Karabakh’s self-determination to be key issue in Kazan talks – Armenian minister
Arminfo
20 Aug 05
Yerevan, 20 August: Nagornyy Karabakh’s self-determination is the key
issue in the settlement of the Karabakh conflict. All the remaining
problems – the return of refugees, the elimination of consequences of
the conflict and territorial problems – are secondary issues which
will be resolved only after defining Nagornyy Karabakh’s status,
Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan said commenting on the
forthcoming meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents,
Robert Kocharyan and Ilham Aliyev, in Kazan [on 26 August].
Oskanyan said the package settlement of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict
could be implemented stage by stage, however, even in this case, the
issue of Nagornyy Karabakh’s status should be resolved first. At the
same time, the Armenian foreign minister said none of the sides are
interested in dragging out the conflict. Having failed to achieve the
desired result in the talks, Azerbaijan, as a rule, either criticizes
the activity of the OSCE Minsk Group or presents its desires as
reality ahead of every stage of meetings, he said.
Commenting on the Azerbaijani leadership’s plans to increase military
budget with oil dollars, Oskanyan said: “Increasing the military budget
with oil dollars cannot bring the Azerbaijani side real dividends in
the Karabakh issue. Azerbaijan with its oil dollars cannot deceive or
frighten the Armenian side,” the minister said, noting that Armenia
can always stand up to Azerbaijan.
“In fact, Armenia’s advantage over Azerbaijan is not in its
military might but in the fairness of its position in the Karabakh
issue. The Armenians know that their position on Karabakh is just
and if hostilities resume, the Armenian people will fight for their
lands, unlike Azerbaijanis,” Oskanyan said. Moreover, he said Armenia
challenged Azerbaijan not in the military sphere but in the political
and economic spheres. Azerbaijan can compete with neither Armenia
nor Nagornyy Karabakh in the issue of implementation of political
and economic reforms, the minister said.
[Passage omitted: Oskanyan speaks about the self -determination status
of people in the world]

Al-Jazeerah.Info, GA (USA)
Aug 20 2005
When are foreign troops overstaying their welcome?
By Ben Tanosborn
Al-Jazeerah, August 20, 2005
Almost always, to be sure! Anytime~E anywhere!
First of all, nations, or at least the people that populate those
nations, never extend welcomes to foreign troops. Their leaders do.
And those leaders, more often than not, represent their own personal
interests, or those of the groups they front.
That thought applies to the supposedly ~Sfriendly~T military guests~E
but what about the others, the uninvited foreign troops? Call them by
whatever preferred name you wish: invaders, liberators, mercenaries,
occupiers~E
Unbidden guests are often welcomest, said Shakespeare, when they are
gone. That~Rs something most of us can assent to personally~E and we
suspect such dictum also applies in affairs-of-state.
After 9/11, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan could not very well deny
support to the US when asked. Even Russia had to look the other way
as the US mustered more than a casual presence in those nations~R
military bases, instead of just temporary access for the initial
campaign in Afghanistan. Needless to say, after combat is out of the
way, there is always the ~Sstability~T issue. And so, American troops
are likely to remain there for a while~E for it is in the nature of
foreign troops, by their presence, to create or aggravate
instability. It~Rs a safe bet to predict that stability will never be
reached in Afghanistan or in Iraq~E not while American troops are
stationed there.
There is little question that the current joint military exercises by
Russia and China, ~SPeace Mission 2005,~T are but a marketing
opportunity for Russia to show China its military wares, particularly
the Tu-95 strategic and the Tu-22M long-range bombers, both capable
of carrying nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. Both the Pentagon and the
State Department would be blind not to see a commonality of interests
by these two nations to keep Central Asia free from America
influence~E certainly free from American dominance. Unlikely
bedfellows can emerge to counter dominance by the only existing
military superpower. And the Shanghai Cooperation Organization is
just that start.
Recently, I was the subject of an interview by an Azerbaijani news
agency, chosen perhaps because of my writings on a geographical area
seldom touched by the press in the West, not since the cease of
hostilities in the 90~Rs between Armenians and Azeris on the issue of
Nagorno-Karabakh.
Half of the questions were de rigueur with an economic flavor-
dealing specifically with the ~Soil factor~T and the economic
development of Azerbaijan from the revenues to be obtained from the
BTC pipeline. The other half had as its theme how America~Rs
influence, or dominance, in the region would affect them
(Azerbaijanis).
Representative questions of the latter were:
How did I judge President Bush~Rs call for support of democratic
processes in Southern Caucasus and Central Asia during his speech in
Tbilisi, Georgia? Will US~R desire to see current post Soviet regimes
replaced by more democratic ones cause tension with Russia ~Swhich
supports present regimes~T? Would I consider the current regime in
Azerbaijan to be democratic? How realistic would be for Russia to
have a ~Svelvet revolution~T? Is Iran~Rs fate going to be like Iraq~Rs?
And, if so, Is the US likely to use Azerbaijan for any military
intervention in Iran?
American history evidences US~R propensity to exercise gunboat
diplomacy at requested or unbidden invitations, often involving
friendly dictators. [Their undemocratic ways somehow seemed less
repugnant when some American interests were to be well served by
their help.] But, although we associate that behavior with US
incursions in Latin America, we must not lose sight of the fact that
in this new century, and given the magna carta of neocon aspirations,
a new-age diplomacy must be installed~E one that operates in the
context that the United States is the one and only superpower. We are
way past the Monroe Doctrine, or the cold war with the Soviet Union.
An American mom, Cindy Sheehan, together with other moms throughout
the US, may be expressing their sentiments, asserting that the Bush
administration erred by invading Iraq, and insisting the US pulls its
troops out of that country; this, while leaders in Washington,
Republicans and Democrats, rationalize that since we are already
there, we must act as if a welcome mat had been extended for us. But
in truth, Americans will never get a true pulse of the situation
until they begin to comprehend and accept that moms come in a variety
of shades and nationalities, and that includes Iraqi moms.
American troops have overstayed their welcome in many locales around
the globe, specifically at this moment, in Iraq; unfortunately for
peace and reconciliation, Iraq continues to have a place of great
geopolitical significance in the neocon lexicon. It boils down to a
simple question: is ours a search for peace, or one of world
dominance? Answering that question will confront us with the truth,
and do away with the continuing political hypocrisy espoused by the
White House and~E yes, Congress!
Ben Tanosborn,
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part B (Russia)
August 19, 2005, Friday
KOCHARIAN DOUBLECROSSES RUSSIA
SOURCE: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, August 19, 2005, pp. 1, 4
by Anatoly Gordienko, Nelli Orlova
President Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia is about to make a
brief visit to Armenia. Armenia is awaiting the president of its
neighbor-state. Presidential Press Secretary Viktor Sogomonjan says
that a meeting between the two heads of state is being planned,
but it will be “unofficial, a meeting of friends.”
There is nothing extraordinary in meetings between presidents of
neighboring countries – but official Moscow is somewhat wary about
Saakashvili’s potential friendship with Armenian President Robert
Kocharian. Russian experts widely comment on the “informal” nature of
presidents of Georgia and Armenia that became noticeably more frequent
after the Revolution of Roses in Tbilisi in 2003. There were at least
two or three such meetings in Tbilisi and one in Yerevan.
Sergei Markedonov, cirector of the Ethnic Relations Department at
the Political and Military Analysis Institute, doesn’t rule out
the possibility that Yerevan is seeking new bearing points in its
foreign policy, the bearing points that do not have anything to do
with Russia. “The danger exists that Armenia may turn to the West,”
Markedonov said. The political scientist even believes that Saakashvili
may be playing the role of an intermediary between the West and leaders
of Armenia. “Saakashvili himself said more than once that he wanted
more than just being president of Georgia,” Markedonov said. “That’s
why everything is possible… What concerns me is that Armenia has
been viewed until now as Russia’s mot reliable and actually only
strategic ally in the southern part of the Caucasus. A great deal
of Russian military hardware from the military bases in Georgia is
shipped to this country, upping its own defense potential, by the
way. Russia chalked off Armenia’s debts not long ago and set out
to reanimate Armenian energy sphere and other sectors of national
economy. Essentially, Yarevan’s rapprochement with the patently
hostile Georgia is a blow at Russian interests in the region.”
Alexei Makarkin, deputy director of the Political Techniques Center,
also mentioned the danger of Armenia’s potential turn to Georgia.
“Kocharian’s steps in this direction will seriously jeopardize
positions of Russia in the region,” Makarkin said. “Still, this is
not something we should really expect and fear. Kocharian is clearly
pro-Russian, and so is his government. It is the opposition in Armenia
that is pro-Western because official Moscow backed the president in the
past presidential election in Armenia.” Makarkin doesn’t deny at the
same time that Saakashvili’s frequent visits to Armenia aim to instill
and encourage pro-Western moods in this country. “The United States is
actively forcing its own ideology on the post-Soviet territory Russia
has always dominated. Saakashvili and President of Ukraine Viktor
Yushchenko are essentially conduits of this ideology. I suspect that
Saakashvili’s frequent meetings with Kocharian are an indication of
their mushrooming aspirations in the CIS. That their next meeting is
scheduled for before the CIS summit in Kazan is but a demonstration of
independence. That’s a way of showing that they are going to meet with
whoever they want and whenever they want regardless of the ineffective
Commonwealth whose potential is clearly exhausted,” Makarkin explained.
Official Yerevan did not take to these conclusions at all. “There are
no reasons to assume that the rapprochement with Tbilisi indicates
any changes in the attitude toward Russia,” Sogomonjan said. Press
secretary recalled traditions of the Georgian-Armenian friendship
and existence of a substantial Armenian diaspora in Georgia. “In
short, we have more in common than geography and geopolitics alone,”
Sogomonjan said.
Tbilisi is also discussing Saakashvili’s forthcoming visit to
Armenia. Any anti-Russian conspiracy between Georgia and Armenia
is vehemently denounced. “Rapprochement between Kocharian and
Saakashvili should not worry Russia at least for several reasons,”
says Ramaz Sakvarelidze, a prominent Georgian political scientist.
“First, there is no proof that Saakashvili will actually try to convert
Kocharian in Sevan, to tempt the president of Armenia into shifting
his and his foreign policy’s bearing points. A polar process cannot
be ruled out, right? So, we cannot rule out the possibility that
Russia’s interests in this part of the Caucasus will only benefit
from this meeting. After all, if countries of the Caucasus stop
playing chaotically and begin pursuing a coordinated policy, it
will ensure stability and protection of Russian interests on their
territories. Moreover, agendas of Georgian-Armenian summits do not
usually include any global matters. The president always concentrate
on the problems that worry Georgia and Armenia. Besides, meeting
like that may do something about the tangled Azerbaijani-Armenian
relations… I’m talking about Saakashvili’s services of a go-between.”
In the meantime, Yerevan is already taking steps that do conflict
with Russian interests. Not long ago, the Armenian Commission for
Public Services demanded from management of Armenian Power Lines
explanations with regard to the deal in which its shares had ended up
in the hands of RAO Unified Energy Systems. Shares of the Armenian
company were turned over to Interenergo B.V., a subsidiary of RAO
Unified Energy Systems, where RAO Unified Energy Systems itself had 60%
and Rosenergoatom 40%. It occurred to Yerevan all of a sudden that the
national legislation doesn’t permit any deals with shares of Armenian
Power Lines without the government’s dispensation. Moreover, Russia’s
ratio in the Armenian foreign trade (all of it passing through the
territory of Georgia) went down.
Translated by A. Ignatkin

Five Canadian clerics will visit Armenia
The Record (Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario)
August 20, 2005 Saturday Final Edition
TORONTO — Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, primate of the Anglican Church
of Canada, along with four other leading Canadian clerics, will visit
Armenia later this month at the invitation of His Holiness Karekin II,
supreme patriarch of all Armenians.
The Aug. 24-Sept. 1 visit to the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin,
the centre of authority in the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church,
is being organized by the church’s Canadian diocese, according to
the church’s website
The group will be led by Bishop Bagrat Galstanian, primate of the
Canadian diocese. Other members include Archbishop Sotirios of the
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Canada, Archbishop Brendan O’Brien of
the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and Richard Schneider,
president of the Canadian Council of Churches.

Russia hosts CIS air-defence exercise
ITAR-TASS news agency
20 Aug 05
Moscow, 20 August: Combat Commonwealth 2005, a live-firing exercise
of the CIS combined air-defence system, begins on Monday 22 August
at the Ashuluk range in Astrakhan Region.
Combined-arms and other units of the air forces and air-defence troops
of Russia, Armenia, Belarus and Tajikistan will jointly practise
interoperability in a broad range of areas. Four types of aviation
will be involved – fighter, ground-attack, bomber and reconnaissance.
The deputy commander-in-chief of the Russian armed forces for the
CIS air-defence system, Lt-Gen Aytech Bizhev, outlined the exercise
scenario in an interview in today’s edition of the Krasnaya Zvezda
newspaper. In the 10 years since the combined air-defence system was
set up, he said, its members’ military authorities have restored the
information sharing on airspace violations that existed between them
prior to the collapse of the USSR. This exchange is now automated and
flows between the central command posts of the Belarusian, Kazakh,
Ukrainian and Tajik air forces and air defences.
In the scenario for the exercise, “bandit gangs” and “terrorist groups”
have become more active in the North Caucasus, and Armenia asks the
CIS for assistance. Russia, Belarus and Tajikistan then urgently
deploy forces to the region.
According to Gen Bizhev, the main feature of this exercise is that for
the first time a regional air-defence group will be set up from the
participants’ air-defence forces and assets. Command of the group
will be automated, with the four countries’ missile forces being
coordinated from a single command post.
The creation of regional interstate air-defence groups is one of the
main trends in the development of the combined CIS system. The plan is
to establish such groups in the future in the East European, Central
Asian and Caucasus regions. Russia and Belarus have already agreed
a package of documents on setting up a regional air-defence system.

Azeri leader says no need for authorities-opposition dialogue
ANS TV, Baku
19 Aug 05
[Presenter] President Ilham Aliyev has visited Ismayilli District
[central Azerbaijan]. [Indistinct sentence omitted]
[Aliyev] There have been no results [in the Nagornyy Karabakh
settlement] and we can see this. At the same time, there are hopes.
As long as we have hopes, we should continue the talks because as a
result of the work done, the international community has adopted an
unambiguous approach to the issue.
I believe that the achieved progress is important but does not
guarantee the signing of a peace agreement. The occupied territories
must be freed. Refugees and displaced people should return to their
native lands.
[Correspondent] President Ilham Aliyev said Azerbaijan’s military
potential is much higher than that of Armenia and that the Armenians
should understand the importance of acting in accordance with this
reality.
[Aliyev] We understand that the security of the Armenians of Nagornyy
Karabakh should be ensured and this is natural and normal. However,
Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity is not a subject of negotiations and
can never be so. Separatism is unacceptable. No-one and no structure
can exist for a long time in an isolated form.
[Correspondent] The president highly valued the authorities-opposition
dialogue and commented on the [opposition] Azadliq electoral bloc’s
calls on Ilham Aliyev to participate in this dialogue.
[Aliyev] There has never been a dialogue between the authorities and
opposition since our independence and we have not had such a political
experience. This was a major shortcoming.
In general, there is no need for dialogue since the public have made a
clear-cut choice and support our policy. But dialogue between parties
is important, of course. Major disagreements usually take place
between parties. From this point of view, I believe, the current
format is appropriate. High-ranking officials and an MP from the
[ruling] New Azerbaijan Party have attended the dialogue and I think
this level is enough for the present time.
[Correspondent] Ilham Aliyev believes it is pointless for the president
to intervene and stop smear campaign in the media.
[Aliyev] How can I intervene in this process? We have freedom of the
press and freedom of expression. Newspapers write what they want and
you know that we are not going to influence any media outlet. This is
why these requests should be made to those media outlets that have
specific flaws. As the president, I am in favour of the free press
and at the same time, I believe that for the normal development of
our country, any political struggle should be fought in compliance
with ethical standards.
[Correspondent] Speaking about the list of candidates [to run in
November parliamentary election], Ilham Aliyev said it was satisfactory
and was drawn up under his personal supervision.
[Aliyev] As the [New Azerbaijan] party chairman, I played an important
role in drawing up this list and my opinion was reflected there. I
believe that those who have done a lot for the party and influential
public figures should definitely be included in the list. At the same
time, there should be refreshing changes, like those in society. There
are refreshing changes taking place in our party.
[Passage omitted: reported details]

Civil Georgia, Georgia
Aug 20 2005
New Chief of Public TV Speaks of Priorities
Kintsurashvili vows to secure independent
editorial policy of the Public TV.
Tamar Kintsurashvili was elected for a six-year term by the Board
as the Director-General of the Public Broadcasting on August 19.
Appointment of the General Director is a crucial step in establishing
first-ever politically independent, publicly funded broadcaster.
Tamar Kintsurashvili of non-governmental human rights advocacy
organization Liberty Institute was herself member of the Board, but
withdrew membership on August 13 and joined those 23 candidates who
were competing to chair the Public Broadcasting.
Kintsurashvili’s decision was regarded as controversial and most
of the participants of the competition criticized her move as
“unethical.” Opponents claimed that the competition turned into
“formality” immediately after Tamar Kintsurashvili applied to run for
the position. But the new Director-General of the Public Broadcasting
downplays criticism and says that the law did not prohibit her to
participate in the competition.
This was the second competition, as in July the nine-member Board of
the Public Broadcasting declined all the sixteen candidates, citing
contenders’ lack of experience in media management.
Kintsurashvili, 35, worked for the newspaper Droni in 1993-2000 and
served as deputy editor-in-chief. She was a PR manager at the beer
producing company Castel-Georgia in 2001. Since 2001 Kintsurashvili
has led media programs at the Liberty Institute, where as she said,
gained a huge experience in working over the media legislation. Law
on Public Broadcasting was developed by the Liberty Institute.
In an interview with Civil Georgia on August 20, Kintsurashvili
outlined her policy priorities which she plans to carry. She said
that creation of the Public Broadcasting, which will be “a bearer of
the democratic and civil society values” and provider of genuinely
unbiased news and information will be her top priority.
“Strengthening of the news service is of crucial importance. Public
television should at first gain public confidence and it will happen
only after providing unbiased, balanced and genuinely objective
information and news to the society. So at the first stage I plan
to make a major focus on the news service. Only on the next stages
it will be possible to think about other services and programs,”
Kintsurashvili said.
She said that securing independent editorial policy will be crucial
in this regard. “I think that lack of independent editorial policy
is a major problem of the Georgian median organization. Although
legislation is perfect in this respect, but unfortunately this is
not realized in the practice,” Kintsurashvili said.
She thinks that distribution of duties and responsibilities to a
lower managerial level will foster independence of the editorial
policy. “We should delegate certain level of decision-making to
the lower level managers. But it will require highly professional
managers and producers, that is why we should re-train existing staff
in accordance to the international standards,” Kintsurashvili said.
The new Director-General believes that the Public Television has an
advantage and unlike the private television stations, which currently
dominate the Georgian media market (Rustavi 2, Imedi TV, Mze TV)
Public Broadcasting will have more opportunity to establish editorial
independence, as “it is not owned by a tycoon.”
“While private televisions are financed chiefly by tycoons who have
personal interests, the Public TV has a guaranteed financing, currently
up to 17 million Lari [USD 9,4 million]. This is an advantage which
should be utilized,” Kintsurashvili said.
She said that there is “absolute mess” in the issues related with
the television’s finances and property.
“We should immediately carry out inventory of property. It is
impossible now to find out what kind of property the television owns.
According to the documentations quite a large amount of money has
been spent in recent years for upgrading the television’s equipment.
But the reality is that the TV still urgently needs technical upgrade
and no one knows where the money has went,” Kintsurashvili said.
In her brief concept over development of the Public Broadcasting
submitted to the Board for consideration, there is a separate
chapter regarding the role of the public television in the process
of integration of ethnic and religious minorities.
“It is a long-term plan, but I think of creation of local regional
public broadcastings in those regions, which are predominately
populated by ethnic minorities, for example Public Broadcasting in
Samtskhe-Javakheti [Armenian-populated region], Public Broadcasting in
Shida Kartli [Azerbaijani-populated region] and of course these local
regional televisions will operate under the aegis of the Georgian
Public Broadcasting,” Kintsurashvili said.
She says that the covering of upcoming MP by-elections in Georgia’s
five single-mandate constituencies “will be kind of first test” for
her and the Public Broadcasting. “But less than two months remain
before these elections – it is a short period of time = so I can not
guarantee that we will pass this test perfectly,” she added.
Kintsurashvili will take over the office on August 22. She says that
“the public television should become a flagship in the Georgian media
space,” adding that she will immediately quit if fails to implement
her plans.

Georgian president to visit Armenia
Kavkasia-Press news agency
20 Aug 05
Tbilisi, 20 August: Mikheil Saakashvili will pay an unofficial
visit to Armenia on 21 August on an invitation from his counterpart
Robert Kocharyan, Kavkasia-Press has learnt at the presidential
administration. [Passage omitted]
Saakashvili will return to Tbilisi on 22 August.

PRESS RELEASE
National Association for Armenian Studies and Research
395 Concord Avenue
Belmont, MA 02478
Tel.: 617-489-1610
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:
MOORAD MOORADIAN TO GIVE LECTURE AND ALL-DAY SEMINAR AT NAASR IN
SEPTEMBER
Dr. Moorad Mooradian of Yerevan State University will present “A New
Look at TARC (Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission)” in a lecture
at the Center and Headquarters of the National Association for Armenian
Studies and Research (NAASR), 395 Concord Ave., Belmont, Mass., on
Thursday evening, September 8, at 8 p.m. On Saturday September 10,
Mooradian will offer an all-day seminar at NAASR entitled “Hurting
Stalemate or Mediation? The Conflict Over Nagorno-Karabakh.”
Dr. Moorad Mooradian’s writings on Armenian political and historical
issues are widely read on a weekly basis in English-language
Armenian newspapers, and he is also the author of a new book on the
Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission. His previous lectures at
NAASR have been to standing-room-only audiences.
A FRESH PERSPECTIVE ON TARC
One of the most contentious issues in the contemporary historiography
of Armenia and Turkey has been the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation
Commission (TARC). In his new book, A New Look at TARC, Dr.
Mooradian has examined TARC and its composition and has analyzed it
in terms of conflict resolution theory.
Dr. Mooradian will offer his evaluation of TARC’s stated goals, its
performance, the quality and competence of its members as reconcilers,
and the course that chairman David Phillips allowed the commission
to travel. Dr. Mooradian maintains that the idea of TARC was good,
but was funded by the wrong parties and was unable to make the public
view it as impartial; it’s members, except for the chairman, were all
activists for their respective sides; and that TARC chose the wrong
issue upon which to attempt to build a bridge between the Armenian
and the Turkish governments and societies. It is Mooradian’s view
that TARC violated basic conflict resolution theory and practice and
thus was destined to be minimally, if at all, successful.
Professor Dennis Sandole of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and
Resolution at George Mason University, who wrote the foreword for the
book, states that for “those who are interested in understanding and
dealing with intractable, often violent conflicts, Dr. Mooradian’s
account of TARC is a must.”
Copies of A New Look at TARC will be on sale in the NAASR bookstore
and Dr. Mooradian will be available to autograph copies. The event
is open to the public at no charge (donations accepted at door).
AN IN-DEPTH ANALYSIS OF KARABAKH STALEMATE
Capitalizing on Mooradian’s presence in the Boston area, NAASR will
feature him in an all-day Saturday seminar on September 10, from 9:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m., which will examine the various aspects of mediation,
its goals and various processes, in comparison with theory and with
what actually transpired in the Karabakh mediation efforts.
An analysis will be presented on the intensified warfare that
commenced with the Kelbajar offensive in 1993. Comparisons of the
several mediation efforts will be made to determine whether it was the
mediations themselves or the increased violence and destruction that
caused the opposing sides to seek an end to the organized violence
that culminated in the ongoing ceasefire.
The Russian mediation that competed with the CSCE (OSCE) effort will be
analyzed closely, with an effort to determine if it is valid to give
the Russians credit for bringing the Armenian and Azerbaijani side
to the negotiating table that led to the ceasefire. In the process
of evaluating the data, an examination via quantitative analysis will
be made to determine the logical outcomes of the mediations. Finally,
Dr. Mooradian will address the question–if a hurting stalemate brought
an end to massive violence in the form of set-to military battles,
why did/has it not led to a peace treaty?
Preregistration Recommended
Information on fees can be obtained from the NAASR offices.
Admission is open to all, but enrollment will be limited in order
to encourage active discussion and interaction. It is strongly urged
that participants register by September 1.
Dr. Moorad Mooradian received a PhD from the Institute for
Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University after a
distinguished 25-year career in the United States Army, from which he
retired as a colonel. He was Professor of History and International
Relations at the West Point U. S. Military Academy, N.Y.
Mooradian helped establish a Conflict Studies Curriculum at Yerevan
State University, which now awards both undergraduate and graduate
level degrees. He has been teaching at Yerevan State since 1995 as a
Visiting Professor and has developed a Long Distance Learning Center
there so that students may receive instruction from the U.S. as well as
Yerevan. He has also served as an unofficial advisor to the Minister
of Foreign Affairs and has been a Fulbright Scholar to Armenia.
Dr. Mooradian is a former member of NAASR’s Board of Directors.
More information on Dr. Mooradian’s lecture or seminar or about NAASR
and its programs for the furtherance of Armenian studies, research, and
publication may be had by calling 617-489-1610, by fax at 617-484-1759,
by e-mail at [email protected], or by writing to NAASR, 395 Concord Ave.,
Belmont, MA 02478.

Today.az, Azerbaijan
Aug 19 2005
Gyultekin Hadjiyeva: “I do not believe global changes to be
introduced in report of international crisis group”
19 August 2005 [11:13] – Today.Az
“The report of the International Crisis Group (ICG) was actually
far from the reality, therefore I am not sure, the document will be
entirely unbiased”.
Deputy Gyultakin Hadjiyeva told Trend about it.
The International Crisis Group will prepare two reports on the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and disseminate them in September. Some
recommendations are included in the reports, reflecting the situation
in Azerbaijan and Armenia. A workshop, dedicated to the discussion of
this report took place in Tbilisi. At the closed door event, where
along with the International Crisis Group experts, representatives
of Azerbaijan and Armenia also took part, preliminary standpoints on
the report’s essence and details became known.
Hadjiyeva, involved in the workshop as the expert from Azerbaijan,
said, partial position was demonstrated on the Nagorno-Karabakh
issue. Biased attitude to the conflict and attempts to solve it
beyond the frames of the international law and regulations caused
the concern of the Azerbaijani side. Therefore, the deputy said
she adheres to the same opinion of the report to be made public in
September, as before. “Certainly, one should not voice the opinion
before the report is issued. However, I do not think, global
changes have been introduced in this document. Probably, changes,
supplements of a technical character. Perhaps, also, for the period
passed after the workshop in Tbilisi the ICG will study the situation
related to Karabakh deeper and will come to the unbiased, impartial
position in regard of the conflict. However, taking into account the
reality, existing up to now, personally I do not believe there will
be serious changes in favour of Azerbaijan, i.e. in accordance with
the international law.”, Hadjiyeva said.
The deputy noted, although she does not know about the reaction of
the government of Azerbaijan in regard of the report, to be made
public in September, she will declare a protest on her own behalf.
The vice president of the International Crisis Group Alain Deletroz
will arrive in Baku on 8-9 September. He is expected to submit a
report, developed by the Organization and about 20 recommendations
to the government of Azerbaijan.
The International Crisis Group studies existing and potential
conflict hotbeds and make its forecasts monthly for solution of
various conflicts.
URL:
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress