ITAR-TASS News Agency
TASS
April 11, 2005 Monday 3:18 PM Eastern Time

Armenia may build new nuclear power plant

By Tigran Liloyan

YEREVAN

Armenian President Robert Kocharyan said on Monday there was a
possibility of Armenia building a new nuclear power plant. “Quite
possibly, a new nuclear power plant based on contemporary
technologies will be built in Armenia,” the president said at a
meeting with students and the teaching staff of the economy
department of Yerevan State University.

Kocharyan said it was hard to imagine a larger damage to the country
than the closure of the nuclear power plant in 1989. The energy
crisis that resulted from that rash step led to a decay of the
republic’s economy, Kocharyan said.

The power plant that went into operation in 1979 was shut down after
the devastative earthquake in 1989. It was re-activated with the
assistance of Russian specialists in 1996, and the industrial
operation of its second power-generating set was resumed.

The plant accounts for nearly 40 percent of electricity generated in
Armenia. From 2002 the plant’s financial and economic management went
to Inter-RAO UES, the subsidiary of RAO UES (Unified Energy Systems).

Meanwhile the European Union presses for the closure of the nuclear
power plant situated 40 kilometres West of Yerevan. The Armenian
authorities say that the plant may be closed only if there are
alternative sources of energy.

The president said on Monday the Armenian authorities consider the
use of alternative, renewable sources of energy, the development of
hydro energetics. There is a programme of building a large hydro
power station on the Araks River on the border and of over 70 small
hydro power stations. Twenty-two of them are already under
construction. Reconstruction of the Yerevan heat-and-power plant
begins. There are projects for using geothermal resources in South
East Armenia.

A gas pipeline to Armenia from Iran whose construction begins in late
April is one of serious guarantees of the republic’s energy security.

Agence France Presse — English
April 8, 2005 Friday

Armenia calls for German loans to construct power station

YEREVAN

Armenia is holding talks with several German-based companies and
banks in the hopes of procuring 100 million euros for construction of
a hydro power station in the energy-strapped state, energy ministry
officials said.

“We are currently holding talks with Germany’s KFW bank for a loan on
preferential terms,” the ministry’s spokesman Levon Vardanyan said
late Thursday, adding that technical and economic basis for the
station was drawn up by the German-based Fichtner firm.

The Lori-Berdsky station, which would be constructed on the Debed
river within the next two years, is expected to produce up to 300
million kilowatt-hours a year.

The KFW bank is due to loan Armenia six million euros this year to
upgrade its smaller hydro power stations, Vardanyan added.

The impoverished former Soviet republic of Armenia has suffered from
severe energy shortages since the collapse of the Soviet Union in
1991.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Baltic News Service
April 8, 2005

ARMENIA HAS MADE GREAT PROGRESS IN ECONOMIC, DEMOCRATIC REFORMS —
LITHUANIAN DEFENSE MINISTER

VILNIUS

Armenia has made considerable progress in the fields of economy and
democracy and is becoming more and more resolute in declaring its
interest in closer cooperation with the European Union and NATO,
Lithuania’s Defense Minister Gediminas Kirkilas, who visited Armenia
on an official visit this week, has told BNS.

“During meetings with Armenian officials, I saw that they understood
that the Mountain Karabakh problem could hardly be solved without the
participation of the EU and NATO. There is increasing apprehension
that the conflict is hindering Armenia’s international integration,”
Kirkilas said.

There is an ongoing military conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia
over Mountain Karabakh, large Azerbaijan region dominated by ethnic
Armenians. The 1988-1994 war over the disputed territory claimed the
lives of over 35,000 people. There is only a fragile truce between
Armenia and Azerbaijan at the front line in Mountain Karabakh, still
occupied by Armenia.

In Kirkilas’ words, Armenia, just like Lithuania that was creating
its army several years ago, “understands that there is a lack of
knowledge” and therefore is first of all interested in “investing in
people” — training servicemen, reorganizing army management and
planning, properly organizing military education, gaining experience
in international missions.

