Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Newsletter from Mediadialogue.org, date: 06-Jul-2005 to 12-Jul-2005

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Newsletter from Mediadialogue.org, date: 06-Jul-2005 to 12-Jul-2005

    Yerevan Press Club of Armenia presents `MediaDialogue" Web Site as a
    Regional Information Hub project.

    As a part of the project www.mediadialogue.org web site is maintained,
    featuring the most interesting publications from the press of Armenia,
    Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey on issues of mutual concern. The latest
    updates on the site are weekly delivered to the subscribers.
    ************************************************** *************************


    ================================================== =========================
    CONFLICTS
    ================================================== =========================
    MINSK GROUP WORKS OUT `BASES FOR SETTLEMENT' OF THE CONFLICT
    ----------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
    Source: "Azg" newspaper (Armenia) [July 12, 2005]
    Author: Tatul Hakobian

    In the course of the visit, the Co-chairmen will discuss `the options'

    Sunday evening, OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairmen arrived in the
    region. This visit is the first one after the parliamentary elections
    in Mountainous Karabagh on June 19 assessed by the international and
    local observers as complying with democratic standards.

    Yesterday in Baku, Yuri Merzlakov (Russian Federation), Steven Mann
    (USA) and Bernard Fassier (France) met Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan
    Elmar Mamediarov. After the negotiations, the journalists were
    informed about some details by the head of the so-called Azerbaijani
    community of Mountainous Karabagh Nizami Bakhmanov, who participated
    in the meeting. As reported by `Armenpress', the negotiations raised
    the issues of opening transport communications from Azerbaijan to
    Armenia via Mountainous Karabagh territory and the issues of returning
    the refugees to the places of residence.

    Bakhmanov stated that `the priority is the issue of displaced
    Azerbaijanis' and `without their return to Mountainous Karabagh it is
    impossible to resolve the status of this region'. There is a progress
    in the negotiation process, we hope the public will be informed about
    them on August 26 in Kazan at CIS summit after the meeting of
    Azerbaijani and Armenian Presidents', Bakhmanov stated.

    `Mediamax' reports that the meeting of the co-chairmen and Elmar
    Mamediarov `considered the current stage of Karabagh settlement, the
    situation after the Warsaw meeting of the Presidents of Armenia and
    Azerbaijan'. After the meeting with President Aliev, the Minsk Group
    will arrive in Yerevan to meet the Armenian authorities and to visit
    Stepanakert afterwards for the negotiations with the authorities of
    Mountainous Karabagh on settlement.

    Recently, Baku authorities discuss joint use of transport corridors
    with Armenia. In this respect, former mediator of OSCE Minsk Group
    from Russia, Vladimir Kazimirov expressed an opinion in his article
    published in `Novoye Vremya' that the suggestion of official Baku `is
    directed at the electorate and the world at large'.

    `Azerbaijan is getting ready for parliamentary elections, and the
    electoral calculations already impact the Baku tactics in the
    negotiation process', Kazimirov stated. He thinks `Armenians, who are
    not yet influenced by elections factor, assess the process of the
    dialogue positively but with more restraint'.

    Kazimirov noted that despite the aggressive statements and toughening
    of positions on the main issues, Azerbaijan already started discussing
    events on confidence, something it did not want to hear about in the
    past. In particular, former mediator mentioned about the Baku proposal
    on joint control of Agdam-Nakhichevan route with Armenians (via
    Mountainous Karabagh, Lachin and Armenia).

    `The problem of communication in the conflict zone is very important,
    however it is not a key to problem solution', Kazimirov stated, adding
    that `the status of Mountainous Karabagh and liberation of the
    territories occupied by Armenians 11-12 years ago are still in the
    spotlight'.

    On the eve of the visit, Russian Co-chairman Yuri Merzlakov stated
    that the mediators will continue discussing the bases of settlement
    with the sides. `The atmosphere is very good and friendly. I think
    this visit will be extremely useful', he stated.

    This visit of the co-chairmen will last up to July 16. At August 26
    unofficial CIS summit, a regular meeting of Kocharian and Aliev will
    take place in Kazan. Prior to that, 1-2 meetings of the Foreign
    Ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan are expected. }



    SCANDAL AT OSCE PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY SESSION
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: "Zerkalo" newspaper (Azerbaijan) [July 11, 2005]
    Author: K. Guluzadeh

    The Azerbaijani and Armenian delegation `gave a fight'

    Head of Armenian delegation at OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (PA), Vice
    Speaker of Armenian Parliament, Vahan Hovhannissian declared about
    diplomatic victory over Azerbaijan. In his opinion, the report on
    Karabagh settlement by the special representative of OSCE Secretary
    General, Goran Lenmarker, made at OSCE PA 1-5 July session in
    Washington, largely reflects the position of official Yerevan.

    V. Hovhannisian states that `the balanced and objective' report of
    G. Lenmarker `Invaluable Opportunity - Some Considerations on
    Mountainous Karabagh Conflict' is the outcome of hard work by both
    G. Lenmarker, the Armenian delegation and the authorities of
    `Mountainous Karabagh National Assembly'. V. Hovhannissian cites the
    following postulates from the report as evidence.

    According to the head of Armenian delegation, G. Lenmarker emphasizes
    that one of the most acceptable ways for settling the conflict is
    annexation of Mountainous Karabagh to Armenia. "Armenia wants
    independence for Mountainous Karabagh, and this option ensures most
    security', the report notes. Besides, the documents stresses the
    necessity for establishing cooperation between Armenia and Azerbaijan
    within European Union `Enlarged Europe: New Neighbors' project and
    unblocking communications without any preconditions. The document also
    contains a call on Azerbaijan to start direct negotiations with
    Mountainous Karabagh. The speaker presents Mountainous Karabagh as a
    party to the conflict ("Arminfo").

    V. Hovhannisian emphasized that all these provisions meet the
    interests of the Armenian side and are not fixed in any international
    document.

    However, V. Hovhanissian states the report contains such theses as for
    instance inexpediency of granting independence status to Mountainous
    Karabagh since `small populations' in the South Caucasus may lead to
    regional disintegration.

    Besides, the document stresses the necessity for the return of the
    refugees and the territories controlled by the Armenian side `in case
    of definite security guarantees for the people of Mountainous
    Karabagh'. The report also refers to the deployment of international
    peacekeeping forces on the territories controlled by the Armenian
    side.

    According to V. Hovhannissian, G. Lenmarker suggested setting up a
    reconciliation committee including not only parliamentarians of the
    conflicting sides but also the delegations of OSCE PA. Vice Speaker
    referred to this idea as quite acceptable for the Armenian side.

    Thus, it was previously planned that on the basis of G. Lenmarker's
    report OSCE PA will adopt a special resolution on Karabagh
    settlement. However, it turned out that both Azerbaijani, Armenian
    delegation and G. Lenmarker himself gave a halt to this process.

    First, the report of G. Lenmarker was not discussed at OSCE PA because
    of its incompliance with procedural norms, based on which the assembly
    cannot consider two documents on the same issue. The point is that
    before the planned discussion G. Lenmarker did not present a full text
    of the report to the Azerbaijani side but submitted only the
    theses. As stated to `Zerkalo' by member of Azerbaijani delegation
    Eldar Ibragimov, our delegates made their amendments to the theses of
    G. Lenmarker after which they returned the report. However when
    G. Lenmarker stated that he is against adopting the resolution by OSCE
    PA at the current stage, the head of Azerbaijani delegation Sattar
    Safarov submitted his draft of resolution.

    The standing committee of OSCE PA delegations rejected the Azerbaijani
    draft with a three-vote difference, which E. Ibragimov explains by the
    activity of pro-Armenian delegations.

    Second, due to the intention of the Azerbaijani delegation to
    introduce provisions from Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
    resolution on Mountainous Karabagh qualifying Armenia as aggressor, in
    G. Lenmarker's draft, its consideration was impeded by the Armenian
    delegation. V. Hovhannissian thinks that in this issue the Armenian
    delegation was supported by the delegations from Russia, France and
    USA. The head of Armenian delegation states `we all are well aware
    that the Armenian side will accept only the resolution ratifying that
    Fizuli and Kelbajar are originally Armenian territories, and at the
    current stage adoption of such a resolution by international
    structures is out of the question'.

    As for G. Lenmarker, E. Ibragimov states that special representative
    of OSCE Secretary General opposed the resolution. G. Lenmarker holds
    that it is essential to give OSCE Minsk Group one more year for
    achieving positive results at peace negotiations. The resolution may
    be adopted at OSCE PA summer session in 2006, G. Lenmarker states.

    'We invited G. Lenmarker for private conversation and accused him of
    deliberate delay in adopting the resolution. It is already two years
    he has worked on this problem and we really expect to see concrete
    results of this activity. Why is Council of Europe PA adopting a
    special resolution, qualifying Armenia as aggressor and OSCE PA is
    silent?' E. Ibragimov asks.

    Yesterday, V. Hovhannissian spoke about another interesting
    meeting. According to Vice Speaker of Armenian National Assembly, back
    in Washington Elizabeth Ruff, Assistant of American Co-chairman of
    OSCE Minsk Group stated in a private conversation with the delegations
    of Azerbaijan, Turkey and Armenia that the Armenian side should return
    the controlled territories, however the principle of the people's
    right for self-determination should be respected.

    According to V. Hovhannissian, representative of OSCE Chairman on
    Karabagh conflict Andjey Kasprshik, participating in the meeting,
    noted on his behalf that each of the conflicting sides has its own
    myth. Thus, Armenia holds that it may exist and develop in `hostile
    environment' similarly to Israel. However, according to A.Kasprshik it
    is only an illusion, since in the near future Armenia will not have
    enough resources for further development. There is a myth in
    Azerbaijan that oil dollars may help to increase military potential of
    the Republic and resolve the Karabagh conflict by force. However,
    according to A. Kasprshik it is also an illusion, `since the defensive
    capacity of the Armenian side is so high that any army will have
    difficulty breaking it', V. Hovhannissian states. Alongside this,
    A. Kasprshik emphasized that there is an agreement on conventional
    armed forces in Europe based on which the fixed armament quotas cannot
    be surpassed.

    In the conversation with `Zerkalo' E. Ibragimov accused
    V. Hovhannissian of telling lies. In his opinion, victory at the
    session and lobby discussions went to the representatives of
    Azerbaijan, since Armenians `could not respond to our just
    arguments'. E. Ibragimov states that in the course of discussions and
    private conversations with G. Lenmarker, E. Ruff and A. Kasprshik the
    representatives of international organizations mostly supported the
    position of Azerbaijan.

    Thus, E. Ibragimov holds that the thesis of G. Lenmarker on the
    possibility for annexing Mountainous Karabagh to Armenia is no more
    than a point in the list of the wishes by the conflicting sides. Thus,
    G. Lenmarker just enumerates the positions of the sides in the draft
    resolution: Azerbaijan wishes to restore its territorial integrity;
    Mountainous Karabagh wants independence, Armenia aspires to annex
    Mountainous Karabagh.

    Besides, E. Ibragimov stated that the draft resolution does not
    contain a call to Azerbaijan for opening communications with Armenia
    without any preconditions. `Lenmarker, Ruff and Kasprshik fully
    understand and agree with us that without liberating the occupied
    territories and return of the refugees to their homes it is impossible
    to open the communications', E. Ibragimov states.

    Thus, after the OSCE PA session the situation was not clear. Both
    sides, contradicting each other, proclaim their diplomatic
    success. However, no concrete documents were adopted on the results of
    the session that might serve as a basis for objective conclusions on
    the success of diplomacy.

    However, for the current moment it is not the resolutions adopted and
    rejected by the parliamentarian structures of various international
    organizations that matter but the active negotiations between the
    parties to the conflict. Thus, during the August meeting of the
    Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia working out `main settlement
    options' is to be completed. Russian Co-chairman of OSCE Minsk Group
    Yuri Merzlakov stated about it, commenting on the mediators' visit to
    the region fixed for July 10-16 (`Trend'). In his opinion, the Baku
    meetings with the officials are scheduled for July 11. `The atmosphere
    is very good, work-disposing. I think the visit and our stay in Baku
    will be very useful for further negotiation process. We planned it
    right in this context', the diplomat added. }



    REFERENCE BOOK EDITORS FINED IN FRANCE ON ALLEGED GENOCIDE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: "Turkish Daily News" newspaper (Turkey) [July 08, 2005]
    Author:

    A court in Paris fined the editors of a French reference book the
    symbolic amount of one euro for not portraying the killings of
    Armenians in eastern Anatolia during World War I, which Armenians
    claim are tantamount to genocide, in a balanced manner.

    The court said the Quid reference book favored Turkey's position and
    only briefly described the Armenian point of view.

    Turkey categorically denies allegations of genocide and says
    Armenians were killed as part of civil unrest sparked by the Armenian
    revolt against Ottoman rule in collaboration with invading Russian
    forces.

    The court issued the one-euro fine and ordered publication of its
    verdict in three daily newspapers, three weekly newspapers and on the
    Quid Internet site.

    The court ruling was in response to a 2003 complaint against the
    encyclopedia by the Committee for the Defense of the Armenian Cause
    (COCA).

    Defense lawyers for the reference book cited its editorial freedom
    and pointed out that the book mentions a 2001 French law that
    recognizes the killings as genocide.

    The same court fined renowned historian Bernard Lewis in the past for
    not portraying the Armenian killings in a balanced way in an article
    he wrote for Le Monde. The court issued a fine of one French franc in
    that ruling.

    Turkish-French relations have been strained in the past over French
    recognition of the alleged genocide. The alleged genocide is a source
    of tension between Turkey and Armenia. Turkey closed its border with
    Armenia more than a decade ago in protest of the Armenian allegations
    and an Armenian invasion of the Azerbaijani territory of
    Nagorno-Karabakh. }



    ================================================== =========================
    ECONOMY
    ================================================== =========================
    KARS - CAUCASUS GATES?
    ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------
    Source: `Khvalindeli Dge' newspaper (Georgia) [July 06, 2005]
    Author:

    The last month meeting of entrepreneurs and representatives of the
    local authorities of Turkish Kars city, Georgian regions of
    Akhaltsikh, Ninotsminda and Akhalkalak considered the possibilities of
    economic cooperation between the border regions of Georgia and Turkey.

    The visit of Samtskhe-Javakheti to Kars was organized by the European
    Center for Minority Issues (ECMI) by the official invitation of the
    Turkish side. The meeting discussed the possibilities of economic
    cooperation and creation of job places through joint projects mainly
    in the tourism sphere for the current period. The meeting participants
    think that the first step to intensive cooperation may become opening
    of one more, third check point on the Georgian-Turkish border. Before
    that, it is necessary to restore a whole set of highways. Afterwards,
    we will be able to speak about Kars getting the unofficial status of
    `Caucasus gates' lost in the previous century.

    The Georgian border regions in their turn seriously considered close
    cooperation with a powerful southern neighbor. Setting direct ties may
    improve the economy and raise life standards. Economic integration of
    Samtskhe-Javakheti with the neighboring Turkish regions is as
    promising and tangible as the developing integration of Ajaria with
    the Black Sea regions of Turkey. The meeting participants agreed that
    their next meeting will take place in Akhalkalaki for further
    consideration of cooperation possibilities. `The two border regions,
    where the uniqueness and cultures of Georgia, Turkey and Armenia are
    closely intertwined, have a chance for being transformed into a key
    point of Caucasus integration process', the leading expert of Caucasus
    Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development, Paata Zakareshsvili
    thinks.

    He wonders what impeded Kars to return to its previous activity with
    all the positive tendencies for the Georgian side. Kars lost the
    status of a border city in 1993 after the land routes between Turkey
    and the Soviet Union via Dogukap-Akhurian checkpoint were
    closed. Akhalkalaki, administrative center of Javakheti, was located
    in a prohibited area due to its military strategic significance in
    Soviet times. At present this territory, because of its distance from
    the center and weak infrastructure, turned into one of the poorly
    developed regions of Georgia. The distance from Armenian and Turkish
    borders to Akhalkalaki is 35 and 30 kilometers respectively. Kars is
    at 70 kilometers distance from both borders - Georgian and
    Armenian. Opening of communications with Kars has been one of the
    priorities of Georgian-Turkish cooperation for several years. To solve
    this issue, a joint Turkish-Georgian economic commission was set up,
    however with no obvious results in its activity. The expert thinks
    that efficiency was not achieved because of the poor state of regional
    highways both on the Turkish and Georgia sides. In other words,
    Zakareshvili thinks that repairing the roads is a start, whereas the
    rest will be settled by itself. }

    ************************************************** *************************
    You can subscribe or unsubscribe to this newsletter either at
    www.mediadialogue.org or by sending a message to the Editor:
    [email protected].

    For comments or questions please contact the Editor: [email protected].
Working...
X