A1+

OFFICE OF OPPOSITIONAL PARTY SET ON FIRE
[05:15 pm] 14 December, 2006

Yesterday evening unknown people tried to set fire to the office of
Armenian Liberal-Progressive Party (LPP), located on Abovyan 22.

At about 9 p.m. the residents of the building took notice of the fire
and rapidly extinguished it with joint measures. Shortly afterwards,
the members of the party and the police arrived at the site.

Hovhannes Hovhannisyan, leader of the party, informed us that unknown
people poured petrol on the door of the office and burnt it.

But for the hasty reaction of the residents, the whole office and even
the building would have countered serious problems.

Mr. Hovhannisyan doesn’t want to give political estimation to the
event. He only notes that he hasn’t got enemies and the hooliganism is
likely connected with the political activity of their party.

`LPP is a political party; we are engaged in politics and have no
other business to do here. I have been in the political sphere over
the past eight years. I don’t want to give any political estimation as
I am not sure of anything», said Hovhannes Hovhannisyan.

A criminal action has been brought in this respect.

A1+

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY IS CONFUSED
[08:35 pm] 15 December, 2006

Defense Minister Serge Sargsyan noted about the attitude of the
international structures towards the December 10 Constitutional
Referendum in NKR that the most acceptable attitude for him was that
of the NATO officials according to which the Karabakh conflict is
being settled by the Minsk group and the NATO does not interfere with
it.

«The attitude of many people and officials towards the NKR referendum
was rather strange for me: I think they are confusing something. Some
of them think it was an independence referendum, but it was merely a
constitutional one. If some people do not want Karabakh to have a
referendum, that is another question».

ARGENTINA PASSES LAW DECLARING ARMENIAN DEATHS A "GENOCIDE"

All Headline News
58103
Dec 14 2006

Matthew Borghese – All Headline News Staff Writer Buenos Aires,
(AHN) – Argentina has passed a bill labeling the mass killings of
Armenians in Turkey a "genocide."

The Argentinean Senate has unanimously voted to mark April 24 as
an annual day commemorating the deaths which occurred around the
time of World War I, and remain a sensitive subject for the modern
Turkish government.

The issue has been receiving recent attention after the French National
Assembly approved a bill making it a crime to deny calling the deaths
a genocide. However, the bill, passed in October, still needs to pass
through the French Senate and President.

French President Chirac has opposed the bill, while Turkish Prime
Minister Tayyip Erdogan has also spoken out against both bills.

NAGORNO-KARABAKH’S REFERENDUM
Shaun Walker
Daria Vaisman

Open Democracy, UK
Dec 14 2006

The Armenian enclave inside Azerbaijan remains poised between peace
and war even after a decisive vote for independence, report Daria
Vaisman & Shaun Walker.

It was all a bit of an anticlimax. The contested territory of
Nagorno-Karabakh was voting on 10 December 2006 for a new constitution
– after twelve years of de facto independence from Azerbaijan, it
was meant to be the final stage on its path to statehood. Yet on
the streets of its capital Stepanakert, no one seemed particularly
excited. Two lonely posters and one small banner advertised the
referendum. While all the major international papers covered a similar
referendum in breakaway South Ossetia on 12 October, here only one
of the wires showed up.

This is surprising, considering that Karabakh has been the bloodiest,
highest profile, and most intractable of the frozen conflicts in
the region. But the neglect was less evidence of indifference to
independence than of a feeling that Karabakh is further down the line
to recognition than its breakaway counterparts; the referendum was
merely confirming its independence, rather than agitating for it.

Nagorno-Karabakh has a special history. The Armenians call it a centre
of their ancient civilisation; the Azeris point to their famous
Karabakh poets and musicians. The spectacular mountains and green
valleys give a dramatic backdrop to a region infused with Persian,
Turkish and Russian influences. Though the region’s ethnic groups
collided over the centuries, Stalin’s nationalities policies in
the early Soviet period exacerbated the tensions. Karabakh, though
always majority Armenian, was attached to the newly created republic
of Azerbaijan in 1921.

Though there were desultory cries for greater control from the Armenian
population of Karabakh throughout the Soviet period, their demands
grew stronger as the union collapsed. Azeri and Armenian friends
and neighbours turned against each other, fuelled by nationalism and
Armenian Karabakh’s irresistible drive for independence.

A still-standing but shaky ceasefire agreement was signed in 1994,
after six years of fighting. The results were dire: more than 700,000
Azeris and 400,000 Armenians were displaced from their homes, and
Karabakh is now a monoethnic shadow of its cosmopolitan past. The
status of Karabakh has been discussed and contested over the decade
since, but with each failed peace talk, the chance for compromise on
either side fades further. With its symbolic importance and its value
as a cause around which political elites can harness public sentiment,
it is the region’s Jerusalem.

A frozen status quo

The Karabakh border with Azerbaijan is a frontline. In fact, the actual
line of control, where nervous young Karabakh conscripts train rifles
at Azerbaijan from clumsily dug trenches, is well outside the borders
of Karabakh proper, in territory occupied as a buffer zone.

With this border closed, Karabakh is only accessible by a single
major road that wends through the mountains from Armenia.

