Radio Liberty, Czech Republic
July 29 2006
U.S. Mediator Says Karabakh Peace Possible After 2006

By Emil Danielyan
Failure by Armenia and Azerbaijan to hammer out a framework peace
accord this year would not necessarily keep the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict unresolved in the immediate future, U.S. Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State Matthew Bryza said on Saturday. He insisted that
elections due in the two countries in 2007 and 2008 will not be an
insurmountable obstacle to a compromise solution.
`I think it’s possible to work through an election season and still
make progress,’ Bryza said in an exclusive interview with RFE/RL.
`It’s up to the [Armenian and Azerbaijani] presidents as to whether
or not they have enough good will and political courage to do so.
[Their failure to cut a deal in 2006] doesn’t have to be the end of
the process. It’s just easier, much easier, if we get the heavy
lifting done now.’
Bryza said he still hopes that Presidents Ilham Aliev and Robert
Kocharian will iron out their differences in the coming months on the
most recent peace proposals of the OSCE Minsk Group. `Of course I’m
still hopeful,’ he said. `If I weren’t hopeful, why would I even want
to put in an effort? This isn’t about theater, it’s about results.’
Bryza was speaking in Yerevan after what he described as
`encouraging’ talks with Kocharian that marked the start of his first
tour of the conflict zone since his appointment as U.S. co-chair of
the Minsk Group. He replaced another State Department official,
Steven Mann, in that position in early June following the failure of
Kocharian’s last face-to-face negotiations with Aliev that all but
dashed hopes for a near-term solution to the Karabakh dispute.
In two subsequent statements, the mediating group’s American, French
and Russian co-chairs indicated their frustration with the fiasco.
They said they will initiate no more Armenian-Azerbaijani talks until
the two sides display greater commitment to a lasting peace.
Bryza, who proceeded to the Karabakh capital Stepanakert later on
Saturday, said he is visiting the region to get `some more guidance
from the presidents themselves to determine how they would like to
take the process further.’ He said he was assured by Kocharian that
the Minsk Group plan is essentially acceptable to Yerevan.
`I enjoyed hearing his account of where things stand and how we got
here,’ he said. `I felt a constructive, candid attitude on his part.
He was very open. And he helped me think through what sort of
recommendations I might bring to my fellow co-chairs.’
Asked whether he found the kind of `political will’ for compromise
which was demanded by the mediators, Bryza replied: `I think there is
political will here definitely to keep the process going. There have
been public statements that the [Minsk Group’s proposed] framework,
the principles are agreeable [for Armenia].
`What’s never clear is whether or not there is enough will on both
sides to eliminate or to resolve the distance that still stands
between them. But I will just say I feel encouraged after today’s
discussions.’
Armenian officials have claimed implicitly that the two rounds of
negotiations between Kocharian and Aliev this year collapsed because
the latter backtracked on his earlier acceptance of the key
principles of the peace plan that were officially disclosed by the
Minsk Group co-chairs last month. Bryza effectively denied this and
was careful not to blame any of the parties for the deadlock, saying
that they both want to `enact some changes to the ideas that are on
the table.’
`The principles that are on the table don’t constitute an agreement,’
argued the U.S. administration official. `They are principles,
suggestions. So it’s not possible for anyone to walk away from an
agreement, if there isn’t an agreement.’
At the heart of those principles is the idea of holding a referendum
on Karabakh’s status after the liberation of most of the
Armenian-occupied districts in Azerbaijan proper surrounding the
disputed enclave. Bryza confirmed that the mediators believe the
status should be decided by the `people of Karabakh’ `But the
question is how do you define the people of Karabakh? And there were
residents there in 1988 who wish to participate,’ he added in a clear
reference to the region’s displaced Azerbaijani minority. `All these
things have still to be worked out as part of a broad package.’
Aliev and other Azerbaijani officials have repeatedly stated in
recent weeks that they will never accept any deal that could
legitimize Karabakh’s secession from Azerbaijan. Foreign Minister
Elmar Mammadyarov was quoted by the Day.az news service earlier this
week as indicating that Baku is only ready to let the Karabakh
Armenians decide the extent of their autonomy within Azerbaijan. `The
principle of self-determination does not mean a breach of territorial
integrity,’ Mammadyarov said.
This might explain why, unlike the authorities in Yerevan, the
leadership of the self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR) has
expressed serious misgivings about the proposed peace formula.
Bryza, who is apparently the most high-ranking U.S. official to ever
visit Karabakh, appeared to downplay the Stepanakert government’s
objections, implying that it is Baku and Yerevan that have final say
in the peace process. `It’s really up to Presidents Kocharian and
Aliev whether or not they will agree to the formula,’ he said. `We
are just waiting for a sign from the presidents as to whether or not
they would like to restart a formal process,’ he added.
Bryza, who is due in Baku on Sunday, also said he will meet the
group’s French and Russian co-chairs in Paris early next week to
brief them on the results of his shuttle diplomacy. The mediators
stressed in their recent statements that `now is the time’ to resolve
the Karabakh conflict.
Some of them warned earlier that failure to do so before the end of
this year would keep the peace process deadlocked for at least three
more years. They pointed to parliamentary and presidential elections
due in Armenia in 2007 and 2008 respectively and an Azerbaijani
presidential ballot scheduled for 2008. Many observers believe that
it will be even more difficult for each side to make painful
concessions to the other in the run-up to the polls.
But in an indication of the mediators’ fading hopes for 2006, Bryza
insisted that a Karabakh settlement will be feasible even during the
election period. `I don’t necessarily feel that there needs to be a
hard deadline on the peace process,’ he said. `It’s better if we have
a sense of what compromises might be suggested before other political
events [in Armenia and Azerbaijan] move forward. But it doesn’t have
to be by the end of this year.’
`I would argue that the elections in Armenia and Azerbaijan don’t
pose an obstacle to reaching an agreement,’ continued the U.S.
mediator. `They just pose an additional complicating factor. It’s up
to the presidents to guide their populations or societies, their
voters in whatever direction they wish: a) to win the vote for
themselves and their political parties, but b) to build support for
the agreement.
`If the presidents succeed, with our help as mediators, in finalizing
and eliminating the final differences with regard to this framework
agreement and if they come up with an agreement that’s mutually
acceptable, that should be a plus in an election. That’s a huge
achievement that should actually help political leaders and their
parties to win votes. So it could be useful to have elections. The is
question is, though, will the presidents have decided to take these
tough decisions in time?’

Baku Today, Azerbaijan
July 29 2006
US mediator to start visit to the region Saturday
AssA-Irada 29/07/2006 20:12
The new US co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group brokering settlement to
the Armenia-Azerbaijan Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh conflict, Matthew
Bryza, will start his first visit to the region in this capacity on
Saturday.
He is expected to visit Yerevan first, then Khankandi, the center of
the self-proclaimed Upper Garabagh republic, and then arrive in Baku.
The diplomat will hold talks with the Azeri and Armenian government
and then inform the other two co-chairs from Russia and France of the
outcome of discussions.
On Tuesday, Bryza is due to meet with President Ilham Aliyev, Foreign
Minister Elmar Mammadyarov and the head of the Azerbaijani community
of Upper Garabagh, Nizami Bahmanov.
The spokesman for the Azeri Foreign Ministry, Tahir Taghizada, said
the US mediator’s visit aims to promote the negotiating process. He
noted that the opportunities for reaching peace have not been
exhausted yet.
`I believe that the key issue is that Bryza will pay his first visit
to the region in the capacity of the Minsk Group co-chair. Our hope
is for the visit to give an impetus to further negotiations,’ the
diplomat said.
The OSCE mediators are expected to gather in Paris after Bryza’s
visit to discuss future plans.

Ottawa Citizen, Canada
July 29 2006
Musicians make these pieces engaging
Unknown Piano Trios was the name of yesterday’s afternoon Chamberfest
concert at Dominion Chalmers Church. Featuring the music of the
equally unknown composers Arno Babajanian and Carl Fruhling, the
program wasn’t expected to draw a large crowd.
However, between the reputation of the Duke Trio, the air
conditioning at Dominion Chalmers and the fact that the concert was
free to pass holders, the audience counted something like 500 souls.
Babajanian, according to armeniapedia.org, was a distinguished
20th-century composer, a USSR People’s Artist and a laureate of the
State Award of Armenia. His dates were 1921-1983. He wrote music in
many genres including popular music and film scores.
His Trio is a sophisticated and powerful work that should be heard
often. Although its idiom is far from easy-listening, neither is it
avant-garde.
The Duke Trio’s members, pianist Peter Longworth, violinist Mark
Fewer and cellist Thomas Wiebe not only play well together, but
regularly enough that one never gets the sense of three competing
personalities trying to make sense of the music.
Fruhling, whose trio opened the program comes from an earlier era,
1868-1937, and seems to be known today almost entirely for his Trio
in A minor, op. 40, originally for clarinet, cello and piano, but
yesterday played by a regular piano trio (with a violin replacing the
clarinet.)
It’s a well-crafted piece, of which two movements slightly exceed in
length what they offer in interest. However, it was generally
engaging, which probably says as much about the commitment of the
players as to the composer’s undoubted talents.
Russian String Quartets
St. Matthew’s in the Glebe was the venue last evening for the Moscow
String Quartet’s final appearance in this year’s Chamberfest. The
program included quartets by Shostakovich, Schnittke and Tchaikovsky.
If one were to divide Shosta-kovich’s works into periods, as we do
with Beethoven, the Quartet no. 4 in D, op. 83 would be a
middle-period work. In fact, the composer was in early middle-age
when he wrote the First Quartet and that is why even the earliest of
them are mature masterworks.
The Moscow String Quartet, not surprisingly, knows this repertoire
well and, being the terrific ensemble it is, can put it across most
convincingly. While the entire performance was superb, the last
movement in particular had a deep feeling of summing up and
resolution.
Alfred Schnittke, a generation younger than Shostako-vich, is widely
regarded as having inherited the latter composer’s primacy in the
world of Russian/Soviet music. His music is still challenging for
today’s audiences in much the way that Shostakovich’s was 40 years
ago.
Whatever difficulties listeners had with the Moscow account of his
Quartet no. 2, it seems likely most were aware they were hearing
great music performed by some of the greatest of musicians.

Regnum, Russia
July 29 2006
Prolonged conflicts will be resolved with short wars – politician
The last developments in the Middle East and the South Caucasus are
evident of an attempt to resolve prolonged conflicts by means of
short-term military actions, leader of opposition Liberal Progressive
Party of Armenia Hovhannes Hovhannisyan said at a press conference on
July 29, REGNUM reports. He says that the military actions of Israel
against Lebanon and forced Georgian operation in the Kodori Gorge are
particular examples of the trend. `The international community is not
critical and calmly regards the Israeli military actions, waiting
until it does away with Hezbollah,’ the Armenian politician argues.
He also points out the Georgian authorities as trying to resolve the
Georgian-Abkhazian issue by force.
Hovhannisyan also does not exclude that other long-lived conflicts
such as the Nagorno Karabakh one are planned to be resolved by force.
`If the Nagorno Karabakh conflict will stay unresolved for some time
longer, its resolving by force will be possible,’ Armenian Liberals
Head noted. He says that not in vain does Azerbaijan annually
increases its military budget.
The unresolved status of conflicts threatens development of the
conflicting countries. `No matter how well does Yerevan develops,
there is a threat that it will be destroyed in a flash. The bombing
of Beirut is the evidence. For the conflicts’ being unsettled is
always imminent with resuming military actions,’ Hovhannisyan
maintains.
He also reminds that the Nagorno Karabakh conflict also threatens the
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline and Baku-Erzerum natural gas
pipeline. `Superpowers take part in the projects, and it is not
profitable for them to have an unsolved conflict threatening an oil
pipeline.’

Armenian paper says regional railway project to fail without US funding

Hayots Ashkarh, Yerevan
28 Jul 06

Text of report by Vardan Grigoryan in Armenian newspaper Hayots
Ashkarh on 28 July headlined “The USA is freezing Kars-Akhalkalak”

A decision by the US Congress not to finance the construction of the
Kars-Akhalkalak [Akhalkalaki]-Tbilisi[-Baku] railway at the expense of
US tax-payers reflects new geopolitical goals and priorities of the
USA in the South Caucasus region. In the pivot of these goals and
priorities there is a task to direct the South Caucasus economically
and politically towards the West via the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline and
other energy projects, and at the same time to form new regional
counter balances. It is not at all accidental that the decision of the
US Congress on 26 July was adopted in condition of the complex
situation in the US-Turkish relations.
After Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, when in its turn Turkey demanded
that the USA gave carte blanche for an invasion to northern Iraq, the
Americans made clear to Turkey that the invasion of Iraq meant
Turkey’s good-bye to prospects of joining the European Union. The
abovementioned decision of the US Congress is another important
warning to Turkey which is forming energy and transport corridors
simultaneously in several directions.
The stronger the US positions are in the Middle East and the South
Caucasus, the clearer is the fact that the USA may consider Israel its
only “governor” [in the region] which has no an alternative. Turkey,
in turn, because of its convenient geographic position has not only
alternatives but is looking for them everywhere: in Russia, in the
Muslim world, in the Caucasus-Middle East region which is rich with
energy resources.
Thus, strict political will expressed by the US Congress on 26 July is
evidence of the fact that this is not a victory of the Armenian lobby
over Turkey and Azerbaijan as many people think today. It would be
also naive to think that all this is simply a victory of justice about
which representatives of the Armenian Assembly of America declare.
Does it mean that the problem of the Kars-Akhalkalak-Tbilisi railway
construction which contradicts US interests may be considered closed?
Given recent statements of Azerbaijani and Turkish officials, they are
ready to finance the project without US funding. But there is also
Georgia for which it would be very difficult to oppose strict
political will of the US Congress expressed on 26 July.
This resolution by the House of Representatives may lead to a delay in
the Georgian-Turkish-Azerbaijani talks on the construction of the
Kars-Akhalkalak-Tbilisi railway and to deepening of disagreements
between the parties. As for the construction itself, it will remain
unsettled and will be forgotten later. Or on the contrary, it will be
revived depending on changes in US policy in the South Caucasus.

Armenian minister, US mediator discuss forthcoming steps on Karabakh talks

Arminfo
29 Jul 06

Yerevan, 29 July: Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan has met
the US co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, Matthew Bryza, who is in
Yerevan within the framework of his regional visit.
Bryza has arrived in Yerevan for the first time as a new US
co-chairman and his visit has a fact-finding nature, the press service
of the Armenian Foreign Ministry has told Arminfo. The source reports
that the sides gave an assessment to the current situation in talks on
the settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict. Moreover, two men
discussed some details related to the main principles of the conflict
settlement which were on the negotiating table.
The sides also exchanged views on forthcoming steps on the settlement
of the conflict. After the meeting, the US co-chairman left for
Nagornyy Karabakh to meet the president of the republic, Arkadiy
Gukasyan.

Armenian president, US mediator discuss Karabakh settlement

Arminfo
29 Jul 06

Yerevan, 29 July: Armenian President Robert Kocharyan met the US
co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, Matthew Bryza, today.
The parties discussed recent developments on a peaceful settlement of
the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, the presidential press service has
told Arminfo.
Bryza will leave for Stepanakert to meet the president of the Nagornyy
Karabakh Republic, Arkadiy Gukasyan, today. The co-chairman will
return to Yerevan on 30 July, then will leave for Baku on 31 July.

Malaysia Star, Malaysia
July 30 2006
Doomed to repeat the horror?
One Malaysian got a lot closer to these tragic events than was
comfortable. He came away from the experience despairing, he tells
SUHAINI AZNAM.
FOR most Malaysians, Rwanda is just a name `somewhere on the map of
Africa’. And genocide is a big word to grapple with.
But one Malaysian had the dubious privilege of coming to grips with
the tragedy at close range. After Justice Tan Sri Lal Chanda Vohrah
retired from the High Court of Malaya in 1993, he was appointed first
as a permanent trial judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for
the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for two terms (1993-2001), sitting in
the Hague, and subsequently as an ad litem judge (where he could be
called upon as need arose) in the Appeals Chamber for the ICT for
Rwanda (ICTR), sitting in Arusha, Tanzania (2001-2005).

Retired Justice Tan Sri Lal C. Vohrah desribing the horrific tales of
genocide he listened to in his capacity as a judge.
The Yugoslav stories in particular affected him tremendously because
as a trial judge, he heard first-hand accounts of the atrocities
committed by man against his fellow men.
`It was horrifying actually, the suffering the victims underwent,’ he
recalls soberly. `Bosnians were being chased out of their villages.
There were heart-rending experiences. We used to shed tears listening
to their stories.’
He was not alone. One judge was so appalled he had to down a bottle
of wine in the evenings. Another resorted to haunting art museums to
find peace of mind.
Ironically, genocide, as it is committed today, came with the
civilisation of mankind. `Before 1900, we never saw genocide as we
know it today,’ Vohrah points out.
Genocide is defined as `the deliberate extermination of a race of
people’. The past century has seen at least nine instances of
attempted genocide: the Armenians in Turkey; the Nazi holocaust; the
Cambodian `killing fields’; Yugoslavia; Rwanda; the attempt to wipe
out the tribal Karen by the military junta of Myanmar; the ongoing
displacement in Darfur, Sudan; and the ethnic killings in Sierra
Leone and Sri Lanka.
`Nothing was done until the newspapers showed (pictures of) emaciated
people in Bosnia. That was the sort of apathy we saw then. The United
Nations was propelled to do something at the instigation of the
United States.’
When Rwanda finally grabbed attention, `there was that thought, `Are
you not bothering with us because we are Africans?’ So the UN was
pushed to set up a sister commission to the one on Yugoslavia.’
Vohrah used to travel to Arusha because the Rwandan tribunal had to
hear cases in an African court.
When the ICTR was formed in October 1994, its jurisdiction was
backdated to Jan 1 of that year because its members also wanted `to
go after the minds who had instigated the mission and planned the
genocide,’ recalls Vohrah.
This tragedy happened because `politics came into play,’ he said
simply. Its propagators were `harping on ethnic fears.
‘By 1994, a lot of inter-marriage had taken place between the Tutsi
and the Hutu. But because the society is patrilineal, as long as the
father was Tutsi, his children would also be persecuted.
`Whole families were thrown into wells,’ says Vohrah. `I didn’t see
the skulls because it was thought to be unsafe for the judges to go
(to the scenes of massacres). But there was a museum of skulls in
(the capital) Kilgali.’
Globally, the trend is encouraging in that the international
community is forced to take into account that genocide does occur and
can always recur, notes Vohrah.
To prevent it from recurring, `one has to prevent the people who
commit these crimes from getting off with impunity.’
But Vohrah himself holds little hope that we have learnt any lessons
from these dark chapters of `ethnic chauvinism’.
`Well, we keep repeating them, don’t we?’ he says in despair. `It’s
human nature, that’s what it is. Human nature has to be controlled.
We must never allow the bad side of human nature to rear its ugly
head.’

KARABAKH POLITICAL EXPERT ABOUT FORTHCOMING VISIT OF OSCE MG US
CO-CHAIR TO STEPANAKERT
Stepanakert, July 29. ArmInfo. On the eve of the visit of the newly
appointed US co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew Bryza to
Nagorny Karabakh, Karabakh political expert David Babayan has given
an interview to ArmInfo concerning his expectations from the visit.
He says that the visit is of both procedural and political nature. In
terms of procedure, each newly appointed co-chair should visit
conflicting countries, should see the situation with his own eyes,
should establish personal ties with the leaders. So, in this light,
this will be a kind of acquaintance visit. Still, in terms of
politics, one cannot avoid visiting Nagorny Karabakh. It is not a
secret that Nagorny Karabakh together with Azerbaijan is the key party
to the conflict, irrespective of who is negotiating today. The
restoration of the trilateral negotiating format or direct talks
between Nagorny Karabakh and Azerbaijan is just a matter of time. In
this light, Bryza’s visit is very important especially now that the
efforts to resolve the conflict exclusively through Armenian-Azeri
presidential talks have failed.
To remind, Bryza is to visit Stepanakert today and is to meet with NK
President Arkady Ghoukassyan.-0-

LEVEL OF INVESTMENT ACTIVITIES OF ARMENIAN COMMERCIAL BANKS GROWS BY
10% AND MAKES 83,12% AS OF JUNE 30
Yerevan, July 29. ArmInfo. The level of investment activities grew by
5,6% in the first half of 2006, by 10% in a year and made 83,12% as
of June 30.
According to ArmInfo ranking of the Armenian commercial banks, this
indicator grew by 12,89 % in the course of the last three years.
In the period under review, the volume of the sources attracted by the
commercial banks made AMD 267.9 billion. Besides, taking into account
the total obligations of the commercial banks, the sources they
allocated made 70,9% and the grater part of these sources were
directed to crediting the physical entities. According to the experts,
in fact, the commercial banks finance the development of the Armenian
economy, including the agricultural spheres.
According to the level of investment activities, ACBA Bank occupies
the leading position securing 194,21% or AMD 13.8 billion as of June
30, 2006. The bank made AMD 26.9 billion of crediting investments,
including 63,2% for crediting the economy and 36,1% for crediting
physical entities. ACBA Bank manages to effectively allocate the
sources in the given spheres, securing profits for many years
already. According to the level of investment activities, the five
leading Armenian commercial banks are as follows: ArmSwissBank(174,7%
or AMD 1.5 billion), “Ararat” Bank(173,5% or AMD 1.5 and 2.7 billion),
Artsakhbank(165,1% or AMD 9.8 and 16.1 billion) and “Prometey” Bank
(122,3% or AMD 2.7 and 3.3 billion). BTA Investbank secured the
highest level of investment activities that made 982,6%. This great
difference is conditioned by the fact that “BTA Investbank” entered
the Armenian commercial bank in the second quarter of 2005 by
purchasing the 48,9% of the Mezhinvestbank shares. The lowest level of
investment activities was secured by “HSBC Bank Armenia” (39,0% or AMD
23 billion).