Author: Nahapetian Zhanna

ARMENIA SHOULD TAKE STEPS TO NORMALIZE RELATIONS WITH TURKEY, TURKISH FM CONSIDERS
PanArmenian News
Feb 8 2005
08.02.2005 13:51
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenia should take steps to normalize relations
with Turkey. Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul stated it when
answering a question on relations with Armenia asked by US State
Secretary Condoleezza Rice, being in Turkey on visit. “I met both with
the Armenian FM and my Azeri colleague. This question has acquired
a chronic character. However, Armenia has to undertake certain steps
and if it is the case it will see reply actions,” Abdullah Gul said.

Agence France Presse — English
February 4, 2005 Friday 1:01 PM GMT
US consular worker in Armenia arrested for bribe-taking
YEREVAN
A US consular worker in Armenia has been arrested in Washington and
faces up to 15 years in jail for allegedly taking bribes for entrance
visas issued to Armenians wishing to travel to the United States,
officials said Friday.
The US State Department accuses Piotr Zdzislaw Parlej, a US national,
of taking bribes of up to 10,000 dollars (7,700 euros) for issuing
entry visas to unqualified candidates, according to the inidctment.
It is unclear how many improper visas Parlej issued or how much money
in bribes he had received. The United States has a thriving Armenian
diaspora, with families frequently traveling between the two
countries.

Azeri analyst cautiously optimistic about US policy on Karabakh
Yeni Musavat, Baku
3 Feb 05
An Azerbaijani political analyst has said that recent statements by US
President George Bush on resolving conflicts in the post-Soviet area
raise cautious optimism that the USA and Russia will make a serious
effort to find a settlement to the conflict between Azerbaijan and
Armenia over the disputed territory of Nagornyy Karabakh. In an
interview with Yeni Musavat daily, former Azerbaijani foreign minister
Tofiq Zulfuqarov said that events in Georgia and Ukraine showed that
the West was already pursuing an active policy in the region. The
following is the text of Kanan Rovsanoglu report by Azerbaijani
newspaper Yeni Musavat on 3 February headlined “Russia must review its
policy” and subheaded “Tofiq Zulfuqarov ‘The West is already pursuing
its policy in the post-Soviet countries'”; subheadings have been
inserted editorially:
The first month of the year was notable for several interesting
developments concerning Nagornyy Karabakh. US President George Bush
stated in his inaugural speech for a second term of office that he
would try to resolve conflicts in the post-Soviet countries; a
resolution on Nagornyy Karabakh was passed at the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe [PACE]; a mission to investigate
cases of settlement in the occupied territories started work; and
finally, the US State Department issued a statement on the
conflict. Is all this enough to say that peace talks will be
intensified in 2005? We tried to find answers to these and similar
questions in an interview with former foreign minister Tofiq
Zulfuqarov.
PACE resolution
[Interviewer] Tofiq bay [form of address], we would like to know what
you think of the PACE resolution? How will this document affect the
negotiations and how will it benefit Azerbaijan?
[Zulfuqarov] Some terms in the part of the resolution dealing with the
assessment of the situation are very positive. Wording is very
important in negotiations and political statements. Wording and terms
used reflect countries’ positions. It is positive that international
organizations use words testifying to the Armenians’ being
occupiers. I also view as positive and in Azerbaijan’s favour that
public representatives of the PACE member states confirm this. PACE is
quite an influential organization in Europe. Therefore, the document
is of great importance.
The resolution does not have a direct link to the negotiations,
because PACE is not involved in the peace process. But in any case a
document that reflects the stance of the European community will
affect the process.
[Interviewer] Some people say that some points in the resolution are
not favourable to Azerbaijan and warn that there will be problems
later on. This is basically a reference to the recommendation that
Azerbaijan should start unconditional negotiations with Karabakh
Armenians… [ellipses as published]
[Zulfuqarov] The Armenian community of Karabakh was a party to the
negotiations under the mandate of the [OSCE] Minsk Group until
1997. But the [Karabakh] Armenians were unhappy with that format and
wanted to be party to the negotiations at the same level as
Azerbaijan. In fact, this recommendation goes against the Armenians,
because the Azerbaijani side has said many times that it is ready to
negotiate with the Armenian community. Such negotiations have been
under way for a long time within the framework of the Minsk Group. At
the moment Azerbaijan is ready for that format. If the discussions are
held according to the Minsk Group format, there cannot be any
conditions attached to contacts with representatives of the Armenian
community.
