Author: Emil Lazarian

KREMLIN CONTROL OF NATURAL GAS ROUTES TO EUROPE STOKES WESTERN UNEASE
By George Jahn, Associated Press Writer

The Associated Press
November 27, 2006 Monday 8:14 PM GMT

For the West, the threat from Moscow was supposed to end with the
collapse of the Soviet Union 15 years ago. But Russia’s growing energy
clout is generating renewed cause for anxiety.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, set up in the early days of
the Cold War to keep Soviet-led forces in check, has begun speaking
out about the potent new energy lever being wielded by the Kremlin
in the international struggle for influence.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said last week that
energy security would be high on the agenda at its summit starting
Tuesday in Riga, Latvia. He noted that there was "added value to NATO
discussing energy and security policies."

The main issue is natural gas. Russia is an oil giant, second only
to the Saudis in exports, and Europe depends on it for a quarter of
the crude it consumes. But oil supplies can be diversified because
shipping is easy, while the most efficient way of distributing gas
is through pipelines. With Russia the world’s largest gas exporter
and Europe’s neighbor, European dependency has grown to the point
that the EU now counts on Moscow for nearly half of its gas needs.

And Moscow’s control of pipelines that deliver not only gas from
Russia but from much of central Asia is stoking Western unease.

"With gas, control over pipelines is crucial," says energy expert
Michael Klare. "Once you put oil on a tanker you cannot control it, but
gas is different; whoever controls the pipelines controls the flow."

Like NATO, U.S. officials also are warning of the dangers of allowing
Russia a free hand in monopolizing gas shipments. And the European
Union is trying without success so far to pry open the Russian grasp
on gas and gas pipelines supplying EU member countries.

Just last month, Russian energy giant OAO Gazprom announced it would
develop the huge Shtokman gas field without foreign partners, in a
fresh setback to western oil companies looking to exploit the nation’s
vast hydrocarbon riches.

At the same time, companies like BP PLC, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and
Total SA are fighting back-tax bills or threatened license annulments
apparently another reflection of the Kremlin’s push to ensure that
the state has a major role in all key energy projects.

The two sides appeared to come no closer at an EU-Russia summit in
Helsinki last week. Speaking to reporters Friday, Russian President
Vladimir Putin restated his opposition to giving foreign companies
easy access to his country’s energy sources, or breaking up oil and
gas state monopolies.

Western concerns reflect a growing understanding that in the 21st
century control of energy has become more than ever before a weapon
of geopolitical advantage.

Klare, author of "Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of
America’s Growing Petroleum Dependency," says the world already has
entered "a new era, where energy has replaced nuclear weapons as the
medium of superpower rivalry."

"Vladimir Putin believes that," says Klare. "And he is moving to
accumulate as much energy power as he can."

A study conducted earlier this year for the Swedish Defense Research
Agency concludes that Russia uses its growing energy punch to "extend
influence, avert geopolitical and macroeconomic threats and to reduce
the risk of being blackmailed."

As in the Cold War, Europe is the most vulnerable. It now imports just
over half of its energy needs but will depend on outside suppliers
for 90 percent of its oil and 80 percent of its gas within 20 years.

Moscow insists market forces are driving its price policy. But its
allies, like Armenia, pay much less than its critics, like Georgia.

The Swedish study notes more than 50 cases since 1991 where the
Russian "energy lever has been used for putting political or economic
pressure on Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova
(and) Georgia."

Other surveys also draw worrying conclusions.

A recently leaked confidential study by NATO economic experts warned
Russia may be seeking to build a gas cartel including Algeria, Qatar,
Libya, the countries of central Asia and perhaps Iran and cautioned
that kind of OPEC-like near monopoly would strengthen Moscow’s leverage
over Europe.

Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin this month denied that Russia
was planning on building a cartel, however.

Washington is also concerned.

U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew J. Bryza warned this
month that a prospective natural gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea
could further increase Europe’s energy dependence drawing an angry
retort from Moscow, which has cast the project as a key contribution
to the EU’s energy security. And U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney
accused Russia earlier this year of using its energy resources as
"tools of intimidation or blackmail."

Such comments reflect a recognition of the key role of energy and
frustration on the part of "have-nots" like the United States and
most other NATO countries.

"Possessing a rich accumulation of energy is the equivalent of
a nuclear arsenal in the 20th Century," says Klare. "And being a
‘have-not’ creates a strategic vulnerability."