There is no way of knowing where Armenia ends and Karabakh begins –
no visible signs mark the border, and a barely noticeable checkpoint
intermittently stops cars with a friendly request to register in
Stepanakert. Armenia funds approximately half of Karabakh’s state
budget, and trains its military. This makes true independence for
Nagorno-Karabakh difficult to imagine.

Even less likely, however, is a return to Azerbaijan. By the
territorial-integrity standards applied to the other breakaway states,
Azerbaijan should keep Karabakh, as it was part of their territory
during the Soviet period, just as South Ossetia and Abkhazia were parts
of Georgia. Azerbaijan has promised the "highest level" of autonomy,
but Armenian Karabakh is understandably sceptical.

A comparison is sometimes made to the Aland Islands – an archipelago
with a Swedish population that was given to Finland in 1921. Decades
of broad autonomy under Finnish rule left a contented population and an
example that this kind of dispute can be solved peacefully. In 1993, a
mediation group brought the three sides in the Karabakh dispute to the
islands, and suggested a similar arrangement. The Karabakh Armenians,
so goes the apocryphal tale, surprised everyone by agreeing to the
idea. "Yes," they said, "we’re happy to be ruled by Finland."

The peace process

The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk
group, a multilateral group led by Russia, the United States and
France, has been charged with negotiating a solution to the conflict.

A series of summits have been unsuccessful, including most recently
at Rambouillet earlier in 2006 despite widespread expectation of a
breakthrough. While the sides have been close to agreement on many
issues, the recurring problem has been the most fundamental one: the
status of Karabakh. As with Jerusalem, there is no status acceptable
to both sides.

With Karabakh’s independence already a de facto achievement, the
Armenian side already has a disproportionate share of what it wants.

True, the situation is far from ideal for Karabakh – the regime is
concerned about an attack from Azerbaijan, and lacks the investments
and political status that come with international recognition. But
the imperfect status quo seems more appealing to the Armenian side
than other options on the table, particularly those which seek to
reunite the region with Azerbaijan.

This stumbling-block has led many to advocate a "step-by-step"
approach to resolving the conflict, rather than a "package deal"
to solve the conflict all at once. The idea is to build up trust
first while negotiating on less contentious issues, such as troop
withdrawal from occupied Azerbaijani territories, and then deal with
Karabakh’s status at a later date. But even this approach has failed
to yield results so far.

The regional powers

The United States sees the Caucasus as a strategic energy corridor that
bypasses both Iran and Russia. With the newly built Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
pipeline, which will soon be pumping a million barrels of oil per
day from the Caspian to the Mediterranean, the US is worried that
regional conflict would jeopardise its sizeable energy investments.

Iran, which borders Armenia and Azerbaijan, has helped both sides at
different times. During the height of the conflict, Iran supported
Christian Armenia against its fellow Shi’a state Azerbaijan. With
much of northern Iran populated by increasingly anti-government
ethnic Azeris with ties to Azerbaijan, it’s in Iran’s interests to
keep Azerbaijan occupied with Karabakh.

Despite support for Armenia during the conflict, Russia in recent
years has tried not to take sides, maintaining good relations with
both parties. Karabakh officials remain cool on relations with
Russia, however, and are keen to avoid being lumped in with the
other breakaway states. As one Karabakh official put it, "Of course
we’re very interested in hearing from the others as the status of
Nato-controlled Kosovo’s independence nears. But we have bilateral not
multilateral ties with them." The fear is that Russia is using the
breakaway states as an anti-western policy instrument, and Karabakh
has no interest in taking part.

There is a sense even among the other breakaways that they would
prefer a guarantor other than Russia if they had a choice. Karabakh
does – in large part due to the powerful Armenian diaspora. This is
evident even before arriving; the road between Armenia and Karabakh
is perhaps the best in the Caucasus, and was funded by $25 million of
diaspora money. Maps, tourist brochures and websites about Karabakh
are glossy and professional.

Masis Mayilian, Karabakh’s deputy foreign minister, asked us in
flawless English if we wanted to see the text of a lecture he had
delivered at a university in the United States. It was worlds away
from South Ossetian or Transdniestrian officials – Russian-speaking
and suspicious of anything and anyone western.

While these regions have no voice in western capitals, the Armenian
diaspora acts as an international lobbying group. "The moral and
political support is more important than the investments; they can
lobby our interests in the US Congress," said Mayilian. In October
2005, fifty-nine members of congress sent a letter to President
George W Bush calling Karabakh an independent country of "proud
citizens committed to the values of freedom, democracy and respect
for human rights."

The Azeri factor

There is one thing that may shift the balance in the medium term:
Azerbaijan’s oil windfall, estimated by President Ilham Aliyev to be
about $140 billion in the next twenty years. A good amount of this is
being spent on updating the Azerbaijani military, and with nearly a
million internally-displaced people (IDPs) in Azerbaijan as a result
of the Karabakh conflict, regaining lost territory is a huge priority
among the populace and elites. While an all-out military attack might
be unlikely, having the capability to launch it might shift the balance
at the negotiating table, and give some force to Azerbaijan’s demands.

The Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents met again on 28 November,
at the CIS summit in Minsk, and again no progress was made. If and
when progress does come in the negotiations, it will be a long time
before Karabakh returns to any kind of normalcy. If Azerbaijan recovers
control of some or all of the territory occupied as a buffer-zone,
it will take years of investment to make it habitable again. Walking
around a destroyed Azeri town like Fizuli is rather like visiting ruins
from ancient Rome – all the evidence of former civilisation is there,
but the devastation is so complete that it is difficult to imagine
it as a living community.

Despite the fact that more than a million people remain displaced from
their homes, both Azerbaijan and Armenia have too much to lose from a
new conflict. While a breakthrough in negotiations seems unlikely in
the near future, so does further bloodshed. Instead, the most likely
scenario is more of the same – a fragile status somewhere between
peace and war.

sus/Nagorno_Karabakh_4182.jsp

NAGORNO-KARABAKH: BETWEEN VOTE AND REALITY

Open Democracy, UK
Dec 14 2006

Nagorno-Karabakh has followed Transdniestria and South Ossetia
in holding an independence referendum. But democracy in these
"non-recognised entities" is not so simple, reports Sabine Freizer
of the International Crisis Group.

On 10 December 2006, Nagorno-Karabakh held a referendum in which
close to 75,000 people, or 83% of voters, approved the entity’s
first constitution. The document calls Nagorno-Karabakh a "sovereign
democratic" state. The date of its approval is significant: the poll
took place fifteen years to the day after the mountainous Caucasian
enclave’s Armenian population voted overwhelmingly for independence.

But neither the 1991 referendum nor that of 2006 is recognised as
legitimate abroad. Nagorno-Karabakh may have been establishing
state-like institutions since 1991, but it continues to be
internationally considered as part of Azerbaijan, and no state –
not even Armenia – has ever recognised its statehood.

The long-running Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is the most significant
obstacle to peace and regional cooperation in the south Caucasus.

Fighting from 1992 to 1994, when a ceasefire came into effect, caused
at least 30,000 deaths and over a million Azeris and Armenians were
displaced. Ceasefire violations and casualties continue to occur
monthly along the line of contact. Exiles from Nagorno-Karabakh and
seven other occupied territories around the enclave have been unable
to return to their homes and continue to live in miserable conditions
elsewhere in Azerbaijan.

Today, Nagorno-Karabakh’s de facto authorities demand independence
and international recognition, citing their right to national
self-determination. Azerbaijan pledges that Nagorno-Karabakh’s
population will be provided with the highest form of self-government
but within the country’s frontiers. It claims the sanctity of
international borders and its right to preserve its territorial
integrity. It also blames Armenia for supporting Nagorno-Karabakh
militarily and economically, in effect participating in the annexation
of Azerbaijani land.

A year of stasis

Since 1992, Azerbaijan and Armenia have been negotiating to find a
solution. Talks have been facilitated by the Organisation for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk group, chaired by France, Russia
and the United States. In 1997, 1998 and 2001 it seemed as though the
sides were close to agreeing on a comprehensive settlement. However,
each time, hopes were dashed.

The same occurred in 2006. Two summit meetings between Azerbaijani
president Ilham Aliyev and Armenian president Robert Kocharian were
held in the first half of the year. The two were supposed to sign
a short agreement on principles to launch more substantial talks on
the details of a full accord. They failed to do so. In the summer,
the Minsk group co-chairs expressed their deep frustration, issuing
a hard-hitting statement announcing they saw no point in continuing
their intensive shuttle diplomacy or initiating further meetings
between the presidents. They called on both leaders to summon the
political will necessary to clinch a deal and sell it to their deeply
sceptical publics.

Despite the difficulties, the building blocks of the potential
settlement are well-known. The International Crisis Group spelled
them out in two reports in 2005, and the mediators’ summer statement
confirmed the details: all sides would renounce the use of force;
Armenian troops would withdraw from parts of Azerbaijan surrounding
Nagorno-Karabakh; displaced persons would be allowed to return; and
both sides would commit to holding a referendum – whose results would
be recognised by all – in Nagorno-Karabakh on final status, with the
participation of Karabakh Armenians and Azeris. In the meantime, the
entity would have an interim status, and the international community
would provide substantial assistance, including peacekeepers – for
this, the only "frozen conflict" in Europe without international
monitors.

The Montenegro example

In a surprise turnaround after a brief meeting between the Azerbaijani
and Armenian presidents on the sidelines of the CIS summit in Minsk
on 28 November, President Aliyev optimistically declared, "we are
approaching the final stage" of the negotiations process. Azerbaijani
foreign minister Elmar Mammadyarov added that only one matter remains
a source of disagreement.

What could this be? In the past, negotiations have stalled over
several issues, including the future of two land corridors linking
Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia (Lachin and Kelbajar), and the
modalities of the future referendum and its conditioning on refugee
return. After the Minsk meeting, Aliyev also stated "Azerbaijan’s
negotiating position remains unchanged." As Baku has refused to
consider granting Nagorno-Karabakh any status outside Azerbaijan,
the remaining sticking-point in the negotiations is likely to be
the modalities of the referendum; and more specifically whether it
would allow Nagorno-Karabakh to gain independence and international
recognition or not.

(On 5 December 2006 the OSCE ministerial council issued a statement
on Nagorno-Karabakh saying: "we are encouraged that negotiations
in 2006… have brought the sides closer to agreement on the basic
principles for the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict…We
urge the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan to redouble their
efforts in the coming year to finalise these basic principles as soon
as possible.")

Allowing Nagorno-Karabakh to hold an internationally accepted
referendum on its future status, with the participation of Karabakh
Azeris and Armenians, is a key element in any resolution to the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Such a deal would be comparable to what
Serbia agreed to in signing the Belgrade agreement in 2002, which
created the "State Union of Serbia and Montenegro". A clause was
inserted into the Belgrade agreement stating that Montenegro could
begin independence procedures in 2006, culminating in a referendum.

During those four years, Montenegro did not waste time: it set
up a multi-ethnic government, established good relations with its
neighbours, founded a self-sufficient economy, engaged in a serious
fight against organised crime, strengthened the rule of law, and began
"stabilisation and association" talks with the European Union.

Most importantly, it obtained Belgrade’s consent that if 55% of
Montenegro residents voted in favour of independence, Serbia would
accept the result. When the referendum was held on 21 May 2006, all
sides had agreed on its modalities and pro- and anti-independence
groups were given equal rights to campaign.

Montenegro’s successful referendum has helped launch a series of
copycat efforts in non-recognised entities in the post-Soviet space,
including the breakaway Moldovan region of Transdniestria, South
Ossetia (a splinter of Georgia), and now Nagorno-Karabakh. On 17
September, Transdniestria voted on independence. It was followed by
presidential elections the same weekend as Nagorno-Karabakh’s vote.

On 12 November, two parallel referendums were organised in South
Ossetia, one backed by the de facto authorities in the breakaway
capital of Tskhinvali, the other by Tbilisi. In the first, South
Ossetians voted overwhelmingly for independence; in the second, voters
called for a resumption of dialogue with Georgia on the creation of
a federal state. Two parallel presidential elections were also held.

Amongst the region’s non-recognised entities, only Abkhazia has
abstained from the holding a referendum on independence in 2006.

According to Abkhazia’s de facto minister of foreign affairs, Sergei
Shamba, it has no need to repeat an exercise it already held in 1999.

At that time, a referendum adopting the constitution of Abkhazia as a
"sovereign, democratic and legally based state" passed with a large
majority of current Abkhazia residents, though it failed to include
those forced to flee the province during the 1992-93 war, and the
vote was never recognised internationally.

These post-Soviet referenda, like Nagorno-Karabakh on 10 December,
are in no way comparable to Montenegro’s. They did not meet the same
conditions: most importantly, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Moldova never
gave their consent for them to occur. The Azerbaijani ministry of
foreign affairs said that the Nagorno-Karabakh referendum "interferes
with an ongoing peace process", and the vote could not be considered
legitimate until the area’s ethnic Azeris were able to return.

An agreement for all

But there is another aspect to the Nagorno-Karabakh vote. It was
after all a referendum on a constitution, a basic law which will
govern the state, help assure democracy and human-rights protection.

In an interview with the Associated Press, Nagorno-Karabakh’s de
facto deputy foreign minister Masis Mayilian suggested that the
constitutional referendum was "necessary to formalise the already
existing foundations of state system and relations between the state
and its citizens." As a vote on how self-government will be temporarily
exercised in Nagorno-Karabakh until there is a comprehensive settlement
to the conflict, the referendum has at least internal legitimacy
and utility.

Since the early 1990s, Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, South Ossetia
and Transdniestria have been left in limbo, isolated from the
outside word, unsure of their future, with few contacts to their
former metropolitan states. De facto authorities have been elected,
have set up governmental institutions, have started providing social
services, have organised defence forces, have tried to restart local
economies, and in the Abkhaz case, have even allowed some 40,000
Georgian returnees and adopted the language of international minority
rights protection. They should not be blamed for refusing to allow the
lack of progress in international negotiations, especially on status,
to stall democratisation and reform in their entities.

Ultimately, the people still living in Nagorno-Karabakh and the other
non-recognised entities are better served by accountable government
protecting the rule of law (according to the Freedom House Index,
for example, Nagorno-Karabakh ranks as "partly free"). Only if they
can demonstrate commitment to democratic values will the de facto
authorities in Stepanakert, Sukhumi, Tskhinvali and Tiraspol be treated
as legitimate partners in negotiations. It is also in the best interest
of the international community and the metropolitan states to have
responsible leaders in the entities to defuse instability and join in
dialogue. Participatory and pluralist politics in the non-recognised
entities will help build the peace constituency essential to the
eventual implementation of any peace settlement.

But what of the Karabakh Azeris, who were unable to participate on
10 December in deciding the future of Nagorno-Karabakh’s internal
arrangements? According to international norms, these former
inhabitants of Nagorno-Karabakh should not be deprived of their right
to participate in the entity’s political life.

If Stepanakert wants to be gain legitimacy, it needs to show the
international community not only that it can organise orderly and
fair referendums, but also that it allows all those who should be
eligible to vote to actually cast their ballots. In other words,
they must begin to accept the return of the 40,000 Karabakh Azeris
who were forced to flee in 1991-92.

aucasus/nagorno_reality_4184.jsp

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ON WHAT SIDE OF THE HOLOCAUST ARE YOU ON? OLMERT AND ISRAELI HYPOCRISY
Terry Scott

The People’s Voice, TN
Dec 14 2006

Is it cheeky or just magnificent Israeli chutzpah for Ehud Olmert to
ask the new Pope to condemn Iran’s "Holocaust Conference" in the face
of the worst chapter of human rights abuses against the Palestinians?

Arrogant, diffident and pugnacious Mr. Olmert actually has the cojones
to go to the Vatican and tell the Pope to condemn a conference on
the most untouchable of taboo topics in modern history at the same
time as disallowing the United Nations fact-finding team from being
granted visas to conduct their study of Beit Hanoun??? Has the Anglican
Church become so distant from the Catholic mothership, that Archbishop
Desmond Tutu’s public humiliation by the Israelis can mean so little
to this German pontiff?

[More:]

Is it me or do you also have the distinct nauseating feeling that
Israeli politicians have made the entire world their playground to
stride so brazenly and arrogantly demanding and criticising whatever
they please?

Perhaps the not-to-be-trusted Olmert thought that Pope Benedict’s
comments about Islam earlier this year insinuated a "warming up" of
relations with the Jewish State and that the more recent tete-a-tete
with his German counterpart Merkel, signaled a reconciliation of German
and Jewish interests. What else did Olmert ask from the Germans this
time, more money for "reparations" that no other holocaust equivalent
group received: the Armenians from the Turks?

Cambodians from Pol Pot? Chileans from Pinochet? Japanese from the
Americans?

The Vatican ought at the very least to follow through with the
agreement that was signed with the PLO in early 2000 with these
little-followed goals:

Calling for a peaceful solution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,
which would realize the inalienable national legitimate rights
and aspirations of the Palestinian People, to be reached through
negotiation and agreement, in order to ensure peace and security
for all peoples of the region on the basis of international law,
relevant United Nations and its Security Council resolutions, justice
and equity;

Declaring that an equitable solution for the issue of Jerusalem,
based on international resolutions, is fundamental for a just and
lasting peace in the Middle East, and that unilateral decisions and
actions altering the specific character and status of Jerusalem are
morally and legally unacceptable [source].

Did Benedict remind Ehud Olmert of these agreements?

n/blogs/voices.php/2006/12/14/p12921

ARMENIA: ARREST OF GOVERNMENT CRITIC ON COUP CHARGES PROMPTS CONCERNS
Onnik Krikorian

EurasiaNet, NY
Dec 14 2006

As political tensions in Armenia rise ahead of next year’s
parliamentary elections, the arrest of a former Nagorno-Karabakh
military commander critical of the Armenian government’s talks
with Azerbaijan is raising fresh concerns about how the vote will
be conducted.

In a December 10 raid carried out by masked agents of Armenia’s
National Security Service (NSS) at a Yerevan restaurant, Zhirayr
Sefilian, an ethnic Armenian from Lebanon, was taken into custody on
charges of plotting a government coup. Sefilian, a former commander in
Armenia’s war with Azerbaijan over the predominantly ethnic Armenian
breakaway territory of Karabakh, is a decorated, hard-line war hero. He
is an outspoken opponent of any deal with Azerbaijan that includes the
return of territory currently under Armenian control. [For background
see the Eurasia Insight archive].

The press service of the NSS, the successor to Armenia’s Soviet-era
State Security Committee (KGB), has alleged that Sefilian "planned
to interfere in the upcoming political processes [2007 parliamentary
elections] with the use of force." Sefilian has been accused of
"conspiring to overthrow the constitutional order" under Article 301
of the Criminal Code. On December 12, a Yerevan court, in a closed
session, ruled that Sefilian could be jailed for two months while
the NSS further investigates the case.

Pro-opposition media outlets have reported that dozens of members of
Sefilian’s Union of Armenian Volunteers, a small nationalist group
opposed to concessions with Azerbaijan, were also temporarily detained
in separate raids.

Armenia’s main opposition parties see the arrest as a warm-up for
crackdowns against government critics prior to the country’s May 2007
parliamentary elections, or against those who would question the vote’s
conduct. In a December 11 statement, they accused the government
of resorting to Soviet-style repression to stamp out political
dissent. The government has not yet responded to the accusation.

The arrest has also set off alarm bells in nationalist circles,
which see Sefilian’s detention as linked to his position on the
Nagorno-Karabakh negotiations. Recent statements from the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the talks’ mediator,
indicatedthat the basic principles for the resolution of the conflict
are close to being finalized. [For background see the Eurasia Insight
archive].

A December 5 statement from the OSCE after a meeting in Brussels
between the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers urged both
countries to "double their efforts in the coming year to finalize
these basic principles as soon as possible."

Although possible breakthroughs in the negotiations are regularly
reported, this time a flurry of other reports about a possible deal
suggest that certain agreements are being reached, albeit behind closed
doors. Last month, for example, the Russian newspaper Nezavisimaya
Gazeta added fuel to such speculation when it published details of
what it said was the peace deal currently being discussed by the
Armenian and Azerbaijani sides. According to that information, as
well as periodical leaks from both Armenian and Azerbaijani officials,
most of the seven Azerbaijani regions currently under Armenian control
surrounding Karabakh would be returned to Baku. A 40-kilometer wide
"corridor" through the strategic town of Lachin, now known as Berdzor,
would remain under Armenian control, connecting Karabakh to Armenia
proper.

Lending credibility to such speculation are a series of articles
published this summer by the local and international media,
including EurasiaNet, reporting that the area around Lachin is
experiencing a massive exodus of ethnic Armenians. [For details,
see the Eurasia Insight archive]. A few weeks after these reports
surfaced, Sefilian accused the authorities in Yerevan and Stepanakert
of pursuing a deliberate policy to clear the region in preparation
for a concessionary peace deal with Azerbaijan.

Speaking for the Protection of Liberated Territories organization,
Sefilian, who holds the rank of a retired lieutenant colonel, alleged
that the population of what is now called the Kashatagh region by
Armenians had declined to 7,500. In 2001, the number of settlers
in what are the Armenian-controlled Lachin, Zangelan and Qubatli
regions of Azerbaijan was around 15,000. A 2005 census, however,
put the population at just under 10,000.

Official sources speaking to EurasiaNet on condition of anonymity
put the number as low as 6,000.

In November, other groups of Karabakh war veterans also made similar
accusations and threatened a campaign of civil disobedience if any
of these territories were returned to Azerbaijan. A written statement
by one such group, the Brotherhood of the Liberation Struggle, urged
all war veterans to unite "to save Armenia and Armenians and restore
justice in all spheres. The lands that we liberated are in danger
today. We urge all our compatriots . . . [to] stop our homeland from
falling into an abyss."

The Armenian newspaper Zhamanak Yerevan already sees a connection
between Sefilian’s arrest and official fears that Karabakh war
veterans might involve themselves in political life ahead of next
year’s parliamentary elections. "It was no coincidence that they
arrested Zhirayr Sefilian, a representative of the defiant section
of the freedom fighters, on the same day that they advised members
of the Yerkrapah Union [of Karabakh War Veterans] to stay away from
politics," the paper wrote on December 12.

In March 2006, the Iravunk newspaper reported that Sefilian had been
warned by the NSS to refrain from criticism of the government’s
position, and of Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisian, at the risk
of possible expulsion from the country. Another newspaper, Azg,
similarly quoted opposition politician Albert Bazeyan as saying that
"threats […] to deport Zhirayr Sefilian, former commander of [the]
Shushi battalion, is conditioned by […] recent tendencies in the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement."

Undaunted by such threats, Sefilian upped the ante in July by calling
a press conference in which he declared that a "group of former
civil guardsmen" had "already agreed upon certain steps which will
allow us take real and drastic measures to avert vote rigging at the
coming parliamentary and presidential elections." He also spoke of
realizing a "power shift to avert the launching of a new military
conflict with Azerbaijan."

Following Sefilian’s arrest, the NSS issued a written statement stating
that it had irrefutable proof that the ex-commander was planning an
armed uprising to "prod the country’s opposition into staging violent
anti-government protests." No evidence to support this claim has yet
been made available, however.

Few analysts believe that the Armenian or Azerbaijani presidents
would risk a nationalist backlash over a deal ahead of sensitive
parliamentary and presidential polls in both countries during 2007
and 2008. However, with the lack of public evidence against Sefilian
and a recent assertion by Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev that
negotiations are entering their final phase, suspicions about the
authorities’ actions continue to grow.

"I don’t exclude the possibility that he was arrested in connection
with the liberated lands, but I don’t think that any document connected
with Karabakh will be signed in the near future," one of Sefilian’s
associates, Armen Aghaian, stated on December 13.

Commented opposition parliamentarian Grigor Harutiunian, secretary
of the People’s Party: The government’s handling of the case against
Sefilian provides "the basis for some serious conclusions."

Editor’s Note: Onnik Krikorian is a freelance journalist
and photographer working for a variety of publications and
international organizations in Armenia. He has a blog at

NATIONAL MINORITIES CONDEMN NAGORNO-KARABAKH REFERENDUM

AzerTag, Azerbaijan
Dec 14 2006

Representatives of national minorities in Azerbaijan gathered at the
International Press Center in Baku on Thursday to condemn the December
10 referendum in Nagorno-Karabakh.

At the initiative of the Head of Russian community of Azerbaijan
Mikhail Zabelin, the participants of the gathering agreed to establish
the Congress of National Minorities of the Azerbaijan Republic. They
formed a working group, produced a charter of the organization, and
issued an appeal to the UN, OSCE, Council of Europe, U.S. Department of
State and Congress, parliament of France, Russia’s Foreign Ministry and
State Duma, strongly protesting against the so-called "constitutional
referendum" in Nagorno-Karabakh. "This action by the separatist regime
of Nagorno-Karabakh contradicts not only Constitution of Azerbaijan but
also norms and principles of the international law," the appeal says.

It also says that representatives of tens of nationalities and
ethnic groups have been living in Azerbaijan for ages. They enjoy
all the rights of citizens of the sovereign and democratic country,
with the opportunity to preserve and develop their culture, language
and traditions.

The Congress of National Minorities expressed its full support for
the efforts by the leadership of Azerbaijan towards resolution of
the Armenia-Azerbaijan, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict on the base of
Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, and called for condemnation of
the illegal act, and unrecognizing of the results of the so-called
"referendum".

KEVORKIAN PAROLED: ‘I’M NOT GOING TO DO IT AGAIN’
By Kathleen Gray

Detroit Free Press, MI
Dec 14 2006

He says he’ll follow the law and be an advocate

A compassionate doctor to some, a ghoulish murderer to others, Jack
Kevorkian will, in less than six months, become something he hasn’t
been for more than eight years — a free man.

Kevorkian, a frail 78-year-old, was granted parole Wednesday by two
members of the Michigan Parole Board after he promised not to conduct
any more assisted suicides. He will be eligible for release June 1.

Oakland County Prosecutor David Gorcyca said he would not appeal.

"He has served his minimum term, and I did not object to his release,"
Gorcyca said. "I’m certainly not particularly surprised, just due to
his alleged health concerns."

Known as the assisted-suicide doctor and Dr. Death, Kevorkian claimed
to have helped at least 130 terminally or chronically ill people die
during the 1990s, though he told parole board chairman John Rubitschun
that he turned down six or seven prospective patients for every one
he helped.

He told Rubitschun he would push for the legalization of assisted
suicide after his release, but promised to not participate in any
form of assisted suicide or euthanasia.

"You can put any conditions you want on me. I’m not going to do it
again," Kevorkian said in a Dec. 7 hearing, according to an account
based on notes from the meeting. "Anything that will bring me back
to prison, I will avoid. Prison is not a place a live."

Kevorkian was convicted in 1999 of second-degree murder in the Sept.

17, 1998, death of Thomas Youk, 52, of Waterford, a victim of the
debilitating Lou Gehrig’s disease.

The death was different from others in two ways. First, it was
videotaped and aired on the CBS show "60 Minutes." Second, Youk was
unable to press the button to deliver a fatal dose of drugs, and the
tape showed Kevorkian doing it for him, which provided prosecutors with
evidence that Kevorkian had stepped past the assisted-suicide line.

Kevorkian’s defiant approach brought physician-assisted suicide to the
national spotlight. In 1998, an Oregon law went into effect legalizing
the practice. But Michigan passed a law in 1999 banning it.

Kevorkian said he should have gone the legal route to advocate for
assisted suicide.

"If I had to do it again, I would have done it that way," he said.

Although Kevorkian won’t be eligible for release until June 1, his
attorney, Mayer Morganroth, said he’ll once again ask Gov. Jennifer
Granholm to release his client early from the Lakeland Correctional
Facility in Coldwater. The governor has denied requests to commute
the sentence four times.

"Certainly, it’s a relief; it’s a man’s life we’re talking about,"
Morganroth said. "The next thing we have to do is talk to the governor
so he doesn’t die in prison in the next six months."

There is little precedent for such an early release, said Corrections
Department spokesman Russ Marlan.

"Each time he’s done that, he’s said he has less than 12 months to
live," Marlan said. "I’ve personally witnessed that he appears to be
doing pretty well."

If his health hasn’t changed since the last evaluation this summer,
there would be no reason to release him early, Marlan said. Liz
Boyd, spokeswoman for Gov. Jennifer Granholm, said Wednesday that
the governor would have no comment until a commutation request is
turned in.

According to Morganroth, Kevorkian suffers from hepatitis C and high
blood pressure. He takes insulin four times a day and has hardening
of the arteries. He recently fell, breaking two ribs and his wrist.

‘He was very grateful’

Terrence Youk, Thomas Youk’s brother, said Kevorkian never should
have been in prison.

"I was starting to believe that they would never let him out," Youk
said from his home in Montpelier, Vt. "Jack put himself on the line
many, many times. All he wanted to do was help people have a choice
at the end of their life when they don’t have any other choices."

Ruth and Sarah Holmes, a mother and daughter who have become friends
with and frequent visitors of Kevorkian, said he can’t wait to get
home for a turkey wrap, some pickled vegetables and some fresh fruit.

"He was very grateful that the process finally worked," said Ruth
Holmes of Bloomfield Hills, after talking to Kevorkian on Wednesday.

"He was not in great shape when he went in, and he’s had a rough
winter."

Sarah Holmes attended the parole hearing and told Rubitschun that few
people know the side of Kevorkian that she has seen — the musician,
the poet, the painter, the historian, the family man.

"I tried to add the human element of Jack Kevorkian," she said. "He
is the most honest man you would ever meet, when he gives his word,
he sticks with it."

But retired Waterford Police Chief John Dean, who helped investigate
the Youk case, said he would oppose Kevorkian’s parole.

"I’m convinced he’ll do it again to make a statement," he said.

Kevorkian’s first assisted suicide was in June 1990, when Janet Adkins,
a Portland, Ore., woman with Alzheimer’s disease, died in the back
of the pathologist’s rusty Volkswagen van. He helped dozens more
people die over the years in vans, hotel rooms, private homes and in
his Royal Oak apartment. Most of the people were women, and all the
deaths were in Michigan. Many of the patients were from other states.

The state revoked his medical license in 1991 after he had conducted
five assisted suicides. Without a license, he could no longer buy
some of the drugs he used, so he began using different techniques,
which included the use of carbon monoxide canisters.

He was acquitted of murder three times and got a mistrial declared
in a fourth case.

Southfield attorney Geoffrey Fieger defended Kevorkian in all of
the acquittals, at turns disparaging prosecutors and at other times
scolding his famous client for courtroom outbursts.

"He was, at the time he went to prison, perhaps one of the most famous
people in the world," Fieger said Wednesday. "Certainly, he moved
the issue of individuals’ rights not to suffer at the end of lives,
far greater than any person before him."

******************** The parole decision

Dr. Jack Kevorkian became eligible for parole on a 10- to 25-year
sentence of second-degree murder after serving more than eight years
in prison.

A three-person panel of the Michigan Parole Board considers each
eligible case. One member of the panel interviews the prisoner and
passes a recommendation to a second member. If they agree, a third
member of the panel isn’t consulted, and parole is granted.

In Kevorkian’s case, John Robitschun, chairman of the parole board,
interviewed Kevorkian on Dec. 7. He recommended that parole be
approved, and parole board member Miguel Berrios agreed. They announced
their decision Wednesday.

The Oakland County Prosecutor’s Office can appeal the ruling to
the Oakland County Circuit Court, but Prosecutor David Gorcyca said
he won’t.

************************** How lives were ended

With $45 worth of materials in the 1980s, Dr. Jack Kevorkian created
what he called a suicide machine — a simple, effective device for
assisting people who wanted to end their lives.

The contraption was made of three bottles: One contained saline
solution, one held a sedative, and the last had lethal potassium
chloride.

Kevorkian hooked people to the device and allowed them to press a
button, starting the intravenous flow from the bottles.

In 1991, after his medical license was revoked, he switched to a
canister filled with carbon monoxide because he was no longer able
to get potassium chloride.

Ruby Bailey *************************

Jack Kevorkian Age: 78

Claim to fame: Says he helped more than 130 people with various
illnesses end their lives.

Nickname: Dr. Death.

Personal: Son of Armenian immigrants, raised in Pontiac, never married,
no children.

Education: Graduated from the University of Michigan Medical School
in 1952. Trained as a pathologist.

Employment: Worked at Pontiac General, Detroit Receiving and several
California hospitals.

Hobbies: Music, painting, languages, poetry. Published a book,
"Glimericks," while in prison.

************************* Good for a laugh?

In the heyday of his assisted-suicide practice, Dr. Jack Kevorkian’s
name became part of the nation’s popular culture.

A popular paint pattern for fishing spoons used for salmon and trout
is called Kevorkian because it lures the fish to their deaths.

And Kevorkian was a favorite for David Letterman’s lists. Consider:

~U Nov. 18, 1996, ways O.J. Simpson is raising legal funds: Freelancing
for Dr. Kevorkian.

~U July 23, 1996, Dr. Kevorkian pickup lines: "My friends say I
look like Brad Pitt — but they probably just say that so I don’t
kill them."

~U Feb. 14, 1996, signs you’re dating a loser: "He has Dr. Kevorkian
on speed dial."

~U Dec. 1, 1995, other Ann Landers mistakes: Referred "Depressed in
Detroit" to Dr. Kevorkian.

******************************** Photo at
/20061214/NEWS06/612140349/1008/NEWS06

LAST TRAIN CARRYING RUSSIAN GARRISON PROPERTY LEAVES GEORGIA

RIA Novosti, Russia
Dec 14 2006

TBILISI, December 14 (RIA Novosti) – A fourth and final train
transporting equipment and ammunition left Russia’s garrison in
Vaziani, outside the Georgian capital, on Thursday.

Russian military bases are being withdrawn from the post-Soviet
Caucasus state in keeping with Moscow’s commitment to remove them by
the end of 2008.

The remaining hardware will be taken out of the base later in December,
and moved to the 102nd Russian military base in neighboring Armenia.

The Vaziani garrison will be pulled out before the end of the year,
ahead of the earliest of the withdrawal deadlines for Russian forces
in the South Caucasus state, set for 2007. Russia’s defense minister
decided on an early pullout in mid-October, amid a diplomatic feud
between the former Soviet allies.

The Vaziani base had about a hundred items of equipment and 350 metric
tons of ammunition before the first consignment left.

A third trainload left the town on December 1. The garrison’s 387
service personnel will leave once the equipment pullout has been
completed.

Russia and Georgia have been locked in a bitter diplomatic dispute
since September, when four Russian army officers were briefly detained
in Tbilisi, on suspicion of espionage.

The move outraged Moscow, which cut transportation and postal links
with its neighbor in response, deported hundreds of Georgian migrants
and shut down Georgian-run businesses for alleged violations of
Russian law.

Georgia’s Western-leaning leadership, which seeks to join NATO, is
uneasy about Russia’s continued military presence, and has repeatedly
urged Moscow to close its Soviet-era bases.

Under a bilateral agreement signed in March 2006 and ratified by
Russia’s parliament in October, the pullouts from Russian bases in
the southern city of Akhalkalaki and in Batumi, western Georgia, are
to be completed by October 1, 2007, and October 1, 2008, respectively.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress