Author: Nahapetian Samvel

US MEDIATOR, ARMENIAN PRESIDENT DISCUSS KARABAKH SETTLEMENT
Mediamax news agency
3 Jun 04
Yerevan, 3 June: The US co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, Steven
Mann, and Armenian President Robert Kocharyan discussed the settlement
of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict in Yerevan today.
Mediamax learnt from the Armenian presidential press service today
that Mann had arrived in Yerevan from Baku where he attended the
Caspian Oil & Gas 2004 International Exhibition and Conference. He
informed Kocharyan about his meetings with the Azerbaijani leaders.
(In a separate report on the same day, Mediamax said that Mann and
Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan had also discussed the
forthcoming meeting between the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign
ministers in Prague on 21 June)

Minister wishes for Karabakh’s unification with Armenia – agency
Mediamax news agency
3 Jun 04
Yerevan, 3 June: Armenia’s task is to obtain the international
community’s full recognition of the right of the Nagornyy Karabakh
people to self-determination, Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan
has said at a meeting with students of the international relations
department of Yerevan State University.
The right of the Nagornyy Karabakh people to self-determination means
that the people of Nagornyy Karabakh will have the right to decide
on their future, Oskanyan said. If Armenia achieves this, this will
be a success of Armenian diplomacy.
“I wish that the right to self-determination manifested itself
in the unification with Armenia. This would be the best option,”
Oskanyan said.

MOSCOW-BASED FORCES BEHIND ARMENIAN OPPOSITION – PRO-GOVERNMENT MP
Golos Armenii web site, Yerevan
20 May 04
Specific Moscow-based forces finance the Armenian opposition and
are behind the aggravation of the domestic situation in Armenia, MP
Gurgen Arsenyan, leader of the pro-government United Labour Party,
has said in an interview with Golos Armenii newspaper. He did not
name those forces, but said that their activities have nothing to do
with Russia’s official position. Arsenyan added that the opposition
is not supported by the public, which is proved by the stable number
of participants in opposition actions. The following is an excerpt
from Marina Lazarian report by Armenian newspaper Golos Armenii web
site on 20 May headlined “Foreign forces are behind the aggravation
of the domestic political situation” and subheaded “Gurgen Arsenyan,
leader of the United Labour Party and head of the party’s parliamentary
faction, thinks”. Subheadings have been inserted editorially:
Moscow-based forces behind standoff in Armenia
(Correspondent) Political consultations have been interrupted and
the confrontation between the opposition and the authorities is
continuing. What is your assessment of the situation?
(Gurgen Arsenyan) There is the logic of political activities in the
context of time and space, and therefore, it should be in line with
them: challenging the results of the presidential elections would have
been relevant a year ago, however, a year later, it is illogical and
ill-timed. Quite specific foreign forces are behind the aggravation of
the domestic situation. This assessment is based on serious analytical
reports that clearly show the presence of interested forces which
are concentrated in Moscow and finance the developments in Armenia
from there. The actions of those forces have nothing to do with the
official position of the Russian state.
The opposition’s aim, and namely, challenging the results of the
presidential campaign is not supported by the public. This is proved
by the stable number (a kind of constant unit) of participants in
street protest actions, i.e. those actions have not detonated public
dissatisfaction. Proceeding from this, the opposition is compelled
to look for a way out of the current situation, for such a method
of activity might lead to failure to honour the recommendations
contained in the PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe)
resolution, and as a result, to possible sanctions against our country
for failing to honour its commitments to the Council of Europe in
the form of suspending the mandate of the Armenian delegation in the
Council of Europe.
(Correspondent) Perhaps, this is what the opposition is trying to
achieve according to the principle – the worse, the better?
(Arsenyan) The talk is about the sanctions that will not be applied
against the authorities, but against the state, and given such an
outcome, we will only have to state the victory of the third force
which is deliberately promoting the development of the situation in
the described direction.
(Correspondent) If you have serious facts about the interference of
a third force in the domestic affairs of our country, why don’t you
make them public?
(Arsenyan) We keep to the opinion that appropriate state structures,
which are in charge of maintaining the country’s security and foiling
any attempts to interfere in our internal affairs, should deal with
this issue, demonstrating to our friends and enemies that Armenia
cannot be ruled from a distance, which works with regard to countries
called banana republics. I do not think that our colleagues from the
opposition are participating in this processes consciously.
(Correspondent) It turns out that you think that you can get financial
inflows from abroad and not realize why you are getting paid?
(Arsenyan) This is not new: you can finance people, without revealing
your genuine aims, for example, by pretending that you hold the same
views as them. People, to put it figuratively, can be used in the
dark. We believe that this is the case with the opposition.
(Correspondent) I suppose that speaking about the presence of a third
force in the confrontation between the opposition and the authorities,
which is still not known, as the president said, he was talking about
the same force as you?
(Arsenyan) I suppose that the president is aware even of its name.
(Correspondent) Nevertheless, the opposition is not planning to give
up on street protest actions, probably realizing that it is impossible
to come to power in the country in this way.
(Arsenyan) Raising its voice in defence of their demands, the
opposition is talking only about its rights, whereas apart from their
rights, the opposition is also obliged to criticize and oversee the
activities of the authorities, and the opposition “successfully”
neglects the functions that voters have given it.
(Passage omitted: Quoting a Russian writer; the Baltic states are
members of the EU)
Karabakh conflict settlement
(Correspondent) Do you share the forecasts that the Karabakh settlement
process may enter a decisive stage in 2004?
(Arsenyan) We believe that this stage is approaching, and the external
forces we mentioned above, destabilizing the situation in Armenia,
aim to exert influence on this process. However, the prerogative
in the cause of settling the conflict belongs to the authorities of
Armenia and the Nagornyy Karabakh Republic (NKR) and to the Armenian
people, not to our compatriots in Moscow who are trying to interfere
and weaken Armenia’s position in the settlement process in order
to join in the process with the aim of big financial gain. This is
a commercial project which is being implemented from abroad and is
connected both to the settlement process and regional communications,
as well as to other important factors.
As for our stance on the conflict, we proceed from the situation
that Armenia is not a side to the conflict and should not discuss
issues concerning the fate of the Karabakh people, but only issues of
guaranteeing the rights and security of the NKR people. In our opinion,
the sides to the conflict should be Azerbaijan and Karabakh. Armenia
should not have a territorial dispute with Azerbaijan, except for
Artsvashen (the village of Baskand in Gadabay District) which has
been occupied by Azerbaijan. We believe that agreements and security
guarantees should be hammered out through negotiations between the
Azerbaijani and NKR authorities, and those guarantees should satisfy
the people and the authorities of the NKR.
(Passage omitted: Arsenyan will not stand in the next presidential
elections)