“Signs”
[Interviewer] Some say that activity in the Karabakh talks and
international attention to the problem will increase in 2005. One
month of the year has gone by. Are you observing any activity?
[Zulfuqarov] There are signs. The most serious are the statements by
US President George Bush and other leaders of the new [US]
administration clearly setting out the main directions of that
country’s foreign policy. The statements stress that conflicts that
have lasted for years in the post-Soviet countries should be
resolved. And the USA wants to cooperate with Russia on that issue.
This is a term containing a very serious meaning. In other words,
Washington wants the Kremlin to have an explicit and unambiguous
attitude to conflicts and their joint resolution. This is more or less
how I understand those statements. It is true that we saw similar
statements before. But now there is more confidence that the USA and
Russian will exert joint efforts to resolve the problem.
[Interviewer] Do you think that the USA will manage to change Russia’s
position and secure its sincere involvement in the resolution of the
conflict?
[Zulfuqarov] Generally, I believe that very serious developments are
taking place in the post-Soviet countries. The changes of power in
Georgia and Ukraine, as well as attitudes to elections in other
republics, show that the West is already pursuing its policy in the
post-Soviet countries. Naturally, democracy and the establishment of
civil society are very important issues. But one of the most important
issues for us is to liberate our occupied territories and see our
refugees return to their lands. From this viewpoint I believe that the
pressure applied by the West on the parties to the conflict and Russia
should yield results, because the Bush administration has said it will
pursue a serious policy to reach the specified goals. This insistence
has proved successful in other regions. Let us hope that the policy on
conflicts will also bear fruit. I do not believe that Russia will opt
for confrontation with the West. Therefore, Moscow will accept the
cooperation to be offered.
“Promising elements”
[Interviewer] However, the Russian co-chairman [of the OSCE Minsk
Group], Yuriy Merzlyakov, has said that the conflict will not be
resolved this year and that there will be some progress in the
negotiations in the years to come. Do you expect any progress shortly?
[Zulfuqarov] The prolongation of the conflict has made the Azerbaijani
public feel somehow accustomed to pessimism. The long absence of any
progress in the negotiations gives certain ground for this. But there
are hopes, too. Among the promising elements, as I have mentioned, are
statements showing the intention of the West to resolve the
problem. The Russian foreign minister [Sergey Lavrov] is visiting
Azerbaijan. It cannot be ruled out that a similar statement will be
made during the visit. Russia is also co-chairing the OSCE Minsk
Group. Like us, they are watching US statements closely. Therefore, I
think some statements are possible during the visit. In any case, I
would like Moscow to issue statements that show a more serious
position on the issue, because the recent statement by Russian
officials that “Azerbaijan and Armenia should resolve the conflict
themselves” cannot be taken seriously.
[Interviewer] The US and Russian presidents are due to meet this
month. Can there be any connection between the visit of the Russian
foreign minister and US plans in the run-up to the meeting?
[Zulfuqarov] The visit is being paid on the eve of the Bratislava
meeting between Bush and [Vladimir] Putin. Reports have been leaked
that conflicts in the post-Soviet countries will be on the agenda of
the meeting. Naturally, there are more conflicts in the South
Caucasus. The visit of the Russian foreign minister to the South
Caucasus before the meeting may be somehow tied to the
issue. Naturally, other issues such as Russian-Azerbaijani relations,
the status of the Caspian and the situation in the region will be
discussed. But I believe that Karabakh will be the focus of the
discussions.

Coalition nations look ahead to exit
Chicago Tribune
Tue Feb 1, 2005
By Stephen J. Hedges, Washington Bureau
Now that Iraq’s election has passed, several of the 28 nations in the
American-led military coalition intend to withdraw their troops, citing
the costs–in lives and money–of operating for nearly two years inside
Iraq.
Before the election, some nations had declared it was time to reduce
their commitments and rely on the Iraqis to play a larger security role.
Now others will be watching closely to see whether the temporary
government elected Sunday can make the improvements in stability that
would allow more coalition nations to draw down their forces.
The Netherlands, for example, will withdraw all but about 300 of its
1,500 troops beginning March 15, allowing time after the election to
lend support.
“Our Ministry of Defense clearly stated that the Netherlands considered
the mission done there,” said Rear Adm. Michiel Hijmans, the Dutch
defense attache in Washington. “We’ve been there 20 months now, and it’s
fairly difficult to continue with this operation.”
