Author: Chalian Meline

The Messenger
Friday, March 18, 2005, #049 (0823)

Business news in brief:

Noghaideli seeks closer economic ties with Armenia

The development of economic relations between Armenia and Georgia topped the
agenda during Prime Minister Zurab Noghaideli’s two-day visit to Yerevan on
March 10-12.
Noghaideli and Armenian President Robert Kocharyan met on March 11 to talk
about cooperation in the energy sector and the expansion of trade links.
News agency Ria Novosti reports that Kocharyan expressed his satisfaction at
the meeting that the Armenian-Georgian intergovernmental commission on
economic relations will continue its activities headed by the prime
ministers of the two countries.
“Armenian-Georgian relations have always included a wide spectrum of issues
of mutual interests,” he said.
The sides positively assessed the increase in trade turnover between the
countries last year, which according to Armenian Prime Minister Andranik
Margaryan rose by 51.1 percent.
The National Department of Statistics of Armenia reports that trade turnover
between Armenia and Georgia equaled USD 78 million in 2004 compared to USD
51 million in 2003.
The two countries hope that better communications will further increase
trade, and Noghaideli reported to his Armenian colleagues about the
completion of the construction of the road between Sadakhlo on the
Georgia-Armenia border and Marneuli. The sides also discussed the
construction of a new border checkpoint in Sadakhlo.

PRICE FOR GAS IN ARMENIA WILL GROW, DEPUTY HEAD OF GASPROM SAYS

MOSCOW, MARCH 17. ARMINFO. It will be difficult for Russia to keep up
the price for gas, which comes to Armenia. Deputy Chairman of the
Board of Gasprom ojsc Alexander Ryazanov said.

As Regnum agency reports with reference to Armenian TV channel Yerkir
Media, Ryazanov stressed it today on the border of Armenia the price
for gas is $56,000 per 1,000 cubic meter, then 1-1.5 years later it
will exceed $60. At the same time the deputy head of Gasprom mentioned
that today the gas comes to Armenia from Turkmenistan, as well as from
Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. “All these countries orientate to European
prices and follow the way of sharp increase in prices.”

In the number of urgent problems Alexander Ryazanov mentioned the
technical state of the transit capacities, in particular, of the
Georgian section of the transit gas main passing from Russia to
Armenia. According to him, the Georgian side has not practically
invested funds in modernization of the main, as the main is not of
strategic importance for the country so much as for Armenia.

Ryazanov said it will possible to modernize the main and provide more
reliable supply of gas to Armenia. The deputy head of Gasprom said the
company does not put a task to receive a surplus profit in Armenia, as
it realizes that at rather a high level of demand for gas the solvency
of the population is limited.

The Daily Advertiser
Thursday, March 17, 2005

Louisiana colleges open doors for foreign students as numbers rise

Marsha Sills
[email protected]

While the number of international students in the country declined 2.4
percent during the past academic year, the number of non-American students
in Louisiana has increased, according to a Institute of International
Education report.

The study ranked Louisiana 25th in the country the number of foreign
students on the state’s college campuses.

The Institute of International Education’s Open Doors 2004 annual report
documents foreign student mobility in the United States, as well as the
number of American students studying abroad. The IIE is a nonprofit agency
focused on education and cultural exchanges.

What brings a foreign student to study abroad in America varies. Ask
American students why they chose their school, and the answer would likely
change from person to person.

For Beatrice Talon, attending university outside of her native Haiti was the
only option if she wanted to study graphic design. Talon is in her third
year at UL and is the secretary of the International Student Council.

Talon and about 600 other international students are celebrating their
cultures and countries during International Week. She said the purpose of
the event is to open eyes in the community to the wealth of diversity
offered on campus in each student, including internationals.

“We’re hoping more people realize that we are on campus and that we have
activities,” Talon said. “We have a lot to offer with our different
traditions and cultures and all the stories we come with.”

Those stories are slipping away in some parts of the country as fewer
foreign students are attending college in the United States. The Institute
of International Education’s report attributes the decline to rising tuition
costs and students’ difficulty in obtaining visas, especially in scientific
or technical fields of study. Also, the IIE cites heavy recruiting of the
diverse students from other English-speaking countries.

This spring on UL’s campus, there are about 660 foreign students from about
100 countries, including lone students from Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Equatorial
Guinea and Moldova.

Many of those students find out about the university through word of mouth
or on the Web, said Rose Honegger, director of the Office of International
Affairs. The department helps international students acclimate to American
university life.

“Word of mouth is how a lot of students know about our campus, but also our
office. We’ve tried to get our Web site linked and translated into many
other languages,” Honegger said. “I know, for example, some of our Japanese
students have found out about our campuses through links in the Japanese
language.”

This spring, foreign students make up 4.2 percent of the student body. Last
fall it was 4.3 percent. In the past five years, the number of
internationals has declined. In fall 2000, about 5.3 percent of the student
body was from another country.

On UL’s campus the dominant source of international students hail from
India, although since 2000, the number of Indian students enrolled has also
slightly decreased.

In fall 2000, 245 Indian students enrolled at UL. This spring, 207 are
enrolled. Honegger said she believes a number of Indian students learn about
the university by word of mouth.

“A lot of them (Indian students) say that they found out about our campus
through other students,” Honegger said. “A majority attend for computer
science and engineering department. They say they have a similar interest as
the professor that they want to work with.”

Nationally, Indian students are the largest pool of internationals who
choose to study in the United States, with a total of 79,376 students.

Last year, the state saw 6,621 foreign students or a 1.3 percent increase of
internationals enrolled in universities compared to the prior year. The
number of American students enrolled in Louisiana schools studying abroad
was only 1,901. UL has a number of exchange programs that encourage students
to study abroad in France, Mexico, England and Italy. The petroleum
engineering department is also part of the US-Brazil Higher Education
Consortia Program, offering an exchange program for students at universities
in Brazil.

Last year, LSU and Tulane had the highest number of internationals. About
1,813 international students were enrolled at LSU, while at Tulane there
were 1,043 internationals enrolled. The leading field of study for foreign
students in Louisiana is engineering with 29.2 percent, followed closely by
business and management with 18.7 percent. The leading country of origin was
India with 22.9 percent, or 1,514 students.

Foreign students who come to study in the U.S. leave their money here. The
report estimates a $12 billion economic impact on the U.S. economy and a
$126 million economic impact in Louisiana by foreign students and their
families on tuition and living expenses.

Originally published March 17, 2005

RusData Dialine – Russian Press Digest
March 16, 2005 Wednesday

Smugglers of Russian-made weapons held in the United States

by Roman Kirillov

SOURCE: Izvestia, No 42, p.1

U.S. authorities charged 18 people in an alleged scheme to smuggle
grenade launchers, shoulder-fired missiles and other Russian military
weapons into the United States.

The arrests resulted from a yearlong investigation in which an FBI
informant posed as an arms buyer who claimed to have ties to
al-Qaida.

The case, which took investigators to South Africa, Armenia and
Georgia, also included wiretaps on seven phones and interceptions of
more than 15,000 calls, according to prosecutors, the FBI and police.

Seventeen of the 18 people charged were in custody on Tuesday,
arrested in New York, Los Angeles or Florida, authorities said.
Prosecutors alleged that the defendants were preparing to import the
weapons, including anti-tank missile systems, into the country from
Eastern Europe.

Several of the defendants are from the former Soviet republics.

fibre2fashion.com

March 16, 2005

Kazakhstan : Envoys conference in Almaty begins – focus on trade and
commerce in CAR & Africa regions
15th March 2005

Trade Policy will be the key initiative to come up for discussion at the two
day Envoys Conference started today in Almaty, Kazakhstan.

Major objective of this conference is to develop a comprehensive strategy
for increasing and diversifying Pakistan exports to these countries.

