Page 2 of 5

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2007 9:28 pm
by Armanen
Because some analysts and politicians are saying that West said that he will recognise this parliament only if the new armenian government signes some agreemant


I don't believe any of that crap. It's lies spread by organizations wishing for a "color" revolution in Armenia.

PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2007 9:48 am
by Ararat
But the silence of foreign ministry toward this comments of french mediator creates a lot off suspicions.

Here a lot off people already started a protest movement
http://www.miacum.ru/

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 4:07 pm
by Lernakan
Armenian internet community: Armenian politicians endanger existence of Armenian nation

Any politician or civil servant, no matter what his previous merit to the country is, is traitor of his home country and enemy of his nation if he proposes to surrender Armenian territory,” says a statement by Armenian online resources received by REGNUM.

The authors of the text say: “Today, we claim that Armenian leadership and political parties stop any discussions of the readiness to surrender liberated Armenian territories of Artsakh. We also claim that contents of the talks are made public, as we find it inadmissible to conceal information that directly concerns future of the Armenian nation.” “Territorial bargaining and an attempt to surrender the liberated territory are in now way capable of resolving the Nagorno Karabakh conflict and are fatal not only for Artsakh future, but for the Armenian statehood in general. Armenian politicians mired in the ‘constructive dialog’ endanger existence of the Armenian nation. Practically, what is happening today is a new ‘Munich agreement,’ which pushes us into a strategic deadlock and encouraging a new aggression against the Nagorno Karabakh Republic and the Republic of Armenia,” the statement says.

OpenArmenia, ArmenianHouse.org Administration, NKR Community, Karabakh Community, Artsakh.info Community, Genocide.ru staff, Portal.Am, VIP Multilingual Forums, Mitk Analytical Center, www.haias.net, Hayastan.com, the city of Dilijan www.dilijan.ru, sirumem.com, KarabakhOpen, Andranik Youth Club “Aliance”, Sumgait.info Civil Initiative, Haylife.ru, Merhayrenik.narod.ru, Miatsum.ru, Armiane.spb.ru, Haytun.com, www.armenia-online.de, Nver.ru, Jugend-und Studentenföderation “Nor Serunt”, Armenian Knowledge Base photo blogs signed the statement. Colelction of signatures continues.

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2007 4:09 pm
by Lernakan
I don't think they really want to return the liberated territories. The Armenian people will never allow such a thing to happen.

PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:05 pm
by Lernakan
Image

WE MUST ALSO REMEMBER THAT ENSURING THE ARTSAKH PEOPLE'S RIGHT FOR PHYSICAL SECURITY AND STATE INDEPENDENCE CAN BE THE ONLY CRITERIA FOR NKR

Lragir.am
30-05-2007 10:24:00

As part of a public discussion we initiated about the fate of
liberated territories, we asked a candidate for NKR presidency,
Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Masis Mayilian to express his
position on this issue.

- Mr. Mayilian, what is your view of the problem of liberated
territories and possible deployment of international peacekeeping
forces in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict zone?

- First, I would like to thank KarabakhOpen.com internet edition for
initializing public discussions of a wide range of issues that are
urgent for our society. Among these, the problem of territories is
undoubtedly a crucial element for protection and realization of the
Artsakh people's right for security and state independence.

The official Baku often refers to international recognition of the
Azerbaijani Republic (AR) in "internationally recognized borders",
which are freely interpreted by Azeris in their favor.

I must point out that recognition of a state in international law
does not mean automatic recognition of borders declared by this state
as its own. The world practice shows that the issue of territorial
demarcation between neighboring states can be solved only in case
of mutual recognition of state independence and envisages diplomatic
relations between the sides.

Any intention to solve the issue of territorial demarcation without
linking it to recognition of international legitimacy and state
independence of one of the states is fundamentally without foundation
in law.

In my opinion, the central issue to be discussed is not the
territories, but state borders of the NKR and AR that are to be
discussed. An inter-governmental commission on delimitation and
demarcation of de-facto existing borders between NKR and AR is only
possible in case of Azerbaijan's recognition of Artsakh's state
independence. In course of delimitation, we must consider NKR's
territorial realities, which have been enshrined in our recently
adopted Constitution.

We must also remember that ensuring the Artsakh people's right for
physical security and state independence can be the only criteria
for NKR. For me it is absolutely obvious that our country will not be
able to develop independently and ensure military and food security
in the fundamentally illegitimate enclave borders of the former NKAO.

Discussing the issues of territories and borders we must keep in
mind that 15% of territory on which the Nagorno Karabakh Republic
was established is still under Azerbaijani occupation.

As to possible deployment of international peacekeeping forces in
the conflict zone, I think any appearance of foreign armed forces
in the NKR, even under the auspices of influential international
organizations, would result in a dramatic restriction of our
sovereignty.

The fact that the international community has still not recognized
NKR's independence and we are not represented in the mentioned
structures can result in a situation when our country will not be
able to have an internationally guaranteed leverage to influence
those forces.

In these conditions the possible deployment of peacemaking forces
will radically contradict our national interests. We can not restrict
our state sovereignty without achieving a comprehensive international
legal recognition.

Besides, it is widely known that the cease-fire between Azerbaijan
and the NKR is maintained only owing to the established system
of military-political balance of powers, in which the territories
liberated as a result of the Azerbaijan-imposed war play a strategic
function.

I am convinced that any departure from existing realities in haste
and without guarantees fixed in a number of preliminarily ratified
inter-state agreements will result in an immediate collapse of the
aforementioned balance of powers. And, as a result, undoubtedly
provoke resumption of hostilities with consequences catastrophic for
the whole region.

States and organizations which declare their interest in maintaining
peace and stability in the region must maintain the strategic balance,
rationally assess the whole complexity and fragility of the situation,
undertake and insist only on actions that will unequivocally promote
strengthening of the cease-fire regime, systemic maintenance of
the regional stability and establishment of tolerance. In these
circumstances discussion on the need for peacekeeping forces becomes
moot.

PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:34 pm
by Lernakan
PROBLEM
Ara Papian

Azat Artsakh Daily, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh [NKR]
30 May 07

The settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict some people say is
possible through conciliation of the allegedly contradicting principles
of territorial integrity and self-determination of peoples. In speaking
about territorial integrity mainly two documents are referred to, the
Charter of the United Nations (1945) and the Conference on Security
and Co-operation in Europe, Final Act (1975). Let us go through
these documents to see if these references are relevant. First,
let us consider the principles of self-determination of peoples and
territorial integrity according to the Charter of the United Nations
to reveal their legal content in the document and thereby their
relevance to the international law. The charter is dominant over
all the other international documents. This provision is set down
in Article 103 of the Charter, and is accepted by all the members of
the UN. Article 1 of the Charter dwells on the goals and principles
of this organization. According to Article 1 Point 2 of the Charter
of the United Nations, "The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. ... 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect
for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,
and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal
peace." [1] It is clear that the UN considers self-determination
of peoples (self-determination, not just the right of people for
self-determination, i.e. the application of this right) as not only
one of its basic principles but also as a basis for friendly relations
and universal peace. Hence, rejection of self-determination hinders
friendship and universal peace. In addition, Article 24, Point 2 holds:
"In discharging these duties [the maintenance of international peace
and security] the Security Council shall act in accordance with
the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations." It means in the
maintenance of international peace and security the Security Council
must be guided by self-determination if peoples because it is one of
its principles. As to territorial integrity, it is not included in
the purposes or principles of the UN. The Charter includes (Article
2, Point 4) unacceptability of use of force against territorial
integrity in international relations. "All Members shall refrain in
their international relations from the threat or use of force against
the territorial integrity or political independence of any state..." In
other words, it is not absolute maintenance of territorial integrity of
a state but the unacceptability of use of force against the territorial
integrity of one state by another state. It has nothing to do with
applying the tight of the self-determinate community, separation with
its own territory, if this community wishes to self-determinate through
independence. It should be noted that only the community has the right
to decide the form of its self-determination: a classic independent
country, a federation, sovereignty, or unification with another state
[2]. Most experts on the law of nations acknowledge self-termination as
a legal principle unlike the so-called territorial integrity. Hence,
it is obvious that the political aspect of the issue cannot distort
its legal content [3].

Moreover, the principle of self-determination is part of the jus cogens
of the international law, therefore [4] it cannot be changed. The UN
General Assembly declared by Resolution 637A(VII) (December 16, 1952):
"The States Members of the United Nations shall uphold the principle
of self-determination of all peoples and nations." [5] It is highly
important that the honoring of the right for self-determination is
interpreted as obligation proceeding from the Charter of the United
Nations. (... regards the principle of self-determination as a part of
the obligations stemming from the Charter) [6]. The other important
international document which is often referred to is the Conference
on Security and Co-operation in Europe, Final Act adopted on August 1,
1975. It is also known as Helsinki Final Act. This document allegedly
upholds territorial integrity and indivisibility of border. It does
not. "They [the participating States] consider that their frontiers can
be changed, in accordance with international law, by peaceful means
and by agreement," holds Helsinki Final Act's Chapter 1. It makes
clear that use of force against territorial integrity and political
independence is unacceptable. "The participating States will refrain
in their mutual relations, as well as in their international relations
in general, from the treat or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of any State ..." Hence, it is
obvious that the Helsinki Final Act, like the Charter, condemns use
of force against territorial integrity and not absolute maintenance of
territorial integrity. In other words, the unacceptability of threat or
use of force by one of the countries which signed the final act against
another country's territorial integrity and political independence. It
should be kept in mind that the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter
intend to maintain peace and security through refraining from threat
or use of force in international relations and not eternal borders
or conferring the status of a holy cow to the territories of states.

Self-determination of peoples is one of the basic principles
of the international law in accordance to which the borders of
the USSR, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Yugoslavia changed and will
change (Serbia). To conclude, neither the Charter nor the Helsinki
Final Act provide for territorial integrity or indivisibility of
borders. These documents include only commitment assumed by countries
on signing these documents not to threaten or use force against the
territorial integrity of another state. Hence, if Azerbaijan used
force in answer to the free and peaceful expression of the will
of the people of Nagorno-Karabakh (rallies, referendums, claims,
appeals), took inadequate means of punishment, perpetrated massacres
of the Armenian citizens of Azerbaijan in Sumgait, Baku, Kirovabad,
waged a ruthless war with Ukrainian, Afghan, Russian mercenaries
and sustained a defeat losing control over part of the territories
it considers as its own, it has nothing to do with the territorial
integrity mentioned in the abovementioned documents.*** 1. Similar
wording is found in Article 55 of the Charter on stability. 2. Ian
Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law, Oxford University
Press, Fifth edition, 2001, p. 599. 3. Ibid., p. 600. 4. Ibid.,
pp. 475-76. 5. Ibid., p. 600. 6. Ibid.

PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:39 pm
by Lernakan
POLITICAL SCIENTIST'S OPINION: NO DEVELOPMENTS IN KARABAKH CONFLICT SETTLEMENT ARE EXPECTED

Panorama.am
18:35 29/05/2007

"I don't think that the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan will
sign any memorandum or declaration, which can make grounds for the
final document adoption", - member of "Root" (Armat) NGO, political
scientist Stepan Grigoryan answered Panorama.am question. According
to Grigoryan, no development concerning Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is
expected in the nearest future because of lack of any grounds for
it. "The Karabakh problem will have no further developments until
the presidential elections in Armenia", - he's sure.

The talks on Presidents' level are recurrent and the forthcoming
meeting only ensures the process intermittence: "It doesn't matter if
Armenian authorities are ready to sign anything or make concessions or
not. The Azeri authorities are also not willing to compromise. Thus
I wouldn't associate this meeting with elections both in Armenia and
Azerbaijan" - the political scientist says. "Minsk Group Co-chairs
just want to show their activity and hold the meeting purely for the
appearance's sake" - he adds.

PostPosted: Fri Jun 01, 2007 1:13 pm
by Ararat
WASHINGTON: Armenia and Azerbaijan have made substantial progress toward a settlement on control of a disputed territory, the chief U.S. mediator in the talks said.
After more than a decade of efforts by international mediators to broker a deal on the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents are close to solving most remaining obstacles to an agreement on basic principles, according to Matthew Bryza, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state.
President Ilham Aliev of Azerbaijan and Armenian President Robert Kocharian are expected to focus on the sticking points during talks in St. Petersburg, Russia, on June 9.
"If the St. Petersburg meeting is successful, then the number of differences remaining on basic principles could be reduced to close to zero," Bryza told The Associated Press.
Diplomats from the so-called Minsk group of mediators from Russia, France and the United States have in the past expressed optimism toward breakthroughs on the difficult dispute only to see negotiations turn backward.
Nagorno-Karabakh is inside Azerbaijan but has been controlled by ethnic Armenian forces since a 1994 cease-fire ended a six-year conflict that killed some 30,000 people and drove more than 1 million from their homes.
Despite signs of progress in the talks, tensions in the region remain high. Azerbaijan has been building up its military as its economy has boomed from oil revenues at one of the fastest clips of any in the world. It controls portions of the Caspian Sea, on its eastern fringe, which has some of the largest oil and gas fields in the former Soviet Union.
Bryza would not identify the unresolved issues, but he outlined some of the basic principles already reached for a potential resolution.
The two sides have agreed on the return of districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh that are also under ethnic Armenian control.
Bryza would not say whether there is an agreement on the return of refugees to the region or on any compensation for those who fled the territory.
A public statement in early May by Aliev that the two countries had agreed that refugees could return provoked an angry denial from Armenian officials.
Negotiators have agreed that a settlement would stipulate that a vote would be held in the future on the territory's status, but they have not yet agreed on the timing of the poll or the details of who would be entitled to vote.
An international peacekeeping force would be present during the interim period before the vote, and a land corridor would be established from the territory to Armenia, open to ethnic Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh.
Bryza praised the two sides for making progress on an issue that stirs passions within both countries.
"The leadership of Armenia and Azerbaijan should be lauded for their courage in trying to bring stability and prosperity to their peoples," he said.


http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/ ... baijan.php

This is becoming serious. As i said sooner or later the Armenian government can get in a trap, because he don't clearly declare that we cannot give this lands to azers who are genociders

PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:03 am
by Lernakan
Ararat wrote:This is becoming serious. As i said sooner or later the Armenian government can get in a trap, because he don't clearly declare that we cannot give this lands to azers who are genociders


I agree, the Armenian government should take a tougher stance on this matter. I still don't believe that they will return the liberated territories. If they will there will be thousands of Jirayr Sefilyan's who will "take care" of this matter.

PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:21 am
by Lernakan
ARMENIAN NEWSPAPER OF RUSSIA CALLS ON YEREVAN TO REFUSE FROM TALKS AND RECOGNIZE NKR'S INDEPENDENCE IN CASE OF PRESSURES

Image

PanARMENIAN.Net
31.05.2007 18:04 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ "The next negotiation between Armenian President
Robert Kocharian and his Azeri counterpart Ilham Aliev is scheduled for
June 10 in Saints Petersburg. These talks may become decisive in the
process of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement. At the same time
negotiations are carried out on the background of an unprecedented
cynical statement, which belongs to OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair Yuri
Merzlyakov. He made it during his visit to Baku, saying that Armenia
must "remove his forces from 7 regions" and "Nagorno Karabakh is
an integral part of Azerbaijan". Similar statements made by one of
the Co-Chairs of the negotiation process, actually have character
of predetermining outcome of talks and contradict to the mandate of
Co-Chairs," "Yerkramas" Armenian newspaper of Russia reports. The
publication indicates, "we are sure that first of all people of NKR
must decide the future of Nagorno Karabakh Republic's status and fate
of territories adjacent to the former NKAR. Meanwhile, the fate of
NKR and historical territories of Armenia, which were liberated at
the cost of human lives, have the most direct connection with all
Armenians around the world.

Armenians of Russia will not be quite spectators of how the mediators
in the negotiation process imitating their successful activity
constantly are making compromises to Azerbaijan, creating threats for
the peace and stability that exists in the region. Saints Petersburg
must not become the place, where for the next time the international
community will try to deprive Armenians of their historical lands.

Repetition of the Moscow Treaty of 1921, in the result of which the
Kars region and Surmalu uyezd passed to Turkey from Armenia and the
Nakhichevan region and greater part of Sharur-Daralagyaz uyezd to
Azerbaijan, must not happen.

"Yerkramas" Armenian newspaper of Russia on behalf of its readers
calls on the "leadership of Armenia to refuse from signing any
document, which would infringe the interests of the Armenian nation,
and in case of political pressure from third parties to refuse from
continuing talks and officially recognize independence of the Nagorno
Karabakh Republic."

PostPosted: Sat Jun 02, 2007 9:30 am
by Lernakan
THE NEWLY APPOINTED FOREIGN MINISTER OF FRANCE BERNARD KOUCHNER AND HIS APPROACHES TO KARABAKH CONFLICT
By Nikolay Hovhannisian

AZG Armenian Daily
01/06/2007

The most important sensation of the presidential elections of France on
May 6, 2007, was that first time in history the tenure of the President
of France held not French, but Hungarian by origin Nikolas Sarkozy. He
became the 7th president of post-war France, following Vensan Orioli,
Rene Koti, Charle de Gaulle, Georges Pompidou, Fransua Miteran and
Jacques Chirac.

The other two sensations following the elections of France were:
firstly, Armenian Patrik Devegian was appointed as a president of the
"Union for a Popular Movement" party; secondly, the portfolio of the
Foreign Minister of France was given to Bernard Kouchner, even though
Kouchner supported Sarkozy's Socialist rival Segolene Royal during
the campaign.

There was even a period when the socialists were discussing the issue,
what if Sarkozy won, who could in that case defeat Sarkozy, Kouchner
announced, "I can". And after these events Sarkozy offered Kouchner
the important and authoritative tenure of the Foreign Minister of
France, and Kouchner accepted the offer, which raised the criticism
of his party members.

Today the analysts puzzle over the personnel policy of Sarkozy and
the reasons of Kouchner's acceptance of the offer. They give different
explanations, which in their turn raise new questions.

One thing is evident; a new period starts in foreign and probably in
internal policies of the 5th Republic of France. Sarkozy will say
goodbye to some supremacies of Jacques Chirac's foreign policy. He
has already announced about the warming of French-American relations,
not so favorable approaches to Russian-French relations, a rough
position to the membership of Turkey in European Union, that Turkey
is a typical Asian country and its place is in Asia, not in Europe,
where no one waits for it, etc.

Humanitarian policy will have a peculiar place in the new supremacies
of the foreign policy of France, and probably will be the axis of
the global policy of it.

This is the explanation of appointing Bernard Kouchner in the post of
Foreign Minister, as he has no equal in this sphere not only in France,
but also in the modern world. Strengthening of the humanitarian aspect
in the foreign policy of France was the reason of Bernard Kouchner's
acceptance of the offer of Sarkozy.

Bernard Kouchner was born in 1939. He has four children. He is a
doctor by profession. It's not the first time that Bernard Kouchner
appears in the government of France: Health Minister, then Minister of
Health and Humanitarian Action, founder and president of Humanitarian
Action Association, co-founder of the Nobel Prize winning aid group
"Doctors without borders", etc. He has been in Lebanon, Jordan, Zaire,
Darfur, Salvador, Kosovo and other countries of the world to provide
humanitarian aid. US former permanent representative of UN Richard
Holbruck mentioned about Bernard Kouchner: "He is always against
unfairness, either it is from left or right". Kouchner put forward 2
important theses when realizing his humanitarian mission. The first is
called the "humanitarian intervention" thesis, it allows intervening
in the internal affairs of other country, if there is a violation of
human rights, or the physical existence of people and ethnic groups
is in question.

Kouchner formulated his second thesis like this: "In order to
change the law, sometimes it's necessary to break the law." This
thesis was put forward in connection with the correlation of
the Law of maintenance of territorial integrity and the right of
self-determination of nations. The Law of maintenance of territorial
integrity is not an absolute thesis for Kouchner. He approaches this
issue from the viewpoint of human rights and physical security of the
people and ethnic groups. And if the Law of maintenance of territorial
integrity contradicts the issue of human rights, safe existence of
people and their self-determination, in that case, the law must be
broken according to Kouchner.

Kouchner, who was the author of the abovementioned theses, could not
ignore such an ethno-political conflict, as Karabakh conflict is. This
conflict focuses the attention of international societies from the
first days of its origin. It is discussed in different instances,
organizations, institutes, various forums, etc. It is also the general
object of various international research projects.

Similar project, titled "Partners of conflicts: building of peace
bridges in South Caucasus" was worked out in August-December of 1995,
in the Center of International Development and Conflict Management
of Maryland University of USA. The members of the project were the
representatives from Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan, also from USA
and Israel. The representative of Armenia was me, the author of this
article. The discussions were held in the circles of US Department
of State, sometimes also with the specialists of Mayson and Hopkins
Universities.

Thanks to this project we had an opportunity to get acquainted with
and use very important materials, related to the origin, the reason
of Karabakh conflict, and different states' policies and positions
to its settlement.

A file focused my attention among these materials. It was titled
"Nagorno Karabakh. A working file delivered to the United Nations
Economic and Social Council, Committee of Human Rights". It was made
by Human rights protectors in Geneva, in 1994, and contained very
important statements and viewpoints related to Karabakh conflict. Let's
give an example from those files: "Nagorno Karabakh and its neighboring
territories were parts of Armenia for 2000 years.

Azerbaijan first time pretended on these territories only in 1918,
when it became independent.

Among these files, statements and viewpoints was also the important
viewpoint of Bernard Kouchner, who was the Minister of Humanitarian
Actions of France that time. On March 8, 1992 in Paris during a
forum he announced that the 6 km pass of Lachin, which separated
Karabakh form Armenia, was "nonsense", and it was "a political and
geographical mistake".

This announcement of Kouchner testified that he was very conversant
in history and had exact information about the reasons of the origin
of Karabakh conflict, division of Armenian territories, the bargain
of Russian Bolsheviks and Azerbaijani racists. Otherwise he did
not mention that the pass of Lachin was nonsense, and also did not
emphasize that it was a political and geographical mistake. Kouchner
also mentioned that political and geographical mistake might be
corrected. And then he did the next important step and announced,
"It's better to agree to change the borders, then to murder the
people. It's better to change the borders then to leave the people
die." It's worth to mention that Kouchner made this announcement in
1992, when the Soviet and Azerbaijani armed forces were realizing
their "Ring" military action, which was the reason of murder of
thousands of Armenians, emptying many Armenian villages and making
the habitants refugees. He had total information about that inhuman
and barbaric action.

In the case of Karabakh conflict, according to Kouchner the Law of
maintenance of territorial integrity is not fair and human, and it
becomes a law of slaughter of peoples and nations.

As a result of the project in Maryland University, our works
were published in 1997, in USA by Maryland University titled "The
Ethno-political conflicts in South Caucasus, their sources and ways
of settlement".

In the same year in Yerevan was published another book in Russian
titled "Karabakh conflict. Stages, approaches, ways of settlement". And
in 2004 was published "Karabakh problem. The thorny way of freedom
and independence" in English. This book contains the abovementioned
materials and Bernard Koucher's viewpoint.

15 years passed from the announcement of Kouchner, but he didn't
betray his theses of "humanitarian intervention" and breaking the
wrong laws related to the borders.

Armenia cannot constantly "bluff" in the geopolit

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:37 pm
by Lernakan
This is an English translation of the interview published in Russian by
REGNUM News Agency on May 30, 2007 (www.regnum.ru/news/835719.html).


Armenia cannot constantly "bluff" in the regional geopolitical game:
interview by Armen Ayvazyan

Interview by Armen Ayvazyan, Doctor of Political Sciences, Director of the
"Ararat" Center for Strategic Research (www.ararat-center.org)


REGNUM: After the May elections in Armenia the authorities have
succeeded to further strengthen their positions internally and, it
seems, to gain a free hand in the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. How would you then explain the unprecedented harsh statement
of 28 May 2007 (http://www.regnum.ru/english/834890.html) by the
leading Armenian internet-resources, who represent a rather serious
contingent of active and professional part of the Armenian society?

During the pre-election campaign the problem of Artsakh
(Nagorno-Karabakh - REGNUM) and the liberated territory of Armenia
(the regions around Nagorno-Karabkh currently under Armenian control
are implied - REGNUM) were practically left out from the
discourse. Almost all parties side-stepped this question, at best
offering banal, declarative and vague formulas about the necessity of
achieving the conflict's settlement by the way of "mutual concessions"
and the like and so on. Meanwhile, during a brief period after the
elections the rhetoric about the surrender of the liberated territory
to Azerbaijan has sharply galvanized. The announcements have been made
on the level of the co-chairmen of the OSCE's Minsk Group, to leave
aside the victorious proclamations by Azerbaijan's highest
dignitaries, about reaching agreements on factual capitulation of
Yerevan and its readiness to surrender six or even all seven districts
of the former Azerbaijani SSR. Rather than being categorically and
unequivocally refuted by official Yerevan, at times these discussions
have been receiving direct and indirect approval in the statements by
Foreign and Defense Ministers of Armenia about the inevitability of
"painful concessions" as well as in Yerevan's frequent speechlessness,
which many interpret as tacit consent. All of this compounded with the
secrecy of the negotiations is generating great concern in Armenian
society about the fate of the liberated territory, that is - about
their very own security.

REGNUM: What is the value of these territories for the Armenian society?

The liberation of Armenian territories around the former
Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast has been generally viewed as a
military necessity - the only means of suppressing the Azerbaijani
launching points in 1991-1994. This explanation, reflecting the field
situation during the Artsakh war, is absolutely correct in a military
sense; nevertheless, it is not comprehensive and, consequently, is
deficient in several aspects.

Chronologically, this lone explanation corresponds to the strategic
thinking of the Armenian leaders in the early 1990s. They refused to
recognize several other components of the Karabakh conflict, in
particular, they were ignoring the incompatibility of
Armenian-Turkish-Azerbaijani strategic interests in the foreseeable
future; believing that the role of history in international politics
is anachronistic (an outdated reality); naively perceiving the
developed countries of the West as unbiased mediators and omnipotent
guarantors of security, at the same time perceiving the development of
the international political system as a uni-linear progressive
movement in the direction of 'general well-being and freedom'.

This worldview was in many aspects erroneous and vulnerable, because
it viewed the problem of the liberated territory as alien to and in
isolation from the Armenian Question. While the essence of the
Armenian Question has been and remains in the creation of viable
political and territorial conditions for the Armenian people to live
freely and independently on their native soil of the Armenian
Highland. There is only one solution to the Armenian Question - to
restore Armenian statehood if not in the entirety of Armenia (350,000
sq/km), then at least on a substantial piece of it, such that safe and
long term existence and development of Armenian civilization can be
secured. In other words, the Armenian Question is about the security
of the Armenian nation, and it requires the provision of two
prerequisites: The first is the creation of comprehensive and strong
statehood, and the second is the territorial guarantees fortifying the
security and viability of that statehood.

The experience of independent existence in the last decade and a half
proves that Armenia has managed to survive only thanks to establishing
of its control over the 42,000 sq/km of native Armenian land. This
territory is that minimally necessary area with fairly natural
boundaries which provides for the security of modern Armenia
(including the Republic of Armenia and the Nagorno-Karabakh
Republic). Armenian statehood will hardly be capable to survive, let
alone develop successfully, on a smaller territory.

Hence, the liberated territory is a guarantee of geopolitical weight
and international authority of modern Armenia. It is a precondition
for its military, water, food, energy, psychological, and, in the near
future, demographic security. It is a part of the Armenian homeland in
terms of history, cultural heritage and physical geography. The
liberated territory is the means for restoring the historically
traumatized psyche of the Armenians. It is a medium for the true
meaning of Armenia. Finally, the liberated territory is a just, though
minimal, compensation for the Armenian territorial, cultural, material
and human losses and sufferings caused by the Turkish and Azerbaijani
genocides, a compensation which has been attained by Armenian blood.


REGNUM:So, what is the formula of the settlement? And why is it so
unacceptable for the Armenian public?

The available information suggests that Armenia and Azerbaijan, upon
the mediation of the co-chairmen of the Minsk Group, work over a one
or two page document on the main principles of settlement. These
principles include the following: during the first phase of the
`settlement' the Armenian forces withdraw from the liberated
territory, except for the Kashatagh region (the Lachin corridor); a
multi-national peacekeeping force enters the conflict region, then its
re-settlement by the Azerbaijanis is organized. During the second
stage, the Kashatagh region is being gradually passed over to the
control of peacekeepers, and, then, according to official Baku,
Kashatagh and also Shushi are to be re-inhabited by the Azerbaijani
population. In 10-15 years a referendum is held on the future status
of Artsakh, which, as Baku states, will be held on the whole territory
of Azerbaijan and will in any case respect the "territorial integrity"
of Azerbaijan in the traditional meaning of this concept held by Baku.

Obviously, these principles are so far off from the legitimate demands
of the Armenian side that they can effectively never be accepted. They
had been already rejected once in 1996-1997. However, the
aforementioned document on the principles of the settlement may be
drawn up by using as blurred and ambiguous terms as to allow Yerevan
and Baku to interpret it each in their own ways.

Here is precisely the major menace for the Armenian side, since the
single clearly defined provision in this document will demand the
withdrawal of Armenian troops.

There also exists a widely held opinion that the Armenian authorities,
in an attempt to outmaneuver their adversaries, create a favorable
image in the eyes of the mediators and escape international isolation,
imitate the seriousness of their intentions in the negotiations and
play 'diplomatic poker' with Baku, hoping or being confident that Baku
itself will reject the proposed portfolio of settlement, as it has
happened more than once.


REGNUM: But perhaps imitation in the negotiations is a successful
tactic by Armenia? So far, Azerbaijan has adopted a principle of
"everything or nothing", thereby affording Armenia the chance to
preserve the status quo.

Even if we consider this an imitation of negotiations (unfortunately
we don't have enough evidence to be sure here), such imitation
seriously undermines Armenian interests.

First of all, the constant propaganda by the first political
dignitaries of the Republic of Armenia about the inevitability of
making territorial concessions infects the Armenian public with
defeatism, undermines the national victorious spirit among the
Armenians and the Armenian army, and does so on the threshhold of
possible Azerbaijani further aggression. In the meantime, a
significant portion of the Armenian bureaucracy, as well as those
young people who aspire for careers in public service, in the absence
of any other official position, fully trust the rhetoric uttered by
those at the top of the bureaucratic pyramid regarding the proposed
settlement of the conflict, and they themselves take on the baton of
propagating the concessions, thus reinforcing the defeatist moods even
further.

Second, the prolonged imitation of negotiations by Yerevan about the
readiness to make concessions on the one hand, and Baku's
uncompromising stance on the other, involuntarily condition and
persuade the Azeri public opinion as well as the international
community that the only possible option for resolution is the
withdrawal of the Armenian armed forces from the liberated territory -
i.e., the capitulation of the Armenian side.

Third, suchlike imitation sends out incorrect signals to the big
international actors engaged in the conflict (in the capacity of third
parties or mediators) about the true positions and demands of the
Armenian side. Armenia cannot constantly bluff in the regional
geopolitical game with such big players as the U.S., Russia and the
EU. Such diplomatic gambles are rather transparent and doomed to be
revealed, which could bring extremely unpleasant consequences for the
gambler himself.

Fourth, such a game weakens the negotiating positions of the Armenian
side, debilitating one's own position while, conversely, elevating the
expectations and demands of the opponent. We faced an identical
situation in 1996-1997. A passage I wrote about that period fully
corresponds to today's unfavorable situation: "The latest studies on
the theory and practice of negotiations have demonstrated that if one
of the negotiating parties (in our case - Armenia) adopts a soft and
compromising stance, conducting a so-called "friendly bargaining",
while the other party (in this case - Azerbaijan) takes an extremely
hard stance or "hard bargaining", then initiative and advantage always
lies with the latter. At the end, some agreements may be reached but
these will undoubtedly be in favor of the hard bargainer. But the most
important consequence is that such agreements do not solve the
problem, often leading to the resumption of the conflict.

REGNUM: And what can be said about the implementation of the document
about the principles of settlement?

Even if such a document is signed, it cannot be implemented as long as
a "Big Treaty", which should elaborate all the details, is not
concluded. But the latter cannot be concluded and ratified for a long
period to come, because the settlement of the Karabakh conflict
depends on specific details, rather than on clarification of the
general principles. In conflicts of this type, each and every single
seemingly miniscule detail is of the utmost importance.

For example, where the Armenian or the Azeri post will be stationed -
on this or that side of the hill - can play the same role in the
conflict as, say, the proclamation of the most important legal fact -
the future political status of Artsakh. Moreover, it is my strong
belief that in the Karabakh conflict the real power factors are far
more important than the pure legal elements. No legal document can
provide the Armenian side with the security guarantees equivalent to
land and territory. Even if, in the best case scenario, Azerbaijan
does recognize the independence of Artsakh (though Baku doesn't want
to even hear about it), such recognition will be merely a "paper"
element. The moment after conceding the liberated territory to the
enemy, Artsakh, as well as Syunik (the southernmost region of the
Republic of Armenia - REGNUM) will, in military sense, find themselves
in an undefendable situation (www.regnum.ru/english/679147.html) and
could be destroyed by a short-term Azerbaijani military offensive
(here it is apt to recall the fall of Serbian Craina). The conceding
of territory will not exclude the probability of war but, enticing
Baku's appetite, will rather create conditions for Azerbaijan to
resume the war from the most favorable positions. Let us also remember
that Azerbaijan, with the disguised encouragement and support of its
ally Turkey, is yearning for and planning the destruction of Armenia
in its entirety.

In any case, both the signing and implementation of the "Big Treaty"
will be hindered not only by the difficulties in finding compromises
in the details, but also by the internal political problems in Armenia
and Azerbaijan, the interference by great and regional powers, various
possible provocations, as well as the resistance by the people and
leadership of Artsakh and the patriotic constituency within the
Armenian public.

Thus, the question of the "Big Treaty" will remain unresolved, but a
document on the principles of the settlement, if signed, will
legitimize Baku's demands in the international arena and will hang
upon Armenia's security as a "sword of Damocles". Consequently, the
signing of a document on the principles of the settlement requiring
the withdrawal of the Armenian forces from the liberated territory in
itself immediately jeopardizes Armenia's national security in a
short-term context.

In the long run, the Karabakh conflict will be resolved in favour of
Armenia or Azerbaijan not at the negotiating table but as a result of
relative successes of these rival states in their respective
state-building processes. It is precisely this paramount challenge -
building a militarily and economically viable Armenian state - that
predetermines the fate of the liberated territory as an absolute and
inalienable strategic asset for Armenia and all Armenians.

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:41 pm
by Lernakan
Enker Armenian, could you share your thoughts with us on this matter?

PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:17 pm
by Ararat
"U.S. official cites progress in Armenia-Azerbaijan talks on disputed territory"
The Embassy noted with disappointment that some Armenian media outlets have selectively quoted a recent Associated Press interview given by U.S. Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew Bryza. We regret that the quote was taken out of context and encourage readers to view the full interview, the text of which is available below.

By Desmond Butler, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) Armenia and Azerbaijan have made substantial progress toward a settlement on control of a disputed territory, the chief U.S. mediator in the talks said.

After more than a decade of efforts by international mediators to broker a deal on the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents are close to solving most remaining obstacles to an agreement on basic principles, according to Matthew Bryza, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state.

President Ilham Aliev of Azerbaijan and Armenian President Robert Kocharian are expected to focus on the sticking points during talks in St. Petersburg, Russia, on June 9. ``If the St. Petersburg meeting is successful, then the number of differences remaining on basic principles could be reduced to close to zero,'' Bryza told The Associated Press.

Diplomats from the so-called Minsk group of mediators from Russia, France and the United States have in the past expressed optimism toward breakthroughs on the difficult dispute only to see negotiations turn backward.

Nagorno-Karabakh is inside Azerbaijan but has been controlled by ethnic Armenian forces since a 1994 cease-fire ended a six-year conflict that killed some 30,000 people and drove more than 1 million from their homes. Despite signs of progress in the talks, tensions in the region remain high. Azerbaijan has been building up its military as its economy has boomed from oil revenues at one of the fastest clips of any in the world. It controls portions of the Caspian Sea, on its eastern fringe, which has some of the largest oil and gas fields in the former Soviet Union.

Bryza would not identify the unresolved issues, but he outlined some of the basic principles already reached for a potential resolution. The two sides have agreed on the return of districts surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh that are also under ethnic Armenian control.

Bryza would not say whether there is an agreement on the return of refugees to the region or on any compensation for those who fled the territory.

A public statement in early May by Aliev that the two countries had agreed that refugees could return provoked an angry denial from Armenian officials.

Negotiators have agreed that a settlement would stipulate that a vote would be held in the future on the territory's status, but they have not yet agreed on the timing of the poll or the details of who would be entitled to vote. An international peacekeeping force would be present during the interim period before the vote, and a land corridor would be established from the territory to Armenia, open to ethnic Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Bryza praised the two sides for making progress on an issue that stirs passions within both countries. ``The leadership of Armenia and Azerbaijan should be lauded for their courage in trying to bring stability and prosperity to their peoples,'' he said.


h p://www.usa.am/

This is the site of US embassy in Armenia

PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:20 am
by Armenian
Lernakan wrote:Enker Armenian, could you share your thoughts with us on this matter?


About what in particular enker, Armen Ayvazyan's interview?

Incidentally, I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Ayvazyan in person when he was visiting New York City several weeks ago. I also attended a couple of his speeches. His website has some very good research materials regarding geopolitical and historical matters. You should visit it if you have not done so already.

Armen Ayvazyan's website: http://www.hayq.org/index.php?p=13&l=arm

The following video of his book presentation is very interesting: http://www.bvahan.com/ArmenianWay/video ... vazyan.mpg

The following is his radio interview regarding Artsakh: http://www.vem.am/files/programs/8/a_ayvazyan_II.MP3