International Conference Focuses on EU-South Caucasus Relations

International Conference Focuses on EU-South Caucasus Relations

Eurasia
30/10/2004 13:42

International conference, organized by Friedrich Ebert Foundation and
South Caucasus Institute of Regional Security, is held in Tbilisi on
October 30-31 to focus on the South Caucasus countriesâ~@~Y foreign
policy priorities and relationship with the European Union.

One of the topics of discussion at the conference, which gathered
officials and representatives from the think-tank organizations
from the European and South Caucasus countries, will be EUâ~@~Ys
Neighborhood Policy.

In June the EU included the three Southern Caucasian countries â~@~S
Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the European Neighborhood Policy.

–Boundary_(ID_G1rNtTK1+SSX1NmLZyEl5g)–

Demanding For A Fair Trial From European Court

DEMANDING FOR A FAIR TRIAL FROM EUROPEAN COURT

A1+
29-10-2004

Kurds’ Commune of Armenia has today held a protest action near the
Yerevan Office of the delegation of EU European Commission. Kurds
having arrived from many districts of Armenia were singing patriotic
songs and those devoted to Kurd’s Leader Abdullah Ojalan and
spelling “Freedom for Abdullah Ojalan”. They demanded to receive 3
representatives of Kurd Commune in Yerevan Office of the delegation
of EU European Commission.

After the talks for 30 minutes, during which the employees of Yerevan
Office contacted with the Central Office of EU European Office and
found out the attitude about the reception, the Kurds’ delegation
was hosted.

The only demand of Kurds was that the trial for Abdullah Ojalan
starting in European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg on November 1
passes in fair conditions and Kurds’ leader is released. The document
with the demand was handed to the head of Yerevan Office of the
delegation of EU European Commission.

“Hope must live. How can one condemn a man who fights for his nation,
language and culture? How can the nation of 40 million be considered
terrorists? If all the problems were settled in time, if the Armenian
Genocide was criticized, there would be no Kurds’ Genocide”, Jenik
Aghadr, Vice-Chair of “Kurdistan” Committee says.

What are the expectations of Kurdish Commune from the structure, in
which Turkey is going to enroll? â~@~Before becoming the member of
European Union, Turkish Authorities would better cleanse themselves
because of oppressing peaceful nations. Turkish Authorities must
finally realize that they must not go on that way. If we donâ~@~Yt get
the response needed, we will keep protesting up to the end. Peaceful
actions will be held. If hostilities are instigated, they will be
because Kurd people are ready for it. There canâ~@~Yt be one-sided
truceâ~@~], Jenik Aghadr adds.

Yerevan Municipality had sanctioned todayâ~@~Ys protest action
of Kurds.

–Boundary_(ID_0vBkWLndeQSN0zvZbPL9+Q)–

NATO Conference Ended

NATO CONFERENCE ENDED

A1+
29-10-2004

Conference on â~@~Establishment of the environment more favorable
for security through forming the public opinionâ~@~] was finished
in Yerevan. Representatives of Foreign Ministries of 25 states of
European-Atlantic region, representatives of the accredited missions
in NATO and officials of NATO Central Headquarters partook in it.

Tatul Margaryan, Deputy Minister of Armenian Foreign Ministry made
a welcoming speech at the conference. He said such arrangements are
directed to European-Atlantic partnership.

Armenian Deputy Minister underlined discussions on policy and purposes
of the international organizations. He stated the equal application
of partnership principles by NATO fully proceeds from the interests
of spreading real cooperation in the region.

–Boundary_(ID_LRhe9shnG+lvDimmuZAmHw)–

BAKU: Azeri daily downbeat on Karabakh discussions at UN

Azeri daily downbeat on Karabakh discussions at UN

Zerkalo
29 Oct 04

The UN General Assembly has considered a request by Azerbaijan’s
permanent representative [in the UN] to include the issue on the
situation on the occupied territory in the agenda of its session. A
report on the UN’s official web site said that with a vote of nine
in favour and 14 abstentions, this issue had been recommended to be
discussed at the General Assembly.

The Azerbaijani side insists that the ongoing conflict in Nagornyy
Karabakh has resulted in the occupation of a considerable part of
Azerbaijani territory, in evictions of numerous people from their homes
and in the great damage that was inflicted on its national economy. In
addition, the submitted document says that “the activity of the OSCE
Minsk Group, which deals with the Nagornyy Karabakh problem, has
yielded no results since illegal actions are still being committed
on this territory, in particular, the Armenians are being resettled
there to create a new demographic situation”.

[Passage omitted: France said the discussion in the UN could impede
peace talks; Armenia denies claims on the resettlement]

The OSCE Minsk Group will hardly agree that “the Karabakh issue”
is once again put on the UN agenda. The thing is that immediately
after the decision to set up the OSCE Minsk Group on 26 March 1992,
the UN Security Council decided to refrain from being involved in any
peace-keeping operations in Nagornyy Karabakh but to render support
to the OSCE.

[Passage omitted: the UN have adopted four resolutions on the conflict;
background of the OSCE mediation]

During the entire period of its activity, the OSCE Minsk Group, in
fact, aimed not so much to resolve the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict
as to prevent a new war, confrontation and tension between the two
countries.

Even if this issue is discussed at the UN General Assembly, decisions
taken there will not be mandatory [for the country].

If the Azerbaijani side makes efforts to be well prepared and during
the discussion stresses the importance of not settling the conflict,
which the UN had delegated to the OSCE Minsk Group, but considering
the situation on the occupied Azerbaijani territories, where illegal
actions are being committed, i.e. migrants are being settled to change
the demographic situation, the international community might demand
that Armenia give up its policy.

[Passage omitted: similar ideas reiterated]

It is noteworthy that Baku has recently made optimistic statements,
despite the fact that the inclusion of “the Karabakh issue” in the
assembly’s agenda will escalate confrontation. Experts believe that
Baku’s move might “bury” pressure exerted on Baku by super powers to
make it sign “an unfavourable peace accord”.

In any case, we should not pin our hopes on the world community
believing that it will solve this problem. All these statements
and resolutions will hardly help Azerbaijan settle its territorial
problem… [ellipses as published].

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

BAKU: EU ready to accept any Azeri-Armenian peace agreement, envoy

EU ready to accept any Azeri-Armenian peace agreement, envoy

Trend news agency
29 Oct 04

Baku, 29 October: The European Union (EU) is ready to accept
any agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia that would resolve
the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict, Trend has quoted the EU special
representative in the South Caucasus, Heikki Talvitie, as saying at
a news conference today at the end of his two-day visit to Azerbaijan
(27-29 October).

The EU is interested in the establishment of fair peace between the
two countries and is ready to help them achieve this, he said.

Talvitie added that the EU is interested in a bilateral dialogue
between the parties to the conflict and the settlement process within
the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group. He also dismissed media reports
that the EU had prepared suggestions on the conflict.

“Our job is to render assistance to the conflicting parties,” the
envoy said.

The diplomat expressed his satisfaction with the visit to Azerbaijan
and the negotiations held with the authorities and opposition. He
said the talks had mainly focused on the EU’s New Neighbourhood policy.

In his meeting with the chairman of the Azerbaijani Central Electoral
Commission, Talvitie gave some recommendations on the forthcoming
municipal and parliamentary elections in the country. The EU
representative spoke highly about the intention of opposition parties
to stand in the municipal elections.

Touching on the court system in Azerbaijan, Talvitie said the work
of the judicial system should be developed in all the three regional
countries. He said it was necessary to make it independent. Attempts
are being made in Azerbaijan to reverse this process and these attempts
should be stopped, he said.

He also said a report would be prepared on the organization’s
cooperation with the South Caucasus countries, including Azerbaijan.

“It will be a constructive report and we will try to reflect everything
in an objective way,” Talvitie said.

While in Baku, Heikki Talvitie met Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev,
Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov and ambassadors of EU member-states.

Bulgaria, Azerbaijan Agree on Defense Cooperation

Bulgaria, Azerbaijan Agree on Defense Cooperation

Novonite.com
30 October 2004, Saturday.

The defense ministries of Bulgaria and Azerbaijan signed the
military cooperation plan to provide for experts exchange in the
field of military education, technical cooperation and industrial
entrepreneurship in the military field.

The delegation of Azerbaijan led by Defense Minister Colonel Safar
Abiyev has visited Sofia this week to discuss issues of bilateral
cooperation, the AzerTaj state news agency informed.

The two ministers conferred also over the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict
over Nagorno-Karabakh during which Minister Abiyev expressed concern
about Bulgaria having not recognised so far Armenia as an aggressor,
training of terrorist groups and cultivation of drugs.

The recent official visit by President Georgi Parvanov to Azerbaijan
has given a powerful impetus to deepening of the Bulgaria-Azerbaijan
relations in all spheres, the state news agency of the Asian country
pointed out.

TBILISI: Russia Concerned over Visa Delays for its Troops in Georgia

Russia Concerned over Visa Delays for its Troops in Georgia

Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 2004-10-30 16:07:34

The Russian Foreign Ministry expressed concern on October 30 regarding,
as Moscow put it, Georgia’s “delay” to grant entry visas to the
Russian servicemen, who are expected to be deployed in the Russian
military base in southern Georgian town of Akhalkalaki.

“We think that the delay in granting of visas to Russian servicemen and
their families is unjustified and politically motivated. We hope that
official Tbilisi will take a constructive position in this regard,”
the Russian Foreign Ministry information note issued on October
30, reads. “Granting of visas needs particular time,” the Georgian
Foreign Ministry official told Civil Georgia. Official said that the
Ministry will make a statement regarding the issue on November 1.
  Reportedly, over 400 servicemen, currently deployed on the Russian
military base in the Armenian city of Gyumri, are waiting for the
Georgian entry visas.

According to the Russian Foreign Ministryâ~@~Ys information note,
Georgia explains delay in issuing visas with the fact that the number
of Russian servicemen, which will be deployed in Akhalkalaki, exceeds
the number of those soldiers, which will be replaced.

Deputy Commander of the Headquarters of Group of Russian Troops in
Trans Caucasus, Col. Vladimir Kuparadze told Russian daily Nezavisimaya
Gazeta that in previous years there were less soldiers at the
Akhalkalaki military base than it is considered with the agreement
between Russia and Georgia.

â~@~Now more soldiers will be deployed in Akhalkalaki, but their
numbers will not exceed those envisaged by the agreement,â~@~]
Col. Kuparadze said.

–Boundary_(ID_2ywpw9YbhpkdQ97zYroWbA)–

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Russian Police Corruption Seen As Major Factor In Ineffective Terror

RUSSIAN POLICE CORRUPTION SEEN AS MAJOR FACTOR IN INEFFECTIVE TERROR PREVENTION

Komsomolskaya Pravda, Moscow
27 Oct 04

A Russian paper has looked at failings in the fight against terrorism
in Russia. It recalled that when an investigation was launched
into how terrorists sneaked into the Dubrovka theatre in Moscow,
it turned out that “more than 100 guardians of law from Chechnya to
Moscow virtually turned a blind eye on their movements”. This “loss
of vigilance” sometimes was not at all for free: some policemen, who
were about to inspect the gunmen’s bags with weapons and explosives,
received a bribe, the paper said. Bribe-taking and betrayal in the
police ranks have been detected by prosecutors everywhere, be it
Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, North Ossetia or Moscow, the paper
said. It pointed out that the only unit in charge of antiterrorism
in the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) is its operational
investigation directorate, just a dozen committed operatives who
cover the whole of the country, but “even these dedicated officers
cannot do much without a network of agents”. Today, however, for fear
of a furious public outcry the FSB has practically discarded the
“institution” of informers. It has become obvious, the paper said,
that no laws, or antiterrorist commissions of all sort, or endless
bureaucratic conferences with loud agendas can protect Russia from
new explosions. The only way, according to the paper, is to restore
a system of training highly qualified operatives and ensure they are
paid well. The following is the text of the article “Not only force
required to fight bandits” published by Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya
Pravda on 27 October. Subheadings are as published:

A three-million-strong army of security officials works to ensure
security for Russian citizens. Why do they often prove helpless
with terrorists?

After terrorist acts in Moscow and Beslan in August and September, it
was announced to Russians that a terrorist war was declared on them. As
though before they never heard of bombings of houses, trains, railway
stations and cafeterias, captures of aeroplanes, downed helicopters
or raids by Chechen-Arab gangs in Kizlyar, Pervomayskoye, Budennovsk,
Nazran and even Moscow. For some reason, it is specifically now that
the authorities have started drafting yet another security doctrine
and setting up federal and interdepartmental antiterrorist commissions,
coordinating committees and new staffs.

The leaders of power structures are ordered to restructure their
work and submit to the Kremlin and Security Council new plans to
fight terrorism. FSB (Federal Security Service), the Internal Affairs
Ministry and Defence Ministry generals prepare new tonnes of directives
and orders, and develop plans of new exercises. However, the ordinary
man has only one interest in all these reforms: he wants to live
without fearing that he may be blown up tomorrow in his bed, in a bus
or an aeroplane. He wants to understand how a gigantic enforcement
machine, whose operation he funds from his pocket, can be forced or
taught to counter gangs of armed monsters or a lone shakhid (martyr,
suicide bomber) woman. We, too, are going to try to figure it out.

How a “five” slumped to be a “failure”

Of all our secret services, the FSB has the most extensive experience
in fighting terrorism. Back in the Soviet times, when it was called
the KGB, it had to grapple seriously with this problem. In Moscow
in 1977, a home-made bomb exploded on a train before it approached
the Pervomayskoye station. Although the KGB did not yet have its
own criminal institute or antiterrorism experts at that time,
the intelligence officers quickly resolved the crime. People who
organized and perpetrated that terrorist act were arrested, convicted
and executed.

Two other bombings, which were planted by the same Armenian
nationalist group in a store on Nikolskaya Street, near Lubyanka, were
prevented. Antiterrorism fight was assigned to one of the departments
of the famous “Five,” a KGB ideological directorate that was loathed
by anti-party people and fought dissidents (it was apparently equated
with terrorism back then).

A different group of KGB foreign intelligence specialists worked
abroad. Their job was to keep dissidents and terrorists out of the
USSR. In 10 years, the intelligence service managed to create virtually
from scratch an effective counterterrorist system: “TNT saboteurs”
and hostage hunters were often apprehended at a stage when they only
just planned their dirty deeds. Yet, in 1991 the USSR collapsed,
and so did a system of countering terrorism.

Books are already written on how hard some Russian politicians of
the Yeltsin era worked to destroy the KGB. Until the late 1990’s,
the new power had been zealously reforming (or more precisely,
ruining) the security structure, which exists in every civilized
state. The “Five” was reduced to the small Directorate for Combating
Terrorism, a hundred people covering the entire Russia. After the
(Chechen rebel commander Shamil) Basayev gang took hostages in
Budennovsk (in June of 1995), a frenzied sequence of new reforms
came. The Antiterrorist Centre and then the Department for Combating
Terrorism and the Directorate for Constitutional Security (political
extremism) were established. Following the Dagestani events in 1999,
the department and administration were merged. The Russian president
issued a decree creating one of the FSB’s most powerful departments:
for protection of constitutional system and combating terrorism.
But after numerous and bungled reforms, many specialists left for
the civilian sector, while a structure that was supposed to deal day
and night with terrorism never came into being (Alfa and Vympel do
not count because they, like a kind of “antiterrorism ambulance”,
come into action when a terrorist act is committed).

After the air strike on New York on 11 September 2001, the Directorate
for Combating International Terrorism was established. Sounds pretty
big, but “warriors” from the new structure spent most of their time
visiting international conferences. There were some incidents,
too. At a conference on fighting terrorism held in Saudi Arabia,
its staffers made a loud declaration on the need to fight mercilessly
Wahhabism. It would not be that bad if Wahhabism was not the official
religion of the kingdom. The stunned hosts reportedly looked like they
saw a ghost. Funny as all this sounds, the speeches for high podiums
were written and approved in Moscow. Then, what level of personnel
training in the country’s main secret service does this testify to?

Who covers Chechnya with a cloak and dagger?

In fact, the only subunit in charge of antiterrorism in the FSB is
its operational investigation directorate. Yet, it is only slightly
more than a dozen fanatically committed operatives (covering, again,
the entire Russia!). Most of them do not have apartments (this
and miserable pay is why almost half of them have broken personal
lives). Their career records include decorations for successful
operations during missions in North Caucasus.

But even these officers cannot do much without a network of
agents. It is the weakest spot in FSB operations. An agent network
is almost non-existent in Chechnya. Many Chechens who were loyal to
“post-Dudayev” authorities and cooperated with counterintelligence
officers were knifed together with their families.

For the same reason, more than 100 mullahs and local officials
were killed in recent years. Nobody hurries to secret services with
declarations disclosing whereabouts of (Chechen separatist leader
Aslan) Maskhadov and Basayev even for 10m dollars. The FSB Directorate
for Chechnya is only just getting on its feet. The danger of disloyalty
is high (information leaks have been reported all the time). The Moscow
counterintelligence officers are forced to rely mostly on the Chechen
Security Service, led by republic’s Prime Minister Ramzan Kadyrov
as his second job, and also on the Yamadayev brothers, who command
special-purpose troops and managed to build their own networks of
agents (although predominantly on the clan basis). The shuttle tactic
of special composite teams in Chechnya (apart from FSB operatives,
they include special-purpose units of the Interior Ministry Internal
Troops) is also not very effective. Following several major leaks of
information on planned counterterrorist operations, the “neighbours”
have increasingly rarely shared information with each other, while
the real joint work has been conducted mostly on paper.

Who is bothered by the “spectre of totalitarianism”?

In the USSR times, it was enough to call from Lubyanka to Groznyy
to find out on the same day in what mountain village a new hunting
rifle was purchased. If a police gun or a TNT cartridge disappeared
in Chechnya, they were found on the following day.

Today, a gang can spend a night in a village but the FSB Directorate
in Groznyy will find it out only a week later. The bandits bought
a dozen land mines in an army unit but FSB officers learned of this
fact only half a year later.

In the Yeltsin era, political activists liked to yell on squares about
a certain “monster”, the KGB, which wrapped up the whole country
with its networks of squealers. Now that they have sniffed hexogen
under their windows they shout at every corner about the “weakness”
of the FSB, whose staff has been “castrated” to one-eighth of its
former strength in the past 13 years! No sooner had the FSB tried
to restore its old practice of informers, recruiting also concierges
in houses, than some fighters for human rights again started weeping
about the restored “spectre of totalitarianism”.

But under totalitarianism, Lubyanka could see the whole country
almost all the way through – it was aided by more than two million
“volunteers”. Thanks to them, FSB managed to nip in the bud attempts
on life of some party and Soviet leaders, ferret out hundreds of
“werewolves” in government structures, foil armed attacks on industrial
facilities and banks, and prevent many man-made catastrophes. Murders
of people and hostage captures occurred extremely rarely.

Today, however, for fear of a furious public outcry on the part
of some political populists, the FSB has practically discarded the
“institution” of informers and collaborators (even though the law
allows and regulates such practices). Even if there are barely 50
of them for the whole country, they do not have enough strength to
“scan” movements in the terrorist underworld, sending alarm signals to
intelligence officers. We do not even mention that our laws prohibit
recruitment of agents from the criminal community.

Following several years of the terrorist war, it has become obvious
that neither piles of laws, nor antiterrorist commissions of all
stripes, nor endless bureaucratic conferences with loud agendas,
nor the most courageous Alfa or Vympel troops can protect us from new
explosions. Nobody can replace in Russia a secret service “digging”
deeply and silently. To this end, we should at least stop pestering
it with endless reorganization and reforms. We should also restore
a system of training highly qualified operatives. In addition, they
need to be paid – well and regularly.

“Feeding” the police

Let us recall: after the events on Dubrovka, police officials were the
first to demonstrate readiness for an all-out antiterror effort (it
is police that people blamed more than anyone else for what happened:
insufficient vigilance, insufficient checks). After the storm of the
(Dubrovka) House of Culture, then-Deputy Internal Affairs Minister
Vladimir Vasilyev pledged publicly: “We are now going to clean not
only Moscow but even Russia of this filth!”

But when an investigation was launched to find out how the terrorists
sneaked into the Dubrovka theatre hall, the police chiefs’ eyes
nearly popped out of their heads: it turned out that more than 100
guardians of law from Chechnya to Moscow virtually turned a blind eye
to movements of the thugs right under their very nose. This “loss
of vigilance” sometimes was not at all for free: some policemen,
who were about to inspect the gunmen’s bags with weapons and TNT,
received bribes at railway stations and checkpoints and let the
suspicious people go.

The paid neglect was crowned with betrayal: the intelligence officers
arrested one policeman, a senior officer of the Moscow Internal
Affairs Main Directorate, immediately after the terrorist act. He
passed information on details of the hostage-releasing operation
and movements of Spetsnaz (special-purpose) troops to (leader of
hostage-takers) Movsar Barayev’s gunmen.

Bribe-taking and betrayal in the police ranks have been detected
by prosecutor’s office investigators everywhere, be it Chechnya,
Dagestan, Ingushetia, North Ossetia or Moscow. Most of the traitors
wearing police uniforms have been exposed in Chechnya. On this issue,
Akhmat Kadyrov, the late president of the republic, said once: “It
is increasingly difficult for me to tell our policemen from masked
saboteurs.” According to investigators, it is also saboteurs who
killed him.

The worst thing is that all that is taking place in a republic that
has become a hotbed of Russian terror. Of course, one can understand
objective difficulties experienced by the Chechen authorities,
who found themselves in a situation where it is often impossible to
break firm family (clannish) ties between guardians of law and those
who they fight. Our domestic experience of tackling this complicated
problem shows that this will take a decade.

After bandits attacked Ingushetia, the Russian Prosecutor-General’s
Office pressed terrorist complicity charges against two Ingush
policemen. One of them, Magomed Lolkhoyev, personally helped Shamil
Basayev himself travel around the republic by car for reconnaissance
purposes.

As the investigation chief, Mikhail Lapotnikov, declared, “a total of
22 individuals have been put on a wanted list in this case and checks
are being run on more than 60. Cases against 18 individuals have been
sent to court.” In other words, a hundred of professional cops could
have been in the pay of terrorists? Another fact has been revealed:
the terrorists managed to prepare as many as 10 bases on the territory
of Ingushetia and local police were involved in their organization.

Wrongdoers were found also in North Ossetia – and again after, not
before a terrorist act. The Prosecutor-General’s Office instigated
criminal cases on charges of “neglect causing grave consequences”
against Miroslav Aydarov, chief of the district internal affairs
department for Pravoberezhnyy District; Taymuraz Murtazov, deputy
chief for public security; and Guram Dryayev, the district internal
affairs department chief of staff.

Dozens of other “treason” criminal cases clearly indicate that men
of Maskhadov and Basayev conduct effective recruitment work in the
Interior Ministry structures in those parts as well. We cannot do
without a thorough purge here. This is what the situation warrants:
our “southern” police bodies are in need of reliable internal security
structures.

Otherwise, we will hardly manage to prevent the process of intentional
or unintentional integration between uniformed criminals and
terrorists. This problem becomes critical in the centre as well. It
turned out recently that a 1.5m army of guest workers from the Caucasus
entrenched themselves in Moscow Region not without the knowledge of
police. Almost half of them should already be sent back to places
of their permanent residence: these people stand on the wrong side
of the law and law-enforcement agencies have some major complaints
about them. But a question is: what did Interior Ministry staffers
do before? This is exactly where the shoe pinches: some police chase
terrorists while others cover the latter for bribes. And now we are
surprised that caches with weapons and TNT are found right near Moscow
every day.

Karabakh official slams UN decision to discuss Azerbaijan’s Karabakh

Karabakh official slams UN decision to discuss Azerbaijan’s Karabakh proposal

Mediamax news agency
29 Oct 04

Yerevan, 29 October: “The UN discussion of the situation on the
Nagornyy Karabakh-controlled territories initiated by Azerbaijan proves
once again that the Azerbaijani side is not interested in settling
the whole complex of problems in relations between Azerbaijan and
Nagornyy Karabakh.”

Our Mediamax correspondent reports from Stepanakert that the deputy
foreign minister of the Nagornyy Karabakh Republic [NKR], Masis
Mailyan, said this while commenting on the decision of the UN General
Assembly to recommend that the issue on “the situation on Azerbaijan’s
occupied territories” be included in the assembly’s agenda.

Masis Mailyan said that “this step by official Baku has a purely
propaganda nature and does not help establish a favourable atmosphere
required for achieving a comprehensive solution to the Karabakh
problem”.

Otherwise, the deputy minister said, the Azerbaijani leadership would
have responded to the numerous proposals of the NKR authorities to
start implementing measures to establish trust between the sides and
resume full-scale negotiations, which he said are the most effective
means of solving the conflict.

[Passage omitted: minor details]

“Such destructive actions by Baku create insurmountable obstacles in
solving the problem of refugees and displaced persons and are capable
of nullifying all the efforts of international mediators to establish
a lasting peace and stability in the region,” the NKR deputy foreign
minister stressed.

Beyond the nuclear stalemate

Beyond the nuclear stalemate
By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

Asia Times, Hong Kong
30 Oct. 2004

TEHRAN – As expected, two rounds of talks between Iran and the European
Union Big Three (EU-3) – France, Germany and Britain – have failed to
resolve the growing dispute over Iran’s quest to produce low-enriched
uranium. In response to the EU-3’s demand that Tehran halt enrichment
activities, Iran’s spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, this week
denounced what he called an “oppressive and unreasonable request” and
warned that Iran may terminate nuclear dialogue if the other side
persists in asking Iran to forego its “inherent right”.

The European negotiators in Vienna, including a representative from the
EU, refrained from calling the talks a failure, however, and, seeking
to salvage a seemingly sinking ship of diplomacy, expressed hope for a
more fruitful result in the next round, reportedly scheduled on
November 5 in Paris, just a couple of weeks before the United Nations’
nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
meets in late November to review the growing storm over Iran’s program.
The EU has warned Iran it will back United States calls for Iran to be
reported to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions at the
November 25 IAEA meeting if enrichment suspension is not verifiably in
place by then.

>>From Iran’s vantage point, in light of some 15 visits by the IAEA
inspectors in the past couple of years, the 23-member IAEA board of
governors should “close the file” on Iran – or face the prospects of
Iran withdrawing from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. But at the same
time, not every aspect of the EU-3’s “package offer” has been appraised
negatively by Tehran.

On the contrary, Iranian officials tried to put a positive spin on the
offer, which included promises from the EU that it would help Iran
acquire nuclear fuel “at market prices” and also support its light
water facility, as well as Iran’s bid to join the World Trade
Organization if Iran agrees to suspend its nuclear enrichment program
pending a “long term agreement”. A spokesman for Iran’s Supreme
National Security Council interpreted this as a step forward from the
previous, US-led demand that Iran suspend its enrichment activity
“indefinitely”. On the eve of the second Vienna talks, Iran’s top
negotiator articulated a sentiment widespread among Iranian officials
for a European deal that “would be thicker on the positive and thinner
on the negative”.

Meanwhile, the United States and Israel, playing anxious observers,
made a concerted effort to up the ante, with an Arabic paper in London
circulating a “reliable rumor from Washington” regarding an impending
strike by US forces against various Iranian facilities “including
certain mosques”, and Israel’s Prime Minister Ariel Sharon airing his
fear of “Iran’s existential threat to Israel”.

Concerning the latter, there are reasons to take such fears with a
grain of salt. For one thing, it was Iran under Cyrus the Great who
freed the Jews enslaved by the Babylonians and issued a decree allowing
them to return to their homeland. Even in today’s Islamic Republic,
with a population steeped in ancient history, it is hard to see how
Iran would ever venture to drop nuclear bombs on Israel, killing not
only the Jews but also the Muslim Arabs inhabiting Israel. Israel is
widely regarded as an “out of area” country by most Iranian foreign
policy makers, and while Iran remains ethically committed to the
struggle of Palestinian people for their right to self-determination,
this does not, and for the most part has not, translated into any
Iranian “over commitment” to the Palestinian people.

Nor is the situation of Lebanese Shi’ites, led by militant group
Hezbollah, any different, substantively speaking. Iran no doubt enjoys
its hard-earned sphere of influence in Lebanon, after 23 years of
military and financial investment, and has encouraged the Hezbollah to
take the parliamentary road to power. Thus, Israel’s paranoia about an
Iranian bomb in Hezbollah’s hands imperiling Israel’s existence is a
tissue of an unrealistic nightmare scenario built around a caricature
of the Muslim “other” as irrational zealots, when in fact, a cursory
glance at Iran’s foreign policy indicates the rule of sober national
interests over ideology.

>>From the Persian Gulf, where Iran has entered into low-security
agreements with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, as well as shared energy
projects with nearly all the oil states of the Gulf, to Central
Asia-Caucasus, where Iran has promoted regional cooperation through the
Economic Cooperation Organization, and, in addition, has acted as a
crisis manager (eg, in Tajkistan and Nagorno-Karabakh), Iran’s foreign
policy has been widely praised by its neighbors, including Russia, as
constructive, pragmatic, and peace-oriented.

For US and Israeli officials – and their media mouthpieces – to
overlook this and, instead, attribute an out-of-control, purely
ideological orientation to Iran’s foreign policy, begs the question of
objectivity on their part; their virulent Iran-bashing actually serves
as a self-fulfilling prophecy, since by causing the further wrath of
Iranians by their pre-scripted policy of sanctions and isolation of
Iran, Tehran’s hardliners turn out to be the major beneficiaries, much
to the detriment of Iran’s liberalist reformers.

This aside, it is important, particularly for Europe, to consider the
fact that Iran is still leaving the door open for the extension of
Iran’s voluntary suspension of the fuel cycle. Hence, the glass may
actually be half full, and the EU-3 should ultimately embrace this
opportunity to seal an agreement with Iran, even though it may be short
of their hoped-for maximum objective. To do so, however, the EU-3’s
leadership must recognize that Iran is not another Iraq, and that with
its strong military and a population twice the size of the rest of
Persian Gulf combined, Iran must be treated with a great deal more
deference than Iraq.

After all, Iran is a main source of energy for Europe, both now and
more so in the future, and any UN sanctions on Iran’s oil industry will
instantly translate into higher prices at the European gas pumps,
hardly a pleasant prospect for the EU as a whole. Not only that, some
EU countries, such as Norway, Spain, Greece, and Italy, are likely to
oppose the EU-3’s hard diplomacy toward Tehran in light of their
cordial economic and trade ties with Iran. This means that the
collateral damage of a failure of EU-3’s Iran diplomacy may be a lot
more widespread than hitherto thought; that is, it may introduce policy
fractures inside the European Union itself.

With the stakes so high, a prudent European approach to the Iranian
nuclear stalemate might be explored along the following lines: A
balanced package whereby Iran would agree to a temporary, six months to
a year’s halt in its enrichment activities as part of a “confidence
building” measure, in exchange for which Iran would implement its
declared policy of “full transparency” and allow unfettered access of
IAEA inspectors to the nuclear facilities in Natanz, Isfahan, and
elsewhere in Iran, per the terms of the IAEA’s Additional Protocol.

Such an agreement may not allay Europe’s fear of Iran going nuclear
altogether, but at least it provides institutional mechanisms for close
monitoring of Iran’s nuclear programs, which in turn, minimizes the
risks or threats of Iran telescoping these programs to weaponization.
If combined with parallel initiatives, such as an Iran-EU security
dialogue, this initiative would likely be effective in terms of the
long-term process of dissuading Iran from the path of acquiring nuclear
weapons, a path that in the current milieu of a sole Western superpower
acting like a “wild elephant”, to quote an Iranian official, is
theoretically conducive to the idea of Iranian nuclear deterrence.
Historically, rising insecurity has been a prime motive force for
nuclear weapons, and Iran may turn out to be no exception, in the long
haul, if the US and Israel fail to address Iran’s security worries.

For the moment, such theoretical concerns do not appear to have
influenced the drift of actual Iranian policies, notwithstanding the
repeated public pledges of Iran’s leader to refrain from pursuing
nuclear weapons considered “amoral”. Yet, the dictates of national
security interests may dictate otherwise in the future, all the more
reason to consider the issue of Iran’s nuclear program within the
larger framework of regional and global security, instead of apart from
it.

Unfortunately, the US and some European officials often overlook that
other countries too may have legitimate national security worries, a
serious oversight caused by their consistent Euro-centrism and
US-centrism. As long as a clean break from such arcane, underlying
security conceptualizations, or a cognitive map, has not materialized,
it is hard to see how the two sides in this stalemated negotiation can
achieve a healthy, mutually satisfactory, breakthrough.

Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions
in Iran’s Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and Iran’s Foreign Policy
Since 9/11, Brown’s Journal of World Affairs, co-authored with former
deputy foreign minister Abbas Maleki, No 2, 2003. He teaches political
science at Tehran University.