The conference will be chaired by Pakistan’s Minister for Commerce Humayun
Akhtar Khan.

Two hitherto neglected regions i.e. Central Asian Republics (CARs) and
Africa will be put under the due emphasis for their geographical proximity
with Europe and the Asian heartland as well as for their huge energy
resources, according them gain increasing importance in future.

Constraints like import tariffs, non-tariff barriers, payment problems and
visa restrictions will be identified. Also, the existing regional trading
arrangements will be extensively covered.

Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrghistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan and
Armenia will also be participating in the conference.

Area for trade cooperation like textiles & textile machinery, leather &
leather goods, pharmaceuticals, rice, food and its products through
participation of respective trade delegation will also be attending this
Conference and identify potential areas of exports of specific products to
these countries.

Besides, first hand information of the local tariffs, local taxes and trade
laws will also be understood during the conference.

The highlevel delegation of Commercial Counselors and Envoys of CARs would
definitely strengthen the efforts of Ministry of Commerce to enhance exports
to Central Asian Republics through fruitful interaction in groups at the
fora.

Agence France Presse — English
March 15, 2005 Tuesday 5:29 PM GMT

Two Azeri soldiers reported killed in ceasefire breach

BAKU

Two Azeri soldiers were killed Monday in a ceasefire breach along the
tense line dividing Azerbaijan and Armenian-occupied territory, Azeri
television reported Tuesday.

A “shootout resulted in the killing of one soldier by sniper fire
while another was wounded in the shoulder and taken to an hospital
where he died,” ATV said in an evening news bulletin.

Armenia and Azerbaijan have been locked in a stalemate over the
ethnic Armenian enclave Nagorno Karabakh ever since they ended
large-scale hostilities with an uneasy ceasefire agreement in 1994.

Armenia controls Karabakh and seven surrounding regions equal to
roughly 14 percent of Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized
territory.

Last year six people lost their lives in ceasefire breaches while an
additional 13 people were killed and 21 injured on landmines around
Karabakh.

Civil Georgia, Georgia
March 15 2005

Beware of Traps in Georgia-Russia Troop Withdrawal Agreement

By Vladimir Socor / 2005-03-15 19:45:36
Re-posted from the Jamestown Foundation web-site

The Georgian Parliament passed a resolution on March 10 that requires
Russia unconditionally to withdraw its forces from Georgia no later
than January 1, 2006 — unless Moscow reaches agreement with Tbilisi
before May 15, 2005, on a “reasonable timeframe” for the troop
withdrawal.

Georgia will be safer if the troop withdrawal timeframe remains as
defined by the parliamentary resolution, without political conditions
or linkages to other issues. Georgia would, however, run serious
risks if it tries negotiating a political agreement with Russia on
troop withdrawal and allow it to become linked to other issues. In
that case, Moscow would again drag out the negotiations while trying
to pressure or lure Tbilisi into signing an agreement filled with
traps and conditionalities.

Based on 14 years of experience in the Baltic states, Moldova, and
Georgia itself, at least six traps can be expected to be laid by
Moscow into the text of a political agreement with Georgia on troop
withdrawal. Those traps would be designed to negate the goal of
military withdrawal, ensuring a military presence instead.

1. Legalization

Whatever “reasonable timeframe” is ultimately agreed for troop
withdrawal — 3 years as Tbilisi hopes, 7 years as Moscow demands, or
a compromise — Russia wants the presence of its troops to be
legalized for the duration. If this is done, Moscow will have an
incentive to prolong the term upon expiry, and will almost certainly
try to pressure Georgia to accept prolongation de facto. The Baltic
states were aware of this risk when they refused to legalize the
presence of Russian troops on their territories for any “temporary”
or “transitional” period. Legalization by Georgia would: a) undermine
the irreplaceable argument of national sovereignty for the ridding
the country of Russian troops; b) enable Russia, under the CFE Treaty
and in other contexts, to cite “host-country consent” by Georgia; c)
weaken international sympathy and support for Georgia’s ultimate goal
of terminating Russia’s military presence; d) retain, instead of
removing, a potential time-bomb of a political-military nature inside
the country; and e) interfere with Georgia’s national goal of
integration with NATO. Like the Baltic states, Georgia must never
legalize Russia’s military presence for any length of time.

2. Re-Labeling

Russia hopes to retain the Batumi and Akhalkalaki bases and its
Tbilisi general headquarters by re-labeling them “anti-terrorist
centers.” Georgians originally came up with this idea in 2004 in
order to re-start the Russian-blocked negotiations and to provide
Moscow with a face-saving way to withdraw the troops. Tbilisi had
envisaged the formation of one joint Georgian-Russian analytical
anti-terrorist center, under Georgian sovereign control and not
located at any existing military base, to be created in the wake of
the garrisons’ departure, and to include several score of Russian
officers, without troops or armaments. Moscow, however, seized
Tbilisi’s goodwill gesture and turned it against Georgia. Last month,
Moscow proposed to rename the existing bases as “anti-terrorist
centers” and even to augment their garrisons; and when Tbilisi
refused, Moscow publicly blamed Tbilisi for blocking the
negotiations. Georgia may have outsmarted itself with that offer in
the first place. With anti-terrorism an international concern for
many years to come — and, sometimes, a cover for any use of coercion
— it is easy to envisage Russia demanding to retain “anti-terrorist
centers” in Georgia into the future, while propagandizing (as it
already does) that Georgia tolerates “international terrorism.”
Moscow has grossly abused Georgia’s face-saving offer. Three years
ago, Russia re-labeled its Gudauta military base as “peacekeeping”
and retains it to this day, in breach of its 1999 commitment to have
closed down that base by 2001. The lesson from all this to Tbilisi is
that it must require the withdrawal of Russian troops unambiguously,
without the risky and time-wasting complications of tinkering with
their labels. The Baltic states were successful because their
position was never less than straightforward.

3. Ratification

Russia will try to require parliamentary or some other type of
ratification of a troop-withdrawal agreement with Georgia. The
experience of Moldova is instructive on this point. In 1994,
then-prime ministers Viktor Chernomyrdin and Andrei Sangheli signed
an intergovernmental agreement on the withdrawal of Russian troops
from Moldova within three years (by October 1997). A Russian-added
codicil stipulated, however, that implementation would be subject to
“the states’ internal procedures,” not further specified. The Kremlin
promptly interpreted this as requiring parliamentary ratification.
Moldova’s parliament quickly ratified the agreement; but Russia’s
Duma never did. Instead, the Russian government for years thereafter
presented additional conditions just for submitting the agreement to
the Duma for debate, and the Duma piled up additional conditions for
examining the document, with still more conditions for ratifying the
agreement, which it never did. Ultimately, the main condition was
Moldova’s acceptance of Transnistria’s separation with Russian troops
in place. Since 1997, Russia has simply ignored the agreement. With
this experience in mind, Tbilisi must insist on an executive
agreement with Russia on troop withdrawal, fully binding from the
inception, and providing for effective international oversight (other
than by the OSCE) of its implementation.

4. Istanbul Formula

Moscow wants to retain the OSCE Istanbul 1999 formula, because it
does not require the closure of the Batumi and Akhalkalaki bases. It
merely stipulated, “during the year 2000 the sides will complete
negotiations regarding the duration and functioning of the Russian
military bases at Batumi and Akhalkalaki and the Russian military
facilities within Georgia.” This formula must finally be cast aside
because Moscow has breached it — along with many other points of the
OSCE Istanbul 1999 agreements — constantly and massively throughout
these years. The Istanbul formula was patently inadequate in the
first place because it failed to stipulate the goals of base closure
and troop withdrawal regarding Batumi, Akhalkalaki, and other Russian
military installations. Any new agreement with Russia must precisely
stipulate the binding obligation to close the bases and installations
and withdraw the troops.

5. Georgian Obligations

Russia will try to saddle Georgia with obligations to create proper
conditions for the reduction and withdrawal of Russian troops,
facilitate the functioning of bases and movement of personnel, vouch
for a secure environment in the base areas, and so on. Moscow will
formulate some conditions very broadly in order to abuse them later,
but will also advance some very specific conditions that Georgia
might be unable to fulfill in time or at all. Thus, Russia refused to
hand over Gudauta to Georgia — and has since blocked any meaningful
international inspection — on the excuse that Georgia is unable to
provide security in the area, which happens to be controlled by
Russia’s Abkhaz proteges. In Akhalkalaki, Moscow can well orchestrate
demonstrations by local Armenians in favor of retaining the Russian
base, then claim that it could not and would not act against the will
of the local population. Russia has already played this game for
years in Transnistria as an excuse for keeping its troops in place.
With this in mind, Georgia must not accept any obligations that
Russia or some local clients might prevent Tbilisi from fulfilling.
Tbilisi must also decline to guarantee (if only “temporarily”) the
operation of Russian bases. Such an obligation would deprive Georgia
of leverage later on, in the likely event that Moscow tries yet again
to renege on its troop-withdrawal commitments.

6. Linkages

The Kremlin has managed to tie up the military negotiations with the
negotiations on a new interstate political treaty. As a precondition
to a troop-withdrawal agreement, Moscow now demands that the
political treaty rule out the hosting of third-party troops and
military installations on Georgia’s territory, and generally
constrict Georgia’s independent military cooperation with other
countries. As a further precondition to withdrawal of its troops
(other than the “peacekeepers”), Moscow wants the political treaty to
enshrine a special role for Russia in settling the Abkhazia and South
Ossetia conflicts and protecting the [newly-minted] “Russian
citizens” there. Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs claims that
such clauses are necessary in order to persuade the Duma to ratify an
interstate treaty with Georgia, if one is signed. This claim is
implausible in view of the Kremlin’s control of a comfortable
majority in the Duma. For its part, Tbilisi must reject any linkages
between a troop-withdrawal agreement and extraneous political issues.
It can simply offer a commitment that Georgian territory would not be
used by a third party against Russia. However, Georgia’s
international security arrangements and internal constitutional setup
do not belong in a bilateral treaty with Russia. Nor should Georgia
legitimize those “peacekeeping” operations as part of an agreement
with Russia.

At this point, Tbilisi can initiate consultations with the three
Baltic states regarding their experience with political and
logistical arrangements for the withdrawal of Russian forces.

AZERBAIJAN’S PRESIDENT PROMISES TO LIBERATE NAGORNY KARABAKH

RIA Novosti, Russia
March 12 2005

BAKU, March 12 (RIA Novosti) – Azerbaijan’s President Ilkham Aliyev
is ready to negotiate on peaceful settlement of the Nagorny Karabakh
conflict but does not rule out other ways of solving this problem.

“We shall hold talks even if we have little chance of success, Mr.
Aliyev said at the ceremony dedicated to the 13th anniversary of the
establishment of the Interior Ministry’s troops of Azerbaijan.

He pointed out recent progress in the talks. The conflict settlement
should meet the principles of Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and
the international law, Ilkham Aliyev stressed.

“If this is impossible we shall quit the negotiations and search for
other ways of the conflict settlement,” the head of state added.

“We need no war. A war is a humanitarian catastrophe but we should be
ready for this. We should liberate our territories at all costs,” Mr.
Aliyev emphasized.

In his words, violations of the cease-fire agreement in Nagorny
Karabakh are Armenia’s provocation pursuing certain goals. “If they
take any offensive efforts we shall rebuff them and Armenians will
never want to do this again,” the president noted.

He is ready to meet with his Armenian counterpart Robert Kocharyan
but it is necessary to draft the agenda of the meeting.

According to Ilkham Aliyev, mutual concessions are out of the
question.

Meanwhile, the security of the Armenian population of Nagorny
Karabakh can be discussed, he said.

Speaking about the domestic situation in Azerbaijan, Mr. Aliyev said
that the Georgian and Ukrainian scenarios are impossible in the
republic.

“I am not afraid of such power shift. It is impossible in
Azerbaijan,” the president told journalists.

In his opinion, such revolutions are possible in the countries where
people and authorities are separated by a gap of misunderstanding.

“Azerbaijan’s authorities serve the people,” Mr. Aliyev stressed. He
promised to take all effort to gain people’s support.

Nagorny Karabakh is Azerbaijan’s region with Armenian population. The
armed conflict in Nagorny Karabakh in the early 1990s left dozens of
thousands of people killed. Hundreds of thousands of people became
refugees. Military operations were stopped there on May 12, 1994.

REUTERS FOUNDATION
AlertNet

UZBEKISTAN: Focus on southern labour migration

09 Mar 2005 10:41:17 GMT

Source: IRIN

KASHKADARYA, 9 March (IRIN) – Rasul Mirzaev, a former teacher in southern
Uzbekistan, has fond memories of Soviet times. The retired professor recalls
nostalgically the days when most people had a secure job, good working
conditions and stable salaries. But his longing for the past also has a very
personal aspect. His eldest son, Odyl, 42, went to Russia in search of work
in the early 1990s where he reportedly died under mysterious circumstances
in the central Russian province of Perm in May 2003.

Official documents provided to the Mirzaev family said that Odyl drowned in
a lake. But the family does not believe it. “The local gypsies went there
with him,” Rasul continued. “Some of them confirmed that he died as a result
of a beating. The public prosecutor’s office did not investigate the real
reason for my son’s death.”

Sadly, that was not the end of Rasul’s suffering. In 2002, his second son,
Ravshan, 33, also went to Russia. Like thousands of other young men, he
decided to go there in search of work to help his parents.

“I don’t know whether he is in Kazakhstan or in Russia. Since that time I
have received neither a letter nor a message from him. I now have just one
adopted son and I am not going to lose him. I will not let him work in
Russia on any account,” asserted Rasul.

SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM

“Working in Russia has become common for [many] Uzbek citizens,” Yadgar
Turlibekov, head of the Kashkadarya office of the Human Rights Society of
Uzbekistan (HRSU), a local rights group, told IRIN. “People lost hope of
employment [locally] and thus to be able to provide for their families. Many
Uzbek citizens work in Russia and they do not always return home
successfully.”

Observers cite unemployment and poverty as the driving forces behind labour
migration from southern Uzbekistan to Russia. “We lack jobs,” Bokhodir
Rakhimov, a 33-year-old inhabitant of Karshi, told IRIN. “And if there is
some work here, then salaries are too low. Moreover, they are not paid on
time.”

Perhaps Rasul’s nostalgia is misplaced. According to the provincial
authorities, 37 percent of the province’s 800,000 workforce were jobless in
1991, when Uzbekistan became independent. By October 2004, that figure fell
to 34 percent.

Poverty is gnawing away at once prosperous parts of the republic. The World
Bank estimates that some 28 percent of the whole country’s population – or
about 6.7 million people – are currently unable to meet their basic food
needs. Two-thirds of them live in rural areas.

A member of the Miraki community in the southern Shahrisabz district
asserted that they were now living on the money they earned in Sakha
Republic (Yakutiya), in Russia’s far east. “There is nothing for us to do
here,” one of the locals, who didn’t want to be identified, told IRIN. “We
are building houses in Yakutiya [as wage labourers] and our families cannot
survive without this money.”

Halima Rajabova, deputy chairwoman of the community council, told IRIN that
every family in the 500 family-odd community had a member working in Russia.

“Earlier, livelihoods depended on local earnings and agriculture. But now
there is no work and they cannot feed families by working their individual
plots of land. People have no choice but to leave for Russia,” Rajabova
explained.

“One needs US $100 [monthly] on average in order to provide for a family,”
continued Rajabova. “For instance, I’m paid $15 – barely enough for bread
and butter. What else can we do?”

Such questions are telling. An average monthly salary in southern Uzbekistan
is barely $30 in urban areas and even less, $10, in rural regions. For
example, Rasul, the teacher, receives a pension of about $40 a month, while
his wife’s pension is only $16. Rasul supports seven people, including his
nine-year-old adopted son, the wife of his deceased son and four
grandchildren.

NUMBER OF MIGRANTS

Zoir Eshnaev, head of the local employment department, told IRIN that more
than 12,000 people from the region were working legally in other countries.
“We don’t have any data on the number of illegal labourers in Russia or
other countries, but based on what we hear, that number should be many times
higher.”

Although the precise number of Uzbek labour migrants working in Russia is
not known, the number of such migrants leaving for South Korea, Russia and
Kazakhstan from Central Asia’s most populous nation has reportedly
increased. According to the Uzbek Ministry of Labour, more than 700,000
Uzbek citizens are working in various countries. Some experts suggest that
Russia’s Samara province alone may host up to 24,000 Uzbek migrants.

A recent report by Fiona Hill of the Brookings Institution, a
Washington-based think tank, said that there were approximately 600,000
Uzbek migrant workers, mainly working in Russia and Kazakhstan. But the
Kazakh government itself has suggested that there are at least 500,000
Uzbeks currently working in Kazakhstan alone (with most working in the
southern regions on the Kazakh-Uzbek border and on construction sites in
Kazakhstan’s new capital, Astana).

Some unconfirmed reports claim that their number could be well over a
million. Uzbek migrants abroad send remittances of about $500 million home
annually – a sum equivalent to 5.7 percent of Uzbekistan’s GDP in 2003,
according to some estimates.

MIGRANTS’ PROFILE

Bokhodir Rakhimov is one of thousands of Uzbek labourers in Russia, working
in a town near Moscow as a builder. He told IRIN that they had to keep a low
profile and had no social rights. He came back in March 2004 with a head
injury. He suffered trauma when he fell down a flight of stairs at work.

“I worked in several towns near Moscow,” he said. “They do not let us work
there. If the police arrest us, we will be deported from Russia. According
to Russian law, deported persons are not allowed to enter Russia within the
next six years.”

When Bokhodir was injured, his employers took him to hospital, where he
could not get medical aid because he lacked the necessary money and his
employers refused to pay for him. He was subsequently sent back home.

Most Uzbek migrants work in the construction industry or other sectors,
doing mainly manual jobs. The majority of them are aged between 30 and 45,
mostly staying and working illegally in the country.

According to human rights activists, due to their illegal status, many
labour migrants lack legal and social protection in destination countries,
leaving them vulnerable to exploitation.

Ismat Achilov, deputy head of Karshi city administration, confirmed to IRIN
that many local residents were migrating abroad for job opportunities.
“There are other ways. That is through the labour exchange. They could have
official labour status. But they cannot wait for document preparation and
therefore they chose non-official ways of searching for work in Russia,” he
claimed.

Echoing that view, Eshnaev said this aspect made irregular workers
particularly exposed in recipient countries. “Choosing this [irregular] way
of job seeking, they lose the protection of their legal rights and the
[correct] remuneration of their labour. There are so many people out there
in other regions who work just to feed themselves,” he said.

LABOURERS BOUGHT AND SOLD

Muzaffar Aminov, a resident of the Muzrabad district of southern
Surkhandarya province, left for Russia in June 2004 and returned in
November. Many Uzbek citizens become victims of human trafficking and he was
one of them, he claimed.

“I was sold to a Chechen by Uzbeks. Then he sold me to an Armenian. And each
of them wanted their money back. So, I worked for over five months just to
get my passport back. And I came back without any money,” Muzaffar told
IRIN.

Another resident from the Sherabad district of the province, Uigun Himmat,
went to work in Russia several times. Some of his trips were successful, but
last year he too fell victim to traffickers.

“First I found myself in Kazakhstan,” Uigun told IRIN. “I worked for a
family with three daughters. I had to even wash the underwear of these
girls. Their father often whipped me when he was not happy with my work.”

“Some time later I managed to move to Russia and there they took my passport
away again. Then they resold it to other people and I found myself in the
hands of another master,” Uigun said, adding that he returned home without
any money as his employer paid him just to get back home.

Meanwhile, local rights activists have expressed concern over the problem.
“We conduct monitoring of labour migration,” Mutabar Tajibaev, head of the
Plamennye Serdtsa Club (Flaming Hearts) NGO, based in the eastern Ferghana
province, told IRIN.

“We met many people who worked in Russia. They are resold as goods as soon
as they cross the border. First Uzbeks sell them to Kazakhs, then Kazakhs
sell them to Russians. That is the way. A network of Uzbek slave-trafficking
is created. In the end, when they return home, the Uzbek police detain them
and extort what is left.”

TASHKENT’S NEGLECT OF THE ISSUE

The human rights activist also expressed his dismay over the apathy of Uzbek
authorities. Tashkent complicates the situation by not paying attention to
the protection of its citizens’ rights, Tajibaev maintained.

“We are preparing an appeal to the parliaments of all the countries where
Uzbek citizens work,” said Tajibaev. “That is: Russia, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan and some European countries. I think that the international
community has to know that the Uzbek authorities do not care about the
rights of their citizens.”

Talib Yakubov, head of the HRSU, said that the reason for such an approach
by Uzbekistan’s government was its authoritarianism. “When an authoritarian
power governs a people the honour and dignity of citizens come last. It is
because of the policy of the authorities that people leave this country. But
representatives of the authorities do not care.”

CHAIRMAN-IN-OFFICE OF OSCE SEES PRECONDITIONS FOR OPTIMISM IN
SETTLEMENT OF KARABAKH CONFLICT

YEREVAN, MARCH 7. ARMINFO. The Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE,
Slovenian Foreign Minster Dimitrij Rupel, urged Permanent Members
of the UN Security Council on Friday to use their influence to help
end some long- standing conflicts in the OSCE region. Addressing the
Security Council in New York, he said there were signs that conflicts
in parts of Moldova and Georgia and in Nagorno-Karabakh, sometimes
referred to as “frozen”, were starting to thaw. “It is difficult for
inter-state organizations to deal with non-state actors, even if –
as in some cases – they are de facto authorities,” Minister Rupel said.

“There are times when the leverage of powerful states – including
Permanent Members of this Council – can be crucial. I urge you to
exert that pressure in the context of OSCE mediation efforts to help
resolve these long- standing conflicts.”

The OSCE Chairman-in-Office said he had noted with interest the report
of the UN High Level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. The
OSCE had gone through a similar process two years ago which resulted
in its Strategy to Address Threats to Security and Stability in the
Twenty-first Century. “Through the implementation of this Strategy,
I believe that the OSCE can take on some of the UN s burden in the
OSCE area,” he said.

“As the UN Panel noted, the Security Council s ability to more
proactively prevent and respond to threats could be strengthened by
making fuller and more productive use of regional organizations. The
OSCE is well positioned and well-equipped to do so.”

The Chairman-in-Office said that in addressing new threats to security,
the bottom line for the OSCE was upholding the rule of law.

“For example, we have to be sure that efforts to combat terrorism are
not done in a way that violates human rights. And that border guards
learn sophisticated techniques and a proper code of conduct. And
that human trafficking is tackled by effective investigation, law
enforcement and prosecution.” He singled out policing as a good example
of the type of hands-on work that the OSCE was doing effectively to
address the needs of participating States.

“Good policing has a vital role to play in the prevention of conflict,
the preservation of social stability during political crises and the
post-conflict rehabilitation of societies,” Minister Rupel said.

“No other international organization currently possesses the
potential to strengthen long-term law enforcement capacity- and
institution-building in the OSCE region in the States most susceptible
to crime, corruption and human rights violations.”