Not all of those withdrawing or cutting back say explicitly the decision
was related to the vote. And coalition members aren’t the only countries
viewing the postelection period as a time for reassessment.
Two key opponents of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, France and Germany,
expressed support Monday for the election, and French President Jacques
Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder discussed Iraq in
telephone calls with President Bush (news – web sites).
According to a French spokesman, Chirac told Bush that the conduct of
the election was “satisfactory” and that it was “an important step in
the political reconstruction of Iraq.”
German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer praised Iraqis for going to the
polls and said, “The challenge of putting Iraq on a stable democratic
footing is one we must all take on together.”
Neither country, however, gave any indication they were willing to send
troops to Iraq.
Meanwhile, some coalition nations are packing up, either because they
believe the crucial work has been done or because of domestic political
considerations. Ukraine has begun plans to withdraw its 1,600 troops, a
move backed by the new president, Viktor Yushchenko, whose campaign
included a promise to bring the troops home.
In December, 300 Hungarian soldiers left; they had intended to stay
through the election but were ordered home early by Hungary’s parliament.
Poland, which maintained an important military presence in hot spots
south of Baghdad, has decided to cut its force to 1,700 troops from
2,400, and government officials have suggested that more withdrawals
could occur. Thirteen Polish soldiers have been killed in Iraq.
“Late last year our government decided to reconsider the number of
soldiers in Iraq, and again after the elections, depending on the
situation,” said Marek Purowski, Poland’s press attache in Washington.
“The idea is that the Iraqi force and the new elected government should
take over.”
Even Britain, America’s most steadfast ally in Iraq, is looking forward
to a time when its 9,000 troops can leave. British Prime Minister Tony
Blair (news – web sites) told the Financial Times newspaper recently
that he is willing to discuss “timelines” for the withdrawal of British
troops, most of whom work in the more peaceful south.
“Remember, 14 out of the 18 provinces in Iraq are relatively peaceful
and stable,” Blair told the newspaper. “Both ourselves and the Iraqis
want us to leave as soon as possible. The question is: What is `as soon
as possible’? And the answer to that is: When the Iraqi forces have the
capability to do the job.”
The Bush administration often has cited the international coalition of
troops in Iraq as proof of the broad support for the U.S. mission there.
About 152,000 U.S. troops are currently stationed in Iraq along with
about 25,000 other foreign soldiers, according to a spokesman for the
U.S. military command in Baghdad. Nations involved in the coalition
include Australia, El Salvador (news – web sites), Estonia, Bulgaria,
Portugal and South Korea (news – web sites).
While nations in the coalition have sometimes changed, administration
officials say it has remained a steady force whose presence is
determined by conditions in Iraq, not a timetable.
Any withdrawal is “mission-driven,” said State Department spokesman
Steve Pike. “It may go faster, it may go slower, but it’s going to be
driven, at least from our point of view, by what we do, by what’s
possible, by results.”
For other coalition nations, though, there may be more than the mission
to consider. Hijmans noted that the Netherlands also has 500 troops in
the Balkans, 4,500 committed to a NATO (news – web sites) response force
and 750 assigned to operations in Afghanistan (news – web sites). Two
Dutch soldiers have been killed in Iraq.
“We have to leave because we’re also involved in a lot of operations all
over the world,” Hijmans said. “We’re a small force, and we’re really
stretched.”
John Pike, a military analyst at Globalsecurity.org, said many of the
U.S. partners in Iraq who signed on to help after the Iraq invasion in
2003 did not expect operations to last this long.
“I think a lot of these people figured that it was going to be a limited
tour of duty,” Pike said. “I think they’ve figured they’ve done their
duty, they’ve taken their turn and now that they’ve had elections, let
the Iraqis do it themselves.”
The departures could be significant for the U.S. troops and other forces
remaining in Iraq. They could complicate the task of combating an
anti-American insurgency that has demonstrated the ability to strike
everywhere in the country.
Many of the foreign troops have been intensely involved in training
Iraqi security forces. Their work now will have to be taken up by
remaining U.S. and other foreign forces. Britain, for instance, plans to
shift about 600 soldiers already in Iraq to take up the training of
Iraqi security forces that was being carried out by about 1,100 Dutch
troops. It also will dispatch about 200 fresh troops to Iraq.
“The UK remains committed, like the U.S. remains committed, committed
until the country is stabilized,” said Sam Keayes, a spokesman for
Britain’s Ministry of Defense. “We will remain there at the request of
the government of Iraq.”