Armenian asylum seekers on hunger strike
AzerNews, Azerbaijan
May 20 2004
The two Armenian nationals, Roman Terian and Artur Apresian, who
came to Azerbaijan on April 7 fleeing Kocharian’s regime, announced
on Monday that they had started a hunger strike.
Terian and Apresian, who aspire to emigrate to a third country with
the assistance of international organizations, began the strike after
the Baku Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees rejected
their request.
In explaining this decision, the office said that if it granted the
request, other individuals might try to emigrate from Armenia in the
same way.

Azeri leader rules out concessions over Karabakh
ANS TV, Baku
19 May 04
[Presenter] Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev’s official visit to
Belgium is continuing. Aliyev will meet NATO Secretary-General Jaap
de Hoop Scheffer today. ANS’s special correspondent, Qanira Pasayeva,
is joining Xabarci [news programme] now. Good afternoon, Qanira. We
can hear you.
[Correspondent, on the phone] President Ilham Aliyev had a working
breakfast organized by the European Politics Centre. His speech,
questions and answers were focused on the Nagornyy Karabakh
problem. Aliyev said that the Armenian armed forces on the
occupied territories of Azerbaijan were a source of instability
in the region and that the territories were being used for illegal
activities. For this reason, the Armenian armed forces should withdraw,
and Azerbaijan will not give up this principled position. Asked
about possible compromises, the president said that no compromises
would be made. Because the current situation in the conflict and
international legal norms urge the liberation of [Azerbaijan’s]
occupied areas. According to the president, today we talk about
integration into the European Union. But one European country, which is
a Council of Europe member, is keeping under occupation the territory
of another European country.
The president also touched on regional cooperation. He said that the
main reason for Armenia being on the sidelines of regional projects
was that it was keeping Azerbaijani territories under occupation. The
president also responded to questions about the 15-16 October events
[post-election riots in Baku in 2003] and freedom of the press. The
president said there was no press censorship and the press did not
have any serious problems.
We call on the opposition to hold discussions at the negotiating table,
not in the streets, the president said. He added that he had offered
them dialogue a few times. However, his offer has received no response.
The president then met Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych. In
an exclusive interview with ANS after the meeting, Yanukovych said
they had discussed some issues of reviving economic ties between
Ukraine and Azerbaijan and that they had no problems in the political
sphere. Moreover, the sides touched on the issues to be discussed
during Ilham Aliyev’s official visit to Ukraine in early June. Asked
if they had discussed the Odessa-Brody oil project, Yanukovych said
that he would express his official stance before Ilham Aliyev’s visit
in June. [Sentence indistinct] That’s it, Leyla.
[Presenter] Thank you, Qanira.

BAKU TODAY
May 14 2004
Oskanian: The Idea To Withdraw From Seven Districts Is Absurd And
Meaningless
Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian on Thursday deemed the
idea of withdrawal from Azerbaijan’s seven occupied districts “absurd
and meaningless.”
Oskanian’s Azerbaijani counterpart Elmar Mammadyarov came up with a
suggestion during their 13 May meeting in Strasbourg that Baku might
open up all communication lines to Armenia should the latter releases
seven districts it occupied in 1991-94 war.
Mammadyarov’s proposal holds that over 700,000 Azerbaijani internally
displaced persons (IDP) should be returned to their homes before the
issue of Nagorno-Karabakh’s status is resolved.
Armenian side has rejected thus far every plan considering stage
by stage settlement of the conflict, supporting only a “package
resolution” of the problem.
Nagorno-Karabakh, a mostly ethnic-Armenian populated region of
Azerbaijan, is under the control Armenian troops along with seven
districts surrounding it.
A no war no peace situation continues since a cease-fire agreement was
reached on May 12, 1994, with the Azerbaijani authorities oftentimes
warning that they can resort to armed means at any moment to regain
the occupied territories.

Karabakh cease-fire “mainly due to the balance of forces” – separatist minister
Mediamax news agency
12 May 04
Yerevan, 12 May: The truce agreement in the zone of the Nagornyy
Karabakh conflict entered into force 10 years ago on 12 May 1994.
On 5 May 1994, Armenian, Azerbaijani and Karabakhi parliaments’
heads signed a protocol under the auspices of the CIS Parliamentary
Assembly, which served as a base for establishing a truce in the
Karabakh conflict zone. On the basis of the signed protocol, the
Russian president’s special representative for Nagornyy Karabakh,
Vladimir Kazimirov, drew up a truce agreement which entered into
force on 12 May.
In the interview with Mediamax, foreign minister of the Nagornyy
Karabakh Republic (NKR) Ashot Gulyan called the meeting in Bishkek “a
remarkable stage in the history of the Karabakh conflict settlement.”
Ashot Gulyan highlighted the importance of the fact that for the
last ten years the truce has been maintained by the efforts of the
two sides, without the support of the international contingent.
“The cease-fire is maintained mainly due to the balance of forces
in the region, and day-by-day improvement of the NKR Defence Army’s
fighting efficiency, giving confidence that the peace in the region
will be maintained in the future as well,” the minister said.

Azer Tag, Azerbaijan
May 11 2004
INTER-PARLIAMENTARY GROUP OF COOPERATION PLAYS IMPORTANT ROLE IN
DEVELOPMENT OF AZERBAIJAN -GERMANY RELATIONS
[May 11, 2004, 10:51:07]
As was informed by AzerTAj, on May 10, members of the Germany-Caucasus
parliamentary group of Bundestag, Germany, have met members of
the Azerbaijan-Germany inter-parliamentary group of cooperation of
Milli Majlis.
Having welcomed the visitors, the head of Azerbaijan-Germany
inter-parliamentary group of cooperation, academician Jalal Aliyev
noted that between our countries there are friendly relations with
ancient history. Similar visits even more expand our cooperation.
German businessmen willingly put investments into various branches of
economy of Azerbaijan. After regaining state independence, Azerbaijan
under the direction of our national leader, President Heydar Aliyev
in the country began realization of some large projects, and it has
turned to very much advanced country of region. However, as a result
of occupation by Armenia of the 20 percent of Azerbaijani lands, more
than one million people became refugees and IDPs in their homelands.
The fact creates serious obstacles for development of the country.
The century, in which we live, is a century of protection of human
rights. But the states of the world and the international organizations
do not want to apply sanctions against the Armenian aggressors and to
put the aggressor on its place. We hope, that our German friends will
help us to solve the problem in the peace way within the framework
of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.
The head of German delegation Christoph Bergner informed, that
today they have met the refugees placed in Baku. We have very
heavy impression. In structure of delegation, there are the persons
representing both opposition, and authority. If in the Bundestag also
there are disagreements in the decision of any question, but in the
question of cooperation with Azerbaijan all are unanimous.
The goal of visit to Azerbaijan is carrying out exchange of opinions
on some questions. Parliaments play great attention on development
of relations between our countries and rapprochement of our peoples.
At the meeting, passed in a friendly and mutual understanding, the
parties had exchange of opinions and on a number of other questions
representing interest, and also deputies have shared their impressions.

