OSCE MONITORING IN AZERI-ARMENIAN FRONTAL LINE DUE
Author: E.Javadova
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
March 9 2006
The OSCE monitoring will be held in the contact lime of the Armenian
and Azerbaijani armed forces in the west of Borsunlu village of Terter
district on Thursday, the Defense Ministry announced.
Harry Eronen and Peter Key, field assistants to the special envoy of
the OSCE chairman-in-office, will hold monitoring in the Azerbaijani
side of the frontline.
Yuri Aberle and Imre Palatinus, special envoy’s fields assistants,
are in charge of monitoring in the Armenian side of the contact line.

US DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE TO TOUR AZERBAIJAN AND ARMENIA
Today, Azerbaijan
March 9 2006
US Deputy Secretary of State on Europe and Eurasia, Daniel Fried,
will visit Azerbaijan next week.
The exact date of the visit is still to be defined, the US embassy
in Baku told Trend.
US Ambassador Steven Mann, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair, will
accompany the Deputy Secretary of State in this tour.
Moreover, spokesman for the US Department of State, Sean McCormak
announced that along with Azerbaijan Fried will also visit Armenia.
One of the objectives of the visit is to discuss the results of
the results of the recent meeting of the Azerbaijani and Armenian
presidents in Paris.
URL:

IRAQI CHRISTIANS: CAUGHT IN A REFUGEE WEB
Yigal Schleifer
EurasiaNet, NY
March 9 2006
The Khams family, Chaldean Christians from Northern Iraq, celebrated
this past Christmas in a cramped two-bedroom apartment in Istanbul.
It was a far cry from the celebrations they used to have in their
large home in Iraq, but Nather Khams, who came to Istanbul with his
parents and two siblings 10 months ago, says it was still a much
happier Christmas.
“In Iraq we don’t feel the holiday. You can’t even put on a cross,”
says Khams, 37. Only a few months before their last Christmas in
Iraq, the church where his family prayed was the target of a bombing
attack, and his mother and sister narrowly escaped injury. In the
days leading up to the holiday, Khams’s mother, Samira, saw Islamic
militants chop off the head of a man on the sidewalk as she rode by
in a taxi. Afraid that their church might be attacked again, Khams’s
family spent that last Christmas in the safety of an all-Christian
village called Karakosh, located some 20 kilometers from Mosul, the
northern Iraqi city that has boiled over with insurgent violence and
ethnic tensions since the start of the United States occupation of
Iraq. “Before, all the family, relatives and friends were there, and
there was safety to make a party, to celebrate,” says the soft-spoken
Khams, who has a short-trimmed, graying mustache and a receding
hairline. “Now you are scared to even go to church.”
Khams and his family are among an estimated 2,000 Chaldean Christians
– members of one of the Middle East’s oldest Christian sects and who
belong to the Catholic Church – who have been quietly immigrating to
Istanbul over the last two years (even larger numbers of Chaldeans have
been seeking refuge in Syria and Jordan). Coming on tourist visas,
the Chaldeans arrive in Istanbul hoping to be quickly resettled in
the United States and Australia, where many already have relatives
living, or somewhere in Europe. Instead, many have found themselves
stuck in Turkey, living illegally on their expired tourist visas
while they wait to move onwards. Although no exact figures exist,
experts estimate that the Christian population of Iraq – made up
mostly of the Catholic Chaldeans and the independent Assyrian church –
is rapidly diminishing, with some 800,000 Christians currently living
in the country of 27 million, compared to 1.4 million a decade ago.
And while the violence that has gripped Iraq over the last few years
has affected all Iraqis, Christians say they have felt particularly
vulnerable since, unlike the country’s Kurds or Sunni and Sh’ia
Muslims, they don’t have a militia to protect their community’s
interests. Meanwhile, as the insurgency in Iraq began to take on a
more Islamist character, the country’s Christians increasingly found
themselves targeted by militants, the most notable example being
the coordinated bombing in August 2004 of five churches in Baghdad
and Mosul, which killed over a dozen. In late January this year,
car bombings outside Christian churches raised new concerns about
sectarian violence.
George Mushe, 51, who came to Istanbul from Baghdad with his wife
and three children, described a worsening spiral of violence that
finally forced his family to flee. His son, who was working in
a business that supplied spare parts to the American forces, had
his life threatened and ultimately had to quit his job, while his
two daughters luckily survived the bombing of the secondary school
they were attending. Mushe, meanwhile, was forced to close down his
business, a wedding hall that catered mostly to Christians, since
holding events there simply became too dangerous. “There’s no life
in Iraq now. If you leave your family to go to work or church, you
don’t know if you will see them again,” Mushe says, while sipping on
a tea in an Istanbul pastry shop. “Before the war they looked at us
as different, but we could go to church, to work.”
“Our patriarch and bishops don’t want us to leave Iraq. They say our
churches are now empty,” he added. “They say that Muslims are also
being killed. But what can we do? They are bombing churches.”
For Nather Khams’s family, the comfortable life they knew in Mosul,
an ethnically mixed city of Christians and Muslim Arabs and Kurds,
quickly deteriorated after the launch of the American offensive.
Sitting in the living room of the small, two-bedroom apartment the
family of five now shares in Istanbul, Khams’s mother, Samira, pulls
out a light blue headscarf as a way of demonstrating that change. “I
couldn’t go out unless I wrapped this around my head,” Samira says
as she covers her tousled jet-black hair with the headscarf.
Khams’s 30-year-old sister, Maysam, says she found herself under
increasing pressure to put on a headscarf and stop wearing slacks
at the Mosul vocational school where she was a teacher. After the
school started receiving anonymous telephoned threats against any
female teachers not wearing a headscarf, Maysam decided to quit her
job and stay at home. The family finally decided to leave Iraq after
Khams’s father, Harbi, who ran a business distributing a pro-government
newspaper, survived a shooting attack on his car. “It was a mixed
feeling,” Nather Khams, who ran a business in Mosul selling computer
hardware, said about leaving Iraq. “We wanted to get to a safe place,
but we were sad to leave our memories, our house, our friends.”
In Istanbul, the Chaldeans have traded a life of certain danger for
one of uncertain waiting. They have moved en masse to the city’s
Kurtulus neighborhood, one of the few districts in the city that
still has sizable Greek and Armenian communities. A steep walk down
one hill and then up another one leads to St. Anthony’s cathedral,
a massive brick church on Istanbul’s famous Istiklal boulevard, where
the Chaldeans have been given the basement chapel as their own. On
Sundays, Chaldeans can be seen leaving the church, as they wend
their way through the narrow streets that lead back to Kurtulus,
many stopping at a cut-rate outdoor bazaar to buy their fruits
and vegetables for the week. “The church is central in our life,”
says George Mushe, who serves as a deacon in the Chaldeans Istanbul
church. “Having a church here in Istanbul has been very good, to be
able to pray in our own language.”
Also not far from Kurtulus is the office of Caritas, the Vatican’s
international aid agency, which is the main organization working
with the Iraqi Christians in Istanbul. Located on the grounds of the
Vatican’s consulate building, Caritas provides the Iraqis with social
services and assistance in obtaining visas to third countries. Since
the Iraqi children can’t attend Turkish schools because of their
illegal status, Caritas also opened its own school, providing daily
classes for elementary school-aged children.
In a space built for 65 pupils, some 250 children now study in
classrooms that have been subdivided several times over. Even a chilly
shed in a courtyard has been turned into a classroom.
Tulin Turkcan, Caritas’s director of refugee services, says the
organization has been overwhelmed with work over the last two years.
“People are coming all the time with questions and needs. It’s not
easy,” she says. “They need basic assistance – schooling, medicine,
food. They need assistance from the government, but they know there
is not assistance, so the most important thing is for them to be
resettled in a third country.” Over the last year, though, the number
of Iraqi Christians being resettled has decreased significantly,
Turkcan says. The United States and Australia are granting fewer and
fewer families asylum. Turkcan and others working with refugees in the
Middle East believe that fewer Iraqis are being granted refugees status
because western countries and the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees, the main organization responsible for determining
asylum claims, fear that giving more Iraqis the opportunity to go to
the west would create a pull factor that would eventually lead to a
broader exodus from Iraq. Some suspect, meanwhile, that Washington
is holding back on granting Iraqi Christians asylum because doing so
would be an admission of its failure to create a post-Saddam Iraq that
is safe for all Iraqis. For people like Nather Khams, days are now
spent simply waiting for an answer to their asylum applications. With
many Turks struggling themselves to find work, most of the Iraqi men
are unemployed, although some of the women have been able to find
work as domestic helpers. Khams says he and the rest of his family
wake up at 11am most days, as if in some kind of collective stupor,
and mostly stay at home watching Arabic satellite television.
“We have no rights here. We don’t have a permit to live here,” he
says with a furrowed brow. “We don’t feel stable here. You can’t
find your future here.” Could he and his family imagine going back
to Iraq if the situation there improved? Samira Khams waves her hands
emphatically. “We can’t go back,” she says, her voice rising. “We have
sad memories there. We couldn’t go back, even if it became good there.”
Editor’s Note: Yigal Schleifer is a freelance journalist based in
Istanbul.

DOES THE US GIVE OK TO A NEW ARMENIAN-AZERI WAR? NK PRESS DIGEST
Regnum, Russia
March 9 2006
The international community is disappointed
In Rambouillet Armenian and Azeri presidents Robert Kocharyan and
Ilham Aliyev failed to agree on one key principle. This, according
to ARMINFO news agency, Kocharyan says himself in an interview to
Armenian and Karabakh TV channels. He says that the post-meeting
disappointment is due to much too high pre-meeting anticipations.
“During our meetings there have always been points we agreed on and
points we could not. Naturally, you want to know the source of this
disappointment. I’m sure it comes from too high expectations,” says
Kocharyan. In their turn, these expectations came from the pre-meeting
optimism of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs and representatives of
various international organizations.
“The fact of our tete-a-tete meeting alone is important – for two years
already Aliyev and I have been meeting at international occasions
only. The French president’s invitation and personal involvement in
the talks added to the expectations. Everybody was looking forward to
some climax, some outcome – but nothing like that happened. Kocharyan
notes that big hopes for 2006 are also due to no scheduled elections
in Armenia and Azerbaijan, while 2007-2008 will be hard for Armenia,
and the Karabakh problem may fall hostage to electoral moods. “One
more serious factor was the wish to agree before the G8 2006 in
St. Petersburg: the co-chairs believed that an agreement before the
meeting would be the best guarantee of maximum international support
for its fulfillment.” And this deadline forced them to step up the
peace process. The wish was justified as long as everybody would win,
but it failed. Kocharyan says that the talks will go on, and the
meeting of the Armenian and Azeri FMs will show at what a pace. He
notes that one more reason why the co-chairs expected so much was
that there already was agreement on some principles. “Nobody expected
much from the point we have failed to agree on. That’s why in Sweden
I said that I was carefully optimistic and added ‘very carefully,'”
says Kocharyan. He approves of the work done so far. “But to solve
such a problem is such a complex process that you can agree on 15
principles or points but just one principle you fail will mean that
there is no process yet and you should either review the whole package
or go on looking for other principles,” says Kocharyan.
Speaking of the reasons of the Rambouillet failure, OSCE MG US
co-chair Steven Mann says that the sides must look for solutions –
for this is a humanitarian disaster and a serious security problem
for the region. Most important is the will of the sides – their will
to concede. This is a good chance for both Azerbaijan and Armenia.
But this requires political will by the presidents, nations and
international support.
In its press statement the EU regrets that in Rambouillet the Armenian
and Azeri presidents failed to make decisions necessary for a big
breakthrough in the Karabakh problem, reports Day.Az (Baku). At
the same time, the EU welcomes the commitment of the presidents to
continue the talks. The EU urges the sides to redouble their efforts
towards agreement that will require mutual concessions. The sides
should make their people ready for a balanced agreement and should
avoid making statements that may enhance tensions and distrust. The
EU reminds about the OSCE FMs’ Ljubljana statement that urges the
sides to go from talks to decisions. The EU is deeply convinced that
the sides must not miss the window of opportunities they have got.
The US is very much disappointed with the results of the Rambouillet
talks, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicolas Burns
says in an interview to Nezavisimaya Gazeta (Russia). The US thought
the meeting to be a good chance. Many attempts have been made to
settle the conflict, and the Kocharyan-Aliyev meeting in Rambouillet
was the most promising, says Burns. He notes that the US still wants
to cooperate with Moscow and Paris towards final resolution.
“The window of opportunity for 2006 appears to be closed; it is not
clear how many more there will be,” The Economist says in its recent
article about Armenian-Azeri relations. Haykakan Zhamanak daily
reports The Economist to say: “Apparently well-founded hopes for a
breakthrough in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict have faltered, following
the failure of the Rambouillet summit to produce an outline agreement
between Armenia and Azerbaijan as expected. Although in theory there
is still time this year to make progress, the prospects appear remote.
Time is not on the side of peace. Armenia and Azerbaijan are still
uncompromised. Azerbaijan remains fundamentally opposed to any solution
to the conflict that would entail giving up formal control over Nagorno
Karabakh, while Armenia rejects outright the notion that the region
would return to Azerbaijani rule.
Furthermore, the fact that the authorities in both Armenia and
Azerbaijan have acquired power through fundamentally flawed elections
has weakened their legitimacy, which has in turn affected their
ability to argue the case for concessions.”
The Economist notes that “the conflict differs from that of the other
frozen conflicts in the CIS, in that it is between two sovereign
states, one of which-Armenia-has historically been closely associated
with Russia.”
Wondering how many more chances there are, the Economist says:
“2006 had been seen as a crucial window of opportunity for a peace
settlement in Nagorno Karabakh, given the absence of elections.
Azerbaijan held a parliamentary election in October 2005 and
one month later Armenia held a referendum to enact constitutional
changes. Although both were flawed processes, international criticism
was muted specifically to avoid weakening either side ahead of
the talks.
After the failure of the Rambouillet talks, the chances that the two
presidents will agree a deal are slim to non-existent. For Kocharyan
and Aliyev, to go against public opinion over such a fundamental issue
would be to invite political ruin. As things stand, the next chance
may not appear until 2009. And if that opportunity is not seized,
the risk is that the Nagorno Karabakh conflict may become ‘unfrozen’
in a much less desirable manner.”
Ambassador Steven Mann, the US special envoy for conflict settlement
in Eurasia and the US co-chair of the OSCE MG gives an interview to
Voice of America radio station:
Asked about the last talks on Nagorno Karabakh, Mann says that
the Rambouillet talks were very important and the sides should move
towards a Karabakh agreement. On the whole the talks were detailed and
amicable, but they were also very hard, and little progress was made.
Asked what was the hardest, Mann says that he would better not dwell
into details not being sure that he could specify the most complicated
point. However, the two presidents arrived in Rambouillet to discuss
the key issues; and the mediators allowed them to have a deep and
serious discussion to arrive at an agreement. It was a very intensive
discussion, on the whole
Asked why the talks failed, Mann says there was still time for
Karabakh. The sides ought to seek a resolution as it is a humanitarian
tragedy and a serious problem of regional security. “We must keep
working on it.”
But the principal point in the settlement of Karabakh conflict requires
the political will of both the parties.
“When I say a political will I mean the will to make a compromise.
There is no international negotiating process wherein one of the
parties could achieve the fulfillment of all its demands. In the given
case, I am absolutely convinced that it is a safe opportunity for
both Azerbaijan and Armenia. However, achievement of goals requires
a political will of the presidents and international support.”
Asked about further plans, Mann says that the co-chairs met after
the talks in Rambouillet and informed OSCE CIO Karel de Gucht of the
situation. They also decided to meet in Washington early in March
to fully assess the results of the negotiations in Rambouillet and
determine the future steps.
Asked when the 18-year-old Karabakh conflict will be resolved, Mann
says that not very soon, but it must be resolved. He is sure that the
conditions for the conflict’s settlement will not get better. It is a
humanitarian catastrophe. There are so many people around Karabakh who
live in uncertainty and fear. This is a valid reason for the parties
to unite and settle the situation together. Mann thinks that 2006 is
the very year for the conflict’s resolution
Statements by the presidents
525th Daily (Baku) quotes the interview of Azeri President Ilham
Aliyev to AzerTag. Aliyev says the problem can be solved only within
the country’s territorial integrity. “Nagorno Karabakh is an Azeri
land. The whole world acknowledges territorial integrity.” Aliyev is
ready to guarantee safety for the Armenians living in Nagorno Karabakh.
“But our territorial integrity cannot be subject to discussion. We
cannot agree to Karabakh’s separation from Azerbaijan. Our position
is known. We have repeatedly said that during our meetings with
the Armenian president and the OSCE MG co-chairs.” Concerning the
referendum to determine Karabakh’s status, Aliyev says that the
Azeri Constitution does not allow referendums in separate regions,
but this problem can be solved within the international law and the
Azeri Constitution.
Aliyev notes that the resolution of the conflict is a matter of
principle: “We want the conflict to be resolved as soon as possible.
But not in any way. We have to choose: to make a hasty decision to sign
some agreement or to wait for the right moment to get big results. I
choose the latter.” Aliyev believes that time is on Azerbaijan’s side:
“Some people say that the loss of time is always bad. I cannot agree
with them. Look how much things have changed in Azerbaijan and Armenia
in the last two years. Two years ago there was no big difference
between our budgets. Now Azerbaijan has a 4-time and next year will
have 6-time bigger budget than Armenia.”
Aliyev is sure that Azerbaijan will get fair solution to the Karabakh
conflict. Azerbaijan is stronger than Armenia in all parameters
and is getting even stronger: “Armenia is not economic or military
rival to Azerbaijan. At the same time, all the current processes
in the region, all energy projects that bring together Azerbaijan,
Georgia and Turkey bypass Armenia. Why so? Because we cannot allow
that. We cannot allow cooperation with an occupant-country. There can
be regional cooperation without Armenia, but without Azerbaijan – no.
So, we must do our best to get our goal, and this is my policy.”
Despite failure in Rambouillet, there are still chances to succeed
by talks, Yerkir daily reports Armenian President Robert Kocharyan
as saying in a Mar 3 interview to central Armenian and Karabakh TV
channels. But if Azerbaijan happens to say that no success is possible
and tries to solve the problem by war, Armenia will do the following
things: recognize de jure the Nagorno Karabakh Republic; legally
formulate its responsibility for ensuring Nagorno Karabakh’s security
– by saying that any encroachment on NKR will mean encroachment on
Armenia; reinforce the security zone around Karabakh by “radically
new, complex approaches” (not specified by Kocharyan); more actively
integrate with NK in security; carry out deeper economic reforms for
making Armenia more competitive in the region.
The last goal is “the most important.” Kocharyan says that the right
format of the Karabakh peace talks is “Azerbaijan-Nagorno Karabakh,
with Armenia as active participant.” Armenia continues the format of
bilateral talks with Azerbaijan despite its deficiency: Azerbaijan
uses this factor to present Armenia as an aggressor. “In reality,
nobody cares for these arguments. Everybody knows what the conflict
is about and understands that Azerbaijan’s refusal to negotiate with
Karabakh is due to its post-war complex.” Kocharyan says that even
though Karabakh does not take part in all meetings, it takes part in
the negotiating process as a whole as long as the Armenian president
and the international mediators consult with the NK leadership before
the meetings.
Ax of war
525th Daily reports US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Reno Harnish to say
at a news conference that unless the Karabakh conflict is resolved
this year, there can be other scenarios – and war is one of them. He
says that a new war would be a real tragedy for the Caucasus. And so,
the US urges politicians, FMs and presidents to use the chance to
find the way out.
Such words by a US ambassador can be taken as the US’s “OK” to new
war, says Haykakan Zhamanak. “There is no need mentioning that no
US ambassador has said such things before. On the contrary, whatever
said about the possibility of war ruled out such a possibility.”
That is, Harnish’s statement means that the general belief that
the international community, the West or the US itself will never
allow the Armenian-Azeri war to resume is no longer true – which,
in its turn, means that the Armenian-Azeri war now depends on what
the Armenian and Azeri presidents will do.
Armenia’s statements that it may recognize Nagorno Karabakh have just
added to the tensions, says US Ambassador to Azerbaijan Reno Harnish.
Day.Az reports him as saying that the US’ mediator task is to encourage
the presidents for talks. The US believes that agreement is possible
and hopes for progress in Washington, where the co-chairs are to
outline further steps.
“Azerbaijan must revise its policy on Karabakh – because Armenia’s
position gives no chances for peace agreement. The last talks have
shown that Armenia doesn’t want this. We advocate diplomatic solution
but we must be ready for other scenarios too. We will never agree to
lose our lands. My firm stance is that the Karabakh conflict must be
resolved exclusively within the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan.
Armenia has broken all international norms, and Azerbaijan is an
aggrieved party, with 20% of our territory under Armenian occupation,”
Azeri President Ilham Aliyev says during a visit to the Karabakh region
of Azerbaijan. Echo daily reports him as saying: “I have visited
our soldiers in Agder and has proved to them once more that Nagorno
Karabakh is an Azeri land and we must liberate it by any means,” says
Aliyev. He says that, together with the soldiers, he has inspected
the front line and has checked the level of training and the state
of hardware in the unit.
Every time after a failure in the Karabakh peace talks Armenia
and Azerbaijan are beginning to show their muscles and obduracy to
concede. Now they are again “at peace or war.” But this time they seem
to be going too far – to a looming possibility of war, says Zerkalo
daily (Baku): “The Armenian opposition is already beginning to talk
about recognizing Nagorno Karabakh.”
Zerkalo reports the leader of the National Democratic Party of Armenia,
opposition MP Shavarsh Kocharyan to say that the first mistake of
Armenia is that it has not recognized Nagorno Karabakh and the second
one – that it has taken the place NK in the negotiating process and
to call quite appropriate the recent statement by NK President Arkady
Gukasyan that Armenia “must give place to NK in the talks.” The daily
says: “If Armenia does this, the talks will set back to what we have
already passed – something that will give us nothing good.” “Armenia
is paving the way for “arms race”: Armenian Deputy Defense Minister
Artur Aganbekyan says: “If Azerbaijan continues its militarist rhetoric
about big military budget, Armenia may revise this percentage.”
Weighing up the possible consequences of the war, the daily says
that “Azerbaijan is being strongly pressured by the international
community, for whom the war means losing the South Caucasus for several
years.” “Armenia risks coming up against Azerbaijan’s war machine,
which is much different form what it was in 1991-1994. It will be
hard for economically weak Armenia to stand this blow and the burden
of the preceding ‘arms race.’ While Azerbaijan risks losing the West’
support and facing the temporary stop of big regional projects.” In
other words, the conflicting parties have things to lose – that’s
why they are not starting war despite mutual threats.
At the same time, Zerkalo warns Armenia “not to wave a burning match
over a barrel of powder, especially as Azerbaijan is already a whole
arsenal.”
In an interview to Day.Az the member of the Armenian Pan-National
Movement party, the former national security minister and the first
Armenian president’s personal representative on the Karabakh conflict
settlement David Shahnazaryan says that the Karabakh conflict cannot
be settled without involvement by international peacekeepers. The
international community hopes in vain that 2006 will be decisive for
the Karabakh or other conflicts in the South Caucasus.
“I believe that this hope is absolutely vain as neither Armenian
nor Azeri leaders want to start the Karabakh peace process. They
will stay in power for as long as the conflict is existent. They
want to keep it frozen, but our people don’t. What we see today is
just simulated talks. The whole fight of our presidents is about who
will say no. So, I don’t think that any of them will start actually
resolving the conflict. In my opinion, the conflict cannot stay frozen
for ever. There are two ways out: either new war – unfortunately
possible – or pressure on our leaders by the US and Russia.
There are no such prospects today. Today the Kremlin and the White
House have opposite interests. Naturally, Armenia has no reason to
start war. This may be done by Azerbaijan – under certain internal
political conditions. Given state-level xenophobia in both Armenia
and Azerbaijan, one can expect spontaneous war with no preliminary
political decision. For example, last year there were very long
skirmishes, and it was happy providence that no artillery joined in.
So, one should not rule out the possibility of war.”
Nagorno Karabakh must be involved in the Karabakh peace process; or,
in case of agreement, the talks with NK will have to be started from
the very beginning, says Nagorno Karabakh Defense Minister, Lieut.
Gen. Seyran Ohanyan. REGNUM reports him as saying that if Azerbaijan
wants to solve the problem by war, NK can defend itself and
counter-attack. Still NK is for peace. “De facto Nagorno Karabakh
has solved its problem, but this should be formalized during the
negotiating process,” says Ohanyan. He notes that the Karabakh movement
rising 18 years ago and the following national-liberation war of the
people of Artsakh (the Armenian name of Nagorno Karabakh – REGNUM)
has resulted in the formation of independent Nagorno Karabakh Republic.

OFFICIALS SLAM EUROPEAN MPS
AzerNews Weekly, Azerbaijan
March 9 2006
Tensions remain high over the recent decision by European MPs to
condemn the alleged desecration of graves in the Azeri exclave, as
officials say it was based on false information and could even have
a toll on the EU-Azerbaijan ties.
A presidential administration official has said a number of European
countries are not properly informed of certain issues and blamed
them for a bias. “We stated that the European Parliament’s decision
was unfair. Evidently, they either turn a blind eye to the processes
ongoing in Azerbaijan or have a biased attitude toward them,” said
head of the President’s Office international relations department
Novruz Mammadov.
Mammadov also blamed European MPs for failing to thoroughly study
the areas in question in order to properly assess the situation there.
“Over 1,000 historical and cultural monuments included in UNESCO’s
list have been razed to the ground in the occupied Azeri territories.
If the European Parliament members have been unable to conclude this
by now, this gives them no credit,” Mammadov added. The European
Parliament on February 16 condemned the alleged destruction of
tombstones in the Julfa town located in the Nakhchivan Autonomous
Republic, following Armenians’ groundless claims. A relevant resolution
passed in conclusion of the discussions with 85 voting for and five
against the document said Azerbaijan should provide conditions for
European parliamentarians to visit the territories.
“The document is not based on any facts and is groundless,”
parliament speaker Ogtay Asadov told a parliamentary session last
week. Asadov said he conveyed his opinion to the delegation of
European MPs who have recently visited Azerbaijan. The country,
which is home to people of different ethnic origins and creeds,
has some 3,500 cultural and historical monuments that are cared for
by the state, he said. “We maintain constructive relations with all
international organizations working in the field and will continue
to do so. Armenia, on the contrary, has inflicted damage worth
$7 billion to Azeri cultural heritage as a result of its policy
of occupation.” The speaker continued that historical monuments
belonging to Azerbaijanis and over 1,500 mosques have been destroyed
in Armenia. “At a time of intensifying talks on the Upper (Nagorno)
Garabagh conflict resolution, such a biased decision of the European
Parliament impedes seeking ways out of the problem and casts a shadow
on the EU-Azerbaijan relations.” Asadov said that the legislative body,
which emphasizes its interest in seeing the Garabagh problem resolved,
is hurting its own image among the Azeri public and complicates future
cooperation between the government and the EU.
Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov blamed European MPs for failing to
take into account the data submitted by Azerbaijan and giving in to
the pressures by pro-Armenian groups. The Foreign Ministry ruled out
the possibility of a visit by an international mission to Nakhchivan.
In a letter sent to the European Parliament, it said that examination
of these areas by European MPs under the terms envisioned by the
mentioned resolution is out of the question. The Ministry also cited
concerns over the harsh wording of the document. ‘Independent decision’
The European Parliament’s resolution was not based on the opinion of
member countries but of independent deputies, the coordinator of the
European House in Baku Wolfgang Sporrer has said.
Sporrer said the deputies elected to the legislative body from 25
countries had a free mandate. In other words, they are not subordinated
to the political course of their respective governments.
“Members of the organization cannot be forced to adopt decisions. The
European Parliament makes decisions on a multitude of different
issues and quite often the opinions of its members do not dovetail
with those of their countries,” the diplomat said.

AZERBAIJAN’S STANCE PUTS ARMENIA UNDER PRESSURE
By Ilham Guliyev & Lala Alizada Azernews Staff Writers
AzerNews Weekly, Azerbaijan
March 9 2006
Azerbaijan and Armenia have exchanged threats after the unsuccessful
round of peace talks, with Azeri officials warning that the country
may resort to military action to settle the more than a decade-long
dispute if the negotiating process continues to yield no fruit.
President Ilham Aliyev has said that Armenia’s non-constructive
position in the ongoing talks on settling Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh
conflict prompts Azerbaijan to reconsider its policy. “Azerbaijan is
interested in solving the problem through diplomacy and negotiations.
But the talks carried out so far have produced no results, therefore,
we have to be ready for other options,” Aliyev said during his visit
to the frontline districts in lowland Garabagh last week.
The parties failed to agree upon the issues of principle during the
negotiations held by Presidents Ilham Aliyev and Robert Kocharian in
the French town of Rambouillet in February, despite high expectations
for a breakthrough in the peace process. The president emphasized
that Armenia’s position shatters the already forlorn hope for
a solution. Certain progress is being achieved, but Yerevan’s
stance ultimately prevents the sides from reaching peace. “Although
opportunities emerged for reaching a peace accord within the Prague
process [the talks mediated by OSCE], the latest talks show that
Armenia is not interested in this. In such case, Azerbaijan should
revisit its policy. We support settling the conflict by diplomatic
means. But we will never come to terms with the separation of
Upper Garabagh from Azerbaijan, and this is my resolute stance. The
conflict must be settled strictly within the country’s territorial
integrity.” Aliyev said that the fact that peace talks with Armenia
have lasted for 12 years is the biggest concession on the part of
Azerbaijan. “Armenia has been pursuing a policy of genocide against
Azerbaijan, which is a crime against humanity. We are the victim side,
and this gives us the right to solve the problem by any means.”
Azerbaijan’s terse stance has apparently frightened Armenia. Its
president Robert Kocharian said that if the Azeri government resolutely
states that time is on its side and threatens with military action, his
country may de-jure recognize the independence of the self-proclaimed
Upper Garabagh republic. “If the peace talks are suspended by either
of the conflicting sides, this will lead to the developments unfolding
according to an undesirable scenario.”
Kocharian said, however, that Armenia is prepared for any eventuality
and disclosed the steps his country would take in case opportunities
for talks are exhausted. The Armenian leader said further that the
next step after the “recognition of Upper Garabagh” would be to
ensure the security of Armenian residents there, to be followed by
the implementation of comprehensive military reinforcement activities
in the seven districts around Garabagh. Kocharian also called on
the Armenian residents of Upper Garabagh not to be concerned over
the ongoing peace talks with Azerbaijan. “You should not worry. If
you see that the Armenian president is backing out of the talks,
then there will be grounds for concerns, as this would mean that he
does not believe in the success of the negotiations or is unable to
complete the process.” Kocharian said that despite the unsuccessful
outcome of the Rambouillet talks, confidence remains for reaching a
general accord. He again put forward the demand to get the Garabagh
Armenians involved in the negotiating process. The stern messages
coming from the conflicting sides have raised concerns of the
international community. US ambassador Reno Harnish said that if no
progress is reached in settling the conflict, several options are
possible, including war. He noted, however, that military action
could prove disastrous for the South Caucasus region. “I have said
on many occasions what tragedies could ensue. You should remember
the deplorable living conditions of the internally displaced persons.
Therefore, we call on the politicians of both countries to find a way
out of the current situation.” Harnish said Kocharian’s statement that
Armenia could recognize Upper Garabagh can heighten tensions between
the parties. “We suggest that the presidents be more flexible in the
negotiations. We think the parties can reach agreement and must try
to do so. The foreign ministers of the two countries must also strive
to reach a negotiated solution,” the US diplomat said.
Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian, in his remarks at a
meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council, expressed his concern at the
tough rhetoric of the Azeri side. He alleged that such statements
undermined the achievements already made in the negotiations.
Oskanian said Azerbaijan’s statement that it was waiting for a more
opportune time to resolve the conflict and the calls being voiced for
the resumption of hostilities ran counter to the principles of the
‘Prague process’ of talks, which envisions a stage-by-stage conflict
settlement. He said those principles were quite real and served as a
platform for progress in the talks. In the current situation, great
responsibility rests with the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group
brokering the conflict resolution. At a meeting of the mediators
due in Washington March 7-8, acceptable ways of continuing peace
talks should be found. The co-chairs should express decisiveness and
urge the parties to the conflict to reach agreement. Meanwhile, the
international community must comprehend that Azerbaijan’s compromises
have limits and it is time for Armenia to take constructive steps
toward reaching peace. However, if the mediators’ attempt proves
futile, this may lead to a failure of the entire Prague process
of talks, which is nearly the only progress in the negotiations
observed in recent years. In this case, Azerbaijan will have to
seek new alternatives and it is likely that the limit of options
will be exhausted, as the conflicting sides have already discussed
all possible alternatives – from exchange of territories to the
stage-by-stage conflict settlement. This could be possibly followed
by the recognition of Upper Garabagh as a party to the conflict or
Armenia’s complete withdrawal from the negotiating process.
Azerbaijan will never accept this, as its territories have been
occupied not by the so-called Upper Garabagh republic but by Armenia.
The talks between Baku and Khankandi could be possible only if Armenia
pulls its military forces out of the conflict zone, suspends economic
assistance to the separatist regime and shuts its borders with Upper
Garabagh. Is war the only option left? Azerbaijan is currently under
intense pressure from the international community, which could lose
the strategic South Caucasus region over just a few years if the
hostilities are resumed. Armenia is risking to face Azerbaijan’s
military machine, which is much stronger than it used to be in
early 1990s. It will be challenging for this country, which has a
considerably weaker economy, to withstand the armament race and the
ensuing offensive. Azerbaijan, in turn, is risking to be deprived of
the West’s support and faces a temporary suspension of major regional
projects in the event of military action. Upper Garabagh, which is
internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, has both Azerbaijani
and ethnic Armenian population. It was occupied by Armenia in the early
1990s, along with seven other Azerbaijani districts, after large-scale
hostilities that killed up to 30,000 people and forced over a million
Azeris out of their homes. The ceasefire accord was signed in 1994, but
peace talks have been fruitless so far and refugees remain stranded.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

CORRUPTION STILL STUMBLING BLOCK TO INVESTMENT GROWTH
AzerNews weekly, Azerbaijan
March 9 2006
The US State Department has described the investment environment in
Azerbaijan as leaving a lot to be desired. A report released by the
US government points to a number of difficulties the Azerbaijani
economy has encountered in its transition to market relations.
“Starting from 1994, Azerbaijan has achieved macro-economic stability
thanks to its oil and gas strategy,” the report says. However, the
document also indicates that a lot more still needs to be done to
ensure prosperity for the eight million nation, including measures
to improve governance, eradicate corruption and reduce poverty.
The State Department document adds that the unresolved status of the
Armenia-Azerbaijan Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh conflict is taking a toll
on the economy as well. According to the World Bank calculations,
49% of the population lives beyond the poverty line, of which 9%
face abject poverty. The report also points to a number of loopholes
in legislation and the impact of corruption on the investment climate.
In fact, corruption is described as the biggest obstacle in the way
of investment opportunities.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

NATO PUBLIC DIPLOMACY MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVE ON ISSUES OF ARMENIA DESPINA AFENTOULI VISITS YEREVAN
Noyan Tapan
Mar 09 2006
YEREVAN, MARCH 9, NOYAN TAPAN. NATO Public Diplomacy Management
Executive on Issues of Armenia Despina Afentouli will be in Yerevan
on March 9-12, for the purpose of taking part in the joint seminar
of the Atlantic Association of Armenia and Security Institute of
Netherlands. As Noyan Tapan was informed by RA Foreign Ministry Press
Service, on March 10, Mrs Despina Afentouli is to have an unofficial
meeting with representatives of media. It will be dedicated to
Armenia-NATO cooperation, discussion of issues of defence and security,
as well as presentatiion of the NATO agenda before the NATO summit
to be held in December 2006 in Riga.

HOLIDAYS IN PLACES THAT DON’T EXIST
By Michael Idato
Sydney Morning Herald, Australia
March 9 2006
Examines in detail a collection of small countries which are not
officially recognised.
TypeDocumentaryChannelSBSDateFriday March 10Time7:30 PM An illuminating
series that examines in detail a collection of small countries which
are not officially recognised, leaving them in a cloud of uncertainty
when it comes to international relations, foreign trade and financial
aid.
Some are well known, such as Taiwan, but others sound like works of
fiction – Transdniestria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh,
all in eastern Europe.
Tonight, presenter Simon Reeve (a British journalist, not the
Australian one) visits the Republic of Somaliland on the Horn of
Africa, which declared its independence from Somalia in 2001. Its
struggle for that independence is a compelling story – its people
now grapple with a terrible drought and their precarious place in
international politics leaves them with few options in terms of
foreign aid.
What makes the story of Somaliland so interesting is that as country
and culture it presents itself as fully formed. It has a stable,
functioning government – something many recognised nations cannot
boast – as well as its own economy and currency, national flag and
national anthem. In a world where international borders too often
seem remade by force and the spread of democracy is often escorted
by tanks and soldiers, there is a powerful lesson to be learned here.

DVIN: THE TINY RUSSIAN-ARMENIAN RESTAURANT
By Stefanie Ellis
Special To The Post-Dispatch
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, MO
March 9 2006
Whenever I go to Dvin, the tiny Russian-Armenian restaurant in
Webster Groves, I feel like the guest of honor. Once I step inside, an
otherwise quiet dining room suddenly comes alive with the intoxicating
sound of Russian folk music. And the owner, who is often reading a
magazine at a table in the front of the restaurant, rushes off to
the kitchen, as if to position herself for the preparation of my meal.
Slowly, my shoulders begin to move to the music, and the next thing I
know I’m dancing in my seat. And when the owner’s daughter, a pretty
girl with long braided hair, brings me my menu, I’m smiling, dancing
and greeting her all at once.
“Do you have meat blintzes tonight?” I nervously ask. “Yes,” she says
quickly, with a smile. Then, and only then, can my night truly begin.
And began it did, on a recent visit, with an order of sweet red peppers
($3.95), which came dressed in oil, garlic and a dash of vinegar,
and topped with crumbled feta and chopped black olives. The peppers,
though more tart than sweet, were soft and buttery, and nearly melted
in my mouth.
The spinach pie ($4.95), however, didnt exactly melt, as it was a
bit weathered, indicating, perhaps, that it was no stranger to the
inside of a microwave. Still, it was quite good. And though the menu
said it had cheese in it, I only tasted spinach and a bit of onions,
but it was a perfect match for the still-buttery phyllo. In fact,
I liked it better without cheese. Even in its dilapidated state,
it was one of the better spinach pies I’ve tasted.
As an entre, I was hesitant to select the dolmas ($6.75), grape
leaves stuffed with ground beef, pork, chicken, carrots and rice,
served in a butter sauce. But everything was perfectly balanced.
The sour cream was also more than compatible, if not perfectly so,
with the meat blintzes ($7.75), steaming pillows of spongy, slightly
sweet pancakes, filled with ground chicken. There are no bells and
whistles to this dish and no fancy sauces – just perfectly seasoned
meat tucked inside a golden buckwheat blanket.
I’ve heard that in Russia, the thinner your pancake, the better
your skill as a cook. At Dvin, the blintzes are the thinnest of any
variation on the crepe I’ve seen, yet possess a surprising density,
leaving you full but not stuffed. And in my case, deliriously happy.
For dessert, the frozen berry cake ($4.25), layers of sponge cake and
tart berry mousse, was topped with an icy assortment of raspberries,
blueberries and lingonberries. Considering that lingonberries,
other than those found in jams, aren’t typically available in area
supermarkets, it was a special treat. It was also the perfect finish
to a lovely meal.
And that’s the thing about Dvin: every visit is, in its own way,
perfect. Whether it’s the restaurant’s cozy feel and personalized
attention to background music, or blintzes that can quiet even the
toughest critic, this is a place worth checking out. What you do with
your shoulders is up to you.
Dvin
Address: 8143 Big Bend Boulevard
Phone: 314-968-4000 Hours: 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.; 5 to 11 p.m.,
Monday-Saturday Credit cards: Major cards accepted Smoking: No
Wheelchair access: Fine