Tweet
Noyan Tapan Highlights weekly
May 14, 2007
Aliyev says to Azeri refugees: "Don't hope to return home soon."
by Haroutiun Khachatrian
On May 4 the Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev made a speech in
the town of Ramani not far from Baku, presenting, as he put it, the
"essence of negotiations" around Nagorno Karabakh. The speech caused
quite a great resonance, including in the Armenian press.
Before turning to the subject proper, I'd like to note that a
considerable confusion arose as a result of an inadequate presentation
of the Azerbaijani president's speech in some preliminary reports. To
avoid misunderstanding of this kind, I have used the reports
containing large excerpts from Aliyev's speech (newsazerbaijan.ru and
www.apa.az websites, and reports of ITAR-TASS).
If we ignore part of Aliyev's statement, in which he tries to
pre-determine the status of Karabakh (actually it is an important part
but famous and often repeated by Azerbaijanis), the main emphasis in
the speech is laid on the issue of how the Armenian party should
withdraw its troops from seven Azerbaijani regions around Nagorno
Karabakh (again we ignore the fact that the negotiations are held
between Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia, hoping that the
authorities of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, which actually controls
the territories, will agree later to act accordingly). With the
preliminary agreement published by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs in
June 2006, at the first stage troops must be withdrawn from five
regions, except Lachin and Kelbajar, then - in the course of further
development of the process (in case of settling issues related to the
status of Karabakh, as requested by the Armenian party) - also from
the two other regions. The Armenian party expects a constant link to
be secured between the Republic of Armenia and the Nagorno Karabakh
Republic through the territory of the Lachin region. It is important
that after the withdrawal of the Armenian (Karabakh) troops, the
Azeris, who previously lived in these areas and were displaced during
hostilities, should naturally return there.
So, according to the preliminary agreement of June 2006, the
sequence of events should be as follows:
1. Withdrawal of Armenian troops from five regions,
2. Return of refugees (IDPs) to these regions,
3. Reaching an agreement on the order of determining the status
of Karabakh,
4. Withdrawal of Armenian troops from Kelbajar and Lachin,
5. Further return of IDPs - to Kelbajar and Lachin,
6. Return of Azeries to Karabakh,
7. Holding a referendum on the status of Karabakh.
That is, the Armenian party in principle would not object to the
withdrawal of troops from Lachin, the more so - from Kelbajar.
It is in this part that Aliyev said news. In his words:
"Our demands are: All the occupied Azerbaijani territories must
be freed without any condition being put forward. The process of
returning Lachin and Kelbajar may not be based on any precondition. At
the current stage of negotiations, the main principle is that the
Armenian troops unconditionally leave the seven occupied Azerbaijani
territories. No doubt, we realize that this process will proceed stage
by stage and last several years."
In other words, Azerbaijan no longer agrees with the June 2006
principles. Well, it is up to Azerbaijan. But the Azeri president goes
further to say:
"This is our principal condition. And this provision was accepted
both by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs and the Armenian party."
That is, according to Aliyev, there was a turning-point in the
negotiation process, and the Armenian party agreed to his conditions.
Before citing the reaction of the Armenian party, I'll give a
third side's information about the situation around negotiations. This
side is the U.S. Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew Bryza who
said in his interview to The Voice of America on April 25 (quotes
translated from Russian):
"The matter concerns immediate withdrawal of Armenian armed
forces from 5 regions around Nagorno Karabakh, return of these regions
to Azerbaijan, deployment of peace-keeping forces there and return of
refugees. Negotiations on conditions to return Kelbajar and Lachin are
continuing." "But here we are close to reaching an agreement," Bryza
went on.
That is, according to Bryza, at least eight days before Aliyev's
speech there was no change in the issue about five or seven regions
must be freed. And nothing might change during these eight days
either, because no negotiations were conducted in this period.
Columnist of Azerbaijani newspaper "Zerkalo" Rauf Mirkadyrov
writes in this connection:
"The president speaks about unconditional withdrawal of Armenian
troops from all the seven regions, including Kelbajar and Lachin,
while U.S. co-chair - about the necessity to agree on certain
conditions for return of these two administrative-territorial units.
This is not the same thing."
After saying "this is not the same thing," Mirkadyrov delicately
ends the sentence. Delicately, as another conclusion would logically
follow it: "Either Aliyev or Bryza is lying. Who is the liar?"
Of course, Aliyev is the liar. It is evident not only from the
fact that Bryza was not interested in telling a lie eight days before
Aliyev's unexpected speech. It also follows from the comment of the
Armenian party (prime minister Serge Sargsian) that the Armenian party
had not changed its point of view.
Unlike Aliyev, Serge Sargsian did not accuse the Azerbaijani
party of lying (compare the following part of Aliyev's speech: "I
don't care what kind of deceitful statements the Armenian authorities
make before their people. That is why today I state the main
principles of the negotiation process."), he just took it into
consideration that the Azerbaijani party had probably changed its
position and he added: "I don't know why Aliyev made this statement."
What do we have as a result? If we consider the sequence of the
above mentioned future events, at that moment the June 2006 agreement
did not certainly guarantee a solution of the Karabakh problem but at
least it allowed to fulfill the second of the above stated points: a
partial return of refugees to five of the seven regions. It would be a
great progress indeed not only in the lives of these unhappy people
but also in the whole settlement process as it would form a basis for
resumption of the joint life of Armenians and Azeries and enable to
ease the tension and increase the mutual trust.
Renouncing the June principles and especially speaking again
about the constantly growing military budget of his country
(i.e. threatening Armenia), Aliyev simply told his refugee
compatriots: "Don't hope to return home soon." And he will keep
shedding crocodile tears about "one million refugees" all around the
world. The fact that the real number of refugees is half of this
figure is not a reason for making the fate of these unhappy people a
subject of speculations.
May 14, 2007
Aliyev says to Azeri refugees: "Don't hope to return home soon."
by Haroutiun Khachatrian
On May 4 the Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev made a speech in
the town of Ramani not far from Baku, presenting, as he put it, the
"essence of negotiations" around Nagorno Karabakh. The speech caused
quite a great resonance, including in the Armenian press.
Before turning to the subject proper, I'd like to note that a
considerable confusion arose as a result of an inadequate presentation
of the Azerbaijani president's speech in some preliminary reports. To
avoid misunderstanding of this kind, I have used the reports
containing large excerpts from Aliyev's speech (newsazerbaijan.ru and
www.apa.az websites, and reports of ITAR-TASS).
If we ignore part of Aliyev's statement, in which he tries to
pre-determine the status of Karabakh (actually it is an important part
but famous and often repeated by Azerbaijanis), the main emphasis in
the speech is laid on the issue of how the Armenian party should
withdraw its troops from seven Azerbaijani regions around Nagorno
Karabakh (again we ignore the fact that the negotiations are held
between Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia, hoping that the
authorities of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic, which actually controls
the territories, will agree later to act accordingly). With the
preliminary agreement published by the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs in
June 2006, at the first stage troops must be withdrawn from five
regions, except Lachin and Kelbajar, then - in the course of further
development of the process (in case of settling issues related to the
status of Karabakh, as requested by the Armenian party) - also from
the two other regions. The Armenian party expects a constant link to
be secured between the Republic of Armenia and the Nagorno Karabakh
Republic through the territory of the Lachin region. It is important
that after the withdrawal of the Armenian (Karabakh) troops, the
Azeris, who previously lived in these areas and were displaced during
hostilities, should naturally return there.
So, according to the preliminary agreement of June 2006, the
sequence of events should be as follows:
1. Withdrawal of Armenian troops from five regions,
2. Return of refugees (IDPs) to these regions,
3. Reaching an agreement on the order of determining the status
of Karabakh,
4. Withdrawal of Armenian troops from Kelbajar and Lachin,
5. Further return of IDPs - to Kelbajar and Lachin,
6. Return of Azeries to Karabakh,
7. Holding a referendum on the status of Karabakh.
That is, the Armenian party in principle would not object to the
withdrawal of troops from Lachin, the more so - from Kelbajar.
It is in this part that Aliyev said news. In his words:
"Our demands are: All the occupied Azerbaijani territories must
be freed without any condition being put forward. The process of
returning Lachin and Kelbajar may not be based on any precondition. At
the current stage of negotiations, the main principle is that the
Armenian troops unconditionally leave the seven occupied Azerbaijani
territories. No doubt, we realize that this process will proceed stage
by stage and last several years."
In other words, Azerbaijan no longer agrees with the June 2006
principles. Well, it is up to Azerbaijan. But the Azeri president goes
further to say:
"This is our principal condition. And this provision was accepted
both by the OSCE Minsk Group Co-chairs and the Armenian party."
That is, according to Aliyev, there was a turning-point in the
negotiation process, and the Armenian party agreed to his conditions.
Before citing the reaction of the Armenian party, I'll give a
third side's information about the situation around negotiations. This
side is the U.S. Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group Matthew Bryza who
said in his interview to The Voice of America on April 25 (quotes
translated from Russian):
"The matter concerns immediate withdrawal of Armenian armed
forces from 5 regions around Nagorno Karabakh, return of these regions
to Azerbaijan, deployment of peace-keeping forces there and return of
refugees. Negotiations on conditions to return Kelbajar and Lachin are
continuing." "But here we are close to reaching an agreement," Bryza
went on.
That is, according to Bryza, at least eight days before Aliyev's
speech there was no change in the issue about five or seven regions
must be freed. And nothing might change during these eight days
either, because no negotiations were conducted in this period.
Columnist of Azerbaijani newspaper "Zerkalo" Rauf Mirkadyrov
writes in this connection:
"The president speaks about unconditional withdrawal of Armenian
troops from all the seven regions, including Kelbajar and Lachin,
while U.S. co-chair - about the necessity to agree on certain
conditions for return of these two administrative-territorial units.
This is not the same thing."
After saying "this is not the same thing," Mirkadyrov delicately
ends the sentence. Delicately, as another conclusion would logically
follow it: "Either Aliyev or Bryza is lying. Who is the liar?"
Of course, Aliyev is the liar. It is evident not only from the
fact that Bryza was not interested in telling a lie eight days before
Aliyev's unexpected speech. It also follows from the comment of the
Armenian party (prime minister Serge Sargsian) that the Armenian party
had not changed its point of view.
Unlike Aliyev, Serge Sargsian did not accuse the Azerbaijani
party of lying (compare the following part of Aliyev's speech: "I
don't care what kind of deceitful statements the Armenian authorities
make before their people. That is why today I state the main
principles of the negotiation process."), he just took it into
consideration that the Azerbaijani party had probably changed its
position and he added: "I don't know why Aliyev made this statement."
What do we have as a result? If we consider the sequence of the
above mentioned future events, at that moment the June 2006 agreement
did not certainly guarantee a solution of the Karabakh problem but at
least it allowed to fulfill the second of the above stated points: a
partial return of refugees to five of the seven regions. It would be a
great progress indeed not only in the lives of these unhappy people
but also in the whole settlement process as it would form a basis for
resumption of the joint life of Armenians and Azeries and enable to
ease the tension and increase the mutual trust.
Renouncing the June principles and especially speaking again
about the constantly growing military budget of his country
(i.e. threatening Armenia), Aliyev simply told his refugee
compatriots: "Don't hope to return home soon." And he will keep
shedding crocodile tears about "one million refugees" all around the
world. The fact that the real number of refugees is half of this
figure is not a reason for making the fate of these unhappy people a
subject of speculations.