Month: October 2008

"RUSSIA HAS EVERY RIGHT TO REACT AND INVESTIGATE"
by Ivan Sukhov

WPS Agency
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
October 8, 2008 Wednesday
Russia

INTERNATIONAL CRISIS GROUP VICE PRESIDENT ALAIN DELETROZ ABOUT THE
FUTURE RUSSIAN-EU RELATIONS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE GEORGIAN CRISIS
RESOLUTION; An interview with Alain Deletroz, Vice President of the
International Crisis Group.

The first round of international consultations over Abkhazia and South
Ossetia stipulated by the Medvedev-Sarkozy plan begins in Geneva
on October 15. Alain Deletroz, Vice President of the International
Crisis Group (a conflict-prevention non-governmental organization with
headquarters in Brussels and missions in more than 140 countries,
it analyzes conflicts and offers recommendations to the involved
governments), met with this correspondent and answered some questions
on future relations between Russia and the European Union from the
standpoint of the Russian-Georgian crisis resolution.

Question: Your opinion of the debates at the Parliamentary Assembly
over the situation in Georgia?

Alain Deletroz: The Parliamentary Assembly is an important organization
but rather symbolic. I’m convinced that all principal issues will
be handled and settled at the meeting in Geneva. What happens there
will be of paramount importance for the security of the southern part
of the Caucasus and for the future relations between Russia and the
European Union.

Question: What will the format of the meeting be?

Alain Deletroz: There is no saying at this point. I’ve completed
three-day consultations in Moscow, mostly with the Foreign
Ministry. I’m scheduled to discuss it with the French in several days
and I hope that Paris being the locomotive force behind the whole
process will have some ideas on that score.

The way I see it, the stand Moscow takes at the consultations will be
decisive. If Russia comes to Geneva with a constructive suggestion of
some sort of international mechanism for crisis resolution in Georgia,
then everything will be all right. If, however, it comes with its mind
firmly set, with the attitude that there is nothing more to discuss,
that Russia will cope, thank you very much for the 200 observers… it
will be different, of course. Then the deterioration of the relations
that is setting in may last years.

Question: What constructive discourse can we expect from the two
concerned parties with polar opinions on the situation? Russia
recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia as sovereign states and the
European Union did not. What kind of compromise is possible here?

Alain Deletroz: If the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is
what we begin with, then the negotiations will be as good as over
before they really begin. We should start with discussing the actual
situation and the problems. Russia for example tends to draw parallels
with Kosovo. In Kosovo, however, a great deal of human, military,
and financial resources are expended by NATO, the EU, and the UN to
preserve Serbians in their enclaves there. In South Ossetia on the
other hand, not a single surviving Georgian is to be found anymore.

Question: And yet, reports made by independent observers paint a less
bleak picture from the conflict area. They say for example that some
Georgians did remain in the villages and hamlets the conflict spared,
the ones where neither side had outposts. Though a great deal of
Georgians did escape, of course. Who do you mean when speaking of
refugees? Just the Georgians from South Ossetian villages or also
those who had been driven out of their households in Abkhazia in 1993?

Alain Deletroz: I mean them all. I mean refugees. The International
Crisis Group has never advocated recognition of sovereignty of these
two republics. It follows that the term "refugee" applies to every
person who found him- or herself out of Georgia. It applies to the
Georgians, Ossetians, and Abkhazians living beyond the territory
of Georgia. Mostly in Russia, that is. All the rest are displaced
persons. Anyway, we should be talking about all of them, both refugees
and displaced persons. That’s a colossal problems. The Ossetians who
fled inner Georgia in the early 1990s encounter colossal difficulties
and problems with recognition of their ownership rights. The same
goes for the Georgians from Abkhazia and South Ossetia. If Russia
and the European Union really want a solution to this problem, then
they should pool efforts in seeking a way out. Relations between the
European Union and Russia are different from the relations between
the United States and Russia. We live on one and the same continent,
so it all affects us equally. So, if we have the will to develop
new relations, then we should be focused on specific mechanisms and
solutions to the problems that plague a specific region.

Question: Leaving the matter of the status aside?

Alain Deletroz: Leaving the matter of the status for later. Russia
recognized the sovereignty of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, we all
know it. This is, however, what I believe. There were provocations in
conflict areas. They happen every summer as we all know, and not in
Georgia alone. In Nagorno-Karabakh, the situation takes a definite turn
for the worst every summer, and there are but six foreign observers
posted along quite lengthy a front there. It is always difficult in
conflicts such as these to find out who did what and who did not do
anything. There is, however, one important nuance. Reaction of the
Georgian government on August 7 and 8 was disproportional. Russia
with its peacekeepers in South Ossetia had every legitimate right to
react and investigate. We cannot understand why Russia didn’t bloody
the Georgian nose right away but within the administrative borders
of South Ossetia and not a step beyond them. Or why it wouldn’t
follow with convening a special meeting of the UN Security Council or
OSCE Council to launch an international process… But Russia went
beyond the conflict areas, right to the towns of Poti and Senaki
in Georgia and to Gori in South Ossetia. Russia established buffer
zones there. That’s why we keep saying that Moscow’s reaction was
disproportional too.

Besides, the unilateral recognition of sovereignty, all on one’s own
and without international processes paid even lip service to… it was
another move we of the European Union cannot understand. Moreover,
some EU members, particularly former Socialist states, took it as a
frightening development.

Question: Do you advocate evolution of NATO’s mission into that of
civilian and humanitarian cooperation rather than military?

Alain Deletroz: Yes. Among other considerations, it would have made
obsolete NATO’s expansion practically to the Russian borders. Actually,
Russia would have been directly involved as a participant in this
case. After all, we live in a fairly chaotic world where being together
with others is preferable to standing all alone.