“I congratulated Armenia which has sent its troops to the mission in
Iraq now that the situation there remains tense and some allies are
withdrawing their forces,” Kirkilas said. Armenia has sent several
dozen drivers, medics and staff officers to the peace operation in
Iraq and is planning to expand its participation in the mission.

In Kirkilas’ words, Yerevan maintains good relations with Russia,
Iran and Georgia.

“A Russian contingent of 5,000 troops has been deployed in Armenia,
which Armenia considers to be one of ‘deterrent factors’,” Kirkilas
said.

During the visit to Yerevan, Kirkilas met with Armenian Prime
Minister Andranik Margaryan, Defense Minister Serzh Sargsyan, Foreign
Minister Vardan Oskanyan, parliament officials and the Catholicos of
all Armenians Karekin II.

Kirkilas and Sargsyan signed an agreement on further studies of
Armenian officials at a captain course at the Lithuanian Military
Academy. Since 2003, 4 Armenian officers have attended the captain
course at the LMA. Another 4 Armenian officers are scheduled to
attend the course in Vilnius this year.

For several years, Lithuania’s Defense Ministry has been implementing
an initiative aimed at sharing the Baltic states’ experience in the
military field — armed forces modernization, legal base development
— with South Caucasus countries.

In addition to the LMA captain course, Lithuania pays for the studies
of an Armenian officer at the Baltic Defense College in Tartu,
Estonia.

Armenia has been involved in the Partnership for Peace program since
1994.

Vilnius newsroom, +370 5 2681508, [email protected]

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
April 8, 2005, Friday

THE CIS ANTI-AIRCRAFT SYSTEM VERSUS RUSSIAN MISSILE CARRIERS

SOURCE: Kommersant, April 6, 2005, p. 10
by Ivan Safronov

Combined exercises were conducted in the sky of eight CIS nations on
April 5. The Tu-160, Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3 bombers of the Russian
strategic aviation (the 22nd air division) were relocated from Russia
to Belarus. They simulated the flight of enemy bombers, which
Belarusian anti-aircraft units had to intercept during the exercise
of the CIS anti-aircraft system. Correspondent Ivan Safronov observed
the exercise from the Central command post located in the town of
Zarya, the Moscow region.

The exercise began at 10:00 a.m. Moscow time over Russia, Armenia,
Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine.
The command set very difficult tasks. Colonel-General Boris Cheltsov,
Chief of the Central Staff of the Russian Air Force, said that almost
60 warplanes were involved in the maneuvers. General of the Army
Vladimir Mikhailov, Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force,
controlled the exercise from the Central command post located in
Tajikistan.

The Central Staff of the Russian Air Force decided to combine these
maneuvers with the exercise of the CIS anti-aircraft system. The
Tu-160, Tu-95MS and Tu-22M3 bomber of the 22nd air division moved
from Russia to Belarus, simulating the flight of enemy warplanes.

They were intercepted by Belarusian anti-aircraft units thanks to the
A-50 long-range radio-locating surveillance plane. Two Tu-95MS and
two Tu-160 bombers landed on the Machulishi airfield near Minsk. Four
Tu-22M3 bombers landed in Baranovichi.

In addition, the military organized a hypothetical skyjacking of a
warplane. At first Russia’s Su-24 warplane played the role of the
skyjacked plane. After that a Belarusian warplane was “skyjacked”.
Fighters forced both warplanes to land. Belarusian Su-24 took off
from the Ros airfield near Gomel and landed on the Siverskaya
airfield in the Leningrad region. Russian warplanes flew from Russia
to Belarus. Several MiG-31 fighters of the Kazakh Air Force and
Russian fighters from Karaganda took off in order to intercept them.
The Russian group landed in Karaganda, and the Kazakh fighters
visited Novosibirsk after accomplishing their tasks.

In addition, the Russian airbase in Kant (Kyrgyzstan) and Russian
anti-aircraft units deployed in Armenia and Tajikistan were involved
in the exercise. It should be noted that three A-50 long-range
radio-locating surveillance planes participated in the maneuvers.
They flew over Belarus and Tajikistan. Georgia did not let one A-50
plane fly over its territory to Armenia. Colonel-General Boris
Cheltsov said, “This is why the plane had to solve its task over the
North-Caucasian region. However, this did not worsen the results.”

