DOCSLIB.ORG

The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: Obstacles and Opportunities for a Settlement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: Obstacles and Opportunities for a Settlement The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: Obstacles and Opportunities for a Settlement Chanda Allana Leckie Thesis submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Arts In Political Science Charles Taylor, Chair Scott Nelson Edward Weisband May 04, 2005 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: OSCE Minsk Group, geopolitics, conflict settlement The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: Obstacles and Opportunities for a Settlement Chanda Allana Leckie Abstract----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Out of the violent conflicts in the former Soviet Union, the war over Nagorno- Karabakh is the most threatening to the future development of the region, both economically and politically, as it is no closer to a solution than when the fighting ended in 1994. This is regrettable as there are some opportunities that provide the warring parties enough flexibility to move forward in the negotiation process. This thesis analyzes the evolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict under the aegis of the OSCE Minsk Group from 1992 to the present. It discusses not only the history of the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict and what went wrong with the Minsk Group’s attempts to find a fair and objective solution to the conflict, but also the obstacles and opportunities for a settlement. From this discussion, suggestions to improve the Minsk Group’s performance are presented, and future predictions of a peaceful settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict will also be discussed. Acknowledgements------------------------------------------------------------------------- I wish to thank my committee chair Dr. Charles Taylor for his guidance, support, and collaboration on this thesis and throughout my time at Virginia Tech. During this process, he has been an appreciated source of advice, direction, and encouragement. I could not have had a better advisor. I extend a special thanks to Dr. Scott Nelson and Dr. Edward Weisband for their assistance on this project. I feel very fortunate to have had such a great committee to help see this thesis to its completion. Thank you! Lastly, I would like to thank my Mom, Dad, and Tarek for supporting me along this journey. iii Contents--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abstract..............................................................................................................................ii Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................iii Table of Contents...........................................................................................................iv-v Introduction........................................................................................................................1 II. Purpose............................................................................................................................2 III. Chapter Summary..................................................................................…....................2 Chapter One…...................................................................................................................3 I. Background Information...................................................................................…............3 II. Main Issues Regarding the Conflict…...............................................................…......4-5 III. Geopolitics..................................................................................................…............5-9 Chapter Two: Mediation Attempts and Annual Developments: 1992-1999………...9 I. 1992-1993..................................................................................................................10-11 II. 1994-1995................................................................................................................11-12 III. 1996-1997….…......................................................................................................12-15 IV.1998-1999................................................................................................................15-17 Chapter Three: Mediation Attempts and Annual Developments: 2000-2004……..18 I. 2000................................................................................................................................18 II. 2001…………..........................................................................................................18-20 III. 2002........................................................................................................................20-21 IV. 2003........................................................................................................................21-22 V. 2004…………….....................................................................................................22-23 Chapter Four: Positions of the Involved Parties….......................................................24 I. Azerbaijan…………………………………….........................................................24-28 II. Armenia…………………………………..………………………………………..28-30 III. The Nagorno-Karabakh Republic...........................................................................30-31 IV. The Russian Federation..........................................................................................31-32 V. The United States......................................................................................….......…32-34 VI. Turkey….………............................................................................................…….....34 VII. The European Union.............................................................................................35-36 VIII. The Council of Europe & the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.....................36-37 Chapter Five: Obstacles to Finding a Settlement….....................................................37 I. Mutual Distrust & Misunderstanding........................................................................38-39 II. Political Instability...................................................................................................39-41 III. Refugees.................................................................................................................41-42 IV. Timing: Package vs. Phased...................................................................................42-43 V. International Law..........................................................................................…............43 VI. “Outside Agitators”................................................................................................43-44 iv Chapter Six: Shortcomings of the OSCE Minsk Group..............................................44 I. Different Mindsets, Same Negotiating Table............................................................44-45 II. Credibility of the Minsk Group co-chairs................................................................45-48 III. Inconsistency of OSCE Principles..............................................................….............48 IV. Unbalanced Nature of the Negotiating Process......................................................49-50 V. Secrecy of the Peace Plans and Peace Talks...........................................................50-51 VI. Structure of the Minsk Group……..............................................................................51 VII. Lack of Security Guarantees Group……..............................................................52-53 Chapter Seven: Opportunities for a Settlement……....................................................54 I. Economic Incentives………………………….........................................................54-56 II. Renewed Commitment to Resolve the Conflict.......................................................56-57 III. Regional Security System.......................................................................................57-58 IV. Common-State Peace Plan.....................................................................................58-59 Conclusion……...........................................................................................................59-61 Bibliography................................................................................................................62-68 v Introduction----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Many scholars believe that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict involving Armenia and Azerbaijan is by far the most threatening in the region since it involves two independent states and could potentially have even larger humanitarian and regional implications. When the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (hereafter OSCE) Minsk Group was created in 19921 to find a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Armenians and Azerbaijanis held high hopes in this negotiating body. The OSCE Minsk Group represented not only the major powers in this region, Russia and Turkey, but also several European and North American countries. Many believed that such broad representation would result in impartial peacemaking negotiations. Thirteen years later and the negotiations on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict are still at a deadlock. The political battles are more heated than ever and favorable public opinion toward the Minsk Group is at a record low. Political leadership in Azerbaijan, Armenia, and the Nagorno-Karabakh
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cabinet of Armenia, 1920
    Cabinet of Armenia, 1920 MUNUC 32 TABLE OF CONTENTS ______________________________________________________ Letter from the Crisis Director…………………………………………………3 Letter from the Chair………………………………………….………………..4 The History of Armenia…………………………………………………………6 The Geography of Armenia…………………………………………………14 Current Situation………………………………………………………………17 Character Biographies……………………………………………………....27 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………...37 2 Cabinet of Armenia, 1920 | MUNUC 32 LETTER FROM THE CRISIS DIRECTOR ______________________________________________________ Dear Delegates, We’re very happy to welcome you to MUNUC XXXII! My name is Andre Altherr and I’ll be your Crisis Director for the Cabinet of Armenia: 1920 committee. I’m from New York City and am currently a Second Year at the University of Chicago majoring in History and Political Science. Despite once having a social life, I now spend my free-time on much tamer activities like reading 800-page books on Armenian history, reading 900-page books on Central European history, and relaxing with the best of Stephen King and 20th century sci-fi anthologies. When not reading, I enjoy hiking, watching Frasier, and trying to catch up on much needed sleep. I’ve helped run and participated in numerous Model UN conferences in both college and high school, and I believe that this activity has the potential to hone public speaking, develop your creativity and critical thinking, and ignite interest in new fields. Devin and I care very deeply about making this committee an inclusive space in which all of you feel safe, comfortable, and motivated to challenge yourself to grow as a delegate, statesperson, and human. We trust that you will conduct yourselves with maturity and tact when discussing sensitive subjects.
    [Show full text]
  • Ambassador Rudolf V. Perina
    The Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training Foreign Affairs Oral History Project AMBASSADOR RUDOLF V. PERINA Interviewed by: Charles Stuart Kennedy Interview Date: December, 2006 Copyright 200 TABLE OF CONTENTS Background Born in zechoslovakia, raised in Morocco, Switzerland, and the United States University of hicago, olumbia University Foreign Area Fellowship, Munich, (ermany 1970,1972 Marriage .ntered the Foreign Service in 1974 Ottawa, anada0 1otation Officer 1974,1972 Solzhenitsyn visa case 1elations .nvironment State Department0 .uropean Bureau, Military,Political Officer 1972,1978 NATO onference on Security and ooperation in .urope 5 S .6 Belgrade Meeting US and Soviets on Human 1ights Helsinki Final Act 1efuseniks State Department, FSI8 1ussian language training 1978,1979 Moscow, Soviet Union0 Political Officer, .9ternal 1979,1981 Soviet military activities Soviet Afghanistan invasion 1elations Soviets and uba US boycott of Soviet Olympics Sino,Soviet split Harassment Living environment Poland Berlin, (ermany8 Protocol/ Senate Liaison Officer 1981,1985 1 Liaison with Soviets on Berlin Polish aircraft hijackings US Strategic Defense Initiative 1elations with US .ast Berlin .mbassy Terrorist gangs Brussels, Belgium8 NATO Political Officer and Deputy 1985,1987 Political ommittee Nuclear and Space talks Sharing with Soviets SDI and INF deployment National Security ouncil, Soviet issues 1987,1989 Iran ontra fallout 1eagan's "tear down the wall" speech Views on Soviet collapse 1eagan's Moscow visit 1eagan and (orbachev 1omania visit onference on Security and ooperation in .urope 5 S .6 1989 London Information Forum Paris onference on Human Dimension Vienna, Austria0 Deputy Head of US delegation to S .. 1989,1992 Negotiations on onventional Forces in .urope 5 F.6 NATO and Aarsaw Pact Forces Negotiations with Soviets (ermany reunified .uropean Union/US relations The French 1ussians Aarsaw Pact disintegration (ermany and NATO .astern vs.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief Analysis of the Situation in South Caucasus
    Brief Analysis of the Situation in South Caucasus Jimsher Jaliashvili, Professor Grigol Robakidze University, Tbilisi, Georgia Anna Shah, Master’s programme student Grigol Robakidze University, Tbilisi, Georgia Abstract Despite its small size and relatively small population, the South Caucasus occupies an important place in international geopolitics. Region is an important link between East and West that makes the world actors to give great attention to developing a strategy towards the region in order to maximize meaning of own presence in this important geo-strategic area. Above mentioned factors could contribute to the integration of the region for more effective joint action on the world scene as a union. However, to date, this bone of contention is a zone of low-intensity conflicts, the so-called "frozen conflicts" that threaten to "unfreeze" at any time. After the collapse of the Soviet Union over its entire territory ethnic conflicts became flare up. Some of them spilled over into the active full-scale wars. This is what happened in the South Caucasus in the regions of South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Nagorno-Karabakh. These conflicts still remain a stumbling block to normalization of relations of the Caucasian neighbor countries. I. The practice of international life continues to destroy the remnants of illusions associated with the Cold War and the collapse of the bipolar configuration of the world1. Fukuyama's theory2 turned out to be insolvent and the multipolar world living in tolerance for the cultures and customs of each other, respecting the framework of law and morality, and solving ethnic conflict only walking in line of negotiation is just a good, distant fairy tale, an unattainable myth.
    [Show full text]
  • Michael S. Gorham P
    Michael S. Gorham P. O. Box 115565 Gainesville, Florida 32611-5565 USA Phone: 352-273-3786 E-Mail: [email protected] Homepage: http://people.clas.ufl.edu/mgorham Last updated: May 2021 EMPLOYMENT Full-time Positions 2015–present Professor of Russian Studies, Dept. of Languages, Literatures and Cultures, University of Florida 2017–2019 University of Florida Term Professor of Russian Studies, Dept. of Languages, Literatures and Cultures, University of Florida 2014-2015 Robin and Jean Gibson Term Professor, Dept. of Languages, Literatures and Cultures, University of Florida 2003-2015 Associate Professor of Russian Studies, Dept. of Languages, Literatures and Cultures, University of Florida 1996-2005 Assistant Professor of Russian Studies, Dept. of Germanic and Slavic Studies, University of Florida Visiting Appointments 2013 Visiting Research Fellow, Uppsala Centre for Russian and Eurasian Studies, Uppsala University, Sweden 2010 Visiting Professor, Department of Slavic Literature and Culture, University of Passau, Germany 2008 Visiting Research Fellow, Department of Foreign Languages, University of Bergen, Norway Editorships 2007-2019 Associate Editor, The Russian Review. (top-tier journal producing 4 issues annually, with international area-studies readership). Primary responsibility for soliciting and vetting manuscripts in Literature (all areas) and Cultural Studies. 2005-2017 Associate Editor, Russian Language Journal. (1 issue annually, with international readership in all areas of Russian language scholarship). Primary responsibility for book reviews and (through to 2014) soliciting and vetting manuscripts in Language Culture, Sociolinguistics, and Language Ideologies. Consulting 2011-present Specialist on the Russian Internet and new media technologies for Oxford Analytica Daily Brief. EDUCATION 1994 Ph.D., Stanford University, Slavic Languages and Literatures 1988 M.A., Bryn Mawr College, Russian Language and Literature 1985 B.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Russia and Turkey: a Cure for Schizophrenia
    RUSSIA AND TURKEY: A CURE FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA DMITRI TRENIN Dmitri Trenin is a senior specialist at the Carnegie Moscow Centre. Russia’s present relations with Turkey can be best described as schizophrenic. On the one hand, the Turks and the Russians have never had such amicable contacts—and on such an order of magnitude— as since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Shuttling small-retail Russian traders have turned Istanbul into a major hub of their commercial operations, whose volume rivals the official commercial turnover between the two countries. Antalya, along with other seaside resorts on the Turkish Mediterranean, has replaced the Crimea as the favourite vacation address for those Russians who can afford to go on holiday. Turkish construction workers are literally giving a new look to Moscow by building new dazzling business headquarters for Russia’s new rich—or rebuilding the seats of political power, such as the State Duma or the once-shelled White House of the government. Thousands of Russian military officers who have returned from Germany and their family members are lucky to reside in modern living quarters built for them by Turkish workers—with Bonn’s money. In a word, the Russians and the Turks have never been intermingling and co-operating so closely, and for so much mutual advantage, in the economic sphere as in the last five or six years. The opposite side of the ledger is almost as disturbing as the first one is encouraging. With the end of the Cold War, the scene appears to be set for a revival of the 400-year-old competition, and even for an advent of something which heretofore had been a marginal factor, namely, a clash of civilisations, Christian Orthodox and Moslem, with Russia and Turkey more or less assigned the mission of chefs de file for the respective sides.
    [Show full text]
  • Negotiations on Nagorno-Karabagh: Where Do We Go from Here?
    HARVARD UNIVERSITY JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT Caspian Studies Program Negotiations on Nagorno-Karabagh: Where Do We Go From Here? April 23, 2001 Caspian Studies Program, Harvard University Summary and Transcript From a Panel Discussion with: Ambassador Carey Cavanaugh, U.S. Special Negotiator for Nagorno-Karabagh and NIS Regional Conflicts, OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair Professor Hamlet Isaxanli, President of Khazar University, Baku Professor Ronald Suny, Department of Political Science, University of Chicago Chair: Dr. Brenda Shaffer, Research Director of the Caspian Studies Program PREFACE At the Caspian Studies Program at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, we have been following the Nagorno-Karabagh peace process with great interest and have been encouraged by significant signs of progress this spring. Following the April 3-7 negotiations convened in Key West, Florida by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Caspian Studies Program organized a special panel discussion entitled “Negotiations on Nagorno-Karabagh: Where Do We Go From here?” on April 23, 2001 in Cambridge. Dr. Brenda Shaffer, Research Director at the Caspian Studies Program, moderated the panel which included Ambassador Carey Cavanaugh, U.S. Special Negotiator for Nagorno-Karabagh and NIS Regional Conflicts and OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair; Professor Hamlet Isaxanli, President of Khazar University in Baku; and Professor Ronald Suny, Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago. The panelists discussed the progress made at Key West, the prospects for peace moving forward, and the challenges to establishing lasting peace in the region. More than one hundred researchers, graduate students, current and former U.S., Azerbaijani, and Armenian government officials, journalists, and other members of the Harvard community attended the panel and engaged the panelists in a rich and lively discussion after their presentations.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 ...The Khojaly Massacre Is a Bloody Episode. It Is a Continuation of The
    ...The Khojaly massacre is a bloody episode. It is a continuation of the ethnic cleansing and genocide policies that the Armenian chauvinist-nationalists have been progressively carrying out against the Azerbaijanis for approximately 200 years. These accursed policies, supported by the authorities of some states, were constantly pursued by Tsarist Russia and the Soviets. After the demise of the USSR these policies led to the displacement of Azerbaijanis from their homelands, exposing them to suffering on a massive scale. In all, two million Azerbaijanis have at various times felt the weight of the policies of ethnic cleansing and genocide pursued by aggressive Armenian nationalists and stupid ideologues of "Greater Armenia". ...Today the Government of Azerbaijan and its people must bring the truth about the Khojaly genocide and all the Armenian atrocities in Nagorny Karabakh, their scale and brutality, to the countries of the world, their parliaments and the public at large and achieve the recognition of these atrocities as an act of genocide. This is the humane duty of every citizen before the spirits of the Khojaly martyrs. An international legal and political assessment of the tragedy and proper punishment of the ideologues, organizers and executors are important in order to avoid in future such barbarous acts against humanity as a whole... Heydar Aliyev President of the Republic of Azerbaijan 25 February 2002 1 Background 7 Mass Media 13 The Washington Post, The Independent, The Sunday Times, The Times, The Washington Times, The New
    [Show full text]
  • Bgr
    Received by NSD/FARA Registration Unit 09/28/2020 4:52:04 PM From: Tavlarides, Mark <mtavlarides(a)bgrdc.com> Sent: Monday, September 28, 2020 4:39 PM To: Tavlarides, Mark <mtavlarides(q>bgrdc.com> Subject: Azerbaijan Update Good afternoon, I wanted to bring to your attention a press release from the Embassy of the Republic of Azerbaijan on the recent attacks by Armenia on Azerbaijani civilians. It can be found here. Since yesterday, September 27, Armenia has launched a large-scale provocation against Azerbaijan, targeting residential areas and the armed forces of Azerbaijan. As a result of massive shelling of Azerbaijani villages, 8 civilians were killed and many more injured. The Azerbaijani Army, using the right of self-defense and in order to protect civilians, reacted through counter-offensive measures. Azerbaijan's operations are conducted within its internationally recognized sovereign territories, and Azerbaijan is abiding by its commitments under international humanitarian law. Azerbaijan has long expressed warnings that it expects larger military provocations by Armenia at any time. Open provocations by the Armenian leadership, especially by Prime Minister Pashinyan; recent intensified reconnaissance; and sabotage activities by Armenia, including using tactical drones against Azerbaijani positions, demonstrate that Armenia was preparing to launch another attack. Armenia has violated all the norms and principles of international law by occupying internationally recognized territories of Azerbaijan, which was condemned by four UN Security Council Resolutions. Against this background, please see attached for relevant information on the latest developments, including the list of Armenian provocations for the last 2 years. Please let me know if you have any questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2008 EN
    THE COMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS (OMBUDSMAN) THE REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN Provision and protection of human rights and freedoms in Azerbaijan Summary of the Annual Report for 2008 Baku 2009 1 FOREWORD The first Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsman) of the Republic of Azerbaijan is concluding her seven years’ activity. The aim of the report based on summarizing of seven year long activity of the Commissioner is to evaluate the state of promotion and protection of human and civil rights and liberties in the country, to provide information on the analysis of the state of the important problems linked to human rights, restoration of violated rights, situation with provision of human rights protection and prevention of violations, as well as to inform about the measures and steps taken by the Commissioner for learning of the state of ensuring of human rights and liberties. As usually, the report was prepared being based on the generalized analysis of the proposals and complaints, visits of the Commissioner and the staff members of the Office to the penitentiaries, investigatory and temporary detention places (TDPs), military units, orphanages, boarding schools, camps and settlements of the refugees and internally displaced persons, healthcare and social care facilities, as well as on the cases discovered during meetings with the local population and investigations, official responses of the state bodies, officials also the information provided by mass media. The report reflects the activities of the Commissioner in the area of human rights protection, educational and awareness raising events in this field, organization of the scientific-analytical work, public relations, and issues of international cooperation.
    [Show full text]
  • CONGRESSIONAL PROGRAM U.S.-Russia Relations: Policy Challenges in a New Era
    CONGRESSIONAL PROGRAM U.S.-Russia Relations: Policy Challenges in a New Era May 29 – June 3, 2018 Helsinki, Finland and Tallinn, Estonia Copyright @ 2018 by The Aspen Institute The Aspen Institute 2300 N Street Northwest Washington, DC 20037 Published in the United States of America in 2018 by The Aspen Institute All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America U.S.-Russia Relations: Policy Challenges in a New Era May 29 – June 3, 2018 The Aspen Institute Congressional Program Table of Contents Rapporteur’s Summary Matthew Rojansky ....................................................................................................................................... 1 Russia 2018: Postponing the Start of the Post-Putin Era .............................................................................. 9 John Beyrle U.S.-Russian Relations: The Price of Cold War ........................................................................................ 15 Robert Legvold Managing the U.S.-Russian Confrontation Requires Realism .................................................................... 21 Dmitri Trenin Apple of Discord or a Key to Big Deal: Ukraine in U.S.-Russia Relations ................................................ 25 Vasyl Filipchuk What Does Russia Want? ............................................................................................................................ 39 Kadri Liik Russia and the West: Narratives and Prospects .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Azerbaijan's Perspectives on the Osce Minsk Group
    security and human rights 27 (2016) 442-466 brill.com/shrs Azerbaijan’s Perspectives on the osce Minsk Group Complicity in the Status Quo? Zaur Shiriyev Academy Associate at the Royal Institute of International Affairs ( Chatham House) in London Abstract The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (osce) led Minsk Group – the principal mediator tasked with the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, is often criticised by Azerbaijan, due to the stalemate in negotiations. The intensive period of engagement between 2006 and 2009 brought first the initial and then the “updated” Madrid Principles. This was the chief working document that set forth the basic principles for peaceful resolution. The inactivity of the Minsk Group is often con- ceded as the result of maintaining “minimalist goals” – preventing full scale war and trying to bring conflict parties to the negotiating table. The April war in 2016 tested the fragility of the first goal: preventing skirmishes from leading to larger scale conflict. Similarly, after the April 2016 war, the attempt to revitalise the second goal – i.e. bring- ing the parties to the negotiating table – also collapsed, due to the increased mistrust between the parties after the war. The article will evaluate the geopolitical changes and their impact on the Minsk Group’s work since 2008, the reasons for the demands to change the format of the Minsk Group, and finally Azerbaijan’s perspectives on the limitations of the Minsk Group’s current mandate and mechanisms. Keywords Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict – Nagorno-Karabakh conflict – fragile peace – April War * Zaur Shiriyev is an Academy Associate at the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) in London.
    [Show full text]
  • State Programme on Poverty Reduction and Economic Development 2003-2005 Azerbaijan Progresses Toward the Achievement of the Mill
    STATE PROGRAMME ON POVERTY REDUCTION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 2003-2005 AZERBAIJAN PROGRESSES TOWARD THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS PROGRESS REPORT – 2003/2004 BAKU – 2005 DECREE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF AZERBAIJAN on Approval of the State Programme on Poverty Reduction and Economic Development in the Republic of Azerbaijan for 2003-2005 The consistent reform program carried out in the Republic of Azerbaijan in recent years has helped to ensure economic development, gradual improvement of macroeconomic performance and improvement of the living standards in the country. Thus, in the period 1996-2002, Gross Domestic Product increased by 1.7 times, capital investment increased by 7.8 times, nominal monetary income of population increased by 3 times and average monthly wages and pensions increased by 5 times. There are improvements in other economic performance indicators. However, these ongoing efforts and achievements have not yet led to a sufficiently high level of economic development and the living standards of the population have still not reached international standards: part of population is still unemployed, minimum wages are not sufficient to meet the minimum subsistence level and a number of factors causing poverty have not been eliminated. In order to further strengthen social protection of the population for the near future, ensure poverty reduction in the country and implement necessary measures to meet the commitments of the 2000 United Nations Millennium Summit, I hereby decree: 1. The “State Program on Poverty Reduction and Economic Development in the Republic of Azerbaijan for 2003-2005” shall be approved. 2. The Ministry of Economic Development of the Republic of Azerbaijan shall be responsible for coordinating the implementation of measures set out in the State Program.
    [Show full text]