DEAD PRIESTS IN ANATOLIA
Brussels Journal, Belgium
July 4 2006
>From the desk of Joshua Trevino on Mon, 2006-07-03 22:07
Fr Pierre Brunissen has been savagely knifed in Turkey – the fourth
attack on Catholic priests in that country this year. His attacker
has apparently complained about Fr Brunissen’s missionary activities.
It is unlikely that Fr Brunissen was, in fact, proselytizing – the
Catholic Church is not especially active in missionary work in Muslim
nations, for the simple reason that it’s generally a swift road to
death for both converter and the converted. Muslim orthodoxy prescribes
death for the apostate. (Indeed, one of the cardinal problems with
modern Islamism is the breadth of acts which constitute “apostasy”
in its eyes: in a Turkish context, we read in Orhan Pamuk’s Snow that
Islamist youth confuse ordinary adolescent lovesickness with this act.)
The grim catalogue of assaults on clerics betrays a resurgent paranoia
within Turkish society – a paranoia that does not sit well with that
nation’s pretenses to membership in “Europe”:
* The first priest attacked this year – and the only one to die
thus far – was Fr Andrea Santoro. He was shot in the heart this past
February with a 9mm pistol by a Muslim youth angry over the infamous
Danish cartoons in an act of “religious revenge.” Fr Santoro died while
praying in his church in Trabzon (itself ancient Trebizond): the killer
yelled “Allahu akbar,” before firing twice into the priest’s back.
* Mere days after Fr Santoro’s murder, Fr Martin Kmetec, a Slovene
Franciscan, was beaten in the Aegean port city of Izmir – former
Smyrna – by a gang of youths angry (again!) over the infamous Danish
cartoons. According to press reports, they seized him by the throat
and shouted, “We will make you all die!”
* The next month, Capuchin priest Fr Hanri Leylek was threatened by
a knife-wielding youth in the same city of Mersin that Fr Santoro
perished in. The assailant, one Erdal Gurel, forced his way into
the parish convent, yelling insults against Christianity and telling
the priest, “You are not a human being! I will violate your mother,
your sisters, your children.”
The founding myth of the Turkish state is its secularism. Turks,
through the iron fist of the army and the soft persuasion of politics,
have supposedly moved past the more regrettable manifestations of
their Muslim heritage: jihad, dhimmitude, the killing of apostates,
etc. But Turkey remains Muslim, and in an echo of the Ottoman millet
system and the fundamental national concept of Islamic nationhood,
that religion remains key to national identity despite the decades
of secularizers – even to this day, a Christian holding Turkish
citizenship is not considered a “Turk” per se.
Two things result from this state of affairs: First, a tension is
set up between the demands of Islamic orthodoxy and the demands
of modernism; when this tension is resolved in favor of orthodoxy,
it is resolved in a fashion as decisive and hence violent as possible.
Second, the line between an assault to Islam and an assault to the
(supposedly secular) Turkish state, when coming from a non-Muslim,
is blurred to the point of meaninglessness. Note, for example, this
story, in which Turkish Christians in Turkey are threatened, not
by Islamists, but by Turkish nationalists. The continuing pattern
of demonization in the media speaks for itself: “Missionaries who
are taking over every part of Turkey have now taken up residence
at book fairs,” read a subhead in the right-wing Yeni Cag. In the
Turkish smash hit film Kurtlar Vadisi Irak, devout Christians are
shown killing Muslim children to harvest their organs: a pop-media
twist on a libel previously reserved for Jews. (Indeed, in the movie,
it’s a Jewish American doctor who oversees the organ-harvesting.) And
on the official level, the line between defense of nation and defense
of Islam is nearly nonexistent. Indeed, Christians there must operate
in a gray underground of caution:
…Turkish police charged 293 people with “missionary activity” from
1998 to 2001, a state minister told parliament recently. People who
place calls to Christian groups operating inside Turkey are warned
against uttering the word “missionary” on an open phone line.
“Lots of my friends say ‘the M word,’ ” one receptionist said.
The attacks on priests in Turkey take place against this background
of nationalist resentment and Muslim paranoia. One can only wonder
how these will be inflamed when Pope Benedict XVI visits Istanbul in
November. The fear and the violence are a curious combination for a
state and society proclaiming its ardent wish to enter “Europe” by
means of the EU. Why join a club whose basic identity and history are
inimical to one’s own? In this context, Europe’s mere consideration
of the possibility betrays the fundamental self-negation at the core
of the European project.
The wounded bodies of the priests are warning – and prelude.
As an addendum, one may well ask why Catholic priests are being
assaulted in Turkey, when the country is bounded by the Orthodox
world. The answer is simple enough: the native Orthodox communities
of Anatolia and Thrace have long since been almost wholly wiped out.
The Armenian genocide is well enough known (outside of Turkish
officialdom, in any case); less well-known is the slow extermination
of the Greek community of Constantinople. On the latter, one could do
far worse than start with Speros Vryonis’ The Mechanism of Catastrophe.

BRITISH JOURNALIST DENIED ENTRY VISA
IFEX, Canada
Int’l Freedom of Expression eXpress
July 5 2006
Date: 04 July 2006
Source: Center for Journalism in Extreme Situations (CJES)
Person(s): Thomas de Vaal
Target(s): journalist(s)
Type(s) of violation(s): other
Urgency: Threat
(CJES/IFEX) – The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia (MID) has
denied an entry visa to the Caucasus Editor and Project Coordinator
for the Institute of War and Peace Reporting (IWPR) in London, Mr.
Thomas de Vaal. The journalist sought entry in response to an
invitation from the Russian Union of Journalists (RUJ) to participate
in the launching ceremony for the Russian translation of his book
“Black Garden”, focusing on the events and situation in Nagorny
Karabakh.
The MID invoked a law which allows the denial of entry to foreigners
if considered necessary to guarantee the safety of the state. In the
official justification for the visa denial, of which CJES has a copy,
it is written: “According to item 1 of clause 27 of the Federal
Law from August, 15th, 1996 114-FZ, ‘On order of departure from
the Russian Federation and entrance to the Russian Federation’, the
citizen of Great Britain, Mr. De Vaal Thomas Patrick, born 12/7/1966,
is not allowed to enter the territory of the Russian Federation”. The
document was signed by the chief of registration for the invitations
department, Mr. N. Kurakov.
“We are sure that the denial of the visa is, first of all, related to
the fact that Thomas de Vaal wrote about the Chechen Republic. This
theme was present in his articles when he was a correspondent for
‘The Moscow Times’ and ‘The Times'”, said CJES Director Oleg Panfilov.
Panfilov also noted that de Vaal “is known as well for having been a
witness in London in the legal proceedings on the possible extradition
of Ahmed Zakaev”.
As de Vaal told Panfilov, he was surprised by the visa denial since,
after having served as witness on the legal proceedings for Ahmad
Zakaev in London, “he has already twice visited Russia”.
According to de Vaal, his visa denial, and especially its justification
on grounds of his being a “threat to safety of Russia”, “is ironic
enough”, considering he had communicated with MID employees and other
officials, some of whom had even been invited to the launching of
his book in Moscow.
Panfilov observes that it not the first time authorities have forbidden
entrance to foreign journalists: “Since 2000, we have collected a list
of names of journalists who have been denied Russian entry visas,
and this list now contains more than 30 names. I think that all
this is connected with the Chechen Republic because almost all those
journalists to whom a visa was denied either had worked in the Chechen
Republic or wrote about it, as is the case with Thomas de Vaal”.

CLERGY TAKES AIM AT EXTREMISM
By Nabi Abdullaev
Staff Writer
Moscow Times, Russia
July 5 2006
Killing in the name of God has long been a hallmark of extremists.
Now moderate voices are invoking the Almighty with the hope of
saving lives.
Meeting Tuesday for the second day of a religious leaders conference
at the President Hotel, clergy from around the globe bemoaned the
explosion in violent secularism.
The three-day meeting has drawn more than 100 senior clergy from 40
countries and all four faiths recognized by Russian authorities —
Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. Other religions were
also represented.
“We are facing international terrorism that misuses religion …
especially when it is used a pretext for hatred and murder,” said
Cardinal Walter Kasper, the top Catholic representative at the meeting.
Armenia’s Catholicos Garegin II also blamed secularism for extremist
violence, and Russia’s chief rabbi, Berl Lazar, called for “responsible
spiritual leaders” to counter extremist movements.
Participants in the meeting agreed to set aside theological differences
to prepare a joint statement directed at the heads of state from the
Group of Eight nations meeting in St. Petersburg later this month.
The statement from the meeting, which is being hosted by the Russian
Orthodox Church, will focus on the intersection between faith and
politics.
President Vladimir Putin has pledged to present a copy of the religious
leaders’ statement to his counterparts at the G8 meeting.
The summit takes place July 15-17.
On Tuesday, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov urged religious leaders
not to shy away from attacking extremists and xenophobes.
But behind the veil of goodwill and shared purpose were deep-seated
cultural and religious differences.
Russia’s chief mufti, Ravil Gainutdin, said politics was behind many
religious conflicts.
Without pointing any fingers, Gainutdin said: “Conflicts that have
arisen in Palestine, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan simply reflect a common
discontent with the world having a unipolar trend of development.”
Tuesday’s meeting largely steered clear of discussion between clergy
and instead entailed a series of statements delivered one after
another. The chief mufti of the Caucasus, Allahshukyur Pashazadeh,
moderated the event, calling every speaker “dear brother.”
Israel Singer, head of the Political Council of the World Jewish
Congress and a participant in the conference, said the meeting was
a great step forward for Russia.
“The fact that President Putin chose not just to allow us to work out
recommendations for the government, but encouraged us to do so — what
is it if not a search for partners among religious leaders?” he said.
Putin, speaking on Monday, the first day of the conference, called
on participants to transform the “clash of civilizations” into a
“dialogue of civilizations.”
Similar government-backed, international meetings of religious leaders
were recently held in Cairo and Ankara.
An explosion tore through windows and doors of the home of a Moscow
region Muslim leader early Tuesday, Interfax reported. The man’s name
was not disclosed.
The house is also used by Muslims for prayers. No one was injured in
the blast. Police classified the attack as “hooliganism.”

BASE FOR SETTLEMENT OF NK CONFLICT IS TALKS BETWEEN NOT PRESIDENTS, BUT FMS OF AZERBAIJAN AND ARMENIA
Author: S.Agayeva
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
July 4 2006
The base of the talks’ process on Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict is the consultations between the foreign ministers of the
two countries, but not presidents, Tahir Tagizade, the head of the
press and information policy department of Azeri Foreign Ministry,
told Trend.
He expressed his surprise at the final statement of co-chairs of
OSCE Minsk Group where it was stated the necessity of meeting of the
presidents so that they take the initiatives into their hands. “But
it is clear that the base of the talks process is the contacts and
negotiations between foreign ministers. They should discuss all
aspects of issues, work out a base for possible future meetings and
discussions of the presidents,” Tagizade told.
Besides, he mentioned the equality of the approaches stated in
the statement of co-chairs of OSCE Minsk Group and official Baku
calling for partly settlement of the conflict. The partly solution
in the release of Azerbaijan’s all occupied territories around
Nagorno-Karabakh, withdrawal of Armenian armed forces, implementation
of mine, returning of internally displaced persons and provision
of their security, restoration of communications, etc. Then, after
the restoration of the pre-war composition of the population of
Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan Republic, their security will
be ensured. Within democratic and legal process, Constitution of
Azerbaijan Republic and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, it is
possible to define the legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh region.
Besides, Tagizade expressed his surprise at the final statement of
Armenian foreign minister V.Oskanyan. According to the statement,
it is clear that Armenian side offers to look for a new base for the
discussions, told Tagizade.

NO GARABAGH ‘FRAMEWORK ACCORD’ ON AGENDA, AZERI OFFICIAL SAYS
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
July 4 2006
Baku, July 3, AssA-Irada
Azeri Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov has said no “framework
agreement” on the Armenia-Azerbaijan Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh conflict
is under discussion.
“There is no such document. I believe that in general, these statements
were rather hasty and of provocation nature. They were most likely
aimed to confuse the situation to see what happens next,” Azimov
said while commenting on a recent statement by the co-chairs of the
mediating OSCE Minsk Group.
US co-chair Matthew Bryza has told Radio Liberty that the mediators
submitted a framework accord to the conflicting sides, but the latter
have yet to accept it.
Azimov said talking of any final document is premature at this stage
of the peace process.
“But I can say with confidence that there is no agreement, as the
talks are still underway.
“The co-chairs’ statement was aimed to see how the developments unfold
and study public opinion. But in any case, it was inconclusive. Taking
some elements out of context only leads to misunderstanding.”
The deputy minister went on to say that Armenia has started taking
advantage of the “shock therapy” statements to make speculations.
“Everyone will be held responsible for their statements. Making final
statements is inappropriate in the absence of any results after two
years of discussions,” the diplomat said.
Azimov unequivocally dismissed the statements that the Azeri government
had agreed to hold a referendum on Upper Garabagh in the future. “The
Azerbaijani leadership will never act counter to the Constitution. This
is absolutely out of question.”
Azimov said a referendum could be held only in the entire territory
of Azerbaijan as a nationwide poll, in compliance with the relevant
provision of the Constitution. The deputy minister said any issue, and
the territorial integrity and inviolability of borders in particular,
must be solved through a vote in the entire country.
“The Azerbaijani leadership will never back away from its stance on
the referendum issue. Any speculations to that end are false. Our
position is clear. Discussions on political issues are possible only
after armed conflicts are eliminated,” the deputy minister said.
“The Armenians living in Upper Garabagh were not the only residents
of the region and Azerbaijanis lived there as well. If we are talking
about democracy, the demographic composition of the region is to
be restored and the Azeri community must return there. To make this
possible, a suitable peaceful environmental should be ensured, which
requires the withdrawal of Armenians. This is a normal and logical
process and the Armenian side has accepted this. Political issues and
determination of the status of the parties [residents] living in these
areas should be addressed in accord with the law.”* The Azeri official
noted that the “referendum” term should be used as rarely as possible.
“By using this word, we serve Armenian purposes, as the main goal
pursued by Armenians and representatives of some countries supporting
them is to put forth some kind of a term that they could materialize
this in the future by causing disputes around it.”

GARABAGH MEDIATORS FOLLOW UP ON CONTROVERSIAL STATEMENT
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
July 4 2006
Baku, July 3, AssA-Irada
The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen mediating settlement to the
Armenia-Azerbaijan Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh conflict on Monday issued
a statement to follow up on their latest remarks that caused a great
deal of debate.
“Taking into account recent speculation about the basic principles
for a peaceful settlement of the Garabagh conflict proposed to both
parties by the Minsk Group co-chairs, it is necessary to make the
following clarification,” said the document released by the French
embassy in Baku.
“On June 22 the co-chairs reported to the OSCE Permanent Council on
the results of the past months of negotiations between the sides
on the Upper Garabagh conflict. They reported on their intensive
mediation activities over the past seven months aimed at achieving
agreement on the basic principles for a settlement.
“Throughout their mediation efforts, the co-chairs stressed the
confidence of their nations and of the international community that
the dispute can be resolved in no other way than a peaceful one”.
The mediation efforts of the intermediaries resulted in the proposal
to Presidents Aliyev and Kocharian of a “set of fair, balanced, and
workable core principles that could pave the way for the two sides
to draft a far-reaching settlement agreement”.
“The principles are based on the redeployment of Armenian troops from
Azerbaijani territories around Upper Garabagh, with special modalities
for Kalbajar and Lachin districts (including a corridor between
Armenia and Upper Garabagh), demilitarization of those territories
and a referendum or population vote — at a date and in a manner to be
decided through further talks — to determine the final legal status
of the region,” the Minsk Group said.
“Suitable pre-conditions would have to be achieved for the vote
to take place in a non-coercive environment in which well-informed
citizens have had ample opportunity to consider their positions after
a vigorous debate in the public arena.”
The mediators indicated that deployment of an international
peacekeeping force and a joint commission for implementation of the
agreement would be established, and international assistance would
be made available for demining, reconstruction, and resettlement of
IDPs in the occupied territories and the war-affected regions. The
MG said the sides would renounce the use or threat of use of force,
and international and bilateral security guarantees and assurances
would be put in place.
Touching on the most recent meeting between the two leaders in
Bucharest, the intermediaries said that unfortunately, the two did
not reach agreement on these principles. The co-chairs, however,
continue to believe that the proposals developed through the past
two years of negotiations “hold the best potential for achieving a
just and lasting settlement of the conflict”.
“We strongly believe that it is now time for the two Presidents to
take the initiative for achieving a breakthrough in the settlement
process based on these principles, and stand ready to assist the
parties to conclude an agreement if the Presidents indicate they are
prepared to do so,” the statement said.
“Although no additional meetings between the sides under the auspices
of the Co-Chairs are planned for the immediate future, they will be
ready to reengage if the parties decide to pursue the talks with the
political will that has thus far been lacking.”

ARMENIAN MINISTER BACKS GARABAGH MEDIATORS’ PROPOSALS
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
July 4 2006
Baku, July 3, AssA-Irada
Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian has praised the latest
proposals of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen mediating settlement
to the Armenia-Azerbaijan Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh conflict.
“The proposals are largely acceptable for the Armenian side and we are
ready to continue talks with Azerbaijan,” he told a news conference
in Yerevan on Monday.
The minister said the suggestions equally benefit both parties to
the conflict, regarding this as “the right way to reach compromise”.
“I believe that Azerbaijan will realize this and take appropriate
steps,” said Oskanian.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

OSCE TACKLES MONITORING OF AZERI LAND SET ABLAZE BY ARMENIANS
Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
July 4 2006
Baku, July 3, AssA-Irada
The OSCE chairman’s special envoy Andrjej Caspzyk started a monitoring
of the occupied Azeri territories set ablaze by Armenians over the
past month. The three-day research will take place on the frontline
as well as a number of villages of the Aghdam and Khojavand districts,
the Azerbaijan Defense Ministry said.
Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov said the observations will be
reflected in a relevant report. He said that considering the gravity of
the situation, the Azerbaijani side has offered to provide assistance
in the activities.
“Andrjej Caspzyk was expected to go there today and I discussed this
with him last week. He will conclude based on his findings which
areas have been affected and how much damage has been inflicted,”
Mammadyarov said.
The Foreign Ministry says over 132 hectares of Azerbaijani land have
been burnt down by Armenians. The financial damage amounts to millions
of dollars.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

AZERBAIJAN READY FOR KARABAKH WAR, MP TELLS ARMENIAN DAILY
Aykakan Zhamanak, Yerevan
8 Jun 06
Azerbaijani MP Musa Quliyev has said that he regarded war as the
last option for the settlement of the long-standing dispute between
Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagornyy Karabakh. In an interview with
Armenian Aykakan Zhamanak daily, Quliyev added that Azerbaijan was
ready for war. If the incumbent Armenian president fails to agree
with Azerbaijan on a solution to the conflict, Baku will wait for
the next Armenian president, Quliyev said. The MP also said that he
did not regard Armenia as his motherland although he was born and
brought up there. The following is the text of Naira Zograbyan’s
report by Armenian newspaper Aykakan Zhamanak on 8 June headlined
“We are ready for war”; subheadings have been inserted editorially:
An interview with a member of the Milli Maclis [Azerbaijani parliament;
from the ruling New Azerbaijan Party], Musa Quliyev.
[Aykakan Zhamanak correspondent] Mr Quliyev, you were born in the
Sisian Region of Armenia. For how long did you live there?
“Armenia is not my motherland”
[Musa Quliyev] I was born in the Urut village of Sisian Region and
went to a secondary school in Sisian. My parents lived in Urut till
1988. I lived there until I was 17, then I studied in Baku, but spent
my holidays in Urut for 10 years.
[Correspondent] Do you think Armenia is your motherland in a sense?
[Quliyev] I do not think Armenia is my motherland even though I was
born and brought up there.
[Correspondent] When you arrived in Armenia you immediately visited
your native village Urut. Did you meet your kith and kin or neighbours
there?
[Quliyev] What kith and kin or neighbours do you mean? Even the graves
of my father and grandmother were destroyed. What are you talking
about? Of course, I found my house where an old man lives nowadays. He
was quite friendly. I gave him a gift. We had a talk. In Sisian deputy
of your parliament Ovik Azoyan met me. Our parents used to be friends
for many years. But I say again that I could not find my father’s grave
as the Azerbaijani cemetery of Urut has been absolutely demolished.
[Correspondent] You lived in Armenia for many years. Do you not feel
nostalgic for our country?
[Quliyev] I do not feel nostalgic for Armenia, I just miss my native
village Urut.
Azeri public do not justify Ramil Safarov
[Correspondent] Mr Quliyev, you were moving freely in Armenia, nothing
threatened your security, you were not met with anti-Azerbaijani
actions or slogans. Why is anti-Armenian hysteria immediately raised
when an Armenian delegation arrives in your country?
[Quliyev] What should they do – shoot a deputy? As for our attitude to
Armenian delegations, here the problem is different. Our territories
are occupied, there is a large number of refugees and naturally people
feel differently.
If you speak about intolerance, I lived in Armenia and know who
is tolerant and how tolerant they are. We were regarded here as
second-rate people.
[Correspondent] But were Armenians not regarded as second-rate people
in Azerbaijan?
[Quliyev] You should ask Azerbaijani Armenians about that.
[Correspondent] You did not forget to mention the occupied territories
and refugees. But there is history which says that Karabakh as well
as the territories which you consider to be your motherland are
Armenian territories.
[Quliyev] Your history says so.
[Correspondent] Azerbaijani Ramil Safarov who killed Armenian officer
Gurgen Markaryan [at NATO courses in Budapest in February 2004]
was named the person of the year in Azerbaijan. Do you think it is
normal in the 21st century for people to name a murderer the person
of the year?
[Quliyev] Safarov was not named the person of the year. Your
information is false. There were some public organizations which
suggested supporting Safarov, but Azerbaijan has never officially
named him the person of the year. He was not called a hero.
[Correspondent] As an individual can you justify Safarov’s action? What
do the Azerbaijani public think about the murder?
[Quliyev] I myself do not justify his action. A man may be killed
only at war or in accordance with a court verdict. As for the view
of the Azerbaijani public, clever people and politicians believe that
it was a wrong action.
[Correspondent] Does it mean that you agree with the life sentence
for Safarov?
[Quliyev] Nevertheless, I think that the punishment was severe. He
could have been sentenced to 15 to 25 years if the murder had not
been given political colour.
Azerbaijan ready for Karabakh war
[Correspondent] Mr Quliyev, how do you assess the latest meeting of
the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents? Do you share the [OSCE Minsk
Group] co-chairs’ optimism that 2006 may be a critical year for the
Karabakh conflict settlement?
[Quliyev] I assess positively the meeting of the two presidents and I
think that there is still a chance to settle the conflict peacefully,
such meetings are necessary.
[Correspondent] You speak about a peaceful settlement to the conflict
whereas Azerbaijan makes bellicose statements from time to time at
a very high level.
[Quliyev] You forget that not Armenian but Azerbaijani territories are
occupied. I regard war as the last option for the conflict settlement
and we are ready for it.
[Correspondent] Do you share the view that Armenians and Azerbaijanis
are genetically incompatible?
[Quliyev] There is no such incompatibility. We are neighbours and
are forced to live next to each other. We simply have to find the
formula of peaceful coexistence.
[Correspondent] Finding that formula depends on the Karabakh issue,
but the parties cannot agree their positions. As a deputy of the
Milli Maclis, how do you see a settlement to the Karabakh conflict?
[Quliyev] One thing is indisputable – Karabakh is Azerbaijani land and
the conflict should be settled within the framework of international
norms.
[Correspondent] But nations’ right to self-determination is also an
international norm. Does that mean that you agree that the Karabakh
people may be independent on their territory?
[Quliyev] We have put forward our position clearly: the Karabakh
conflict should be settled according to international norms, and
within the framework of those norms, Azerbaijan is ready to give
Karabakh a high level of autonomy.
[Correspondent] But the Armenian president declared clearly that
Karabakh and Armenia will not agree to any level of autonomy.
[Quliyev] If they do not agree, let me say in jest, we shall wait
for the next president.
[Correspondent] Nevertheless, you forget a very important detail:
Armenia won the war and one should take this into account.
[Quliyev] Armenia did not win the war, it won a battle. These are
different things.

NATO WON’T SUBSTITUTE MINSK GROUP IN KARABAKH SETTLEMENT – OFFICIAL
by Sevindzh Abdullayeva, Viktor Shulman
ITAR-TASS News Agency, Russia
July 4, 2006 Tuesday
NATO does not want to substitute the OSCE Minsk Group as the Karabakh
settlement intermediary, Assistant Secretary General Jean Fournet
told a Tuesday press conference in Baku.
He is taking part in the NATO Week in Baku.
NATO encourages the Azerbaijani and Armenian search for Karabakh
peace settlement, he said. The alliance thinks that both countries
should avoid moves that may endanger the peace process, he added.
NATO shows big interest in the settlement negotiations, however,
the Minsk Group remains the chief intermediary, Fournet said.
He said that the alliance has a good partnership with all the three
South Caucasian republics and Russia. He said the cooperation will
develop, as all of them encounter the same challenges: terrorism,
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and human trafficking.