Question: Yes, it is, but the subject of NATO’s expansion with Russia’s
participation became history years ago…

Alain Deletroz: And what shall we do then? The Russian president and
prime minister plainly says that Russia does not want to see NATO on
its borders. People in the West therefore ask why NATO should include
Russia then and invest in it the veto power in internal affairs of the
Alliance… These are two visions and two truths. Meanwhile, is there
a point to the escalation of tension and confrontation? Wouldn’t it be
better for all concerned if we launched a different discussion instead,
one over what kind of security we wanted on the continent? Your
President Dmitry Medvedev suggested it already, and so did you Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Question: The impression is that this discussion is unlikely to be
constructive in the light of the Georgian situation…

Alain Deletroz: It may be made constructive. Sure, Europe is strongly
distrustful and suspicious of the Russian leadership these days. Europe
is as distrustful of the Kremlin – or perhaps even worse than that
– as it was of Bush’s Administration in 2003 and 2004. So, it’s up
to Russia really. It may emulate Bush and say "to hell with these
midget Europeans" the way he did then. But consider what happened
then, consider the situation in which Bush found himself in Iraq. He
discovered to his dismay that America was all alone in Iraq, with
allies like Nicaragua standing by it. Well, perhaps, not exactly like
Nicaragua. Argentine did dispatch some ship or other there… We all
have approached the moment when it is still possible for Russia to
say: OK, it’s difficult for us to accept what you did in Kosovo. Same
thing with acceptance in Europe of what Russia did in Georgia. Let
us then look for constructive factors to develop.

Question: It is hard to find a constructive solution when Georgia’s
firm determination to join NATO was one of the factors that decided
Russia to interfere in the Georgian situation. Russia decided that
it needed South Ossetia and Abkhazia to station its military in…

Alain Deletroz: Come on. You probably know better. Russia has its
embassies throughout the world. Russia cannot help knowing of the
heated debates taking place within NATO over expediency of granting
membership to Georgia and Ukraine. Yes, Bush would dearly like to
throw NATO doors open for them. Most serious NATO members in the
meantime have a different opinion. I’m talking NATO countries that are
prepared to send their military hardware and soldiers into harm’s way
when it is necessary, not the countries with regular armies 10,000
men strong. (And that does not mean neophytes alone, there are NATO
veterans with countries like that.) We all know that Bush’s time is
up and that he has bare weeks. In other words, his opinion carries
weight of course but it is not decisive at all.

Question: But Russia’s behavior in Georgia altered the positions
even of some of its traditional partners in Europe. Like Germany,
for example. NATO veterans are no longer unanimous.

Alain Deletroz: They are not unanimous, as long as the matter does
not concerned membership in NATO for Georgia. Yes, Germany has some
serious questions to Russia and its behavior. On the other hand,
public opinion in Germany and the German media are quite understanding
and sympathetic with Russia. German general public normally stands by
Russia because of a simple fact, namely that Russia withdrew from the
DDR when the Cold War ended. Yes, Germany has questions to Russia but
they are not restricted to its behavior in the Caucasus alone. There
are questions concerning Kosovo as well. It’s another side of the
matter, right? The contact group for Kosovo took its time to discuss
the matter. The debates were even extended on Russia’s request. So,
in the long run, Russia became the only country in the contact group of
six that objected to recognition of Kosovo as a sovereign state. Russia
impeded the process enormously. It killed the motion to turn Kosovo
over from the UN to the European Union. Why, when the UN is notoriously
short of funds and cannot even scrap up enough for missions elsewhere
was the European Union prepared to pay out of its own wallet? Some
observers believe that Russia views the international law and the
territorial integrity principle it includes as inviolate. It is
understandable. Russia itself is a federation. Other observers,
however, suspect that Russia refused to recognize Kosovo not because
it cared about the international law but because it was playing some
strategic game of its own, because settlement of this conflict in
the middle of Europe interfered with its strategic ends.

Question: I’d say rather it was quite consistent. After all, it went
public questioning the territorial integrity of Georgia (something
non-existent for over 15 years already) only after recognition of
Kosovo by a group of countries of the West.

Alain Deletroz: Yes, but the European Union remembers that there
was a draft resolution of the UN Security Council on Kosovo in 2006
plainly stating that Kosovo was not to serve as a precedent for
other regions. Its adoption would have voided separatist aspirations
elsewhere but Russia killed this document.

Question: And how would you have explained it to the population of
other regions? They’d have inevitably demanded to know why something
was all right for Kosovo but not for them.

Alain Deletroz: It would have been explained. Twenty-two EU members
out of 27 would have encountered no problems with explaining to
their respective population why it was done in Kosovo and not, say,
in Somalia or Chechnya. It was possible to explain what was making
Kosovo a unique case. But Russia interfered and had this phrase omitted
from the text of the resolution. It fomented suspicions that that was
what Russia intended to pull off in the Caucasus at some later date.

The way I see it, Russia should go to Geneva on October 15 with
some set of constructive proposals that will pose no threats to its
positions in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Instead, they will show that
it cares for all victims of this conflict and not just Ossetians and
Abkhazians. I dare say that the Europeans will be happy to meet Russia
halfway then.

Question: Russia wants representatives of Abkhazia and South Ossetia
present at the consultations. What is the opinion of the European
Union?

Alain Deletroz: The European Union is understandably cautious. Russia
recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia an sovereign states. It
automatically raises the question of their delegations’ status. And
forms of address, and whatever else. I believe that representatives
of these republic should be there. I believe that the European Union
should advance its relations with these republics. Isolating them
will be wrong. The International Crisis Group is firmly convinced
that the new EU aid package to Georgia must include Abkhazia and
South Ossetia too, even despite Saakashvili’s displeasure. After all,
it is not Saakashvili who decides how the European Union should spent
its own finances.

Question: Your appraisal of the outcome of Russia’s interference in
the situation with Abkhazia and South Ossetia in August 2008?

Alain Deletroz: To be frank with you, Russia’s military operation was
no surprise. For me, that is. But the speed with which it recognized
sovereignty of these republics was. I thought Russia would be more
prudent because of the general situation in the Caucasus.

