Author: Kalashian Nyrie

San Francisco Bay Guardian, CA
Feb 23 2005

Back Burner

By Karen Solomon

Mr. Coffee

WHEN WE SAN Franciscans think of buying fresh roasted coffee beans,
our noses tend to lead us to places like Caffe Roma in North Beach,
or to an outpost of Peet’s or some similar burnt-batch empire. There
are myriad fine places to sit and sip, but when it comes to the
backbone of the coffee experience – the beans that shape the body of
the brew – only a handful of purveyors roast their own, and fewer
still import the right quality and pair it with the perfect
processing. Savvy Sunset residents might already be in the know, but
not nearly enough people pay homage to the beany wizardry of Henry’s
House of Coffee master Henry Kalebjian.

The shop has been percolating just under the radar for 40 years and
has been under Kalebjian’s ownership and management since 1982. The
Armenian son of a father who roasted his own at their family grocery,
Kalebjian roasts as much as 200 pounds a day; that’s enough to supply
his three shops in San Francisco and Burlingame, along with a growing
national mail-order and wholesale business.

Today I have the pleasure of watching Kalebjian start his morning, as
he does six days a week, roasting 15- and 30-pound batches of beans
from a revolving menu of about 25 varieties. A kind, crisply dressed,
bearded man with his trusty statistical clipboard at his side, he
explains that his approach to the roast is “a little bit
science-minded.”

In his charming accent, he tells me about the struggle to keep the
flavor of the coffee consistent. “You have to pay attention to the
air – wet or dry,” he explains. Kalebjian measures the density of
every bag of beans and combines this information with the atmospheric
pressure and humidity of the day on which it’s roasted. Using his
series of formulas, he determines precisely which temperature and
time frame are required for the smooth flavor he seeks.

We fire up “the San Franciscan,” the steam engine-sized, 15-year-old
roaster in the back of his Noriega Street flagship location. After
checking and double-checking that all gauges are set correctly, in
goes a batch of Indian – 10 to 12 minutes at 418 degrees for these
mellow-bodied, deeply dense beans. The beans brown slowly as they
start to whirl around the turbine, then quickly reach a deep toast
hue. Kalebjian constantly checks their color, pulling out a sample
every 10 to 15 seconds. His obsessive attention, along with the crack
of the skins, the rising steam, and the pungent, wonderful perfume in
the room, makes the roasting process oddly exciting. Finally, the
roast is complete, and the spilling brown beauties pour onto the
air-cooling tray en masse in a dizzying swirl. And the process begins
again with Sumatran: 12 to 15 minutes at 419 degrees, an increase
deemed necessary by Kalebjian’s complex calculations.

Kalebjian’s obsession results in a superior brew worthy of a lengthy
ride on the N Judah to purchase. Today the shop is pouring
Salvadoran, a smooth, light, yet full-bodied brew with a fruity edge
that, like the shop’s other selections, requires no additional
sweetening. Kalebjian gives me some beans to try at home too: a
perfectly balanced, medium-bodied Bella Finca and a refined Panama La
Torcaza, a light roast with a vanilla vibe. “Your mind affects the
taste,” Kalebjian insists, noting that his preferences in coffee are
as varied as his preferences in food. “I want roundness in the cup,
and body that lingers in my mouth after the finish.”

Henry’s House of Coffee sells more French roast than anything else.
It’s a bargain at $8.70 a pound. But Kalebjian always enjoys
introducing customers to new brews, such as the intensely charactered
China Yunan, which is a bit lighter than the French. His repertoire
includes several house blends and the predictable Kona and Kenyan
beans, as well as more eccentric heritage roasts, including Abyssinia
Harrar, Celebes Kalossi, and Costa Rica Terrazu.

What lights Back Burner’s fire is that Henry’s House of Coffee turns
out a superior product to a small but appreciative audience. “There’s
always room for getting bigger, but I don’t want to be greedy,” the
owner says. “I’m not that famous, but I’m happy with what I have.”

Still, at age 63, Kalebjian is looking at the last few drops of his
career and thinking about retiring from his tiny coffee operation.
The San Francisco shop is going through an extensive remodeling,
which should be complete sometime this summer. Kalebjian quips, “If a
nice company comes and offers to buy, why not?”

He pauses from his roasting to taste from the fresh pot prepared
in-house. I ask how much coffee he drinks a day, but Kalebjian
insists that it’s not a matter of cups – that his job is simply to
taste. Like a scientist in a white lab coat, he makes certain that
the counter help brews the perfect pot every time: 2.2 liters of
water to every quarter pound of grind. “I like what I do, and I do a
good job. But I constantly check myself to make sure I’m doing the
right thing.”

Zaman, Turkey
Feb 22 2005

Greek, Armenian Support Pollock’s Turkey Article
By Zaman

Armenians and Greeks living in the US have provided significant
support to Robert L. Pollock for his heavy criticism of Turkey in an
article published on February 16th in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ),
which has a circulation of two million.

The Greek American Society distributed the article to US Congress
members they are close to. Anti-Turkish comments flourished in
response to Pollock’s article. Many e-mails supporting Pollock’s
views were posted on the WSJ’s website. Armenians mostly
congratulated the author for his work but there was a weak response
from Turks. One reader named David Govett wrote: “Turkey cannot be
the sick man of

Europe because it has never been a part of Europe. Ataturk’s
initiatives to modernize Turkey were as successful as Crazy Peter’s
Westernization attempts on Russia.” Armenian readers interpreted that
Turkey’s was the sick man of Europe not just because of its hostility
towards the US, but also because of its rejection of the “Armenian
genocide.” According to another reader, Robert Roughsedge, Kurds are
much more significant for Armenians now.

Pollock described Turkey as “small-minded, paranoid, and marginal.”

Djorkaeff set to join MLS giants

Reuters
Friday, February 18, 2005

Former France international Youri Djorkaeff is joining Major League
Soccer outfit New York/New Jersey Metrostars.

The 36-year-old former Monaco, Paris St Germain, Internazionale,
Kaiserslautern, Bolton and Blackburn striker is eager to start his new
life in the United States after finally sealing the deal with the MLS.

“This is a new life starting for me,” Djorkaeff, a member of France’s
1998 World Cup and Euro 2000 winning teams, told a Paris press
conference on Friday.

“I have been spoilt throughout my career and I had decided to retire
if the deal with New York fell though.

“I had no wish to join a club in Qatar. On the contrary it was a
sporting and life choice, as it’s always been a dream for me to live
in the United States.

“I am leaving France on Sunday with all my family who are also eager
to start this new adventure with me,” added the veteran forward,
whose family roots are in Armenia and who is an honorary citizen of
that country.

Djorkaeff wants to help soccer develop in the United States.

“I have been in touch with them since I was at Bolton,” added the
Frenchman, who said that his three-month spell at Ewood Park earlier
this season was mainly to keep him fit.

“I really wanted to move to the United States. The MLS is a very
interesting league. There are 12 clubs this season but there will be
14 next which shows there is a real desire to take it forward.

“I would like to sort of open a door. Soccer is not well known in
America and I want to contribute to making it more popular.”

The length of Djorkaeff’s contract has not been revealed.

He said: “I can’t tell for how long I will stay because when you sign
for an American club there is no definite time.”

Club president Nick Sakiewicz added: “It’s been two years of
discussions. Youri is a real gentleman and I will be very happy to
see him play every weekend for us.

“As long as Youri has fit legs, he will play with us.”

The American league will kick off on April 2 with the Metrostars
facing Real Salt Lake City.

Djorkaeff is to join his future team-mates in Ecuador where the team
are currently following a pre-season training programme.

RIA OREANDA
Economic News
February 17, 2005 Thursday

230 Thousand People Got Material Aid from “Fund of Mutual
Understanding and Reconciliation” Since August 2001

Moscow. The federal official body “Fund of mutual understanding and
reconciliation” and the Savings Bank of Russia have been making
payments of material aid to the citizens injured of national
socialism within the World War Two from means of the German Fund
“Memory, Responsibility and Future” since August 2001, and since
April 2002 – from means of the Austrian Fund “Reconciliation, Peace
and Cooperation”. For the period of payments, 230 thousand people got
the material aid for the total sum of approximately 250 million EUR.

Payments are made in more than 7 thousand branches of the Savings Bank
of Russia, located in 2400 settlements of the Russian Federation from
Kaliningrad up to Vladivostok.

The Savings Bank of Russia transfers sums of material aid to the
citizens living outside the Russian Federation on their accounts
opened in foreign banks. The greatest number of addressees is living
in Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Belarus. The sums of material aid
were transferred also to Kazakhstan, Kirghizia, Armenia, Germany, and
Israel. In total, material aid has been paid to more than 2 thousand
people in 25 foreign countries for the total sum of 2,2 million EUR.

In 2004, the fund and bank have begun payments of material aid to
assignees of addressees. In total, 15 thousand people have received
inheritance material aid for the total sum of 11 million EUR.

RUSSIANS AND AZERIS ARE RELIABLE ALLIES AND GOOD FRIENDS – PUTIN

RIA Novosti, Russia
Feb 16 2005

MOSCOW, February 16 (RIA Novosti) – On Wednesday night the presidents
of Russia and Azerbaijan participated in the official ceremony of
opening the Year of Azerbaijan in Russia.

“For all their national originality our peoples have always been of
interest and importance to each other. What is especially valuable,
at every turn of history Russians and Azeris supported each other,
remaining reliable allies and good friends”, President Vladimir
Putin said.

He noted the role of the former president of Azerbaijan, Geidar
Aliev. “In the last decade the positive development of relations
between Azerbaijan and Russia has become possible thanks to the
authority and wisdom of Geidar Aliev. We in Russia remember and
cherish his merits and memory”, the Russian head of state said.

“The brotherhood among our peoples has been tempered by fire in the
struggle against fascism”, Mr.Putin noted. “The 60th anniversary of
Victory is approaching and we will, certainly, mark it together”.

The Russian president thanked President Ilham Aliev for accepting
his invitation to visit Moscow on May 8-9 of this year.

“We cherish the courage and heroism of 600,000 Azeris which selflessly
fought on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War and forged our common
victory”, the Russian president said. And recalled that 42 Azeris
became Heroes of the Soviet Union and 12 full-class holders of the
Order of Glory.

As to the present day of Russian-Azeri relations, Mr.Putin stressed
that the political, economic and cultural dialog between Russia
and Azerbaijan is actively developing. “It is mutually beneficial
cooperation, job placement and migration, use of the common cultural
and information space, including in the sphere of education”, he said.

Mr.Putin called the partnership of Russia and Azerbaijan “a significant
factor of regional stability”. Russia and Azerbaijan “are in equal
degree interested in more active use of the opportunities of the CIS
for the solution of common socio-economic problems, joint opposition
to national security threats, terrorism and extremism”.

Mr.Putin assured that Russia “seeks to worthily untie the Karabakh
knot and ensure reliable security in the region”.

In conclusion President Putin said that Russia “stands for the
closest cooperation with Azerbaijan and feels the same mood in the
Azeri colleagues”.

Wails of grief and protest mark funeral for Hariri
By MARK MacKINNON

Globe and Mail, Canada
Feb 17 2005

An estimated crowd of 200,000 pays its respects to former PM while
calling for withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon

Thursday, February 17, 2005 – Page A24

BEIRUT — The funeral of assassinated former Lebanese prime minister
Rafik Hariri turned into an angry protest yesterday as wails of
mourning mixed with demands that Damascus withdraw the 14,000 Syrian
soldiers stationed in Lebanon.

Many of the estimated 200,000 mourners who flooded central Beirut
hailed Mr. Hariri as a martyr who was killed because he wanted true
independence for Lebanon, which has had Syrian troops on its soil
since 1976.

Although a previously unknown Islamist group has claimed
responsibility for Monday’s massive bomb, which killed Mr. Hariri and
16 others, most funeral-goers were firmly convinced that the
assassination was ordered in Damascus.

“Hariri was killed because he represented something that was not part
of their plans: namely, prosperity and independence for Lebanon,”
said Asma Andraos, a 33-year-old public-relations consultant.

She was carrying a banner that read “It’s obvious, no?”, quoting the
response of Mr. Hariri’s son to reporters when asked who was behind
his father’s murder. “We know it means Syria,” she said.

Other mourners shouted “Syria is the enemy of God!” and waved signs
that read “Syria out!” as they made their way through the streets.

The Lebanese opposition has directly accused Syria of playing a role
in the assassination. Although Mr. Hariri had never publicly called
for a withdrawal, he had become increasingly linked with groups
opposed to Syrian involvement in the country.

Last fall, Mr. Hariri resigned in protest after Damascus pushed the
Lebanese parliament to amend the country’s constitution in order to
postpone the election and allow pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud to
stay on beyond the end of his term.

After losing that power struggle, Mr. Hariri was believed to have
used his close ties to Paris and Washington to promote last fall’s
passage of United Nations Resolution 1559, which calls for all Syrian
troops to leave the country.

Yesterday’s emotional outpouring came amid fears of renewed
instability in a country that is still recovering from the 15 years
of a civil war that ended in 1990. Mourners marched under the
watchful eye of the Lebanese army, which was placed on high alert. A
pair of black helicopters circled overhead throughout the day as
gunboats patrolled the capital’s Mediterranean harbour.

Soldiers in jeeps were stationed along the funeral route, which began
at Mr. Hariri’s mansion in West Beirut and ended at the giant but
incomplete Mohammed al-Amin mosque in the city centre. Mr. Hariri was
buried on the grounds of the mosque, which the billionaire
businessman had funded with millions of dollars of his own money.

Outside, mourners piled white roses and posters of Mr. Hariri on
Martyr’s Square, at the foot of a monument to Lebanese patriots who
were hanged early in the 20th century for demanding independence from
the Ottoman Empire.

The funeral briefly turned chaotic when the procession reached the
mosque and Mr. Hariri’s casket was lifted out of its ambulance
hearse. Several people were injured as the crowd surged forward,
hoping to touch the flag-draped coffin.

Mr. Hariri’s eldest son, Bahaaedine, had to ask the crush of mourners
to back off. “We don’t want his last minutes to be like this,” he
pleaded.

Despite worries of violence, the funeral was a peaceful testament to
the type of Lebanon that Mr. Hariri spent much of his life trying to
build.

Christian priests and clerics from the Druze and Shia Muslim sects
all joined in the mourning for the 60-year-old moderate Sunni.
Whenever the minarets of the city’s mosques fell silent, the pealing
bells of nearby Maronite Christian and Armenian Orthodox churches
could be heard.

In a sight that would be remarkable in almost any part of the Middle
East except Beirut, old men in traditional dishdasha marched in
procession beside young women in tight blue jeans.

“He was a great leader. He did a lot of great things in this country.
Without him, we would have stayed in the Stone Age,” said Ramzi
Yassin, a 17-year-old clutching a handmade sign praising Mr. Hariri
as a “martyr-general.”

Foreign dignitaries who visited Beirut to pay their respects were
nearly as effusive in their praise of a man who used his extensive
international contacts to attract aid and investment to Lebanon.
French President Jacques Chirac, a close friend, told reporters that
the slaying of Mr. Hariri represented “a horrible crime” and a
“horrible loss for Lebanon, democracy and freedom.”

Although the Hariri family rejected the government’s offer of a state
funeral, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa was in attendance,
along with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s son Gamal and Saudi
Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal. Canada was represented by
Ambassador Michel Duval.

Conspicuous by their absence at the funeral were members of Lebanon’s
pro-Syrian government, whom the family told would not be welcome.

The United States sent assistant secretary of state William Burns,
who later met with Lebanese Foreign Minister Mahmoud Hammoud to press
Washington’s demand for an “immediate and complete” Syrian
withdrawal. The White House has already recalled its ambassador to
Damascus.

Buthaina Shaaban, a member of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s
government, told the British Broadcasting Corp. that the U.S.
position was “baffling,” claiming that whoever was behind the killing
had targeted Syria as much as Lebanon.

“To point to Syria in a terrorist act that aims at destabilizing
Syria and Lebanon is exactly like blaming the United States in 9/11,”
she argued.

Agency WPS
What the Papers Say. Part A (Russia)
February 14, 2005, Monday

ANDREW KUCHINS: AMERICA WANTS TO SEE A STRONG AND DEMOCRATIC RUSSIA

SOURCE: Rossiiskie Vesti, No. 5, February 10, 2005, p. 4

by Stanislav Tarasov

The world of American political science is extremely diverse, not
only in its political views, but also in its attitudes to Russia.
Some continue to view our country as the Cold War enemy; others
approach the new Russia with goodwill, understanding the difficulties
it encounters along the path to establishing itself as a great power
of a different kind. Andrew Kuchins, director of the Carnegie Moscow
Center, is among the latter; so his thoughts about the development
and prospects of relations between Russia and the United States are
always relevant and interesting.

Question: Preparations are under way on both sides for the
forthcoming Putin-Bush summit in Bratislava. In your view, what will
the agenda for that meeting look like?

Andrew Kuchins: From the formal standpoint, the summit agenda may
look as follows: WMD non-proliferation, the “war on protectionism,”
cooperation in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the situation in the Middle
East, taking account of the changes in Palestine since the death of
Yasser Arafat. My impression is that the American side will also
mention some domestic policy issues in Russia: democracy, the YUKOS
affair. Energy cooperation will also be discussed.

In my view, Washington is disappointed by some aspects of Russia’s
domestic and foreign policy. A special point is the situation taking
shape in the “frozen conflict” zones: Nagorno-Karabakh, South
Ossetia, and Abkhazia. Perhaps the Trans-Dniester region as well. On
the whole, however, the relationship between the presidents of Russia
and the United States is open enough for any issue to be raised at
the summit, in principle.

Question: In shaping their policy on post-Soviet territory, are the
United States and Russia acting as partners or opponents?

Andrew Kuchins: My impression is that we are currently acting more
like opponents. The problem of the “frozen conflicts” within
post-Soviet territory – that is one of the most disputed points in
our relations. Besides, there is the “challenge of Europe.”
Develoments in Ukraine have also left a certain aftertaste. In the
United States, attitudes to Russia have grown noticeably cooler among
the political and financial establishment. So the two presidents need
to give the summit some sort of concrete content, in order to damp
down emotions in the United States, and in Russia as well.

Question: The United States has obviously intensified its attacks on
Russian-Iranian cooperation in the field of peaceful nuclear energy.
What does this mean? Could it be that Iran’s turn is approaching,
after Iraq?

Andrew Kuchins: This is an old problem. The United States is
concerned about Russia’s assistance in building the Bushehr nuclear
power plant. The United States suspects Iran of developing technology
capable of creating nuclear weapons. On the whole, my own view is
that the United Staes will end up agreeing to the Bushehr nuclear
power plant being built, on the condition that Iran would not be able
to use enriched uranium.

Question: In the second administration of George W. Bush, the State
Department is headed by Condoleezza Rice, a well-known American
expert on Russia. Is this good for Russia or not?

Andrew Kuchins: I believe the appointment of Condoleezza Rice as
Secretary of State is not a negative factor for Russia. I cannot
agree with the arguments of some Russian experts who describe Rice as
“worse than Zbigniew Brzezinski.” Firstly, she is not from the ranks
of American neo-conservatives. She is capable of competently
assessing all aspects of relations between the United States and
Russia. Think of her famous words after the Iraq situation: “Punish
France and Germany, forgive Russia.” That is her visiting card. I can
personally attest, based on my contactsin Washington, that
Condoleezza Rice will aim to develop and expand cooperation with
Russia; she will seek and work on a broad range of options for
achieving that goal. In her previous position at the Security
Council, she did a great deal to establish personal contact between
George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin. I suspect that some similar work
is now under way as the Bratislava summit approaches. Let me expand
on that. There was an informal “communications channel” between the
Security Councils of the United States and Russia. Moreover, when the
US policy rhetoric regarding Russia started changing late last year,
and Colin Powell made some strong anti-Moscow statements, it was Rice
who neutralized them. I’m told she was the last bastion that stopped
the neo-conservative backlash against Russia’s policies.

Question: Nevertheless, in the lead-up to the Bratislava summit Time
magazine has suddenly published an article entitled “The Russians are
Coming: FBI concerned about the expanding scale of Russian espionage
in the United States.” The authors are Timothy Berger and Brian
Bennet. Who is behind this attempt to create an unfavorable media
background for the summit?

Andrew Kuchins: I have, of course, read reports that the number of
Russian spies in the United States has increased noticeably. The
thing is that a process of shifting emphasis is under way in American
politics, in which the positions of the neo-conservatives are
starting to coincide with those of left-wing Democrats. The essence
of this alliance is that democracy issues should be the key point in
US foreign policy. In other words, a barometer is being established,
which is intended to measure the level of democracy in any particular
country, and Washington’s foreign policy would be structured on that
basis. This position is clearly discernible in the president’s recent
address to the nation. So we might say that the understanding of
democracy and freedom issues is being restructured. I repeat, this
has happened because the positions of Republicans and left-wing
Democrats are merging. Some individuals, such as Richard Perle or
James Woolsey, suspect Russia of cultivating undemocratic trends.

Then again, there are also the moderate Democrats and moderate
Republican pragmatists – they’re in the center of the American
political spectrum – who take quite a different view of Russia. And
this is the field on which Condoleezza Rice is playing. She recently
stated that democracy in Russia is developing unevenly, and has not
yet become an irreversible process. All the same, recent history has
shown that the United States and Russia are capable of effective
cooperation in pursuing common objectives and meeting the challenges
of common threats. Actually, Rice also outlined future prospects: she
made it clear that a breakthrough in relations between our countries
is only possible if Russia is democratic. At the same time, as a
Russia specialist, she takes account of the fact that this involves a
historical long-term process. Therefore, she is focusing everyone on
concrete work, concrete action. I would add that we need to seek
opportunities to cooperate, despite temporary failures. Remember how
the left-wing Democrat Roosevelt and Stalin cooperated for the sake
of victory over a common enemy.

Question: Would strategic cooperation ever be possible between the
United States and Russia?

Andrew Kuchins: Anything can happen. If the United States is
thoroughly convinced that Russia is developing in the direction of
democracy, an intensive search will begin for as many points of
contiguity as possible, and an understanding will emerge of Russia’s
interests on post-Soviet territory and worldwide. At present,
however, it’s true to say that the majority in Washington still
suspect that Russia is moving towards establishing an authoritarian
regime.

I am convinced of this: the United States and Russia are simply bound
to seek ways and means of working together, since a confrontation
between us as rivals would have an impact on the whole world.
Everyone would be worse off. Once again, I would like to emphasize
that there are some people in the United States, some politicians,
who want to weaken Russia and cast it out onto some sort of
geopolitical periphery. But they are in the minority. A weak Russia,
a weak Russian state, would never be of interest to the United
States. In my country we understand that security throughout Eurasia
ultimately depends on a strong Russia.

Of course, there are certain twists connected with the role Americans
played in Russia in the early 1990s. Back then, it was said that
Russia had a “high level of democracy” – but now that level is
allegedly gone, so we need to change our policy regarding Moscow. But
it isn’t that simple. And now we say we are interested in seeing a
strong, democratic Russia, if only because we are coming to
understand the need to cooperate on many aspects of world affairs,
and to expand that cooperation. As you know, working with a weak
partner is easier, but addressing substantial tasks is more
difficult. Yet such tasks are accumulating with every passing day.
That’s why I am an optimist and believe that Bush and Putin will
reach agreement on everything.

Translated by Pavel Pushkin

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA

PRESS AND INFORMATION DEPARTMENT
375010 Telephone: +3741. 544041 ext 202
Fax: +3741. .562543
Email: [email protected]:

PRESS RELEASE

February 14, 2005

Russia’s Lavrov to Visit Armenia

Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov will arrive in Armenia on
a two-day official visit on 16 February. The visit takes place in
the framework of intensive political dialogue between Armenia and
Russia and aims at deepening cooperation between the two countries
in foreign policy and other areas.

During this first official visit to Armenia, Minister Lavrov will meet
with Armenia’s authorities to discuss current agenda of the strategic
partnership between the two countries and a broad spectrum of issues
related to the prospects of this partnership in political, economic,
science and education, and culture areas.

Agenda of the discussions will also address the issue of strengthening
cooperation between Armenia and Russia in the framework of
international organizations, as well as functioning and reform of
CIS structures.

The parties will also explore the current stage of Nagorno Karabagh
conflict regulation, issues related to fostering mutual confidence
and cooperation in the South Caucasus.

They will also discuss matters related to President Putin’s forthcoming
visit to Armenia.

The Messenger, Georgia
Feb 14 2005

Russian-Georgian talks collapse

Each side accuses the other of causing latest failure to secure
agreement over the withdrawal of Russian military bases in Georgia
By Anna Arzanova

Giga Bokeria
Russian Minister sergei Lavrov
The visit of Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov to
Georgia, scheduled for February 18, comes on the back of yet another
failure to reach agreement on the withdrawal of Russian military
bases stationed in Akhalkalaki, near the Armenian border, and Batumi
in Adjara.

Negotiations on the issue held on Friday, February 11 were intended
as preparation for further talks during Lavrov’s visit, when the
creation of a joint antiterrorist center in Georgia will also be
discussed, but the negotiations fell through, and the two sides are
still unable to agree the main aspects of a framework agreement.

The Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs accuses the Russian
delegation of causing the negotiations to fail, while the Russian
side for its part accuse Georgia of side-stepping the issue of
setting up anti-terrorism centers.

“We tried to find all compromise formulations, but finally there was
a situation where variants were offered which put under doubt the
possibility of the creation of the anti-terrorist centers,” Russian
Foreign Ministry official Igor Savolski stated.

According to him, the stumbling block was how to treat and how to
fulfill earlier reached agreements regarding the creation of the
antiterrorist center. “That is why we need to think about this well
and to gather with the Georgian side once again and discuss this
issue again,” Savolski said, explaining that nothing had been agreed
at this particular round of negotiations.

In an interview with Russian news agencies Savolski added that “the
issue of the two Russian military bases located in Georgia is to be
discussed together with the creation of an anti-terrorist center or
centers based on their infrastructure” when Lavrov arrives.

Whether any progress will be made when Lavrov arrives, however,
remains to be seen. The Georgian side complains that Russia is trying
to use the creation of anti-terrorism centers as a means to keep its
military bases in the country.

“As it seems, Russia wants only to change the name of its military
bases in Georgia and label them, according to their version, as
anti-terrorist centers. But they will remain in Georgia all the
same,” said MP Giga Bokeria, who also participated in the
negotiations, adding that such a state of affairs is absolutely
inadmissible for Tbilisi.

“Any agreement on renaming the military bases has no sense and no
prospects,” he said.

Deputy Foreign Minister of Georgia Merab Antadze issued a similar
message, telling journalists after the negotiations that
unfortunately, despite the serious efforts and compromises of the
Georgia side, the Russian side was not prepared to reach an
agreement, because of which the negotiations failed.

“Moreover, on the background of such approaches, I can draw the
conclusion that there is no sense in any future negotiations on this
issue in such a format and approaches,” Antadze said, while Georgian
Ambassador to Russia and Finance Minister nominee Valeri
Chechelashvili, who participated in talks, told Civil Georgia on
February 11 that, “The vision of the Russian side regarding the joint
anti-terrorist center triggers doubts over reaching an agreement.”

“An absolutely clear plan was given to them on the grounds of which
we should have established the process of the Russian military bases
withdrawal,” he said, explaining that agreement must be reached first
on the terms and timeframe of the withdrawal of Russian military
bases, before negotiations regarding an anti-terrorism center begin.

“We proposed to set up working groups of experts, who will work on
the anti-terrorism center only after we sign an agreement regarding
the pullout of military bases,” Antadze told Civil Ge.

MP Giga Bokeria, meanwhile, says that the time may have come for
Georgia to stop negotiating regarding the withdrawal of Russian
military bases.

“It is time for Georgia to think about the absolute demand of the
withdrawal of Russian military bases, to cease negotiations on this
issue, and to announce that these base are illegal,” Bokeria told
journalists, adding that the legislative body may adopt such a
standpoint very soon and that such a position would be acceptable to
international law.

A member of the Right Wing Opposition Pikria Chikhradze promised to
support such an approach to this matter, but “it is not enough in
this case for only Parliament [to take such a line]. This issue
should be put at the highest level by the president.”

Conservative leader Zviad Dzidziguri told Imedi TV on February 12,
meanwhile, that his party supports the government line on this issue.
“It does not matter what name this military base has if it retains
control and influence over Georgia and the political situation here,”
he said.

Pan Armenian Network, Armenia
Feb 13 2005

“GASPROM” FEARS TO LOSE ARMENIA

The management of the Russian gas monopolist finds it necessary to be
involved in the construction of Iran – Armenia gas pipeline not to
lose control of the situation.

Negotiations between “Gasprom” and Turkmenian government can have a
negative impact on the price policy of the Russian gas monopolist.
Official Ashgabat has refused to sell gas to “Gasprom” for the same
price as before and the new prices offered by Turkmenistan were not
convenient for Russians. The failure of this deal will decrease the
income of “Gasprom” in 2005. It is believed that the State will not
allow “Gasprom” to solve its problems at the cost of local consumers.
Analysts suppose that the problem will be solved by means of
increasing export prices. It should be reminded that the head of
“Armrosgasprom” company recently confirmed that if “Gasprom” again
reviews its price policy, the rise in prices will be inevitable in
Armenia.

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Turkmenistan sold gas to “Gasprom” for 44 dollars
per 1000 cubic meters. “Gasprom” resold the gas for 55-77 dollars
covering the costs for transit through the territory of Kazakhstan.
It is quite possible that at times “Gasprom” supplied Armenia with
the same Turkmenian gas which we could purchase without mediators as
it was done early 90s. Conditions offered by Turkmenbashi were much
more favorable than those currently dictated by “Gasprom”. The
Russian monopolist has forced out not only foreign exporters but also
Russian “Itera”. Turkmenistan will be very glad to supply gas
directly to Armenia but it is impossible due to communication
problems. Ashgabat seeks for alternative means of export and they
evidently mean that since firstly they looked quite confident in
negotiations with Russians and secondly they are going to increase
their gas production by 20 percents.

Turkmenistan still has only one alternative to the western route of
gas transportation. That is the gas pipeline to Iran. In 2004 about
five milliard cubic meters of gas were supplied through this pipeline
but the diameter allows to pump one half as much again. Turkmenistan
sells gas to Iran for 42 dollars, that is to say a quarter less than
the price that Russians offer to their strategic partner – Armenia.
For today the only way of supplying Turkmenian gas to Armenia is the
northern route passing through Russia. But this situation can change
after the construction of Iran – Armenia gas pipeline. The management
of “Gasprom” cannot help worrying about this perspective. The
emergence of an alternative to Russian gas in the region is menacing
not only for the commercial interests of “Gasprom” but also the
political interest of Moscow.

During the recent discussion held in the upper chamber of the Russian
parliament the deputy president of “Gasprom” joint stock company
Alexander Ryazanov called the authorities to sanction the
participation of “Gasprom” in the construction of Iran – Armenia gas
pipeline since it is the only way the keep control of the situation.
“If we do not take part in the construction of Iran – Armenia gas
pipeline no one knows where that gas will go”, Ryazanov said.
According to him the Armenian – Iranian project can compete with the
“Blue stream” project on which “Gasprom” sets high hopes. At the same
time Ryazanov did not ignore Armenian market which “Gasprom” can
lose. But Mr. Ryazanov anyway did not state his main worry. It is
known that the Russian gas monopolist is extremely worried about the
possible perspective of Iranian gas pipeline extension to Ukraine
through Georgia and Black Sea. The emergence of a competitor in the
European gas market may have extremely undesirable consequences for
“Gasprom”.

It is notable that yet not long ago the management of “Gasprom”
showed great caution in talking about the possibility of joining the
construction of Iran – Armenia gas pipeline. In July, 2004 the same
Alexander Ryazanov announced in Yerevan that the payback terms of the
project are above the norms accepted by “Gasprom”. “Gasprom” prefers
short-term investments but the conflict between commercial and
political interests are always solved in favor of political
interests. As it seems the political decision has already been made
since the second figure in the company confidently speaks about the
necessity of joining the project. It should be noted that the
technical-economical justification of the investments was finished
long ago so in case of the final approval of the idea by Kremlin the
involvement of “Gasprom” in the project will take just a few weeks.
Maybe the only thing that can prevent that is the possible
intensification of the conflict between Iran and the United States.

Artyom Yerkanyan

–Boundary_(ID_xOiZedHCxWEa2Cx+aNeEvg)–