Armenia

The Basturma Chronicles has a blog with posts on the current Israeli action against Lebanon at http://www.stop-israeli-aggression.org/. Garo (AKA Christian Garbis) over at Notes from Hairenik also has something on how the displacement of hundreds of thousands in Lebanon has been met by the Armenian Government and what effect it might have on Lebanese-Armenians still […]

AFP reports that following the failure of the last round of peace talks to resolve the long-standing conflict over the disputed territory of Nagorno Karabakh, Azerbaijan is once again threatening to resume hostilities to take it back. Many analysts believe Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev is not interested in a compromise settlement with Armenia now that […]

Kelbajar, New Shahumian Region (Armenian-controlled Azerbaijan) © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 1999

RFE/RL reports that the latest meeting between the Presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan to end the deadlock over the long-standing conflict over Nagorno Karabakh have again ended in a failure to reach a long anticipated framework agreement. The international community had hoped that such an agreement could be reached on the sidelines of a summit in the Romanian capital, Bucharest.

Steven Mann, Washington’s top Karabakh negotiator, sought to put a brave face on the apparent fiasco as he spoke to journalists on behalf of the three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group. He said both Aliev-Kocharian meetings took place in a “good atmosphere” but refused to divulge any of their details. “The co-chairs are now going to meet among themselves to discuss the next steps in our work,” he said.

[…]

Asked whether Aliev and Kocharian made any progress towards a peace deal, the U.S. diplomat replied, “I would only say that we have had very, very detailed discussions.”

[…]

The mediators appeared to regard the Bucharest talks as their last chance to broker a peaceful settlement of the Karabakh dispute in the near future. Senior diplomats from France, Russia and the United States sounded cautiously optimistic about peace prospects as they visited Baku and Yerevan late last month.

But Kocharian effectively dampened those expectations on Friday, questioning the Azerbaijani leadership’s commitment to Karabakh peace. Speaking to journalists, he pointed to Aliev’s continuing “militaristic statements.”

Azerbaijani officials were quick to hit back. “On the one hand, (Kocharian) agreed to such a meeting, but on the other, he is already anticipating no results,” Aliev’s top foreign policy aide, Novruz Mamedov, said, according to the Associated Press. “I think that Kocharian wants to just protect himself.”

Meanwhile, according to the always useful RFE/RL Press Review, the Armenian media had some interesting things to say about the meeting before it occured, and not least since many analysts believe that Kocharian and Aliyev owe their positions to the stalemate. Democracy can always be sacrificed in the interests of “national security.”

“Haykakan Zhamanak” claims that both Kocharian and Aliev intend to reject the peace plan put forward by international mediators. “The only new thing is that neither Kocharian nor Aliev want to see their intention exposed. Armenia’s president hopes that Aliev will refuse to sign [the Karabakh deal] so that he does have to rebuff the [Minsk Group] co-chairs, while Aliev hopes that everything will be all the way around.” Therefore, concludes the paper, the Bucharest talks will be little more than a “world cunning championship.”

Perhaps the only question that now remains unanswered is when will the patience of the international mediators as well as the world community finally be at an end? Some would say it won’t while the games continue and some kind of stability exists in both countries. However, with both Armenia and Azerbaijan facing parliamentary and presidential elections in the coming few years, let’s see if that position changes. I can only hope that a resumption of hostilities is not on the cards.

Kelbajar, New Shahumian Region (Armenian-controlled Azerbaijan) © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 1999

I missed this story when it came out last Thursday, but it came up in discussion with RFE/RL’s Emil Danielyan last night and I did see that Blogrel posted something on this rather concerning story. As most parents will tell you, the last place they want their sons to end up is in the Armenian military, and not least because more end up dead as a result of hazing than from the enemy.

Factor in a normal “salary” of $3 a month for a conscript and apalling food, and you can perhaps understand why many pay thousands of dollars in bribes to get out of serving their country. However, this story surpasses all of that.

Three Armenian army soldiers are facing a life in prison, accused of a double murder which they say they did not commit and which their lawyers believe was the work of their military commander in Nagorno-Karabakh.

An appeals court in Yerevan convicted this week Razmik Sargsian, Musa Serobian and Arayik Zalian of killing two fellow conscripts in December 2003, in a trial denounced by Armenian human rights organizations as a parody of justice.

The high-profile case has cast a rare media spotlight on dozens of out-of-combat deaths that occur in Armenia’s Armed Forces each year. Official figures show that Armenian servicemen are at much greater risk of dying at the hands of their commanders and comrades than from enemy fire.

[…]

Several soldiers of their unit were promptly arrested by military prosecutors on suspicion of involvement in the crime. One of them effectively testified that the killings were committed by none other than Captain Ivan Grigorian, the Karabakh Armenian commander of their battalion.

The investigators, however, dismissed the testimony, releasing the suspects and arresting three other soldiers that were subsequently given life sentences. The conviction was based on a videotaped “confession” made by one of them, Razmik Sargsian, after fours days of interrogation in April 2004. Sargsian and a team of lawyers representing the three men insists that the confession was extracted under sadistic duress and threats of rape. The 20-year-old has alleged that Armenia’s chief military prosecutor, Gagik Jahangirian, personally punched him in the face.

Although Sargsian’s face was clearly swollen and bruised in video of the interrogation shown during a court session in Yerevan last year, the investigators have strongly denied torturing him. A court in the Karabakh capital Stepanakert, which has a legally questionable status of an Armenian district court contradicting Armenia’s constitution, refused to investigate the torture allegations before sentencing the three servicemen to 15 years in prison one year ago.

[…]

Larisa Alaverdian, Armenia’s former human rights ombudsperson who has personally dealt with the case, likewise decried “blatant violations” of due process which she believes were committed during the pre-trial investigation and the court hearings in Stepanakert and Yerevan.

[…]

The three young men may now spend the rest of their lives behind bars because of what another human rights campaigner, Mikael Danielian, regards as yet another high-level cover-up of army deaths. “This case is not unprecedented,” he told RFE/RL. “There have been numerous such cases. It’s just that they did not have so much resonance.”

[…]

The Armenian military insists that the number of deaths within its ranks has steadily declined since the late 1990s. However, even the official death statistics shows that it is still far from eliminating the problem. According to the Military Prosecutor’s Office, 89 soldiers died in the course of last year and only 15 of them were shot dead in skirmishes with Azerbaijani forces on the Karabakh frontline and the Armenian-Azerbaijani border.

Ishkhanian estimated that at least 1,000 Armenian conscripts aged between 18 and 20 have lost their lives in out-of-combat incidents since the 1994 truce. He could not recall any instances of senior or mid-ranking army officers prosecuted in connection with those deaths.

Great stuff, and something for the Diaspora to bear in mind when they consider applying for citizenship of the Republic of Armenia, or before they condemn the rest of us for decrying the lack of the rule of law and blatant human rights violations in the country. The full news item is here.

While RFE/RL reports that Armenia has been prevented from attending a meeting of Defense Ministers from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the French President is reported to have urged his Azerbaijani counterpart to accept the latest peace plan mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group.

French government official said that president of France, quoting, ‘confirmed the principles of joint statement made by three co-chairs of Russia, the US and France may 25 in Yerevan, which states that the time has come for both the parties to come to an agreement on basic principles of the confliict settlement’.

Staying in Europe, Armenia appears to have scored a rare public relations victory over Azerbaijan. Although too late to change anything, the European media has now turned its attention towards the ancient Armenian cemetary of Jugha in the Azeri exclave of Nakhichevan after a EU delegation was refused entry. The paper I used to work for, The Independent, has more.

Most of original 10,000 khachkars, most of which date from the 15th and 16th century, were destroyed by the early 20th century, leaving probably fewer than 3,000 by the late 1970s.

According to the International Council on Monuments and Sites (Icomos), the Azerbaijan government removed 800 khachkars in 1998. Though the destruction was halted following protests from Unesco, it resumed four years later. By January 2003 “the 1,500-year-old cemetery had completely been flattened,” Icomos says.

Witnesses, quoted in the Armenian press, say the final round of vandalism was unleashed in December last year by Azerbaijani soldiers wielding sledgehammers.

[…]

Some MEPs believe that, boosted by its oil revenues, Azerbaijan is adopting an increasingly assertive stance in the region. Charles Tannock, Conservative foreign affairs spokesman in the European parliament, argued: “This is very similar to the Buddha statues destroyed by the Taliban. They have concreted the area over and turned it into a military camp. If they have nothing to hide then we should be allowed to inspect the terrain.”

[…]

Hannes Swoboda, an Austrian socialist MEP and member of the committee barred from examining the site, said he hopes a visit can be arranged in the autumn. He added: “If they do not allow us to go, we have a clear hint that something bad has happened. If something is hidden we want to ask why. It can only be because some of the allegations are true.”

And he warned: “One of the major elements of any country that wants to come close to Europe is that the cultural heritage of neighbours is respected.”

The Independent’s article is here.

Church Service, Stepanakert, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 1994

RFE/RL reports that momentum towards a Karabakh peace deal between Armenia and Azerbaijan continues. Although largely ignored until the end of last year by the local media with the notable exception of RFE/RL’s Emil Danielyan, failure to reach agreement at a presidential summit in Rambouillet doesn’t seem to have slowed down the process. In fact, given that 2006 is seen as the last opportunity to reach a settlement for some time, the pressure on both sides appears to be increasing.

International mediators urged Armenia and Azerbaijan on Thursday to take the final step towards a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, saying that a framework peace accord is now within their reach.

High-level diplomats from France, Russia and the United States made the appeal as they wrapped up an extraordinary joint visit to Baku and Yerevan which produced agreement on the next Armenian-Azerbaijani summit on Karabakh. A spokesman for President Robert Kocharian told RFE/RL that the Armenian leader and his Azerbaijani counterpart, Ilham Aliev, will meet on the sidelines of a summit of Black Sea nations which is scheduled to take place in Romania’s capital Bucharest on June 5.

In a joint statement read out to the media after their talks with Kocharian, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin and a top French diplomat, Pierre Morel, indicated that they expect that meeting to yield a breakthrough in the prolonged peace process. They stressed that “now is the time for the sides to reach agreement on the basic principles of a settlement.”

The decision by the three men to accompany lower-level American, French and Russian diplomats co-chairing the OSCE Minsk Group on their latest round of shuttle diplomacy is quite significant in itself. The three mediating powers seem to be making a last-ditch attempt to secure a Karabakh peace deal before the end of this year. They have warned that their failure to do so would delay a settlement until after presidential elections due in Azerbaijan and Armenia in 2007 and 2008.

Rumors surrounding the details of an apparent framework agreement that have been circuting since the beginning of 2005 seem to be largely confirmed, albeit unofficialy. That is, Armenia would withdraw from six of seven territories currently under its control surrounding Karabakh which would itself possibly be internationally recognized as an Armenian protectorate until a referendum to determine its final status is held 10-15 years in the future after confidence building measures are in place.

Meanwhile, RFE/RL carries a summary of commentary on the continued push to find a solution to the conflict from two local newspapers.

Haykakan Zhamanak” says the visit to Azerbaijan and Armenia by high-ranking American, French and Russian diplomats spearheading the Karabakh peace process is “unprecedented in terms of its seriousness.” The paper says their statement made in Baku on Wednesday was also unprecedented. “It shows that the resolution of the Karabakh conflict is entering an unprecedented phase, after which the process will not boil down to mere statements and comments.”

“Hayots Ashkhar” says the visit comes amid “unusually strong pressure” facing the Armenian side.

Ironically, it is believed that Armenia is ready to sign such a deal, but the problem lies with Azerbaijan and its president, Ilham Aliyev, who has threatened to resume hostilities now that it can significantly increase its military expenditure thanks to a huge influx of petrodollars. However, we still don’t know what Bush said to Aliyev when the two presidents met in Washington last month.

On the other hand, prominent if notorious war veterans such as the Deputy Defense Minister, Lieutenant General Manvel Grigorian, have spoken out against Armenia making concessions to Azerbaijan. With similar rhetoric coming from within Azerbaijani, only time will tell.

Stepanakert, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 1994

RFE/RL’s Armenia Service reports that the new European Envoy on the South Caucasus has again underscored the importance the EU places on resolving the long-standing conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the mainly-Armenian populated territory of Nagorno Karabakh. Speaking to reporters after meeting the Armenian Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian, Peter Semneby again stated that there is a “window of opportunity” still open this year.

Semneby, who arrived in Yerevan from Baku, said the existing status quo hurts both conflicting parties and the region as a whole. He also reaffirmed the EU’s intention to play a greater role in international efforts to broker a compromise settlement.

[…]

“I conveyed [to Semneby] our view that contrary to various speculations made after [the Armenian-Azerbaijani summit in] Rambouillet, the peace process is alive,” Oskanian said for his part. “We believe that there are still possibilities for continuing and making additional progress in the process.”

According to the report, what happens next depends on the outcome of a visit to Washington by Oskanian’s Azerbaijani counterpart later in the week where he will also meet with the OSCE Minsk Group’s US Chair Steve Mann. Oskanian will be in Moscow around the same time. Unfortunately, however, it still does not look as though Azerbaijan is willing to make concessions in negotiations.

“If they register a convergence of views, there will probably be a visit to the region by the co-chairs, which may be followed by a meeting of the [Armenian and Azerbaijani] foreign ministers,” said Oskanian. “But all of this depends on the results of the upcoming Mammadyarov-Mann meeting.”

Mammadyarov’s deputy Araz Azimov, who was also in Washington last week, indicated at the weekend that Baku remains adamant in rejecting a Minsk Group peace plan that would reportedly legitimize Armenian control over Karabakh. “America should understand and Armenia should remember that the Azerbaijani state not only will disagree with the partition of the lands, but also will prevent it,” Azimov told the official AzerTaj news agency.

Meanwhile RFE/RL also carries a story from AFP reporting that Turkey still stands by Azerbaijan in the long-running dispute, and it would appear that both countries are relying on the fact that within the next 2-10 years Armenia will be isolated in the region and unable to match increased military spending by Azerbaijan. Unfortunately, it would appear that both are likely to be true.

Next year, Azerbaijan’s military budget is set to hit $1 billion, the size of Armenia’s entire state budget this year.

The dispute over the ethnic Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh “should be resolved within the framework of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan,” Sezer told reporters after meeting his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliev. This is “in line with international norms,” Sezer added.

[…]

Both Turkey and Azerbaijan have severed ties with Armenia, closing borders and imposing an economic blockade on Yerevan as a result of the Karabakh dispute. Ankara is under European Union pressure to normalize ties with Armenia but worries that reconciliatory moves sought by the bloc may damage its alliance with Azerbaijan.

Recent news carried by Baku Today also highlights the introduction in Azerbaijan of a new law on mobilization for war. Difficult to say if this is coincidental or whether it really is part of Aliyev’s voiced intention to re-take Karabakh and the surrounding territories by military means if a peaceful solution cannot be found. What isn’t clear is what constitutes an “invasion” and if it can be applied retrospectively.

According to the law, in event of a real armed attack or the threat of a military invasion, the president will immediately declare partial or universal mobilization.

People in the reserves and those who are not eligible to participate in the military draft could be sent to into the armed forces and other special formations to work in civil positions.

Some sources indicate that the stumbling blocks encountered during recent talks in Paris between the Armenian and Azerbaijani Presidents can be considered to be the date for an eventual withdrawal of Armenian forces from Kelbajar and the status of Karabakh itself. The latter is of course what the conflict was all about in the first place, but it would appear that Azerbaijan is not ready to recognize the importance of the right of a people to self-determination over territorial integrity.

So, it would appear that on the one hand, Azeris don’t understand the need to compromise and believe in the territorial integrity of their country while many of those involved even in conflict resolution and peace building intitatives in Armenia don’t appear to understand that for Azerbaijan to officially cede Karabakh, Armenians must be willing to withdraw from five or six possible regions out of seven surrounding the territory which were only intended as a “buffer zone” anyway.

So what does this mean?

If Azerbaijan builds up its military at a faster pace than Armenia which seems inevitable I think there is only one likelihood. That is, there could be war within the next 5-10 years and I don’t think that anyone should take that lightly because next time it will involve proper armies and possibly an outright declaration of war between Armenia and Azerbaijan. And while the outcome might be uncertain, one thing is.

Thousands will die and the resulting peace deal would probably be what is on the table now. In the worst case scenerio I believe that Armenia could lose Karabakh.

The Armenian government says that it requires only three things in a peace deal with Azerbaijan. That is, Karabakh would be separate from Azerbaijan, it should have a land border with Armenia, and that international security guarantees are in place. I tend to agree with that position, and in the meantime would suggest that both Armenian and Azerbaijani alike read Tom de Waal’s Myths and Realities of the Karabakh War.

As most of you know, de Waal is the author of Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War, and not only did I accompany him for some of his fieldwork, but I also interviewed him on his research soon afterwards.

Azerbaijani Prisoner of War (PoW), Stepanakert, Republic of Nagorno Karabakh © Onnik Krikorian / Oneworld Multimedia 1994

RFE/RL reports that the Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has again threatened resuming hostilities in order to resolve the long-standing conflict with Armenia over the mainy Armenian inhabited territory of Nagorno Karabakh. Addressing members of the former KGB, the Azerbaijani National Security Service (NSS), Aliyev did at least state that there was still the opportunity for the peaceful resolution of the conflict. Of course, this could all be brinkmanship, but it’s nonetheless dangerous.

“I think that the peace potential has not yet been exhausted. Therefore, we will of course remain faithful to the peace process,” Aliev said in remarks broadcast by the Azerbaijani TV station ANS. “But at the same time, we must be ready for any eventuality and that is why Azerbaijan has stepped up its army building efforts in recent years.

“Our military spending has increased over the past years, and it will increase further. This is our sovereign right, this is our job. Our country is in a state of war.”

“The opposite side must know that Azerbaijan is capable of securing its territorial integrity through war at any moment,” he added.

In response to Aliyev’s increasingly bellicose statments in recent months, the Armenian President Robert Kocharian has threatened to recognize the independence of the self-declared Republic of Nagorno Karabakh. Sounds a little dangerous to me and pretty much akin to a declaration of war from the Armenian side, but anyway, the European Union has already stepped in to criticize Aliyev’s statement.

“An attempt on the Azeri side to resolve the conflict by military means will have very serious consequences,” Peter Semneby told RFE/RL. “It may not be successful in the first place, and it will also seriously damage Azerbaijan in terms of its investment climate and reliability as a partner.”

Aliev’s chief foreign policy aide, Novruz Mamedov, was quick to dismiss the warning. “If Azerbaijan can indeed discredit itself as a partner if it starts war to liberate its own lands, how come that Armenia occupied Azerbaijani territories in a war and has kept them under occupation for 15 years, but this has not discredited Armenia anyhow?” Mamedov told the Azerbaijani ATV channel.

Meanwhile, the international mediators insist that the peace process may still be salvaged but seem undecided about their next steps. Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian said last week that they will either visit the conflict zone or arrange another round of Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations soon.

It’s difficult to say what will happen next. Certainly, while it is unlikely that war would resume in the next year at least, increased military spending in Azerbaijan might put the Republic in a position to win back Karabakh and territory currently under its control within the next five. Today.az reports that others consider that failure to resolve the conflict will cripple Armenia economically while the rest of the South Caucasus moves ahead.

“The resolution of conflict in the South Caucasus is one of the EU’s priorities. It signals to more active attraction of the organization to the resolution of the problem situation,” Semneby underlined in his interview for Radio Liberty. EU’s mandate in the issue has been expanded and resolution of conflict situation has been included in it.

“Unless the conflict is resolved, Armenia might turn out in isolation,” the Swiss diplomat stressed.

Meanwhile, some less than moderate voices in neighboring Turkey believe that the time for negotiations is over and that Azerbaijan should indeed break the 1994 ceasefire. A Major General reservist says that after resolving what I assume he means are Azerbaijan’s own internal political problems, hostilities should resume.

“Neither the EU nor the US will prevent Azerbaijan from making an attempt to resolve the problem. Turkey must be ready to give any help because Azerbaijan is important country for the world powers.”

According to some analysts, Armenian-backed forces would not necessarily be in such a favorable position if the war was to resume. In a recent interview with Hetq Online, for example, the Caucasus Editor of the Institute of War & Peace Reporting summarized Armenian victory on the battlefield in the early 1990s as contributable to three issues.

I see the end of the conflict in 1994 as being the result of three factors: the Armenians were better prepared and more disciplined; Azerbaijan was in political chaos for most of the duration of the conflict; the Russians helped both sides but undoubtedly helped the Armenians more.

Meanwhile, nationalists in Armenia have stated in the past two months that with or without a phased peace settlement, war will resume in the future and therefore, the defensive positions that Armenian forces currently hold are vital in preparing for what they say is now inevitable. Seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me, and I can only hope that international pressure is put on Azerbaijan to concede with regards to the status of Nagorno Karabakh.

Incidently, a recent analysis by Noyan Tapan’s David Petrosyan which I can’t unfortunately find at the moment reckoned that neither side would be able to gain territory from the other in case of a new outbreak of war in and around Karabakh. Instead, fighting would claim several thousand lives and end with a new ceasefire several weeks later. What would happen in the future, however, is anybody’s guess.

Currently, Armenia’s armed forces number 60,000 with a military budget standing at 6.4 percent of GDP to make $162 million in 2005. Azerbaijan has around the same number of troops (67,000-72,000), but has increased military spending in 2006 to reach $650 million or 3.2 percent of GDP. When it comes to taking defensive positions, however, it seems likely that air power will play its part and for now, neither side seems well equipped.

Although there are 30 Mig 29 fighters in Armenia they are apparently attached to the Russian base in Gyumri so are hardly likely to be used in any fighting in Karabakh. Other than that, both sides have only a few dozen strike or interceptor aircraft. On this basis alone, until Azerbaijan increases its military budget to $1 billion (equal to Armenia’s entire state budget) and specifically strengthens its airforce, I don’t think there will be war just yet.

However, information on Azerbaijan’s military spending is hard to come by.

If anyone knows of any links to any links to a breakdown of how that extra money is being spent, please post them. Incidently, Nagorno Karabakh apparently has around 20,000 troops with 60,000 reservists, but this figure sounds too high to me considering emigration from the territory since the 1994 ceasefire. Armenia has between 32-350,000 reservists while Azerbaijan boasts between 82,000-1.3 milion due to its larger size.

Even so, for now at least, the matter is how do you take dug-in and mined defensive positions without an airforce or a large number of surface-surface missiles. Someone needs to be monitoring the procurement of arms in both Republics, and Azerbaijan in particular.