark a
breakthrough in the conflict resolution,” he said.

HOLLAND PUTS RECOGNITION OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE AS PRECONDITION FOR TURKEY
Azg/arm
24 Dec 04
On December 22, the Lower House of Holland’s Parliament adopted a
decision, according to which they demand from the government to make
Ankara recognize the Armenian Genocide of the early XX century before
opening the negotiations for Turkey’s entry to the EU.
On December 16, the EU Parliament called on Turkey to recognize the
Armenian Genocide and open the borders with Armenia. If the official
Yerevan welcomed the decision of the EU Parliament, only a day later,
when the EU decided to open the entry negotiations with Turkey on
October 3, 2005, Armenia kept silence. Can we suppose that Armenia is
not that encouraged by EUâ~@~Ys decision on Turkeyâ~@~Y s membership?
In response to this question put by Azg Daily Oskanian said: “We are
satisfied with the created situation, as we had limited expectations
concerning the decree adopted by the EU Parliament, we really expected
that the Armenian issue will not be a pre-condition. Today, we have the
decision of the European Parliament that creates a special formula and
puts forward a demand for Turkey to recognize the Armenia Genocide and
open the border-gate with Armenia as soon as possible. On October 3,
when Turkey-EU negotiations open, I am sure these two issue will be
included in the agenda.”
By Tatoul Hakobian
–Boundary_(ID_to+wrNZiSVhy7/mBTiUXdA)–

<; LUNES 20 de Diciembre de 2004 - ENVIAR POR E-MAIL < r/enviaraunamigo@Top>
Los sueños imperiales de Putin
a_id=664702
< /nota.asp?nota_id=664702&origen=amigo envio&gt ; Por Vytautas Landsbergis Para LA NACION ESTRASBURGO Dividir a un pueblo para conquistarlo es una estrategia inmoral que ha persistido a lo largo de la historia. Desde Alejandro Magno hasta Stalin el Cruel, sus variantes han servido para someter las naciones a la voluntad de un emperador. Hoy asistimos a una nueva aplicación de esta estrategia. A la chita callando, el presidente Vladimir Putin intenta restaurar la supremacía del Kremlin sobre los territorios "perdidos" en 1991, cuando la Unión Soviética hizo implosión. Pero en las elecciones de Ucrania se le fue la mano y reveló abiertamente al mundo sus propósitos neoimperialistas. Tras las protestas multitudinarias en Kiev, el presidente ruso ha dicho que podrá colaborar con el gobierno que elija el pueblo ucraniano, sea cual fuere. Son sólo palabras. En el pensamiento y en los hechos, Putin no quiere para Ucrania un gobernante que no haya sido puesto por él. Ningún precio le parece demasiado alto con tal de lograr ese objetivo. Por eso ha recurrido a la amenaza tradicional: dividir Ucrania. Lo digo por experiencia, ya que nosotros fuimos objeto de los designios imperialistas rusos. Cuando Lituania y, luego, Estonia y Letonia aprovecharon la oportunidad de liberarse, en 1990-1991 (Stalin había ocupado los Estados Bálticos a comienzos de la Segunda Guerra Mundial) el Kremlin no permaneció ocioso. Sabía que el resto de las colonias rusas -las llamadas "repúblicas soviéticas"- querrían seguir a los ingratos Estados bálticos hacia la libertad. Si bien los gobernantes rusos de entonces sólo eran comunistas de nombre, no vacilaron en echar mano de las viejas recetas leninistas. Empezaron a instigar y fomentar divisiones y disputas. Atizaron supuestos resentimientos entre diversas comunidades nacionales o étnicas basándose en la idea de Lenin de que hasta pequeños grupos de aldeas podían exigir la autonomía territorial. Reparen en la palabra "territorial". Nunca se habló de las exigencias normales de autonomía cultural como un medio de conservar la identidad y, supuestamente, protegerse. Al parecer, la única autonomía aceptable era la territorial. Así, las minorías se convirtieron en mayorías a las que sería fácil manipular. Crea suficientes divisiones y alimenta suficientes resentimientos