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part A (Russia)
April 28, 2004, Wednesday
THE MAGNET OF BRUSSELS: PROS AND CONS
SOURCE: Izvestia, April 28, 2004, p. 5
by Fedor Lukianov, chief editor of “Russia in Global Politics”
magazine
On May 1, the European Union (EU) will make the most important
breakthrough in the history of European integration. Never before has
the Old World been so close to fulfilling its dream of complete
unity, which has been promoted ever since the Renaissance by
philosophers and rulers of various nations. By admitting ten new
member states from the Baltic, Mediterranean, and East-Central
Europe, the EU will unite almost all the territory which is generally
considered to be part of European civilization, in terms of culture
and history. Switzerland and Norway, while not official EU members,
are actually integrated into the political and economic system of the
united Europe. As for the Balkans, it’s only a matter of time until
the EU swallows them up as well. Next in line are Bulgaria and
Romania, which have been promised membership in 2007. Romania is
considered a very problematic candidate, and Brussels does not rule
out that its preparation period may be extended; but the basic
decision to admit those two countries has been made.
Next are Croatia, Macedonia, and Albania; with the more distant
prospect of Bosnia, Serbia, and Montenegro. It’s worth noting that
Bosnia, which exists as a united state only on paper, has a better
chance than Serbia and Montenegro, which don’t wish to follow
European principles. In fact, however, the nations of the Balkans
have no other option: they have no room for maneuver, whether in
political or (more importantly) economic terms.
The Balkans round off the territory which has been traditionally
included in Europe’s zone of influence. Any further expansion would
mean the EU venturing out onto new and uncertain ground. Not
surprisingly, therefore, Brussels is much more cautious about the
other nations that wish to become part of the Greater Europe project.
The main problem which the ideologues of the united Europe will have
to resolve in the near future is Turkey. Ankara was promised EU
membership as far back as the 1960s, but no one seriously imagined
that there would ever be any question of Turkey actually joining the
EU. In recent years, Turkey has made gigantic efforts to carry out
the reforms demanded by Europe. In terms of politics and its economy,
modern Turkey is no worse than Albania or Romania, and no one is
questioning their right to EU membership. Off the record, many
European politicians are saying that Turkey will never be admitted –
because it’s part of a different culture and civilization; Europe
simply fears this large, rapidly-developing Muslim state, and prefers
to keep it at a distance.
Those who support EU membership for Turkey argue that a refusal would
alienate Turkey from Europe, and from Western values in general; it
would provide substantial impetus for pro-Islamic attitudes.
Washington is lobbying for Turkey to be admitted into the EU, since
Washington needs a powerful, strongly pro-West ally in the Greater
Middle East region. The decision on whether to open negotiations with
Turkey should be made at the EU summit towards the end of this year.
Even if the verdict is positive, the negotiations will take a very
long time, no less than a decade. It’s worth noting that Turkey’s
fate is of great interest to its northern neighbors: Georgia,
Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Georgia and Armenia have stated on more than
one occasion that they wish to become part of the European
integration process. A senior Armenian diplomat once told me that if
the EU is prepared to discuss membership with Turkey, then Armenia
ought to be a natural choice.
All the same, Turkey is last on the list of potential candidates.
After that, there are questions which directly concern Russia. Will
the EU cross the “red line” – the current borders of the CIS? And
what will be the basis of relations between Brussels and Russia in
the coming decades?
“Europe represents an attempt by small and medium-sized nations to
reach agreement in order to decide their fate together. A superpower
would be out of place among them, even if it is not an economic
giant, and perhaps even no longer a political giant. The common home
of Europe will not be built according to Gorbachev’s design; it will
be located to the west of the disintegrating empire and its heirs.”
When those words were written, all this seemd a distant and not
entirely obvious prospect. Even though the Soviet Union had less than
a year of life remaining, few believed it would fall apart so soon.
But less than fifteen years later, not a trace remains of the
erstwhile geopolitical architecture of the Old World. Only one aspect
has been unaffected by the changes: people’s impressions of where the
walls of that common home of Europe are, the home those former
ideological opponents appeared to start building together in the
Gorbachev era.
“On his own initiative, Silvio Berlusconi has attempted to win
President Putin’s goodwill by promising him EU membership. This is a
short-sighted move. We should not hesitate to admit that borders do
exist. The European Union should not encourage hopes it has no
intention of fulfilling.” That is a quote from “The Borders of
Europe,” a book that came out in late 2003 and immediately became a
best-seller. Its author is Fritz Bolkestein, EU commissioner for
domestic markets, taxation, and the customs union; the person
responsible for the very foundations of how this enormous territory –
stretching from the Arctic to the Mediterranean – functions.
The key question the EU faces in post-Soviet territory is its policy
on Ukraine: a country which is undoubtedly European, and suited to
the EU in terms of its size. Kiev has announced its “choice in favor
of Europe” on numerous occasions: its intention to integrate itself
into European structures, eventually becoming a member of the EU. The
Ukrainian authorities have repeatedly expressed disappointment that
their sincere wish to become part of the West is not being met with a
worthy response from the EU. Ukrainian Senior Deputy Foreign Minister
Alexander Chalyi, responsible for European integration issues in the
government, has long been pestering people with this question: Why
has Russia been recognized as a nation with a market economy, even
though the European Commission itself admits that Russia’s energy
sector is not based on market principles and is heavily subsidized by
the state – but Ukraine has not been recognized, even though it has
long been paying world prices for energy?
Brussels says reforms in Ukraine are making slow progress, and points
to problems with the functioning of democratic institutions, freedom
of the press, and transparency during elections. Off the record,
European diplomats say the European Commission is trying to walk on
the razor’s edge in its relations with the “western CIS” nations:
Ukraine, Moldova, and (to a lesser extent) Belarus. In other words,
it is trying to motivate those countries to get as close to Europe as
possible, drawing them into Europe’s orbit, while refraining at all
costs from promising them EU membership (the Turkey experience has
been instructive). This is a very difficult task, since the leading
motivation for all transformations in Eastern Europe has been the aim
of fulfilling all the criteria for joining the “club.” In the absence
of that prospect, the will to make changes declines perceptibly.
Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova are officially called the EU’s “new
neighbors,” implying a special relationship. The form and content of
that relationship are now a topic of discussion within the EU, and a
new policy will be developed over the next year or two. One thing is
clear: the EU is serious about continuing to expand the “European
idea” eastward, and this idea will be the main rival to an idea now
taking shape in Russia: restoring the economic (for a start) unity of
post-Soviet territory. It should be noted that the EU, which until
now has been a weak, unskilled player in the global geopolitical
arena, is acting with precision, being goal-directed, not making any
mistakes – when it’s a matter of looking after its own direct,
immediate interests. The situation along the EU’s borders is
undoubtedly among those interests.
No one now disputes the fact that Russia has no intention of joining
the EU and the EU doesn’t want Russia as a member. Russia –
especially the kind of Russia being created by Vladimir Putin, with
the support of most citizens – will not share sovereignty with anyone
else (this being a cornerstone principle of European integration); it
has no intention of adopting Europe’s laws in any significant
quantity; and it will not make human rights a priority in its
policies. Both in Moscow and in Brussels, people are starting to say
that the model of relations set down ten years ago in the Russia-EU
Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) is no longer appropriate
for the current state of affairs. Back then, both the Europeans and
Russia’s liberals assumed that Russia would become similar to Europe,
even if this process was slow and difficult. The PCA was based on the
idea of gradual integration. But now it’s clear that Russia and the
EU represent different political-economic systems – and most
importantly, Russia is not developing in the direction that was
assumed at the dawn of Russian democracy. As a result, the PCA’s
emphasis on integration is tending to become a factor leading to
conflicts, rather than motivation for development.
What kind of problems will Russian-European relations encounter over
the next few years?
Firstly, there is Europe’s reaction to Russia’s domestic political
situation. The EU is a very ideology-heavy project, based on a system
of “European values”: the rule of law, the priority of human rights,
the ideals of social justice and civic responsibility. What’s more,
these concepts are not empty cliches for the Europeans, but real
factors influencing real-world politics. Thus, the undemocratic
phenomena that accompany Russia’s “authoritarian modernization” will
draw a negative response from Europe. Bureaucrats in the foreign
affairs ministries of EU member states and at the European Commission
might wish to turn a blind eye to events in Chechnya, or trials of
spies and oligarchs, but public opinion and the legislatures that
supervise them will not permit them to do so. This problem will be
exacerbated once the Baltic states and Eastern European countries,
with their habitual dislike of Russia, become EU members.
Secondly, the interest of the EU in post-Soviet territory holds great
potential for conflicts with Russia. Moscow reacts nervously to the
West’s activity in the regions which are important for it – in the
European part of the CIS and in the South Caucasus. The first direct
conflict took place last November, when the EU essentially scuttled
Russia’s proposal for resolving the Trans-Dniestr conflict and
accused Russia of acting unilaterally. Such conflicts will continue,
especially if we take into account the fact that the CIS countries
are becoming a priority for Russian foreign policy. Thus, Europe has
a negative attitude toward the CIS Common Economic Zone which was
initiated by Moscow, saying that such integration is incompatible
with striving for EU membership, for example, in the case of Ukraine.
Thirdly, there is a domestic European factor which will complicate
the relations between Moscow and Brussels. The EU is on the threshold
of a very difficult period. On the one hand, the process of
“digesting” of new members and, on the other hand, of intensification
of integration with conversion to the federative structure will
occupy the majority of the EU’s strength and energy in the near
future. The EU will be responsible for resolving various problems
after the entry of 10 new members. These are the economic
backwardness of the new members, labor migration from these countries
to more developed states, the situation in Cyprus, inter-ethnic
problems in the Baltic states, the growth of populist anti-European
attitudes in Poland, and so on. The series of referendums on a
European Constitution will lead to heated debates in old member
states. However, the main sponsor of integration – Germany – is
unable to emerge from economic recession. In this situation, it is
difficult to believe that relations with Russia would be among the
main priorities of Europe.
Finally, nobody can say today what the EU will be like five or ten
years from now. Its prospects depend not only on internal issues, but
also on the development of the global situation. The plans of today’s
united Europe – the plan for a territory of peace, law, and
prosperity – was drawn up before the era of new global instability
called the “war on international terrorism.” The “Greater Middle
East,” which the EU borders on, is a potential arena for operations
and it will be impossible for the EU to fence itself off from them.
The explosions in Madrid destroyed the glass dome which had covered
Europe. It is impossible to predict what tasks the EU will be faced
with in the near future.
Jacque Delaure, former chairman of the European Commission and
architect of the present phase of integration, expressed serious
anxiety about the future of the EU. In his opinion, Brussels has been
too hasty with expansion and admitted the countries which don’t
strengthen, but weaken the alliance. In other words, not “producers”
but “consumers” of “stability and prosperity.” Delaure fears that the
EU will die as an integration mechanism and will be turned into one
large free trade zone.
Only towards 2010 will it be clear whether the prophecy of the
patriarch of integration will come true or not. As for us, the fact
that the EU will be Russia’s main partner, largest neighbor, and
customer in the foreseeable future is the determining factor.
The key to success in Russian-EU relations is understanding the logic
and mechanisms of the EU’s operations. Moscow should learn to use all
possible opportunities and loopholes in the European Constitution in
order to promote, defend, and lobby for its interests – from quotas
and tariffs to the rights of Russians in Latvia. This requires some
significant increase in material and intellectual resources directed
towards Europe. Otherwise, Russia will always be too late in making
correct decisions in its relations with the EU and will try to solve
various problems at the last moment, when it is impossible change
anything. The more complex the partner, the more attention should be
paid to it.
Translated by Gregory Malyutin

ITAR-TASS, Russia
April 29 2004
Aliyev calls for gradual settlement of conflict with Armenia

STRASBOURG, April 29 (Itar-Tass) – Azerbaijani President Ilkham
Aliyev favoured the settlement of the conflict with Armenia on a
gradual basis.
The first step is `to withdraw Armenian troops from the seven
districts of Azerbaijan’ that are not part of Nagorno-Karabakh,
Aliyev said.
Speaking at the PACE spring session on Thursday, the Azerbaijani
president said this initiative has become an important step towards
strengthening trust. This idea has been discussed by Europarliament
and other European structures and supported by them, he added.
`It is inadmissible when one of the Council of Europe countries is
occupying part of another country, which is also a CE member. Armenia
will win nothing neither in an economic nor moral aspect. This only
can infringe upon Armenia’s prestige at the international arena. I
believe that Armenian leaders are beginning to understand this,’ the
Azerbaijani leader stressed.
At the same time, Aliyev pointed out that Azerbaijan will never agree
to develop economic cooperation with Armenia till Armenian troops are
not withdrawn from these districts. `Azerbaijan cannot cooperate with
a country that occupies part of its territories,’ Aliyev emphasised.