As for the Iraqi government, officials have been reluctant to discuss
the departure of foreign forces until more government troops are
trained, an elected government is in place and insurgent-driven violence
is reduced.
Interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi spoke recently of a “condition-based”
rather than a “calendar-based” withdrawal of U.S. and other foreign forces.
During a pre-election briefing in Baghdad last Friday, Barham Saleh,
Iraq’s deputy prime minister for national security affairs, said the
size of the foreign force in Iraq is directly related to the level of
violence by Iraqi insurgents.
“We will be in need for international support for some time to come,
because on one hand, we’re dealing with a security threat from
terrorism, but at the same time we’re talking about a tough
neighborhood,” Saleh said.
“The overall security environment of Iraq would require continued
international engagement,” he added. “My hope is that after the
elections and the formation of an elected Iraqi government the security
dynamic will change, and more reliance will be placed on indigenous
Iraqi forces.”
– – –
Coalition ranks thinning
Following Sunday’s elections in Iraq, some nations in the U.S.-led
coalition could reassess their troop commitments.
Total coalition forces: 177,300
U.S.: 152,000
Non-U.S.: 25,300
NON-U.S. FORCES BREAKDOWN
Troops in Iraq as of January
Britain 9,000
S. Korea 3,600
Italy 3,085
Poland* 2,400
Ukraine* 1,600
Netherlands* 1,500
Romania 700
Japan 550
Denmark 496
Bulgaria 485
Others 1,884
*Has announced plans to withdraw some or all troops
Countries that have withdrawn troops
Dominican Republic
Honduras
Hungary
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Philippines
Spain
Thailand
Others, in order of troop strength, are: Australia, El Salvador,
Georgia, Mongolia, Azerbaijan, Portugal, Latvia, Czech Republic,
Lithuania, Slovakia, Albania, Estonia, Armenia, Tonga, Macedonia,
Kazakhstan, Moldova and Norway.
Note: Some totals approximate
Sources: GlobalSecurity.org, Tribune reporting, U.S. State Department.
;u=/chitribts/20050201/ts_chicagotrib/coalitionnationslookaheadtoexit

OSCE MINSK GROUP MISSION VISITING QARVATCHAR
Azg/arm
01 Feb 05
The OSCE Minsk group co-chars accompanied by OSCE monitoring mission
left Stepanakert for Qarvatchar region yesterday morning. This region,
Qelbajar as Azeris called it, belonged to Soviet Azerbaijan but today
is supervised by Nagorno Karabakh forces. The monitoring mission
visited several villages ofQ arvatchar as well as the region’s
center. The mission headed by German ambassador Emily Haber includes
10 members some of who are well-informed about Karabakh
issue. Mrs. Haber spent few years in German embassy to Ankara and was
the head of OSCE Division First Counselor Federal Foreign Office. The
OSCE Minsk group co-chairs are accompanying the monitoring mission in
Qarvatchar but they are not engaged in fact-finding. They are
observing the territories whereas the monitoring group is visiting
every house asking people where they came from, who brought them there
and whether the state supports them. Questions from an enquirer are
supposed to unveil the background of the settlers.
Answering daily Azg’s question as to what the mission’s goal is,
Mrs. Haber said that they will travel across territories that are
administratively outof Nagorno Karabakh and are under the Armenians’
control, will monitorand apparently will report on the situation to
the Minsk group in 1-2 months. Ihad the impression that Russian and
American co-chairs, Yuri Merzlyakov and Steven Mann, were not
enthusiastic about visiting the territories. They think thatsuch steps
change the issue’s direction. Supposedly, they mean that Azerbaijan is
more concerned with secondary issues instead of trying to find a
solution for the conflict.
On their way to Qarvatchar from Stepanakert the OSCE mission halted at
Dadivank, this medieval pearl of Armenian architecture, and put a
candle (the thought that this Armenian monastery and the whole
territory was once introduced as Azeri made me edgy).
The route from Stepanakert to Qarvatchar takes few hours but the
monitoring mission kept on in radio-equipped vehicles when one of
Karabakh representatives was telling stories from Karabakh war. We
were passing through territories that were under Azeri military’s
control in 1992, and the ruined settlements stood as witnesses of the
past war. They saw settlements notable for the Azeris atrocities when
40 percent of Karabakh was under their control. Vasili Nalbandian,
head of Qarvatchar region’s administration, was tellingthe mission
that he lost his home at the other side of Mrav mountain and moved to
Qarvatchar having no other place to go.
Having spent all day in Qarvatchar the mission will go south in the
direction of Iranian border to see other territories under Karabakh’s
control. It is supposed that they will stay there 7-10 days trying to
get the overall picture of the region. The mission is armed with
documents from Azerbaijan with indication of regions and settlements
that Armenia is allegedly inhabiting on state level.
Though we didn’t witness mission members’ talks with the local
population, I have the impression from what I heard that 99 percent of
refugees are from Shahumian, Getashen and other parts of Azerbaijan. I
want to remind that the mission’s visit to these regions was
Azerbaijan’s initiative.
By Tatoul Hakobian in Qarvatchar

AZERI ANALYST HITS OUT AT COUNCIL OF EUROPE REPORTER’S “DUAL” STATEMENT
Yeni Musavat, Baku
29 Jan 05
An Azeri political analyst has said that the rapporteur of the
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on Nagornyy Karabakh
is performing a balancing act between Azerbaijan and Armenia. In
remarks to opposition daily Yeni Musavat, Rasim Musabayov said that
David Atkinson is using “a dual language of traditional European
policy in order to preserve balance”. Musabayov also called on
Azerbaijan to pursue a “flexible” policy on Nagornyy Karabakh and not
to dramatize the situation. The following is the text of Elsad
Pasasoy’s report by the Azerbaijani newspaper Yeni Musavat on 29
January headlined “Atkinson’s ‘dual language’ statement” and subheaded
“Rasim Musabayov: ‘It is not a tragedy to start negotiations with
Karabakh Armenians'”; subheadings have been inserted editorially:
Apart from commendable points in the resolution of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), there are some provisions
that could upset Azerbaijan. These are the recognition of the right of
Armenians in Nagornyy Karabakh to self-determination and the
recommendation that Azerbaijan “should start negotiations without any
conditions” with them.
No self-determination for Karabakh
Guided by these factors, Armenia’s official propaganda tells its
people not to worry and claims that the passed resolution will not be
that bad for Yerevan and Karabakh’s Armenians. Some statements by the
PACE rapporteur on Nagornyy Karabakh, David Atkinson, alleviate
Azerbaijani concerns, but, on the other hand, the tip of the iceberg
can be seen in an issue threatening our country. Thus, Atkinson’s
statement that “the principle of ‘the right of nations to
self-determination’ cannot be applied to the Karabakh issue” was a
kind of cold shower in winter for those who claim (setting up) the
“Nagornyy Karabakh Republic”. The rapporteur stressed that any changes
to borders can be possible with the mutual consent of the parties. He
also added that Azerbaijan will never agree to the independence of
Nagornyy Karabakh. He stressed that “the CE and other international
organizations cannot recognize the independence of Nagornyy
Karabakh. Therefore, the right of nations to self-determination cannot
be applied to Karabakh.”
“Preserving balance”
However, the second part of Atkinson’s statement gives grounds for
concern. “We are expecting the Azerbaijani government to start
establishing contacts with representatives of Nagornyy Karabakh and
discussing the problem with them following the adoption of the
resolution.”
As may be seen, the officials are hastily drawing official Baku,
without giving it any chance to enjoy the PACE resolution, in
negotiations with the regime they called “separatist”.
Political analyst Rasim Musabayov believes that Atkinson is speaking
in a dual language of traditional European policy in order to preserve
balance.
“On the one hand, he says he does not recognize the right of
(Karabakh) Armenians to self-determination, but on the other hand he
calls on Azerbaijan to negotiate with Karabakh’s Armenians. But, the
Karabakh Armenians want independence. What is there to discuss with
them in this case?”
“Frame”
Yet, the political analyst says it is necessary to note an innovation
in the resolution.
“They had been saying for many years to “go and negotiate with
Karabakh’s Armenians” and that “we support Azerbaijan’s territorial
integrity including Karabakh”. But they had been trying not to call
Armenia an occupier and the Karabakh regime separatist. Now they are
saying that and it is positive factor”.
This assessment shows the Armenians a framework. “They want to say
that this is the way to peace. Otherwise, you would not be able to go
beyond the framework. Because Azerbaijan will never recognize your
independence and you are exposing your people to difficulties by
prolonging time.”
“No tragedy”
The expert does not see the condition for Azerbaijan to negotiate with
Karabakh’s Armenians as a tragedy.
“In fact, we have never said that we do not want to negotiate with
Karabakh’s Armenians. We have said that we want to talk about the
status, but only after the liberation of the occupied territories. I
do not think it is a tragedy to have contacts on any level with
them. It is not imperative that (Azerbaijani President) Ilham Aliyev
negotiates with (leader of Karabakh separatists) Arkadiy Gukasyan
face-to-face. The negotiations can be held on a lower level. We can
sit and listen to the Armenians”.
No negotiations between communities
Musabayov says there is no need for holding negotiations between the
Azerbaijani and Armenian communities (of Nagornyy Karabakh).
“The Armenians in Karabakh have problems not with the Azerbaijani
community, but with the Azerbaijani government. I do not believe that
any talks with Karabakh’s Armenians could yield results. If Kocharyan,
a person who has done all this and controls the occupied territories,
is the president of Armenia, it is no use expecting anything from
Karabakh’s Armenians. We have been negotiating with the Armenians for
10 years and we cannot start negotiations with Karabakh’s Armenians
now. But we should not be afraid of any contacts. It does not mean
recognizing Karabakh as a party to negotiations.”
Non-constructive party
He also touched on the experience of neighbouring countries. “The
Georgian government is negotiating with the unrecognized Abkhaz and
Ossetian leaders. The Moldovan president opts for negotiations with
the concocted structure in Dniester (region of Moldova). We must not
dramatize the situation. We need to pursue quite a flexible policy
here. We must take steps for the opposite party to be seen as wrong
and non-constructive. In the end, either the non-constructive party
will came under pressure, or the international community will
understand that we have taken all steps, but the Armenians have not
come to common sense.”
In that case, there will not be a serious obstacle to Azerbaijan
resorting to a military way (of resolving the conflict), he said.

Caucaz
europenews
01/30/2005 23:36 Tbilisi
Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia, Abkhazia : the workings of the European
policy on South Caucasus [EU – CONFLICTS – DOV LYNCH]
By François GREMY and Célia CHAUFFOUR in Paris
On 28/11/2004
Light on the workings of the European policy on South Caucasus. How should
we understand the common point of view of the member States at the European
Institutional level? Interview with Dov Lynch, researcher at the European
Union Institute for Security Studies (EU-ISS), specialist of the EU-Russia
relations and the security issues in Russia and in the ex-USSR.
We know that the Europeans thinktanks are at least present, if not influent
in the European structures. Do they mention the possibility to intervene in
Abkhazia in a more committed way ? Is it feared that the Abkhazian crisis
might lead to a domino effect in South-Caucasus ?
There are several thinktanks, notably the Center for European Policy Studies
(CEPS), and the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EU-ISS) where
I work, as well as the Free University of Brussels for which Bruno
Coppieters collaborates. But, there is no organization that is taking an
official stance in favor of a more committed European intervention in
Abkhazia.
One month before Heikki Talvitie was appointed in July 2003, EU-ISS
organized an International conference about South-Caucasus and the European
Union. This conference gave me the opportunity to write an article and to
raise the question of the commitment of EU in the Region. If EU was to get
committed, by which conflict would it first deal with ? Even if this article
was debated at the official level, it was not accepted.
As regards Nagorno-Karabakh, EU offered its participation but only at the
post-conflict level : proof that Brussels does not plan on intervening about
the issues of conflict-solving and negotiations. It is known as the
checkbook effect: you have at your disposal a checkbook and in case your
interlocutor is ready, you agree to offer quickly your help by way of
considerable financial means in order to consolidate Peace. But you do this
only after making sure that the fondations of Peace have been laid down.
Generally speaking, EU has decided to not intervene directly in the
negotiation mechanism of the conflict so as to leave this to UN and OSCE.
Its role which is limited for the previously mentionned reason, will be
played after an agreement is reached in one of those regions of conflict. It
will result in financings, local reconstructions, etc.
But, the last events demonstrated that EU could change its stance. The
South-Ossetian crisis was the proof of it. The special representative Heikki
Talvitie wants to play a more direct role in the conflict opposing
Saakashvili to Kokoïti. He recently organized a meeting about this, and
during the crisis this summer he has regularly gone here and there in South
Caucasus. His task to make things easier might even grow more important in
the future.
Regarding Abkhazia, it was decided that the Council did not have to
intervene directly. But under the aegis of the Commission, Europe wants to
take part in helping in the reconstruction. Hence the new program which was
announced over last summer : it supports the reconstruction and transition
to democracy in Western Georgia, notably in Zougdidi, but also in some
Abkhazian regions. We integrated programs that were put aside a few years
ago.
When you talk about EU, what do you mean exactly by the Commission or other
structures ?
I mean the Council. The Parliament has very little influence over the EU
political issues. The Commission is very influent – let’s not forget that it
has at its disposal considerable financial means. But, as regards the
political line for the conflicts and EU’s involvement in the negotiations,
it is relevant of the Council of member States.
What credit do you give to the delegation of the European Parliament which
heads the three Parliamentary Commissions EU-Armenia, EU-Azerbaijan,
EU-Georgia ?
As always, the Parliament acts as an idea catalyst. The Parliament managed
to schedule and put on the agenda, some ideas which are for most of them
much too ambitious, or considered unrealistic. Those ideas are not
systematically integrated, but it is the role of the Parliament to support
and defend concepts so as to EU does not lose sight of this region.
With avant-gardist propositions ?
Yes, but with a result finally not so influent. For many issues, and since
1999, the Parliament advocates a common strategy for South-Caucasus. It is
important that the Parliament asserts this, and that the local élite see one
of the EU’s actors makes such a stance public, since it fosters a certain
solidarity and an attentive behavior.
Is there countercurrents among the Commission and the European Parliament
about a stronger EU’s commitment in South-Caucasus, if not even an active
policy to encourage those countries to apply for membership?
It seems to me that the Parliament encourages membership since 1999. But the
Council, the Commission and the Parliament concurr in admitting that the
Parternship and Co-operation Agreements (PCA) which constitute the framework
for the EU-South Caucasus relations are not sufficient to reach the goals
announced in the PCA -political stability, conflict-solving and durable
development.
The Commission, the Council and the Parliament are aware of it. Since 1999,
an internal debate is going on between those three main actors so as to find
a solution. Everyone knows that the objectives of durable development and
political stability cannot be considered without solving the conflicts. EU
is in a difficult position : it is not ready to intervene, but its
objectives cannot be fulfilled without a regional openness which requires to
settle the tensions between Armenia and Turkey, notably the embargo, etc. A
region has to be created.
The European Parliament has been hoping for years for a common and more
committed policy. As for the Commission, it maintains its position.
But, the debate is before all taking place between the member States. Some
States are in favour of a much more committed polciy, notably Germany and
some Nordic countries. Other member States already committed in the region
are not sure about the necessity of adopting a strategy at the regional
level. They question the added value that EU might bring.
Do you think that the interests of the countries which are the most influent
in this zone may be incompatible with the ones of EU ?
It is more a matter of added value than a matter of incompatibility. Some
member States have adopted for ten years a national policy of intervention
in this region. France co-presides the Minsk Group. Germans are very implied
in solving the conflict in Abkhazia. The English also appointed Brian Fall
as the special representative firstly for Georgia on October 1st 2002, and
then for South-Caucasus. Brian Fall is an experienced diplomat and a former
ambassador in Moscow. He knows this region very well.
In 2002, those countries started to realize that a European policy might
succeed where national policies had reached their limits. Those debates
ended up by the appointment of Heikki Talvitie. The mandate of this new
special representative is innovative, as the Council points out. But we coud
also see there a compromise : Talvitie does not have an office in Brusells ;
he has at his disposal a reduced budget and little technical support.
Besides his post is mainly financed by Finland.
A lack of means coupled to too much bureaucracy?
Heikki Talvitie is very careful. He is very well aware of the limited weight
of EU in the region, but also aware of the presence of other countries and
organizations which already have a clear influence in the region. He was
ambassador in Moscow and he knows very well Russia. Hence, he knows the
constraints he has to deal with. The objective his first year of mandate is
to meet the decision-makers. Russians were rather anxious as for the
creation of this European representation, but he managed to « reassure »
Moscow.
Do you think that Heikki Talvitie will present at half-mandate a report
about the regional situation or else a concrete action-plan ?
I do not think so. I believe that he has to hand back a general report,
every six or twelve months. Those are short documents where a certain number
of ideas are highlighted. Those ideas may appear too timid, but his freedom
of action is limited.
I do not think that he can establish an action plan. An action plan has a
specific connotation. UE implements action plans for Moldavia, Ukrain,
Israël or in the framework of the new neighborhood policy.
So it is not realistic to consider a definite regional policy by the next
3-4 years ?
Indeed. On the other hand, an action plan not at the regional level but at
the national level might be considered – and, firstly for Georgia in case it
carries on its transition. But, those action plans will be passed only after
the first wave of action plans set up for the new neighbors and which will
be ratified next month. Almost one year will have been necessary to
negotiate an action plan with Ukrainians and Moldavians. This one comprises
4-5 chapters about policy, economy and conflict-solving.
For the time being, the South-Caucasus countries are not ready. Their being
included in the new neighborhood policy last June is decisive at
medium-term, but not immediatly. Everything is possible, but EU’s strategy
for the next 3-4 years basically depends on the current events. The
topicality may open up options more quickly than forecasted, as well as
close them.
Translated by Marie Anderson.

PACE RESOLUTION ON NAGORNY KARABAKH IS UNFAVORABLE FOR ARMENIAN SIDE:
VAHAN HOVHANNISIAN
YEREVAN, JANUARY 28. ARMINFO. The resolution of the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe on Nagorny Karabakh is unfavorable
on the whole for the Armenian side. Vice Speaker of National Assembly
of Armenia, member of the bureau of the party ARF Dashnaktsutiun Vahan
Hovhannisian stated during the news conference at the National press
club, Friday.
Of course, there are separate provisions in the document, proceeding
from the interests of the Armenian side, the vice speaker said. Among
them the call on to the authorities of Azerbaijan to begin a dialogue
with representatives of Nagorny Karabakh on determination of the
status of this region. Despite the fact that the PACE resolution on
Nagorny Karabakh is of recommendation nature and cannot have a legal
influence on the process of settlement of the Karabakh conflict within
the framework of OSCE Minsk Group, it is dangerous that Azerbaijan
succeeded to bring the discussions concerning the Karabakh problem
from the format of OSCE Minsk Group to other international instances
who know little about the kernel of the Karabakh conflict, Vahan
Hovhannisian stressed. And it is the omission of the Armenian
diplomacy, he said. “All the experts, including the cochairmen of the
OSCE Minsk Group, who have examined the genesis and the history of the
Karabakh conflict, know well in whose side is the truth.
Just that’s why, beginning from 1998 the positions of the Armenian
party concerning the Karabakh conflict have been taken into
consideration in all the proposals of OSCE Minsk Group. And that’s why
these proposals were rejected by Azerbaijan, the vice speaker
said. According to him, Azerbaijan, realizing the fact that it cannot
reach a success in the negotiation process within the framework of the
OSCE Minsk Group, as it is difficult to mislead the cochairmen, has
transferred the discussions of the Karabakh conflict to international
instances who know about it a little. Just for this reason the
Armenian side has declared that PACE is not the most favorable arena
for discussion of the Karabakh problem. However, it the fact is
important that no one of the international structures supports the
militarist aspirations of Azerbaijan in the Karabakh problem, and in
the process of peaceful negotiations the Armenian party will be able
to reach certain achievements.
The negotiation process for settlement of the Karabakh conflict is
going on, it means this issue has not reached a deadlock”,
Hovhannisian said. He stressed that a special advice format with the
participation of the heads of Armenian delegations to international
structures will be established at the National Assembly for increase
of the efficiency of the parliamentary diplomacy.

Karabakh defence minister downplays Azeri combat readiness
Noyan Tapan news agency, Yerevan
27 Jan 05
STEPANAKERT
“Based on the intelligence information of the Nagornyy Karabakh
republic’s defence army, as well as regular monitoring on the contact
line, one can say with a great deal of confidence that Azerbaijan is
not capable of resolving any issue militarily,” the defence minister
of the Nagornyy Karabakh republic, Seyran Oganyan, told a news
conference on 26 January when asked about Azerbaijan’s belligerent
rhetoric.
At the same time, he acknowledged that such statements are indeed
worrying.
With regard to the arrival of an OSCE monitoring group in the region,
he said: “We treat this mission quite normally.”
As far as agricultural work on the territories controlled by the
defence army is concerned, the minister said the army could not hamper
the population in this and could only help farmers with it.

Azeri Defence Ministry denies “heavy clash” on Karabakh front line
Assa-Irada, Baku
27 Jan 05
BAKU
Armenia has once again violated the cease-fire, ANS TV reported today.
Passage omitted: details of ANS report
An Azerbaijani army soldier, Aqil Mammadov, born in 1986, was killed
in a fight.
Passage omitted: more details
The Azerbaijani Defence Ministry has partly denied the report. In a
report provided to Assa-Irada news agency, the ministry’s press
service said that there had been no heavy clash and that an
Azerbaijani soldier had been killed by Armenian fire in a cease-fire
violation.