Georgia, Azerbaijan discuss border demarcation

Messenger.ge, Georgia
Tuesday, March 29, 2005, #056 (0830)

News in brief:

Georgia, Azerbaijan discuss border demarcation

A two-day meeting of the Azerbaijani-Georgian Commission for Delimitation of
the Azerbaijan/Georgia border began in Tbilisi on Monday, Black Sea Press
reports.
The sides will continue working on establishing the coordinates of the
interstate border, only 40 percent of which has so far been agreed.
Garib Mamedov, the chairman of the Azeri State Committee for Land and
Cartography, said that the sides had prepared a topographic map of border
sections that had been discussed by the countries. He added that of 24
sections on the border under discussion agreement had been achieved
regarding only five of them.
Mamedov stated that Azerbaijan was not prepared to cede that part of the
Keshish-Dag territory on which a monastery complex stands, as Azerbaijan
considers it to be of strategic importance: from there Azerbaijani, Georgian
and Armenian territory can be seen.

Meeting for Demarcation of Border Between Azerbaijan and Georgia

MEETING OF BILATERAL COMMISSION FOR DEMARCATION OF BORDER BETWEEN
AZERBAIJAN AND GEORGIA

TBILISI. MARCH 28. ARMINFO-BLACK SEA PRESS. Today a two-day meeting of
the Azerbaijanian-Georgian Commission for Delimitation of the
Azerbaijan/Georgia border began in Tbilisi, the Azerbaijanian State
Committee for Land and Cartography reports. The sides will continue
working on coordinating the coordinates of the interstate border.
Garib Mamedov, the chairman of the State Committee for Land and
Cartography, said that the sides had prepared a topographic map of
border sections that had been discussed by the countries. He added
that of 24 sections on the Azerbaijanian-Georgian border under
discussion by the sides agreement had been achieved only on five of
them.

He said that part of the Keshish-Dag territory on which monastery
complex is belonged to Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is not going to cede it
to Georgia, as it is of strategic importance. From there territories
of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia are well seen. Presently the exact
border extension between Georgia and Azerbaijan had been coordinated
by about 40%.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Turkey Refuses To Provide Armavia Plane With Air Corridor

TURKEY REFUSES TO PROVIDE ARMAVIA PLANE WITH AIR CORRIDOR

YEREVAN, MARCH 28. ARMINFO. Mar 25 Turkey refused to provide air
corridor to an Armavia plane flying from Aleppo to Yerevan.

Armavia PR executive Garik Siroyan says that as a result the plane was
forced to fly via Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

When flying to Europe Armavia uses alternative directions via Russia
and Ukraine which is more expensive than to fly via Turkey.

Turkey said that it had technical reasons for the ban and Monday
allowed to use its air space till the end of this year.

This is not the first time though. When being the national air carrier
of Armenia the Armenian Airlines company repeatedly faced similar
problems.

After Kyrgyzstan

The Messenger
Tuesday, March 29, 2005, #056 (0830)

After Kyrgyzstan

For Georgia, democratic change in other CIS countries can be regarded as
wholly positive

The recent upheaval in Kyrgyzstan cannot be described exactly as a velvet
revolution in the mold of the recent revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine,
although there were clearly some similarities, and the precedent set in
Tbilisi and Kiev doubtless played a part in the events that unfolded in
Bishkek.

Several analysts suggested after Ukraine’s Orange Revolution that Kyrgyzstan
might be the next contender to be affected by the “wave of liberation” that
Saakashvili and Yushchenko described back in January as rolling across
post-Soviet space. And although instability and uncertainty have taken hold
of Kyrgyzstan and it is far from clear what will be the final outcome there,
already some commentators have turned their attention elsewhere and are
speculating which country will be next. Given that Armenia and Azerbaijan
have both been mentioned in this context, this is clearly of importance for
Georgia.

2003 was a year of elections for the three countries of the South Caucasus.
In Armenia President Kocharian won re-election in the presidential poll,
while his party came out on top in the parliamentary. In Azerbaijan,
meanwhile, the presidential election was won by Heidar Aliev’s son Ilham.
The opposition in both countries failed, and although election observers
condemned the elections as marred by irregularities, the results stood. The
same was expected in Georgia, but here the events developed very
differently, the people taking to the streets in protest at the falsified
elections, bringing about the first velvet revolution in post-Soviet space.

Since then governments relying on the falsification of elections to ensure
their longevity have been ousted in Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, while democratic
steps have been taken in Moldova, and the possibility of change in other CIS
countries seems all the greater.

Many analysts believe that there is a real possibility of democratic change
in Armenia, where the 2003 elections were condemned as fraudulent. The
internal political situation there has changed as a direct result of the
revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia, and many believe that the government
will not again be able to get away with falsifying the elections, although
as German Foundation of Scientific and Political Development Uwe Halbach
notes, “The only problem in Armenia is that they do not have a Saakashvili
who will be able to mobilize the country and change it in a peaceful way,”
as quoted by Rezonansi. Should Armenia find an opposition leader behind whom
they can unite, this would pose a serious threat to the current
administration.

In Azerbaijan, meanwhile, the various opposition parties are planning to
unite to fight the parliamentary elections slated for this autumn. Ilham
Aliev, who was able to win the 2003 presidential election only by
manipulating the process, will be under severe pressure, although, as in
Armenia, whether the opposition will be able to organize themselves to
capitalize on the expected electoral irregularities remains to be seen. As
in Georgia and Ukraine, much will depend on Western election observers to
quickly provide an objective opinion on the fairness and openness of the
election process.

One important factor here is that the opposition parties in Ukraine and
Georgia were notably western-oriented, and both Yushchenko and Saakashvili
have expressed their desire to lead their countries into NATO and the
European Union. In Armenia, in particular, such a western-orientated
government coming to power is made less likely by the Nagorno-Karabakh
issue; but some analysts believe that the continuing existence of the frozen
conflict makes a velvet revolution less likely.

For Georgia, democratic change in other CIS countries can be regarded as
wholly positive. Following the Rose Revolution, Georgia was more or less
isolated within the CIS, but since the Orange revolution it has gained an
important ally with similar problems and goals in Ukraine. Velvet
revolutions elsewhere, Georgians hope, will lead to the creation of more
friends.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Easter Sunday in the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin

PRESS RELEASE
Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, Information Services
Address: Vagharshapat, Republic of Armenia
Contact: Rev. Fr. Ktrij Devejian
Tel: (374 1) 517 163
Fax: (374 1) 517 301
E-Mail: [email protected]
March 28, 2005

Resurrected is Christ,
Resurrected is the Armenian Nation. –
His Holiness Karekin II

Easter Sunday in the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin

On Sunday, March 27, the Feast of the Glorious Resurrection of Our Lord
Jesus Christ was celebrated by the Holy Armenian Apostolic Church in
dioceses, parishes and communities throughout the world.

In Holy Etchmiadzin, the worldwide headquarters of the Armenian Church and
the Mother Cathedral of all Armenians, the morning began with the solemn
pontifical procession entering the ancient cathedral, where His Holiness
Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians, began the
celebration of the Pontifical Divine Liturgy on the most significant day of
the year.

Assisting His Holiness at the Holy Altar were His Grace Bishop Yeznik
Petrossian, Director of Inter-Church Relations, and His Grace Bishop Arshak
Khatchatrian, Chancellor of the Mother See.

During the service, His Holiness addressed his message to Armenians
throughout the world on the occasion of Holy Easter, where he noted:

“.Resurrected is Christ! Sin has been expiated upon the cross.
Irreversible hopelessness and fear, like the chains of death, have forever
been shattered. Life is emanating from the tomb and the all-conquering hope
of salvation and everlasting life are shining. God is wondrously glorified
and glorified is man, because Christ submitted Himself to the cross and was
resurrected, so that life stained through human sin be renewed and restored
in its aim, in its true course towards God. .Christ brought to man the
perfect example of filial obedience to the Will of the Heavenly Father,
declaring that mankind’s highest aspiration is to choose the providential
and saving Will of God.

“Indeed, dear ones, through the choice of the Will of God, mankind will be
able to reject and prevent Der-Zor and Holocaust, reject and prevent
September 11 and Beslan, to see paths free of wars and violence, and to find
the just and luminous fraternal avenues among nations. Hope is alive upon
those roads, the hope of life, progress and the future. Today and always,
the opportunities of man, his choices and decisions, shall be directed to
the care of the world and humanity, just as the Creator’s Fatherly care is
towards His creation. Along with the crucified and resurrected Savior, we
are His collaborators in saving, through which we have life and have it
abundantly.”

His Holiness, reflecting on the significance of the Resurrection for the
Armenian people and nation, noted: “Holy Etchmiadzin, established through
the shower of light of the Resurrection, is the soul of all Armenians; the
rejuvenated soul of the nation, surviving destructions and deaths throughout
the centuries of history. Our people have not seen the empty tomb of
Christ, but together with Christ, they have often seen the emptiness of the
graves which had been prepared for them. Together with Christ they wove
glorious crowns of victory. The Armenian cannot deny the Resurrection of
the Christ. Our past and our present are testimony to that Resurrection.
We experienced the Golgotha of the Genocide together with Christ, turning
the most tragic period of our history into a time of victory. Our people,
massacred and bleeding, in heroic struggle, gave birth to their new
statehood. The first Armenian Republic rose from the ashes, as testimony to
the immortal aspiration of our people for the eternal existence of Armenian
statehood. Resurrected is Christ, resurrected is the Armenian Nation.”

The Catholicos of All Armenians called upon the pious faithful to follow the
examples of their luminous forefathers in overcoming all difficulties in
this temporal life, to see the providential love of God beyond material
goods, to believe in the saving mission and strength of the Risen Christ.
“The message of the Feast of Easter is faith. Our resurrected life with the
Redeemer begins with faith, and with faith it strengthens and flourishes.
With faith, self-sacrifice becomes natural, and love for a neighbor becomes
the source of joy and happiness. This is the deep and mysterious miracle of
the Resurrection, always aspiring to eternal heights, to truth, to justice
and to the good. .Beloved Armenians, with the light of your faith turn your
life to glorifying God, so that in all your works, your heartbeat is strong,
your love emanates, and your will for the just, the true and the good is
victorious”, noted His Holiness.

The Pontiff of All Armenians also addressed his greetings, blessings and
congratulations to the Incumbents of the Hierarchal Sees of the Armenian
Church, the entire ranks of clergy, state officials of the Republics of
Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh and the spiritual leaders of Sister Churches.

Present during the Divine Liturgy were Prime Minister of the Republic of
Armenia Andranik Margarian, President of the Constitutional Court of Armenia
Gagik Harutiunian, National Assembly Members and Ministers of the Government
of the Republic of Armenia, ambassadors and the diplomatic corps of foreign
governments, representatives of international organizations in Armenia,
members of the Supreme Spiritual Council, and thousands of faithful from
throughout Armenia, Artsakh and the Diaspora.

At the conclusion of Divine Liturgy, an official reception was held in the
Pontifical Residence during which His Holiness welcomed and congratulated
the guests on the occasion of the Glorious Resurrection of Christ, with the
great tiding: “Christ is Risen from the dead! Blessed is the Resurrection
of Christ.”

Plus victime que moi…

L’Express
28 mars 2005

Plus victime que moi…;
L’oeil du psy – Jacques Sédat

par: Sédat Jacques

Après les peuples et les races élus, va-t-on instaurer des classes de
victimes supérieures à d’autres?

Les dérapages verbaux de Dieudonné, que je m’abstiendrai de citer,
relèvent d’un antisémitisme avéré. Mais, au-delà de l’opposition
entre mémoire coloniale et mémoire juive, on peut analyser ce
phénomène comme l’émergence d’une hiérarchie des victimes, voire
d’une concurrence entre elles.

Ce phénomène, cependant, n’est pas nouveau. Ainsi, déjà à la
Libération, s’instaurait culturellement une forme de communautarisme
des victimes fondé sur une échelle des valeurs. Comme Simone Veil le
rappelait récemment, à leur sortie des camps nazis, les internés
politiques étaient accueillis de façon différente des autres, juifs,
tsiganes, homosexuels, républicains espagnols. Quant aux Noirs,
célébrés par Serge Bilé (Noirs dans les camps nazis, le Serpent à
plumes), ils sont aujourd’hui l’objet d’une polémique. Des historiens
sérieux affirment qu’ils n’ont pas été déportés en tant que Noirs.

Faut-il rappeler que le siècle que nous venons de quitter a constitué
une effroyable fabrique de victimes? Pourtant, la guerre de
1914-1918, la plus meurtrière de l’Histoire, a été largement dépassée
ensuite par les idéologies fasciste, nazie et communiste. Et ce, au
nom de la race élue, de la nation élue, du peuple élu. Certains
génocides n’intéressaient personne: le génocide arménien, le génocide
khmer, les génocides interraciaux en Afrique. Pour qu’on les prenne
en considération, il est capital que les survivants et les
descendants puissent en parler. Les millions de paysans chinois
décimés sous le maoïsme en tant que contre-révolutionnaires n’ont
longtemps inspiré ni pitié ni indignation aux maoïstes français.

Pensons à ces bien-pensants qui choisissaient leurs pauvres, les bons
pauvres, si bien décrits par Mauriac dans La Pharisienne. Nous
n’avons pas fait beaucoup de progrès depuis, sur ce plan-là. Le
nouvel antisémitisme de Dieudonné nous pose une question nouvelle: y
aurait-il un héritage victimaire qui donnerait des droits spéciaux?
Après les peuples et les races élus, va-t-on instaurer des classes de
victimes élues, supérieures à d’autres? Ce serait une triste façon de
tirer les conséquences des leçons de l’Histoire que de reconduire, à
travers l’émergence des communautarismes, l’exaltation d’une race ou
d’une religion comme repérage identificatoire unique et absolutisé.
Comme si la citoyenneté ne suffisait pas à nous situer dans une
commune humanité.

Voyage de Calmy-Rey en Turquie

Schweizerische Depeschenagentur AG (SDA)
SDA – Service de base français
28 mars 2005

Voyage de Micheline Calmy-Rey en Turquie La conseillère fédérale
porte les attentes kurdes et arméniennes

Eclairage Par Julie Zaugg, ats

zj fb

Berne (ats) Le voyage de Micheline Calmy-Rey cette semaine en Turquie
suscite de lourdes attentes de la part des communautés dont le destin
est lié à la Turquie. Les Arméniens et les Kurdes, mais aussi les
défenseurs des droits de l’homme, lui demandent de plaider leur cause
auprès d’Ankara.

Amnesty International (AI) a adressé ces jours une lettre à la cheffe
du Département fédéral des affaires étrangères (DFAE). L’ONG y
déplore qu’Ankara n’ait pas signé le protocole facultatif à la
Convention de l’ONU contre la torture. “Nous apprécierions que vous
interveniez à ce propos auprès de votre homologue turc” Abdullah Gül,
dit la missive.

De même, AI lui demande d’attirer l’attention des autorités turques
sur le cas d’un avocat militant des droits de l’Homme dans la ville
de Tunceli, dans le sud-est kurde, victime de “menaces” de la part de
la gendarmerie locale. Mme Calmy-Rey se rendra dans cette région
mercredi, au deuxième jour de sa visite.

Deux voies

“Le voyage (dans le sud-est kurde) de Mme Calmy-Rey est très
important”, relève Deniz Alkan, porte-parole du Centre kurde des
droits de l’homme de Genève. “Elle verra ainsi ce que les gens sur
place veulent vraiment”, dit-il, soulignant que les Kurdes demandent
le respect de leurs droits fondamentaux, plutôt que l’indépendance
par rapport à la Turquie.

Ankara se trouve dans une “période de transition”, selon M. Alkan.
Confrontée à la volatilité de la situation en Irak – où vivent quatre
millions de Kurdes contre 20 millions en Turquie – et aux condition
posées par l’Union européenne pour son adhésion, la Turquie se doit
de choisir entre une voie pacifique et une voie conflictuelle pour
régler la question kurde, estime-t-il.

Or, la visite de Micheline Calmy-Rey pourrait “aider la Turquie à
faire le bon choix”, pense-t-il. De même, la tradition démocratique
et confédérale de la Suisse pourrait servir d’exemple à la Turquie,
large entité multiethnique. “Les Suisses pourraient jouer un rôle de
pont dans ce conflit”, espère M. Alkan.

Rapport de force

La conseillère fédérale pourrait aussi aborder la question du
génocide arménien avec son homologue turc. Mais Stefan Kristensen, de
l’Association Suisse-Arménie, est sceptique: “le seul langage que la
Turquie comprenne est celui du rapport de force”. A cet égard, l’UE a
un rôle important à jouer, selon lui, car elle détient la “carotte”
de l’ouverture des négociations d’adhésion.

L’ex-conseiller national genevois Jean-Claude Vaudroz, auteur d’un
postulat sur le génocide arménien accepté en 2003 par le Conseil
national, attend de Mme Calmy-Rey qu’elle “informe les autorités
turques du contenu du texte”. Le démocrate-chrétien y voit “une sorte
d’aide” à Ankara, pour qui la question arménienne est “un gros
boulet” au vu de ses ambitions européennes.

Mêmes exigences du côté du popiste vaudois Joseph Zisyadis, à
l’origine d’un premier postulat sur la question qui avait été refusé
par le parlement en 2001. Face à son interlocuteur turc, “Mme
Calmy-Rey doit être ferme sur les droits de l’Homme, les droits
syndicaux et la reconnaissance du génocide arménien”, souligne-t-il.

Le rôle des historiens

A l’inverse, Hatice Yürütücü, représentante de la communauté turque
au sein de la Commission fédérale des étrangers, appelle à ne pas
réduire les problèmes de son pays à la question kurde ou arménienne.
“Il ne faut jamais oublier que la Turquie est plus grande que la
Suisse, que sa géographie et sa culture sont autres et que les
problèmes y sont différents”, poursuit-elle.

Lorsque l’on insiste sur ces deux questions, “c’est comme si on
réduisait toute la Suisse à Zurich”, affirme-t-elle. Elle pense que
Mme Calmy-Rey n’a pas à s’exprimer sur le génocide arménien. “Il
revient aux historiens d’enquêter sur le sujet et de mettre les
choses à plat une bonne fois pour toutes”, note-t-elle.

Oil-for-food: Annan’s job on the line

BBC News

Last Updated: Monday, 28 March, 2005, 13:32 GMT 14:32 UK

Oil-for-food: Annan’s job on the line

By Paul Reynolds
World Affairs correspondent, BBC News website

The future of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan will be on the line with the
publication on Tuesday of a report into the connections between his son,
Kojo, and a company monitoring the Iraqi oil-for-food programme.

The UN leader is already vulnerable

If the report, by a panel headed by Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the
US Federal Reserve, criticises the secretary general, he will come under
renewed pressure to resign, though there is no mechanism to sack him.

His second term runs until the end of next year and he has indicated that he
will not seek an unprecedented third term.

But his aides are hoping that the report will reveal no wrongdoing on Mr
Annan Sr’s part – and that he will survive this episode and go on to lead a
plan to reform the UN laid out in his speech on 21 March.

The issues to be examined by the report, an interim one pending collection
of final figures, are the relationship between Kojo Annan and Swiss company
Cotecna Inspection, and whether Mr Annan himself played any role. He has
denied doing so.

‘Disappointed and surprised’

Cotecna was awarded a contract by the UN in 1998 to monitor the oil-for-food
programme under which Iraq, then under Security Council sanctions, was
allowed to sell oil in order to buy food and medicine.

Cotecna replaced Lloyd’s Register Inspection Ltd as the monitoring agency
checking that only humanitarian supplies were allowed into Iraq.

Interim report into oil-for-food Programme (3.26 MB)
Q&A: Oil-for-food scandal
Annan reform speech

Mr Annan Jr worked for Cotecna before it won the contract, though both he
and the company say that his work was in West Africa and had nothing to do
with Iraq.

A Cotecna spokesman, Seth Goldschlager, was quoted by the Associated Press
on 25 March as saying that Kojo Annan became a consultant to the company
after it was given the UN contract – but that again, this had nothing to do
with oil-for-food.

Kojo Annan was paid the consulting fee, Mr Goldschlager said, after agreeing
not to work for a competing firm in West Africa.

One problem was that Kojo Annan did not tell his father about the continuing
arrangement. Mr Annan himself has said that he was “very disappointed and
surprised” when he learned that his son had continued to be paid by Cotecna
after 1998.

The total amount earned by Kojo Annan was said by the Cotecna spokesman to
be about $365,000.

So far, the revelations about his son have been an embarrassment to Mr Annan
– but the report will indicate whether they become something more serious.

‘Less lynch mob’

The UN leader is already reeling from an earlier report in February by Mr
Volcker that detailed the corruption in the oil-for-food programme.

The report said Benon Sevan’s conduct was “ethically improper”

The Volcker team concluded that the UN official in charge of the programme,
Benon Sevan, from Cyprus, “solicited and received on behalf of AMEP [African
Middle East Petroleum] several million barrels of allocations of oil” from
Iraq and that this “presented a grave and continuing conflict of interest.”

Mr Sevan denied any wrongdoing but Mr Annan said he was “shocked” by the
finding.

It later transpired that funds for Mr Sevan’s legal defence, to the moment
when the Volcker report came out, had themselves come from the residue of
the oil-for-food-project.

The accumulation of scandal and allegation has undermined Mr Annan’s
position.

Some Republicans in the US have been calling for his resignation for some
time. These calls were heightened when Mr Annan, in an interview with the
BBC, called the Iraq invasion “illegal”.

Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman has chaired a Senate committee investing
oil-for-food and said in December: “One conclusion has become abundantly
clear: Kofi Annan should resign.”

Senator Coleman said that his investigation found that “Saddam turned this
programme on its head. Rather than erode his grip on power, the programme
was manipulated by Saddam to line his own pockets and actually strengthen
his position at the expense of the Iraqi people. All of this occurred under
the supposedly vigilant eye of the UN.”

Among Mr Annan’s defenders has been the former British UN ambassador, Lord
David Hannay.

“The United States has many traditions, some good and some bad,” he said.

“The worst of the bad is the lynch mob. The best of the good is due process.
We need more due process and less lynch mob.”

Micheline Calmy-Rey se rend cette semaine en Turquie

SwissInfo / Edicom , Suisse
28 mars 2005

Micheline Calmy-Rey se rend cette semaine en Turquie

BERNE – Le voyage de Micheline Calmy-Rey cette semaine en Turquie
suscite de lourdes attentes de la part des communautés dont le destin
est lié au pays. Les Arméniens et les Kurdes lui demandent notamment
de plaider leur cause auprès d’Ankara.
Amnesty International (AI) a adressé ces jours une lettre à la cheffe
du Département fédéral des affaires étrangères (DFAE). L’ONG y
déplore qu’Ankara n’ait pas signé le protocole facultatif à la
Convention de l’ONU contre la torture. «Nous apprécierions que vous
interveniez à ce propos auprès de votre homologue turc» Abdullah Gül,
dit la missive.
De même, AI lui demande d’attirer l’attention des autorités turques
sur le cas d’un avocat militant des droits de l’Homme dans la ville
de Tunceli, dans le sud-est kurde, victime de «menaces» de la part de
la gendarmerie locale. Mme Calmy-Rey se rendra dans cette région
mercredi, au deuxième jour de sa visite.
«Le voyage (dans le sud-est kurde) de Mme Calmy-Rey est très
important», relève Deniz Alkan, porte-parole du Centre kurde des
droits de l’homme de Genève. «Elle verra ainsi ce que les gens sur
place veulent vraiment», dit-il.
La conseillère fédérale pourrait aussi aborder la question du
génocide arménien avec son homologue turc. Mais Stefan Kristensen, de
l’Association Suisse-Arménie, est sceptique: «Le seul langage que la
Turquie comprenne est celui du rapport de force». A cet égard, l’UE a
un rôle important à jouer, selon lui, car elle détient la «carotte»
de l’ouverture des négociations d’adhésion.
A l’inverse, Hatice Yürütücü, représentante de la communauté turque
au sein de la Commission fédérale des étrangers, appelle à ne pas
réduire les problèmes de son pays à la question kurde ou arménienne.
«Il ne faut jamais oublier que la Turquie est plus grande que la
Suisse, que sa géographie et sa culture sont autres et que les
problèmes y sont différents», poursuit-elle.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

MFA: Statement by FM Oskanian in NA hearings on resolution of NK

–Boundary_(ID_8WwojoJYovtygs3jMFfR8A)
Content-typ e: message/rfc822

From: MFA Press <[email protected]>
Subject: MFA: Statement by FM Oskanian in NA hearings on resolution of NK
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF
THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA
PRESS AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT
Tel.: +3741. 544041 ext 202, Fax: +3741. 562543
E-mail: [email protected],

PRESS RELEASE

29-03-2005

Statement by Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian in Armenian National Assembly
hearings on resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh issue

Thank you. I welcome this opportunity to discuss aloud and together the
history, development, present situation and future prospects for the
resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh issue. I believe the idea is both good
and timely. I believe that such joint, public explorations are useful and
should facilitate a healthy civic debate on premises and prospects, always
with the purpose clearly in mind: that what we seek is a peaceful, lasting
resolution to this conflict.

I’ve looked at the agenda of these two days; the topics and speakers are
very diversified and reflect varying political perspectives and political
forces. Such a diversified spectrum will provide us with a better picture of
the range of opinions in our republic on this issue.

Of course, this is my wish. I hope that those who speak will freely express
their opinions, honestly, and that no one will use this opportunity to
settle political scores. There are dangers in using the Nagorno Karabakh
issue to obtain individual political dividends.

I will try to be as open as possible, to present not just Armenia’s
position, but also our take on those international situations and events
which may effect the Nagorno Karabakh process, our perception of the
adversary’s views, and also the evolution and dynamics of the resolution
process.

Let me start with the last.

Really, we must understand the dynamics and evolution of the process if we
are to understand our situation today and the choices before us.

Let me break down the NK process into stages during which both the format
and nature of the negotiations evolved, as did the content of the discussion
s.

This most recent phase became a conflict, when, in 1988, Azerbaijan used
force to respond to peaceful demonstrations and demands, thus resulting in
military activities. During those early years, there were various
incongruent, uncoordinated, random, impulsive efforts at mediation from
within the former soviet space. These efforts did not turn into a coherent
process, however, and no documents were produced.

In 1992, the resolution process became internationalized. The Conference for
Security and Cooperation in Europe, of which both Armenia and Azerbaijan
were members, took a decision to resolve the issue of Nagorno Karabakh’s
status through a conference in Minsk. As a result, the CSCE Minsk process
was born, with the participation of Nagorno Karabakh. The Russian Federation
continued to remain engaged, often competing with the Minsk Group. At the
same time, the conflict itself extended beyond the borders of Nagorno
Karabakh, when as a result of Azerbaijan’s aggression, Armenian forces were
compelled to bring certain territories under Armenian control, for the
purpose of assuring Nagorno Karabakh’s security. By May 1994, there was a
mutually agreed upon ceasefire, and therefore, a halt to military
activities.

As military activities ceased, the OSCE, at a Summit in Budapest, harmonized
the various negotiation tracks. They created the Minsk Group co-chairs
structure, formalized the negotiation process, and put an end to competition
among the various mediators. Thus the end of militarization coincided with
the creation of a mechanism for serious negotiations.

This cycle of negotiations that has now gone on for over a decade, can be
divided into 4 stages.

– The first stage began with the OSCE Budapest Summit and ended with the
OSCE Lisbon Summit.

– The second stage covered the post-Lisbon period through the change of
presidential administration in Armenia.

– The third stage stretched to the death of Father Aliyev.

– And the fourth stage is the one we’re in now, that started with the
change of administration in Azerbaijan.

In the first stage of the formal process, negotiations revolved around a
document which dealt with eliminating the consequences of the conflict, but
didn’t address the issue of political status of Nagorno Karabakh. During
this period, for the first time, direct negotiations began to take place
between Armenia and Azerbaijan. That is where the process of clarifying
Nagorno Karabakh’s political status began. The decision to commence direct
talks was made at a regular Minsk Group meeting in Bonn, in November 1995.
These talks were also expected to produce an agreed-upon text on the Nagorno
Karabakh issue, to be presented for inclusion in the Lisbon Summit’s
Political Document. Two weeks prior to the Summit, the Azerbaijani side
retreated from this agreement. Further, they went to the Summit, with the
threat of a veto and held all Summit documents hostage until the
Chairman-in-Office was forced to agree to present the Azerbaijani position
in its own statement. This statement outlined principles under which Nagorno
Karabakh was to receive the status of high autonomy. This document had no
legal value, since it was only a chairman’s statement. Nevertheless, Armenia
rejected it.

The significant change in the second stage was that after Lisbon, and as a
result of Lisbon, the Minsk Group process was suspended. The Lisbon Summit
was in December 1996. The first MG meeting to follow Lisbon was held in
March 1997 in Moscow. It was a very short meeting. Azerbaijan insisted that
all further negotiations must be held on the basis of the Lisbon principles.
Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh walked out. What must be noted here is that
when the Minsk Group process was thus suspended, Nagorno Karabakh’s official
participation, too, ceased. I want to stress this: official participation in
the plenary Minsk Group sessions ceased at that time. Otherwise, Nagorno
Karabakh has continued to be an active participant.

Following the disruption of the Minsk Group process, two distinct proposals
were presented to the sides: In May 97, a package solution was offered,
dealing with all issues, including status, but based on Lisbon principles.
Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh naturally rejected that proposal. In September
97, the co-chairs, thinking that it would be impossible to reach an
agreement on status based on the Lisbon principles, went off in another
direction, and proposed a step-by-step solution that assumed the return of
territory without addressing the question of status. Armenia’s President’s
serious consideration of this approach led to dramatic divisions within his
administration, and contributed to his eventual resignation.

In the third phase, partly as a result of this serious turn of events,
partly as a result of Armenia’s new approach, and partly as a result of the
renewed emphasis that there has to be a comprehensive solution that cannot
be solely based on Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity, the co-chairs made a
successful effort in reconciling the principles of territorial integrity and
self-determination. The result was the Common State document which was
rejected by Azerbaijan.

Direct meetings between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan followed
Azerbaijan’s rejection of the Common State. All together, during the third
stage the two presidents met nearly two dozen times. They came to share an
awareness of the need for a comprehensive solution. Father Aliyev, accepting
the inevitable, tried to negotiate in a way as to reap such dividends that
would make the whole package acceptable to his people.

The result, in April 2001, was the Key West document, the second important
document created during this third stage. The Key West document clearly
affirmed the fact of the self-determination of the people of Nagorno
Karabakh. Thus, in the six years from Lisbon to Key West, there had, in our
opinion, been fundamental, radical changes in thinking on this issue –
changes in sync with contemporary international developments and
self-determination processes in different parts of the world.

In the fourth stage, the stage we have been in since Azerbaijan’s new
authorities came to power, there is a clear intent to attempt to reverse the
wheel of history. The presidents do meet, although not with the former
frequency. There is a parallel track of foreign ministers meetings. During
those talks, the issue of Nagorno Karabakh’s status is always on the agenda.
Azerbaijan is part of those discussions.

Despite Azerbaijan’s engagement, and the efforts of the sides to search for
an acceptable resolution of the issue, Azerbaijan continues to attempt to
simultaneously introduce the Nagorno Karabakh issue in those international
forums which continue to abide by a traditional, conservative approach to
the issues of territorial integrity and self-determination. The approach of
those organizations is that

n when the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination
clash with each other then the first receives preference

n all conflicts should be treated within a single resolution framework,
regardless of the degree of legitimacy of grievances and gravity of the
issue

n if a deviation is allowed and self-determination is recognized, it
will become a precedent and a domino effect will result.

Their answer to claims of self-determination is simply greater human rights
and certain economic benefits. This approach ignores a great many factors
including the role of history in shaping of one’s identity and destiny.

Today, everyone recognizes that these principles cannot be universally
applied, that there are places in the world where more acceptable solutions
can and are being found, and states – new and old – continue to live in new
relationships to each other. In our time, we have witnessed East Timor’s
independence through referendum, we witnessed the signing of an agreement in
Sudan putting an end to a decades-old conflict on the basis of the notion of
referendum to be held in one portion of the country in six years. We are all
following serious deliberations about the possibility of a referendum to
determine Kosovo’s status. Among the political, legal, academic experts
working in and around those places, there is a growing awareness of the
possibility and reality of recognizing the right of self-determination in
certain circumstances.

In all cases, one must judge existing self-determination struggles each on
its own merits, each in terms of its own historical, legal circumstances, as
well as the realities on the ground.

As such, we can divide today’s self-determination conflicts into four types
determined by the combination of degree of control the state exercises over
its entire territory (including the territory occupied by those striving for
self-determination) and the degree of self-determination achieved by them.

Quebec, for example, falls in Category I. In this case, the territorial
integrity of Canada is preserved, while the province of Quebec has voted to
remain part of Canada; that is, they have exercised their right to
self-determination.

The overwhelming majority of today’s secessionists fall in Category II,
where the movements struggle without any degree of self-determination and
the state continues to fully control the territory under question. The
Kurdish people’s struggle in Turkey falls into this second category.

Those in Category III are the borderline cases where the state is not able
to control those desiring self-determination, while they themselves are not
strong enough to maintain control over their territory with any certainty of
permanence, and the outcome can go either way.

Today, Nagorno Karabakh falls in a completely different, fourth, category.
Azerbaijan has no control whatsoever over those territories, as Nagorno
Karabakh has enjoyed, for the last 15 years, all the attributes of complete
sovereignty. In this case, to attempt to win over the people of Nagorno
Karabakh by enticing them with human rights and economic advantages in order
to attempt to return them to Azerbaijani jurisdiction, is a simply senseless
exercise. Furthermore, Nagorno Karabakh has not only been in a category of
its own in terms of the length and depth of its self-determination, its
situation is further reinforced and made complete by the following legal
facts.

1.. The self-determination component: It seceded legally, according to the
laws of the day.
2.. The territorial component: Its people have self-determined on those
territories that have never been within the jurisdiction of independent
Azerbaijan.
3.. The human rights component: Azerbaijan, in perpetrating violence
against people that it considered its own citizens, has lost the moral right
to custody over those people.
4.. Finally, the de facto political reality of 15 years of proven ability
to hold elections, govern its people, protect its borders and conduct
international relations.

Azerbaijan’s new authorities are having a hard time coming to terms with
these indisputable realities. Clear-cut, categoric changes are obvious in
their approach to negotiations and the search for a resolution. Worse, and
more worrisome, there are new myths and premises – public and official – on
which their positions are being constructed.

First, they have convinced themselves that the essence of the issue is the
issue of their territories. When this conflict began, there were no
territories outside Nagorno Karabakh under Armenian control. Those
territories came under Armenian control because not only was there not an
agreement on Nagorno Karabakh’s status, but also because Azerbaijan saw the
solution in cleansing Nagorno Karabakh of all Armenians. Therefore, the
solution today necessarily revolves around the determination of Nagorno
Karabakh’s status, and continued control over those territories guaranteeing
the security of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh.

Second, they want to believe that if they do not receive their maximum
demands through negotiations, they can always resort to military solutions.
It is obvious that it has not been possible nor will it be possible to
conclusively resolve this issue militarily. In order for a successful
military solution, arms and munitions are not sufficient against the people
of Nagorno Karabakh who are defending their own homes and hearth. Azerbaijan
must succeed in ethnically cleansing Nagorno Karabakh of all Armenians.
Under today’s circumstances, that is simply not possible. This has been
proven impossible in Serbia, for example, where the former authorities
nearly succeeded in their efforts at ethnic cleansing using military might.
But today, they are standing trial for their crimes, and the right of the
people of Kosovo to self-determination is on the table.

Third, Azerbaijan thinks that time is on their side. Of course, the obvious
reason for this is their confidence in future oil revenues to enhance their
military capacity. This is the greatest deception, because time is not
guaranteed to work in favor of any one side. Further, international
tendencies today are moving towards reinforcing the right to
self-determination. The longer that Nagorno Karabakh maintains its de-facto
independence, it will be that much harder to reverse the wheel of history.

Fourth, they think that an isolated Armenia will be economically unable to
sustain its positions, and will sooner or later agree to serious
concessions. This is in itself a faulty assumption, because it is the people
of Nagorno Karabakh who must first agree to concessions. Additionally, a
people who lived through the deprivations and hardships of the last decade
and a half have demonstrated that they can do so again if it is life and
liberty that is at stake. On the contrary, both in Armenia and Nagorno
Karabakh, the societies have gone past survival, and are recording economic
growth.

Finally, Azerbaijan has convinced itself that by presenting Armenia as
aggressor, it will become possible through resolutions in international
organizations to force Armenians to capitulate. However, Armenians have
succeeded in consistently demonstrating that Azerbaijan is a victim of its
own aggression and that today’s situation is a consequence of that
aggression. If those territories must be returned to assure Nagorno Karabakh
‘s security and future, that is possible. If those territories must be kept
in order to assure Nagorno Karabakh’s security and future, that, too, is
possible. The purpose is security and self-determination and not
territories.

To conclude, the point is the solution will not be found through military
action, it will not be found through the creation of documents and
resolutions in international forums, nor can there be a solution imposed on
the sides from the outside. The only way to a solution is to demonstrate
political will, to sit and discuss openly and honestly, by embracing
realistic positions.

Armenia remains faithful to its initial premises that there cannot be a
vertical link between Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh, that it must have a
geographic link with Armenia, and that the security of the people of Nagorno
Karabakh must be assured.

Today, for us, the basis of the resolution, is the affirmation of the right
of the people of Nagorno Karabakh to self-determination and the
international recognition of that right.

Azerbaijan’s simply accepting this fact, and its formalization in an
agreement, will make possible the start of a resolution of the matter, and
the elimination of the consequences of the conflict.

END.

–Boundary_(ID_8WwojoJYovtygs3jMFfR8A)–

www.armeniaforeignministry.am