en una nación, la reducirás a una mera sociedad arruinada dentro de un territorio nacional. Arma a algunas de estas estructuras minoritarias fabricadas, para que puedan exigir la autonomía a punta de pistola, y provocarás el tipo de caos que el Kremlin puede usar para reafirmar su control. Por suerte, los lituanos, estonios y letones comprendieron el juego. Rusia también fracasó en Crimea, en 1991, cuando intentó aplicar allí su vieja estrategia. Pero estos reveses no indujeron al Kremlin a abandonarla. Por el contrario, Rusia persistió en sus ambiciones imperiales y esa constancia ha dado frutos. Rusia ha creado una serie de pequeños estados artificiales alrededor del Mar Negro. Georgia y Moldavia han sido divididas mediante la aparición de republiquetas criminales, sustentadas y amparadas militarmente por el Kremlin. En la misma semana en que se inmiscuyó en las elecciones presidenciales de Ucrania, Putin amenazó con bloquear a una de esas republiquetas (la región de Abjasia, en Georgia) por haber tenido la osadía de votar a un presidente que no era del agrado del Kremlin. Moldavia ha quedado particularmente indefensa frente a los designios imperiales de Rusia. Esta mantiene en el Transdniéster un contingente formidable que lo gobierna con la colaboración de las bandas locales. La contigüidad a este territorio sin ley ha contribuido a que Moldavia sea el país más pobre de Europa. Al este, el Kremlin instigó una guerra étnica tan sangrienta entre Armenia y Azerbaiján, que la única salida que les quedó fue pedir la intervención de Rusia, igual que en el Transdniéster, para establecer una especie de Pax Ruthena. Ahora, el pueblo ucraniano podría afrontar una prueba similar. Los partidarios de Viktor Yanukovich amenazaron con buscar la autonomía si Viktor Yushchenko, legítimo ganador en las elecciones, asumía la presidencia. ¿Quién puede dudar de que detrás de todo eso está la mano de Rusia? El alcalde de Moscú, Yuri Luzhkov, una fiel criatura de Putin, asistió al mitin en que se pidió la autonomía. ¿Se habría atrevido a hacerlo sin la aprobación del monarca elegido por el Kremlin? Putin reclama abiertamente esta parte de Ucrania como una "cuestión interna" rusa. Los ucranianos de habla rusa han visto la desesperación económica y, a veces, los derramamientos de sangre causados por los movimientos autonomistas que fabrica el Kremlin. Es de esperar que se percaten de que Putin los está convirtiendo en peones suyos. Yushchenko y su Revolución Naranja encaran la misma prueba que afrontamos los demócratas lituanos en 1990-1991: demostrar que democracia no es sinónimo de dominio, represión o eliminación de una minoría, sea cual fuere, por la mayoría. Lituania la superó. Confío en que Yushchenko y su equipo también lo harán. Pero ocurre que Europa y el resto del mundo también están siendo puestos a prueba. Rusia ha entrado en una transición de la Federación Rusa de Boris Yeltsin al régimen unitario y autoritario de Putin y sus antiguos camaradas de la KGB. Europa, Estados Unidos y el mundo en general deben ver la "democracia dirigida" de Putin tal como verdaderamente es. Y deben oponerse, todos juntos, a sus sueños neoimperialistas. El primer paso es hacer que Rusia cumpla su promesa de retirar sus tropas de Moldavia y Georgia. (La formuló, con carácter obligatorio, ante el Consejo Europeo y la Organización para la Seguridad y la Cooperación en Europa.) Además, es preciso rechazar cualquier plan de "defender" militarmente a Yanukovich y la parte oriental de Ucrania. El autor fue el primer presidente de Lituania, tras su independencia de La Unión Soviética; actualmente es diputado del Parlamento Europeo. © Project Syndicate y LA NACION (Traducción de Zoraida J. Valcárcel) Si desea acceder a más información, contenidos relacionados, material audiovisual y opiniones de nuestros lectores ingrese en : <;origen=amigo envio>
Copyright S. A. LA NACION 2004. Todos los derechos reservados.
–Boundary_(ID_5jlIiZ9257Eh02p6/xp1Qg )–

ASBAREZ ONLINE
TOP STORIES
12/22/2004
TO ACCESS PREVIOUS ASBAREZ ONLINE EDITIONS PLEASE VISIT OUR
WEBSITE AT <;HTTP:// 1) Dutch Parliament Adopts Motion on Armenian Genocide 2) Azeri Press Responds to New 'US-Drawn Map' Labeling Karabagh as 'Arguable Territory' 3) Armenian Foreign Minister Sums up Progress on Karabagh 4) Ceremony Marks Opening of Aerial Tramway at Tsakhkadzor Resort 5) Melkonian Students Excel in Exams, Defying Closure Threat 1) Dutch Parliament Adopts Motion on Armenian Genocide THE HAGUE (FAON)--The Dutch Parliament on Wednesday unanimously adopted a motion on recognition of the Armenian genocide, reported the Federation of the Armenian Organizations in the Netherlands. Introduced by the Chairman of Christian Union faction André Rouvoet, the motion specifically directs Dutch government officials "to bring up recognition of the Armenian Genocide continuously and expressly in [their] dialogue with Turkey." The motion was backed by all political parties in the Parliament. It was introduced during a debate on the outcome of last Friday's summit of European leaders who decided to begin EU accession talks with Turkey. In that debate, nearly all Dutch political factions addressed the absence of the Armenian genocide issue in the EU's Presidency Conclusions. The Dutch, ironically, currently hold the EU Presidency. Dutch Foreign Minister Ben Bot, nevertheless, assured the Parliament that the Armenian question has always been brought up in meetings with Turkish colleagues. The Armenian community of The Netherlands has consistently pushed the Dutch Parliament and government to recognize the Armenian genocide--especially in the run-up to and during the Dutch presidency of the EU. 2) Azeri Press Responds to New 'US-Drawn Map' Labeling Karabagh as 'Arguable Territory' (Azg)--A new US-drawn map, which reportedly labels Karabagh as "arguable territory," has caused a stir in two Baku newspapers who responded to the issue in their latest editions. In an article titled "Azerbaijan without Karabagh?" Zerkalo claims that the map was drawn by the 'US National Geographic Center.' Other states which also bear the label "arguable territory," according to the paper, are the West bank of the Jordan River, Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, and Southern Ossetia. Zerkalo also reports that Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry has urged its embassy in Washington to inquire about the motivation behind not labeling Karabagh as an Azeri region. Another Baku newspaper, Yeni Zaman, alleges that after Armenia, Karabagh is second in line receiving direct aid from the US. According to the paper, American annual aid to Karabagh will amount to $3 million by 2005. The paper also refers to a 1970s CIA top-secret document which "considered Karabagh a historic Armenian territory, and highlights the fact that "Karabagh was a semi-independent unit for centuries and was ruled by Armenian rulers even in times when other Armenian regions were under Turkish and Persian yoke." 3) Armenian Foreign Minister Sums up Progress on Karabagh YEREVAN (A1+, RFE/RL)--Armenian foreign minister Vartan Oskanian on Wednesday summed up 2004, saying that Armenia had both sudden surges as well as falls--achievements along with failures. Speaking about negotiations on the Mountainous Karabagh conflict, he stressed the importance of maintaining political stability in Armenia in order to advance that process. Convinced that certain progress has been registered during negotiations, he said, "Today, we are at more advantageous position than were in 1997," but cautioned that the success of those negotiations is not a forgone conclusion. "What we are trying to do today, and I see the possibilities of that, is to get the international community to recognize the Mountainous Karabagh people's right to self-determination with an agreement resolving the problem," he told a news conference on Wednesday. "The implementation of that self-determination may not necessarily be immediate." The Armenian and Azeri foreign ministers are expected to resume their face-to-face meetings in the Czech capital next month. 4) Ceremony Marks Opening of Aerial Tramway at Tsakhkadzor Resort TSAKHKADZOR (President.am)--President Robert Kocharian participated in the opening ceremony of the newly renovated aerial tramway at the Tsakhkadzor resort. Kocharian hailed the completion, adding that the last section of the tramway would be ready by next year, meeting all international standards. "The new aerial tramway is built on a higher level than Tsakhkadzor's entire infrastructure. We should encourage businesses and investors to build new hotels here, introduce services and leisure places to make Tsakhkadzor a true tourist attraction. Only in that case can we claim that we reached our goal," Kocharian stressed. The 2500 meters long aerial tramway has been renovated by a prominent Swiss company specializing in assembling aerial tramways and other construction works. The Tsakhkadzor resort is on the eastern slope of Mount Teghenis and is famous for its numerous lodges and sport facilities. 5) Melkonian Students Excel in Exams, Defying Closure Threat NICOSIA (Financial Mirror)--Two Melkonian students were among the 135 recipients of the High Achiever awards given out to students who gained top international marks at an award ceremony in Nicosia last week. Together with their schoolmates, they overcame the troubles caused by the New York based administrators' announcement on March 16 to shut down the school and continued with their external examinations. Hovhannes Atabekyan, a 2004 graduate of the school, was one of only ten students in Cyprus to gain straight A's in five Advanced Level subjects, while only three other Cypriots gained six A's. Elizabeth Torossian notched up the highest Ordinary Level international subject mark in Armenian, an award achieved in only ten other subjects worldwide. "These outstanding results cast a shadow over the true intentions of the school's administrators to shut down the Melkonian and sell off the land," the Melkonian Alumni Association of Cyprus said in an announcement. All subscription inquiries and changes must be made through the proper carrier and not Asbarez Online. ASBAREZ ONLINE does not transmit address changes and subscription requests. (c) 2004 ASBAREZ ONLINE. All Rights Reserved. ASBAREZ provides this news service to ARMENIAN NEWS NETWORK members for academic research or personal use only and may not be reproduced in or through mass media outlets. --Boundary_(ID_Ek2kbT/MYN4B6/XBStDRag)-- From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIA SHOULD GAIN CONTROL OVER NAGORNO KARABAKH, NATO PA HEAD CONSIDERS
PanArmenian News
Dec 21 2004
21.12.2004 17:01
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ “Europeans, Americans and Russians have to jointly
find a compromise, in compliance with which Armenia would gain
temporary control over Karabakh, and further the Karabakh status would
be determined via a referendum – within five of ten years,” head of
the NATO Parliamentary Assembly Pierre Lellouche and former Spanish
Foreign Minister Ana Palacio write in Putin and the Phantoms of the
Empire joint article in Le Figaro today’s issue. In the article the
relations between the EU and Russia against the background of the
Ukrainian events. “The success of the democracy in Ukraine should
underlie the common strategy of our democratic countries. This strategy
aims at putting an end to the “frozen” conflicts at the threshold of
Europe,” the article authors consider. In the future the fate of the
peoples, who live at the threshold of Russia and the EU, will depend
on whether the “Russian neo-imperialism or the EU is able to establish
“pax europa”. To that end “the Western democracies” in the opinion of
the authors should come out with initiatives to solve the conflicts in
the post-Soviet space. “The frozen conflicts” in Georgian provinces –
South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as well as in Pridnestrovie have much in
common. “The conflict, in which Armenia and Azerbaijan collided in
Nagorno Karabakh, is more difficult and has a different nature than the
conflicts in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Pridnestrovie, Ana Palacio and
Pierre Lellouche write. “As of Turkey, it has got the opportunity to
show that the country wishes to enter the European family: for that
the border with Armenia should be opened and it would facilitate
the life in the republic, which has been blockaded for already 15
years. Finally, in exchange for cooperation with Azerbaijan in the
conflict, the West has to arrange close partnership ties with the
country,” the authors sum up. Both authors had visited Armenia and
Nagorno Karabakh in late October this year as part of the delegation
of the German Marshall US fund. They came for the participation of
Nagorno Karabakh in the conflict settlement talks.