Tweet
"WAR IN HEADS - ALREADY REALITY, WAR ON BATTLE FIELD - JUST A STEP AWAY": KARABAKH PRESS DIGEST
Regnum, Russia
April 12 2006
"The Karabakh peace talks are developing normally. We know that it's
a very serious problem and it can't be solved at once," says Nagorno
Karabakh Prime Minister Anushavan Daniyelyan. There are hopes for 2006,
but no certainty. But no progress after the Istanbul and Washington
meetings can well mean that the OSCE MG co-chairs are seriously at
work. (Hayots Ashkharh)
"Intensive consultations are being held to resolve the Karabakh
problem," OSCE MG Russian co-chair Yuri Merzlyakov says to APA
(Baku). Merzlyakov does not agree with the view that the talks are
stagnating. He says that the co-chairs are now working separately with
the conflicting parties: "Steven Mann (OSCE MG US co-chair - REGNUM)
and US Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried have visited Baku,
Vardan Oskanyan (Armenian FM - REGNUM) has visited Washington.
This week Elmar Mamedyarov (Azeri FM - REGNUM) will visit Washington
and Oskanyan - Moscow. Bernard Fassier (OSCE MG French co-chair -
REGNUM) will shortly come to the region. We have agreed to take such
bilateral steps for the time being to later decide when and how we can
restart the multilateral process." Merzlyakov hopes for a joint visit
of the co-chairs to the region in Apr-May and their talks with the
presidents. Asked why the Rambouillet meeting was left incomplete,
Merzlyakov says that they planned one more meeting on Sunday, just
in case: "But the presidents knew they would not agree already in
the first half of Saturday. So, Mr. Kocharyan (Armenian President -
REGNUM) decided to leave on Saturday. (525th Daily)
Zhamanak daily (Los Angeles) says that the key message of the OSCE
MG Russian co-chair Yuri Merzlyakov was his words: 'Today the sides
are not yet ready to explain to their people that the problem can
be solved only peacefully, that compromises are inevitable, that the
expected agreement can't be ideal for either sides.' The daily reminds
that right after the Rambouillet meeting the OSCE MG co-chairs made a
joint call for the two governments 'to prepare their people for peace
rather than war.' After that, during the Washington visit of Armenian
FM Vardan Oskanyan, the OSCE MG US co-chair Steven Mann said that the
Armenians and Azeris do not want war, and the best thing the sides
can do is to take one step back from war. So, the daily wonders:
does Merzlyakov mean that Kocharyan and Aliyev (Azeri President -
REGNUM) are refusing or have already refused 'to explain to their
people that the problem can be solved only by peace'?
The spokesman of the Armenian FM Hamlet Gasparyan says that as of now
the OSCE MG co-chairs have made no proposals to the sides. So, Haykakan
Zhamanak daily concludes that even after two post-Rambouillet meetings
the co-chairs have failed to find ways to continue the talks. The daily
believes that the answer to the question what happened in Rambouillet
is hidden in the last week's statements by Azeri FM Elmar Mamedyarov
and Armenian FM Spokesman Hamler Gasparyan. Mamedyarov said that
Azerbaijan is ready to continue the Rambouillet talks, Gasparyan
said right off that Armenia is ready to continue the talks in the
framework of the 'Prague Process.' The daily sees some diplomatic
contradiction in these two seemingly ordinary statements.
"The point is that the "Prague Process" was discontinued in
Rambouillet, and today the talks can be continued either in
the framework of the "Prague Process" or in the framework of the
Rambouillet talks - which will give a start to a new process." The
difference is that under the "Prague Process" the Armenian side would
give back 5 "occupied" districts of Azerbaijan, except Kalbajar
and Lachin, which would stay under the Armenian control till the
determination of the NK status. Referring to its sources in the
Armenian FM, the daily says that Robert Kocharyan and Ilham Aliyev
agreed on that in Kazan last year, which was the key reason why
the co-chairs were so openly optimistic. But all of a sudden the
Azeri president retracted his words and said that he would sign
a peace agreement only if Armenia gave back Kalbajar too. That
was the end of the "Prague Process." As far as the daily knows,
Kocharyan - whom the Azeri side accuses of wrecking the talks -
refused to continue the meeting exactly when Aliyev began insisting
on the return of Kalbajar. Hence, in their statements Mamedyarov and
Gasparyan confirmed their positions on the problem of Kalbajar, and
now "in order to avoid new war and its catastrophic consequences and
to use the chance to solve the problem this year," one of the sides
should concede in the problem of Kalbajar.
"Azerbaijan has started war twice and lost it both times, but the
conflict is still unresolved. I think this must be a lesson for
Azerbaijan that this conflict can't be resolved by war and must be
resolved by talks and mutual concessions. Concessions are really
indispensable. Armenia has made its part of concessions, we are on
the verge and have no more way to concede. Now it's for Azerbaijan
to follow suit, so that we could set the process afoot and carry it
through," Taregir daily reports Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan
Oskanyan as saying during a briefing. "If Azerbaijan shows enough
political will, I think we'll be able to get the process moving and
to make more progress," says Oskanyan noting that even if the problem
is not resolved in 2006, "that would not be the end of the world
yet." The daily reports Oskanyan as saying that the next meeting
of the Armenian and Azeri FMs depends on the forthcoming Washington
meeting of Mamedyarov and Mann.
Baku is ready to negotiate with the Armenian community of Nagorno
Karabakh if they admit that they are citizens of Azerbaijan, Azg daily
reports Azeri FM Elmar Mamedyarov as saying. Mamedyarov says that the
talks with the Armenian community of Nagorno Karabakh are possible
if Armenia comes out of the negotiating process, and if the Karabakh
Armenians admit that they are Azeri citizens and recognize Azerbaijan's
territorial integrity and laws. "But I am afraid Armenia itself doesn't
want Azerbaijan to directly negotiate with the Karabakh Armenians,"
says Mamedyarov. He notes that "if the Karabakh peace talks give no
results, we'll have to choose another way to liberate our lands and
to restore our territorial integrity." In response to Mamedyarov's
statement, the Nagorno Karabakh Foreign Ministry says that the
Nagorno Karabakh citizens have never been and will never be citizens
of Azerbaijan. Even more, the Nagorno Karabakh authorities have always
said that they must be involved in the peace talks with no preliminary
conditions. Armenian FM Spokesman Hamlet Gasparyan says that Armenia
can't take seriously such statements by Azeri diplomats and is not
going to come out of the talks. Azg wonders: what is the sense of
the talks if the Karabakh people accept Mamedyarov's conditions? The
daily also reports NK Prime Minister Anushavan Daniyelyan to say that
he is ready to negotiate with Mamedyarov if ... he becomes Karabakh
citizen as a representative of the Azeri community of NK.
Politicians and political experts about the situation over the
Karabakh conflict
Azeri political expert Rasim Musabekov says that Azeri FM Elmar
Mamedyarov's Karabakh talks with the US officials may be fruitful:
"They will give fruit only if the US actually wants to set the process
afoot. The US has the capacities to do that." Musabekov believes that
a step forwards in Washington will make possible an Armenian-Azeri
presidential agreement already before the St.
Petersburg G8 Summit. "I think that if the agreement is reached
during or before the summit, the Armenian and Azeri presidents will
make relevant statements. In such a case, the G8 meeting will put an
end to the Karabakh problem," says Musabekov. (Day.az)
Armenian political expert Alexander Iskandaryan gives an interview
to Hayots Ashkharh daily.
"There is a view that the US wants peace in Karabakh for deploying
peacekeepers in the region, for ridding of obstacles in Azerbaijan
and for launching a military campaign against Iran...?
The first question is: can peacekeepers be used for waging war
against Iran? Of course, no. The second question is: does the US
need a base in such a problematic region as Karabakh? Again, no. The
US already has a common border with Iran - it has troops in Iraq. It
also has military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, which it can well
use against Iran. Let alone the US navy deployed or to be deployed
in the Persian Gulf. And it's absolutely no problem for the US to
make or to enhance its military presence in Pakistan, Afghanistan or
Kyrgyzstan. With all this, it is simply ridiculous to say that some
1,000 blue helmets in the Karabakh conflict zone are a vital problem
for the US. This is just a childish talk. I'm not saying that the
US doesn't want to deploy peacekeepers there, but it's a different
story - a story that has nothing to do with Karabakh. There is one
more question: does the US want or is it getting ready for war with
Iran in the first place? Especially as war is not an effective way to
stop Iran's nuclear program. Iran can't be compared with Yugoslavia
in either territory, or population, or political system - let alone
natural resources and economic growth. Persians are not Serbs and
Iranian leaders are not Milosevics.
Recently the Armenian president came out with a "bellicose" threat
that Armenia will recognize Nagorno Karabakh's independence de jure
if Azerbaijan leads the negotiating process into a stalemate. What
do you think about this?
If the recent statements in Armenia, including the abovementioned
statement by Kocharyan, are links of one chain (with the first
link probably being the many-thousand rally in the memory of the
victims of Sumqayit), this means that Armenia has decided to toughen
its rhetoric. But this in no way means that Armenia has decided to
declare war against Azerbaijan. Kocharyan's statement was addressed
to Azerbaijan: you're threatening us with war? here you are, we can
also speak that language; you're threatening us with the oil-fueled
army? we also have a strong army; you hope that your oil will help
you to solve the Karabakh problem? we also have a trump - Karabakh.
That is, if until recently it was Azerbaijan who kept making
warlike statements and thereby torpedoing the negotiating process,
while Armenia just said "guys, let's live in peace" and was ready to
continue the talks in any case, now Armenia says that it can also be
tough. But what it says is as real as Azerbaijan's boastful calls for
war. Armenia's recognizing or not recognizing Karabakh will change
nothing. Simply, Armenia wants to outweigh Azerbaijan's rigidity -
with reason, but a bit late. (Hayots Ashkharh)
Reviewer weekly (Baku) publishes the view of the director of the Baku
research-analytical center "Peace, Democracy and Culture" Rauf Rajabov:
"The world practice knows two models of armed and ethnic conflict
resolution. The first model resolves the conflict in compliance with
the interests of its parties. The second one is a trade of positions -
when each side tries to resolve the conflict exclusively from its own
positions, with no care for the interests of the opposite side. The
Karabakh peace process is mostly a trade of positions. Armenia's
position is known: either Azerbaijan recognizes the independence
of Nagorno Karabakh or Armenia will recognize the independence of
Nagorno Karabakh. This position is unacceptable for Azerbaijan -
for what Armenia actually wants is: Karabakh gets independence and
joins Armenia. This position is forcing Azerbaijan to be tough too:
the restitution of its territorial integrity and the repatriation of
its refugees. But Azerbaijan's position does not serve the interests
of the Armenian community of Karabakh and Armenia. Consequently,
Azerbaijan should propose some mutually beneficial way of cooperation
with Armenia and the Armenian community of Karabakh.
First of all, Azerbaijan should answer the following questions:
what capacity does the Armenian community of Karabakh want to
have within Azerbaijan, what system of security will function
in Azerbaijan and the South Caucasus as a whole? Such a system of
republican and regional security should consist of two inter-related
and inter-dependent levels: guarantee of security for the Armenian
community of Karabakh in the territory of Azerbaijan and guarantee
of its security by Armenia. Today the Armenian authorities openly
say that Armenia's security system starts from Azerbaijan's occupied
territories and Nagorno Karabakh, which are a buffer zone for the
security of Armenia's borders. One more reason for Armenia to care
for its security is that it is surrounded by Turkic states. That's
why Armenia should be provided with a specific model of security,
which will ensure the independence and security of its statehood.
Rajabov says that it's time to replace the model of trade of positions
by a model considering and protecting interests. The mutual benefits
of Azerbaijan, Armenia and the two communities of Nagorno Karabakh are
peaceful, good neighbor co-existence, economic cooperation, the right
to live for all citizens of both Armenian and Azeri nationality. But
when speaking about Karabakh settlement models, one should keep in
mind that there are stereotypes in both societies: 'For example,
the image of enemy. But the model of interests replaces enemy by
opponent - for only opponent can become a partner. Mass media should
have a big role in transition to this model.'
Rajabov does not think that the Karabakh peace talks are in a
stalemate: 'This is not true. Armenia and Azerbaijan have just
determined their positions, but not interests.' Rajabov notes that
not everybody in Azerbaijan wants the conflict to be resolved by
peace. Some people believe that a blitzkrieg will allow Azerbaijan to
fully restore its territorial integrity and its borders with Armenia.
But they forget that the second Karabakh war will be even more bloody
and destructive than the first one. 'This will only complicate the
resolution of the problem as the Armenian community of Karabakh will no
longer be able to live in the territory of Azerbaijan. They will flee
to Armenia in the face of the advancing Azeri army, which will make it
much harder for Azerbaijan to conclude a peace agreement with Armenia.'
'The Armenians will consider Azerbaijan's military campaign to
liberate its occupied territories and Nagorno Karabakh as their own
defeat and the ethnic cleansing of Karabakh from Armenians. Karabakh
is the ideological basis of the unity of the world Armenians,
and no Armenian leader will dare to make peace with Azerbaijan on
such terms. Even more, the only thing the Armenian authorities and
the Armenians of the whole world will think of will be revenge and
third Karabakh war.' But this is a national approach, while Rajabov
suggests the approach of United Europe - the disappearance of borders:
'The typical example is the European Union, where there are no more
inter-state disputes and claims: French-English and French-German,
Polish-German, Romanian-Hungarian, Turkish-Bulgarian.
In the future our region too will lose its internal borders. We will
have only external borders, which we will have to protect from external
threats: drugs trafficking, international terrorism, etc.' Only then
will each country of the region begin to consider a challenge to its
neighbor as a challenge to itself. Only then will there be peace and
economic prosperity in the Caucasus, says Rajabov (Reviewer)
What do Karabakh people think about war?
"A warm morning of June 2006. Or even, May. TV channels and radio
stations of two neighbor countries of the South Caucasus start their
programs by breaking news: "The Azeri information bureau reports!" or
"The Armenian information bureau reports!"..." That's how Zerkalo
daily (Baku) starts its speculations about the possibility and
consequences of a new Armenian-Azeri war. The prospect of war is no
longer ephemeral; it is tangibly felt in the statements of the leaders,
in the concerns of the mediators, in the chats in tea shops, in the
gossips in kitchens. Azerbaijan and Armenia have stopped restraining
their aggression and are psychologically ready for war. "War in heads
is already a reality, war on the battle field is just a step away.
It's almost foul play." The sides are ripe for resolving the conflict,
however, not by peace but by war, says the daily. "The time of
whetting of swords is over." The war is good for Iran and Russia:
"The war may delay the US's military plans against Iran. Russia also
wants war. It has a military contingent in the South Caucasus and the
war will strengthen the Kremlin's positions in the region. The South
Caucasus will fall back to the situation of the early 90s, that is,
to chaos. It will be much easier for Tehran and Moscow to fish in such
'troubled water'."
One of the signs of new war is "the growing skirmish campaign this
spring." The guns are not silent even during the OSCE monitorings,
says Zerkalo. Baku and Yerevan are accusing each other of wrecking
monitorings and making provocations - of the "first shot." "The war
is becoming profitable for all the sides of the 'Karabakh triangle':
Azerbaijan, who is tired of the futility of the talks and the impunity
of the aggressor; Armenia, who is getting desperately aware of the
hopelessness of its future; the mediators, who will not miss their
chance to gain control over the situation and to make a 'Dayton for
Karabakh'; the political elites, who will follow the public opinion
if the war starts and will save their face if they get a 'Dayton'..."
Today the Azeri society is sure that the dream of "strong Azerbaijan
and weak Armenia" is already a reality and our country is ready to
resume military actions. "They are even considering war scenarios: from
a large-scale attack all along the front line from Qazax to Fizuli into
the territory of Armenia to a one-week blitzkrieg to liberate Agdam
and Fizuli." Zerkalo gives preference to the blitzkrieg. "A longer
war will mean bigger losses. Besides, the international community
will hardly allow us to war for long." The daily notes that the
key risks of a long war are: "the Armenians will strike on the BTC
(Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline - REGNUM), whose stoppage will ruin
big energy projects; in case of a counter-attack we may lose more, if
not the whole west of the country; there may be casualties not only in
the army but also among civilians, especially in big towns like Ganca."
The daily disproves the general view in the Azeri society that "while
Azerbaijan will get stronger and ready for revenge, Armenia will sit
on its hands." "This is naïve," says the daily: "Armenia will either
concede at the talks, or hit the first. The same but mirror scenario:
Azerbaijan is provoked into the 'first shot,' a blitzkrieg is held, the
BTC infrastructure is destroyed, civilians are killed for intimidation,
and again Yerevan sits down at the negotiating table with weakened
Baku. Sanctions? It can't be worse for Yerevan.
Besides, if these sanctions were actually serious, they would have
been applied long ago..." "Sirs, search your heads, find arguments,
or you will have to search for them in cartridge belts." "We rather
have than don't have time for peace. Time has not healed our wounds
and we better not reopen them..."
--Boundary_(ID_BleZRpHnW//gizGP4baeUQ)--
Regnum, Russia
April 12 2006
"The Karabakh peace talks are developing normally. We know that it's
a very serious problem and it can't be solved at once," says Nagorno
Karabakh Prime Minister Anushavan Daniyelyan. There are hopes for 2006,
but no certainty. But no progress after the Istanbul and Washington
meetings can well mean that the OSCE MG co-chairs are seriously at
work. (Hayots Ashkharh)
"Intensive consultations are being held to resolve the Karabakh
problem," OSCE MG Russian co-chair Yuri Merzlyakov says to APA
(Baku). Merzlyakov does not agree with the view that the talks are
stagnating. He says that the co-chairs are now working separately with
the conflicting parties: "Steven Mann (OSCE MG US co-chair - REGNUM)
and US Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried have visited Baku,
Vardan Oskanyan (Armenian FM - REGNUM) has visited Washington.
This week Elmar Mamedyarov (Azeri FM - REGNUM) will visit Washington
and Oskanyan - Moscow. Bernard Fassier (OSCE MG French co-chair -
REGNUM) will shortly come to the region. We have agreed to take such
bilateral steps for the time being to later decide when and how we can
restart the multilateral process." Merzlyakov hopes for a joint visit
of the co-chairs to the region in Apr-May and their talks with the
presidents. Asked why the Rambouillet meeting was left incomplete,
Merzlyakov says that they planned one more meeting on Sunday, just
in case: "But the presidents knew they would not agree already in
the first half of Saturday. So, Mr. Kocharyan (Armenian President -
REGNUM) decided to leave on Saturday. (525th Daily)
Zhamanak daily (Los Angeles) says that the key message of the OSCE
MG Russian co-chair Yuri Merzlyakov was his words: 'Today the sides
are not yet ready to explain to their people that the problem can
be solved only peacefully, that compromises are inevitable, that the
expected agreement can't be ideal for either sides.' The daily reminds
that right after the Rambouillet meeting the OSCE MG co-chairs made a
joint call for the two governments 'to prepare their people for peace
rather than war.' After that, during the Washington visit of Armenian
FM Vardan Oskanyan, the OSCE MG US co-chair Steven Mann said that the
Armenians and Azeris do not want war, and the best thing the sides
can do is to take one step back from war. So, the daily wonders:
does Merzlyakov mean that Kocharyan and Aliyev (Azeri President -
REGNUM) are refusing or have already refused 'to explain to their
people that the problem can be solved only by peace'?
The spokesman of the Armenian FM Hamlet Gasparyan says that as of now
the OSCE MG co-chairs have made no proposals to the sides. So, Haykakan
Zhamanak daily concludes that even after two post-Rambouillet meetings
the co-chairs have failed to find ways to continue the talks. The daily
believes that the answer to the question what happened in Rambouillet
is hidden in the last week's statements by Azeri FM Elmar Mamedyarov
and Armenian FM Spokesman Hamler Gasparyan. Mamedyarov said that
Azerbaijan is ready to continue the Rambouillet talks, Gasparyan
said right off that Armenia is ready to continue the talks in the
framework of the 'Prague Process.' The daily sees some diplomatic
contradiction in these two seemingly ordinary statements.
"The point is that the "Prague Process" was discontinued in
Rambouillet, and today the talks can be continued either in
the framework of the "Prague Process" or in the framework of the
Rambouillet talks - which will give a start to a new process." The
difference is that under the "Prague Process" the Armenian side would
give back 5 "occupied" districts of Azerbaijan, except Kalbajar
and Lachin, which would stay under the Armenian control till the
determination of the NK status. Referring to its sources in the
Armenian FM, the daily says that Robert Kocharyan and Ilham Aliyev
agreed on that in Kazan last year, which was the key reason why
the co-chairs were so openly optimistic. But all of a sudden the
Azeri president retracted his words and said that he would sign
a peace agreement only if Armenia gave back Kalbajar too. That
was the end of the "Prague Process." As far as the daily knows,
Kocharyan - whom the Azeri side accuses of wrecking the talks -
refused to continue the meeting exactly when Aliyev began insisting
on the return of Kalbajar. Hence, in their statements Mamedyarov and
Gasparyan confirmed their positions on the problem of Kalbajar, and
now "in order to avoid new war and its catastrophic consequences and
to use the chance to solve the problem this year," one of the sides
should concede in the problem of Kalbajar.
"Azerbaijan has started war twice and lost it both times, but the
conflict is still unresolved. I think this must be a lesson for
Azerbaijan that this conflict can't be resolved by war and must be
resolved by talks and mutual concessions. Concessions are really
indispensable. Armenia has made its part of concessions, we are on
the verge and have no more way to concede. Now it's for Azerbaijan
to follow suit, so that we could set the process afoot and carry it
through," Taregir daily reports Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan
Oskanyan as saying during a briefing. "If Azerbaijan shows enough
political will, I think we'll be able to get the process moving and
to make more progress," says Oskanyan noting that even if the problem
is not resolved in 2006, "that would not be the end of the world
yet." The daily reports Oskanyan as saying that the next meeting
of the Armenian and Azeri FMs depends on the forthcoming Washington
meeting of Mamedyarov and Mann.
Baku is ready to negotiate with the Armenian community of Nagorno
Karabakh if they admit that they are citizens of Azerbaijan, Azg daily
reports Azeri FM Elmar Mamedyarov as saying. Mamedyarov says that the
talks with the Armenian community of Nagorno Karabakh are possible
if Armenia comes out of the negotiating process, and if the Karabakh
Armenians admit that they are Azeri citizens and recognize Azerbaijan's
territorial integrity and laws. "But I am afraid Armenia itself doesn't
want Azerbaijan to directly negotiate with the Karabakh Armenians,"
says Mamedyarov. He notes that "if the Karabakh peace talks give no
results, we'll have to choose another way to liberate our lands and
to restore our territorial integrity." In response to Mamedyarov's
statement, the Nagorno Karabakh Foreign Ministry says that the
Nagorno Karabakh citizens have never been and will never be citizens
of Azerbaijan. Even more, the Nagorno Karabakh authorities have always
said that they must be involved in the peace talks with no preliminary
conditions. Armenian FM Spokesman Hamlet Gasparyan says that Armenia
can't take seriously such statements by Azeri diplomats and is not
going to come out of the talks. Azg wonders: what is the sense of
the talks if the Karabakh people accept Mamedyarov's conditions? The
daily also reports NK Prime Minister Anushavan Daniyelyan to say that
he is ready to negotiate with Mamedyarov if ... he becomes Karabakh
citizen as a representative of the Azeri community of NK.
Politicians and political experts about the situation over the
Karabakh conflict
Azeri political expert Rasim Musabekov says that Azeri FM Elmar
Mamedyarov's Karabakh talks with the US officials may be fruitful:
"They will give fruit only if the US actually wants to set the process
afoot. The US has the capacities to do that." Musabekov believes that
a step forwards in Washington will make possible an Armenian-Azeri
presidential agreement already before the St.
Petersburg G8 Summit. "I think that if the agreement is reached
during or before the summit, the Armenian and Azeri presidents will
make relevant statements. In such a case, the G8 meeting will put an
end to the Karabakh problem," says Musabekov. (Day.az)
Armenian political expert Alexander Iskandaryan gives an interview
to Hayots Ashkharh daily.
"There is a view that the US wants peace in Karabakh for deploying
peacekeepers in the region, for ridding of obstacles in Azerbaijan
and for launching a military campaign against Iran...?
The first question is: can peacekeepers be used for waging war
against Iran? Of course, no. The second question is: does the US
need a base in such a problematic region as Karabakh? Again, no. The
US already has a common border with Iran - it has troops in Iraq. It
also has military bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, which it can well
use against Iran. Let alone the US navy deployed or to be deployed
in the Persian Gulf. And it's absolutely no problem for the US to
make or to enhance its military presence in Pakistan, Afghanistan or
Kyrgyzstan. With all this, it is simply ridiculous to say that some
1,000 blue helmets in the Karabakh conflict zone are a vital problem
for the US. This is just a childish talk. I'm not saying that the
US doesn't want to deploy peacekeepers there, but it's a different
story - a story that has nothing to do with Karabakh. There is one
more question: does the US want or is it getting ready for war with
Iran in the first place? Especially as war is not an effective way to
stop Iran's nuclear program. Iran can't be compared with Yugoslavia
in either territory, or population, or political system - let alone
natural resources and economic growth. Persians are not Serbs and
Iranian leaders are not Milosevics.
Recently the Armenian president came out with a "bellicose" threat
that Armenia will recognize Nagorno Karabakh's independence de jure
if Azerbaijan leads the negotiating process into a stalemate. What
do you think about this?
If the recent statements in Armenia, including the abovementioned
statement by Kocharyan, are links of one chain (with the first
link probably being the many-thousand rally in the memory of the
victims of Sumqayit), this means that Armenia has decided to toughen
its rhetoric. But this in no way means that Armenia has decided to
declare war against Azerbaijan. Kocharyan's statement was addressed
to Azerbaijan: you're threatening us with war? here you are, we can
also speak that language; you're threatening us with the oil-fueled
army? we also have a strong army; you hope that your oil will help
you to solve the Karabakh problem? we also have a trump - Karabakh.
That is, if until recently it was Azerbaijan who kept making
warlike statements and thereby torpedoing the negotiating process,
while Armenia just said "guys, let's live in peace" and was ready to
continue the talks in any case, now Armenia says that it can also be
tough. But what it says is as real as Azerbaijan's boastful calls for
war. Armenia's recognizing or not recognizing Karabakh will change
nothing. Simply, Armenia wants to outweigh Azerbaijan's rigidity -
with reason, but a bit late. (Hayots Ashkharh)
Reviewer weekly (Baku) publishes the view of the director of the Baku
research-analytical center "Peace, Democracy and Culture" Rauf Rajabov:
"The world practice knows two models of armed and ethnic conflict
resolution. The first model resolves the conflict in compliance with
the interests of its parties. The second one is a trade of positions -
when each side tries to resolve the conflict exclusively from its own
positions, with no care for the interests of the opposite side. The
Karabakh peace process is mostly a trade of positions. Armenia's
position is known: either Azerbaijan recognizes the independence
of Nagorno Karabakh or Armenia will recognize the independence of
Nagorno Karabakh. This position is unacceptable for Azerbaijan -
for what Armenia actually wants is: Karabakh gets independence and
joins Armenia. This position is forcing Azerbaijan to be tough too:
the restitution of its territorial integrity and the repatriation of
its refugees. But Azerbaijan's position does not serve the interests
of the Armenian community of Karabakh and Armenia. Consequently,
Azerbaijan should propose some mutually beneficial way of cooperation
with Armenia and the Armenian community of Karabakh.
First of all, Azerbaijan should answer the following questions:
what capacity does the Armenian community of Karabakh want to
have within Azerbaijan, what system of security will function
in Azerbaijan and the South Caucasus as a whole? Such a system of
republican and regional security should consist of two inter-related
and inter-dependent levels: guarantee of security for the Armenian
community of Karabakh in the territory of Azerbaijan and guarantee
of its security by Armenia. Today the Armenian authorities openly
say that Armenia's security system starts from Azerbaijan's occupied
territories and Nagorno Karabakh, which are a buffer zone for the
security of Armenia's borders. One more reason for Armenia to care
for its security is that it is surrounded by Turkic states. That's
why Armenia should be provided with a specific model of security,
which will ensure the independence and security of its statehood.
Rajabov says that it's time to replace the model of trade of positions
by a model considering and protecting interests. The mutual benefits
of Azerbaijan, Armenia and the two communities of Nagorno Karabakh are
peaceful, good neighbor co-existence, economic cooperation, the right
to live for all citizens of both Armenian and Azeri nationality. But
when speaking about Karabakh settlement models, one should keep in
mind that there are stereotypes in both societies: 'For example,
the image of enemy. But the model of interests replaces enemy by
opponent - for only opponent can become a partner. Mass media should
have a big role in transition to this model.'
Rajabov does not think that the Karabakh peace talks are in a
stalemate: 'This is not true. Armenia and Azerbaijan have just
determined their positions, but not interests.' Rajabov notes that
not everybody in Azerbaijan wants the conflict to be resolved by
peace. Some people believe that a blitzkrieg will allow Azerbaijan to
fully restore its territorial integrity and its borders with Armenia.
But they forget that the second Karabakh war will be even more bloody
and destructive than the first one. 'This will only complicate the
resolution of the problem as the Armenian community of Karabakh will no
longer be able to live in the territory of Azerbaijan. They will flee
to Armenia in the face of the advancing Azeri army, which will make it
much harder for Azerbaijan to conclude a peace agreement with Armenia.'
'The Armenians will consider Azerbaijan's military campaign to
liberate its occupied territories and Nagorno Karabakh as their own
defeat and the ethnic cleansing of Karabakh from Armenians. Karabakh
is the ideological basis of the unity of the world Armenians,
and no Armenian leader will dare to make peace with Azerbaijan on
such terms. Even more, the only thing the Armenian authorities and
the Armenians of the whole world will think of will be revenge and
third Karabakh war.' But this is a national approach, while Rajabov
suggests the approach of United Europe - the disappearance of borders:
'The typical example is the European Union, where there are no more
inter-state disputes and claims: French-English and French-German,
Polish-German, Romanian-Hungarian, Turkish-Bulgarian.
In the future our region too will lose its internal borders. We will
have only external borders, which we will have to protect from external
threats: drugs trafficking, international terrorism, etc.' Only then
will each country of the region begin to consider a challenge to its
neighbor as a challenge to itself. Only then will there be peace and
economic prosperity in the Caucasus, says Rajabov (Reviewer)
What do Karabakh people think about war?
"A warm morning of June 2006. Or even, May. TV channels and radio
stations of two neighbor countries of the South Caucasus start their
programs by breaking news: "The Azeri information bureau reports!" or
"The Armenian information bureau reports!"..." That's how Zerkalo
daily (Baku) starts its speculations about the possibility and
consequences of a new Armenian-Azeri war. The prospect of war is no
longer ephemeral; it is tangibly felt in the statements of the leaders,
in the concerns of the mediators, in the chats in tea shops, in the
gossips in kitchens. Azerbaijan and Armenia have stopped restraining
their aggression and are psychologically ready for war. "War in heads
is already a reality, war on the battle field is just a step away.
It's almost foul play." The sides are ripe for resolving the conflict,
however, not by peace but by war, says the daily. "The time of
whetting of swords is over." The war is good for Iran and Russia:
"The war may delay the US's military plans against Iran. Russia also
wants war. It has a military contingent in the South Caucasus and the
war will strengthen the Kremlin's positions in the region. The South
Caucasus will fall back to the situation of the early 90s, that is,
to chaos. It will be much easier for Tehran and Moscow to fish in such
'troubled water'."
One of the signs of new war is "the growing skirmish campaign this
spring." The guns are not silent even during the OSCE monitorings,
says Zerkalo. Baku and Yerevan are accusing each other of wrecking
monitorings and making provocations - of the "first shot." "The war
is becoming profitable for all the sides of the 'Karabakh triangle':
Azerbaijan, who is tired of the futility of the talks and the impunity
of the aggressor; Armenia, who is getting desperately aware of the
hopelessness of its future; the mediators, who will not miss their
chance to gain control over the situation and to make a 'Dayton for
Karabakh'; the political elites, who will follow the public opinion
if the war starts and will save their face if they get a 'Dayton'..."
Today the Azeri society is sure that the dream of "strong Azerbaijan
and weak Armenia" is already a reality and our country is ready to
resume military actions. "They are even considering war scenarios: from
a large-scale attack all along the front line from Qazax to Fizuli into
the territory of Armenia to a one-week blitzkrieg to liberate Agdam
and Fizuli." Zerkalo gives preference to the blitzkrieg. "A longer
war will mean bigger losses. Besides, the international community
will hardly allow us to war for long." The daily notes that the
key risks of a long war are: "the Armenians will strike on the BTC
(Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline - REGNUM), whose stoppage will ruin
big energy projects; in case of a counter-attack we may lose more, if
not the whole west of the country; there may be casualties not only in
the army but also among civilians, especially in big towns like Ganca."
The daily disproves the general view in the Azeri society that "while
Azerbaijan will get stronger and ready for revenge, Armenia will sit
on its hands." "This is naïve," says the daily: "Armenia will either
concede at the talks, or hit the first. The same but mirror scenario:
Azerbaijan is provoked into the 'first shot,' a blitzkrieg is held, the
BTC infrastructure is destroyed, civilians are killed for intimidation,
and again Yerevan sits down at the negotiating table with weakened
Baku. Sanctions? It can't be worse for Yerevan.
Besides, if these sanctions were actually serious, they would have
been applied long ago..." "Sirs, search your heads, find arguments,
or you will have to search for them in cartridge belts." "We rather
have than don't have time for peace. Time has not healed our wounds
and we better not reopen them..."
--Boundary_(ID_BleZRpHnW//gizGP4baeUQ)--