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

STRENGTH OF THE COMMONWEALTH
by: Yury Gavrilov

Source: Rossiyskaya Gazeta, November 24, 2006, p. 6
Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
November 27, 2006 Monday

Defense ministers of the CIS countries broaden collective security
in Brest

Heads Of Defense Ministries Of The Cis Countries And Collective
Security Treaty Organization Gathered In Brest; Yesterday, Belarusian
city of Brest gathered a big military council. Heads of defense
ministries of the CIS countries and Collective Security Treaty
Organization met there.

Yesterday, Belarusian city of Brest gathered a big military council.

Heads of defense ministries of the CIS countries and Collective
Security Treaty Organization met there.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, chair of the council of
defense ministers of the CIS, outlined the key topics for discussion:
– We will talk about peacekeeping activities, about establishment of
a unified communication system and about improvement of the united
air defense system of the commonwealth. As to the Collective Security
Treaty Organization, we will talk about the military technological
assistance, namely armament and combat hardware supplies and training
specialists in Russian military higher educational institutions free
of charge.

It was expected that agreement on the regional air defense system of
Russia and Belarus would be signed in Brest. This document passed all
approvals. Theoretically, defense ministers and even commanders of the
air force and air defense forces can sign it according to instructions
of the presidents of the two countries. However, this procedure was
postponed again. In any case, Ivanov said that the agreement would
come into effect by the end of the year for sure.

Meanwhile, obvious and hidden contradictions among the former Soviet
republics are sometimes manifested in the most unexpected way.

For instance, Armenian Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisyan did not arrive
at the meeting of the council of defense ministers of the CIS countries
in Baku in May. The drawn-out Nagorno-Karabakh conflict makes Sarkisyan
persona non grata for Azerbaijan. At any rate, the Azerbaijani and
Armenian ministers did not refuse to meet on a neutral territory,
for example, in Belarus.

The most paradoxical situation is related to Uzbekistan. Recently,
this country announced restoration of its membership in the
Collective Security Treaty Organization. However, the Uzbek Defense
Minister somehow did not arrive at the meeting of the council of the
defense ministries in Brest where it was planned to discuss return
of Uzbekistan to the treaty separately. Instead of him he sent his
deputy for international cooperation with a rank of colonel.

This action does not contradict the bylaws of the organization but
when defense ministers ignore such meetings under various pretexts
this looks ambiguous. Meanwhile, Tashkent limited its representation
by a deputy defense minister at the meeting of the committee of chiefs
of general staff of the CIS countries in October.

One participant of the negotiations in Brest commented: – Uzbekistan
is interested not as much in cooperation via the CIS and Collective
Security Treaty Organization as in bilateral military and military
technological relations with Russia. Tashkent has very ambiguous
relations with other members of the commonwealth and the treaty in
the form of Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. Sometimes the matter comes
to firing exchange on their borders. That is why we cannot expect
friendly hugs from the ministers.

Of course, this is only a partial opinion and it is disputable but
it is clear that Russia remains the only real force that can unite
interests of various CIS member states now.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

US MILITARY COOPERATION WITH AZERBAIJAN NOT AGAINST THIRD COUNTRIES – DIPLOMAT

Ayna, Azerbaijan
Nov 25 2006

The USA’s Caspian Security Programme does not prevent Azerbaijan
from forging other military alliances, a US embassy official in Baku
has said. The programme’s name has been changed from Caspian Guard
to Caspian Security to dispel the misconception that the programme
envisages US troops serving in Azerbaijan, Jonathan Henick told Ayna
newspaper’s military supplement. He said that the programme aims to
help Azerbaijan improve its border security. Improving Azerbaijan’s
defences is also the aim of the radar stations in Xizi and Astara
districts, built by the USA and given to Azerbaijan, Henick said. He
stressed that the radar stations were not targeted against third
countries. The following are excerpts from C. Mammadov’s interview
with Jonathan Henick published on Azerbaijani newspaper Ayna’s
website on 25 Nov 06 and headlined "`Our programme is not against
Casfor.’ US embassy representative says cooperation with Azerbaijan
very important in creating regional stability"; subheadings have been
inserted editorially:

A representative of the US embassy believes that cooperation with
Azerbaijan is very important for the maintenance of stability in
the region.

[Passage omitted: brief biography of Jonathan Henick]

Ayna-Army’s latest interviewee is the head of the public relations
department at the US embassy in Azerbaijan, Jonathan Henick. We tried
to shed light on current military-political cooperation between the
USA and Azerbaijan and similar issues.

[Correspondent] Mr Henick, what is your assessment of the level
of cooperation today in the military and security sphere between
Azerbaijan and the USA?

[Henick] I think that we have excellent relations both in the security
and military spheres. As confirmation I can cite the example of the
recent visit to Azerbaijan of a group led by Sgt-Maj Iuniasolua Savusa.

[Passage omitted: on developing the rank of sergeant-major in the
Azerbaijani army]

Before that Gen William Ward came to Azerbaijan. Ward is a four-star
general and this is a very high rank in the army. His visit also
concerned US-Azerbaijani military cooperation.

Next month high-level talks will take place in Baku between the USA and
Azerbaijan within the framework of bilateral military cooperation. A
delegation is due to come to Azerbaijan from Washington to take part
in the talks. I can tell you that these talks are held in turn in
Baku and Washington. During these talks we will look into the full
range of our current cooperation in the military sphere.

US-built radar stations in Azerbaijan not targeted against any country

[Correspondent] Two radar stations are known to have been built in
Azerbaijan’s Xizi and Astara districts with US support. It is also
known that the start-up of these stations caused some displeasure in
Russia and Iran. Overall, at what stage is the work being done within
the framework of Caspian Guard?

[Henick] I am very happy to tell you about this issue. First I would
like to draw to your attention the fact that the programme’s name
has recently been changed. The programme is now called the Caspian
Security Programme. When some people heard the name Caspian Guard they
thought that American soldiers would take direct part in defending
the Caspian littoral states. But this is in fact not the case. This
is the reason for the change in the programme’s name.

As for the radar stations, they belong to Azerbaijan. We set them up
and handed them over to Azerbaijan. It seems to me that it would be
very beneficial for the press or representatives of Russia and Iran
to come and see the radar stations for themselves. I think that if
they saw the radar stations close up, the objectives and functions
of the stations would be perfectly clear to them.

It might be asked why the US government has helped Azerbaijan in this
way. I can tell you that construction of these radar stations was done
in the first place within the framework of Azerbaijan’s individual
partnership action plan [IPAP] with NATO. One of its aims is that
Azerbaijan should guard its own borders. We think that today there is
a danger in the Caspian of illegal trade in arms and narcotics and
at the same time of illegal trafficking in people. We consider that
at present monitoring and preventing this kind of phenomenon is not
only in the interests of Azerbaijan but also of the US government.

I would like to note that these radars have not been directed against
any second or third country. These radars are being used as part of
the IPAP programme. And Azerbaijan is using its own capacities as well.

[Correspondent] The Russian press say that the radars were built
mainly with the aim of monitoring shipments of nuclear components from
Russia to Iran. Do you think it is possible that nuclear components
are being shipped from Russia to Iran via the Caspian?

[Henick] It is not a matter of goods being shipped illegally just
from Russia to Iran. That kind of shipment can use different routes –
for example, from Iran, in the opposite direction, to Russia, from
Turkmenistan to other republics. The US government’s aim is not
to monitor any route in particular. Our overall aim is to improve
Azerbaijan’s monitoring capacity.

Concerning Iran’s nuclear programme, I can tell you that the enrichment
of uranium in this country is creating a big danger. The international
community’s main aim today is to stop this process.

Caspian Security Programme aims to improve Azerbaijan’s defences

[Correspondent] Generally, what’s the main point of the Caspian
Security Programme?

[Henick] It seems to me that the main point of the programme is not
properly understood at present. The Caspian Security Programme does
not envisage military forces. To put it simply, this is the name
of a number of programmes. This programme is targeted at protecting
Azerbaijan’s borders and Caspian coast. The main aim of setting up the
radar stations and giving them to the Azerbaijani side, of military
exercises and of giving ships to the Azerbaijani navy is to increase
Azerbaijan’s capacity to protect on a higher level its own coast line,
its own borders. The Caspian Security Programme does not envisage
US soldiers serving in Azerbaijan. There is no provision for this in
the programme. At the same time, the programme does not oppose other
initiatives or the implementation of other programmes.

The new Caspian Security Programme will not prevent Azerbaijan from
carrying out military programmes or any other initiatives that it
may wish to do with any other country.

[Correspondent] It is known that Russia would like to create a united
Casfor military alliance made up of the armed forces of the Caspian
littoral states. So far only Russia and Iran of the regional states
have agreed on this. Do you think that such an alliance is necessary?

[Henick] I cannot comment on this, because I do not have detailed
information about it. But I would like to note once more that there
is no clause or other provision in our programme that opposes other
initiatives or any other programmes. Azerbaijan must make its own
choice.

[Correspondent] Recently Russia’s [military and defence weekly]
Voyenno-Promyshlennyy Kuryer published a report that the USA is
preparing to hold an international Caspian summit next year.

According to the report, the aim of the summit is to resolve the legal
status of the Caspian and to deprive the Caspian of the status of a
sea in Russia’s zone of influence. How accurate is this information?

[Henick] I have absolutely no information about this. I think that
the legal status of the Caspian is an issue for the Caspian littoral
states and that they must resolve this issue between themselves.

[Correspondent] How does the USA assess Azerbaijan’s position today
on Iran’s nuclear programme?

[Henick] Iran’s nuclear programme is an international problem. This
is at present being discussed by the UN Security Council. Of
course Azerbaijan does not take part in these discussions as it is
not one of the participating countries. The main discussions are
being conducted by the permanent members of the Security Council
plus Germany and Iran and the IAEA as well. Therefore, we have no
complaints or dissatisfaction at all with Azerbaijan’s position
on this issue. Lengthy discussions on this topic are being held at
present. We must wait to see what comes out of this and what decision
the Security Council will take. This is a very important issue.

Azerbaijan making good progress in improving army standards

[Correspondent] The USA is today supporting the Azerbaijani armed
forces in meeting NATO standards. Do you think that the Azerbaijani
government is making effective use of this military assistance from
the USA?

[Henick] This is a lengthy programme and has not yet finished. The
aim of a range of our programmes is to bring Azerbaijan’s armed forces
up to NATO standards.

Azerbaijan is today fulfilling a very positive peacekeeping mission
in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. I think that the existing effective
cooperation between the USA and Azerbaijan has given very great
assistance in bringing the country’s army to international standards.

We have done important work with the Azerbaijani peacekeeping
battalion. The Non-Commissioned Officers programme is one part of
this overall programme. Of course, other work is being done too. We
are sure that these are positive elements of the overall programme.

We believe that Azerbaijan has made very good progress. We hope that
this progress will continue.

USA does not pay Azerbaijani peacekeepers

[Correspondent] Information has circulated recently about the
misappropriation of the wages of Azerbaijani peacekeepers serving in
Iraq. A representative of the Ministry of Defence has said that the
wages of our soldiers serving in Iraq are paid by the American side.

Is this right?

[Henick] This is not correct. The USA does not directly pay the
Azerbaijani peacekeepers in Iraq. On the basis of American law we do
not pay soldiers in the peacekeeping corps directly. This is an issue
between the soldiers serving in Iraq and their military leadership.

That is to say, the question of wages is solved between the Azerbaijani
peacekeepers and their Azerbaijani leadership. I am sure that close
cooperation will continue between the Azerbaijani peacekeepers and
the US military.

[Correspondent] Are the wages of the Azerbaijani peacekeepers in Iraq
paid from the US budget?

[Henick] The Azerbaijani government itself bears responsibility
for paying wages. Generally, funds are not given from the US
government side. Peacekeepers are financed by their countries. But
the US government supports and assists peacekeepers with transport,
foodstuffs and similar issues.

[Correspondent] This might be an opportune moment to clarify
something. Azerbaijani society does not know how much our peacekeepers
there are paid. The Ministry of Defence has put a ban on this as though
it is a "military secret". Might you have any information about this?

[Henick] The US government does not know what any country pays its
peacekeepers, including Azerbaijan. I don’t know either. Countries
take their own decisions on this.

[Correspondent] Azerbaijan’s national security concept and military
doctrine have not been adopted yet. Many people link this with official
Baku’s difficulty in choosing "a friend". Who do you think Baku is
close to today, the USA, the European Union or Russia?

[Henick] I am sure that Azerbaijan does not have to choose a friend
in isolation. Azerbaijan is conducting a very careful policy and has
very good relations with its neighbours, with the European countries
and with the USA. We know that Azerbaijan has friendly relations with
European countries and the USA. I think that these relations should
exist and be extended with other countries too.

Azerbaijan’s location of key importance for USA

[Correspondent] What is Azerbaijan’s place in the USA’s
military-political strategy?

[Henick] Azerbaijan is a very important partner for us from both
the security and military points of view. Azerbaijan’s geographical
location is one of the main reasons for this. Numerous flights pass
through Azerbaijan’s air space between Europe and Afghanistan and
between the USA and Afghanistan. In fact Azerbaijan’s permission is
very important for us in carrying out operations in Afghanistan.

At the same time cooperation with Azerbaijan is very important
in creating stability in the region. It is very important to have
stability in Azerbaijan from the geographical point of view, since
Azerbaijan is located between Russia and Iran, Europe and Asia. This
need for stability comes even further to the fore in discussions on
energy issues. I can tell you that security issues are one of the
USA’s priorities with regard to Azerbaijan.

[Correspondent] Do you think Azerbaijan or Armenia is more important
in terms of geography for the USA?

[Henick] I work in Azerbaijan. I advise you to approach my colleague
in the US embassy in Armenia on these issues.

Russian radar station not a problem for Azerbaijan’s Euro-Atlantic
integration

[Correspondent] Russia is known to have just one military facility in
Azerbaijan, the Qabala radar station. Do you think that the presence of
this facility could create a problem in Azerbaijan’s future integration
in the Euro-Atlantic space?

[Henick] I do not think that this will create any obstacle to
Azerbaijan’s integration in the Euro-Atlantic space. At the same time
this is a matter for Russia and Azerbaijan.

Democracy and religious freedom can combat extremism

[Correspondent] Commentators say that religious tendencies have
increased in Azerbaijan recently. Do you think that there is a danger
of religious extremism in the country in future?

[Henick] It seems to me that there is such a danger in different
places in the world. Good cooperation between countries is the most
important way to prevent this. This cooperation must take place in
different areas at the same time military, finance, diplomacy and
territorial protection.

Strengthening democracy is another way to prevent extremism. Freedom
for sects and religions, people expressing their views freely can
also prevent this.

At the same time it is important to create strong institutions to
prevent extremism. The presence of a trustworthy parliament, free
and transparent elections can destroy extremism. Should the opposite
be the case, a dangerous situation can emerge: people think and see
that the government does not listen to their voice, does not respond
to them. Then they turn to extremism.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RUSSIA SHARES TURKEY’S CONCERNS ON KURDISH ISSUE
Ayhan Simsek

The New Anatolian, Turkey
Nov 27 2006

Russia is deeply concerned about the looming threat of Iraq’s
disintegration and shares the concerns of Turkey on the Kurdish issue,
said Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko in an interview
with a group of Turkish journalists in Moscow over the weekend.

Deputy Foreign Minister Grushko underlined that on a growing range
of international issues, including Iraq, Iran and the Arab-Israeli
conflict; positions of Russia and Turkey have become very close,
sometimes even identical. "Our relations are rising to a level of a
multifaceted partnership, a goal stipulated by our heads of states
in Dec 2004," Grushko stressed.

On Turkey’s bid to join the European Union, Russian Deputy Foreign
Minister underlined that this process should promote greater stability
and mutually beneficial international cooperation in the region,
and also raised Moscow’s expectation that Turkey’s commitments to
the EU during the accession process will not hinder development of
the multifaceted Russian-Turkish partnership.

Stressing that Russia has always advocated a comprehensive, fair and
viable solution to Cyprus problem in line with the UN resolutions,
Deputy Foreign Minister Grushko said Turkish and Greek Cypriots should
be encouraged for resumption of full-scale negotiations with the
goal of reaching a comprehensive settlement. He also said Russia is
prepared to carry on a policy of developing economic relations with
the Turkish Cypriots on condition of compliance with the principles
of international law and UN resolutions.

On the claims of the Armenian genocide and problems between Turkey
and Armenia, Alexander Grushko expressed hope that improvement of
Turkish-Armenian relations will contribute to a greater stability
in the region. "In our opinion, the parties should agree to jointly
address issues related to the genocide. Russia’s position on the issue
is well known: relations today must not be made hostage to history,"
he said. Grushko also expressed support for Turkish proposal for
establishing an international commission of historians.

"We think that implementation of the initiative on setting up an
international commission of historians, in one form or another,
could be beneficial," he said.

Here is what Deputy Foreign Minister Grushko had to tell us:

-Russia and Turkey have stepped up political cooperation in recent
years. What is Moscow’s view of the quality of bilateral relations
and their future, in particular over the next decade?

-GRUSHKO: Russian-Turkish relations have been progressing dynamically,
and political dialogue has become more active at the top level. The
leaders of the two countries have met six times since December 2004,
when the Russian head of state made an official visit to Turkey for
the first time in the history of bilateral relations.

They regularly talk on the telephone and exchange messages.

Our foreign policy departments are interacting very intensively and
effectively, as proved by a packed schedule of their consultations.

This month, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met with his Turkish
counterpart Abdullah Gul in Moscow, First Deputy Foreign Minister
Andrei Denisov held talks with the leaders of the Turkish foreign
ministry, and two rounds of ministerial consultations were staged
in Ankara.

Our relations show that the positions of our countries coincide or
are similar on a growing range of international issues. In fact,
they are rising to a level of a multifaceted partnership. This goal
was stipulated by the heads of the two states in the Joint Political
Declaration they signed in December 2004.

Out trade and economic cooperation has given a powerful impulse to
bilateral relations. Bilateral trade amounted to $12.6 billion in
2005 and is growing at a fast rate. We expect to raise it to $25
billion by 2008.

Relations in the fuel and energy sector play a crucial part in our
cooperation. Russian companies are prepared to contribute to the
construction of underground storage facilities and other elements of
the gas infrastructure in Turkey, as well as in projects stipulating
the delivery of Russian gas to global markets via Turkey.

There are good cooperation opportunities in the generation of
electricity, including at nuclear power plants. We also regard
military-technical cooperation as a promising element of bilateral
relations.

Tourism promotes contacts on a personal level; about 2 million
Russian tourists visit Turkey every year. We have agreed to hold
events dedicated to Russian and Turkish culture in 2007 and 2008 to
encourage state cultural exchanges.

Taking into account the level of cooperation we have reached and
future possibilities, we think that Russian-Turkish relations have a
fair chance of progressing to the benefit of our nations and in the
interests of stronger regional security and development.

-How do you view Turkish foreign policy on the issues such as the
Iranian nuclear program, Iraq, and the Arab-Israeli conflict?

-GRUSHKO: On the whole Ankara’s official position on these problems
is seen as realistic and aimed at their speediest political settlement
in the interests of peace and stability in that region.

Our approaches to the solution of these problems are very close
and sometimes identical, which is a good foundation for an active
Russian-Turkish exchange of views. We value confidential communication
established between us in the recent period on the issues indicated,
and are ready to pursue it further.

-Rising sectarian violence and future of Iraq –

-What does Russia think about Iraq and its future? Does Moscow share
Ankara’s concerns about the possible disintegration of Iraq?

-GRUSHKO: We are deeply concerned about the situation in Iraq, where
a large-scale civil conflict is brewing and has already spread to the
relatively tranquil Shiite southern provinces. There is a looming
threat of Iraq’s disintegration. We stand fully for preserving its
territorial integrity, and share the concern of our Turkish partners,
including on the Kurdish issue.

We believe that the process of national reconciliation can start on
the basis of agreements reached at the meeting on Iraq held in Cairo
in November 2005 under the banner of the Arab League and attended by
the leaders of the major political forces and ethnic and religious
groups of Iraq.

Outlining a timetable for the presence of multinational forces in
Iraq may considerably ease tensions there.

We are convinced that the international community must not stop
its efforts to harmonize the warring sides’ positions. Neighboring
countries have not yet exhausted their possibilities either. Turkey
regularly attends the conferences of foreign and interior ministries
of Iraq’s neighbor countries.

Russia is prepared to contribute to drafting and implementing
any initiative that can facilitate an early stabilization of the
situation. In our opinion, a political settlement in Iraq based on
a broad consensus between Kurds and Shiite and Sunnite Arabs would
contribute to the development of a civilized model of a federative
state with a balance of interests of the regions and the federal
center.

-Turkey’s EU perspective, Cyprus question-

-Accession to the European Union is a major priority of Turkey’s
foreign policy. What do you think are the possible reflections of
Turkey’s EU process to the Turkish-Russian relations?

-GRUSHKO: We are closely monitoring Ankara’s intention to become
a full member of the EU. In our opinion, this process, which will
depend on the sovereign decisions of Turkey and the EU countries,
should promote greater security and stability, and mutually beneficial
international cooperation in the region, and should prevent tensions
and the appearance of division lines.

We believe that issues directly bearing on Russian-Turkish
relations can appear on the agenda at the early stages of EU-Turkish
negotiations. One of them can concern compatibility between bilateral
contracts and agreements and EU norms regulating foreign trade,
energy relations, transport, visa regimes, and so on.

Russia does not want Turkey’s commitments to the EU to hinder the
development of multifaceted Russian-Turkish partnership, trade and
economic cooperation, or complicate the entry of Russian visitors
to Turkey. In bilateral relations with Turkey, we stress our desire
to hold prompt consultations aimed at minimizing possible negative
effects of the EU accession on Russian-Turkish relations.

-Ankara expects Russia to support it on the issue of ending the
international isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. What is Russia’s
stand on the issue of the Cyprus settlement? Will Moscow advance
relevant initiatives?

-GRUSHKO: Russia has always advocated a comprehensive, fair and
viable solution to the Cyprus problem in keeping with relevant UN
resolutions. We have worked consistently to ensure the legitimate
interests of Greek and Turkish Cypriots, and will continue to act in
this vein. We think UN Security Council resolutions and the assistance
of the UN Secretary General should be used to encourage the parties
involved in the conflict to resume full-scale negotiations.

Definite results have been attained in the past year. Dr. Ibrahim
Gambari, the UN Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs, who
visited Cyprus last July, coordinated a mechanism for starting an
inter-ethnic dialogue on the everyday life of the two communities and
on substantive issues. Both can facilitate the solution of fundamental
problems hindering a comprehensive settlement. In our opinion, the
international community and all countries working for a settlement
of the Cyprus problem should help Cypriots advance towards these goals.

We believe that steps should be taken to strengthen the leading role
of the UN in resolving the Cyprus problem and the role of the five
permanent member states as the main body of international political
monitoring. We are prepared to contribute to the resumption of the
Good Offices Mission of the UN Secretary General.

We think that the two parties’ striving for settlement should be
encouraged, and we are prepared to carry on a policy of developing
economic relations with the Turkish Cypriot community on condition of
compliance with the principles of international law and UN resolutions.

-Armenian genocide claims, international commission-

-Can Russia propose ways to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and
normalize relations between Turkey and Armenia?

-GRUSHKO:We think direct Armenian-Azerbaijani contacts must be resumed
to bring about a settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem.

In our opinion, the recent meetings between foreign ministers were both
productive and instructive, and paved the way to solving outstanding
problems.

Russia and its partners from the OSCE Minsk Group think it crucial to
continue to discuss the positive achievements made in the Karabakh
settlement since mid-2005. We support the initiative of formalizing
the coordinated settlement principles by signing a relevant document.

As for Turkish-Armenian relations, we are confident that their
improvement could contribute to greater stability in the region. We
know that Armenian and Turkish leaders have been communicating, and
think that bilateral consultations at different levels, including a
top one, will facilitate the search for reasonable compromises.

In our opinion, the parties should agree to jointly address issues
related to the genocide. Russia’s position on the issue is well known:
relations today must not be made hostage to history. The adoption
of a relevant law in the French parliament has provoked a wave of
indignation in the Turkish community. A reply wave of anti-Armenian
sentiments would hinder the normalization of relations between Turkey
and Armenia. We think that the implementation of the initiative on
setting up an international commission of historians, in one form or
another, could be beneficial.

– The Chechen issue had at one time been a negative impact on
Turkish-Russian relations. Has the situation changed?

-GRUSHKO: We respect the balanced approach of the Turkish officials
to the issue of combating terrorists and separatists in the North
Caucasus, which is particularly painful to us. We welcome measures,
taken in the last years, to stop the operation of self-proclaimed
"representatives of Ichkeria" in Turkey, and hope that Ankara will
respect our antiterrorist concerns. Double standards must not be
allowed in our common fight against international terrorism.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

FRENCH HAVE LITTLE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT, BUT …
By Ilnur Cevik

The New Anatolian, Turkey
Nov 18 2006

Opinions

It’s no secret that Turks are extremely angry and frustrated with
a French National Assembly decision to make it a crime to deny that
Turks were involved in a genocide against the Armenians at the turn
of the last century.

The Turkish government was known to have voiced its dissatisfaction
with this decision to the French administration, but it was generally
believed that Ankara would take a "wait and see" approach to observe
whether the French Senate would reject the bill or how the French
president would block it.

But a development this week showed that either the government changed
its decision and has started to prod the French not to make any wrong
calculations about Turkey’s silence or the Turkish military has jumped
the gun and has decided to punish the French…

Land Forces Commander Gen. Ilker Basbug let the cat out of the bag,
saying the military had shelved its relations with the French and
that the first-ever meeting between the Turkish and French militaries
scheduled for December was cancelled.

If this is the case, then there are several important questions to
be asked.

Was this a unilateral decision by the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK), and
if so why wasn’t it made official by the General Staff headquarters
but rather left to a Land Forces commander to make such a statement
in an informal environment like a reception?

If all this is also true, then our adversaries can once again argue
that the TSK is not acting like an institution controlled by the
elected civilian government but has a mind of its own…

If all this is not the case and it was a government decision to start
showing the French, we are unhappy then it should not have been left
to a military official to make such an announcement.

It seems the government may be involved in all this because soon
after this incident, Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul disclosed that the
French will not be officially invited to the defense fair in Ankara
scheduled for next May. The French were allegedly so annoyed that
the French Military attache who was present at the meeting for the
fair refused to attend a reception given later at the Dedeman Hotel

The French should have been prepared for all this because what they
have done has deeply hurt the Turkish people, who consider France an
old and trusted ally. What we oppose is the way all this was done

If the military is so forceful on the French issue, they should shelve
all economic relations with French companies. The military-controlled
and -funded giant OYAK company has strong ties with the French in all
sectors especially in the auto industry and in insurance. Why don’t
they show the same courage through OYAK?

PARLIAMENT SPEAKER PRAISES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

Armenpress
Nov 27 2006

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 27, ARMENPRESS: Armenian parliament speaker Tigran
Torosian described today the outcome of the last year November 27
referendum on a set of constitutional amendments as an event of
‘exclusive significance for Armenia’s pace towards full democracy."

Speaking to reporters on this occasion Torosian advised some forces
which ‘are going to organize actions (apparently to reiterate that
the referendum was rigged) to display serious approach towards the
constitution and the country’s future.’ Torosian said, however,
that no one rejects that the referendum was marred by breaches, but
he argued that despite the reported vote fraud the referendum brought
about very essential changes, which would become tangible after next
year’s parliamentary elections when some of these amendments would
be enforced.

As one of these essential changes Torosian singled out a provision
giving the opposition and ordinary citizens the right to challenge
government’s decisions and parliament laws in the Constitutional Court.

Torosian said now was the best time to make use of these changes and
hold clean and just parliamentary elections in 2007.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

TELEPHONE TARIFFS TO REMAIN UNCHANGED TILL MARCH 1 2007
By Ara Martirosian

AZG Armenian Daily
28/11/2006

This year, on October 13, the State Commission on Public Services
disapproved the appeal of "ArmenTel" company according to which
the tariffs for a number of services, including the wire telephone
connection, provided by the company would sharply grow. The sides
failed to come to agreement on the tariffs and the issue was discussed
again at the recent sitting of the commission.

As you know, certain changes took place recently, in particular,
"ArmenTel" was sold to the Russian "VimpelCom" and Oleg Bliznyuk,
became the head of the company.

Armen Arshakian, head of tariff policy department of the commission,
informed that due to the sides’ failure to come to agreement, it was
decided to approve the December 7 tariffs as transitional till March1,
2007. Thus, the tariffs will remain unchanged till that day. At the
same time, the commission decision envisages that "ArmenTel" may make
some corrections and new suggestions concerning its tariffs till then.

Oleg Bliznyuk, head of "ArmenTel," said that taking into account the
fact that the company’s owner was changed quite recently; they also
asked the commission to prolong the current tariffs till March 1, 2007.

KOCHARYAN TO LEAVE FOR MINSK

A1+
[05:20 pm] 27 November, 2006

On November 28 Robert Kocharyan will leave for Minsk in order to
participate in the recurrent session of the Presidents of the CIS
countries.

The sitting of the council of the CIS country heads will be opened
with the meeting of the Presidents.

Later on the plenary session will take place in which the Foreign
Ministers will also participate. The main issue to be discussed is
the report about raising the CIS efficiency and the perspectives of
its development.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

BAKU: NO BREAKTHROUGH IN KARABAKH SETTLEMENT EXPECTED IN MINSK

PanARMENIAN.Net
27.11.2006 13:55 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Nothing extraordinary will happen at the CIS Summit
in Minsk, Azeri political scientist Fikret Sadykhov stated. "No
breakthrough has been achieved in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict
settlement so far despite numerous meetings of the Presidents and
Foreign Ministers. I do not think that the CIS Summit in Minsk will
change anything," he said adding that ‘one can hardly expect serious
outcomes’ from a summit dedicated to the development of relations in
economic and humanitarian fields, reports Day.az.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

THE MORE STATES RECOGNIZE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE THE MORE AGGRESSIVE TURKEY BECOMES

PanARMENIAN.Net
27.11.2006 14:24 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ "Recognition of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey is
not a precondition for the establishment of normal neighbor relations,"
RA Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian told France Press. He voiced
assurance that ‘the obstacle can be removed via cooperation between
the Armenian and Turkish people.

The RA FM described the proposal of Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan
on formation of a commission of historians for investigation of
the events of 1915 as smoke screen. "How can a joint commission be
formed in the absence of diplomatic relations between Yerevan and
Ankara?" he said adding that it’s a political issue and the approach
should be political. Minister Oskanian condemned Turkey for its denial
policy. "The more states recognize the Armenian Genocide the more
aggressive Turkey becomes. Turks have never been so organized at the
state level as in this denial campaign," he remarked. In his words,
the adoption of the French bill penalizing the Armenian Genocide denial
is a response to the aggressive line of the Turkish government. When
commenting on the fear that the acknowledgement of the Armenian
Genocide may arouse claims of compensation Vartan Oskanian said.

"Armenia’s foreign policy agenda includes the recognition of the
Genocide only," reports RFE/RL.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress