ANASTASIA GREBYONKINA-VAZGEN AZROYAN PAIR TO REPRESENT ARMENIA IN
EUROPE FIGURE SKATING CHAMPIONSHIP
YEREVAN, JANUARY 18, NOYAN TAPAN. On January 19, Europe Figure Skating
Championship will start in the city of Zagreb, Croatia. The dancing
pair Anastacia Grebyonkina – Vazgen Azroyan, who left for Zagreb with
their trainer, Olympic Champion Alexei Zhulin, will take part in the
competitions from Armenia.
CAUTION OVER ARMENIAN VISITS TO BAKU
By Vahan Ishkhanian in Yerevan
Institute for War and Peace Reporting, UK
Jan 17 2008
The increasing frequency with which Armenians are visiting Azerbaijan
does not mean a thaw in relations is under way.
A series of visits by Armenians to the Azerbaijani capital Baku have
raised hopes that relations between the two countries might be easing,
but commentators warn that in reality such trips have little wider
political significance.
The two former Soviet republics have had virtually no contact since
the conflict over the disputed territory of Nagorny Karabakh began in
1988. A decade ago, there was an increase in informal exchange visits,
but these subsequently stopped again.
In the autumn of 2007, after a break of several years, there were
three notable Armenian visits to the Azerbaijani capital. The first
trip involved a group of interior ministry officials from Yerevan,
the second the Armenian national wrestling team and the third was by
member parliament Stepan Safarian.
On September 6, a delegation consisting of Armenian police chief Haik
Harutyunian and three other senior officials attended a meeting of
the interior ministers’ council of the Commonwealth of Independent
States, hosted in Baku.
Between September 15 and 24, a 31-member delegation from Armenia took
part in the World Wrestling Championship in the Azerbaijani capital.
Then, on October 3, deputy Stepan Safarian went to Baku to participate
in a meeting of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Black Sea Economic
Cooperation, BSEC. He was the first Armenian parliamentarian to visit
the country since his colleague Viktor Dallakian attended another
BSEC event in Baku in 2001.
All the Armenians were escorted around Baku by security guards,
a practice that also applies when Azerbaijanis visit Armenia.
Safarian said that his visit almost came to an end as he was checking
in for his flight to Baku at Tbilisi airport in Georgia. An Azerbaijani
airline official told him, "I can’t allow you to board the plane,
because you are an Armenian."
Only after a phone call was made to Baku did the airline agree to
allow Safarian to embark. He said other members of the BSEC assembly
were surprised to see him arriving in Baku alone.
When the wrestlers visited, they were escorted from the moment they got
on a plane in Georgia and were not allowed to go anywhere on their own.
The general secretary of Armenia’s wrestling federation, Lyova
Vardanian, recalled, "We were seated at the front of the plane and
told to speak quietly, or in Russian."
"When we landed, four security service officers got up and blocked
us off from the other passengers. When we got off, there were 50 or
60 people waiting for us. All the way through the tournament, we were
under observation and even escorted to the toilet. There were people
with us, in front of us and behind us."
The Armenians’ best hope, junior world champion Arsen Julfalakian,
did not win any prizes. The team said that the hostile atmosphere
made it difficult for them to compete.
"During the competition, the mood in the hall was indescribable,"
said Vardanian. "The hall shook as people stamped their feet and
shouted, regardless of whether we were wrestling with Azerbaijanis
or other nationalities. Every time the word ‘Armenia’ was uttered,
and after every Armenian surname, the hall began to whistle."
Any Armenian visiting Azerbaijan gets an especially hostile reception
from the Karabakh Liberation Organisation, which wants to see a
military re-conquest of Nagorny Karabakh.
Akif Nagi, who heads the organisation, also lashes out at Azerbaijanis
who visit Armenia.
"Those who travel to Armenia, or especially to Nagorny Karabakh, and
those who open their doors to Armenians are just traitors," he said.
Deputy Safarian said that, despite the hostility of many Azerbaijanis,
it was useful for him to make the trip to Baku.
"There is a generation of people [on either side] who have never seen
an Armenian or an Azerbaijani in their life," he said.
Azerbaijanis tend to visit Armenia more often than the other way
round. The authorities in Yerevan say they want to encourage bilateral
contacts – a strategy that many Azerbaijanis say is just a way of
trying to freeze an unjust status quo in the Armenians’ favour.
The Yerevan Press Club has organised a number of exchange visits by
journalists, often in partnership with the Baku Press Club.
The head of the Armenian club, Boris Navasardian, has previously made
four trips to Baku but he says it has been impossible to arrange any
trips by Armenian journalists to Azerbaijan for the past six years.
"We haven’t been able to go to Baku under a programme that we launched
in 2002," said Navasardian. "Since then we’ve modified the programme
and we hold the meetings in Tbilisi, Turkey or Cyprus instead of Baku."
Navasardian said he was well received in Baku on the whole, but that
attitudes had already begun to harden during his last visit.
"Over time, the press reaction became harsher and more critical,"
he said. "During my last visit, the situation was more tense and
there was a flood of negative information about us. All the same,
I never felt persecuted in Baku and the only unpleasant thing was
that our movements were restricted."
Navasardian said that the latest visits which took place in 2007 did
not denote a warming in relations, but rather a pragmatic attitude
on the part of the Azerbaijani authorities who were keen to stage
international events.
"Azerbaijan needs to tackle international problems and for example
turn Baku into a sporting centre and raise its international profile –
a bid has been made to hold the Olympic Games in 2016," he said.
"Azerbaijan will therefore allow Armenian delegations to visit the
country."
He said that the general tendency was for relations to worsen rather
than improve, as Baku continued to insist the status quo over Nagorny
Karabakh was unacceptable.
Spokesmen for the two foreign ministries agreed that people should
not make too much of the visits.
The press secretary of the Armenian foreign ministry, Vladimir
Karapetian, told IWPR the trips were not to be seen as a positive sign.
"In the past seven years, Azerbaijan’s position has not undergone
the slightest change – it still rules out any bilateral contact,
and ties this to resolving the Karabakh conflict," he said.
According to Azerbaijani foreign ministry spokesman Khazar Ibrahim,
"It will only be possible to resume diplomatic relations with Armenia
after that country releases our lands and recognises the territorial
integrity of Azerbaijan. But if we are talking about international
events, then both sides ought to take part in them. They can take
place in Armenia or Azerbaijan, and there is no mechanism to stop
any country taking part in them."
Well known Azerbaijani journalist Zamin Haji, himself a refugee
from the Fizuli district which is currently under Armenian control,
insists that person-to-person contacts are vital if both populations
are to overcome the misconceptions they have about each other.
"We and the Armenians are so like one another that our fight is
like a person fighting against himself," he said. "Isn’t it better
to renew our relationship with one another? To get together and ask
all the residents of Karabakh – Azerbaijani and Armenian alike –
what they, the ordinary Karabakh people, want and how they want to
live in the future?"
Vahan Ishkhanian is a reporter with Armenianow.com in Yerevan. Samira
Ahmedbeyli in Baku contributed to this article, which was produced
as part of IWPR’s EU-funded Cross Caucasus Journalism Network.
MATTHEW BRYZA REGARDS NECESSITY OF MAINTAINING CEASE-FIRE REGIME BETWEEN AZERBAIJAN AND ARMENIA
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
Jan 16 2008
It is impossible to be successful mediator without getting acquainted
with ideas and position of the leaders of conflict sides, OSCE Minsk
Group co-chair Matthew Bryza (U.S.) said, APA reports quoting "Regnum".
Co-chair commenting on Azerbaijani leaders’ statement on Nagorno
Karabakh’s defining its self-determination stated that they are
informed about official Baku’s position long ago.
"We are informed about it. But finding compromise on settlement
principles in negotiations is our duty," he said.
He stressed necessity of supporting Andrzej Kaspszyk, personal
representative of OSCE Chairman-in-Office in the maintenance of
cease-fire regime.
GAS LEAK KILLS A FAMILY OF THREE IN YEREVAN
ARMENPRESS
Jan 16 2007
YEREVAN, JANUARY 16, ARMENPRESS: A family of three were found
asphyxiated by a natural gas leak in a Yerevan district. The Armenian
rescue service said the father of the family, 49, his wife, 45 and
their 21 year old son were killed by a gas leak.
Emergency officials said they checked the apartment after receiving
calls from their neighbors that none of the family members were
responding to telephone calls. The neighbors also complained of gas
smell coming out of their apartment.
When the door was opened the rescuers found three dead bodies.
The return of widespread use of natural gas in Armenia has caused a
number of safety problems in recent years, officials say. The country
had almost no natural gas for more than a decade.
Today’s Zaman, Turkey
Jan 14 2008
Identity and history (I)
by DOÐU ERGÝL
After a few year of high school education I came to believe that
history was a legend based on selected facts. With that reasoning,
"national history" was a fact based on selected legends.
Nevertheless, history as a collective experience or the impressions
thereof has a role in the constitution of an individual and of social
and cultural identities. History tells us who we are in contrast to
what we ought to be, which means loading history with ideology. And
all ideologies are spiritual arsenal or shields of contemporary
fights.
That is why the narrative attributed to history is so vital. We are
all chapters in the collective or grand national narrative that is
either our telling or th at is handed down to us by our elders as (if
it is) the sole correct story. In this sense we are the stories we
tell about ourselves. These stories may be true or false or a mixture
of both. But as long as we believe them and act as if they are the
reflections of truth, they have the power of influencing or even
guiding our lives, individually or collectively. In this way self
and/or collective deception is always close home.
It does not come to us scholars as a surprise that we sort,
categorize and periodize events that have happened in the past and
attach a meaning to them. So, who we are is vitally important to the
sorting and categorization process that we call "constructing the
narrative." However, this process ends up in a different
understanding of history that means emphasizing as well periodizing
some of those events. As we do so, some of the real or imaginary
phenomena become central and others are trivialized in "our" history.
This is often the case because history is generally written by
dominant groups or power holders in hindsight from their own time and
standpoint that validates their power, privilege or social order as
they see best. So we have a serious problem as to the author, or
better, "maker" of history. The second important problem is the fact
that history is a collective phenomenon that involves multiple
actors. But historiography may yield a particular narrative
glorifying only one of the actors because of the hegemony of that
actor in one particular time and geography. So all historical
narratives written or constructed by the excluded may be against the
dominant actor that has distorted their common history. If such a
thing happens, as it often does, common recollections turn into
particular collections of legitimizations and glorifications
shattering a common history and distorting the truth for all. The
"grand narrative" crumbles into particularistic and antagonistic
group stories full of hate and accusations.
Problem of particularism
Every group (people, nation, etc.) creates a procedure for the
memorialization of real or imagined facts. This is for keeping the
group (or its consciousness) "in perspective." The "unwanted" or the
unsavory are filtered, the reaming facts and deeds are afforded
"validity." So the concerned people/group can build a collective
identity enriched with emotions like belonging, allegiance,
dedication and sacrifice. The validity afforded to the historical
narrative provides a collective frame of reference that "marks the
land." The focal points or the highlights of the historical narrative
are both the victories and the traumas that makes the members of the
group value the present. So history is not only the depository of
past events, but a below the surface value scale that weighs and
gives meaning to the present.
It is in this context that our identities are formed and sustained.
If a historical narrative discriminates and excludes others who have
shared it, obviously there will be a heavy dose of antagonism and
aggressive feelings manifested when it is presented as the sole
truth. On this occasion, bringing differing/conflicting groups in
real-life situations is rather hard. The main reason for this is the
fact that such an effort will threaten each party’s collective
identity. The groups have a need to preserve their identity as being
separate — even as contrary — to their enemies’ identity.
Identity and the need for mourning
What is the way out then? To simplify a complex phenomenon, we may
say, "Bring closure through mourning" over the loss of people, land,
prestige and so on (crucial valuables) that make up a "trauma."
People invest considerable emotion into traumas because of the loss
of crucial valuables. Mourning becomes an important and integral part
of their identity. It may be equally informative to know that people
do not only mourn the loss of their "valuables" but also for the loss
of material or human elements that serve as the target of their hate:
the enemy, for example. The enemy becomes an integral part of group
identity especially if history is built on traumas.
Mourning occurs because the human mind can only deal with a traumatic
loss by emotionally accepting it. This is an internal (psychological)
process that builds bridges with the lost persons or material
valuables, like land. The mourning process comes to a healthy end
when the person or group acknowledges the loss and lays the lost
valuable to rest. In fact this process is a mechanism whereby the
individual or the group rests its mind over the agony of loss. Only
then the lost valuables (persons or objects) become "futureless,"
meaning they do not keep the mind and the soul of the grieving person
or group captive any more. When completed, the mourning process
allows the initiation of adaptive liberation from old burdens of
history that no more cater for psychological needs. The image of a
lost person or thing thus becomes a "memory" and we become ready to
accept changes or losses. From then on persons and groups can invest
into new persons or things that will be part of their post-mourning
identity.
On the other hand the mourning process may become complicated because
the person or group cannot get over its agony of lost valuables. In
this instance a mourner cannot accept an apology from another person
or group that is perceived as the cause of its loss. The anger and
hostility that the mourner harbors are reinforced with a sense of
victimization that becomes part of her/his identity as time goes by.
To accept a perpetrator’s apology means to alter the post-traumatic
identity of the mourner, which itself will be a new loss. So it is
very hard to accept apologies for those who have not concluded their
mourning or who do not want to do so. The humiliation associated with
the trauma and ensuing loss prevents the mourner from completing the
process and forgiving the perpetrator.
Such "emotional freezing" in time exhibits itself in political
ideologies. This happens especially when losses are caused
deliberately by others. The vicious circle can only be broken through
a reconciliation process with the perpetrator or by membership to
comprehensive (international) organizations that could alleviate the
security anxiety of the victim. For example, since Greece’s
membership in the European Union, its investment in anti-Turkish
ideology has been reduced considerably. However, this is not so with
the Serbians and Armenians, who have assimilated victimhood into
their group identity as a response to their past losses which they
still mourn for.
If a group that is fundamentally traumatized by others (who have
become the "enemy" despite a long life together) cannot conclude its
mourning in an adaptive way, it cannot successfully reverse
helplessness and humiliation. In this instance, the unfinished task
of mourning leads to "transgenerational transmission" and is passed
on from one generation to the other.
The person or group becomes a perennial mourner like the Shiites and
the Jews. They begin to produce antagonistic ideologies and
revengeful strategies against the perpetrator, its heirs or its
symbolic substitutes. The "enemy" (object/subject of hate) becomes an
integral part of their collective identity. Perennial mourners on the
whole do not wish to give up the hope of recovering what has been
lost and hatred becomes the fuel of their "long wait" in history.
This is how they cope with the helplessness and humiliation suffered
during or because of the massive trauma they have undergone. But
then, they cannot go through a "normal" mourning process. We see this
happen to people living during wars and in war-like conditions.
14.01.2008
MSNBC, USA
Jan 13 2008
Balkan unrest remains a recipe for disaster
By Anatol Lieven
FT
In their dealings over Kosovo’s independence, the European Union and
Russia need to take their points of departure from reality and common
responsibility for the stability of the European continent, not from
legalism or self-righteousness.
The Russians must recognise that, whether they and the Serbs like it
or not, Kosovo will soon become independent and will be recognised as
such by the US, the EU and many Muslim states. If this is not granted
soon, the Kosovo Albanians will revolt.
By vetoing United Nations recognition and giving moral support to
Serbian intransigence, Russia can help keep Kosovo unstable and
spread in – stability across the region. In the worst case, it could
help produce a war that would destabilise not just the Balkans but
Europe and deal a terrible blow to Russia’s relations with the west;
but Moscow needs to ask itself how it can be in Russia’s interest to
do this and take actions that will drive western Europe closer to the
hardline anti-Russian positions in the US.
EU governments also need to recognise two realities. First, that just
as trying to keep Kosovo in Serbia would lead to Albanian revolt, so
too trying to force Mitrovica, the remaining Serbian area of Kosovo,
into an independent Albanian state would lead to Serbian revolt.
Given the de facto "ethnic cleansing" by Albanians since the Kosovo
war, to ask the Serbs to accept either Albanian or western guarantees
of their future safety is absurd.
There have been veiled threats from the Albanian side that if
Mitrovica is separated and joins Serbia, this will lead to revolt by
local Albanian minorities not just in Serbia proper but also in
Macedonia. To this there should be a very firm western response. The
EU and Nato have rested their moral right to hegemony in the Balkans
on the claim to guarantee stability and prevent conflict. They have
also given promises to defend the stability and territorial integrity
of Macedonia.
The other reality the west needs to recognise is that, just as it is
impossible to force Kosovo back into Serbia, so it is impossible to
force Abkhazia and South Ossetia into Georgia. Quite apart from the
backing of Moscow and co-ethnics in the Russian north Caucasus for
these republics, it should be obvious from recent history that their
indigenous peoples can no more trust the Georgian state than Kosovo
Albanians can trust the Serbian state.
Kosovo’s independence will inevitably have repercussions for the
Georgian separatist regions and Nagorno- Karabakh and Trans Dnestr.
For the west to say Kosovo is a unique case is empty, given the
obvious parallels.
To resolve these issues and restore elementary consistency to its own
position, the west does not need to recognise Abkhaz and South
Ossetian independence – something for which Moscow is in any case not
asking, given the obvious lessons for some of Russia’s own restive
minorities.
Rather, the west should extend to these republics the same solution
that leading western countries have sought for nearby
Nagorno-Karabakh (though so far without success): namely a "common
state", in which Azerbaijan – or, in this case, Georgia – will retain
de jure sovereignty, and therefore the theoretical possibility of
future reunification by consent, while formally acceding to de facto
independence, including most notably, full control over local armed
forces and external borders. In all these cases, as in Kosovo, this
would have to be accompanied by limited partitions, in which certain
regions (such as Mitrovica, or the ethnically Georgian Gali and Svan
districts of Abkhazia) would remain with the former sovereign.
Before they go any further with their existing policies, the big
powers should remember this: the catastrophic first world war began
with a dispute over the status of Bosnia-Herzegovina, an area of no
interest to the vast majority of the Europeans who died.
The risk today from the Balkans and Caucasian conflicts is far less –
but none of the territories concerned is worth any serious risk to
the international system. What is more, the governments of 1914 could
not imagine the dreadful use to which Hitler and Stalin would put the
consequences of the first world war. Today, we do not have that
excuse. We know very well the uses to which Osama bin Laden and his
Chechen allies would put a serious clash between the west and Russia.
The writer is a professor at King’s College London and a senior
fellow of the New America Foundation in Washington. His book, Ethical
Realism: A Vision for America’s Role in the World, co-authored with
John Hulsman, has just been published in paperback by Vintage
Domino effect in recruitment in Karabakh
15-01-2008 11:39:40 – KarabakhOpen
Two weeks after New Year and three months after the appointment of
government replacements in authorities continue, which take place at
the domino effect.
First the president appointed the members of the Supervision Chamber
the chair of which is the ex-minister of justice Arthur Mosiyan. The
members are Ernest Avanesyan, Carlen Petrosyan, Major Danielyan and
Levon Tsatryan.
Before this appointment Carlen Petrosyan was the head of the
Supervision Service of the government, and was replaced by Hovik
Jivanyan, ex-adviser to prime minister. Edward Aghabekyan, ex-mayor of
Stepanakert, was appointed adviser to prime minister. This row of
appointments ended there because the ex-mayor had been unemployed for
the past few months.
The other row also starts at the Supervision Chamber. The ex-president
of the chamber Edward Barseghyan was appointed head of the parliament
administration, replacing Arto Sargsyan, who was appointed deputy head
of the Civil Service Board by the president.
The third line starts at the Civil Service Board ` Srbuhi Arzumanyan
was released of the duties of the member of the Board and appointed
ex-minister of social affairs. She was replaced by Vasili Avetisyan who
was the head of the Social Security Fund until October 2007 and the
head of Artsakh Post and was dismissed in a month in mysterious
circumstances.
On Saturday the Public Television Board posted an announcement for the
vacant position of the chief executive of the Public Television and
Radio. It turned out that Nicolay Davityan, ex-director in Mir TV,
appointed to this position two months ago has resigned.
In fact, usually nobody explains the reason for appointments and quick
dismissals. Meanwhile, a common person finds it difficult to discern
logic. Although, it is possible to make a guess ` if Nicolay Davityan
is replaced by someone from the nomenclature, a new row of falling
dominoes should be expected.
Eighteen years ago the Armenian massacres started in Baku
14.01.2008 12:08
Tatul Hakobyan
"Radiolur"
Eighteen years ago on these days the Armenian districts of Baku became
a stage for the Armenian massacres. Different from other regions of
Azerbaijan, many Armenians still resided in Baku. Certainly, they could
have moved and saved their lives two year before, but they continued to
believe in the internationalism of Baku till the very end. Like
Sumgayit, the attacks were particularly cruel.
According to one of the former leaders of the Popular Front Zardusht
Alizade, a few days before the massacres of Baku posters on the walls
of the party building on Rashid Beibutov Street pointed to the houses
Armenians lived in: `the whole city had gathered at the meeting of the
Popular Front. Anti-Armenian calls could be heard during the whole
meeting. The last slogan called `Long live Baku without Armenians." The
Armenian massacres started during the demonstration,’ Alizade declared.
According to historian Arif Yunusov, 86 thousand Armenians were killed
between January 13 and 15. According to the data of the Armenian side,
the number exceeded 150 thousand. Thousands of Armenians found shelter
in `Shafag’ cinema. They were later moved to Baku port, from where they
could reach Krasnovodsk port of Turkmenistan and later to Yerevan.
The Soviet troops were brought to Baku only when the Armenian massacres
were over. On January 11 the Popular Front took some administrative
buildings in Baku by storm and seized the power in Lenkoran city.
Azerbaijan’s leader Abdurahman Vezirov declared on TV that it’s time
for decisive actions. Second Secretary of the Communist Party of
Azerbaijan Viktor Polyanichko negotiated with the leaders of the
Popular Front, as a result of which the National Defense Council was
formed. Four of the five members of the Council, Etibar Mamedov, Neymet
Panahov, Rahim Gaziyev and Abulfaz Elchibey, were from the radical
nationalist wing of the Popular Front. Panahov declared on Azeri
television that Baku was full of homeless refugees, while thousands of
Armenians still comfortably lived in their homes in Baku.
Two years ago, in response to the assertions of the reporter of the
`Moskovskiy Komsomolets’ saying troops were brought to Tbilisi,
Vilnius, and Baku, the first and last President of the Soviet Union
Mikhail Gorbachev declared that upon his order troops entered only the
capital of Azerbaijan.
`The events in Baku got out of control, the Supreme Council and the
Communist Party were paralyzed, the 200 km-long state border was
destroyed, local self-government bodies were being attacked. I
immediately sent Evgeny Primakov and Andrey Girenko to Baku. They
suggested to declare state of emergency and bring troops. Now I think
that we thus prevented a greater bloodshed.’
The presidency of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of The
Soviet Union and the Council of Ministers applied to the people of
Azerbaijan and Armenia, calling on `men and women, the elderly and the
young to listen to the voice of reason, restrain the extremists,
denounce the provokers, stop the aggressors,’ `to support the efforts
of the leadership of the country, the law-enforcement bodies, the
Ministry of Interior Affairs, the Soviet troops and frontier guards
directed at restoring peace and order.’
Sure, this was a cynical call, since only a few days before that the
Soviet leadership, the law-enforcement bodies, the Ministry of Interior
Affairs and the troops of the Soviet Army did not even try to prevent
the Armenian massacres.
As leader of Nakhijevan in early 1990s, late Heidar Aliyev was telling
American reporter Thomas Golts who were guilty for the `black January.’
`It was the State Security Committee of Moscow and that of Azerbaijan,
as well as the whole leadership of Azerbaijan. They all were involved
in the attacks against Armenians on January 12, 13 and 14.’
A1+
YAVURYAN TO BE TRANSFERRED TO NATIONAL TEAM
[12:27 pm] 14 January, 2008
Armenian footballer Eghia Yavurian will likely be
transferred to the Armenian national team. The
talented footballer presently plays in the Israeli
team of `Bney Sakhnin.’ The transfer is estimated over
700.000.
In June, 2003, Yavurian was invited to the Armenian
national team. The team was training for the Euro-2004
Ukraine-Armenia meeting. Yavurian had no right to
transfer to the national team then as he was playing
in a Russian youth team. After viewing the matter FIFA
gave a positive to the transfer.
`Spartak’ of Nalchik is also interested in Yavurian.
It is due to mention that Yavurian played in
`Shinnik,’ Yaroslav, in 2006 and in `Shopron,’
Hungary.
PanARMENIAN.Net
Baku expects some breakthrough in Karabakh process in 2008
14.01.2008 18:57 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ `Armenia and Azerbaijan should
refrain from setting impracticable demands and
conditions. We should work for a lasting outlook to
prevent a new war,’ Azeri political scientist Rauf
Rajabov told reporters Monday.
`Azerbaijan adheres to a peaceful resolution of the
Nagorno Karabakh conflict and principles of the Prague
process. It expects some breakthrough in 2008,’ he
said.
`Transferring the Karabakh issue to the UN, Azerbaijan
thought of it as an organization where problems like
Kosovo are resolved,’ he said.
When commenting on referendum on Karabakh
independence, he said both the Armenian and Azeri
communities should take part in it. `In my opinion,
referendum should be held throughout Armenia,
Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh to have objective
results,’ he said, Novosti Armenia reports.