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
April 11, 2005, Monday

ARMENIANS ATTACKED AZERBAIJAN’S POSITIONS IN THE AGDAM AND TERTER
DISTRICTS

The Armenian Armed Forces opened fire at Azerbaijan’s positions near
the villages of Bashgervand and Chyragly in the Agdam district. The
fire was opened from Armenia’s positions located south-east from this
village. Armenians attacked Azerbaijan’s positions near the village
of Gapanly in the Terter district on April 7 02:20 a.m. The attackers
were located north-west from the village of Seisulan. Azerbaijan’s
positions located near the villages of Akhmedagly and Ortagervand,
the Agdam district, were attacked on April 8 at 03:30 a.m. The
attackers used assault rifles and machine guns. Azerbaijanian
servicemen had to open fire. There are no casualties. The report
comes from the press service of the Defense Ministry.

Source: TUran information agency (Baku), April 8, 2005

Translated by Alexander Dubovoi

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Los Angeles Times
April 11, 2005 Monday
Home Edition

Commentary;
Don’t Write Off the Turks;
Ankara isn’t anti-American; it’s independent.

Graham E. Fuller

Who lost Turkey? That’s the theme of a rash of articles in the U.S.
press over the last two months. Apparently, there’s a growing
consensus in Washington that our old ally has been gradually becoming
more anti-American.

In 2003, Turkey denied Washington the use of Turkish bases only
months before the war on Iraq began. Just recently, Vice President
Dick Cheney blamed Turkey’s noncooperation for many of the problems
today with Iraqi insurgents.

A number of critics have pointed to the rise of anti-American public
sentiment in Turkey over the last two years: The Marshall Fund found
that 82% of the Turkish public was hostile to the U.S., one of the
highest figures anywhere, especially for a NATO ally. A recent
bestselling Turkish fictional thriller, “Metal Storm,” portrays a
U.S. war against Turkey. The Islam-oriented government in Ankara has
harshly criticized close U.S. ally Israel for its occupation policies
in the West Bank. And Turkey does not concur with Washington’s
efforts to pressure Iran and Syria.

Although these events indeed represent a new Turkish reality, it
would be erroneous — indeed dangerous — to assume that Turkey’s
widespread opposition to many of the Bush administration’s policies
are symptomatic of a broader strategic hostility. And it would be
exceptionally shortsighted for U.S. policymakers to argue that the
democratically elected moderate Islamist government in Turkey is not
sufficiently pro-American or that it should be pressured to change
its leadership.

In reality, U.S. interests — in the broader scheme of things — have
been exceptionally well-served by this Turkish government, which has
brought broad democratic reforms to the country as part of its
explicit commitment to gain European Union membership. Turkey has
taken positive steps toward relieving Kurdish dissatisfaction and has
moved to improve relations with all of its neighbors, including
longtime opponent Armenia. The economy is moving forward, and
inflation is way down.

The Turkish public, including those with no special desire for
Islamist policies, find the performance of this government to be
generally on the right track; politics have been more stable than any
other time in the last decade. Most interesting, several of Turkey’s
Arab neighbors are paying attention to its experience in producing a
competent Islam-oriented government — one that can be proudly
independent yet democratic, reformist and a candidate for EU
membership. Nothing could be a more positive model for the rest of
the region.

It is true that since the end of the Cold War, Turkey’s reliance on
U.S. leadership in foreign policy has declined sharply — as it has
in most of the rest of the world, including Western Europe. Ankara is
no longer automatically acquiescent to following the U.S. lead,
especially when it believes that U.S. policies run counter to Turkish
national interests. U.S. policy in Iraq, Iran and Syria is seen by
Turkey as adventuristic and needlessly destabilizing to Turkish
interests.

