U.N. General Assembly calls for U.N. to assist in preventing
environmental damage from fires in Nagorno-Karabakh
AP Worldstream;
Sep 08, 2006
The U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for the U.N. to
urgently assist in preventing environmental damage from fires in the
disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Armenia disassociated itself from the resolution, which was approved
Thursday without a vote, and expressed concern at its title, “the
situation in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan.”
The mountainous territory in Azerbaijan has been controlled _ along
with some surrounding areas _ by Karabakh and Armenian forces since
1994.
Nagorno-Karabakh has been governed by a shaky cease-fire that in 1994
ended a six-year separatist war.
The resolution stressed “the necessity to urgently conduct an
environmental operation to suppress the fires.” It took note of the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s intention
to organize a mission to the region to assess the short-term and
long-term impact of the fires.
Nagorno-Karabakh is inside Azerbaijan, but is populated mostly by
ethnic Armenians, who have run it and seven contiguous districts
since the 1994 truce.
Sporadic border clashes regularly break out and the unresolved conflict
has held up development in the strategic region.
Azerbaijan’s U.N. Ambassador Yashar Aliyev introduced the draft
resolution, saying that in early June Azerbaijan registered massive
fires in the eastern part of the territory occupied by Armenia,
and by August the fire had damaged more than 600 square kilometers.
After the vote, he thanked everyone who supported the resolution,
expressing dismay that Armenia disassociated itself from the text which
had been negotiated with its diplomats over 48 hours. As a minimum,
he said, it was “honest and appropriate.”
Armenia’s U.N. Ambassador Armen Martirosyan said that although he
supported the content of the resolution, he had serious problems
with its title and opposed bringing any Nagorno-Karabakh issue to
the United Nations.
U.S. deputy ambassador Alejandro Wolff, speaking on behalf of the
OSCE group dealing with the Nagorno-Karabakh issue _ the U.S.,
France and Russia _ said the three countries remain committed to
promoting a peaceful, negotiated solution to the conflict between
Armenia and Azerbaijan.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Armenian No-sugar Added Products to be Presented to Canadian Market
Newswire Today (press release), UK
Sept 7 2006
NewswireToday – /newswire/ – Toronto, ON, Canada, 09/07/2006 – For
the first time natural no sugar added jams and no sugar added juices
made by indigenous Armenian recipes will be presented in Canadian
market by The Artisan Food Inc. in fall of 2006.
The Artisan Food Inc. has been started by young Armenian entrepreneurs,
Lilit Hakobyan and Samvel Shahbazyan, seeking to reinvent the
indigenous recipes of homemade fruits and vegetables and deliver it to
people searching for healthy foods. The philosophy of the company is
to introduce specialty healthy, natural food products from Armenia,
those that are really a blend of the ancient and the modern, made in
the best of artisan traditions, using local ingredients combined with
modern technology and packaging.
The specialty products delivered by The Artisan Food Inc. are from
Armenia, an ancient land with rich traditions. Armenia’s unique
alpine climate with its varied micro-climates, soil zones (1800
meters, about 5900 feet above sea level) and 230-days sunshine of
per year produces a wide variety of natural fruits and vegetables
with a luscious taste that is special.
Fruit growing tradition: The fruits used for The Artisan Food Inc.
products are grown in the best of artisan traditions on family owned
farms. Armenian farmers grow fruits and vegetables naturally without
widely using chemicals. Everybody in the family participates in growing
and harvesting of fruits. The family celebrates the beginning of the
fruit growing season and the harvest. Right after harvest the grandmas
preserve fresh fruits and vegetables for the winter. Each family uses
its own recipe that was from their elders. It is traditional to taste
the preserves of the host when you are a guest and to compare and
appreciate the taste. Our Company is about the artisans’ labor of
love in growing natural fruits and making healthy delicious products.
Renascence of natural taste: After three years of hard work Armenian
no sugar added jams and natural no sugar added fruit juices have been
developed to deliver homemade flavor and natural taste of fruits to
the healthy food consumers.
“My Great-great-grandmother, Grand-ma Haykandukht (she lived to
98 years old) made jams and preserves; using her traditions and
flavors The Artisan Food Inc. is now introducing these products to
the public. I remember the smells and rich colors of her apricot jams.
The natural taste of homemade preserves fills me with familial warmth
to this day. Grand-ma Haykandukht, used to tell stories of how she
learned to make her sugar-free preserves from her own grandmother.
Today, after three years of hard work, we have re-created
her recipes. You can now enjoy the same taste that my
Great-great-grandmother first encountered in her childhood.” – Lilit
A specialty line of products introduced by The Artisan Food Inc.
includes no sugar added and lower in sugar jams, and specialty fruit
preserves. Jams and preserves are produced in small batches using fresh
sun-ripened produce grown locally. The production of 0.5 kg specialty
preserve, from orchard to jar, requires 7 hours of hand made work.
The Artisan Food Inc.’s no sugar added juices of the pomegranate,
apricot, peach, and blackcurrant are exclusively fruit juice produced
by cold squeezing technology. All juices are 100% natural with
no added sugar, no preservatives, no artificial flavorings and no
coloring. Juices are in glass bottles to retain all the freshness
and goodness of local fresh ingredients.
Both product lines are made of indigenous recipes, are 100% natural
and low in calories. They are for health food markets, with no added
preservatives, additives, artificial flavorings and colorings. Each
fruit is processed individually, by hand. Only the finest fruits are
selected for The Artisan Food Inc. products.
Social aspect: This undertaking has a social concern. We believe
that as more quality products are developed locally for International
markets more people will be employed. We also believe that our approach
to work, knowledge of International trends and marketing promotion
skills will give us a foundation for supporting this idea.
The production of only one line of The Artisan Food Inc. products
employs more than 150 people.
For more information about The Artisan Food Inc. products, please
visit our website.
Agency / Source: The Artisan Food, Inc.

Voice of America
Sept 7 2006
US Senate Panel Postpones Vote on UN Nominee
By Dan Robinson
Capitol Hill
07 September 2006
A key Senate panel has postponed a vote on the nomination of John
Bolton for a full- term appointment as U.S. Ambassador to the United
Nations. The unexpected development came as the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee considered a number of President Bush’s key
diplomatic nominations.
John Bolton
Bolton’s nomination, and therefore his confirmation by the full
Senate, has been held up for months even as he has temporarily
carried out his duties at the United Nations under a recess
appointment made last August by President Bush.
That appointment expires January 1, and the president has made it
clear on numerous occasions his determination to have Bolton
confirmed by the Senate.
Republican Senator Richard Lugar, the chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, explained the postponement during Wednesday’s
committee session.
“We had originally intended to vote on the nomination of John Bolton
to be ambassador to the U.N. However, I am removing the nomination
from today’s agenda after conferring with several senators,” he said.
Eventually, Bolton is expected to have the support of 10 committee
Republicans, although one key senator, Lincoln Chafee, has not yet
said how he will vote.
The nomination has been troublesome for Senator Lugar, who had to
overcome opposition from one key Republican Senator, George
Voinovich, and from Democrats who successfully blocked the Bolton
nomination in the Senate last year.
All eight committee Democrats have opposed Bolton, and Senator Chris
Dodd has urged fellow Democrats to filibuster Bolton’s nomination if
it does get to the Senate floor.
Senator Lugar has not said when the nomination will be scheduled
again at committee level.
In separate actions, the Foreign Relations panel also approved six
ambassadorial or diplomatic nominations.
One, Richard Hoagland as ambassador to Armenia, sparked statements by
some senators upset that the U.S. government does not officially
recognize as genocide the forced mass evacuation, and deaths related
to it, of hundreds of thousands of Armenians during the Ottoman
Empire.
Among the comments were these by Democrat Joseph Biden and Senator
Lugar, who said rejecting the Hoagland nomination would set a
troubling precedent and harm U.S. efforts to work with a
strategically important nation.
“I think the administration’s policy [on the Armenian genocide issue]
is not only wrong, it is factually inconsistent with history,” Sen.
Biden said.
“Further delay in posting a highly-qualified nominee in Yerevan is
not in the interest of U.S. national security or our credibility in
the region,” said Sen. Lugar.
The Senate committee also approved and sent to the Senate for
ratification the U.S.-Britain extradition treaty which lawmakers
noted will help both countries deal with the worsening threat of
Islamist terrorism.

Azerbaijan ready to participate in Odesa-Brody-Plotsk pipeline
5tv.com, Ukraine
Sept 7 2006
Azerbaijan is ready to participate in the Odesa-Brody-Plotsk oil
pipeline project. That message was delivered in Baku on Thursday
where President Viktor Yushchenko met with his Azerbaijani counterpart
Ilham Aliyev.
Yushchenko told Aliyev that Ukraine is interested in oil exploration,
extraction and oil refining projects in Azerbaijan. Yushchenko
also offered Kyiv’s assistance in regulating the conflict between
Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh region. On Thursday,
both presidents agreed to create a presidential cooperation council
between the two countries.

NOT A POLITICAL PROBLEM BUT THE PROBLEM OF HUMAN LIVES IS SOLVED
Azat Artsakh, Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
05 Sept 2006
“The official document proclaiming Nagorno-Karabakh Republic announced to
the world that the Armenians of Artsakh have chosen the path of independence.
The establishment of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic as a nation state was the
imperative of the time,” said Speaker Ashot Ghulian addressing the official
meeting devoted to the 15th anniversary of NKR. The meeting at the Home of Officers
on September 1 was also an account of achievements of the past 15 years,
homage to everyone who had sacrificed their lives for the sake of this day. The
delegation of Armenia headed by the Armenian Prime Minister Andranik
Margarian, the delegations of Abkhazia and South Osetia, as well as a number of
guests who were aware of the problem and most of them had been beside the
Armenians of Artsakh in those hard days had arrived to congratulate Artsakh. NKR
President Arkady Ghukassian made a speech of congratulation and gratitude. His
speech was a peculiar report on the word done in the past 15 years. And these
achievements are visible, especially to those who saw Artsakh in the years of
war and immediately after the cease-fire. Then the prime minister of Armenia
Andranik Margarian addressed the meeting. “We believe that despite hardships,
Artsakh is resolved to preserve and develop the achievements of the past
years, strengthen the independent state,” said the Armenian prime minister and
added, “Every achievement of yours is our success, every delay or threat
worries us. We want peace, but we do not want to achieve it at any price. We do not
want to lose at the table of negotiations what we got by blood.” In
addition, the prime minister of Armenia assures that not only the government but also
all the political forces of Armenia agree on this point, which is a rare
thing. And there is a strong belief that it is necessary to act not only for the
international recognition of NKR but also for the settlement of its internal
problems. Then the heads of the delegations of the Abkhazian and South
Osetian republics addressed the meeting. Then followed the speeches of people who
not only are well aware of the historical fact of proclamation of NKR but
also took part in the events that preceded and followed. In evaluating the past
15 years, Lieutenant-General Seyran Ohanian, minister of defense emphasized
the creation of the defense army, which formed during military actions and
successfully fulfilled the goal. Today it is an effective force with modern
armament, which has been defending the security of NKR for over a decade without
support from the outside and is ready to counteract to every encroachment.
The words of the Archbishop of the Diocese of Artsakh Pargev Martirossian were
also inspiring. “The most difficult period for a child is the age between
childhood and adulthood. We have already gone through this age of transition,”
said the spiritual leader. And it is important that Artsakh did it through the
internal force of the Armenian environment, Archbishop Pargev said. “Nobody
thought about death. I witnessed that, everyone thought about victory,” he
said.
NORAIR HOVSEPIAN.
05-09-2006

CONGRATULATIONS ON INDEPENDENCE DAY
Azat Artsakh, Nagorno Karabakh Republic [NKR]
05 Sept 2006
On the15th anniversary of proclamation of NKR the NKR president and people
received a great number of congratulations from Armenia and abroad. The
president of Armenia Robert Kocharian congratulated the people of NKR. “The people
of Artsakh made their historical choice – defended their rights in the war
imposed on them and are now building a free and democratic state. Free and
strong Karabakh is the greatest monument to the immortal heroes of the liberation
war in Artsakh. State building in Nagorno Karabakh is directed at developing
the country and raising the quality of life of the people. A strong and
democratic state in Artsakh will guarantee a fair peace settlement. It is the
duty of the Republic of Armenia and the Armenians all over the world to support
the development of Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and achieve its international
recognition,” ran the message of the president of Armenia. Catholicos of All
Armenians Garegin 2 congratulated the people of NKR and gave his blessing. NKR
President Arkady Ghukassian received congratulations from the foreign
minister of Armenia Vardan Oskanian, the president of the Constitutional Court of
Armenia Gagik Harutiunian. In their congratulation U.S. Congress
Representatives Franck Pallone and Joe Knollenberg emphasized that over the past 15 years
Nagorno-Karabakh Republic has affirmed its viability and faithfulness to
freedom, peace, democracy and human rights. They affirmed their willingness to go
on defending NKR in reaching the international recognition of NKR. In his
congratulation addressed to President Ghukassian, Speaker Ghulian and Prime
Minister Anoushavan Danielian Constantine Zatulin, member of the Russian Duma
mentioned that today we can be proud not only of the strong army but also of the
revival and development of the national economy, sustainable democracy in
NKR, which may arouse envy in certain neighboring states. He affirmed the
willingness of Russia to be helpful in reaching a peace settlement and recognition,
emphasizing that they are against every attempt of violating the will of the
people. The NKR government received congratulations from General Mikael
Harutiunian, Chief of Headquarters of the Armed Forces of Armenia, Lieutenant
General Manvel Sargissian, Deputy Minister of Defense of Armenia, S. Mkrtichian,
Armenian envoy to NATO, Vigen Chitejian, Armenian Ambassador to Brussels,
Oleg Yesayan, Armenian Ambassador to Belarus, Hrant Bagratian, former Armenian
prime minister, S. Sargissian, the governor of the region of Vayots Dzor,
Armenia, Mkrtich Mkrtichian, the chair of the Toronto branch of Armenia
Foundation, A. Ghukassian, the rector of the State Pedagogical University of Yerevan,
Suren Zolian, the rector of Yerevan State University of Linguistics.
DEPARTMENT OF PRESS OF PRESIDENT ADMINISTRATION
AA.
05-09-2006
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

UN resolution calls conduct an environmental operation to suppress the fires
in the affected territories
08.09.2006 18:00
Anush Dashtents
“Radiolur”
According to the statement issued by RA Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
in its 60th session the UN General Assembly adopted the draft
resolution initiated by Azerbaijan titled “The situation on the
occupied territories of Azerbaijan.”
Being seriously concerned with the fires at the contact line, UN
General Assembly decided “urgently conduct an environmental operation
to suppress the fires in the affected territories and to overcome
their detrimental consequences.”
The Assembly took as a basis the intention of the OSCE o send
a fact-finding mission and welcomed the parties’ willingness to
cooperate for this purpose.
Speaking on behalf of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, US representative
Alexandro Wolf said that “the Russian Federation, France, and the
United States of America, as the Co-Chair countries of the Organization
for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s Minsk Group, remain committed
to promoting a peaceful, negotiated resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. It should be noted also that without violating the consensus,
the Armenian delegation did no join the resolution.
Now let’s present a little of prehistory. Despite the fact that the
UN has adopted four resolutions on Nagorno Karabakh, it has never
been engaged in the negotiations. This factor, however, does not
keep Azerbaijan from the attempts to transfer the issues related or
not related to the conflict settlement to the agenda of the General
Assembly. This was the case particularly in the fall of 2004, when
due to a serious diplomatic work, the report titled “The situation
on the occupied territories of Azerbaijan” was included in the agenda
of the General Assembly.
To remind, Azeri authorities were assuring that official Yerevan
is leading a policy of resettlement on the territories under the
control of Karabakh forces. Armenia threatened that it would leave
the negotiations if the UN yielded to the pressure of Azerbaijan. The
OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries found a balanced way out of the
crisis. Azerbaijan had to refuse from insisting on the discussion
of the Karabakh issue in the UN. Instead, Yerevan and Stepanakert
were to agree to allow the OSCE fact-finding mission to visit the
territories under NKR control.
Most probably, another OSCE fact-finding mission will arrive in
the conflict zone, this time to investigate the case of fires. A
it is known, because of the unprecedented heat this summer, fires
occurred at the contact line, as well as on some territories under
the control of Azerbaijan and Karabakh, and Baku insists that this
is the intentional activity of Armenia.
According to the MFA statement, Armenia’s Permanent Representative
to the UN Armen Martirosyan decalared at the plenary session of the
UN General Assembly that Armenia was surprised with the presentation
of the draft to the UN: ” The authorities of Nagorno Karabagh had
already accepted this proposal, and Armenia was certainly ready
to use its good offices to facilitate such a mission. It was our
understanding that Azerbaijan had also agreed. Given all this, it was
surprising to see a draft resolution circulating at the UN on this
same issue, especially since it called for a parallel mission under
the UN auspices.” According to the Armenian diplomat, this approach
is unacceptable and pursues political objectives. This is the reason
why Armenia did not join the resolution.
Today acting press secretary of the MFA Vladimir Karapetyan commented
on the situation for “Radiolur.” In response to the question that
Armenia did not join the resolution because it is not that pleasant
for Yerevan and Stepanakert, Vladimir Karapetyan said, “Armenia
dd not join because the title of the resolution is not acceptable
for Armenia. Meantime, its content has already become acceptable
in the result of the negotiations and the core of it is that the UN
declares its support for the OSCE mission, leaving the primary role
to the OSCE.”

Vladimir Kazimirov: “There is too much obscurity and fraud in Baku’s policy on Karabakh”
Regnum, Russia
Sept 7 2006
Vladimir Kazimirov – Ambassador, in 1992-1996 head of Russia’s
mediatory mission, Russian president’s plenipotentiary representative
for Nagorno Karabakh, Russian member and co-chair of the OSCE Minsk
Group; presently, Vice President of the Association of Russian
Diplomats.
Kazimirov’s article reflects his personal view of the problem of
Armenian-Azeri relations
A few days ago political expert Vafa Guluzade, who has been the
closest man of the three Azeri presidents Mutalibov, Elchibey and
Aliyev, made quite a rash statement on the Nagorno-Karabakh problem.
He alleged to REGNUM News Agency that there are no documents discussed
at the Nagorno-Karabakh peace talks. “As a person who has had an
immediate relation to the talks, I say with full responsibility that
the negotiating sides have not created a single line… Neither side
can prove the other guilty of any undesirable actions.”
If we translate this allegory into common language: since the sides
have not agreed on anything, they cannot blame each other for failing
any obligations. We can only be sorry for such a lapse of memory.
Guluzade should better not open this subject at all. He has not only
made a fool of himself, but he has also made the whole Azeri side look
“hopelessly bad” in the matter. I think it’s time to make known some
documents and some things I personally know for sure as a member of
the mediatory mission of 1992-1996.
It’s high time to publish the autographs of the plenipotentiary
representatives of the Azerbaijani Republic (AR) under some documents:
Abiyev, Sadykhov, Mamedov, Jalilov, Guliyev, Aliyev.
In 1993 those people repeatedly signed under the commitment to –
very shortly, on a specific date – hold a meeting of the top leaders
of Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh, but Baku tired to delay its
fulfillment. It was put to paper every time cease-fire was declared.
On September 12-13, 1993, the top officials of Azerbaijan and Nagorno
Karabakh (Jalilov and present Defense Minister Abiyev from Azerbaijan
and Gukasyan from Nagorno Karabakh) prolonged the cease-fire and
adopted a joint communique.
Eager to stop the military actions before presidential election
Heydar Aliyev met with Robert Kocharyan as late as September 25, 1993,
in violation of any deadlines, and demanded secrecy in exchange for
promise to continue the contacts.
The same people repeatedly pledged to stop fire, but, despite their
signatures, the Azeri side broke the cease-fire for four times in hope
to win in the battle field. The most memorable story is the breach
of the cease-fire on December 16, 1993, before the counter-attack of
the Azeri troops at various parts of the front.
Guluzade is certainly aware of this series of agreements and
breaches. If he means only the things the sides “created” on their own
without mediators, given bellow are his own words about the document
signed by all the three sides in July, 1994:
“The wording about the cease-fire – ’till the conclusion of the peace
agreement’ – was reached in a roundabout way, on the phone, bypassing
Moscow, Paris, due to the constructivism and cooperation of Zhirayr
Libarityan, former advisor of the former Armenian President Levon
Ter-Petrossyan, with whom I held direct talks. Along with other
factors, this wording had certainly contributed to the stability
of the cease-fire: it started a peace process and stopped human
casualties. (Zerkalo daily, December 26, 1998).
Why now contradict oneself “with full responsibility”? Either the
sides have borne the magic wording or they have not created “any
single line”? On Feb 6, 1995, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh
concluded an agreement on consolidating the cease-fire regime – an
agreement specifying how to settle incidents on the contact line. For
this purpose, the sides exchanged phone numbers for direct contacts
between political and military leaders.
Almost every day Azerbaijan accuses the Armenians of violating the
cease-fire agreement on the “front line” (that’s how they called it
there), but does not fulfill this agreement itself. In March, 2005,
Yerevan said it was ready to fulfill the commitments. In May, 2006,
Stepanakert urged Baku and Yerevan to do this. However, Baku keeps
silence. If this document is imperfect, Baku could suggest revising
it. Azerbaijan reports continuing human casualties, “groans” in its
propaganda, but does not want to fulfill the only agreement concluded
under the OSCE aegis.
Obligations came not only from the talks but also from decisions by
international organizations and forums. For example, the OSCE Budapest
Summit unanimously decided to hold negotiations between the conflicting
sides. Heydar Aliyev did not object. The OSCE Chairman-in-Office
clearly said that NK was also a party to the conflict. However,
for 10 years already Azerbaijan has been debarring NK from the
negotiating process.
Special point – the obligation of UN member states is to fulfill UN
Security Council resolutions. When Kalbajar fell, Azerbaijan asked the
UN SC to adopt Resolution 822, but Azerbaijan failed to meet it itself:
for over a year it ignored its key demand – to stop the military
actions. This demand was reiterated in resolutions 853, 874 and 884.
After Resolution 884 the Azeri troops actively warred for almost half
a year. Baku agreed to armistice only in the face of total collapse
rather than for the sake of belated fulfillment of the resolution. By
the way, that was the only requirement of the resolution Azerbaijan
has fulfilled so far.
The question is why the UN SC has not adopted any single resolution
on Karabakh since Nov, 1993, even though it has had plenty of new
occasions for that? Exactly because one of the sides refused to
fulfill its key requirement. Azerbaijan was the first to ignore the UN
resolutions in their most important point – the call for stopping the
bloodshed. It began insisting on their fulfillment only in the point
requiring the withdrawal of troops from the occupied territories. They
in Baku hope that the war has long been forgotten, and nobody will
notice falseness in their ardent advocacy of UN SC resolutions.
The key point of Azerbaijan’s tactics now is to show the odious
picture of the occupation without saying why it happened and why it
is going on. It should be noted that in Azerbaijan there is a ban
on the self-critical analysis of the war, its costs and mistakes. Of
course, occupation is an anomaly in the modern world, but it cannot
be considered separately from the dynamics of the military actions,
from a whole number of Baku’s refusals to stop them, from fears that,
once getting its territories back, Baku may violate the agreement
and deal a blow on NK from more favorable positions.
There are obligations of some other origin – obligations Azerbaijan
undertook when joining international organizations. For example, the
OSCE member states recognize all ten equal principles of inter-state
relations, while Baku persists in advocating the imaginary priority
of the principle of territorial integrity. When joining the Council
of Europe, Azerbaijan, just like Armenia, committed itself to solve
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict exclusively by peaceful means, but it
seldom calls it day without official threats to apply force. Nobody
in Baku dares to remember article 9 of own Constitution, which says
that war is not a way to solve international conflicts.
There were cases when Azerbaijan openly reviewed its positions
(in May, 1994, it agreed to sign the “small agreement” of Jan
Eliasson and retracted it right off). Azeri officials keep making
controversial statements (now they say “our patience is not endless”
now they say “time is serving Azerbaijan”; first they say “we have
not coordinated anything in Paris and Bucharest” and then: “2 of
8-9 points are left for coordination”). Baku’s dashing from side to
side has already become a tradition: it raises the Nagorno-Karabakh
problems at various international instances in hunt for propaganda
points, but this only hinders the resolution of these problems in
the framework of the OSCE. This swaying and alogisms is not because
of non-professionalism – there is something else behind.
Let’s be sincere – there is too much obscurity and fraud in Baku’s
policy on Nagorno Karabakh. The bellicose campaign by top officials is
nothing but a mockery at own people, isn’t it? No surprise that most
of what they in Azerbaijan do is mistrusted. Banal propaganda tricks
(20% of occupied territories, over million of refugees) could hardly
have another effect.
Of course, the Armenians too used various tricks. In early Sept, 1993,
the Nagorno-Karabakh leaders publicly promised to withdraw their
troops from the town of Kubatli, which they occupied a day before,
but they broke their promise. Oftentimes, the Armenians objected to
preliminary decision on the status of NK before the opening of the
OSCE Minsk conference, but they were inconsistent when demanding that
the status of NK should be the first problem from the package to be
given solution. However, inventive as they are, they are not a match
to their opponents in failing agreements and swindling. I sympathize
with the present OSCE MG co-chairs in their constant pains to find
something strong enough to fix the positions of the sides. Do they
realize in their plod at the “principles” (and then at agreements)
that they constantly have over them the sword of Damocles of compliance
or non-compliance of the sides with what they will sign?
Of course, the one who has dared to give the above facts will be
scolded by certain people once again (this is the easiest thing they
can do), but they can’t disprove or, at least, provide some sensible
arguments against these sad facts.
As you may know, the key obstacle to peace in Nagorno Karabakh is deep
mutual distrust. It is exactly this feeling that urges the sides to,
first of all, push forward their own interests. This feeling is the
heritage of the old discord between the Azeris and the Armenians
and the deep scar of the recent war, the fruit of zealous propaganda
and the outcome of the vicious circle of years-long talks. Breaking
one’s word, failing one’s commitments – this all reveals trickery
and replicates distrust.
It seems that the leadership of each state, especially a young one
facing the hard tasks of building own image on the international arena,
should be the first to wish to gain the reputation of a state that
can hold serious negotiations and fulfill its commitments. It should
be the first to feel uneasy when failing to fulfill them and to avoid
any set-backs that could undermine its reputation,
There are no rules without exceptions. Alas, the fashionable European
orientation is not always a remedy from non-European standards.

France has her say
Al-Ahram Weekly, Egypt
Sept 7 2006
Despite the British occupation, French culture was the number one
foreign culture among Egyptians. Professor Yunan Labib Rizk explains
that even though the occupiers succeeded in introducing English to a
great number of schools, France was king
Abdel-Rahman El-Gabarti, the grandfather of Egyptian historians, was
contemporary to the French military expedition and wrote two books
about it. In the first he recorded all that he witnessed, and it came
out in four volumes under the title Ajaaib Al-Athar fi Al-Tarajim
Wal-Akhbar [the wonders of the vestiges of biographies and events].
This book was objective within the limits of the religious culture
that predominated in that age.
Rifaa El-Tahtawi
————————————————- ——————————-
His second book was released in one volume and was produced under
request by the first Ottoman pasha who arrived at the citadel
following the departure of the French. It consisted of excerpts from
the first book that defamed the occupiers who had only recently
evacuated the country and was titled Mathhar Al-Taqdis bi- Zawal
Dawlat Al-Faransis [the phenomenon of sanctifying the removal of the
French state].
The great El-Gabarti rejected in his second book much of what he had
been impressed with in the first. With regard to culture in
particular, following his visit to the library the military
expedition had established, he had expressed his bedazzlement with
its order. Likewise, upon his visit to the scientific institute the
military expedition had established, he had been awed by the chemical
experiments its scientists were conducting. He even wrote in
acknowledgment, “these matters are not comprehended by minds of our
likes.”
This is perhaps what led some Francophone Egyptians to coin the
metaphorical phrase stating that “Napoleon came with cannons and a
printing press, and he returned to his country with the cannons but
left the printing press.” This is also perhaps what led Sheikh Hassan
El-Attar, El-Gabarti’s teacher who had greater opportunity to mix
with the French, to advise his student Rifaa El-Tahtawi, when he was
sent by Mohamed Ali Pasha with the first academic mission to France
in 1826, to record all the details of life he would witness among
people there. El-Tahtawi did this meticulously, and his famed book
Takhlis Al-Abriz fi Talkhis Bariz [extrication of pure gold in an
outline of Paris]. This book was the first Egyptian overview of a
European society.
The saying that Napoleon left behind the printing press was not
accurate in actuality, however, for the men of the military
expedition in fact took their two presses with them when they left
the country. Yet it was true metaphorically, for French culture
remained the number one foreign culture among Egyptians until after
WWII (1945). It dominated its English counterpart despite the British
occupation of the country and the occupiers’ efforts and policies. At
the head of these efforts was the English consultant to the Ministry
of Education, Douglas Dunlop, who sought to Anglicise education.
These efforts ended in failure, however, and although the occupiers
succeeded in their aim of introducing English to a great number of
schools, they failed in Anglicising education and culture. The spread
of the occupiers’ language was limited to civil servants, and among
other Egyptian intellectuals, French remained lord.
This can be traced to a number of reasons. Most of the Egyptian
missions dispatched during the reign of the remarkable ruler Mohamed
Ali Pasha were sent to France. Statistics concerning the members of
eight missions sent during this period show that 372 were sent to
Paris, including a number of leading intellectuals such as Rifaa
El-Tahtawi and Ali Mubarak, while the number of those sent to England
was 47, sent to learn advanced industries. The second mission sent to
England, consisting of 21 members, was dispatched to learn the art of
carpentry. Austria only received seven delegates. In other words, the
primary bloc of Egyptian delegates to Europe during this Pasha’s era
headed to France, to the degree that the Egyptian government set up
special housing for them that was supervised by one of the academics
of the French expedition.
Mohamed Ali entrusted Frenchmen with the supervision of the advanced
military institutes he established — the war academy, the medical
school and the naval academy. Mohamed Ali’s initial establishment of
a modern education system in Egypt had coincided with the fall of
Napoleon Bonaparte (1815) and the release of a large number of
officers from the French army, whom the ambitious pasha welcomed into
the process of modernising the country he ruled.
It was natural for these men to add a French flavour to their
schools’ programmes and to rely on the resources and methodologies
they had learned from or taught with in their own institutes. This
situation sped up the French to Arabic and Turkish translation
movement, a fact that was followed by the Al-Alsun [languages] School
being the first to be established alongside the military institutes
to serve this need.
During the final quarter of the 19th century, a class of large
agricultural landowners developed and sent its children to the French
schools that spread across the country, in particular the Jesuit and
Frere Schools for boys and the Sacre CÏur and Bonne Pasteur Schools
for girls. This further spread French culture among this class, to
the point that the commonly used language in many of its households
was French rather than Arabic. Many also sent their children to
complete their education in France’s universities, particularly to
law colleges and the universities of Sorbonne and Montpellier.
Law schools were the most common type of French educational centre.
At one time, when the French felt that their influence was waning in
the khedivial law school, they established an adjunct French law
school that gained wide acceptance among members of the class of
large agricultural landowners. Moreover, legal education, which the
French excelled in, was like the royal door for those who wished to
gain a high position in the judiciary and then in political life. A
number of Egyptians who forged paths in these fields benefited from
this situation, including Saad Zaghloul, Mustafa Kamel, Mohamed
Farid, Qasim Amin, Ahmed Lutfi El-Sayed, and many others.
French thus became the primary foreign language for the
communications of the Egyptian government’s ministries, and
particularly the ministries of justice and foreign affairs. A look at
the various rounds of negotiations that took place starting in 1920,
including those known as the Saad-Milner negotiations, and until
1936, in the negotiations that ended with the treaty of friendship
and alliance between Egypt and England, shows that Egyptian
negotiators used French while British negotiators used English.
Moreover, a look at the foreign press issued during that era confirms
that some of it was read by Egyptians as well as the foreign
communities whose languages it was written in. French took the lion’s
share in this, and it is sufficient to note that Al-Ahram was the
first to publish a French edition called Le Pyramides. Other French
language newspapers including Le Progrès Egyptien and La Reforme, and
were widely read by Egyptians.
In contrast, English culture did not enjoy a similar share. The
occupying state did not have strong enough missions to compete with
French missions in the field of education, and the most it could do
was to establish Victoria College in Alexandria, most of whose
students were members of the British community in Egypt alongside
small numbers of Egyptians. While American missions were more active
in this regard, most of their efforts were spent on urging Coptic
Christians to change their sect from Orthodox to Protestant, which
was opposed by the national church. In addition, they established
schools in the areas they were concentrated in, Assiut in Upper Egypt
and Tanta in Lower Egypt. They also attracted members of the small
middle class who did not have a strong social or cultural influence
as did the aristocracy who joined French schools. Yet even when one
of the American missionary groups established the American University
in Cairo in 1920, it did not receive sufficient attention because it
was at first more of a high school and did not target Egyptians as
much as minorities such as the Armenians, Greeks, and Jews.
Another indication confirming the preponderance of French culture
arises in the war waged by the high commissioner’s headquarters in
Cairo when the affiliation of the local university’s administration
was transferred to the Egyptian Ministry of Education in 1925 and it
was turned into a royal university. Lord Lloyd, the British high
commissioner, tried by all means possible to make the majority of its
colleges’ teaching staff English. While he succeeded with regard to
the colleges of medicine and sciences, he failed with regard to the
colleges of arts and law, the majority of whose teaching staff
remained of French culture, whether Egyptians or Frenchmen.
A final observation, and although it may seem superficial, is in fact
highly significant. A large number of French vocabulary items slipped
into the speech of ordinary Egyptians, such as bonjour, bonsoir, au
revoir, and others, more than their English counterparts were used.
We can still witness this in the dialogues of cinematic films
produced during that period.
THIS LENGTHY HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION explains what took place in the
period following the 1936 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty. This treaty, while
settling many of the problems between Egypt and the occupying state,
also removed many of the obstacles the British authorities in the
Egyptian capital had placed before the natural relations between
Cairo and Paris.
In the period following the signing of the treaty, cultural relations
between the two states grew active again in an unprecedented manner.
While the French-English agreement signed in 1904 known as Entente
Cordiale guaranteed France some advantages that maintained its
cultural relations with Egypt, and particularly with regard to French
schools and the post of the director of antiquities remaining with a
Frenchman, WWI and the resultant growth of the nationalist movement
drove the British authorities to withdraw most of the advantages the
French had held onto. Their excuse was always ready — that Egyptians
had the competence to fill the places that had been agreed to be left
to the French.
To the point, following the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, Egyptian-French
relations regained their former position of prominence, this time
through the will of both sides. And Al-Ahram played a role in this
change.
This role is apparent in the trip organised by Al-Ahram for those
wishing to visit the Paris international exhibition that opened on 16
June 1937. The young King Farouk I and the president of the French
republic participated in the opening of the Egyptian section.
Speeches were given by Mohamed Mahmoud Khalil Bey, the commissioner
of the exhibition’s Egyptian section, and the exhibition’s general
commissioner. Cultural relations between the two countries occupied
the greater part of the two men’s speeches.
In Khalil Bey’s speech, he compared between “Egypt, the mother of the
arts” and the “vestiges of Napoleon” left behind in Egypt. Of the
first, he said that “the antiquities of Isis, who Egyptian artists
have glorified here, and the restoration of her tomb, this is what
speaks of us in this dialect.” As for the latter, he placed two
volumes of the encyclopedic Description of Egypt before him and
described them as an innovative work that “all those who love your
country and ours must be familiar with.”
As for the commissioner’s speech, it was replete with praise for
Egyptian civilisation. He said that the participation of Egyptians in
the exhibition “shows with the clearest of indications that you are
worthy of being the successors of ancient Egypt and the great
territory with which is formed the Egyptian homeland, the producer of
a civilisation established 6,000 years ago, a civilisation of arts
and industries that, in their glorified appearance, we applaud this
year between deference and dignity in the shadow of peace.”
Another occasion presented itself in the form of a celebration of the
end of the school year for the Jesuit Fathers School in Paris.
Mahmoud Fakhri Pasha, the Egyptian minister plenipotentiary, attended
the event on the occasion of his son succeeding in his baccalaureate
with the grade of “very good”. He indicated that he, in turn, was a
graduate of a branch of the same school in Alexandria, “whose work in
the Nile Valley in particular had been fruitful and successful. Many
academics, statesmen and prominent men are graduates of the Jesuit
Fathers schools. Last May, the French-Arabic school opened in
Heliopolis and on this occasion Ahmed Ziwar Pasha, a former Egyptian
prime minister, gave a speech, saying that there is no country more
ready for this education than Egypt. Putting spirit and thought
before materiality was one of the truest traditions of ancient
Egyptian civilisation.”
A third occasion was provided by the International Conference for
Foreign Writers of French. Egypt’s part in it was a speech made by
Georges Cattawi under the title “Egypt’s writers and French
literature.” At the head of these writers was Wasef Ghali Pasha, the
Egyptian minister of foreign affairs at that time. Cattawi began by
documenting the national role of the pasha, who was the son of
Boutros Pasha the Great and the uncle of Boutros Ghali, the former
secretary-general of the United Nations who once told this writer
that Wasef Pasha had been the highest role model he had emulated
throughout his life. Yet despite his national role, Cattawi stressed,
“he did not overlook the craft of literature, historical studies, and
the writing of poetry. The traces of his pen can be counted through
the merits of prose and the choicest works of poetry. He made it
clear that the West and Christianity have borrowed greatly from
Islamic civilisation.”
Cattawi did not limit himself to Wasef Ghali, however; in his speech
he also made observation of other Egyptians he praised for writing in
French. “No writer in Egypt such as Lutfi El-Sayed, Taha Hussein,
Ahmed Deif and Mansour Fahmi failed to publish even a small amount in
French on the margins of their precious writings in Arabic. It is
sufficient to mention Ahmed Deif, in partnership with a Frenchman,
wrote the story Mansour and others. He described the charms of the
Egyptian countryside, the life of sailors on the Nile and in
Alexandria’s harbour, and Al-Azhar University.”
Ahmed Rasim Bey, the undersecretary of the Cairo governorate, also
participated in this conference. Al-Ahram introduced him as a
“renowned poet in the world of French literature.” The title of his
report was “Egyptian poets who write poetry in French,” and readers
may be surprised by the number of poets Rasim Bey addressed. They
included Haidar Fadl, a descendent of Mohamed Ali with two volumes of
poetry in French, Flowers spattered with blood and An Eastern
collection. They also included Abdel-Khaleq Tharwat, the famous
politician, with a volume titled Love among the Arabs. There was also
Marios Shumayl Bey, who was described as the owner of the Egyptian
World magazine and who had a volume titled Against forgetfulness,
Fouad Abu Khatir, who had two volumes of poetry in which he “sang in
a musical lilt of his joys, grief, melancholy and grievances,” as
well as Mohamed Zulfiqar, “who let free his genius and forged a path
no one had traversed in terms of style, which was guided by Eastern
culture.”
At the end of his valuable study, Rasim Bey also made an observation
of a number of female writers who had participated in the literary
movement in Egypt and were of great consequence. He mentioned Madame
Nelli Zananiri, the delicate poetess and scrupulous writer, Madame
Amy Kheir, of Lebanese origin and a novelist and poet who praised the
charms of Egypt, Princess Qadriya Hussein, who had written verses
titled “Royal ghosts” and who charmed readers with their formulation,
and Mai Ziyada, the great Arab writer who composed valuable writings
in French.
TRAVEL LITERATURE formed another side to the expression of cultural
relations between Cairo and Paris. An example is provided by one of
the participants in the trip organised by Al-Ahram, Mohamed Awad
Gabril, who grasped the opportunity to write a long article about his
overland trip to Paris.
It was titled “From Cairo to Paris — 5,500 kilometres in five and a
half days.” During that time he passed through Palestine, Lebanon,
Syria, Turkey, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Italy, and Switzerland, until he
finally reached France “without boarding a plane or having a ship
transport him above the depths of water.” During that time he made
note of everything he found strange or unusual. For example, there
was the Taurus Road, which began in Tripoli and “crossed Anatolia
between snow-covered mountains reaching heights of 1,500 metres. The
train continued through these views for about 26 hours, during which
we traversed 42 tunnels and passed through Ankara, modern Turkey’s
capital.”
Gabril could not deny his wonderment after the trip continued into
Europe. “We moved through redolent gardens. From meadows whose trees
were adorned with fresh flowers to soaring mountains from which water
gushed and wide lakes and flat steppes, the most beautiful sight my
eyes beheld was two mountains cloaked in a green robe of trees. The
space between them was so narrow that it only allowed the passage of
the train and the river running alongside it… We traversed the
Simplon tunnel, the longest in the world at 16 kilometres by 700
metres, and passed through Montreux, Lausanne and Dijon before
reaching Paris.”
In the French capital, the pen was passed from Gabril to the Al-Ahram
special reporter accompanying the trip. The first thing that caught
his attention was the excessive speed with which Parisians moved
about in their daily lives, reaching the point of madness “as it
seems to us strangers, having grown accustomed in our country to a
life other than this one.”
Another thing that caught his attention was the absence of an
electric tram in the capital, for it had become one of the greatest
factors obstructing traffic. Instead it moved underground, and the
reporter stated that Paris had in fact become three cities — one
under the ground, on one the surface, and a third in the sky.
The speed characteristic of advanced industrial societies was a
source of wonder for the reporter. The speed of cars reached the
point of madness “and their movement in the street is not restricted
by a system like that present in Egypt. Watching this movement and
speed I remembered those constables who move on motorcycles through
the streets of Cairo and collect the numbers of cars speeding, even a
little, and bring their drivers to trial and the payment of fines…
It is astonishing, in such crowdedness and speed, to not hear horns.
Everyone knows their duty and what they must do. Everyone upholds
order and the law, and it is impossible to find someone crossing the
street other than in the place allocated to do so. And thus,
accidents rarely take place and rarely are there victims of cars in
this capital crowded with millions, in contrary to our own
situation.” And this situation has remained in place!
Then the reporter spent some time on the Seine, noting that it was no
comparison to the Nile in terms of size, width or beauty. “And yet
the French have benefited from it in a manner that some may need to
see to believe. They benefit through shipping, electricity
generation, transport, recreation, the construction of cafes and
everything that science, rationale, and creativity might suggest. As
for Egypt, the masses just wish to find a spot to sit in so as to
enjoy the beauty and grandeur of the Nile that foreigners envy.” It
is fortunate that the man did not live to see Egyptians crowding both
sides of bridges crossing the Nile in search of a breeze during
Cairo’s hot summer nights.
Al-Ahram ‘s reporter accompanying the trip allocated another long
article to Paris’ markets and places of entertainment. It is the
habit of Egyptians on such group outings, once completing the
shopping they are passionate about, to attempt to persuade one
another that they got a better price and diminish the worth of what
their counterparts purchased.
As for places of entertainment, it was a free for all. The reporter
wrote of the Latin Quarter, where there were underground bunker-like
bars with rectangular wooden tables and champagne glasses lined up.
He also wrote of a dance hall whose last dancers were youth who slept
all day and stayed up all night “although their dancing is no
different from any other in terms of modesty and decorum.” After
that, they visited one of the most famous places of entertainment in
Paris — Moulin Rouge. After viewing what they pleased, the reporter
wrote that “the theatres and entertainment halls in France are not
subject to government monitoring and therefore you find the door to
innovation consistently open and unrestricted before the public.”
The trip also included a visit to the Paris mosque, and rather than
performing prayers, the participants sat in its garden drinking
Arabic coffee. “There were some Moroccan crooners singing Arabic
songs to the tune of the oud and qanun and the beat of a drum, but it
was nothing compared to the singing and musical artistry of those we
are accustomed to in Egypt. At any rate, however, it brought great
joy to our hearts after having spent days in a purely Frankish
environment.”
–Boundary_(ID_vI4i4J T+f6lBAOYLmEMLJA)–

STATEMENT OF THE OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIR COUNTRIES
Lragir.am
08 Sept 06
Sixtieth Session of the UN General Assembly
Agenda Item 40, “The situation in the occupied territories of
Azerbaijan”
The Russian Federation, France, and the United States of America, as
the Co-Chair countries of the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in Europe’s Minsk Group, remain committed to promoting a
peaceful, negotiated resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. In
this capacity, we take with great seriousness concerns raised by
either side to the conflict regarding threats to the security and
stability of the region, as well as any developments that pose new
obstacles to the negotiation process.
Accordingly, we have examined closely the information provided by the
Government of Azerbaijan regarding fires in the eastern part of the
occupied territories of Azerbaijan surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. We
also note the report of the Personal Representative of the
Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE, who, at the request of the Government
of Azerbaijan and direction of the Chairman-in-Office, has carried
out a monitoring mission to the affected areas. We note, in
particular, that fires of both natural and manmade origin are a
regular occurrence in the region in question. The question of whether
more extensive fires this year are a cause of ecological concern
requiring international attention to their suppression is one that
can only be answered through a technical examination of the
situation.
Therefore, the Co-Chairs stand ready, together with the Personal
Representative of the OSCE Chairman-in-Office, to lend their
immediate assistance to the organization of an OSCE mission, with the
support and expertise of the United Nations Environmental Programme,
and to report to the UN General Assembly 011 the results of the
mission, as requested in the present resolution, as well as to the
OSCE.
We commend the spirit of goodwill demonstrated by both Armenia and
Azerbaijan in agreeing to cooperate to address the situation raised
through this resolution. We hope the agreement reached today reflects
a new readiness by both sides to engage in further measures to build
confidence that will advance the process of negotiations, and we will
redouble our efforts, through the OSCE’s Minsk Group, to promote such
activities.
Mr. President, we note that over the past two years, the Co-Chairs of
the Minsk Group have worked intensively with the Foreign Ministers
and Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan to identify core principles
of an agreement that would lead to a just and lasting settlement. Our
nations, reinforced by the voices of the Group of Eight leading
nations at their summit in St. Petersburg in July, have called on the
Presidents of both Armenia and Azerbaijan to accept now these core
principles as a basis for resolution of the conflict, and to prepare
their publics for peace, and not war. We reiterate that call today
and restate the readiness of our governments to lend full support to
the achievement and implementation of a peace agreement.