Author: Maghakian Mike

Armenpress
GOVERNMENT DECIDES TO HALT CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD THROUGH UNIQUE FOREST
RESERVE
KAPAN, JUNE 8, ARMENPRESS: A cohort of top government officials,
including deputy energy minister, nature protection and transport ministers
and territorial minister traveled Tuesday to Armenian’s southern Shikahogh
reserve, the planned site of a new highway, the authorities want to build to
have a short and safe road to neighboring Iran, but ecologists warn once the
road is built it would endanger one of the country’s three pristine forest
reserves.
The new highway is planned to take a route across the Mtnadzor Forest
that covers a third of the Shikahogh reserve in southern Armenia.
Established in 1958, the reserve is inhabited by rare and endangered plants
and animals. Ecologist say at current rates of cutting, the last of the
forests could be gone in as little as 20 years, saying also that Armenia’s
forest areas have drastically reduced from 40 percent of the country w to
around eight percent.
A coalition of organizations and individuals, including the Armenia Tree
Project, Armenian Forests NGO, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Armenian
Assembly of America have been have asked the government to halt the plan
until a viable alternatives could be proposed . Ecologists fear the
construction of the proposed road through the preserve will introduce
pollution from passing vehicles into this almost pristine forest, destroy
the habitat for rare wildlife and migratory paths, and attract illegal
logging.
The government ministers traveled across the site together with Syunik
governor, who is one of the staunchest proponents of the alternative route
Transport minister Andranik Margarian told reporters the government has
already released around 9.5 million drams for earth works, saying also the
alternative route would be 2 km longer and would require more funding. After
four-hour discussions the officials agreed to halt works for a fortnight, to
prepare a feasibility plan for an alternative route and only then to make
the final decision.

Los Angeles Times, CA
June 8 2005
The Turkey- U.S. Divide
Lack of understanding strains a vital relationship.
By Ekrem Dumanli, Ekrem Dumanli is executive editor of Zaman, a
national newspaper headquartered in Istanbul.
What’s gone wrong between the U.S. and Turkey? Plagued by
misinformation and misperception, the two countries have seen
significant deterioration in their relations over the last few years.
Rising wrath against Turkey in Washington, especially at the
Pentagon, is threatening what has long been a strong, important
relationship. It seems to be a response, in turn, to a perceived rise
in anti-Americanism in Turkey. But this is a mistake. The roots of
the problem lay, for the most part, in misunderstanding.
ADVERTISEMENT

Just as the Iraq war was beginning in early 2003, Turkey rejected a
U.S. effort to open a northern front. For many U.S. officials, this
was an indication of growing anti-Americanism. Although it is true
that the Turkish parliament rejected the motion, the context has been
badly misunderstood.
On that day – March 1, 2003 – 533 lawmakers voted on the motion. Of
those, 264 were in favor, 250 rejected it and 19 abstained. The
motion required a simple majority, 267 votes; it was rejected for
want of three votes. The vote was so close that for a few minutes
after the voting it was believed that the motion had been approved.
In short, much of the wrath against Turkey in Washington, especially
in Pentagon circles, is based on just three votes.
In October 2003, the parliament agreed to send as many as 10,000
troops to Iraq to help in reconstruction and peacekeeping. This time
the vote was 358 to 183 in favor of deployment. But Turkey got little
credit for its willingness to help because the plan fell apart when
the Iraqi Governing Council announced that it did not want Turkish
troops. In yet another effort to cooperate with Washington, Turkey
subsequently agreed to send troops to Afghanistan, and the Turkish
army has twice taken command of the International Security Assistance
Force there.
I’m not denying that the last two years have been a tense period for
the two countries. There’s no doubt that the Turkish people, in line
with global public opinion, were worried about the occupation of
Iraq. Although Turks hated Saddam Hussein and wished for an end to
his rule, they were also concerned about a war in the region. Not
just because it was becoming clear that there were no weapons of mass
destruction and no link between Hussein and Al Qaeda, but because
they were afraid the war would spread to neighboring countries such
as Syria and Iran.
And it is certainly true that the horrible images from Fallouja and
Abu Ghraib shocked Turkish society, as they shocked the people of
many nations. When one also considers that Iraqis are Muslims and
that many mosques were in the war zone, the Turkish public’s concern
may be better understood.
But Turkish reservations about Bush administration policies in the
Middle East do not make us “anti-American.” Yes, there was one
Turkish member of parliament who said last year that the U.S. was
conducting “genocide” in Fallouja – but it must be remembered that
routine pressure is put on Turkey regarding Armenian allegations of
“genocide” after World War II. For many Turks, this is annually
discussed, debated and forgotten – they see the so-called genocide as
a false accusation, and the word itself is viewed as an exaggeration.
So when one parliamentarian accuses the U.S. of “genocide” in Iraq,
it does not carry the harsh meaning that Americans have reacted to.
After Sept. 11, many Muslims in the U.S. returned to their countries,
Turks among them. This trend accelerated after the invasion of Iraq.
But despite post-Sept. 11 anxiety and difficulty in obtaining visas,
statistics indicate that Turkish families and their children still
opt for a U.S. education when possible.
The Turkish people believe that the U.S. helped Muslims in Bosnia and
Kosovo. They haven’t forgotten that the leader of the terrorist
Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), Abdullah Ocalan, was caught with U.S.
assistance. Nor have they overlooked U.S. support for Turkey’s
membership in the European Union.
Despite years of “strategic partnership,” the policymakers of the two
countries don’t fully understand each other. Turkey asks the U.S. to
take concrete action against the PKK militants in Iraq, but this is
not a high priority for the Americans. Armenian genocide allegations
are raised like clockwork in the U.S. Congress, but so far the
Turkish government has not formally recognized that such a thing
occurred. If that changes, the Turkish public will not react calmly.
Each party tries to evaluate the other side within the framework of
its own political culture and experience. This can cause confusion
and ill will. But these two countries need each other. At a time when
potential global conflicts exist in abundance along cultural and
religious lines, Turkey can play a major role as an “example” of a
nation that is modern, democratic and Muslim all at the same time.

Agence France Presse — English
June 5, 2005 Sunday 3:17 AM GMT
Desolation under the derricks: those left behind by the Azeri oil boom
BAKU
The acrid air pinches the throat; and the landscape — bone-dry scrub
dotted with viscous black pools of oil under scores of towering steel
derricks that extend as far as the eye can see — is a portrait of
desolation.
For Shahin, Vagif and their families, refugees from a village in
western Azerbaijan occupied by Armenian forces, this is home. But it
is a home where the promise of a better life implicit in the oil boom
sweeping this country is unlikely to be kept.
Just on the southern edge of the capital Baku, this section of the
Absheron peninsula is a giant wasteland, where even the dust is
saturated with oil and the land is covered with the rusting hulks of
machinery, ageing oil wells, gritty pools and random debris.
The only things that seem to be growing in this nightmarish landscape
are the oil derricks, but it is nevertheless populated by hundreds of
families.
Aside from them, only the occasional oil company employee drives
though this rough terrain sandwiched between a highway and the
coastline.
Most of the residents here are some of the 750,000 internally
displaced refugees from areas that are today controlled by Armenian
forces.
An estimated one million people from both sides were forced from
their homes by a war in the early 1990s between Armenia and
Azerbaijan.
Vagif Guliyev, 43, is one of the few people here who holds a job in
this small isolated block of houses which shelters about 100 people;
he delivers food to the staff of a local oil company.
Born in Zengilan, in the south of Azerbaijan, Guliyev said he misses
the “fresh air” of his homeland which he was forced to flee 13 years
ago. He said he regrets spending “the best years of his life,” in a
place where he left his health and youth.
The consequences of pollution in this disaster zone are visible to
the naked eye: adults blame it for their high blood pressure and
rotting teeth, while for the children the situation is worse,
according to Vagif who displayed a one-and-a-half-year-old whose
growth, he claimed, had been stunted by the environment.
The bleak surroundings make the children inordinately “nervous,” he
said.
As for the odor, it is so strong in the burning summer months that it
becomes “difficult to breathe,” said another inhabitant, Shahin
Huseynov.
Open and smiling, residents are proud to display their homes — an
amalgamation of unfinished buildings covered with scrap metal — as
well as their surrounding environment — a bare and oil-covered
terrain where their chickens and ducks live, their feet covered in
oil.
Though they are provided with water, gas, and electricity by the
government, and telephone and television function, they face a host
of other problems such as a lack of transportation.
The nearest school is located three kilometers (two miles) from the
community and passing buses owned by oil companies have instructions
not to stop here, said Hafiza Hatanova, a woman of about 60.
“That hurts us, it’s a form of discrimination,” she said. Relations
with the outside world are no less strained. Government assistance is
limited to 25,000 manats (five dollars, four euros) per person per
month.
Representatives of the state never come to check up on their
situation and health care is not available to the refugees.
Meanwhile the capital Baku last week celebrated the opening ceremony
of the ultra-modern four-billion-dollar Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline
which is expected to boost oil exports but the refugees remain
bitter.
“The government will get more money but where will it go?” asked
Rahman Shahmammadov, a local 40-year-old.
Nobody in this ramshackle habitat believes the pipeline, which Azeri
President Ilham Aliyev has said will usher in a new era of prosperity
for the people, will change their life.

Armenian economy minister calls on international banks for active cooperation
Arminfo
6 Jun 05
YEREVAN
International financial organizations are not so active in Armenia as
in neighbouring Georgia and Azerbaijan, Armenian Minister of Finance
and Economy Vardan Khachatryan told the Black Sea business forum,
which took place after the 7th meeting of the Board of Governors of
the Black Sea Trade and Development Bank in Yerevan today.
Armenia is mainly working with such international financial
institutions as the World Bank [WB] and the International Monetary
Fund, which allocate loans under state guarantees, Khachatryan
said. He described their cooperation with the Armenian government as
successful and noted that the share of government loans in Armenia is
even higher than in Georgia and Azerbaijan.
He said that in the meantime, the Armenian government has created a
favourable investment environment and expressed hope for an inflow of
investments.
The minister said that he expects the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development [EBRD] and the International Finance Corporation
[IFC], which makes up the World Bank group, to step up their
activities in Armenia. He noted that there are two unsuccessful cases
of the Armenian government’s cooperation with the EBRD, which concern
credits for the thermal power station in Razdan and the construction
of a cargo terminal at Zvartnots airport.
Nevertheless, the minister noted some successful projects by the EBRD
in the country’s banking system and industry and welcomed the bank’s
direct investments in Armenian enterprises.
The IFC allocated a small loan back in 2000 and Armenia has not been
cooperating with this bank since then, the minister added.
[Passage omitted: Khachatryan speaks of the need for investment in the
South Caucasus]

Constitutional reforms may lead to government change – Armenian opposition MP
Yerkir website
4 Jun 05
Yerevan, 3 June: If the [ruling] coalition attempts to pass its draft
constitutional reforms in a referendum, this will be the beginning
of the change of power, the member of the Justice faction, MP Arshak
Sadoyan, told journalist during a news conference at the Armenian
National Assembly today.
He said that the deputy speaker of the Armenian National Assembly,
Tigran Torosyan, has always prevented him from meeting members of the
Council of Europe Venice Commission. The draft constitutional reforms
submitted by Sadoyan have not been sent to the Venice Commission in
full as a result of which the commission considered an incomplete
bill prepared by Sadoyan or did not schedule a meeting with him.
Commenting on the Venice Commission’s meetings and conclusions, Sadoyan
said that the members of the commission are greatly disappointed.
Asked why the Justice faction supports the draft constitutional
reforms submitted by the National Democratic Bloc [NDB], not the
bill submitted by Sadoyan, who is a member of the Justice faction,
he expressed his confidence that the members of the Justice faction
have not read his draft law.
At the end, he pointed out that 30-40 proposals made by the Venice
Commission will be included in their bill and sent to the Council of
Europe Venice Commission.

Russian companies interested in cooperation with Georgia – Prime Minister Fradkov
RIA Novosti, Russia
June 3 2005
TBILISI, June 3 (RIA Novosti) – Russian companies are seriously
interested in cooperation with Georgia in the spheres of energy,
transport and metallurgy, Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Fradkov said
after talks with his Georgian counterpart Zurab Nogaideli.
“We regard energy, transport and metallurgy as most attractive spheres,
while Georgian companies are also interested in the Russian market,”
Fradkov said.
Fradkov, Nogaideli and Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili
discussed practical cooperation between the Russian electricity and
gas monopolies RAO UES and Gazprom and Georgian companies.
“We also discussed taxation issues and extractions from the free
trade zone hampering business development,” Fradkov said.
Fradkov and Nogaideli also discussed the restoration of railway
communications linking Russia, Georgia and Armenia via Abkhaz
territory. “We cannot miss this chance,” the prime minister said.
(With no direct railway communications between Russia and Georgia
special attention is given to the ferriage between the Russian port
of Kavkaz on the eastern shore of the Kerch Strait and the Georgian
port of Poti.)
Assessing the results of the talks, Fradkov said that the sides
discussed a number of problems and ways of their solution which will
promote the settlement of the Russian military bases issue.
Nogaideli said, in turn: “Our trade turnover totals $300 million
but this is not enough,” Fradkov said. “Let us reach $1 billion and
calm down.”

ARMENIAN LOCAL ELECTIONS REMAIN INTRA-GOVERNMENT CONTESTS AMID OPPOSITION APATHY
By Emil Danielyan
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
Jamestown Foundation
June 2 2005
Thursday, June 2, 2005
Over the past 15 years Armenians have grown accustomed to a great
variety of political groups vying for power in their country. They
must therefore be amazed by the glaring lack of choice in unfolding
local elections across Armenia, races that are largely contested
by candidates representing rival government factions or competing
business clans.
The Armenian opposition is again showing little interest in local
governments, adding to popular indifference to the polls. Opposition
leaders say that they want to concentrate their efforts on removing
President Robert Kocharian and that free elections are impossible
without regime change in Yerevan.
Elections in more than two-thirds of some 930 Armenian towns, villages,
as well as Yerevan districts are scheduled for this October. Most other
hamaynkner, or local communities, will elect their chief executives
and “councils of aldermen” in the course of this year. Some of them
have already done so in recent weeks.
Virtually none of those polls featured a major opposition candidate.
They were mostly two-horse races pitting candidates affiliated with
or endorsed by Prime Minister Andranik Markarian’s Republican Party
of Armenia (HHK) against contenders backed by other pro-government
forces or wealthy individuals. One election, held in the northern town
of Alaverdi on May 8, was contested by two candidates representing
different HHK factions. The defeated candidate accused the winner,
Alaverdi’s incumbent mayor, of massive vote rigging.
Nonetheless, the Armenian authorities did manage to display unity
in some cases. Nobody, for example, dared challenge Markarian’s
27-year-old son Taron, who ran unopposed in Yerevan’s northern
Avan district. He was “elected” Avan prefect with 97% of the vote
on May 22, becoming the youngest head of a local government body
in the country. In fact, Taron Markarian told the 168 Zham weekly,
he would have an even higher government position were his father not
prime minister.
The election in Yerevan’s nearby Nork-Marash district, scheduled for
June 5, will also feature one candidate: its incumbent prefect. A local
businessman pulled out of the race at the last minute after failing
(for unknown reasons) to win the endorsement of the People’s Party
of Armenia (HZhK), one of the most popular opposition groups.
“We are not participating in those elections because we have no
candidates,” HZhK leader Stepan Demirchian said on May 11 without
elaborating. He said his party would instead field candidates for
the October polls.
Another prominent opposition leader, Aram Sarkisian, admitted that
his Republic party would not do even that, as party leaders believe
Armenian local elections cannot be democratic as long as Kocharian
is in power.
Haykakan Zhamanak, a daily staunchly opposed to Kocharian, deplored
this line of reasoning in a May 19 editorial. The paper wrote that
by letting the ruling regime maintain its grip on local communities
the opposition only lessens its chances of toppling the central
government. “Opposition parties now have trouble meeting people in the
regions, and one of the reasons for this is that government stooges
who become community prefects or village chiefs are duly following
government instructions,” it argued.
Nonetheless, money and control of electoral commissions do appear
to be the main factor deciding the outcome of those ballots. Most
Yerevan district chiefs and town mayors are wealthy, government-linked
persons who have extensive business interests in their respective
communities. For them, vote buying is the easiest way to get apathetic
and impoverished voters to the polling stations. The central
government usually turns a blind eye to their questionable activities
because the local bosses play an important role in manipulating
presidential and parliamentary elections.
The Armenian Revolutionary Federation, another party represented
in Kocharian’s cabinet, has repeatedly expressed concern about the
growing influence of what it calls “apolitical elements.” One of its
leaders, Armen Rustamian, warned last February that failure to rein
them in and ensure the freedom and fairness of the October elections
could result in bloodshed.
Armenians may have received a taste of things to come on May 29,
when a mayoral election in Hrazdan, a town 50 kilometers north of
Yerevan, was marred by violence and fraud allegations. According
to official results, its incumbent mayor, Aram Danielian, narrowly
defeated his main challenger, Artur Shaboyan, who is not affiliated
with any party. Shaboyan refused to concede defeat.
As voting there drew to a close, scores of masked police officers
reportedly attacked and indiscriminately beat up Shaboyan’s proxies
and supporters outside three polling stations. Eyewitnesses said
the special police units used electric-shock equipment. More than a
thousand people rallied in Hrazdan the next day to demand a recount
of ballots.
“A new fact has emerged,” another newspaper, Aravot, reported from the
scene. “You don’t have to be an oppositionist in order to be beaten and
electrocuted. All you need is to protest against vote falsifications.”
(Aravot, May 31; Haykakan Zhamanak, May 24, May 19; 168 Zham, May 19;
RFE/RL Armenia Report, May 11)

United Press International
June 2 2005
First firing in U.N. oil-food scandal
By William M. Reilly
UPI United Nations Correspondent
Published June 2, 2005
UNITED NATIONS — The firing of Joseph Stephanides, director of the
U.N. Security Council Affairs Division, marks the first termination
ordered by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in connection with the Iraq
Oil-for-Food Program scandal.
Stephane Dujarric, a spokesman for Annan, told reporters
Wednesday, “After a thorough review of all aspects of the case the
secretary-general has decided that Joseph Stephanides be summarily
dismissed for serious misconduct in accordance with the U.N. staff
regulations. Stephanides was advised accordingly (Tuesday) and was
separated from service with immediate affect.”
Stephanides said he would appeal.
Annan’s decision to dismiss Stephanides brought to 40 the
number of staffers who have been summarily fired since he became
secretary-general in 1997.
A 24-year-veteran of the world organization, Stephanides was involved
in awarding of contracts for the $64 billion Security Council-mandated
program to ease the suffering of Iraqi civilians under Security
Council-imposed sanctions against the regime of former Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein.
The Independent Inquiry Committee for the Iraq Oil-for-Food Program,
commissioned by Annan to investigate the scandal, issued a report
in February which found that a U.N. steering committee “prejudiced
and pre-empted the competitive process in a manner that rejected
the lowest qualified bidder” with the “active participation” of
Stephanides. He was immediately suspended and given time to respond
to the administrative charges against him as part of due process.
According to the IIC report, Stephanides violated procurement rules
to enable Britain’s famed Lloyd’s Register Inspection, Ltd. to
secure a multimillion dollar U.N. contract under oil-for-food. While
Stephanides acknowledged this to be a technical violation of the rules,
he contended he acted to benefit the United Nations by negotiating
the lowest price and not for personal gain, the report said.
However, the IIC did not accept this explanation, noting Stephanides
“shared information with and enlisted the United Kingdom’s assistance
in an effort to win the contract for Lloyd’s, not simply to obtain
a better price from Lloyd’s for a contract award that already had
been decided.”
The inquiry committee said it did “not doubt the sincerity of
Stephanides view that Lloyd’s was the best company for the contract
or that this view was shared by high-ranking officials of the United
Nations and some members of the Security Council,” but maintained
that rules which should have been followed were not.
Stephanides, 59, and Benon Sevan, 67, head of the oil-for food program,
were suspended with pay after the IIC, headed by former U.S.
Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, accused them of misconduct
in February.
Both men have said they were being made scapegoats, a view shared by
several at “U.N. HQ.”
Dujarric said any action that may be taken against Sevan, an
Armenian-Cypriot retained after retirement on a $1 a year contract
to keep him available, would be delayed until after the committee was
finished investigating him so that “if administrative action is to be
taken against Sevan it would be taken as a whole instead of piecemeal.”
The pensions of both Sevan and Stephanides, coincidentally also
a Cypriot, could not be affected by any disciplinary action, a
spokesman said.
Sevan, a 40-year veteran of the world organization, was accused in
the February interim report of a “grave conflict of interest” for
requesting Baghdad sell oil to a Swiss-based oil company, African
Middle East Petroleum Co. Ltd. Inc.
It said seeking oil from Iraq was “ethically improper and seriously
undermined the integrity of the United Nations.”
While the report did not accuse him of taking kickbacks, it did show
concern for $160,000 Sevan said he received between 1999 and 2003
from an aunt, a retired photographer for the government in Cyprus. She
recently died in a fall down an elevator shaft.
“Sevan never took a penny,” said his lawyer, Eric Lewis, in a recent
statement.
The gregarious Sevan, frequently seen in the vicinity of U.N.
World Headquarters in New York, recently in a nearby restaurant gave
a friendly cuff to a United Press International correspondent and to
the amusement of other people at the table, said: “I just wanted you
to see I am not running away from anything. I am right here.”
Saddam reputedly handed out oil vouchers to influential people who
could then sell them.
The Security Council’s oil-for-food scheme allowed Baghdad to sell oil
as long as the income went into a bank account to fund the purchase
of humanitarian goods, compensation to 1991 Gulf War victims and oil
infrastructure maintenance.
Saddam’s regime decided who could buy Iraqi oil, what goods to buy
and from whom. Then the U.N. Security Council’s “661 Committee,” named
after the authorizing resolution, vetted the requests, monitored the
contracts and watched out for the possibility any of the requested
goods might have “dual use” for building or maintaining weapons of
mass destruction or a means to deliver them.
All along, there was rampant smuggling of oil out of Iraq members of
the Security Council turned a blind eye to because it was heading in
most instances to allies.

Armenian Government Plans Further Spending Increase
Radio Free Europe, Czech Rep.
June 2 2005
02/06/2005 09:02
The Armenian government’s budgetary expenditures will grow further
in the next few years but they will still make up a small share of
the country’s Gross Domestic Product, officials said on Wednesday.
A three-year program approved by ministers calls for a major increase
in tax revenues which should allow the government to boost its modest
public spending. Under that plan made public by Deputy Finance Minister
Pavel Safarian, the tax revenues will equal 15.9 percent of the GDP
in 2008, up from 15.1 percent projected for this year.
The proportion is very low even by ex-Soviet standards and is the
most vivid indicator of the scale of tax evasion in Armenia. The
authorities announced a major crackdown on the endemic practice last
year, with President Robert Kocharian personally warning the country’s
leading businessmen that they should stop grossly underreporting
their earnings.
The crackdown is aimed at ensuring a 25 percent rise in the proceeds
from the collection of taxes and import duties. They are projected
to total 307 billion drams ($690 million) in 2005. They government
now appears on track to meet that target.
Safarian told reporters that the tax revenues are projected to grow by
another 53 billion drams next year. He said at least half of the extra
money will be used for raising public sector wages and social security
benefits. Similar hikes are envisaged for 2007 and 2008, he added.
Safarian also said the program’s successful implementation is based
on expectations of annual economic growth of 6 percent. According to
official figures, the growth rate has averaged 11 percent in the last
four years and slowed to 7.8 percent during the first quarter of 2005.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RUSSIA AND IRAN JOIN HANDS IN THE CASPIAN
By Stephen Blank
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
The Jamestown Foundation
June 1 2005
Wednesday, June 1, 2005
While Central Asia and the Caucasus have been the recent focus of
world attention due to the popular revolution in Kyrgyzstan and the
massacre in Andijan, Uzbekistan, potentially significant strategic
developments there have been unduly neglected. In late April Russia
evidently proposed the creation of a new defense formation,
specifically a rapid-reaction force in the Caspian. Iran welcomed the
proposal (IRNA, May 3; RIA-Novosti, May 4).
Although not much is known about this proposed force, it appears to
be intended not just to repulse terrorist threats but also to oppose
a foreign, i.e. Western, military presence in the Caspian. While this
new Russo-Iranian gambit is clearly intended to counter Washington
and NATO, it also represents a significant modification of Iran’s
stated policy of opposing the militarization of the Caspian, although
Tehran naturally is trying to obscure this contradiction in its
policy (IRNA, May 3).
Azerbaijan appears to be at the center of this issue. Immediately
after U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld left Baku on April
12-13, there was a noticeable spike in local stories claiming that
Washington was seeking major bases and extensive radar, air, and
air-defense facilities in Azerbaijan from which to attack Iran or
from which sophisticated radars and a tripartite military bloc
including Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan could be built.
Azeri-American plans to further develop Operation Caspian Watch,
whose purpose is to help the Azerbaijani navy defend its coastal and
offshore oil platforms that Iran has previously threatened and to
enhance Azerbaijan’s participation in NATO’s Partnership for Peace.
apparently triggered this overwrought reaction (Nezavisimaya gazeta,
April 15, 25; RIA-Novosti, May 4; Trend News Agency [Baku], April
14).
But Moscow’s proposal also occurs in a grander strategic context, not
just of the Ukrainian and Kyrgyz revolutions, and now the Andijan
uprising, but also of NATO’s and America’s enhanced interest in the
Caucasus and Central Asia and Russia’s retreat from Georgian bases.
It is now clear that Moscow will leave those bases, whose strategic
utility is questionable at best, by 2008. Russian President Vladimir
Putin, albeit with considerable bitterness, has acknowledged publicly
that in a situation where the host country insists on withdrawal,
Russia has no option but to bring its troops home. Even so, Putin
publicly voiced his fears that the Russian withdrawal would soon be
followed by American bases in Georgia, notwithstanding Georgian
officials’ long-held position that there would be no foreign bases on
their soil (Komsomolskaya pravda, May 24; Itar-Tass, May 14; Moscow
Times, May 24). Even Sergei Ivanov, Russia’s minister of defense, had
to acknowledge in April that the “temporary deployment of U.S. and
NATO bases on CIS territory in support of the anti-terrorist
operation in Afghanistan is in Russia’s national interests.”
Obviously, in order to counter that unwelcome combination of Western
bases in the CIS and retreating Russian power, Putin and Ivanov
thought they had to come up with a new gambit. Evidently they are
pushing for a second Russian base in Osh, Kyrgyzstan, in the Fergana
valley, the epicenter of unrest in Central Asia, and may relocate
their Georgian forces in Armenia, a prospect that disturbs Baku
(RIA-Novosti, May 26; see EDM, May 24).
Iran also feared that these alleged new bases, which have yet to be
announced, would be used to attack it. Certainly there were reports
to that effect from Baku (Trend News Agency, Baku, April 14). Tehran
has much to be anxious about, because it appeared that Russia was
leaning toward the Europeans in the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear
program and it obviously faces tremendous pressure from the EU and
the United States over that program. Tehran cannot afford to alienate
Russia under any circumstances and, as in the past, it has had to
accept the relative primacy of Russian forces in the Caspian. It
certainly does not wish to see that primacy supplanted by NATO or the
United States.
There is also reason to believe that Iran was also animated by its
unhappiness over the prospect of a formal Afghan-American strategic
partnership complete with long-term, albeit not permanent, U.S.
basing capabilities at Bagram in Afghanistan and the retention of the
U.S. and NATO forces there. Reports from Afghanistan indicate a
considerable Iranian influence among those who stirred up the recent
anti-American demonstrations in Afghanistan. They also indicate that
this issue, not reports of desecration of the Koran, was probably the
driving force behind the Iranian and Pakistani agitation that stirred
up the demonstrators (New York Times, May 26).
Pentagon officials queried by Jamestown profess no knowledge of any
such Russo-Iranian security bloc or forthcoming huge base structure
in Azerbaijan and pointedly emphasize that such reports contradict
the global basing plan that was briefed to Moscow in 2004 and found
not to be a threat to it. Thus, while there may be more heat than
light behind the Russo-Iranian proposal, that scheme suggests not
only that the great game in the CIS is heating up, but also that its
military character and the trend towards strategic bipolarity in
those regions are assuming a much sharper and therefore more
dangerous character.