ARMENIA ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE LOAN FROM OPEC FUND FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

ArmenPress
Dec 22 2004

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 22, ARMENPRESS: United Arab Emirates-chaired OPEC
Fund for International Development announced December 21 it approved
loans worth a total of USD 157.4million at a recent board of governors
meeting in the Fund’s Vienna offices.

Jamal Nasser Lutah, the board’s chairman and assistant undersecretary
of Industry at the UAE Ministry of Finance and Industry (MOFI),
unveiled the details of the loans. He said: ‘The board has approved
17 loans totaling $157.4 million to offer credit finance for projects
in Angola, Armenia, Bosnia, Congo, Jordan, Turkey and Turkmenistan.”

The loans are for as long as 20 years. The first five years offer a
grace period and the interest payable varies from 1 per cent to 1.75
per cent.’

The announcement did not say how much Armenia is expected to get.
The Armenian finance and economy ministry said it did not discuss
yet how the loan could be used.

The OPEC Fund for International Development was established in January
1976 by the member countries of the Organization of the Petroleum
Exporting Countries (OPEC). The Fund was established to support
low-income countries in their efforts to make economic and social
progress. It aims to promote cooperation between member countries of
OEPC and other developing nations.

USAID TO HELP MODERNIZE SCHOOL HEATING SYSTEMS

ArmenPress
Dec 22 2004

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 22, ARMENPRESS; The USAID has pledged to help
Armenian authorities to install modern heating systems in 15 repaired
and newly built schools. The process is set to start next February
and is supposed to be over in late autumn next year .

A deputy urban minister, Sos Kocharian, told Armenpress that the list
of schools was reconciled with the USAID, which will release $600,000
for the implementation of the project. If it proves successful
another 15 schools will be chosen for installation of the modern
heating system.

The deputy minister said the 2005 draft budget earmarks 1.3 billion
drams for repair and construction of new heating systems for schools.

The Vancouver Sun (British Columbia)
December 22, 2004 Wednesday
Final Edition

Is Turkey European enough to join the European Union?: Many Europeans
are ambivalent about Turkey joining the EU — others are downright
hostile

by Harry Sterling, Special to the Sun

Is Turkey really part of Europe? Ever since Kemal Ataturk founded
modern-day Turkey in 1923, Turkish governments have insisted Turkey
is a European nation. This, notwithstanding that Turkey now only
maintains a small territorial toehold on the European continent,
the vast majority of its land-mass being in Asia proper.

A critically important objective in Turkey’s claim to be a European
state has been its longstanding application to join the European Union.

And now, in an historically important breakthrough for Turkey,
leaders of the 25-member European Union have finally invited it to
begin accession negotiations next October 3. However, despite the
EU’s December 17 decision, many in Europe remain ambivalent about
Turkey joining, while some are adamantly opposed.

In the past, those opposed to Turkey’s membership were spared
from openly opposing it due to Turkey’s failure to meet various
EU political and other standards, particularly its commitment to
democratic principles, respect for fundamental human rights and
treatment of minorities.

Opponents’ second line of defence was Greece. Given Greece’s
never-ending territorial disputes with Turkey — they almost went to
war over a tiny islet only occupied by goats — other EU states could
count on Athens to predictably put up obstacles to Turkish membership,
saving them from explicitly voicing their own opposition.

However, following massive earthquakes in Turkey and Greece in 1999,
resulting in the two countries unexpectedly coming to the aid of each
other, the traditionally strained bilateral relations between them
improved significantly, resulting in Athens becoming a supporter
of Turkish accession as a vehicle for settling their differences
peacefully.

Greece’s turn-around left other EU states with no alternative but to
come out of the closet to voice their own concerns regarding Turkey
joining the EU.

Although skeptical EU leaders were persuaded at their December 16-17
summit in Brussels to reach a consensus on approving negotiations
with Turkey, some clearly hope Turkey’s actual membership will
never materialize due to Ankara’s failure to meet various EU trade,
economic and human rights criteria for new members during prolonged
negotiations which may last 10 to 15 years.

Governments favouring Turkish membership — such as Britain, Germany
and Italy — are convinced it will ultimately be beneficial to all
EU states. Turkey’s well-trained, half-million-strong military is
seen as providing the EU with the independent military clout it wants
to develop.

Its population of over 70 million supposedly would offer EU states
expanded trade and economic opportunities. Supporters also point out
that Turkey, a regional power in the Eastern Mediterranean, would
be an extremely useful bridge between the European Union and Middle
East nations.

(The Blair government is keen to have Turkey join as a counterweight
to the efforts of France and Germany to dominate EU affairs.)

However, some, like former French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing,
are totally against Turkish membership. He claims Turkey would
undermine the shared values of the EU which binds European states
together.

A recent poll reported three-quarters of French agree with him. And
despite French president Jacques Chirac’s somewhat qualified support
for Turkish membership, several in his own ruling UMP party oppose
Turkey entering the Community.

The former leader of the Dutch Liberal Party, Frits Bolkestein,
an EU commissioner, warned of the “Islamization” of Europe should
Turkey be admitted.

Many fear Turkey’s entry would result in a wave of Turkish workers
flooding into EU states, undercutting local workers by their
willingness to work for much lower wages. Others complain Turkish
membership would siphon away EU subsidies and other assistance
currently devoted to the agricultural sectors in EU countries,
including those in France, Spain, Portugal and Italy.

Still others worry Turkey’s predominantly Muslim population would
create additional religious and ethnic tensions and divisions within
European countries where anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim sentiments have
become major issues, spawning anti-immigrant and ultra-nationalist
parties in several countries.

The recent brutal murder of controversial Dutch film-maker Theo van
Gogh, allegedly by a Muslim extremist, and the ensuing attacks against
both mosques and churches it unleashed throughout the Netherlands,
is cited as an example of the dangers now presented by the clash of
different ethnic and religious cultures in Europe.

Although the EU commission has complimented the current government
of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara for its efforts to
improve his country’s commitment to democratic principles and respect
for fundamental human rights, critics maintain much more needs to
be done.

They say that while the Erdogan government has passed new laws and
regulations prohibiting torture of prisoners and constitutional changes
guaranteeing freedom of speech for the media and political dissidents,
actual implementation remains problematic.

Critics say Turkish courts continue to be lenient in cases involving
violence against women, including the so-called “honour killings” of
females by their families for allegedly violating social customs. The
controversial move by the Turkish parliament to make adultery
punishable by imprisonment, though eventually dropped under pressure
from the EU, only reinforced the views of those convinced Turkish
membership would be incompatible with the values of the European Union.

Turkey’s failure to grant full language and other rights to its
large Kurdish population has also been criticized as unacceptable to
EU states.

(In a move angering Turkey, France’s foreign minister called upon
the Turkish government to acknowledge the mass killing of Armenians
in 1915 as a “tragedy” before negotiations with the EU begin.)

Turkish human rights advocates say that the prospect of EU membership
has been crucially important in promoting political reforms in
Turkey and the forthcoming negotiations would facilitate further
democratization and respect for human rights in Turkey.

However, Turkey will also inevitably have to deal with the thorny
issues of territorial disputes with Greece and diplomatic recognition
of the Greek-Cypriot government in Cyprus. EU leaders informed Ankara
there’s no way Turkey could join the EU without recognizing Cyprus.
The latter warned it could veto Turkey’s accession unless it recognizes
it. (Turkey has occupied northern Cyprus since a 1974 coup by Greek
Cypriots attempting to have Cyprus annexed to Greece.)

In a compromise move, Turkey has agreed to sign a customs agreement
with the EU’s newest ten members (which includes Cyprus) before
October’s negotiations start, thus implicitly giving the Cypriot
government de facto recognition.

Although this formula may partially resolve the Cyprus issue, Turkey
must still contend with years of tough negotiations before it may
realize its goal of joining the European Union.

It also has to contend with the fact that several countries, including
France and Austria, say they will hold referendums on Turkey’s
membership. Any national referendums rejecting Turkey joining could
theoretically provide governments with the justification for vetoing
Turkey’s eventual accession.

And if racial and religious tensions within European societies do not
improve in coming years it could ultimately bring to an end any hope
Turkey could have of joining the European Union.

Harry Sterling, a former diplomat who served in Europe and Turkey,
is an Ottawa-based commentator.

European Report
December 22, 2004

EU/RUSSIA: EU SEEKS CLOSURE OF FIRST-GENERATION NUCLEAR REACTORS

First-generation Russian nuclear reactors are now in the EU’s
cross-hairs. A dozen plants, commissioned in the 1970s and 1980s, are
considered dangerous by the EU but Russia is keen to extend their
service. The Commission is preparing a proposal to hold a joint
working group meeting with Russia on the first-generation reactors –
with a view possibly to extending a Euratom loan to Russia for
building a new reactor at Sosnovy Bor, near St Petersburg. Though
this nuclear safety dialogue does not figure in the EU-Russia Energy
Dialogue, it may soon be included, since the EU aims to link
electricity interconnection between Russia and the Union to the
decommissioning of the first-generation reactors.

At the 1992 G7 Summit in Munich, Western leaders decided to improve
nuclear safety in Eastern countries – but there has been little
progress in Russia. Although the EU took a firm line on early closure
of first-generation reactors in Lithuania, Slovakia and Bulgaria, it
acted differently with Russia. The 12 first generation reactors (FGR)
came on-line before the industry adopted basic safety rules. They
produce a total of 5,762 MW in Russia. They are type VVER 440-230,
RMBK 1000 or boiling-water, graphite-moderated reactor. Their
expected lifetime is 30 years, which they will reach between 2001 and
2009. However, Russia has decided to extend their service by 10 more
years. By contrast, the EU wants them shutdown.

—

The G7 Action Plan concerns Soviet reactors in Russia, Ukraine,
Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary and Bulgaria. It
encompasses: operational safety improvements; medium term
improvements following safety assessments; improvements in safety
regulation; study of modernisation options for new facilities; and
study of options to replace less safe nuclear reactors by developing
alternative energy sources and more efficient energy use.

—

Dialogue of the deaf.

Back in January 2001, the then European Commissioner for External
Relations Chris Patten and erstwhile Russian Minister for Nuclear
Power Yevgeny Adamov, agreed to set up a Joint Working Group to
analyse the situation as regards first-generation nuclear reactors,
prepare alternatives and submit proposals, with special emphasis on
the possibility of providing Euratom loans for the completion of
certain nuclear power plants currently under construction in exchange
for the closure of some FGRs.

The first meeting of the Joint Working Group was held in Brussels on
July 16, 2001. The Russians presented their energy strategy for the
2020 horizon and their plan for the development of nuclear power in
the 21st century. A second meeting, held in Moscow on April 9, 2002,
confirmed the deadlock: Russia made it clear that it did not want to
link its nuclear plant lifecycle extension programme nor its new
reactor unit construction programme to any FGR closures. While
Minatom was not interested in loans to complete power plants under
construction, the Russians were nevertheless prepared to look into
any Euratom loan offers for new reactors and the possible closure of
FGRs after the year 2010. The European Union told them quite
categorically that finance for new reactor units was not possible via
Euratom loans.

The new Russian Administration seems to be more favourably inclined
towards dialogue with the EU. In February 2004, the new Russian
Atomic Energy Ministry Rosatom, which replaced the old Minatom,
revealed during a meeting of the G8 nuclear safety study group that
it would be prepared to consider holding a new meeting of the
EU-Russia Joint Working Group on first-generation reactors. As a
result of a recent Euratom loan decision, the EU could now have some
Euro 500-600 million available for lending for nuclear plant under
construction or already in service, if it would help raise nuclear
safety standards. Of course, not all these funds can go to Russia
because there are other dangerous or obsolete reactors in Ukraine or
Armenia – where the particularly risky reactor unit at Medzamor
should have been closed down in 2004. The Commission will propose to
help finance a new reactor unit under construction at Sosnovy Bor,
near St Petersburg, where four RMBK 1000 reactors are already in
service, the first of which should have been shut down in 2003 and
the second one at the end of 2004.

New strategy.

This time, the European Commission has its work cut out for it:
Russia has been calling loudly for some time for a power grid
interconnection with EU’s owned interconnected network – a single
electricity grid stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok. A study
co-financed by the European Union will shortly start listing the
technical and legal aspects of such an interconnector project. This
is one of the biggest priorities for the Russians in their energy
dialogue with the EU (see Europe Information 2917 and 2920). The
European Union, however, has always been clamouring for environmental
reciprocity, marketing opening and, above all, better nuclear safety
standards as prior conditions to any grid link-up. It will therefore
insist on FGRs being shut down before any progress can be made on
electricity network interconnection.

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
December 22, 2004, Wednesday

KARABAKH SLIP

SOURCE: Nezavisimaya Gazeta, December 20, 2004, p. 12

by Vladimir Kazimirov

Between 1992 and 1996, Ambassador Vladimir Nikolayevich Kazimirov was
the head of the Russian intermediary mission, presidential envoy to
Karabakh, and Russian chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group.

All expectations notwithstanding, 2004 failed to become a
breakthrough year in the Karabakh conflict settlement. Contours of
the peace process remain indistinct. Moreover, there is nothing
anymore to which to ascribe the failure of slack negotiations,
neither elections in Azerbaijan and Armenia, nor the complexity of
domestic political situations in these countries.

There were 9 Armenian-Azerbaijani meetings this year, 3 between the
presidents and 6 between foreign ministers. Baku, Yerevan, and
Stepanakert claim to view settlement as the ultimate priority, but
these are only words. In fact, interims between the
Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict are filled with a Cold War attitude,
information warfare, and frequently disinformation. Azerbaijan and
Armenia’s stands remain mutually exclusive, the situation is worse
than it was even under Heidar Aliyev. Heidar Aliyev only demanded
liberation of the territories beyond Karabakh, which the Armenians
occupied during the war. His son, Ilham Aliyev, calls Karabakh itself
an occupied territory. Propaganda breeds tension in the Azerbaijani
and Armenian society. Anything goes, even calls for another war.
Instead of preparing their respective societies for mutual
concessions, ruling elites cultivate intolerance towards compromises
as such. All of that leaves the impression that Baku and Yerevan
merely feign negotiations.

To a certain extent, Baku diplomacy succeeded in the last several
months to switch attention from the matter of Karabakh’s status to
the problem of occupation of Azerbaijani lands. Satisfied with the
status quo dating back to the end of the war of 1992-1994, Yerevan
missed the fact that after a decade of peaceful occupation of
Azerbaijan, the territories beyond Karabakh look like an anomaly,
particularly to whoever does not know its history. Another anomaly,
absence of the status of Karabakh, is not that irritating anymore. In
short, Azerbaijan managed to have the UN General Assembly discuss the
situation in the occupied lands. It even succeeded in prodding the
Parliamentary Assembly into action. They will listen to a report on
Karabakh in January 2005.

Official Baku constantly refers to four resolutions of the UN
Security Council passed in 1993. The documents demand an immediate
cease-fire and withdrawal of the Armenians from the occupied
territories. It is not without risk, however, because the
international community remembers how Azerbaijan was the first to
kill fulfillment of resolutions of the UN Security Council.
Azerbaijan then was bent on settling the conflict by sheer strength
of arms. Ducking all and any peace initiatives, Baku ignored
resolutions of the UN Security Council for over a year. The truce is
not a result of these resolutions; it is a consequence of
Azerbaijan’s military failures.

These days, Yerevan is making use of Azerbaijan’s past neglect of UN
resolutions and refuses to withdraw, demanding a comprehensive
solution to the problem of Karabakh. The Armenians also use the fact
that the demand of unconditional withdrawal disappeared from the last
two UN resolutions (resolutions 874 and 884 – and Baku has only
itself to blame). This too has been a subject of numerous
Armenian-Azerbaijani consultations and talks.

There are different opinions on Azerbaijan’s latest tactical moves.
Aliyev hails them as masterful, the Armenians argue among themselves,
and official Yerevan threatens that should the UN General Assembly
pass a pro-Baku resolution, it will terminate all bilateral contacts,
and begins insisting on Stepanakert’s return to negotiations as a
third party. In the meantime, the words of both sides certainly
differ from deeds. Baku no longer insists on adoption of the UN
resolution as soon as possible. Yerevan already agreed to meetings of
two ministers in Sofia and Brussels.

Sure, diplomatic activeness is better than saber-rattling, but the
activities in question should be used for the purpose of searching
for compromises and not the purpose of aggravating confrontation.
Chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group find it counterproductive. Instead
of making progress, it complicated the situation and makes transition
to efficient negotiations all the more difficult. It is the height of
naivete to believe that Baku and Yerevan will honor recommendations
from the UN General Assembly or Parliamentary Assembly when they
disregard demands from the UN Security Council.

Does it help to involve in the Karabakh affair the structures that do
not know the first thing about the problem? It is common knowledge
that every involved party will use any deviation from the previous
approach to promote its own interests. Deployment of new structures
merely indicates who finds political-propagandistic exercises more
important than conflict management. Take the draft report of the
Parliamentary Assembly, for example. It is clearly biased and full of
factual errors. The cease-fire in Karabakh accomplished with Russia’s
help is mentioned as an accomplishment of the OSCE.

There is no saying even now if 2005 is going to bring peace in
Karabakh any closer. It is only clear that this is a sheer
impossibility without abandonment of mutual sincerity, and a mutual
search for compromises. It will not hurt for international
intermediaries to become more active, instead of restricting their
activities to arrangement of meetings between presidents and
ministers. After all, a new meeting on the level of presidents or
ministers cannot be regarded as a smashing success.

The Karabakh slips we are witnessing leave the impression that
intermediaries should demand from both parties that they honor
decisions of the Budapest OSCE summit and resume negotiations in all
earnest.

World Armenian Congress leader issues New Year address

ITAR-TASS News Agency
December 22, 2004 Wednesday 5:07 AM Eastern Time

MOSCOW, December 22 — Ara Abramyan, President of the World Armenian
Congress, has congratulated members of the Armenian Diaspora on the
New Year and Christmas.

In 2005 “we shall observe a grim anniversary – 90 years since the
beginning of all-out physical extermination of Armenians in Ottoman
Turkey, which claimed the lives of 1.5 million men, women and
children. The memory of the guiltless people, who died that time,
urges all Armenians throughout the world to pool efforts even more
closely in the interests of resolving the problems, which are of vital
importance for our nation: to make Turkey admit that it has committed
an especially grave crime, and to protect the interests and security
of Armenia, our historic motherland,” says the congratulatory address
issued by him.

“Spiurk (the Armenian term for “Diaspora”) is an inseparable part of
the Armenian nation. No matter where Armenians live, their thoughts
and aspirations are always with their historic motherland. Armenians
are deeply grateful to the countries, which gave shelter to them and
became their new homeland,” the document said.

“They do their best for promoting the prosperity of those countries
and continue to be their law-abiding citizens. At the same time, they
are culturally and spiritually bound with Armenia, which they regard
as a guarantor of the liquidation of consequences of the genocide,
of a just political settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem and
of the preservation of the national identity of Armenians, of their
language, culture and traditions,” the document continued.

“Diversity along with the unity of thoughts and aspiration – this is
our motto. We regard it as a guarantee of our future accomplishments,”
Ara Abramyan stressed in conclusion.

NETHERLANDS DEMANDS RECOGNITION OF ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

ArmenPress
Dec 22 2004

THE HAGUE, DECEMBER 22, ARMENPRESS: The Federation of the Armenian
Organizations in the Netherlands said in a press release, forwarded to
Armenpress that it was satisfied with the Dutch Parliament unanimous
adoption of a motion concerning the recognition of the Armenian
Genocide.

Armenian community of The Netherlands has been insisting that the Dutch
Parliament and the government recognize f the Armenian Genocide of
1915 for many years. Especially last year, in the run-up to and during
the Dutch presidency of EU, the 24 April Committee of the Armenian
Federation has persistently campaigned to bring the Armenian question
under the attention of the Members of Parliament and the Dutch public.

debate nearly all fractions asked the government about the absence
of the Armenian Genocide issue in the Presidency conclusions. This in
spite of commitment by among others France and the European Parliament
and also by Dutch Foreign Minister Bot himself, who ensured the
Dutch Parliament that the Armenian question has always been brought
up at the meetings with the Turkish colleagues. The majority of the
Parliament Members had asked to pay attention to this point.

In the motion adopted by the Parliament the government is asked “to
bring up the recognition of the Armenian Genocide continuously and
expressly in the dialogue with Turkey”.

This motion has been introduced by the Chairman of Christian Union
fraction Mr. Rouvoet and supported by all other political parties in
the Parliament.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Institute for War and Peace Reporting
Dec 22 2004

NEW PLAYERS ENTER KARABAKH PEACE PROCESS

Will the involvement of the United Nations and the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe help or hinder the cause of peace
in Nagorny Karabakh?

By Thomas de Waal in London

A number of initiatives on the Nagorny Karabakh conflict are either
adding life to a moribund peace process, or bringing in outside
agencies with no expertise on the issue and making resolution more
difficult – depending on whom you talk to.

In the last six months, the main mediators have become more active
again. The diplomats of the three countries, which are the co-chairs of
the “Minsk Group” of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in

Europe (France, Russia and the United States), have revived regular
meetings with the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers. A series
of meetings that began in Prague were not formal negotiations as such
but the Minsk Group mediators hope they will lead to more serious
talks next year.

At the same time, other international players have entered the field.
Last month, Azerbaijan managed to raise the issue of Karabakh at the
United Nations General Assembly for the first time in many years.
Next month, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in
Strasbourg will debate a draft resolution on the conflict. Earlier
this year, the Pentagon even took a brief interest in Karabakh.

All this is perhaps not surprising, given that ten years after a
ceasefire was signed between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces, no
final peace deal has been struck. In Azerbaijan, which continues to
bear greater pain of the non-resolution of the conflict in terms of
land occupied and people displaced, the sense of urgency is greater.

But the two parties offer very different views about what the
involvement of other international organisations means.

Speaking at the Royal Institute for International Affairs in London
on December 13, Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliev said that Baku was
trying to ensure that the world did not forget about the Karabakh
conflict.

“International organisations – and not only the one which directly
deals with this issue, the Minsk Group – such as the European Union,

the Council of Europe and the United Nations, can and should play a
more active role,” the president said.

Aliev said that he was committed to a peaceful resolution of the
dispute but issued what sounded like a veiled threat, saying,
“We are committed to the peace process but our patience has limits.”

The new rush of activity has a lot to do with the appointment in
Azerbaijan of a much more dynamic foreign minister, Elmar Mamedyarov,
in April of this year. A fluent English-speaker like his Armenian
counterpart Vartan Oskanian, Mamedyarov has shown much more initiative
than his predecessors.

Speaking to IWPR by telephone from Baku, Mamedyarov said that he had
written letters to the UN, the Council of Europe and to EU foreign
policy chief Javier Solana amongst others.

“Azerbaijan has made it clear numerous times that we are committed
to a peace process run by the Minsk Group and by the co-chairs,”
the minister said. “But in the last negotiations we have been stuck
in an exchange of views within the Minsk Group.”

“We want to keep this conflict within the eyes of the international
community.”

Central to Azerbaijani strategy has been an attempt to get a new
UN resolution on Karabakh, picking up on four resolutions that were
passed when the conflict was active in 1993-94. The resolutions all
call for Armenian forces to leave Azerbaijani territory – although
they also contain calls on both sides to cease fire, which were not
heeded at the time.

The Armenians have called the resort to the UN a “mistake”. Armenian
foreign minister Oskanian told IWPR in written answers to questions
that “Azerbaijan cannot try to negotiate on the one hand, and
then on the other hand, try to isolate this or that aspect of the
entire package of issues and push them individually in this or that
international forum”.

While saying he did not wish to exclude any serious interest in the
dispute, Oskanian sounded a warning note, saying, “We think we need
to stay within the tried forums, where information and experience has
accumulated, and focus on the real issue instead of trying to divert
attention to side issues.”

The UN debate was postponed indefinitely on November 23 after an
intervention by US ambassador Susan Moore on behalf of the three
OSCE co-chairs.

In a November 22 interview with Radio Liberty, the US co-chairman
Steve Mann did not explicitly criticise the UN initiative but implied
he doubted it would help the peace process. “The important thing… is
that this depends in the first instance on the parties to the conflict
themselves. There must be political will in Armenia and Azerbaijan
to settle this,” he said.

One spin-off from the UN initiative, however, is likely to be
a fact-finding mission under the aegis of the OSCE to the seven
“occupied territories” of Azerbaijan that are fully or partially under
Armenian control and are located outside the disputed territory of
Nagorny Karabakh.

The Azerbaijanis say they want to have reports that Armenian settlers
are being settled in these territories checked. Oskanian said that he
had no problem with this, saying, “We welcome this OSCE Minsk Group
fact-finding mission and will facilitate their work.”

Armenians have also reacted sharply to a draft resolution due to be
put before the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe at
the end of next month.

The resolution was drafted by its original rapporteur British member
of parliament Terry Davis and finished by his colleague David Atkinson
after Davis became secretary general of the parliamentary assembly
in August. To the anger of the Armenians, the document currently
views the dispute as it is seen in Baku – as an inter-state conflict
between Armenia and Azerbaijan – rather than the way Yerevan regards
it: as a fight for self-determination by the Armenians of Karabakh.

The resolution states, for example, that “separatist forces are still
in control of the Nagorno-Karabakh region” and warns the Armenians that
“the occupation of foreign territory by a member state constitutes
a grave violation of that state’s obligations as a member of the
Council of Europe”.

In an interview in London last week, Atkinson told IWPR that he saw
the PACE initiative as “introducing a parliamentary dimension” into
the peace process, “on the grounds that if you involve the elected
representatives of the parties concerned, practical politicians
elected on the basis that we represent our constituencies, they can
come forward and help in a process that has eluded resolution”.

Atkinson said the PACE initiative had not been coordinated with
the Minsk Group, but that he did not want to undermine the OSCE
negotiations. He added, however, that “I’m hoping that all sides meet
and see a way forward where the Minsk process has failed”.

Atkinson, who took over as rapporteur in September, said he had
made only one substantial change to the draft resolution, by adding
Article 9 which “calls on the government of Azerbaijan to establish
contacts with the political representatives of both communities from
the Nagorno-Karabakh region regarding the future status of the region”.

Hitherto, the government in Baku has consistently refused to hold
talks with the Karabakh Armenians and only negotiates directly with
the government in Yerevan.

The rapporteur himself remains a lifetime vice-president of the
organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide, headed by British peer
Baroness Cox, which has a long record of support for the Karabakh
Armenians. He himself visited Karabakh on the Armenian side in 1992.
He said the Azerbaijanis knew about this and had not objected.

The draft resolution was strongly criticised in a letter to Atkinson
by Vladimir Kazimirov, the veteran Russian mediator who negotiated
the 1994 ceasefire. It was dated December 3 and published by the
Russian Regnum news agency on December 17.

Kazimirov said the draft gave a very selective history of the conflict
and said it was clearly biased in favour of Azerbaijan and therefore
harmful to the prospects of peaceful resolution.

“The Hippocratic oath, ‘do no harm’ to the negotiation process, is
absolutely appropriate here, as each side will for sure use any bias
in its own interests,” Kazimirov wrote.

An upsurge of international interest shows that the unsolved Karabakh
conflict is at least not forgotten. The very polarised attitudes to
the new initiatives suggest that progress in actually achieving a
resolution remains as far off as ever.

Thomas de Waal is IWPR’s Caucasus Editor.

Prague process secures Karabakh’s international recognition – Armenian minister

Mediamax news agency
22 Dec 04

Yerevan, 22 December: “The Prague process” on the Karabakh settlement
“provides great opportunities to establish Nagornyy Karabakh’s right
to self-determination and secure the international recognition of
this status,” Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan said in
Yerevan today.

Speaking at the National Press Club, Oskanyan said the principles
which Armenia insists on in the settlement process have not
changed. Specifically, Oskanyan said the mediators have not come up
with new proposals since the “Paris principles” and the Key West talks
between the Armenian and Azerbaijani presidents [Robert Kocharyan
and Heydar Aliyev] in 2001.

At the same time, Oskanyan said that the Armenian side is not
keeping to the Key West principles in order not to halt the whole
peace process.

“The principles have remained the same, but have undergone certain
modifications which allow Azerbaijan to stay in the talks,” he said.

Oskanyan said that the main reason for Nagornyy Karabakh’s failure
to participate in the talks is Azerbaijan’s categorical rejection of
this. The foreign minister said that Armenia has decided to conduct
the talks without Nagornyy Karabakh so that the peace process does
not stop.

“It does not matter which of the Armenian sides participates in the
talks. The direction in which the talks are being conducted is much
more important,” Oskanyan said. However, he added that Nagornyy
Karabakh’s direct participation in the negotiations will become
inevitable at a certain point.

Armenia is more independent than its neighbours – foreign minister

Mediamax news agency
22 Dec 04

Yerevan, 22 December: “Armenia is the most independent country in
the South Caucasus region,” Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan
said in Yerevan today.

Speaking at the National Press Club, Oskanyan said Armenia is pursuing
a more independent policy than its regional neighbours.

As for the Russian State Duma speaker’s recent statement that “Armenia
is Russia’s outpost in the South Caucasus”, Oskanyan said that Gryzlov
“meant good relations between the two countries”.