Eurasia Daily Monitor
March 23 2006
GEORGIA EXTRICATING FROM GAZPROM’S BEAR HUG
By Vladimir Socor
Thursday, March 23, 2006
The winter now ending was almost certainly the last one during which
Georgia had to face Gazprom’s commercial blackmail and supply
cutoffs. Within the coming months, Georgia will begin receiving
Azerbaijani gas through the Shah Deniz-Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum (Turkey)
transit pipeline and will also have an opportunity to receive small
volumes of Iranian gas. This new situation should finally end
Georgia’s dependence on Gazprom and constant risk of losing the
country’s gas transport and distribution systems to the Russian state
monopoly.
Deliveries from Azerbaijan’s offshore Shah Deniz gas field are
scheduled to begin in September 2006, reaching 20 billion cubic
meters annually to several consumer countries by the end of the
decade. That figure, almost double the initial projection, rests on
revised estimates of the field’s recoverable reserves, which turned
out to be far richer than initially estimated. The consortium for
extraction and transport consists of: British Petroleum as technical
operator and Norway’s Statoil as commercial operator, with stakes of
25.5% each; Azerbaijan’s State Oil Company, Total of France, and the
National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC), with 10% each; a partnership of
Russia’s Lukoil and Italy’s Agip with 10% between them, and Turkish
Petroleum with 9%.
Georgia is to receive 300 million cubic meters of gas annually in
compensation for the transit service and to purchase another 500
million cubic meters annually for a deeply discounted price fixed at
$55 per one thousand cubic meters. The aggregate volume of 800
million cubic meters represents 60% of Georgia’s current annual
requirement of gas. Significantly and properly, the arrangement
whereby the consortium pays Georgia with gas, in lieu of cash, for
the transit service is deemed entirely compatible with market
economics. Gazprom and the Kremlin denounced a similar arrangement,
whereby Ukraine was receiving under priced Russian gas in lieu of
cash for the transit service until January 1, as “anti-market” and
provided an excuse for their predatory move against Ukraine.
The Georgian government now seeks to increase Georgia’s guaranteed
annual intake of Shah Deniz gas, so as to cover at least part of the
remaining 40% of the country’s current requirement. The requirement
will increase as Georgia’s economic growth accelerates. With Gazprom
a risky option for meeting that requirement, Georgia is looking at
the possibility of importing small volumes of gas from Iran. Georgia
began such imports in late January, following the never-explained
bomb blasts in Russia’s North Caucasus that sabotaged two Russian gas
pipelines, interrupting the supply to Georgia and Armenia. The
national gas companies of Georgia and Iran signed an agreement at
that point whereby Georgia would receive 2 million cubic meters of
gas per day from Iran, priced at $120 per one thousand cubic meters.
That gas reached Georgia via Azerbaijan, through the reconstructed
small-capacity pipeline Astara-Gazi Mahomed-Gazakh. That emergency
arrangement opened the way to exploratory discussions with Iran
toward a more stable agreement to help meet Georgia’s annual
requirements. Meanwhile, 10% of the Shah Deniz gas to reach Georgia
will count as “Iranian” (NIOC’s share in that project).
On March 20, Georgia’s Ambassador to Armenia, Revaz Gachechiladze,
declared Georgia’s interest in receiving Iranian gas via Armenia.
Both Armenia and Georgia could benefit by enlarging the diameter of
the Iran-Armenia pipeline currently under construction, Gachechiladze
remarked (Armenian Radio, March 20). The pipeline’s diameter of 700
millimeters barely meets Armenia’s own needs. It was initially
projected at 1,420 millimeters with an eye to markets beyond Armenia,
primarily Georgia; but Moscow prevailed on Yerevan to reduce the
scope of the project so as to maintain Gazprom’s dominance. Under a
2005 bilateral agreement, Iran will supply Armenia with 36 billion
cubic meters of gas over a 20-year period, with an option to extend
the contract period to 25 years and the volume of supplies to 47
billion cubic meters.
Any gas reaching Armenia and Georgia from Iran is almost certainly
not “Iranian,” but rather originating in Turkmenistan and re-exported
via northern Iran. Turkmenistan is supplying northern Iran’s market
as well. Under an agreement signed last month, Iran will import 14
billion cubic meters of Turkmen gas in 2006, up from 9 billion cubic
meters in 2005. The deliveries in 2006 will for the first time fill
the Korpeje-Kurt Kui pipeline — the sole non-Russian line out of
Turkmenistan — to full capacity. Part of the additional volume is
almost certainly intended for re-export by Iran to Armenia,
Azerbaijan, and possibly Georgia. This year, Turkmen gas costs $65
per one thousand cubic meters at Iran’s border, up from $44
previously.
Gazprom may well retain some market share in Georgia beyond 2007, but
without the leverage to force Georgia to hand over its worn out trunk
pipeline or distribution systems. At the moment, Gazprom persists
with the offer to supply Georgia with gas at a still “favorable” rate
of $110 per one thousand cubic meters (up from $60), if Georgia locks
itself into permanent dependence by selling the trunk pipeline to
Gazprom for a deceptively tempting $250 million and throws the main
gas distribution systems into the deal. Some Georgian government
officials seriously considered such a possibility, but three factors
have recently doomed it: Gazprom’s unreliability as demonstrated by
the January-February supply crisis, Georgia’s receipt of U.S.
Millennium Challenge Account funds (partly earmarked for the trunk
pipeline’s rehabilitation), and the Shah Deniz-Erzurum pipeline about
to come on stream.
Gazprom was also unsuccessful in targeting Georgia’s largest gas
distribution company, Tbilgazi, for takeover. Insolvent and heavily
indebted, the municipally owned Tbilgazi is being restructured under
the just-appointed General Director Bidzina Chkonia, hitherto the
Millennium Challenge Account’s Georgia coordinator for energy.
Tbilisi is negotiating with Kazakhstan’s gas transport company,
KazTransGaz, to privatize and overhaul Tbilgazi.
(Rustavi-2 Television, March 16, 20; Kavkas-Press, March 15;
Interfax, March 14 – 17, 20; Imedi TV, March 6; see EDM, January 23,
25)

The Saratogian, NY
March 23 2006
Brits ‘illimuniate orchestration’ at London Philharmonic concert
JUDITH WHITE, For The Saratogian
03/23/2006
SCHENECTADY – Principal Conductor Kurt Massur was missing from his
London Philharmonic Orchestra’s concert Tuesday at Proctor’s Theatre
in Schenectady due to a viral infection, but his absence didn’t
appear to put a dent in audience satisfaction, nor with the quality
of the performance.
Arabella Steinbacher, an incredibly talented young violin soloist
from Munich, stole the show in her LPO performance of Khachaturian’s
Violin Concerto. Guest conductor Yan Pascal Tortelier was a crowd
pleaser as well. In fact, the audience applauded after nearly every
single movement throughout the concert.
Conductor laureate of the BBC Philharmonic and a frequent guest
leader of orchestras world-wide, Tortelier recently assumed the role
of principal guest conductor for the Pittsburgh Symphony. There’s
nothing brooding or imposing about this tall, good-looking maestro –
he wears his good nature like a topcoat and, indeed, even performed a
bit of a maestro’s version of a touchdown dance during the curtain
call at the end of the show.
In the midst of a short U.S. tour, the entire LPO seemed right at
home on the recently re-appointed stage at Proctors. There were a
good number of young faces in the ensemble, and it’s probable that a
number were subs called in for the tour.
They opened the concert with a gem from their homeland – Benjamin
Britten’s “Simple Symphony” – showing a great blend of sound from the
orchestra’s strings. It’s hard to tell whether Tortelier had time to
put his own stamp on the music for this tour or if he was riding the
tide of earlier preparation. Regardless, the guest maestro didn’t
treat Britten’s work as if it was simple at all. Nor did the
orchestra, whose “leader” (English for concertmaster) shared
appropriate spirit during the best known movement, “Playful
Pizzicato.”
Tchaikovsky’s big, heart-tugging Fifth Symphony filled the second
half of the program with all the drama anyone could want. Tortelier
effected some fantastic buildups and heart-stopping climaxes, and
wrung hearts with the second movement’s passion. The opening clarinet
solo and the second movement’s famous horn melodies were clean and
pleasant. Mostly, though, this was a much more Russian-flavored
delivery than we’re accustomed to in this region – paced and somewhat
plodding in the third movement, and occasionally grumbly.
It was best at achieving a transparency that seemed to illuminate the
orchestration. It was weakest at achieving any long shape to the
music, which sometimes became a series of consecutive sections. The
LPO also gave plenty of color and drama to the Khachaturian work,
which showcased folk-like music inspired by the composer’s Armenian
homeland.
>From its start, the young soloist gave individual treatment to every
tiny phrase, while tossing off even the most difficult technical
passages as if they were lyric possibilities. Fresh and pretty at 24,
Steinbacher is a natural on stage.
Without grandstanding or affectation, her message seems to be,
“Listen: let me tell you this musical story.” Her sound isn’t overly
powerful nor crystalline, but more like yellow than gold, and more
like pewter than silver.
Khachaturian’s Violin Concerto isn’t at the top of most people’s list
of favorites, but played this way, it could be.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

National Assembly of RA, Armenia
March 23 2006
`Hnchak Party Should not Be Immigrant’

On March 23 RA NA President Artur Baghdasarayn received Sedrak
Achemyan, Chairman of the Central Board of Social-Democratic Hnchak
Party (SDHP), Matsak Poladyan, Board member and Lyudmila Sargsyan,
SDHP Armenian representative.
Mr. Poladyan informed NA President about the decisions of the SDHP
Congress held recently, noting that the party having structures in 14
countries made a united decision on changing its strategy and
returning to Armenia if possible, in order to have activity in the
motherland. It was highlighted to have its offices in European
capitals, particularly in Brussels, for the lobbyist activity in the
aspect of contributing to the Euro-Integration processes.
Welcoming the entrance of the party to Armenia, at the guests’
request Artur Baghdasaryan touched upon the political-legislative
processes in Armenia: amendments in Electoral Code, the draft on dual
citizenship. The elaboration and fulfillment of the concept of
immigration policy was highlighted.
During the meeting the possibilities of the development of
inter-party relations were also discussed.

DeFacto Agency, Armenia
March 23 2006
`VISIT OF DARTMOUTH CONFERENCE WORKING GROUP CO-CHAIRS TO REGION IS
QUITE SYMPTOMATIC’, ARAM G. SARGSYAN BELIEVES
The Co-Chairs of the working group on Nagorno Karabakh within frames
of the Russian-American Dartmouth Conference for the regional
conflicts Harold Saunders and Vitaly Naumkin intend to visit
Azerbaijan, Armenia and NKR. March 27-28 they will visit Baku, March
29-30 – Yerevan, and then the Co-Chair will leave for Stepanakert. To
note, the forthcoming visit is the first in the history of the
Dartmouth process on Nagorno Karabakh that began in October 2001. A
member of the Armenian delegation, RA Democratic Party leader Aram G.
Sargsyan told about the goals and program of the Co-Chairs’ visit.
– What is the principal goal of a visit of the Co-Chairs of the
working group on Nagorno Karabakh within the frames of the
Russian-American Dartmouth Conference?
– During 4-5 years the working group on Nagorno Karabakh within the
frames of the Russian-American Dartmouth Conference worked to secure
any agreement with the three parties – delegations of the Azeri,
Armenian and Nagorno Karabakh public. The talks’ first rounds were
very complicated, as the sides mainly exchanged mutual claims. We
reached a consensus concerning the Framework Agreement’s text only by
the eighth – ninth round of the negotiations. At first the text was
titled `Framework Agreement on the Peaceful Process in the Region of
Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh’. Later, in the course of
the ninth round, the Azeri party requested that an expression `in the
region of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh’ should be
withdrawn.
In my onion – actually, other participants of the dialogue on
Karabakh share this viewpoint as well – we have attained a very
important outcome. First, it is the only format of the talks with the
Karabakh party’s participation. That is to say, for the first time
during the whole history of the Karabakh issue settlement the three
parties have reached a consensus on the fact that only peace process,
and yet full-scale, involving general public, can result in a stable
peace in the region. I am absolutely sure that the very approach is
correct and long-term, as the search for a political solution of the
Karabakh issue, in my deep conviction, is a deadlock. I am aware of
the fact that after everything done by the OSCE Minsk group, so many
meetings conducted between the Armenian and Azeri Presidents, it is
quite difficult to deny it even from the psychological point of view.
I believe the new ideas should be thoroughly transformed in a
peaceful process on the Karabakh conflict settlement. It is not only
my own viewpoint, those participating in the talks within the
Dartmouth Conference frames, who approved the draft Framework
Agreement, share my opinion as well. The Co-Chairs of the working
group on Karabakh Harold Saunders – the former U.S. Deputy State
Secretary, an experienced diplomat, and Vitaly Naumkin – President of
the Center for Strategic Studies, a famous politologist, as well as
their assistants Philip Stewart and Irina Zvyaginskaya, will arrive
in the region in the near future. The principal goal of the visit is
propaganda of the draft Framework Agreement on the peaceful process
and seconding efforts of representatives of the three countries’
public.
– What is the visit’s program?
– It is a very short visit: 27-28 they will be in Baku, 29-30 – in
Yerevan, March 31 – April 1 the delegation will visit Stepanakert. We
plan to conduct `a round table’ with the Armenian experts’
participation in Yerevan. Meetings with leaders of the RA political
parties have been scheduled. A meeting with the Armenian delegation
taking part in the talks within the Dartmouth Conference frames is to
be held. The official meetings are not ruled out; however, the issue
is being coordinated with RA Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A meeting
with Chair of the Permanent Parliamentary Commission for Foreign
Issues Armen Rustamyan has already been charted. Harold Saunders and
Vitaly Naumkin will also participate in a press conference. I would
like to note that it is the visit’s preliminary program; it is quite
possible that modifications may be made in it.
-The Dartmouth process on Karabakh has been lasting for five years.
However, only now the working group Co-Chairs Harold Saunders and
Vitaly Naumkin found it necessary to visit the region. How can you
comment on the fact? In your opinion, is the forthcoming visit
connected with the failure of the Armenian and Azeri Presidents’
Rambouillet meeting?
– First of all, the visit is conditioned by the fact that, as I have
already mentioned, we have finally reached a consensus in the course
of the ninth round of the talks for such a long period of time.
However, undoubtedly, I link the visit with the Kocharyan-Aliyev
Presidents’ meeting in Rambouillet. I should say that the OSCE Minsk
group is quite well informed of the steps being undertaken by our
working group. RF MFA and the U.S. State Department follow the
process very actively. Our working group on Karabakh is a sort of a
model group that elaborates possible levels of consent between the
nations. During a year we published the draft Framework Agreement in
press several times. I suggested (not directly, but via mass media)
that the Armenian authorities should consider the issue. However,
representatives of the leadership have not responded to my proposal.
Meanwhile, the Nagorno Karabakh authorities have treated the document
very positively.
– Has the Azeri leadership reacted upon the project?
– I have no information on the reaction to the draft Agreement in
Baku. However, everyone knows that Azeris sing just one song –
`Return our territory to us’. I consider the coming visit is not
occasional and connect it with the talks in Rambouillet. The
Rambouillet meeting is not just failure, it is fiasco. Each party
insists that the territory belongs to it. Unless there is retreat
from the positions, we will not manage to find a solution. And yet
the deviation is not likely to take place. Our proposal on a
full-scale peace process presumes a number of other decisions as
well. For instance, it supposes economic cooperation, which, in the
end, cancels out all the conflict situations. The subjects’
collaboration in large-scale economic programs will itself result in
change of the situation. It means that if it is profitable for us to
cooperate with Karabakh, we will cooperate, if for Karabakh it is
more profitable to cooperate with Azerbaijan from economical
viewpoint, Karabakh can consider the possibility of collaboration
with Azerbaijan. Now I will try to formulate an idea – the subjects
belonging to various levels, having one level of partner relations.
It may become a long-range direction, if official leadership pays
attention to it. The Co-Chairs wish to assist us in the ideas’
propaganda and support the idea of a peaceful process.
– What do you expect of the Co-Chairs’ forthcoming visit? Will the
visit yield any result in the Karabakh conflict settlement?
– I do not wish to believe the visit has some super tasks. I think in
the present situation it is a very symptomatic visit. For instance,
the OSCE Minsk group Co-Chairs visit the region twice-thrice a year.
The working group Co-Chairs’ arriving testifies to the fact that
there appeared something new in the process within the frames of the
Dartmouth Conference. I wait for the public to more seriously treat
the new manifestations. To shape public opinion is the most important
issue. In this case we will get strong incentive to turn the Karabakh
conflict settlement process and move in a new direction. From this
point of view a meeting of the RA authorities with the working group
Co-Chairs will be very useful. If the process is considered to be
parallel to the one within the OSCE Minsk group frames, there is a
distinctive line in it – qualitatively new approaches. One may not
adopt them, however, I believe, it is worthy to familiarize oneself
with them. -0-
KARINE KARAPETYAN,
DE FACTO

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
March 23 2006
Azerbaijan’s Culture and Tourism Ministry: `Mikhail Piotrovski’s
`love’ for Armenian culture comes from his Armenian mother’
[ 23 Mar. 2006 16:53 ]
Associate Member of the Russian Academy of Science, director of the
State Hermitage Mikhail Piotrovski, in his interview to journalists
in Armenia, denounced the alleged destruction of Armenian graveyards
in Julfa region of Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan. He considered this alleged
act as destruction of historic and cultural monuments in all
circumstances.
Azerbaijan’s Culture and Tourism Minister issued a statement
regarding the Piotrovski’s expressions. The Ministry said that
Piotrovski distorted historical truths and demonstrated his
unawareness on the abovementioned issue.
The Ministry informed APA that after the appeal of Armenian Catalicos
to the former USSR leaders in the 60s of last century a lot of graves
in Nagorno Garabagh and Julfa cemetery were taken to Armenia. In
addition, graves belonging to Caucasian Albans were stolen from
Azerbaijan’s regions of Gazakh, Tovuz, Gadabey, Gubadli and Lachin
and taken to Armenian.
`The Russian scientist expressed the historical facts that were
politicized and distorted by Armenian historians. It is surprising
that, the prominent scientist commented on unreal and unconfirmed
event without referring to facts. We want to tell Mr.Piotrovski that
Armenia’s aggression to Azerbaijan’s territories since 1988 led to
destruction of world-important 13, country-important 192 and 330
locally-important historical and cultural monuments, which reflected
ancient history and glorious past of Azerbaijani people. In addition,
during Armenian invasion, 808 club-houses, 927 libraries, 22 museums
with their exhibits and their branches, 85 musical schools and their
branches, 4 theatre buildings, 4 art galleries with their 100
thousand rare exhibits, 2 concert halls, 1892 cultural and art
establishments were destroyed by Armenians. Armenians also vandalized
the world-important archeological monument, Azikh cave dating to
Paleolithic period, Khantapa, Kultapa and Shomutapa monuments dating
to Neolithic period, B.C. VI-VII, which are very important sources to
research human civilization, Ganjabasar temple dating to Caucasian
Albanian Christianity, Aghoghlan temple in Lachin region, Asgaran
castle in Khojali region, Amaras temple, unique exhibits of Kelbajar
ethnographic museum, ethnographic museum in Lachin dating to 3000
years ago, which is rich in golden and silver things, its ancient
coin collection, the unique Aghdam Bread Museum and Stone Monumental
Museum in Zangilan region, Shusha Ethnographic Museum with 5 thousand
exhibits, the State Lachin Ethnographic Museum, which is rich in
carpets, the State Carpet Museum branch in Shusha, popular applied
art museum and the Garabagh State-Ethnographic Museum with thousand
exhibits.
Though these monuments were to be preserved in compliance with the
International Conventions `On preserve of material values during
armed conflicts’ and `On illegal import and export of material
values’, Armenian barbarians ignoring UNESCO and other international
organizations, are pursuing their aggressive policy now.
The Culture and Tourism Ministry expresses its assurance that what
Piotrovski said does not represent Russian prominent, objective
historians’, scientists’ stances on the issue. Bearing in mind that
Mikhail Piotrovski’s `love’ for Armenian culture comes from his
Armenian mother Ripsime Janpoladyan and his father, academician of
Armenian Academy of Science, archeologist, orientalist, Boris
Piotrovski’s love for Armenian culture, Azerbaijani society would
better not to be surprised his approach to historical truths.
We reassure you that `researchers’ who attempt to distort history,
approach truths from chauvinism aspect will never be considered as
objective scientist and intellectuals. History does not accept
distortion,’ the Ministry concluded./APA/

Regnum, Russia
March 23 2006
Serzh Sarkisyan: gas price may be abated for Armenia
Price for gas, supplied by Russia to Armenia, may be considerably
lower, stated Armenian Defense Minister, co-Chairman of
Armenian-Russian intergovernmental commission Serzh Sarkisyan.
`After meeting of presidents of Armenia and Russia in Moscow, huge
work has been done. In accordance with order of President Robert
Kocharyan and after discussion in early March with the prime
minister, I sent a letter with a number of proposals to Gazprom’s
head Mr. Miller. On Friday we received Miller’s answer: Gazprom is
ready to sign appropriate documents till the end of March, which will
enable population and producers to pay lower prices comparing with
earlier ones,’ stated Sarkisyan. `I may not name the price, but I do
not believe the price rising will heavily influence budgets of
population and producers’, added he, Radio Liberty informs.
It is remarkable, Armenian Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan stated,
speaking with journalists today, that people should not expect
changing of gas tariffs. `Price of $110, fixed in the bilateral
agreement, is a final one and changes should not be expected,’
mentioned he. Also, the Armenian premier pointed out that the parties
specify possible variants of compensations.
It should be reminded, that average gas price for Armenian consumer
will total $162.95 per 1,000 cubic meters on April 10. For consumers,
using up to 10,000 cubic meters per month (for population), the
tariff will total 90 drams ($0.20) per 1 cubic meter; for consumers,
using more then 10,000 cubic meters (mainly enterprises of energy
sphere), tariff will total $146.51 per 1000 cubic meters. Gas tariff
will increase by about 52.5%, for enterprises – by 85.2%.
Recalculation of gas tariffs for domestic consumer is caused be fact
that price of gas, supplied to Armenia by Russia will nearly double –
from $56 up to $110 per 1,000 cubic meters since April 1. But the
Russian holding postponed introduction of new tariffs in Armenia till
April 1, and the talks between Yerevan and Moscow on the matter still
continue.

Regnum, Russia
March 23 2006
Mikhail Piotrovsky: `The entire world must recognize the Armenian
Genocide in Ottoman Turkey’
`The entire world must recognize the Armenian Genocide in Ottoman
Turkey in 1915, recognize and condemn the genocide system that made
20th century notorious, starting from Armenians and Jews. And the
world must condemn it together, because the 20th century has
demonstrated that humans are animals, not humans,’ stated Head of the
Russian Hermitage Museum, Corresponding Member of the Russian Academy
of Sciences (RAS) Mikhail Piotrovsky on March 23, after ceremony at
the Tsitsernakaberd Memorial of victims of the Armenian Genocide in
Yerevan.
He said that the Armenian Genocide is a great tragedy that everybody
must learn from. If people resist, Genocide becomes the moral victory
of victims, as became the Armenian Genocide, said Piotrovsky.
Piotrovsky, along with Director of South Caucasian branch of the
Caucasian Institute for Democracy Development Foundation Armenika
Kiviryan visited Museum-Institute of the Armenian Genocide, where he
left a record in the Book of Memory.
Mikhail Piotrovsky is in Yerevan since March 21. He was invited by
the Caucasian Institute for Democracy. He has already read a course
of lectures in Yerevan State University and Russian-Armenian (Slavic)
University. In the framework of the visit he met All Armenian
Catholicos Garegin II, President of Armenia Robert Kocharyan. Also, a
meeting with Minister of Culture Gevork Gevorkyan is planned.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
March 23 2006
Armenian premier Andranik Markaryan: `Our recognizing Nagorno
Garabagh’s independence will depend on talk process’
[ 23 Mar. 2006 15:17 ]
`Resumption of Nagorno Garabagh war is advantageous to neither
Azerbaijan nor Armenia,’ Armenian Prime Minister, Andranik Markaryan
told journalists (APA). He stressed that his country shows interest
to continuation of negotiations.
`Armenian government’s recognizing the Nagorno Garabagh’s
independence will depend on talk’s process. It is one of the possible
versions. Negotiations are ongoing currently, through lack of any
result, it is unnecessary to deeply analyze the other versions’.
/APA/
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

UNPO, Netherlands
March 23 2006
Abkhazia: EU Can Play Mediator Role in Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict
Yesterday International Crisis Group’s (ICG) report on `The EU’s role
in conflict resolution in the South Caucasus’ prepared on account of
the EU grant was represented in Brussels. Crisis Group’s Caucasus
Project Director, Sabine Freizer, the EU special representative on
South Caucasus, Peter Semneby and International Alert Organization
representative addressed the meeting.
ISG representative in Baku, Vugar Gojayev told APA that about 35-page
report investigated participation of Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan
in the European Neighbourhood Policy and EU’s activity in these
states and included about 30 proposals. Recommendations are targeted
to both EU and South Caucasus countries. The EU’s efforts to address
tensions over Nagorno-Garabagh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia and points
out how the EU can do more for Nagorno-Garabagh, Abkhazia and South
Ossetia conflicts.
The report reads that delay is observed in Azerbaijan in connection
with working out of the action plan.
`NGOs have actively taken part in development of the action plan,
even the NGOs have worked out an alternative plan, 9 NGOs have been
involved in this process in Armenia. NGOs’ not joining this process
in Azerbaijan causes concern’. Touching on Garabagh conflict, the ICG
thinks that firstly, Armenian Armed Forces should be withdrawn from
the occupied lands, IDPs should return to their home. The final
status of Nagorno-Garabagh should be determined through a referendum.
The report reads that the EU did little for settlement of the Nagorno
Garabagh conflict and its activity was weak in this process, only
ambassador Heiki Talvitie paid some visits to the region. ICG thinks
that the OSCE have not produced comprehensive peace agreements and
the EU may eliminate this gap. ICG thinks that Peter Semneby can
closely take part in talk process within the OSCE MG and the EU can
play an honest mediator role in the negotiations. One of the
recommendations is that the EU should send fact finding mission to
the occupied territories. ICG thinks that the EU should carry out the
initial assessment, work out strategy of rehabilitation works and
determine the contingency on deployment of the peacekeepers in the
region. The ICG analysed the EU assistance to the South Caucasus and
concluded that Azerbaijan is the greatest trade partner of the EU in
South Caucasus.

Azerbaijan Press Agency
March 23 2006
Vardan Oskanian: `Opportunities to solve Garabagh conflict reduced a
bit in 2006′
[ 23 Mar. 2006 14:42 ]
`After the Istanbul meeting on March 20 the OSCE Minsk Group
co-chairs have not informed on their coming steps yet,’ Armenian
Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian said. In his words, further steps
will depend on the conclusions of the co-chairs’ meeting.
‘Either the co-chairs will visit the region themselves, or they will
organize a meeting of the FMs of Armenia and Azerbaijan,’ he said.
The Armenian Minister also added that Armenia has done much on its
part to promote peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Garabagh conflict
and now expects corresponding steps from Baku. Oskanian remarked that
opportunities to solve Garabagh conflict reduced in 2006 a bit./APA/
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress