SHARJAH RULER TO VISIT GERMANY, ARMENIA
WAM, Emirates News Agency, UAE
Sept 16 2005
Munich, 16 Sept. 05 (WAM) – H.H. Dr. Sheikh Sultan bin Mohammed Al
Qasimi, Supreme Council Member and Ruler of Sharjah will start tomorrow
an official visit to Germany, to be followed by a visit to Armenia.
During his visit, Sheikh Sultan will inaugurate the Islamic Forum
building in Germany.
During his visit to Armenia, he will be received by President Robert
Kocharian and Andranik Markarian, Armenian Prime Minister.
Sheikh Sultan is accompanied by a high level delegation.

SPEECH OF ALIYEV RE ARMY BUILDING IN AZERBAIJAN
AzerTag, Azerbaijan
Sept 16 2005
This meeting is dealing with the process of army building in
Azerbaijan. Today we are going to exchange views on the work done in
this sphere, tasks we have to solve and steps we have to take. In
all, the process of building disciplined army in Azerbaijan is
progressing rapidly and quite successfully. This process assumed a
system character after national leader of our people Heydar Aliyev
returned to power. Azerbaijan is living in a state of war, and our
lands are under occupation. This requires particular attention, and
as a Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the, I am engaged in these issues
every day as they are the most important to us. Azerbaijan should
restore its territorial integrity. We are exerting our efforts to
resolve the conflict peacefully, through negotiations. As you know,
however, no result has been achieved for many years of negotiations.
In all, finding fair solution to the conflict is possible, and I
am sure will do achieve this. The international law norms are on
Azerbaijan ‘s side, Nagorno-Karabakh is an integral part of Azerbaijan,
and our territorial integrity is recognized and supported by the
global community. The historical justice is on our side also.
It is no secret, the Armenians appeared in Nagorno-Karabakh in 1828,
and I remember a monument to 150th anniversary of the Armenian’s
settling here was erected in 1978. True, the Armenian separatists
destroyed the monument after they occupied the region, but this is
history, and everybody knows that. In other words, Nagorno-Karabakh
is an integral part of Azerbaijan from both legal and historical
standpoints.
Over the last years, Azerbaijan has achieved economic superiority
as well. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, economic situation
was the same in both countries. Azerbaijan, however, has made a great
progress. There was a drastic growth in the state budget in 2004-2005,
and Azerbaijan’s superiority will even increase considering the
country’s promising prospects.
Besides, four UN SC resolutions demanding unconditional release of
the occupied territories from Armenian armed forces is in force.
Recently, the issue has been included once again in the UN GA agenda.
This is our great diplomatic success. Upon our request, the
Organization of Cooperation and Security in Europe immediately
engaged in the issue sent a fact-finding mission to the region. The
mission’s final report confirms illegal settling of thousands
of ethnic Armenians in the occupied territories. This indicates
Armenian utterly ignores the demands of the international community,
and the international law norms. In January this year, the Council
of Europe adopted unambiguous and very fair resolution on the
problem. It is to the effect that Armenian unleashed an aggression
against Azerbaijan, occupied its territories and carried out ethnic
cleansing resulted in over million of Azerbaijanis becoming refugee
and internally displaced. The Organization of Islamic Conference
renders had always supported Azerbaijan’s position. Members of GUAM,
the organization playing an important role in regional politics –
I am sure this role will increase – also unambiguously called for
respect to territorial integrity of countries. In other words, all
the international organizations overtly expressed their positions on
the problem. Of course, we will try the issue remain in the agenda,
but we have to confess the proposals and resources of the international
organizations concerning the problem are being exhausted.
The OSCE Minsk group has recently intensified its activity. We can
see their visits to the region and negotiations, new approaches –
this is a positive fact. I also believe the continuation of the
Prague process is also very positive one. I hope the Prague process
will go on. Both countries, Armenian and Azerbaijan are involved in
this process. As I repeatedly noted, the Prague process implies a
step-by-step solution. However, solution to the problem has not been
found. What should Azerbaijan resort to in this case? Azerbaijan has
been pursuing its peacekeeping policy for years, but the problem is
not settled. That is why the question of reinforcing of our military
potential is quite natural. First Azerbaijan is a country in a state
of war. Our lands are under occupation. This is our #1 problem, and our
#1 task is to strengthen our country’s military potential. On the other
hand, our economic potential is strengthened due to successful economic
reforms being implemented in Azerbaijan. Our budget is rapidly growing
and expected to exceed $3 bln 500 mln next year. This entails increase
in military spending: $175 mln in 2004, $300 mln in 2005 and $600 mln
in 2006, and this is not the limit. As you know, I have set the task:
our military budget should reach the whole budget of Armenia, or even
exceed it. We will do achieve it. It concerns Armenia and several
international organizations. There are many things that troubling us
also, including Russia’s moving its bases from Georgia to Armenia, and
military exercises in Armenia. That is why we will take adequate steps.
I would like to touch on one more issue. The world Armenian lobby,
its patrons and politicians from several countries are acting to prove
that democratic development and protection of human rights allegedly
takes place in Nagorno-Karabakh, not in Azerbaijan.
Firstly, Azerbaijan is a country with intensively developing
democracy. Everybody recognizes that, secondly, the Nagorno-Karabakh
regime is an illegal structure. It is not recognized by anyone. The
hypocrite politicians ignore that it is the area of cultivation and
illegal trafficking of drugs, deployment of terrorist organizations
and violation of human rights. We cannot put up with this erroneous,
dangerous and unjust thesis.
Recently Armenian officials made statements against the realization of
a new project in the region, the construction of a railway to connect
Azerbaijan and Turkey through Georgia. They stated Azerbaijan did
not have a moral right to fund the Kars-Tbilisi0-Baku railway.
Very funny statement. Firstly, it is our own business, secondly,
it is a n international regional project now involving Georgia and
Turkey, and later the Central Asian countries. We will do that,
and no Armenian lobby will be able to prevent us from that.
We do have a moral right to liberate our lands from the occupation
forces, and we will do so. We are pursuing an independent policy. We
rest on the good will of the Azerbaijani people. We will do strengthen
our both economic and military potential, our army and patriotic
spirit within society, and we finally achieve our goal.

CYPRUS AS A FIG LEAF THAT COVERS EU’S OWN NUDITY
Ayca Turan
Journal of Turkish Daily
Sept 16 2005
Last year, I participated in an international youth convention
in a small town in France. Having “Europe and its Boundaries” as
its main theme, this ten-day lasting organization had also invited
guests from non-EU countries such as Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey,
thereby we, 3 Turkish student, had the opportunity to participate in
this organization. The aim of this convention was to create a free
discussion environment where all participants coming from different
countries, different cultures and therefore different political focuses
could express their opinions and listen to the antitheses on the
confirmed EU-related topics. Additional to the discussion sessions, the
games and other social activities helped the organization’s objective
to facilitate intercultural dialogue and reduce cultural prejudices.
Although I departed from France with tears and unforgettable memories,
being a Turkish participant made it be a very though experience for
me. Just by looking at the main theme of the convention, it could have
been guessed that the discussions would be focus on Turkey and his
possible integration to European Union. Even in other discussions,
the subject was inevitably come to Turkey and all participants took
up-right position and their attention rose.
Therefore we needed to be ready for further discussions about
Turkey anytime. After a few days, I got used to find myself in
harsh discussions in which I defended my opinions and Turkey’s
political perspective. Actually the problem was neither Turkey nor
Europe. The real problem was the old-fashioned and invalid Turkey
image in Europe. Therefore EU participants’ questions ended up one
single question: “We read your history, we are following papers and
consequently we know Turks and Turkey this way. But we also want
to listen to you, is this really you?”. The invalid image was so
confirmed that I was confronted with a participant asking me the
funny question “Don’t you Turks ride elephants and wear slippers in
your country?”. This kind of people knowing nothing true about Turkey
and Turkish people can be found everywhere and these people are so
attached to their opinions that it is almost impossible to change
their opinions. Yet, it was also an honor for us to hear “You are
really European” from the same person at the end of the convention,
we felt sorry for this ignoramus. It was said with good intentions,
yet this did not help his bigoted and xenophobic point of view.
Consequently, several feelings and opinions were flying in my head
while traveling to North France by train. I suppose that we, human
beings, could not develop our empathy skills very well. We have a very
small world view and a huge ego; therefore we could not understand
other cultures because of our prejudices.
Actually, the reason that I am sharing this memory with you is an
e-mail coming from The Convention Head whom I was glad to meet and
appreciate very much after all. He wrote “Here, everybody is talking
about Turkey and the coming October, 3rd” reflecting his care about
our country. He was curious about our opinions about the increasing
anti-Turkey arguments in Europe, especially in France. I took this
opportunity to express my opinions, my feelings and my expectations
before the coming historical day.
I could not witness the major part of the historical dialogue between
Turkey and European Union. Yet, as far as I could observe, it will not
be possible for Turkey to be well in EU integration for the following
years. I suppose that we have many years to live and many things to
do before the integration. It is inevitable to have a new case at the
time that we say “Ok. We are done!” However, the interesting thing
is the fact that I do not get depressed and disappointed at these
negative events just as I do not get excited and energized at the
happy news coming from EU.
Few days left before October 3rd, new topics arose. Our new topic
is EU-Turkey-Cyprus triangle. Actually, the problem is not Cyprus,
if our new topic were not Cyprus, it would be something else. What
really matters is the fact that EU needed to give something before
October, 3rd to be presented as the reason for the possible negative
outcome. It is nothing but the fig leaf that covers EU’s own nudity.
Essentially, there are two important questions needed to be answered
by EU before their temporizing policy of defining EU-Turkey relations
on a Cyprus platform: First of all “What kind of Europe that we are
willing to have?” Europe could not develop a serious decree on this
question. Second question to be answered is “Does Turkey belong to
Europe, or not? What are the boundaries of Europe?” The answer of
one question will facilitate finding the answer to the other question.
Although Luxembourg Summit in 1997 and EU’s giving candidate status to
Turkey in Helsinki Summit are named as a reply to the first question,
the increasing anti-Turkey campaigns enforced by some political
sectors in the EU-founder countries indicate the fact that past
decisions and past promises were not accepted by the politicians.
When we look at the European countries, anti-Turkey campaigns executed
by populist leaders, Merkel and Sarkozy, in Germany and France
draw attention. Merkel is as usual. We all know her vision about
EU-Turkey relations from the beginning. She is one of the politicians
that keeps on defending the exceptional partnership opinion about
“neither with nor without” Turkey. She just increased her frequency
of expressing this opinion before the September, 18 elections. We
appreciate her since she is a kind of leader that tells what she
really thinks about this case. On the other hand, the campaigns
in France executed by Chirac and vision lacking leaders such as
Villepin and Sarkozy are really disturbing. Rather, France’s recent
attitude is totally duplicity. Especially Chirac’s “We can not start
October, 3rd process until all EU countries are recognized by Turkey”
declaration is a very brave step for France. Yet when we look closer,
Cyprus is not the primal matter for France. It is just Turkey used by
the leaders in order to serve for their domestic policies that will
empower their political status just before the presidential elections.
I also want to add my opinions about “Does Turkey belong to Europe?”
discussions. Although Europe puts Cyprus at the center of its
relations with Turkey, EU should present a precise answer to this
question at first. Everything would be simpler for both Turkey
and Europe. Recently, “Turkey and Turks do not belong to Europe”
expressions are widening all around Europe. The reference point
of these expressions is settled down on historical, religious – we
cannot forget the claim: “Is EU a Christian Club?” – and cultural
platforms. There are also old fashioned claims such as Turkey
geographically does not belong to Europe. According to my point of
view, EU’s boundaries should artificially be taken. Claims like “Turkey
is an Asian country when we look at her geographical position.” are
not noteworthy anymore, they are nothing but excuses.
What’s more, EU is not a religious union that we can name as a
Christian Club. If we accept this argument, we shall also explain
the situation of Muslims’ living mostly at the Balkans. EU’s applying
quote to non-Christian countries conflicts with her values defended
since EU’s foundation. It is known that human dignity and freedom of
worship lie on the basis of Islam; therefore there is not any conflict
between EU’s basic values and Turkey’s religious identity.
At this point, EU should rethink about its secularism principle and
reconsider the fact that Turkey is a secular country. On the other
hand, global values such as the excellence of law and state of law,
respect to human dignity, democracy, freedoms and justice are put under
strict legal protection in Turkey; therefore democracy is empowered
in Turkey. These improvements indicate that Turkey is becoming closer
to Europe, actually to what Europe symbolizes. The problem of defining
Europe’s boundaries is just an identity problem of Europe, not Turkey.
It is totally inaccurate to compare Turkey’s integration process
with Bulgaria, Croatia or Romania. Turkey, with her 80-million
population, economic and strategic position, domestic dynamics and
cultural values, has a unique status. Furthermore, it has Cyprus at
one hand and political problems with Kurdish population and Armenian
issue at the second one. Cyprus affairs can cause unexpected outcomes
for Turkey, but it should not be forgotten that Turkey has executed
major political and legal reforms in the recent years. Especially
legal arrangements according to human dignity area facilitated the
excellence of law and state of law and supported the empowerment
of democracy in Turkey. These steps strengthen Turkey’s political
power on the global issues in her region. From this point of view,
Turkey’s integration to EU is not a donation or a favor; it is a
win-win kind of a partnership. Putting what Turkey will gain from
this membership away, Europe will have a more powerful position on
the global political arena.
What is to be done next is to constructively follow the negotiation
process that is said to begin at October, 3rd. Both parties keep
many advantages coming from this partnership in mind. One important
thing that is also needed to be considered in this article is the
fact that October, 3rd is not an end, it is just a beginning. For
Turkey and for Europe as well. We will have more though days in
front of us and there will be more opposing peoples, groups and
politicians who will try to avoid us from realizing our political
objectives. Altering these opponents into minorities and diminishing
anti-Islamic and Eurocentric insights will only be provided by sincere
and intensive endeavors. That’s why, benefiting from this process
is quite important. My last word to the hopeless, we have not been
confronted with claims like “Turkey is anthropologically unsuitable
for Turkey”, keep your hope.
AYCA TURAN is a researcher at ISRO, Center for European Union, Ankara
TURKEY September, 15 2005

CONSTANTINE ZATULIN CASTS DOUBTS ON AZERBAIJAN’S TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY
DeFacto, Armenia
Sept 16 2005
In the interview with Echo newspaper (Baku) the CIS Institute Director,
RF State Duma deputy, a member of State Duma Committee for CIS and
Relations with Compatriots Constantine Zatulin stated he did not
understand why Azerbaijan’s borders could not be changed.
According to Echo, he was interviewed in connection with the conference
“Parallel CIS: Abkhazia, Pridnestrovie, South Ossetia and Nagorno
Karabakh as the realities of the post – Soviet territory”.
In Zatulin’s words, the principal goal of the conference is to acquaint
the society with life in the states, learn politologists’, experts’,
politicians’ opinion.
RF State Duma deputy does not believe the measure’s organization will
aggravate Russia’s relations with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and harm
the Karabakh settlement process. “Vice versa, I think circulation of
the objective information on what is going on in the conflict zone
and not the desire to put out false reports or follow propaganda
war’s logic denying reality will bring us closer to a decision. If
we follow certain propaganda denying not only the right to self –
determination as such, but self – determination’s reality in the
conflict zone, in spite of the fact whether some people liked it or
not, we’ll fail to find a solution”, said C. Zatulin.
“I dislike the fact that during hundreds of years the territory
that is called post – Soviet territory now was single whole. At the
end of 1990s the Soviet Union disintegrated, as a result of which a
number of states has become independent. If I had been wrong I would
have stated for 15 years that the states are separatists. However,
we do not say it…The Soviet Union disintegrated, so why should we
believe the boundaries that used to be defined by someone, for example
those providing Nagorno Karabakh within Azerbaijan or Abkhazia within
Georgia, is something eternal, which is not subject to corrections?
And yet, we do not render political decisions at the conference. Even
if we had done it I believe objective consideration of the issue,
the attempt to present another point of view is very important. As
for Azerbaijan’s nervous reaction on the conference’s conduct I am
sorry the reaction was like that”, said the CIS Institute Director.

KOLEROV: RUSSIA ACTS ON THE BASIS OF THE LAW ON COMPATRIOTS
DeFacto, Armenia
Sept 16 2005
The choice of each unrecognized state is to appeal to Russia or
minimize its participation in the conflict settlement. Chief of the RF
Presidential Department for Inter-Regional and Cultural Relations with
Foreign Countries Modest Kolerov stated it speaking at the conference
“Parallel CIS. Abkhazia, Pridnestrovie, the South Caucasus and Nagorno
Karabakh as realities of the post – Soviet territory”.
In his words, “40 000 of Russian citizens in the South Ossetia, 150
000 in Abkhazia is the imperative we cannot ignore”. “Both sides of the
conflict are compatriots for us, we should take it into consideration
and guarantee their humanitarian rights”, noted he.
According to Modest Kolerov, modern conception of human rights submits
such claims, including the right to free choice of citizenship, free
access to communications, the right to information, the right to free
choice of educational and cultural activity. “These are fundamental
rights”, stated Kolerov.

‘APPROVAL OF ARMENIAN BILL WILL HARM OUR INTERESTS’
By Anadolu News Agency
Zaman, Turkey
Sept 16 2005
zaman.com
US State Department Assistant Secretary for legislation affairs, Matt
Reynolds, wrote a letter to Henry Hyde, US House of Representatives
International Relations Committee head, indicating that the US
administration is against the approval of Armenian bills seeking for
recognition of the so-called Armenian genocide.
The House discussed two Armenian bills earlier today.
Despite the letter of objection prepared by the US administration
and sent to Hyde, the bill has been approved by the House.
Reynolds’s letter to Hyde said US President George W. Bush acknowledged
in his April 24 statement the “tragic events that happened in Eastern
Anatolia when the Ottoman Empire was about to end,” which Armenians
are inclined to see as the 90th anniversary of the so-called genocide.
The letter also indicated the committee apparently determined to
discuss these bills, but the US administration would resist the
approval of these two bills.
If these bills are put on the agenda of the House General Assembly
for discussion, that will harm Turkish and American relations and
stop Ankara and Yerevan relations from improvement.

US HOUSE TAKES REVENGE OF MARCH 1 MOTION BY THE ARMENIAN DRAFT
By Ali H. Aslan
Zaman, Turkey
Sept 16 2005
zaman.com
The US House of Representatives International Relations Committee
endorsed two resolutions recognizing the so-called Armenian genocide.
The committee passed draft 195 with 35 – 11 vote; draft 316 was voted
40 – 7.
Many US representatives taking floor during the draft negotiations
mentioned Turkey’s refusal of the March 1 motion to allow US troops
to open a northern front before the Iraqi war.
Genocide allegations brought to the agenda of the general council
is under the initiative of the House Chair of the Republican Party,
Dennis Hastert.
If Hastert makes his preference on the direction, the drafts will
definitely be adopted in the US Congress; however, Turkish and the
US administrations are like-minded that the adoption of such a draft
will harm relations.
US State Department deputy official responsible for the judicial
issues Matt Reynolds sending a letter to the Committee Chair, Henry
Hyde, announced they stand firm against such a draft.
Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff submitted the draft entitled,
“Commemoration Decision of the Armenian Genocide between 1915 and 1923”
to the House of Representatives.
Republican Rep. George Radanovich prepared the second draft calling
the US presidents to include the so-called Armenian genocide in
foreign policy.
When a similar draft came to the issue, the committee’s senior
co-chair, Tom Lantos, of the Democrat Party prevailing by his
pro-Turkey attitude five years ago said “yes” for both drafts based
on the refusal of the March 1 motion.
Lantos claimed more US soldiers were lost in Iraq today because the
March 1 motion was not approved in the Turkish Parliament.
Turkey did not consider US interests and did not help US over the
Syrian issue, and did not allow opening the northern front for
the Iraqi war. I support both Armenian drafts under the context,
Lantos added.
Committee Chair Hyde mentioned the dispute between Turkey and US
before the Iraqi war and its bill for the US.
Hyde also voted for the Armenian draft.
Another issue frequently carried to the agenda against Turkey during
the sessions was the trial of renowned Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk.
Participants of the Committee, who approved the drafts, often
referenced the Jewish genocide, the Holocaust, and drew attention to
Germany’s responsibilities over the event.
Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler, who is of the Jewish origin, made one
of the strongest attempts to support Turkey.
Wexler managed to include a statement sent by the Turkish Ambassador
in Washington, Faruk Logoglu, to the records.
Beside the Armenian groups, some ethnic Greek organizations, such as
the American Helen Institute (AHI), called to support the drafts sent
to the Congress leaders.
American-Turkish Council (ATC) Chairman Brent Scowcroft also sending
a letter to the House Chair, Hastert, warned the drafts coming to
the issue will cause a great harm on Turkish-American relations.

A PACKAGE OPTION WITH THE PHASED REALIZATION
DeFacto, Armenia
Sept 16 2005
A model of the Karabakh issue settlement enabling to combine the
principle of territorial integrity with the nations’ right to self –
determination was outlined at the second session of the PACE temporary
committee on Karabakh issue that took place in Paris on September 12.
On September 15, in the course of the press conference on the
outcomes of the PACE sitting on Karabakh issue in Yerevan RA NA deputy
from Justice Faction Shavarsh Kocharyan informed of the details and
estimated the Paris discussions. According to Shavarsh Kocharyan, the
settlement scheme assumes liberation of the territories controlled
by the NK armed forces, return of the Azeri refugees and conduct of
the referendum on the status’ determination.
In Shavarsh Kocharyan’s opinion, there are some positive shifts in
the scheme; however, it contains danger as well. He believes the
positive aspect is recognition of the fact that Karabakh’s status
should be determined on the basis of the nations’ right to self –
determination. Besides, they realize that Karabakh cannot be an
enclave. Thus, according to the scheme, Karabakh should have a corridor
connecting it with Armenia. Shavarsh Kocharyan noted Armenian party
had managed to withstand the attacks of Azeri delegation, which tried
to raise the issue of Nahkijevan and draw parallel between Karabakh
and Nahkijevan. Representatives of Armenian party stated Nahkijevan
was not an enclave and had bordures with both Turkey and Iran.
Mentioning the negative aspects of the settlement option Shavarsh
Kocharyan dwelled upon the issue referring to a referendum. He said
according to the logic of the scheme’s realization the referendum
will not be conducted in the near future. In his words, the danger
is that return of the territories weakens Karabakh’s stand: status
quo is violated, so Azerbaijan is likely to settle the conflict by
force of arms.
Shavarsh Kocharyan does not accept opinion that the option is like
the one suggested in 1997. “There is significant difference: in
1997 they suggested that we should return the territories, refugees,
and then start talks on the issue referring to the status. Now there
is a solution of the issue referring to the status”, noted Shavarsh
Kocharyan. “It is the settlement’s package option providing phased
realization”, stated he.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

MODEST KOLEROV: RUSSIA CONSIDERS BOTH SIDES OF THE CONFLICTS ON THE POST SOVIET TERRITORY TO BE ITS COMPATRIOTS
DeFacto, Armenia
Sept 16 2005
Russia considers both sides of the conflicts on the post Soviet
territory to be its compatriots. Chief of the RF Presidential
Department for Inter-Regional and Cultural Relations with Foreign
Countries Modest Kolerov stated it speaking at the conference “Parallel
CIS. Abkhazia, Pridnestrovie, the South Caucasus and Nagorno Karabakh
as realities of the post – Soviet territory” in Moscow.
According to Tribuna newspaper (Russia), in spite of warning of one
of the conference’s organizers, the CIS Institute Director Constantine
Zatulin that the conference’s goal is scientific and not political, the
guests did not want to confine themselves to purely “scientific” goals.
A member of the Armenian delegation, RA Democratic Party leader,
RA NA deputy Aram G. Sargsyan noted the fact that the conference
“Parallel CIS. Abkhazia, Pridnestrovie, the South Caucasus and Nagorno
Karabakh as realities of the post – Soviet territory” was organized
by the CIS Institute testified to the fact that Russia was interested
in its influence and strengthening of the stand in the Caucasus.
“The difference of Nagorno Karabakh from other unrecognized republics
is that they are ready to become associative members of the Russian
community, while Nagorno Karabakh is striving for independence from
Azerbaijan and free existence”, stated he.
He noted participants of the Armenian delegation “presented legal
aspects of the Karabakh issue, pointed out usage of double standards
by the international community”. “Azerbaijan states Armenia has
organized the conference, and it is provocative. However, one thing
is obvious – Azerbaijan is not ready for the civilized coexistence
with its neighbors”, believes Aram Sargsyan.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RA MFA PRESS SECRETARY’S STATEMENT CALLED “DIPLOMATIC MANEUVERS” IN BAKU
DeFacto, Armenia
Sept 16 2005
RA MFA press secretary Hamlet Gasparyan’s statement on Nagorno
Karabakh process “is nothing more than diplomatic maneuvers”, Head of
the International Department of the Azeri President’s Administration
Novruz Mamedov stated, Azeri Trend agency reports.
To note, Hamlet Gasparyan said Armenia’s stand had not been changed –
if Azerbaijan raised an issue referring to Nagorno Karabakh at the
UN Armenia would cease talks, so Azerbaijan would have to negotiate
with Stepanakert. RA MFA press secretary said it while commenting
on placing the issue “About the situation on Azerbaijan’s occupied
territories” on the UN General Assembly 60th sitting’s agenda.
According to Mamedov, “Armenia sees that Azerbaijan’s stand on Nagorno
Karabakh settlement is supported by the international community
and is trying to threaten Azerbaijan with suspension of talks and
negotiations with Nagorno Karabakh”.