Question: Does it occur to you that the military operation all but
made it an inevitability?

Alain Deletroz: No, I’m convinced that this situation before
recognition was a much more formidable card in the Russian diplomatic
hand. Moscow chose to play this card, and did so without considerable
success. Look who recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Russia’s
wake – Nicaragua and Somalia. Had Kim Jong-il been all right, North
Korea might have recognized them too. As things stand, even Belarus
hesitates to recognize these republics, and so do Moscow’s neighbors
in the Commonwealth and partners in the CIS Collective Security Treaty
Organization and Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Did you see the
Shanghai Cooperation Organization declaration? President Medvedev
said he had encountered understanding at the summit, but when the
final text of the official document includes but a single phrase
concerning how the Shanghai Cooperation Organization was disturbed by
the situation in Georgia, then I cannot help start wondering… Well,
perhaps all that was done was great as an image-builder for the new
president. From the standpoint of international relations, however,
it looks like a diplomatic defeat of Russia.

Question: What do you think it may mean for the Caucasus?

Alain Deletroz: Russian autonomies as such might start wondering why
something is permitted Abkhazia and South Ossetia but denied them. The
situation in some republics of the Caucasus is quite volatile. In
Ingushetia, for example. When the matter of self-determination is
brought up, reaction of neighbor countries of the region is difficult
to anticipate. They are not particularly happy as we all know. What
if some irresponsible people get elevated to power there? How will
they react to a situation analogous to what happened in Chechnya in
the middle of the 1990s? God forbid we have to discover it the hard
way, of course.

CHATTING WITH JIMMY COBB, KIND OF BLUE’S LAST SURVIVING PLAYER
by Rob Trucks

The Village Voice
October 8, 2008 Wednesday
New York

Remembering the greatest jazz album of all time, 50 years on

Jimmy Cobb is early. The sole surviving performer on Miles Davis’s
1959 album Kind of Blue is waiting in a sixth-floor conference room
just blocks from Columbia’s old 30th Street Studios, the converted
(Greek, Russian, or Armenian, depending on whom you ask) Orthodox
church where the best-selling, most widely praised jazz album in
history was recorded. The drummer and Harlem resident passes the
time with his new iPhone-right now, unfortunately, it appears that
if Cobb so much as stares at the gadget, it automatically calls his
daughter. Thus far, hers is the only number programmed.

Sony Legacy is also early. In late September, the current keeper of the
Columbia Records vaults unveiled its "super-deluxe" 50th-anniversary
edition of Kind of Blue. But we’re nearly as close to the album’s 49th
birthday, if we’re going by release date. Yes, less than half a century
ago (March 2, 1959, to be exact), Davis, Cobb, pianists Bill Evans
and Wynton Kelly, saxophonists John Coltrane and Julian "Cannonball"
Adderley, and bassist Paul Chambers-truly one of the most stellar
lineups in jazz history-gathered for Blue’s first sessions. "There
wasn’t a whole lot of preparation for me," says Cobb. "He [Davis] would
just say, ‘I want this one to sound like it’s floating,’ or something
like that, you know. I didn’t have any music for none of that stuff."

The group’s second session, also on 30th Street, took place seven weeks
later, and on August 17 of that year (Robert De Niro’s 16th birthday),
the album emerged. More than three million copies later, Kind of
Blue stands not only as a landmark of accomplishment, but also of
accessibility. Riding the coming crest of modal (you don’t want to go
there) musings over warm chordal arrangements, six (seven, technically)
established yet efficient experts performed five superficially simple
yet luxurious tunes. "It grabs all kinds of people," says Cobb. "To see
how good those guys are, what they could do with just a little, that
they could make it sound like that-you know, that’s the thing. That’s
what it is. Just bring it down and it reaches everybody. There’s
something to that. It was just something that came along and clicked
with everybody. It’s just probably a once-in-a-lifetime thing."

Despite its obvious legs, Kind of Blue exists in many ways as a
mysterious, transitory moment in time. By its official release in
August of 1959, Coltrane had recorded his own groundbreaking Giant
Steps (another album with a Jimmy Cobb credit); Chambers and Adderley
had quit the band over monetary disputes (a recurring theme with
Davis); and Bill Evans, already on the outs, would soon be completely
gone as well, upset (with good reason, it appears) over not receiving
songwriting credit on "Blue in Green" and "Flamenco Sketches." Though
Cobb remained in Davis’s employ until just prior to 1963’s Seven
Steps to Heaven, the constant personnel changes may very well have
contributed to Kind of Blue’s seemingly atemporal state, transcending
a mere two days spent within an Eastern European cathedral turned
recording studio. "I don’t know if he ever played all of those tunes
off of that record live like that," Cobb says.

Yet despite having played on the most popular jazz album of all time,
Cobb offers little further insight into the secret of Blue’s success.

"Man, I don’t think Miles even thought that it would have
that longevity," he says. "If he even thought that that day, he
would’ve asked for a pile of money. You know, if he thought that
he had something that was going to really be selling for 50 years,
he would’ve asked for real money."

As for the drummer, "I was probably the soberest one in the band,"
says Cobb, the only member of the Blue sextet other than Adderley
to fully escape a heroin addiction. "And he knew I was going to be
on time. And he knew when I got there, I would give 150 percent. So
like that, you know. That’s the pluses I had."

Asked what it felt like to join the group, he adds: "I was kind
of leery. It’s hard to get in a band behind [former Davis drummer]
Philly Joe Jones, you know, because they’re looking for Philly. It’s
almost like when we went to Philadelphia, and the people in Philly
that were used to seeing [former Davis pianist] Red Garland looked up
and saw Bill Evans, and they were wondering who he was. So I’m sure
that when we went some places and Joe wasn’t there and they saw me,
they kind of felt the same way about it. So I was kind of nervous. I
figured I was probably the weakest link there, because that’s probably
just the way I am, you know."

Raised in Washington, D.C., Cobb first hit the road at 21 with Earl
Bostic and Dinah Washington, alongside future fellow Davis cohort
Wynton Kelly. He soon found himself in New York City, living with
Washington at 2040 Seventh Avenue. "It worked out pretty good,"
he recalls. "We did that for about five years. And during that
time I meet everybody in show business, you know, because she was
a big-time lady and I get introduced to everybody: Duke Ellington,
Count Basie. Everybody you’re supposed to know, I got to know them. In
fact, 2040 was where Dizzy [Gillespie] lived."

Cobb’s first involvement with Davis was helped along by his good friend
Adderley. "At that time," Cobb says, "it was Joe and Red Garland and
Coltrane, Cannonball and Miles. So a lot of times Joe wouldn’t show
up for gigs for one reason or the other. Or he just would be late. So
Cannon was nervous, because he needed the money to pay off his bills,
you know. So he used to tell me, ‘Why don’t you come around and sit
with us, you know, and if Joe don’t show, you can play, man. You’d
be right there.’ So I said, ‘OK, I’m not really doing that much
anyway.’ So I go do that a few times. Then one time Joe didn’t show
up for a record date, you know, and I was there at the record date,
and the record date was Porgy & Bess."

But Cobb’s invitation to officially join the group came later. "I’m
still not in the band," he continues. "But a little later, Miles talked
to me. He says, ‘You know, Joe’s not in the band anymore. I want you
to be in the band.’ I said, ‘OK.’ So he told me all the particulars
and stuff. Now it’s six o’clock in the evening, and I’m in New York. So
he’s calling me and I don’t know where he’s calling me from. So I said,
‘OK. Well, when you working? Where are you working?’ And he said,
‘Actually, we’re working tonight.’ I said, ‘Oh, really? Where?’ And
he said, ‘Boston.’ So he’s probably in Boston already. So I say,
‘Boston?’ He said, ‘Yeah.’ And it’s 6:30, man. I say, ‘Well, what time
do you start?’ He says, ‘Nine o’clock.’ I said, ‘Nine o’clock? How
am I going to get to Boston by nine o’clock, man?’ He said, ‘Man,
you want the gig, don’t you?’ I say, ‘Yeah, man.’ I say, ‘OK, I’ll
get there as fast as I can.’

"So I packed up the stuff, and at that time they had like a shuttle
going from New York to Boston-55 minutes, you know. Takes me
probably 55 minutes to get to the airport to fly 55 minutes, and a
few more minutes to get from the airport in Boston to George Wein’s
club. That’s where they were working, Storyville. So I get up there
after scuffling like, you know, scuffling my heart out to get there,
and they’re playing on the stand, because it’s probably 10 o’clock
by now. So when I get there, they’re playing the ballad ‘Round About
Midnight,’ so I went up quietly and set up the drums. And, you know,
there’s an interlude in there."

Here, in a sixth-floor East Side conference room, Jimmy Cobb hums the
"Round About Midnight" melody.

"I started right there. I played that with them. I was in the band-no
rehearsals, no nothing. So that’s the way it started, man."

The ending, however, has yet to be written. Jimmy Cobb, suitably
enough, is at the forefront of the 50th-anniversary DVD. This month,
the drummer will be recognized as a National Endowment for the Arts
Jazzmaster. November brings appearances at Dizzy’s Club Coca-Cola,
as well as a number of dates in Germany. In January, Jimmy Cobb will
turn 80 years old; in February, he’ll be leading a new outfit, the
So What Band, as part of Kind of Blue’s continuing golden-anniversary
celebration, still officially 11 months away.

But despite all the attention that comes with this territory-and having
provided percussion on a work of acclaimed and enduring genius-it’s the
people he remembers, not the songs: "I’m proud to be here, man. I’m
proud to be going on 80 years old. I never thought I’d be 80 years
old. I’m here. I’m sorry that all my friends are gone, you know,
but I’ve got them here."

And with that, the drummer pats his chest pocket. His hand lays over
his heart, as well as his new iPhone, which presumably calls his
daughter one more time.

10 COUNTRIES LEAST AFFECTED BY THE US FINANCIAL CRISIS

BusinessPundit
October 8, 2008 Wednesday 2:00 PM EST

Oct. 8, 2008 (BusinessPundit delivered by Newstex) — It’s official:
The United States financial crisis has reverberated around the
world. Wall Street’s supernova imploded into a black hole, swallowing
up the national economy, then destabilizing most locations reachable by
commercial jet. That is to say, everything, everywhere. Nonetheless,
some countries are faring better than others in this stage of
the crisis. While Spaniards offer […]It’s official: The United
States financial crisis has reverberated around the world. Wall
Street’s supernova imploded into a black hole, swallowing up the
national economy, then destabilizing most locations reachable by
commercial jet. That is to say, everything, everywhere. Nonetheless,
some countries are faring better than others in this stage of the
crisis. While Spaniards offer banks their house keys, Malaysians
shrug. While Americans talk nonstop about the Second Great Depression,
Dubai investors are enjoying one of the biggest real estate booms in
the tiny United Arab Emirates’ history. Thailand sighs with relief
at its sizable reserves, and Armenia finally thanks the heavens above
for its obscurity. Here are ten countries suffering 80-100% less than
the United States: 10. China I was surprised to learn that China may
not be dramatically affected by the United States financial crisis.

As it turns out, we in the US rely far more heavily on China than
she does on us. China owns roughly 19% of US treasuries; if needed,
it plans to use its sizable budget surplus to snap up even more. In
addition, the United States gobbles up the majority of Chinese-made
goods, meaning a decrease in consumer demand here will make for
a chilly Chinese export market. However, China is not solely
dependent on the United States for financial stability. A host of
new trade agreements mean China has a number of potential suitors
waiting for vast quantities of goods. Domestic demand is also on the
up-and-up. Finally, China’s financial system has been closed for many
years, protecting it from shady assets. Though the country will feel
the international slump, its banking system is probably safe. Its
high domestic demand, huge pile of capital, and numerous other major
trading partners will counter the effects of US contagion. Bad News:
China would be badly hurt by a downturn in export demand from the
United States and Europe. It may yet be seriously affected. Good News:
They can rely more on domestic demand and demand from less-affected
countries, such as Brazil. They’re also sitting on a mountain of cash,
which they are using to help bail out the United States. 9. Brazil
Latin American economies have boomed over the past few years. Brazil,
unlike some of its neighbors, stabilized its domestic economy while
positioning itself for increased foreign investment. The United States
is currently Brazil’s biggest trading partner, but is looking to boost
transactions with China and India, other major partners. Bad News:
The United States is Brazil’s biggest trading partner. Good News:
Brazil is positioned to take advantage of trade agreements and foreign
direct investment from India and China, two economies at the top of
the world ladder. 8. Romania Romania’s banks are barely exposed to
international lenders.

Therefore, any economic slowdown it feels will be a secondary result of
global patterns. No shocks have occurred in the country itself. Known
by its own journalists the "tiger of the east," Romania’s economy
has been growing rapidly for the past few years. Though heavily
embroiled in the EU’s economy, especially Italy’s, Romania is one
of the world’s biggest military equipment exporters. Bad News: High
exposure to the EU and foreign direct investment subject Romania to the
general effects of the coming global recession. Good News: The country
remains a hot FDI destination for European companies looking for a
good deal. Its strong IT services sector–like a mini-India for the
EU–is especially attractive. And then there’s that military thing,
a sure winner in today’s conflict-rich world society. 7. Thailand
AIG’s gigantic Thailand subsidiary, AIA Thailand, has more than half
of the Thai market cornered. It’s also sitting on 286.67 billion baht
worth of reserves (about 8.3 billion US dollars), 383 billion baht
($11.1 billion) worth of assets, and capital funds worth roughly 1100%
of the legally required minimum. Foreigners affected directly by
the US financial crisis may have outstanding loans in Thailand. The
country, however, isn’t worried, because the amount of these loans
is relatively small. Bad news: Thailand’s largest insurance company
is an AIG (NYSE:AIG) subsidiary. Good news: It’s sitting on a pile
of cash. 6. North Korea Although the country has recently enjoyed
burgeoning trade ties with South Korea and China, both vulnerable
to the US financial crisis, North Korea remains isolated enough to
limp through the financial crisis relatively unscathed. Bad News:
No stranger to famines and subsistence farming, people living in this
brittle Communist relic may lose hope as foreign direct investors from
affected countries stall capital inflows. Good News: North Korea’s
economic isolation will, for once, come in handy. 5. Iran Longstanding
sanctions have kept Iran’s economy relatively insulated from foreign
investment outside of a select few sectors. One of those sectors is
oil–and China is one of its biggest trading partners. A fortuitous
arrangement for all. Bad News: Iran trades a lot with Europe, which
is moldering under the financial crisis. Good News: Iran does not
trade with the United States. It does, however, provide petroleum
to oil-hungry China, a business that should float the country for at
least another decade. 4. Malaysia This Southeast Asian country hosts
a number of multinational manufacturing facilities. Though some of
these companies are in the United States, experts say that bad times
will promote more offshore production in bargain-rich Malaysia,
not less. Malaysia is also gaining a reputation as a good China
alternative in manufacturing circles. It’s rumored to be slightly
more expensive, but produces higher quality goods, and is easier to
deal with. Malaysia is also gaining a reputation as a solar energy
hotspot. Bad News: Malaysia does a lot of business with the United
States. Good News: Companies looking to cut costs come to Malaysia,
making it an even more likely outsourcing destination for leaner
businesses. 3. Morocco Moroccan officials claim not to be affected by
the United States financial crisis because their banks don’t contain
any subprime assets. But that notion only scratches the surface of
why Morocco will survive the shakeup. Its resource and agricultural
assets are the real keys to its invulnerability. For one, this stable,
slow-growth economy relies heavily on agricultural assets, such as
almonds. It could feed its entire domestic population with the food
it produces, beneficial in a world of rising food prices. Half of
its income comes from valuable phosphate mines–32% of the world’s
reserves"a commodity whose prices have increased 700% during the past
two years (triggering talk of "peak phosphorus"). Bad News: Morocco
is heavily involved in foreign direct investment, especially from
France, and tourism to boost its economy. These two assets will likely
diminish because of the United States crisis. Good News: Morocco’s
natural assets, including its coveted phosphate, will keep its economy
greased enough to offset any losses. 2. Armenia This small Eurasian
country hasn’t involved itself much in foreign affairs. Banking is
no exception. Its relatively undeveloped financial market has so
few interests in the outside world that the crisis didn’t make a
blip. Bad News: Integration with outside markets means development
for small countries like Armenia. Officials hunger to expose it more
to external markets. Good News: That same lack of exposure protected
Armenia from the US crisis. It could be argued that Armenia is the
least affected country of all. 1. The United Arab Emirates Driven
by regional oil exports, the United Arab Emirates boasts one of the
world’s fastest-growing economies. The UK’s Guardian calls it the home
of the "Arabian Dream," the world’s new version of the spent American
dream. Dubai’s free trade zone, exalted commercial real estate market,
and financial services make it an international powerhouse. This
growth was fueled by oil revenues, but now has a momentum of its
own. Bad News: The UAE’s international problems revolve more around
money laundering than the US financial crisis. Good News: Almost
everything. The place is booming. If anyone reading this post lives
in the countries mentioned above, please comment and let us know what
things are looking like from the inside. Newstex ID: BPUN-0001-28623752

RUSSIA AN ‘ENEMY’? WRONG ANSWER
by Aldo Rizzo

La Stampa
Oct 7 2008
Italy

What bizarre answers the citizens of the EU’s five largest countries
(France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain) gave in a
survey that the Harris Poll organization conducted on behalf of the
Financial Times regarding the situation after the war between Russia
and Georgia. Most respondents pointed to Russia as being the greatest
threat to world stability, after China (which was in first place in
previous surveys) but ahead of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. However,
asked if it might be appropriate to boost spending on security,
the same respondents said "no," in order to avoid taking resources
away from domestic welfare programmes. In fact in Italy, in Spain,
and above all in Germany, they even said that they would be opposed
to NATO intervening if the three Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia,
and Lithuania) were to come under attack from Moscow’s troops.

There is about as much point in preaching to public opinion polls
as there would be in preaching to an earthquake. But this is not
an earthquake, it is a reliable opinion survey, and its results
are worrying. They point to a dramatic inconsistency in Europe’s
"perception" of the international situation; namely, that Putin’s
and Medvedev’s Russia is a looming threat but that we need to
busy ourselves with our domestic concerns. And this, after the EU
finally managed to move in unison in the Caucasus crisis while the
US superpower was otherwise distracted by the long changeover in
its presidency. Naturally these are the views of Europe’s citizens,
not of its governments, but in true democracies such as those in
Europe, it is interaction and exchange between the electorate and
those elected that "generates policy."

So it needs to be said that both answers in the Harris poll are
mistaken. It is a mistake to say that Russia, despite its newly
rediscovered aggressivenes which, it has to be said, is the result of a
culpable lack of attention on the West’s part, is more dangerous today
than the situation in Iraq or than Iran’s ambitions. Putin is already
having to cope with the repercussions of his Georgia operation, which
range from the undermining of foreign investor confidence and emerging
domestic economic difficulties (and this, despite the country’s
strength in the energy industry), to looming diplomatic isolation. The
silence exhibited by China and by Russia’s Asian partners, Turkey’s
manoeuvres in the Islamic Caucasus and elswhere (Armenia), and Serbia’s
independent stance count for far more than Bush’s or Rice’s recurrent
upbraiding; while even Russia’s countermanoeuvres in Iran’s favour
can only lead to a nuclear-endowed Tehran becoming a major centre of
seething Muslim revanchism on postcommunist or neoczarist Russia’s
southeastern border. And quite frankly, its war games in the Caribbean
with the local demagogues are nothing but pointless pinpricks.

A return to dialogue with the West is the Kremlin’s sole option. This,
however, as long as the West does not intend to force matters over
Ukraine and over Georgia by wanting them to join NATO as rapidly
as possible.

But that does not mean (and this is why the second answer is mistaken,
too) that the EU should give up the idea of boosting its own security,
including on the military level. Only a strong Europe can compensate
for our energy dependency on Moscow and, at the same time, play a
mediator’s and an oversight role, keeping Russia’s neoimperialist tics
in check and fostering much-needed dialogue. That is what Sarkozy,
the leader of a pro-active and powerful France as well as the EU duty
president, has succeeded in doing to date.

ARMENIA SILENT ON RETURN TO AZERBAIJAN OF DISTRICTS AROUND KARABAKH
by Naira Hayrumyan

Kavkazskiy Uzel
October 8, 2008 Wednesday
Russia

7 October: The government of Nagornyy Karabakh is not going to agree to
the return of the seven districts around the former Nagornyy Karabakh
Autonomous Region. Azerbaijan demands this as the first stage of the
settlement [of the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict].

The Armenian government, for its part, is not making statements that
would show that it does not intend to return the territories around
the former NKAR, which currently fall under the jurisdiction of the
Nagornyy Karabakh republic – in exchange for including Armenia into
regional communication projects. Both Turkish and US diplomats have
"leaked" reports to that effect, however, Armenian officials are not
refuting these rumours.

The issue of Nor-Shahumyan [Armenian name for Kalbacar] district
(former Kalbacar) was very roughly discussed at a recent session of the
Karabakh government. Members of the government were very discontented
with the work carried out there and called for the speeding up of the
post-war rehabilitation of the region. Kalbacar District is among the
seven districts around the former NKAR that mediators say are to be
returned to Azerbaijan.

Currently a national programme on settling areas around the former
NCAR is being developed, and up to 1bn drams [about 3.3m dollars]
has been allocated to it from the NKR state budget (1 dollar = 300
drams). Social facilities and homes are being built for the people,
mainly refugees from Azerbaijan, who have moved into the area, and
the construction is also being funded by the Armenian diaspora.

A pan-Armenian conference of influential Armenian parties and
charity foundations took place in Berddzor [Armenian name for Lacin]
(Kashatagh, former Lacin District) and a long-term development
programme of the district was approved at it. Currently design work
is being carried out as part of a number of large-scale construction
projects.

The NKR constitution, adopted in 2006, imposes the jurisdiction of
the republic of Nagornyy Karabakh over all the territories under
its control.

RUSSIA’S HELP IN KARABAKH SETTLEMENT "TRAP" FOR AZERBAIJAN

Zerkalo
Oct 8 2008
Azerbaijan

Russia’s support for a stage-by-stage settlement to the Nagornyy
Karabakh conflict may be a trap for Azerbaijan, the independent
Azerbaijani Zerkalo newspaper has said.

"Russia’s constructiveness, particularly its support for a
stage-by-stage settlement in view of the latest developments in the
South Caucasus, may catch Azerbaijan in a trap," Zerkalo said on
8 October.

The paper added that the sides might have different understanding of
the term "stage-by-stage settlement".

"If this is the definition of all ultimate goals, including the
future status of Nagornyy Karabakh, then all is normal, at least
in general terms. That is, the ultimate goals are defined, but the
package is implemented stage by stage. However, there exists another
understanding of the stage-by-stage settlement of the conflict,
that is step by step. That is, at each stage the sides resolve only
those problems on which they need to reach agreements. As a result,
the status is not defined even in general terms at preliminary stages,
nor is it discussed on the whole," the paper said.

The report added that the second version of the stage-by-stage Karabakh
settlement was acceptable and that it had been seriously discussed
at various conferences before the conflict between Russia and Georgia.

"However, the consequences of Russian aggression urge us to give up
on this version, which will allow Moscow to constantly manipulate
the conflicting sides in its own interests and influence the foreign
policies of Azerbaijan and Armenia," Zerkalo said.

The report added that Russia wants to involve Azerbaijan in the
Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and control the energy
stream from the Caspian basin.

The paper said that Russia had accused western countries, including
Ukraine, of violating international commitments on arms deliveries
to conflict zones and accused Russia of cynicism and hypocrisy.

"Russia itself delivers arms to Armenia, being an ally in the CSTO,
at Russian domestic prices, which are considerably less than world
prices, and promises Azerbaijan the same if the Baku government takes
Moscow’s interests into account," Zerkalo added.

BBCM note: In an interview with Russia’s Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov has said that there are several principles in
the peaceful settlement of the Karabakh conflict that have not been
agreed upon. He said that those principles would be discussed at a
meeting between the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents.

MCCAIN REAFFIRMS STANCE ON ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

AssA-Irada
October 8, 2008 Wednesday
Azerbaijan

US Republican presidential hopeful John McCain has reaffirmed his
position on the alleged genocide of Armenians. In a letter forwarded
to the Armenian community in the United States, he did not use the
genocide term.

Armenians term the alleged World War I-era killings of huge numbers
of their kins as genocide, a claim strenuously denied by the modern
Turkish state. McCain said the brutal killings of 1.5 million Armenians
in the Ottoman Empire, one of the scariest tragedies of the 20th
century, had long been out of limelight. We have to acknowledge these
tragic developments and guarantee that the world will never again
face the consequences of such bloody conflicts, the letter said. The
Armenian community was riled by the fact McCain did not brand the
developments as genocide. Aram Ambarian, Executive Director of the
Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), said his organization
hoped issues regarding Armenians would be high on agenda of the
Republican candidate while on the campaign trail. But the abstract
letter he sent to us had no reference to the main problems facing the
Armenian Diaspora in the U.S. He said Americas Armenian electorate
would like to see as next president a politician precisely expressing
issues of concern for Armenians. These include the genocide issue, the
Armenia-Azerbaijan Upper (Nagorno) Garabagh conflict and strengthening
US-Armenian relations. McCains Democratic rival, Barack Obama, adheres
to a contradicting position on the so-called genocide of Armenians. In
a recent statement, he defended the Armenian community in the U.S.,
and called on Turkey to recognize the alleged genocide. He also
pointed out the importance of adopting a relevant bill in US Congress.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

HOUSE OF LORDS MEMBER ENTERS BRITISH-AZERI GROUP

AssA-Irada
October 8, 2008 Wednesday
Azerbaijan

British lawmaker, Lord Wallace, has become a member of the
Britain-Azerbaijan inter-parliamentary group. Respective agreement
was reached at a meeting of the Azerbaijani ambassador to Britain,
Fahraddin Gurbanov, with the lawmaker. During the meeting, the
ambassador briefed Wallace on Azerbaijans rampant economic development,
its turning into a leader in the region, and large-scale energy
projects being implemented in the country. Gurbanov also spoke
of ongoing efforts to find a negotiated solution to his countrys
long-standing conflict with Armenia. He said settling the Upper
(Nagorno) Garabagh conflict was pivotal for ensuring sustainable peace
and development in the region. The two also reviewed prospects for
expanding relations between the Azerbaijani and British parliaments.

TWO FACES OF DIFFERENT WORLDS

Daily News Egypt
October 9, 2008 Thursday

Ursula Schulz-Dornburg is taking time out on the roof of the
Windsor Palace rooftop garden watching fisherman toil in the murky
waters of Alexandria’s eastern harbor to explain the origins of her
latest exhibition. She is a busy woman and her current exhibition,
"Sonnenstand" alongside Egyptian artist Bahaa Medcour’s "Two Faces
of Eternity" is currently showing at Bibliotheca Alexandrina and
sponsored by the Goethe Institute.

She recently exhibited in Bilbao and Paris before returning to
Dusseldorf, her native city. Ursula’s also putting the finishing
touches on the next big event due in January 2009, an exhibition in
Munich alongside celebrated Polish artist Miroslav Balka. At first
glance, Ursula’s photographs strike the viewer with their several
references to contemporary society and the overriding sense of loss
and disappointment seen firsthand by the celebrated photographer.

The images are shot in black and white, accompanied by some literature
from well-known artists including the conceptualist artist Lawrence
Weiner.

Four months prior to the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War, Ursula was
photographing the marshes and remarkable archaeological sites of one
of the world’s oldest civilizations. The devastation and disappearance
of such beauty left an impression on her that has lingered throughout
her career. As her exhibits go from Europe to the US, she continues
to explore other diverse cultures such as Burma, Russia, Armenia,
Saudi Arabia and Iran. Yet it was during her trip to Iraq that Ursula
started researching Arab influence on Christian architecture, which
is the main theme of her latest exhibition.

Central to the exhibition is the Cordoba Calendar that is displayed
in Arabic within the exhibition hall. The calendar, believed to date
to the 10th century, includes important dates and festivals of both
Muslim and Christian faiths.

Ursula used the calendar to tie together the many themes of the
exhibition, including life, light, seasons and cycles, astronomy,
enlightenment and the complexity of human nature.

Seven blown up shots of various species of seeds echo the feeling
of loss and struggle. The seeds were a difficult subject to capture
due to their size and were photographed in a fashion that makes them
look like they’re shaking; a technique that Ursula admits was time
consuming. Ursula said seeds were chosen because they represent one
of the most basic and fundamental elements of life. They were taken
from a seed bank, highlighting the current threats including genetic
modification and the delicate balance of the seasons. A quote that
reads "Stars don’t stay still for anybody" splits the photographs on a
large panel, once again highlighting the idea that we are governed by
the earth’s cycle and not the other way around. The following section
of the exhibition includes shots of 10th and 11th century Spanish
hermitages. Despite being a Christian sanctuary, their design is
subtly influenced by Islamic architecture and highlights the intricate
multi-faith relationships that existed during the period. The role
and cycle of the sun is captured in the sequences that illustrate the
differing positions of light illuminating the dark interior. Ursula
said that the concept came to her while she sat on the cold floor
of a hermitage in Estaban, summing up the experience by quoting a
well known saying, "If you travel by car you see nothing, if you walk
you see more and if you sit on the side of the road you see all." On
the adjacent walls of the Bibliotheca’s exhibition hall hangs Bahaa
Medcour’s work entitled "The Face of Eternity." Photography has
been a passion for the electrical engineer, who said that he can’t
remember the last day that went by without him using a camera. The
subject of Medcour’s exhibitions have included the Great Pyramid,
Philae and Rome’s Coliseum.

The 47 colored prints focus on one of Egypt’s most famous edifices,
the Great Pyramid, and the stunning tombs of the southern village of
Hiw, some 550 km south of Cairo. As you look over the shots, you are
immediately struck by the apparent differences of the subjects – one
is an immense stone structure designed for the elite, the other very
small and modest clay tombs. Still, he said, they are both ‘houses of
eternity’ and therefore one of the overriding themes of his exhibition
is unity. The images, most of which have never been printed before,
capture the Great Pyramid in a unique way. Medcour is well aware of
the difficulties of photographing a subject that has been covered
to death, but his approach, focusing on interesting details of the
pyramid and not shooting it in its entirety. "Every stone deserves
more than a second look. Every shadow needs to be studied. Every
angle needs to be measured.

So many aspects of this Great Pyramid are still ignored till this day."

The exhibit’s other focus, the tombs of Hiw (nicknamed the merry tombs
due to the use of color by the villagers) provide some remarkable
images of the graves and simple architecture of the cemetery. Many
of the prints, said Bahaa, compliment those of the pyramids thus
highlighting the notion of unity between the two subjects. First
displayed in the Egyptian Academy of Arts in 1984, the first
photographer to do so, Bahaa has been to Hiw four times and exhibited
these images extensively, including inaugurating the exhibition hall in
the museum of Turin, as well as being included in numerous magazines.

FROM THE BALKAN PACT TO THE CAUCASUS STABILITY PACT
by Mehman Aliyev

Zerkalo
Sept 27 2008
Azerbaijan

On 11 August 2008, at the height of the military-political crisis in
Georgia, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan put forward an
initiative to form the Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform
on the basis of the OSCE principles. The Turkish prime minister made
shuttle trips to Moscow, Tbilisi and Baku. He also familiarized
Iranian President Ahmadinezhad with the initiative, while Turkish
President Abdullah Gul familiarized his Armenian counterpart Serzh
Sargsyan with the initiative during a "football trip" to Yerevan.

There were different, mainly critical, comments on Erdogan’s
initiative. Washington even voiced its surprise at Ankara’s initiative
to form the Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform. "We thought
that Turkey and the USA follow a coordinated policy in the South
Caucasus. However, Ankara did not inform Washington about the issue
and we were really surprised with the actions of our partner,"
Matthew Bryza, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, said archly.

However, it is unlikely that Americans, who are "forefathers" of
this project, were unaware of the planned initiative. First time the
idea of creating a regional security system in the South Caucasus
was put forward at the NATO anniversary summit in Washington in
1999. US representatives suggested establishing peace in the Caucasus
through economic cooperation and put forward an initiative to create
a Caucasus cooperation forum involving the three South Caucasus
countries, naturally under the aegis of the USA and without Russia’s
and Iran’s involvement.

[Passage omitted: details of similar proposals put forward in the
recent years]

After a failed attempt to stop the Western invasion into the region
through its incursion to Georgia, Moscow has eased destructive levers
of influence a bit that has created advantageous prerequisites
for the implementation of the idea of the Caucasus house which is
being viewed as a "construction" where peace, stability and progress
reign. These prerequisites are the consolidation of international
democratic community with regard to policy in the Caucasus, a threat
of isolation of Russia and the provoked crisis in Russia’s economy,
the arrival of NATO’s navy in the Black Sea and of EU peacekeeping
forces in Georgia, the handover of a settlement format of the Abkhaz
and South Ossetian conflict under international control, and the
start of Turkish-Armenian and Turkish-Azerbaijani peace dialogues.

Another main prerequisite is that the peaceful settlement of conflicts
(e.g. the Karabakh conflict) within the stability pact dovetails with
the proposals of the OSCE Minsk Group (that involves Russia) that
provide for a stage-by-stage settlement of the problem: liberation of
the occupied territories, return of refugees, establishment of all
types of cooperation in the region and discussion on the issue of
status in the future, in new and favourable conditions. The latter
mean the formation of democratic governments elected through free
and fair elections; NATO’s, the EU’s membership for countries of the
region etc. In other words, that means the transfer of negotiations
from distrust and offence to confidence and mutual respect.

The pact creates unique possibility for all countries in the region to
get out of a difficult and dangerous situation that developed after
the Georgian crisis. First of all, it applies to Russia, the key
player in the region that has temporary fallen out from the process
of Euro-Atlantic cooperation, which has caused grave consequences for
the country. At the same time, Russia’s involvement in the Caucasus
Stability and Cooperation Platform jointly with the USA and the EU,
which is inevitable, would give an impetus to conciliation not only
in the South Caucasus but also in the disturbed North Caucasus.

Unfortunately, Iran, another influential regional player, will be
outside the South Caucasus peace process despite its striving to be
involved in it. That is mostly because of the nuclear aspirations of
clerical authorities in Tehran and their open enmity to the US global
leadership. Taking into account a unified position of the UN Security
Council member states on Iran’s nuclear claims, Russia and other
possible participants in the stability project in the Caucasus will
not insist on involving the Islamic Iran in the Caucasus peace process
within Erdogan’s plan. However, Iran’s involvement in the stability
project will become inevitable in the future, after democratic reforms
are carried out in that country.