AZERBAIJAN AND ARMENIA SHOULD TAKE RESOLUTE STEPS FOR RESOLVING NK PROBLEM – DANIEL FREED
Author: R.Abdullayev
TREND Information, Azerbaijan
May 24 2006
The sides should take resolute steps for the final solution of
Nagorno-Karabakh problem. However, the final clarification of the
situation existing in the negotiation process will be possible only in
late this week, Trend reports quoting the interview of the assistant
of the USA state secretary Daniel Freed to ATV television.
Daniel stressed that it was his third visit to Baku over past 6
months. “My goal is to find a peaceful solution variant to Karabakh
problem. Every resident of the region has the right to desire peace
and it needs to realize this desire in the nearest future,” told
Freed noting that for this purpose, it needs to take exact steps at
the state level.
“The Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev and Armenian president Robert
Kocharyan may resolve the problem peacefully,” noted Freed.

ROBERT SIMMONS: “NATO HAS PLANS CONCERNING NK”
Ïðaâî Âûaîða, Azerbaijan
Democratic Azerbaijan
May 24 2006
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, Vardan Askanyan, stated
that NATO “wants to be involved with many issues concerning Nagorni
Garabakh, and proposes to hold discussions in this respect”.
In turn, deputy General Secretary of NATO, Robert Simmons, being in
Yerevan, informs: “Our interest directly concerns military changes
and conflicts in the region. NATO has some active plans and concept
concerning Caucasus and conflicts in the given region”.
In near future Alliance is going to enlarge the mandate of coordinator
of the region in question. Armenian mass media focused on recent
statement of R. Simmons concerning the fact that regulation of “frozen”
conflicts is the main priorities of NATO.
Special representative of organization stresses that nothing has
changed in NATO policy directed to Nagorni Garabakh: conflict should
be regulated peacefully owing to mutual efforts of both countries.
Azerbaijani officials in turn inform about necessity to increase NATO
role in regulation of the mentioned conflict. It should be reminded
that the given issue was touched upon during Simmons’ recent visit
to Baku while presentation new priorities of Alliance.
One of the principal items NATO “Individual Partnership Action Plan”
(IPAP) intended for Azerbaijan and Armenia includes security, defense,
public policy, science and administration issues of the countries.
During press conference held in Yerevan, Simmons stated that Brussels
watches tension in Caucasus which impedes cooperation. Alliance is
not worried about Russian military forces in Armenia. Accordingly to
Simmons, NATO dose not interfere in this issue, moreover Armenia is
not against it.
As for possibility of placement of NATO peacemaking forces in Nagorni
Garabakh Simmons underlined that it is possible after long and detailed
discussions. Regardless of anything NATO hopes for peaceful end of
the above conflict.
It was also pointed out that if addressed, the structure may join
the events to provide peace agreement.
NATO official does not deny participation of organization he
represents in security of oil-pipe line Baku – Tbilisi – Ceyhan and
other energetic project being realized in the region.
Accordingly to him NATO forces will not be entrusted with security of
oil-pipe. Alliance may provide technical aid for countries in which
the line lies and organize training.
In his speech delivered in Yerevan, Simmons touched upon the issue
of Armenian-Turkish frontier. He informed that military alliance does
not want to interfere in affairs of these countries.
At the same time Simmons called relationship between Armenia and
NATO “very good”. NATO representative specially stressed that he is
satisfied with cooperation of Yerevan and Brussels in the field of
army improvement.
–Boundary_(ID_hNVwjeF7EPa71HkZ4DuCk A)–

NICOLAE UREKI: “PRESIDENT ILHAM ALIYEV INTENDS TO PARTICIPATE IN BUCHAREST”
Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
May 24 2006
“President Ilham Aliyev intends to participate in The Black Sea Forum
for Dialogue and Partnership summit to be held in Bucharest on June
5”, ambassador of Romania to Azerbaijan Nicolae Ureki has told a
press conference.
The ambassador said that he expects participation of Georgia, Moldova,
Ukraine and Armenia presidents, Bulgaria, Turkey and Greece to be
represented in prime minister and Foreign minister Heads level.
Series of international, as well as officials of Norway, the US and
Israel have been invited. Political statement called “The Black Sea
Forum for Dialogue and Partnership” is expected to be adopted in the
measure. According to the diplomat, the project of the document was
presented to the Black Sea region countries, several meetings have
been held for agreeing the documents on the experts’ level. The
objective of the meeting is energy security, crises management,
protection of environment, holding of inter-cultural dialogue.
Nicolae Ureki said that issue on “frozen conflicts” will not be
discussed at the forum. The ambassador stated that there is not
alternative to Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization. Stressing
Azerbaijani-Armenian Presidents meeting is considered within Bucharest
summit, Nicolae Ureki said he hopes for finding way out of the Nagorno
Garabagh conflict which lasted long.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

THE TIME HAS COME TO AGREE ON BASIC PRINCIPLES OF RESOLUTION – JOINT STATEMENT OF OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIR COUNTRIES
Author: R.Abdullayev
TREND, Azerbaijan
May 24 2006
The time has come for both the sides in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to
reach agreement on basic principles of settlement. Russia, France,
the US underline the international community’s belief in peaceful
settlement of the conflict, Trend reports referring to joint statement
of OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries issued May 24 in Baku.
The statement says Azerbaijan and Armenia shall prepare their people
for peace, for to war.
Daniel Freed, Assistant to US Secretary of State, said the meetings
with Azeri President Ilham Aliyev and Foreign Minister Elmar Mamedyarov
have been led during the visit to Baku, discussing important aspects
of future settlement of the conflict and working out the options of
meeting of president of the two countries in the closest future.
“Our discussions in Baku were constructive. We are heading for
Yerevan tomorrow and then we will return to our capitals to brief
our leaders”,- US official said.
In turn, Grigory Karasin, deputy Foreign Minister of Russia, said this
joint mission is an extraordinary event. It must be taken as a sign
of the seriousness with which OSCE Minsk Group co-chair countries
approach the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement issue, and belief
that the countries are at the point where a mutually beneficial
agreement is achievable. “What happens now will be up to Azerbaijan
and Armenia”, – Karasin said, outlining the mission is leaving Baku
with hope for progress.

YEREVAN SURPRISED AT MAMMADYAROV’S STATEMENTS
PanARMENIAN.Net
24.05.2006 18:55 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ “We are again surprised by the fact that Azerbaijan
tries to put forth an approach not corresponding to the contents of
the current talks on the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, Acting Spokesman of
the Armenian Foreign Ministry Vladimir Karapetyan said when commenting
on the statement by Azeri FM Elmar Mammadyarov who said that “the
stepwise resolution of the conflict is the best one.” “We have many
times stated that the achievement of mutual consent first of all
implies the acknowledgement by Azerbaijan of the right of Karabakh
people to self-determination, after what liquidation of consequences
of war may be discussed,” he said, reported the RA MFA press office.

VISIT OF PACE SPEAKER ON MONITORING OF CULTURAL SITES TO ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN TO BE POSTPONED
Regnum, Russia
May 24 2006
Visit of PACE speaker on monitoring of cultural sites, British MP
Edward O’Hara to Azerbaijan and Armenia, planned for May 28, has
been postponed.
The PACE planned to send the mission, headed by O’Hara, on May 28
-June 4 into the region. The mission is to familiarize itself with
the state of Armenian historical sites in Nakhichevan and prepare a
detailed report on it.
It is worth reminding that reports on destroying of Armenian monuments
in Old Julfa (Nakhichevan) by Azerbaijani soldiers were received by
the Armenian Embassy to Iran. On February 16, the European Parliament
adopted resolution, condemning Azerbaijan’s actions, aimed at
destroying of khachkars at Old Julfa Armenian cemetery. Supporters of
the document pointed out inadmissibility of destroying cultural sites,
which have equal importance to all mankind, by Azerbaijan. It was
stressed that detailed requests should be formulated for Azerbaijan,
which committed the crime and which joined EU New Neighborhood
Program. Mentioning statements that destroying of khachkars was caused
by the Karabakh conflict, the European MPs stressed that Nakhichevan
is far from the conflict zone.

WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY HALF CLOSED?
By Aghavni Harutyunian
AZG Armenian Daily
25/05/2006
“I am not desperate about it [Nagorno Karabakh conflict]; I wouldn’t
say I’m optimistic. It depends on the two parties concerned, Armenia
and Azerbaijan.
They have to come to an agreement. We can try to [help] them to do
so, but they need to come to an agreement,” OSCE chairman in office,
Belgian foreign minister Karel De Gucht told RFE/RL. “Sometimes you
have more hope, and sometimes the hope is fading away.
What we must do is continue to the end of the year, to the bitter
end of our chairmanship-in-office, to try to find ways and means to
get out of this frozen conflict,” he said. Among the stambling block
on the way of Nagorno Karabakh regulation Karel De Gucht mentioned
the closed Armenian-Turkish border: “the closure of the border with
Turkey is one of the elements that is complicating the whole conflict.”
Curiously enough the OSCE chairman in office says for the first time
that 2006 will not be a solution year contrary to statements of the
mediating mission. Up to this moment, only the negotiating sides used
to reveal such pessimism. Perhaps, one can assume that the OSCE does
not see the “window of opportunity” on the other side of which “laid”
conflict regulation.

PRIME MINISTER RETURNS FROM ALGERIA WITH ‘STRATEGIC COOPERATION’
By Mustafa Unal, Algeria
Zaman, Turkey
May 24 2006
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the first Turkish prime minister to visit Algeria
after an interval of 21 years, signed a “friendship and cooperation”
agreement with President Abdulaziz Buteflika yesterday.
This agreement, Algeria had previously signed with only Spain,
Portugal and Italy, shows the importance attached to Turkey, and their
relationship that will be based on a more strategic foundation with
this signature.
Erdogan and Buteflika, who met for three hours at Palace Muradiye in
the capital, sent messages of friendship.
Erdogan said the signatures are an investment in the fields of
politics, the military, economy, commerce, and culture between the
two brother countries.
During the sincere talks, Buteflika gave Erdogan the message, “We
consider ourselves as a part of the Ottomans and protect Ottoman
works here.”
Erdogan, reminding that Turkish Minister for Culture and Tourism
Atilla Koc also participated in the visit, emphasized that they would
do everything possible to ensure the restoration of Ottoman works in
the country.
“Let’s make the Mediterranean a peaceful basin again,” Buteflika
said, and stressed, they support Turkey on all issues, including the
Armenian issue.
In the talks, both countries reached a principle agreement in order
to make joint searches for oil, natural gas and metals.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

ARMENIAN JET’S BLACK BOXES TO BE ANALYZED IN PARIS
Interfax, Russia
May 24 2006
YEREVAN. May 24 (Interfax) – The flight recorders from the Armenian
Airlines Airbus A320 which crashed off the Russian coast near Sochi
on May 3 will be analyzed in Paris, Armenian Civil Aviation Department
press secretary Gayane Davtian told Interfax on Wednesday.
“Both black boxes will be brought first to Moscow, where they will
probably be examined, and possibly a documentary act will be drawn up,
and then to Paris for decoding,” Davtian said.
“The final decision on decoding the black boxes in Paris has already
been taken,” she said.
Civil Aviation Department flight safety division chief Gagik Galstian
will go to Paris from Yerevan as well, she said.
The analysis of the black boxes might take “two or three days,”
she said.
“However, if the black boxes are damaged, decoding might take much
longer,” Davtian said.

DOCUMENT SENT TO MEMBERS OF THE FRENCH NATIONAL ASSEMBLY AND FRENCH CABINET MINISTERS
AZG Armenian Daily
25/05/2006
Laws against Genocide Denial: Potential Consequences for Human Rights
May 18, 2006: Today the French National Assembly was set to debate a
bill to criminalize the denial of the Armenian Genocide, but has now
postponed the debate to November. The Turkish ambassador to France was
temporarily recalled in protest of this bill. What are the implications
of the French law for Turkish-Armenian relations and freedom of speech?
The International Institute for Genocide and Human Rights Studies, of
which I am currently the chair, deals with genocide in a comparative
manner, including its causes, methods, aftermath and denial. Our
research, based on archival sources both in and outside Turkey,
confirms that over a million Armenians perished in an Ottoman
state-sponsored campaign between 1915 and 1923 as victims of genocide.
Kemal Ataturk, the founder the new Turkish Republic, also publicly
disapproved of the wrongs committed against the Armenians, calling
them “a shameful act,” but the true story of other founding fathers
of modern Turkey, many of whom had been intimately involved in the
Armenian Genocide as perpetrators, was suppressed.
This was despite the fact that the Ottoman government itself found
the leaders of the Young Turk party guilty in absentia of crimes
against the Armenians.
Ever since then, successive Turkish governments have denied what they
euphemistically called “the events of 1915.”
In this respect, I wrote to Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan on May
5, 2005, regarding his proposal for a joint group, consisting of
historians and other experts, to study “the events of 1915.” I found
this proposal insincere, given the Turkish state’s numerous attempts to
stifle open discussion of the Armenian Genocide, including prosecuting
over seventy scholars, writers, journalists and publishers on the
grounds that they were denigrating Turkey. In that letter, I made
the following points.
“…the two sides must listen to and hear each other. As part
of this process, a common body of knowledge needs to be created,
so that established facts can help alleviate the polarization of
opinions. This, in turn, will lead to the “peaceful and friendly
environment in which tolerance and mutual respect shall prevail.”
[Note, quote taken from P.M. Erdogan’s proposal.]
I then urged that his government take some simple steps to allow
for a free and open discussion within Turkish society, such as those
listed below.
1) Facilitate critical scholars educating society about the events of
1915 from different points of view and not only from the government’s
perspective.
2) Allow the broadcast of a series of lectures on this issue by
renowned Armenian, Turkish and/or third party scholars, who do not
necessarily reflect the government’s official position, through
Turkish television networks, without any censorship, and with the
accessibility to the public for questions.
3) Allow Turkish academics and intellectuals, whose point of view
challenges the official version of what happened in 1915, to express
their ideas through public lectures, publications, and translations of
Ottoman archival materials, without fear of persecution by the state.
I also asked the government to make it unequivocally and publicly
clear that Article 305 of the Penal Code should not criminalize ideas
which deviate from those of the state’s defined position, such as
the Armenian Genocide issue, and that individuals who say that the
Armenians suffered a genocide will not be persecuted by the state.
The proposed new legislation is intended to give force to the law
passed in 2001 officially recognizing the Genocide by providing
penalties for those engaged in its denial. One should question how
this law, if adopted, would facilitate dialogue between the Armenians
and Turks, which is a stated objective of the 2001 law, or between
the French and the Turks?
Does not this law inadvertently provide new opportunities for the
reactionary elements of Turkish state and society to radicalize the
masses against the French and the Armenians? By using the French law,
which limits freedom of speech as an example, would the Turkish state
not justify laws that promote its policy of denial and therefore make
it even harder to deviate from the official government position on
history? If so, how does that help Turkish civil society in gaining
any awareness on this issue? Does this law advance the language of
reconciliation or the language of conflict? Can such laws bring
a solution to the problem, or do they become part of the problem
themselves? Does using the penal code in France for any limitation
on the discussion of historical events endanger the prime function
of scholars, writers and journalists-to analyze, question, and
debate issues?
Would it not create a slippery slope that would allow the state to
sanction and impose dogmas as to how society should think? Finally, is
this not the very method of limiting freedom of speech that countries
like Turkey use, as the state attempts to control history in order
to control society?
Of course, we do need laws to protect against such problems as racism
and neo-Nazism, and there are legal limits to freedom of speech, such
as libel, fraud, defamation. Therefore, those who argue that freedom
of speech is not absolute are absolutely right. Some observers have
argued that you can not have a law criminalizing Holocaust denial and
not allow a similar law for denying the Armenian Genocide, which is
officially recognized as genocide in France.
The Holocaust denial policy grew out of two things: many European
countries were complicit in the death of the Jews, and punishing
denial of the Holocaust is seen as a form of atonement; and there
was a fear that neo-Nazi and other fascist groups would try to
vindicate themselves by eliminating the Holocaust, while maintaining
racism. Thus, the idea was that suppression of fascism was in part
a matter of suppressing denial of the Holocaust.
On the level of principle, one could argue either for or against
treating all denial of genocide as equal.
But there is the historical context of the Holocaust denial laws that
is different from Armenia, Rwanda, etc. At the same time, if only
the Holocaust cannot be legally denied, then some will take this to
mean that only the Holocaust was a genocide; others will feel that
the suffering of their people is being slighted.
But if we open this up and list all genocides and criminalize denial
of all of them, then our minds would be enormously constrained by
the State. Freedom of inquiry, expression, thought would be limited
in ways that are totally unnecessary and unintended.
Accordingly, are laws such as this a mistake and contrary to freedom
of speech? Some might argue that governments should eliminate all
cases of prosecution of denial, rather than extend the net.
We know Turkey already requires its students to write essays denying
the Armenian Genocide and uses its penal code to stifle human
rights. As recently as three days ago, an opposition deputy in the
Turkish Grand National Assembly presented a bill stipulating prison
terms of up to three years for those who claim that Turkey committed
genocide against Armenians in 1915. (This bill is not very different
from the current Turkish Penal Code article (301) that criminalizes
“denigrating Turkishness,” which is what claiming there was a genocide
of the Armenians apparently does.) If the bill passes, what would
happen to Turkish intellectuals like Taner Akcam, Murat Belge, Halil
Berktay, Hrant Dink, Fatma Muge Gocek, Orhan Pamuk, Ragip Zarakolu,
and others, who openly challenge the Turkish state’s definition of
the Armenian Genocide? Who then would dare attempt to educate Turkish
civil society? How then would Turkey ever have a chance to become
democratic? How then are the Armenian and Turkish people going to
have any kind of dialogue on this issue? If one supports such a law
in France limiting freedom of speech, then should one not also support
such a law in Turkey?
We must do all we can to overcome denial of genocide, by raising
awareness, employing scholarship, applying reason, and means other
than state sanction, to defend truth, justice and human rights. We
must demand that Turkey reform its penal code. The French, German and
other governments of Europe who were bystanders or even participants
in the crime should provide resources in order to bring the parties
together, and give incentives to solve the problem, not widen the
divide. Denial should be against the law only if it is in the context
of a hate or racist argument.
One wonders if these developments can contribute to the peaceful
solution of the problem. Rather than employ the language of conflict,
which exacerbates the problem, the parties should be more dispassionate
and rational, in order to be open to developing other means and
tools that will help with establishing dialogue, and hopefully lead
to normalization of relations.
France, for its part, has an option, as well. Instead of criminalizing
Armenian Genocide denial, which serves to stifle freedom of speech,
it could use its positive influence to support efforts within Turkey
for democratization there.
Freedom of speech and debate on the issue of the Armenian Genocide
in Turkey is the best hope for eliminating government control of this
history. By allowing such debate, Turkey can become open, democratic
and pluralistic. There is no guarantee that Turkey will follow suit,
but France, with its legacy of “freedom, equality and brotherhood,”
and as one of the world’s leaders in democracy and human rights,
must show the way by not itself imposing laws that penalize freedom
of speech on the Armenian Genocide or any historical event.
By Roger W. Smith, Professor Emeritus of Government, College of William
and Mary and Chairman, International Institute for Genocide and Human
Rights Studies.