Right now, opposition to U.S. policies is the nearest thing to a
national consensus in Turkey. Major elements across the political
spectrum — Turkey’s strong secularists, nationalists, Kemalists and
leftists — are even more harshly critical of Washington than the
government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Efforts by
Washington to intimidate a popular, representative Turkish government
or to bring it in line with U.S. government policies will almost
surely backfire. In the new world order, unilateralism has its
limits. Turkey is not lost to us; we just need to take a more
realistic view of the limits of our own power, be sensitive to the
risks of ignoring other states’ nationalist feelings and interests,
and adopt a longer-term, more enlightened view of our own interests.
Turkey is doing fine.

Graham E. Fuller is a former chairman of the National Intelligence
Council at the CIA. His latest book is “The Future of Political
Islam” (Palgrave 2003).

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part B (Russia)
April 11, 2005, Monday

THE ARITHMETIC OF THE CIS COLLECTIVE SECURITY TREATY ORGANIZATION

SOURCE: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, April 11, 2005, p. 10

by Vladimir Mukhin

Last week, the Russian Armed Forces performed a series of military
maneuvers in a number of key CIS regions. April 5 was the date of
command-staff exercises for the CIS Unified Air Defense System, which
has ten official members: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Ukraine. Georgia did not
participate in these exercises. Another two countries – Ukraine and
Uzbekistan – participated on a bilateral basis with Russia. Thus, the
combined exercises actually involved only the six countries that are
members of the CIS Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).
The coalition’s aircraft performed more than 60 flights over the
territories of CSTO member states. At the same time, the active phase
of the Border 2005 international exercises took place in Central
Asia; attended by Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, CSTO Secretary
General Nikolai Bordiuzha, and other influential military commanders
and officials from CIS military-political bodies.

The scale of these events is noteworthy. Nevertheless, the orginal
plans for the command-staff exercises and Border 2005 were obviously
cut back in terms of duration, goals, and objectives. Thus, the
flights from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia were linked to the
actions of the CIS Collective Rapid Response Forces (CRRF), which
were training at the Liaur and Eshak-Maidon firing ranges in
Tajikistan. The Border 2005 exercises involved a total of around a
thousand military personnel and 300 items of military hardware.
Kazakhstan was represented by a company of paratroopers and a group
of fighter-bombers; Kyrgyzstan sent a group of special forces
commandos and two Mi-8 helicopters; Russia sent a group of special
forces commandos, the 303rd helicopter squadron, the 670th aviation
group, the 999th aviation base, two Il-76 aircraft, and the 201st
division; Tajikistan sent a unit of paratroopers with supplies.

It’s immediately apparent that Russia’s presence was the most
substantial. This doesn’t seem to be accidental. As the task of
guarding the Afghanistan border is transferred to Tajikistan, the
role of Russia’s 201st mobile artillery division, to be transformed
into the 4th military base, will grow. Moscow intends to entrench its
military presence in Tajikistan. Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov,
visiting Tajikistan for the Border 2005 exercises, stated that 250
million rubles is being allocated in 2005 for developing Russia’s 4th
military base in Tajikistan. Over the next two or three years, 1.124
billion rubles will be spent on setting up military infrastructure in
Tajikistan. Note that this is a great deal of money – comparable to
the entire defense budget of Tajikistan, which spends around 1.2
billion rubles on defense each year, or 1.7% of its GDP.

In addition to setting up land-based infrastructure, Moscow and
Dushanbe have agreed to equip an air base near the town of Aini (30
kilometers from Dushanbe). During Ivanov’s visit, Tajikistan issued
an instruction to transfer the Okno optics and electronics complex in
Nurek to Russia. Evidently, Russia is attempting to establish a
substantial, long-term military presence in Tajikistan.

Vladimir Popov, a defense analyst from the Military Sciences Academy:
“In order to reduce costs, Moscow is moving away from the
Tajikistan-Afghanistan border, while simultaneously spending quite a
lot of money on equipping its military base in Tajikistan. This
doesn’t seem entirely logical. The Armed Forces can hardly establish
a reliable shield against drug trafficking, which is now the main
threat to Russia and other CIS countries.”

According to Popov, Russia’s military policy towards its CSTO allies
is understandable, to some extent. Moscow is spending money on
military infrastructure in other countries besides Tajikistan. It
allocates over 100 million rubles a year for the Russia airbase at
Kant in Kyrgyzstan. Almost a billion rubles has been spent on the
military infrastructure for the 102nd military base in Armenia. The
Russia-Belarus Union budget allocates substantial funding for joint
defense efforts. Of course, Moscow understands that it can uphold its
interests in the former Soviet Union by means of considerable
spending. But does this military spending always pay off in political
dividends, and promote Russia’s plans?

The collapse of the Akayev regime in Kyrgyzstan, the “color
revolutions” in Georgia and Ukraine, and the failure in Moldova have
substantially undermined Russia’s ability to influence the situation
in a number of regions within the CIS. Kiev already intends to revise
some points in the Sevastopol lease agreement; once again, the
Russian-Ukrainian border in the Azov-Kerch strait is being
questioned. Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin has referred to
Russian peacekeepers as occupation forces; the Georgian parliament is
demanding an immediate withdrawal of Russian military bases from
Georgia.

And here’s one final example. During the command-staff exercises for
the CIS Unified Air Defense System, Georgia forced a slight change in
the planned scenario when it refused to allow a Russian spy plane to
fly over Georgian territory to Armenia.

Of late, Russia has stepped up its military activities in the former
Soviet Union; but these activities need to be appropriate to Russia’s
foreign policy goals. This is axiomatic for any state. Sooner or
later, Russia’s leaders will have to face up to it. Russia appears to
be developing muscles – but for some reason, certain countries still
don’t respect Russia.

Translated by Alexander Dubovoi

The Gazette (Montreal)
April 10, 2005 Sunday
Final Edition

Events were tragic – but not genocide: Accusations are unfair.
Condemnation by Canadian Parliament was politically motivated

GERARD EMIN BATTIKA, Freelance

Members of the Turkish Canadian community have asked me to convey
their concerns and points of view about the alleged Armenian genocide
of 1915 and its recognition by the Canadian Parliament a year ago.

Unfortunately, Parliament acted as judge and jury. The vote on the
emotionally charged issue was not unanimous. Members of the cabinet
and several MPs voted against the resolution. The government said it
was non-binding and would not change Canada’s attitude toward the
republic of Turkey and the Turkish nation.

For our part, we were deeply offended to see that our ancestors were
accused of having been genocidal. In our opinion, Parliament’s
decision was politically motivated. After all, Armenians outnumber us
in Canada, and have been here longer.

Last April, Jeffrey Simpson of the Globe and Mail described the
Parliament’s move as “unnecessary, irresponsible and provocative.” He
accused the politicians of being “influenced by Armenian and Greek
descendants in their districts.”

The charge of Armenian genocide is a complex and multi-dimensional
question. Nicholas S. Ludington, senior associate of the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, describes the issue as “a swamp of
disputed historical facts.” In fact, it is the subject of genuine
debate among historians.

The disputed events have their roots in the 19th century when the
Ottoman Empire began to unravel. Armenians, seeking independence and
territory. co-

operated with the enemies of the empire. Their attacks against
officials sparked bloody clashes. Sadly, agitations, uprisings, harsh
measures and counter-attacks escalated for several years and turned
into a very serious situation during World War I.

At the time, the Ottoman Empire was in agony. In 1914, Ottoman
Armenian revolutionary groups formed voluntary units, set fire to
houses in eastern Anatolia and rose up in the rear of the Turkish
army, cutting it off from its base of supplies.

Armenian insurgents fought on the side of the invading Russian forces
and killed large numbers of Muslims to provoke retaliation.

Armenians maintain that only their losses were immense. They
consistently allege that agents of the Ottoman state killed unarmed
Armenian civilians. Survivors and independent historians state that
the rebels were well equipped with guns and ammunition. In our
opinion, neither side was blameless. Both sides have accounts to
reconcile.

As clashes continued in 1915, the Ottoman Empire decided to relocate
the Armenians from eastern Anatolia to Aleppo, Mosul and parts of
today’s Syria and Lebanon, thus clearing the war area and hinterland
of a disloyal group of people.

The text of relocation orders issued by the authorities was very
specific. All precautions were to be taken in order to guarantee the
safety of the relocatees. Officials were warned about tensions
between the Armenians and the Muslims, including the Kurds.

But unfortunately, the state mechanism collapsed. The displaced
Armenians became targets of lawlessness. Revenge-seeking tribes,
inadequate containment, involvement of Christian and Muslim deserters
and irregulars, as well as famine, sickness and harsh conditions
complicated the process.

It should be noted that the Ottoman government severely punished
those officials responsible for the sporadic killings, sending some
of them to the gallows.

It should also be noted that Ottoman Armenians living in Istanbul and
western Turkey were not affected at all, and that in 1918, the
Ottoman Empire granted permission to the displaced to return to their
homes. Thousands of them did.

In 1920, Armenians abandoned their claims on Turkey and proclaimed
the Republic of Armenia in the Caucasus as part of the Soviet Union.
In 1922, the Ottoman Empire faded into history.

The Republic of Turkey was founded in 1923.More than 100,000 Turkish
citizens of Armenian descent live in today’s Turkey. They are
hard-working, well-liked people who make valuable contributions to
that beautiful country.

Regardless of accusations and counter-accusations surrounding the
conflicts between the Turks and the Armenians, we sincerely express
our feelings of regret over the sad events that took place 90 years
ago and which culminated in the death of large numbers of Turks and
Armenians alike.

We also regret that members of the Armenian diaspora are
misinterpreting those events by labelling them a genocide. We feel
that even the death of one Armenian or one Turk was too many. Turks
and Armenians had lived under the same flag for several centuries.

As Turkish Canadians, we reiterate our wish to see the establishment
of peaceful and healthy dialogue between the Armenians and the Turks.

We also reiterate our desire to see the formation of a joint group of
historians to conduct scholarly research on the issue, under the
light of fairness and within the framework of international law.

Gerard Emin Battika is honorary consul-general of Turkey in Montreal.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Ottawa Citizen
April 6, 2005 Wednesday
Final Edition

Rwanda’s sad chapter remembered

by Jennifer Campbell, The Ottawa Citizen

It’s been 11 years since the Rwandan genocide, and only now are the
images of terror reaching wide audiences through films such as Hotel
Rwanda and books such as Romeo Dallaire’s Shake Hands with the Devil.

Rwandan Ambassador Eugene Munyakayanza will be front and centre this
week, as his embassy kicks off the 11th commemoration of the 1994
genocide. Mr. Munyakayanza, who arrived in Ottawa in November, was an
educator in Rwanda in 1994 when the militia group known as
Interahamwe began a killing rampage that, in three months, left
800,000 bodies in its wake. Mr. Munyakayanza said he was powerless
during the genocide, adding that he, too, lost “many family members.”

“People were complete animals,” he said. “People lost their friends,
their brothers. It was a denial for human rights.”

Mr. Munyakayanza said the commemoration ceremony is important because
humanity has told itself “never again” too many times. He pointed out
that the phrase was uttered in 1915 after the Armenian genocide and
again in 1945 after the Jewish Holocaust.

“Those were followed by genocide in Rwanda,” he said, adding that the
international community must be made aware of the power of
intervention, a message so frequently and fervently put forward by
Canada’s Lt.-Gen. Dallaire.

“It is also important that the Canadian community be made aware of
the needs of the victims of the genocide,” Mr. Munyakayanza said,
“but also the needs of Rwanda to heal the wounds of the genocide.”

The commemoration, called “Remembering and combatting genocide
ideology in and outside Rwanda,” starts tomorrow at noon with an
opening ceremony at the Centennial Flame on Parliament Hill.
Following bagpipes and a moment of silence, MP Don Boudria and the
ambassador will give speeches. A representative from HUMURA, an
organization that helps genocide survivors, will also speak.

That evening, at Saint Paul University (6:30 in the amphitheatre, 223
Main St.), Francoise Nduwimana, a human rights and international
development lecturer at the Universite du Quebec in the Outaouais,
will speak on the crimes committed against women, the “forgotten
victims” of the genocide.

Friday from 6 p.m. to 1 a.m., a traditional Rwandan mourning ceremony
will be held at Pere Arthur Guertin Community Centre (16 Beriault St.
in Gatineau). The event will pay tribute to the victims of the
genocide through testimonies, songs and poems. Saturday’s program (at
Library and Archives Canada, 395 Wellington St.) is from 12:45 p.m.
until 7 p.m. Lt.-Gen. Dallaire will speak at 3 p.m. The nine-day
commemoration ends April 16 with a closing ceremony at the Maison du
Citoyen (25 Laurier St., Gatineau). The former president of AVEGA,
the Association of Genocide Widows Agahozo in Rwanda, will speak at 4
p.m.

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
April 11, 2005, Monday

A CASUS BELLI IS EVIDENT

SOURCE: Voyenno-Promyshlenny Kurier, No. 12, April 6-12, 2005, p. 3

by Dzhasur Mamedov

The ceasefire was violated on the line where the Azerbaijani &
Armenian forces contact some 45 times over the past two months alone.
It should be reminded that the reciprocal treaty, which ceased the
military phase of the conflict due to Nagorny Karabakh, has been in
effect since 1994. If the situation was extremely tense until 1997,
and resumption of military operations was expected every day, the
situation changed noticeably in 1997-2005. One may assert, though,
that the majority of Azerbaijanis are confident the war will be
resumed. For instance, a poll done in Baku of late indicates: some
60% of young men say the Karabakh problem could only be adjusted by
use of weapons. Only 30% believe peaceful settlement is possible.

At this time, the ceasefire is being mainly violated in the Agdam,
Terter, Fizuli and Kazakh districts, as a rule on mornings and
evenings. The fusillade is heard from both sides.

The “seasonal nature” of skirmishes is clear too: they are aggravated
twice a year – from September to December and from February to March.
According to observers, this is not accidental. This is how each side
determines the public response both to the peace talks and resumption
of the war.

According to military experts, the losses of the Azerbaijani and
Armenian troops have been the largest of late. It should be noted
that 8 troopers were killed and one more wounded in the Azerbaijani
armed forces in February-March 2003, against the background of 6
kills and 7 wounded servicemen over the same period of 2004. Quite
often, this wasn’t a result of attacks from the direction of Armenia.
Figures for February-March 2005 differ: 30 Azerbaijani servicemen
killed and 40 wounded, mainly by bullets of Armenian shooters. In
addition, 3 Azerbaijani servicemen got captured by Armenians in
February 2005. The liberation talks are fruitless so far.

At the same time, 20 Armenian troopers were killed too, independent
sources say (neither official Baku, nor official Yerevan provide
exact casualties). Thus, the several past months have been murderous
for both sides involved in the conflict.

Meanwhile, the idea of resuming the war is in the air. Attempts of
preparing public opinion for it are noted in both countries. Over the
course of conversations with military experts, political consultants
and journalists in the past two months, I am certain that these
well-informed people are not confident that real battles won’t occur
soon. Moreover, many of them maintain that the situation on the line
of Azerbaijani-Armenian confrontation is likely to exacerbate.

Undoubtedly, statements by Foreign Minister Elmar Mamedyarov of
Azerbaijan are optimistic. In his opinion, some forces are “seeking
escalation” to annul success of the peace talks. “However, similar
cases are natural when rapprochement is evident in actions of both
sides,” Mamedyarov noted.

Harsh statements by Baku and Yerevan officials thicken the tension.
For instance, Colonel General Safar Abiyev, defense minister of
Azerbaijan, has said of late that “the war will continue when the
peace is absent” and warned the opposite side that Azerbaijani
positions along the frontline would be strengthened. Answering
questions of reporters Abiyev didn’t rule out that large-scale
military operations might begin.

Colonel Ramiz Melikov, press secretary of the Azerbaijani Defense
Ministry stated of late, “We call Armenians for leaving our lands. If
Armenia offers resistance, it will face adequate retaliation and
we’ll reclaim our territories.” The colonel still hopes that the
conflict could be solved peacefully. However, “other versions will
have to be used if the potential of talks gets below 5%.”

