Azeri political analysts downplay Iran’s Karabakh mediation offer
Yeni Musavat, Baku
9 Jul 06
Text of M. Qasimbayli’s report by Azerbaijani newspaper Yeni Musavat
on 9 July headlined “Can Iran be a mediator” and subheaded “Aydin
Mirzazada: ‘Tehran provides extensive assistance to occupying
Armenia'” and also subheaded “Rasim Musabayov: ‘This proposal is
unfeasible”
The recent statements by Iranian ambassador to Azerbaijan Afshar
Soleymani on the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict has
caused a lot of interest in the country. During his visit to the
villages of Tovuz District bordering Armenia two days ago, the
ambassador said that all the countries bordering the conflicting
sides – Azerbaijan and Armenia – should be involved in the mediation
effort.
The ambassador even proposed Iran’s inclusion in the OSCE Minsk
Group. Soleymani said that the group has failed to properly fulfil
its mission and Azerbaijan may ensure its territorial integrity if
peace talks on the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict collapse.
The mediation proposal of the Iranian ambassador is viewed as
positive, but unfeasible.
An MP from the [ruling] New Azerbaijan Party, Aydin Mirzazada, said
that Soleymani’s statement is interesting and shows that Iran is
interested in the settlement of the Karabakh conflict as soon as
possible. But he said that Iran is not a member of the OSCE. This
issue can be legally addressed only if another international
organization receives a mandate to broker the settlement of the
Karabakh conflict, he said.
“Turkey’s membership of the OSCE Minsk Group was discussed, but
rejected because both conflicting sides should agree to a country’s
mediation as a co-chair. It was not possible because Armenia did not
agree to Turkey’s mediation. In any case it is a positive fact that
Iran has put forward a proposal to mediate the talks. But we should
not forget that Iran’s extensive assistance to the occupying country
is one of the reasons why Armenia keeps Azerbaijani territories under
occupation. It is true that they [Iran] explain it by a desire to
maintain good relations with its neighbours. Anyhow, there is
something wrong about this issue. Iran recognizes Azerbaijan’s
territorial integrity and declares Armenia’s occupation of our
territories. But at the same time Armenia has access to the world
through Iran. Armenia would have liberated our territories a long
time ago, had it not been for Iran’s gas and military assistance and
commercial relations with that country. We must be open about this –
we would be very happy to see Iran, a country that wants to mediate
the Karabakh talks, put pressure on Armenia.”
Mirzazada believes that the Azerbaijani government may react to
Iran’s official appeal for the mediation in the Karabakh conflict.
“An official appeal may have already been made, but I am not aware of
this. But a response will be given if such an appeal is made,” he
said.
Political analyst Rasim Musabayov also stressed that Iran is not a
member of the OSCE Minsk Group and cannot be represented in it. Rasim
bay [form of address], recalled that Iran actually mediated between
Armenia and Azerbaijan in 1992 and the bitter experience of that
mediation can still be felt.
“They organized talks at the highest level and invited the
presidents. The Armenians occupied our territories before the ink on
the signed document dried up,” he said.
Nevertheless, the political analyst said that by and large Iran’s
mediation initiative could be regarded as a good sign.
“Iran borders both Azerbaijan and Armenia. The ambassador’s remarks
should be viewed as normal although they can be taken as Iran’s
desire to influence the peace talks. But this proposal is unfeasible.
Everybody understands that it has no future.”

Tennis star donates $10,000 to Poochigian
Fresno Bee
Bee Staff
July 8, 2006
State Sen. Chuck Poochigian, R-Fresno, shares at least one thing
with Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore: All received campaign
contributions from Andre Agassi.
The tennis great gave $10,000 to Poochigian’s campaign for attorney
general.
Agassi won’t give his reasons for supporting a Republican’s campaign
after years of contributing to Democratic candidates.
Poochigian credits a common friend whom he will not name.
“A strong supporter of mine said he would try to raise some funds,
and among the people he knows, apparently well, is Andre Agassi,”
Poochigian said.
Poochigian is running against Democrat Jerry Brown for attorney general
Agassi is gearing up for competition as well. The winner of eight Grand
Slam titles, he announced the U.S. Open will be his last tournament.
calnotebook/story/12425212p-13147656c.h
tml

Georgia fumes as Russia closes border crossing
ITAR-TASS news agency, Moscow
8 Jul 06
Stavropol, 8 July: The Russian high-altitude border crossing point
Verkhniy Lars on the Georgian Military Highway that links Russia and
Georgia was closed today for planned rebuilding work. As an ITAR-TASS
correspondent was informed at the headquarters of the Russian
Federation Federal Security Service’s North Caucasus directorate,
the repairs are being accompanied by a complete cessation of freight
and human transit both from Georgia and from Russia, and the Georgian
side was notified of this several months ago. “There was nothing
unexpected about this for anyone,” the agency’s source noted.
At the same time, as ITAR-TASS correspondent Eka Mekhuzla has reported
from Tbilisi, Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Noghaideli has declared
that the Russian side’s decision to close traffic through the Verkhniy
Lars checkpoint “was not coordinated” with Tbilisi. According to
Noghaideli, he has “instructed the Georgian Foreign Ministry to
clarify the causes” of the Russian side’s closure of the checkpoint.
According to the HQ of the Russian Federation Federal Security
Service’s North Caucasus directorate, the Nizhniy Zaramag Russian
border crossing point continues to function round the clock on the
Russian-Georgian state border. It is based at the Roki Pass on the
Transcaucasus Highway. According to the HQ, “there are no queues
of vehicles or of citizens of Georgia or Russia crossing the border
there – there are no difficulties over border transit”.
“The volume of reconstruction at Verkhniy Lars is large. New border
control services fitted with the most up-to-date equipment will
be installed, and living conditions for officers and men are to
be fundamentally improved – so it is not possible at the moment to
name a date for the completion of the rebuilding work with sufficient
precision,” the HQ of the North Caucasus border directorate notes. The
only thing that is clear is that “Verkhniy Lars will resume operations
only when the upgrade work is fully completed”, the HQ said.
[The Georgian Foreign Ministry has issued an official statement
condemning the closure of the Verkhniy Lars border crossing as an
“unfriendly” act, according to RIA Novosti news agency, Moscow, in
Russian 1451 gmt 8 Jul 06. “This decision of Russia’s is an attempt
to put pressure on Georgia. We view the closure of the border as
an unfriendly and provocative act whose aim is to discredit Georgia
in the eyes of the world community and to put economic and political
pressure on it.” The ministry appealed to the “world community to make
an objective assessment of Russia’s calculated and improper actions
against Georgia so that a possible escalation of the situation can
be avoided and the situation on this sector of the Georgian-Russian
border can be defused in good time”.
The agency said the Russian charge d’affaires has been summoned to
the Georgian Foreign Ministry and handed a protest note that says
Georgian border guards were given two hours’ notice of the closure
by fax, when at least three months’ notice would have been required
under a 1993 agreement.
Speaking during a visit to Batumi, Armenian Prime Minister Andranik
Markaryan said the closure of Verkhniy Lars “will be a serious problem
for Yerevan” as agricultural produce from Armenia passes through the
crossing point, and the only alternative is the Georgian port of Poti,
RIA Novosti news agency, Moscow, in Russian 1518 gmt 8 Jul 06 said.]

AZERBAIJAN FOREIGN MINISTER VISITING GERMANY
[July 06, 2006, 21:29:23]
AzerTag, Azerbaijan
July 6 2006
Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Elmar Mammadyarov who is now in Germany
on the invitation of his counterpart Frank-Walter Steinmeier. met with
President of the Bundestag Norbert Lammert, Minister of State in the
Foreign Ministry Gernot Erler and Heusgen, Dr. Christoph Foreign and
Security Policy Advisor to the Federal Chancellor to discuss prospect
to further develop the bilateral ties between Azerbaijan and Germany as
well as social and economic development of Azerbaijan, its integration
into the Euro-Atlantic structures, democratic processes in the country,
Azerbaijan’s joining the European Union’s neighborhood policy, the
country’s participating in regional projects, and peaceful solution
to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.
Mr. Mammadyarov handed over a letter to his German counterpart inviting
the Chancellor Angela Merkel to visit Azerbaijan.
The same day, the Azeri Minister joined the meeting organized by
the Friedrich Ebert Foundation and Azerbaijan’s Embassy to bring
together over 400 representatives of Germany’s political, economic
and cultural circles.
Addressing the event, Markus Meckel, Deputy Chairman of the Bundestag’s
Foreign Affairs Committee, said Azerbaijan is a country with rich
cultural heritage, and noted the country’s role in development of
economy in the region.
Elmar Mammadyarov said Azerbaijan is keen to further develop the
bilateral ties with Germany.
He informed the gathered on the social and political situation in
Azerbaijan, economic projects, including the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
oil and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipelines projects, and the planed
Baku-Tbilisi-Akhalkalaki-Gars railway project.
The Azeri Minister also spoke of Azerbaijan’s integration into the Euro
Atlantic structures, and the prospects to further develop the bilateral
ties with the European Union and joining its neighborhood policy.
A very large part of the Azerbaijani Minister’s speech was devoted
to the peaceful solution to the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over
Nagorno-Karabakh.
Speaking of the horrible results of Armenia’s aggressive policy
against his country, Elmar Mammadyarov underlined that this dispute
hampers the establishment of peace and security in the region
Azerbaijan’s Foreign Minister also noted that Armenia conducted the
policy of ethnic cleansing and illegal settlement in the occupied
Azerbaijani territories and demolished and set on fire the cultural
monuments of Azerbaijan.
Elmar Mammdayarov, who is accompanied in Germany by Azerbaijan
Ambassador Parviz Shahbazov and other employees of the diplomatic
mission, also gave interview to local newspapers “Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung” and “Berliner Zeitung”.

FINAL STAGE OF ARMENIAN PLANE CRASH INVESTIGATION OVER
Lragir.am
07 July 06
The results of the investigation into the crash of the Armenian
A320 will be announced soon. The news agency ARKA reports that this
statement was made by the minister of transport of Russia Igor Levitin
on July 7.
“Several days ago in Toulouse, the simulation of the flight of A320
was modeled. French, Russian and Armenian pilots took part,” said
Levitin. According to him, they used the deciphered data of the black
boxes in modeling the flight.
“The simulation of the flight is the last stage of the investigation,”
explained Levitin. According to him, now all the information will be
summed up, and the results of the investigation will be announced.

Institute for War and Peace Reporting, UK
July 7 2006
Fire Fight Over Karabakh
Armenians and Azerbaijanis accuse each other of deliberately starting
blazes on disputed land, while others blame the heat of a dry summer.
By Rufat Abbasov in Baku, Karine Ohanian in Stepanakert and Karine
Asatrian in Strasbourg (CRS No. 347, 6-July-06)
A series of wildfires raging on lands around Nagorny Karabakh have
sparked a new war of words in the unresolved territorial dispute
between Azerbaijanis and Armenians.
The Azerbaijani authorities accused the Armenians of deliberately
starting fires in areas to the east of Karabakh which, although they
are not part of the disputed territory itself, have been under the
de facto control of Armenian forces since the ceasefire of 1994.
No one lives in these territories, but the lands are cultivated by
Armenian farmers from Karabakh.
Azerbaijan’s environment ministry says more than 132 square kilometres
of land has been burned, causing damage estimated at around five
million US dollars. Azerbaijani environmentalists have named six
villages in the Aghdam region east of Karabakh which they say have
been razed to the ground.
The Armenian authorities in Karabakh have rejected these charges,
saying that the fires have either occurred naturally as a result of
drought conditions, or have been started by negligent local people –
or caused by gunfire from the Azerbaijani side of the ceasefire line.
Igbal Agazade, a member of the Azerbaijani parliament who visited
the ceasefire line that divides the two sides, said the fires were
“nothing other than mass arson”.
He told IWPR, “This is not a whim of nature, but a continuation of
the Armenians’ policy of destroying all evidence that Karabakh is
indigenous Azerbaijani land. If that wasn’t the case, the fires would
also be happening on lands controlled by the Azerbaijanis where the
climatic conditions are identical.
“The Armenians are doing this deliberately to destroy our graveyards
and historical monuments. The historic Nargiz-Tepe monument, which
is more than 2,000 years old, has already been wiped off the face of
the earth. This is ecological terrorism.”
These allegations are denied by the authorities in Nagorny Karabakh,
a republic that is unrecognised by the international community.
“At this time of year, fires in the wheatfields are nothing out of
the ordinary for Nagorny Karabakh, and they occur for very different
reasons,” Vahram Baghdasarian, Karabakh’s agriculture minister,
told IWPR. “But this year, the number and extent of the fires in the
wheatfields in zones bordering Azerbaijan has increased somewhat as
a consequence of shooting from the Azerbaijani side, using tracer
bullets which can start a fire instantly.”
David Mikaelian, press spokesman for the government in Stepanakert
(which the Azerbaijanis call Khankendi), added, “In this season when
the temperature rises to 40 degrees and more, it is natural that
there are fires in the fields – it does not mean they were started
deliberately. But we do have information that Azerbaijani soldiers
are responsible for arson in these areas.”
Mikaelian said the local fire service had been deployed to extinguish
the fires. The emergency services department in Stepanakert said that
it had recorded 128 fires this season, and that the fire service had
been sent out to deal with all of them. Spokesman Armen Narimanian
said more than 1,000 hectares of uncultivated land and 165 hectares
of harvested land had been burned.
Masis Mailian, deputy foreign minister of the unrecognised republic,
told IWPR that it had been hard for the fire services to put out the
blazes because shots fired by the Azerbaijanis created fears for the
safety of the firemen.
The Karabakh authorities released a statement on July 3, saying that
Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk, who has acted as the main international
monitor of the ceasefire line for the last nine years, in his capacity
as representative of the chairman of the Organisation for Security
and Cooperation in Europe, had just conducted a monitoring mission in
the Aghdam area and had seen no evidence that population centres had
been burned – as alleged by the Azerbaijanis – but had seen traces
of a fire that began on the Azerbaijani side of the ceasefire line.
In complete contradiction to this, an Azerbaijani defence ministry
spokesman said the OSCE ambassador had “literally with his own eyes”
witnessed proof of deliberate arson by the Armenians.
Ambassador Kasprzyk could not be contacted by IWPR for clarification.
Matthew Bryza, United States deputy assistant Secretary of State
and chief negotiator on the Karabakh conflict, told the day.az news
agency in Azerbaijan that he was “worried” by the reports and had seen
satellite photographs on which “the boundaries of the fires… are
so distinct that it looks as though someone had thought in advance
how to start them and how far the fires should spread”.
Bryza said he was reserving judgement until Ambassador Kasprzyk made
his report.
On June 27, the Azerbaijani delegation at the Council of Europe
in Strasbourg issued a statement accusing the Armenians of “mass
arson on the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, as a result of which
thousands of hectares of territory were destroyed, doing great damage
to the environment. The flames also spread onto territory under the
control of Azerbaijan. Fauna, buildings and cultural monuments on
these territories were completely destroyed”.
In response, Heghine Naghdalian, a delegate from Armenia, said,
“The Azerbaijanis don’t understand that fires do not recognise
administrative boundaries.
“The Azerbaijanis speak about deliberate fires in the territories
adjoining Nagorny Karabakh without understanding that the Karabakhis
cannot set fire to those fields and woods which they use for their
own needs.”
Naghdalian claimed the matter was being raised to distract attention
from an issue that Armenia has raised at the Council of Europe –
the alleged destruction of the medieval Armenian cemetery of Djugha
in Nakhichevan, Azerbaijan.
Azerbaijani parliamentary deputy Malahat Hasanova gave another version
of events to IWPR, saying that the Armenians were carrying out a
“scorched earth policy” as they understood that they would soon be
abandoning these territories and wanted to leave behind dead and
burned lands.
However, not everyone is inclined to see a political subtext to the
fires. Many farmers questioned by IWPR said fires were a perennial
problem in the region.
“One carelessly-dropped cigarette, and a fire starts immediately,” said
Larisa Danielian who lives in the village of Shahbulakh in Karabakh.
Leonid Soghomonian, who lives in the village of Berdashen in the
Martuni district, reported “the burning of a large amount of weeds
standing more than two metres high weeds on the border, which block
visibility between Karabakhi and Azerbaijani soldiers”.
Soghomonian said that the weeds were burned by soldiers on both sides
to give them a better view of their adversaries, and that many such
fires had been started over the past few years.
“But when a fire like this starts up, it’s impossible to stop it –
the grass is very dry, and it spreads very quickly. And as our crops
are directly next to the border, many of the owners of cultivated
land have suffered badly from the fires and lost 10 or 15 hectares
of their harvest.”
Rufat Abbasov is a journalist and IWPR contributor in Baku. Karine
Ohanian is a freelance journalist working in Nagorny Karabakh. Karine
Asatrian is a correspondent for A1+ television.

Iran, Armenia sign energy agreement
United Press International
July 6 2006
TEHRAN, July 6 (UPI) — The Iranian and Armenian governments
Thursday reached seven agreements on energy, economy and industrial
infrastructure.
The memorandums of understanding were signed by officials in
the presences of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his Armenian
counterpart, Robert Kocharian, Iranian news agency IRNA reported.
The two countries agreed to finance an electric power line project.
Armenia is landlocked, located in the Caucasus region, bordering
Georgia, Turkey, Azerbaijan and Iran.
Armenia does not have any oil or gas resources, but has rich mines
of gold, copper, zinc and lead.
Iran, a leading member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries, has vast oil and gas reserves.

Extraordinary session of the National Assembly over
ArmRadio.am
07.07.2006 17:05
The extraordinary session of the National Assembly came to an
end today, completely exhausting the agenda. The Deputies adopted
bills on implementing amendments in about 30 Laws and ratified the
convention on the “International accessibility of justice,” as well
as the agreements on financing between the Republic of Armenia and
the International Development Agency and “Provision for favorable
legal, economic and organizational conditions for the expansion of
leasing activity in CIS.”
The National Assembly adopted the bill on “Declaring general pardon,
according to which on the occasion of the 15th anniversary of
declaration of independence of Armenia 300 prisoners will be released,
the custody of some others will be reduced.

Azeri Crude to Slip Out of Russia’s Stranglehold
By Simon Webb, Reuters
The Moscow Times, Russia
July 7 2006
LONDON – The mammoth Baku-Ceyhan pipeline from Azerbaijan to the
Mediterranean is a step toward freeing Caspian oil from Russia’s
stranglehold but the grip will not be broken until Kazakhstan finds
new export routes, analysts say.
The $4 billion pipeline, due to be inaugurated next week, will pump
from 300,000 to 400,000 barrels per day of Azeri crude to Turkey’s
Ceyhan port and international markets by the end of this year, rising
to a million bpd in 2008.
It is the first time large volumes of crude will be exported from the
Caspian oil producing region of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan
without going through northern neighbor Russia.
“Baku-Ceyhan does not break Russia’s stranglehold,” said Alfa Bank’s
Moscow-based chief strategist Chris Weafer.
“What was much more important were the projects coming behind it. But
they haven’t happened. The big prize now that the major oil companies
are after is the line from Kazakhstan.”
Exports from the emerging energy giant of Kazakhstan are mostly via
Russia to the Black Sea through the Caspian Pipeline Consortium.
Russia has repeatedly blocked Kazakh plans to double the Caspian
Pipeline’s capacity from the current 700,000 bpd, claiming it would
put further strain on the congested Turkish Straits.
Expansion of the Caspian Pipeline is vital for Kazakhstan, which
hopes to triple its oil output to over 3 million bpd by 2015.
Looking for an alternative, the Kazakhs joined the Baku-Ceyhan project
in mid-June.
The most direct connection would be a pipeline under the Caspian from
Kazakh fields to Baku. But that option is out of the question without
permission from Russia, Iran and Turkmenistan. Environmental groups
also oppose the pipeline.
“The Russians and the Iranians are going to do all they can to block
something like that,” said analyst Julian Lee at the Centre for Global
Energy Studies.
“It is very difficult given the disagreements we have over Caspian
Sea ownership.”
For now, oil companies operating in Kazakhstan are planning to build
new terminals on either side of the Caspian and use tankers to ship
Kazakh crude across the sea.
Lee said he doubted the region had the shipyard capacity to build
the tankers needed for large volumes to move that way. Large-scale
Kazakh exports through the Baku-Ceyhan line were unlikely before 2010,
Kazakh’s energy minister said last week.
The U.S. gave heavy political support to the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline as it
sought to counter Russia’s control over the region, diversify its own
crude supply and lessen its growing dependency on Middle Eastern oil.
“From a diplomatic point of view for the West it makes a lot of
sense,” said Frank Verrastro, director of the energy program at the
Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“It’s non-OPEC, non Persian Gulf oil and the transit route is outside
of Russia.”
The 1770 km pipeline also avoids the Turkish straits, where crude
carriers can be subject to long delays during winter.
But some analysts question how much more reliable Azerbaijan is in
the long term than any other exporter.
“From my point of view I’m not sure that Azeri crude is really any
more reliable than Russian crude,” said Carl Calabro, director of
market analysis at PFC Energy. “The Azeris have problems with Armenia
and the Turks have problems in eastern Turkey.”

Today, Azerbaijan
July 7 2006
Sabina Freizer: “The MG statement means in practice that there is no
longer any internationally facilited negotiations format for the
resolution of the NK conflict”
07 July 2006 [02:02] – Today.Az
“In the statement of OSCE Minsk Group in reality it is meant that
there is not any more international level talks format for settlement
of Nagorno Garabagh conflict,” said Sabina Freizer, Director of the
Caucasus project of the International Crisis Group (ICG).
“ICG has prepared two reports last year in connection with the NK
problem and gave many recommendations.
The first is “Nagorno Karabakh: Viewing the Conflict from the Ground
aimed to describe the current situation in NK and the districts
around it, and how IDPs from occupied lands are living in
Azerbaijan”.
The second report is “Nagorno Karabakh: A Plan for Peace focussed on
the negotiations process”. This report also included a long list of
recommendations to the Azerbaijani and Armenian governments, to the
de facto NK authorities, and to international organizations,”
Director of the Caucasus project of the International Crisis Group
(ICG) Sabina Freizer has told APA in her exclusive interview.
According to her, the peace plan that they recommended in their
second report was very close to what was on the table in the OSCE
Minsk-Group facilitated talks: “As we can see from the statement made
by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs at the OSCE Permanent Council in
Vienna on 22 June, 2006, which describes the principles that were
under discussion.”
Stating the current situation with reagard to the conflict more
critic, Sabina Freizer said that Azerbaijan and Armenia was more
close to peace in the summer of 2005 than today: “Today I assess the
situation as being very critical. I believe that the Azerbaijani and
Armenian sides were much closer to an agreement in summer 2005 than
they are today. There was much optimism until the Rambouillet meeting
that there would be a peace agreement this year, that Armenian backed
troops would begin withdrawal, and Azerbaijani IDPs would begin to
return home during the second half of 2006 or in early 2007. This
optimism has disappeared. Instead the co-chairs have stated that they
are going to suspend their work.”
Stating an attitude to the opinion of co-chairs’ that
responcibility for the settlement of the conflict lays on
Presidents Sabina Freizer stated that the most important text to
consider is the statement made by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs at
the OSCE Permanent Council in Vienna on 22 June, 2006: “This
statement provides a coherent and unified approach to the resolution
of the conflict. It is perhaps the most open and critical statement
the OSCE Minsk Group has ever made. It is also the first time since
the start of the Minsk Group facilitated negotiations in 1994 that
the co-chairs have said that they see no point in continuing their
work. I am very surprised that few in Azerbaijan or in Armenia are
commenting on this point. The Minsk Group statement means in practice
that there is no longer any internationally facilited negotiations
format for the resolution of the NK conflict.
What does this mean? Will the two sides manage to negotiate on their
own without any third party mediation? Will another mediator appear?
If the United States, Russia and France are giving up, what other
international forces have the influence and authority to play a
negotiator role? I don’t believe that any new mediators will appear.
Rather we are entering a very dangerous phase where there will be no
peaceful negotiations between the sides. Again since 1994 this is the
first time that we are in such a situation.”
According to Sabina Freizer, during the past week the Ministries of
Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan and Armenia have issued highly critical
statements to each other: “I think that these clearly show the points
of disagreement in the negotiations process. The Armenian side is
insisting that the principles included a reference to the Lachin
corridor, and to the right to self determination of the people of NK
of their own status through a referendum. The Azerbaijani side is
stating that the principles included liberalisation of the occupied
territories, demilitarization of the conflict zone, and the return of
all Azerbaijani IDPs. Yet these are precisely the points that the two
sides continue to disagree on — and why they were unable to sign a
set of principles in Rambouillet and Bucharest.
The modalities of withdrawal from Lachin and Kelbajar and the
modalities of a popular vote on the status of NK were not agreed upon
by the sides. This is why the co-chairs recommended that they be
addressed later — in seperate working groups. But in the meantime
they suggested that a peacebuilding process start with the withdrawal
of Armenia backed troops of five districts — to be followed by
withdrawal from the other two — and return of IDPs to their homes.”
Calling this tragic eelement Sabina Freizer stated that in 2006 there
was a chance for withdrawal to begin and return to start. All issues
might not be resolved but a peace process would begin. Now there is
no peace process. There is not even a negotiations process. Instead
the Azerbaijani side is increasingly refering to the military option.
If Azerbaijan decides to take offensive action against NK and
Armenia, how many more years will it be before this conflict is
resolved? How many more displaced persons and casualties will there
be? How definite is it that Azerbaijan will get a better deal using
the military option than what is on the table today?
The issue of the referendum on the status of Nagorno Karabakh is
clearly one of the most sensitive points in the package that was
being discussed. As the co-chairs state: for a withdrawal of Armenian
backed forces from the occupied territories to begin, the sides would
have to agree on the principle that a referendum will determine final
status. But the precise modalities of this referendum would be
discussed in further negotiations. Thus the key issue of debate
between the Armenian and Azerbaijani side of who would participate in
the referendum, where and when it would be held, would be decided
upon later. The co-chairs add that the referendum could only occur
“after suitable pre-conditions for such a vote have been achieved”
which I consider to mean, after the return of displaced Azerbaijanis
to NK. The international community is unlikely to use any other
pressure mechanisms to encourage Armenia to withdraw from the
occupied territories.
URL:
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress