Karabagh News‏

WHAT EUROPE PLANNED
Lragir.am
24/05/10

There are a number of noteworthy moments in the resolution adopted by
the European Parliament. First of all, this is the voiced intention of
the EU to be actively involved in the processes taking place in the
South Caucasus, including Karabakh. According to the document, EP
“supports the EU’s executive bodies to send observation missions to
the region, which should contribute to the formation of international
peacekeeping forces”. Secondly, there is a point on the withdrawal of
the Armenian forces from “seven occupied territories” and the return
of refugees.

So, the resolution decides three main points from five of the
principles of Madrid, which have not been agreed so far. As it is
known, the Madrid proposals suppose for the withdrawal of troops from
“several regions”, return of refugees, deployment of peacekeeping
forces and a status for NKR. That is, with one stroke of the pen the
European Parliament “solved” almost all the tasks of the Minsk Group.
What Armenia and Azerbaijan will talk about after is not clear; in
fact all the controversial issues are “resolved”.

Despite the statements by the Armenian deputies that the resolution
does not have a legal force and it was worked out by a “partial”
deputy, it is evident that the fact of accepting the resolution proves
the intentions of the European Union to activate. European expert for
the problems of Eurasia and Europe Simon Manukyan says the following:
“Washington and Brussels are very unsatisfied with the fact that
Russia plays a serious role in the Minsk group process. U.S. and
European Union initiate the resumption of military actions between
Armenia and Azerbaijan in the conflict zone. This will create grounds
for the U.S. and Brussels to introduce NATO peacekeeping forces in
Karabakh and Turkey will be able to ground the construction of its
military base in Nakhidjevan. In this case, the Russian leadership
will have to withdraw Russian military contingent from the Armenian
territory”.

How serious the intentions of the European Union are? Judging by the
start of the Eastern Partnership, an agreement to start negotiations
between the EU and South Caucasus republics of associative membership
is signed, it should be recognized that the activity of Europe in the
South Caucasus actually increased. While it is not stated how Europe
imagines its collaboration with the South Caucasus - a partnership
with individual countries or a single area, but it is clear that
Brussels would be easier to work with a stable, peaceful Caucasus with
open communications.

This is the reason why the EU directs all its efforts to an “interim”
solution of conflicts and open communications. Note that the EU
resolution does not dwell on the necessity for a final settlement

of the Karabakh issue but on interim measures which could “open”

the region.

In this connection, the statement of the former speaker of the
Slovakian parliament Frantishek Mikloshko is interesting, who said in
Karabakh, when observing the parliamentary elections there, that the
Karabakh future is a model similar to Benelux. “Karabakh’s problem is
a problem of Europe. It is connected with Europe. I think, the future
of Karabakh in some confederation with Azerbaijan, Karabakh and
Armenia, is similar to Benelux, and these three countries of the South
Caucasus need to enter in the European Union”, said Mikolshko.

There is another caveat - the resolution does not “require” the
withdrawal of troops from Nagorno-Karabakh, but only “from the
adjacent territories”. This means that the EU has not contested the
question of self-determination of Karabakh within the borders of
Nagorno-Karabakh, and the dispute is only about the areas around it.
The essence of the entire negotiating process basically boils down to
the issue of the areas and the composition of the peacekeepers. This
question for already 16 years cannot be solved between the U.S. and
Russia. And then out of nowhere appears the European Union, which
declares about the need to send peacekeepers to the region.
Apparently, this is the item that neither the U.S. nor Russia “liked”,
which did not welcome the resolution either noticed it.

NAIRA HAYRUMYAN

RUSSIAN OFFICIAL PLAYS DOWN MPS' KARABAKH TRIP
news.az
June 1 2010
Azerbaijan

Svetlana Orlova A Russian parliamentary official has stressed that
the visit by Russian MPs to monitor elections in Karabakh was private,
not official.

The deputy speaker of the Azerbaijani parliament, Valeh Alasgarov,
described the decision of Russian deputies to attend elections in the
unrecognized republic of Nagorno-Karabakh as a sin, while the deputy
speaker of Russia's Federation Council, Svetlana Orlova, said that
this was a personal initiative by members of the Duma rather than an
official delegation.

Elections to the national assembly of Nagorno-Karabakh were held on
23 May. The elections were observed by more than 110 international
observers, who described them as 'free, independent and transparent'.

The Central Election Commission of Azerbaijan said the elections
were 'illegitimate', while the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry on 26
May declared five Duma deputies personae non grata for their role
as election monitors. The black list includes Konstantin Zatulin,
Igor Chernyshenko, Kirill Cherkasov, Tatyana Volozhinskaya and Maxim
Mishchenko. The list also includes citizens of France, Germany,
Argentina, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and other countries.

'It is outrageous, of course, this is unacceptable, but it's a sin
on the souls of those who do not think about Azerbaijan, they do
not think, I am quite sure, even about the interests of Russia,'
Alasgarov told RIA Novosti yesterday.

He said that 'the actions of individuals, whoever they may be,
citizens of Russia or not, cannot have an adverse affect on relations
between the Azerbaijan Republic and the Russian Federation or between
our parliaments.'

'I shall confine myself to this, although I do have something to say,'
the Azerbaijani politician said.

In turn, the vice-speaker of the Federation Council said that the
deputies had gone at their personal initiative, and Russia had not
sent an official delegation.

'Russia did not send an official delegation and the visit by some
deputies is a matter for their conscience,' Orlova said.

IWPR Report

KARABAKH POLL EXPOSES LACK OF OPPOSITION
Politicians opposed to government have struggled to form

organised opposition, perhaps because they don't wish to

appear disloyal to Karabakh.
By Lusine Musaelyan

Elections in Nagorny Karabakh ended without a single opponent of the

government in parliament, leaving analysts to predict deputies will be

sidelined in the political process.

The communist party, which called itself opposition-minded although its

leader Hrant Melkumyan had been an adviser to the prime minister until

the start of the campaign, won just 4.8 per cent of the vote in the May 23

poll - below the six per cent threshold needed to enter parliament.

"There will be no opposition or dissident deputies, since not one of the

political forces represented in parliament has ever held an opposition

position, either inside or outside parliament," Melkumyan said.

Nagorny Karabakh's status is unresolved. Its self-declared independence

is not recognised internationally, and Baku claims it as part of its territory.

Locals opposed to President Bako Sahakyan's government have

struggled to form an organised opposition movement, perhaps because

they do not wish to appear disloyal to the entity.

Sahakyan himself said he did not regret the lack of an opposition in

parliament. "In recent years, we have not tried to create an artificial

opposition. If we were to take such steps, that would be the crudest violation

of democratic principles," he said.

The election was won by Free Homeland (Azat hayrenik in Armenian), which

supports Sahakyan and is headed by Prime Minister Ara Harutyunyan, with

46.4 per cent of the votes. Two other pro-presidential parties - the Artsakh

Democratic Party and Dashnaktsutyun - won 28.6 and 20.2 per cent

respectively.

Another 16 candidates, nine of whom were already deputies, won in

single-member constituencies.

Not only were the parties' policies similar, but also their campaign styles had

a lot in common. Their slogans - "Choose the son of the people", "Only he who

was raised by the people can understand the people's pain", "Trust the

People's Candidate" - were largely interchangeable.

For the first time, candidates made use of large advertising hoardings to

spread their message, and posters spread across buildings, buses, doors,

hairdressers' and elsewhere. The candidates' photographs all looked strangely

similar, since they were all taken by Areg Balayan - one of Karabakh's few

professional photographers.

Balayan, perhaps influenced by his high-level contacts, said he had voted for

the first time this year. "Before I was very indifferent, but this year I kind of had

a feeling and understood how important it is to vote and how important it is to

have elections in our country," he said.

Political analysts did not share his opinion, however.

"Parliament will not play an important political role, since there have been

almost no changes in the list of deputies. The decisive figure in the country

will remain the president, therefore I do not expect decisive actions from this

parliament," Davit Karabekyan, a professor at the Artsakh State University,

said.

But the elections still angered Azerbaijan, which lost control of Nagorny

Karabakh in a war that started with the collapse of the Soviet Union and ended

with a ceasefire in 1994.

Mazahir Panahov, head of Azerbaijan's Central Electoral Commission, said

that the elections were illegal under Azerbaijan's law, while Turkey

- Azerbaijan's key ally - also reacted negatively.

"These 'elections', which we consider to be part of a unilateral effort to legitimise

the de facto unlawful situation in Nagorno Karabakh, constitute a clear breach

of international law," a Turkish foreign ministry statement said.

"Turkey, while deploring this act which violates Azerbaijan's political unity,

sovereignty and territorial integrity, will not recognise the results of these illegal

elections which are certainly null and void in terms of international law."

Although other powers were less negative, the elections were not welcomed in

the international community. All the same, some 66,771 voters went to the polls

- a turn-out of 67.8 per cent - and treated the day as a public holiday. Women

and men went to the elections in their best clothes.

Polling stations attended by the president or other top officials organised small

concerts of Armenian folk music, while other sites had loudspeakers.

Svetlana Mirzoyan, a 63-year-old coming out of a Stepanakert polling station,

said she hoped the elections would improve her life.

"I believe that the new parliament will think of the people, will pay attention to

rising prices and make them cheaper. I do not know why, but I believe that

something will change for the better," she said.

But not everyone shared her high opinion of the process. Mikael Grigoryan, 28,

was one of many who did not bother voting.

"Who could I vote for? There was no choice. In the years that these parties have

been active nothing has changed for the better," he said.

His opinion is not widely expressed, however, and has very few high-profile

supporters. One of the only significant public figures to speak out against the

poll was Karen Ohanjanyan, head of Helsinki Initiative-92, a human rights group.

"Since the government used its administrative resources, so a party headed

by the prime minister would win at the election, the people should demand from

the president that the parliament and the head of the electoral commission resign,

since they falsified the results of the election," she said.

Lusine Musaelyan is a correspondent for Radio Liberty.