According tothe Azerbaijani Defense Ministry, the strain on the
frontline has three causes. Colonel Melikov enumerated them: firstly,
because PACE recognized Armenia as an aggressor nation and the forces
operating in Nagorny Karabakh – as separatist forces. Secondly,
“revealed have been the plans of Armenian settlement in Karabakh and
other occupied territories while OSCE did its monitoring.” Thirdly,
outrage and lack of discipline reigns in the Armenian troops
stationed in the occupied territories. “The latest events clearly
reflect the point of what I’m saying: each Armenian soldier who gets
weapons in his hands is striving to get our positions under fire,”
says Melikov.

However, statements by President Ilham Aliyev are more significant.
In his opinion, tension on the ceasefire line is another provocation
of Armenia. He noted that if Armenians change for the offensive, it
will be retaliated immediately.

(…) Aliyev noted with regard to the latest local passages of arms
that the war may begin any moment now, but corrected himself right
away, “We are yet to build up a developed economy and strong army
before launching the war.”

Yerevan gives an adequate reply, “The Armed Forces of Azerbaijan were
seeking destabilization of the situation, which results in various
incidents,” says Serzhik Sarkisyan, defense minister of Armenia. In
his words, “the one who has at least the slightest idea of the
essence of this conflict realizes that developing or approximating
its positions is senseless for Armenia, since it occupied the
advantageous positions in 1994. Therefore, no matter how long
Azerbaijani spokesmen might say that Armenia is violating the
armistice, this is all lies.”

Asked whether or not local skirmishes will develop into more serious
collisions, Sarkisyan stated that it is unlikely to be ruled out.

In their turn, heads of armed groups in unrecognized Nagorny Karabakh
hold the opinion that frequent skirmishes result in actions of
subversive groups from Azerbaijan. This is how the “Azerbaijani side
is trying to move its positions,” they say. However, “any attempts of
the opposed party to impair the security in Karabakh will be
suppressed.”

Unfortunately, leaders of various nongovernmental organizations come
out with harsh statements. Thus, Akif Nagi, chairman of the Karabakh
Liberation Organization (OOK) told us, “Azerbaijan must deny peace
talks with Armenia in the adjustment of the Karabakh conflict.”
According to Nagi, OOK has already prepared its platform for
liberating Nagorny Karabakh by force.

Nagi thinks a dangerous trend is observed in Azerbaijani society now:
the authorities, the opposition and ordinary citizens are displaying
indifference to the Karabakh problem. According to Nagi, widespread
in Azerbaijan is the following formula for settlement of the Karabakh
conflict, “If the peace talks fail, our country will solve the
problem by force.” “This is a dangerous standing. The recent events
indicate that Armenia has no intention to liberate the Azerbaijani
area it has occupied,” Nagi stressed.

He noted that Azerbaijan must deny the abovementioned settlement
formula and choose to solve the problem by use of force. According to
Nagi, each Azerbaijani must wear a military uniform and fight for
liberation of the occupied territories.

Nagi said that Azerbaijani authorities must pass a certain decision
and declare to the world that our country is preparing for a war.

However, says Alekper Mamedov, director of the Azerbaijani Center for
Democratic Control over the Army, official Baku must suppress all
attempts of undermining the fragile peace in Trans-Caucasia.
“Azerbaijani diplomacy now has an opportunity to solve the problem
peacefully. This is why it must be very tolerant. If the political
approach yields no required results, this is when military solution
of the conflict must be considered,” the expert says.

Meanwhile, the law on mobilization and mobilization of reserves must
be discussed at the spring session of the Azerbaijani parliament. The
practice of military assemblies is likely to be revived in the
country. However, Ziyafat Askerov, chairman of the parliamentary
defense & security commission has no intention to regard similar
measures as preparations for war. Nevertheless, says Askerov, the
country must be prepared for it, since the Azerbaijani territory is
occupied.

The general conclusion of Azerbaijani experts is as follows: if the
tension doesn’t subside at the ceasefire line in a short time,
military operations might be resumed – first locally and in May-June
2005 we might have to witness the start of a new Armenian-Azerbaijani
war.