Armenian refugees rule out possibility of return to Azerbaijan

ARMENIAN REFUGEES RULE OUT POSSIBILITY OF RETURN TO AZERBAIJAN

DeFacto Agency, Armenia
July 27, 2006

A network of a civil society "Refugees and International Law" sent an
open letter to the RA President Robert Kocharyan. The letter runs,
in part: "To His Excellency President of the Republic of Armenia
Mr. Robert Kocharyan, Your Excellency, A network of a civil society
"Refugees and International Law", dealing with the protection of rights
and interests of the Armenian refugees, which have been expelled
from the Azerbaijani SSR and Nakhijevan manu military, address the
open letter to you with a proposal to inscribe an item referring to
500 000 Armenian refugees to the agenda of the Karabakh talks you
hold. Any option of the problem’s resolution, which rules out the
restoration and full-fledged protection of the rights of hundreds of
thousands of our compatriots, cannot be satisfactory and acceptable.

The problems of the Armenian refugees divide in three principal groups:
1. Finding Motherland, 2. Compensation of the direct material and moral
damage suffered as a result of the deportation from the Azerbaijani
SSR and Nakhijevan, 3. Compensation of the oblique damage suffered
as a result of the deportation from the Azerbaijani SSR and Nakhijevan.

Basing on the outcomes of the polls conducted among the Armenian
refugees, it is safe to say that the Armenian refugees will not return
to their former residences under the jurisdiction of the Azerbaijani
Republic. We have already had the opportunity to state that, taking
into consideration Azerbaijani Republic’s refuse from its succession
in respect of the Azerbaijani SSR, the only legal cessionary of the
latter is the Nagorno Karabakh Republic. If the Armenian refugees from
the Azerbaijani SSR and Nakhijevan are granted the citizenship of the
Nagorno Karabakh Republic and are transferred the territories out of
the borders, within the limits of which the NKR has been declared,
however, over which its jurisdiction is extended at present, on
property rights, it may partly solve their problems.

A network of a civil society "Refugees and International Law" has
also appealed to the U. S. Embassy in RA with a proposal to initiate
a meeting with the U. S. Co-Chair of the Minsk group Matthew Bryza.

In the course of the expected meeting it is planned to deliver a
message addressed to the Minsk group Co-Chairs to Matthew Bryza and
discuss the issues referring to the Armenian refugees".

Non-governmental benevolent union of the Armenian refugees "Aghazang",
children’s benevolent NGO "Yerjanik", non-governmental benevolent
union "Caravan – 88", NGO "Women and Democracy", Union of the
Refugees-Intellectuals "Potential", the Armenian branch of the
St. Petersburg Restoration Centre "Swallow", benevolent NGO "Azat
Hayk", NGO "Promoting General Management of Quality" endorsed the
open letter.

To remind, earlier a network of a civil society "Refuges and
International Law" addressed a similar message to AR President Ilham
Aliyev, REGNUM reports.

Competition on Mineral Waters Market Is Large in Armenia, Jermuk Gro

COMPETITION ON MINERAL WATERS MARKET IS LARGE IN ARMENIA,
JERMUK GROUP CJSC CHAIRMAN’S ADVISER SAYS

YEREVAN, JULY 26, NOYAN TAPAN. The competition on the mineral
waters market of Armenia is large, as there are Bjni, Arzni, Jermuk
and a number of other companies producing mineral waters. As Edgar
Ghazarian, Adviser of the Jermuk CJSC Chairman, said in his interview
to NT correspondent, the main competition is among local companies,
as the amount of imported mineral water is small and it does not have
any impact on the competition on the local market.

In E.Ghazarian’s words, though the company founded in 1999 increases
the volume of production year by year, the production volume in the
first six months of this year has remained unchanged as compared with
the same period of the previous year, and its sale has decreased by
four percent.

At the same time, it was mentioned that company’s exports have
increased by 23 percent this year compared with the first half
year of 2005. Jermuk Group exports it production to 14 countries,
including Canada, U.S., Lebanon, United Arab Emirates, Russia,
Ukraine. E.Ghazarian also said that this year the production of Jermuk
CJSC has received a certificate of correspondence to EU requirements,
which enables to export the plant’s production to EU member-countries.

It was mentioned that the plant is periodically replenished with
modern European equipments and production lines. As E.Ghazarian said,
the new annex of Jermuk Group CJSC will be ready by the end of the
year and a new production line of European production will be brought
from Austria, which will give a possibility to increase exports of
mineral water.

At the Heart of the Lebanon Crisis Lie the Lethal Mistakes of George

At the heart of the Lebanon crisis lie the lethal mistakes of George Bush

Jonathan Freedland
Wednesday July 26, 2006
The Guardian

Instead of pursuing a Middle East peace deal, the White House’s big
idea has been to bomb people into democracy

It was meant to be over by now. This time last week Israeli military
planners were demanding another 72 hours to finish the job: that’s all
they needed, they promised, to clear southern Lebanon of Hizbullah. Yet
the enemy has proved stubborn. Despite two weeks of bombardment,
Hizbullah’s formidable arsenal remains in place. Yesterday they fired
yet more rockets – 60 of them – deep into Israel, reaching the city
of Haifa and killing a teenage girl in the Arab village of Maghar.

This persistence is causing the first rumblings of Israeli disquiet.
Why are the Katyushas "still coming, and killing?" asks one Israeli
columnist. Are the Israel Defence Forces losing their edge, asks
another, wondering if "instead of an army that is small but smart,
we are catching glimpses of an army that is big, rich and dumb". The
top brass deny they have been surprised by Hizbullah’s strength. They
expected nothing less, they say – not least because Iran has been
supplying the movement with more than $100m worth of arms. Which
would explain the serious hardware, including long-range missiles,
at Hizbullah’s disposal.

So far none of this has eroded the astonishingly high level of Israeli
public support for the war. I spoke yesterday to a "refusenik", an
Israeli soldier whose principles compelled him to spend a month in
jail rather than serve in the West Bank or Gaza. Even he was clear:
"We had no choice but to hit back." This is not about defending
occupied territory, because Israel is not an genuine occupier in
Lebanon. This is, he says, about defending the country from a proxy
army of a state, Iran, that is committed to Israel’s destruction.

Little has punctured Israelis’ sense of self-belief. They see few of
the TV pictures we see, showing Lebanese children, bloodstained and
weeping; they have victims of their own to concentrate on. As for
the rest of the world’s condemnation, it doesn’t cut much ice. Why
should Israelis listen to Vladimir Putin when he tells them their
response has been "disproportionate"? Was Russia’s pounding of Grozny
proportionate? As for complaints from Britain and Europe about the 390
civilians killed in Lebanon, those are a reminder of the more than
3,000 civilians killed in the 2001 onslaught against Afghanistan:
how was that proportionate exactly? Kim Howells was right to be
appalled by what he saw in Beirut. But he surely would have been
just as shocked had he visited the Iraqi city of Falluja after the
Americans had turned it to rubble.

Besides, not much of this criticism, including that from Howells,
has got through at all. The message projected by most of the Israeli
media is that the bit of the world that matters – the US – is behind
them. The government certainly echoes that line, and it will have
been emboldened by Condoleezza Rice’s show of understanding yesterday.

Indeed, for prime minister Ehud Olmert the backing of the US is central
to everything this war is about. The Tel Aviv University analyst Dr
Gary Sussman calls it a "war for the legitimacy of unilateralism". This
approach, first pursued by Ariel Sharon and now Olmert’s defining
project, tells Israelis that it is OK to pull out from occupied
territory – whether southern Lebanon in 2000 or Gaza in 2005 – because
after withdrawal there will be a clear, recognised border, behind
which Israel can defend itself more vigorously than ever. That is why,
once Hizbullah had captured those two Israeli soldiers, Olmert had
to hit back. If he had not, he would have vindicated the critics who
brand unilateral withdrawal a glorified retreat, jeopardising Israel’s
security. He had to prove that pulling out did not mean running away,
that Israel could still defend itself. What’s more, because it had
moved back to the internationally recognised border, Israel would
now enjoy international legitimacy. Washington has obligingly played
its role, supplying the support that confirms Olmert’s logic.

This message is not aimed solely at the Israeli people. It is also
meant to restore the country’s "deterrence", telling Hizbullah and
the rest of the region that they cannot cross Israel’s borders,
or seize its personnel, with impunity (no matter how Israel itself
behaves). Israel is especially keen to disprove the "cobweb theory",
put about by Hizbullah: pull at one Israeli thread, such as its 18-year
presence in Lebanon until 2000, and the rest will unravel. The current
operation is designed to say that Israel does not do unravelling.

There is a last audience for this war. Olmert wants the Palestinians
to see that if Israel withdraws from further territory, as he intends,
it will not be a soft touch. On the contrary, as the world has seen,
if Israel is so much as scratched it will hit back very hard. The
prime minister wants this point seared into the minds of Hamas and
Fatah so that they remember it come the day Israel withdraws from
parts of the West Bank.

>From his own point of view, Olmert had little alternative. If he had
accepted the soldiers’ kidnapping, and sought their return through
diplomacy, most Israeli analysts are agreed that he would have been
finished. He would have confirmed his own weakness, a civilian with
no military record, and he would have proved the anti-unilateralists
right. His own plan, to withdraw from more occupied territory, would
be in shreds. As things stand, he should now have the credibility to
move forward.

That’s as close as we get to a crumb of comfort to be found in the
rubble of this last fortnight. Yet it need not have been this way.
Had one of the key players in the drama behaved differently, this
entire mess could have been avoided.

I’m thinking of the United States. It’s fashionable to blame the US
for all the world’s ills, but in this case the sins, both of omission
and commission, of the Bush administration genuinely belong at the
heart of the trouble.

Diplomacy has had a difficult task from the start, in part because
the US is not seen as an honest broker, but as too closely aligned
with Israel. Washington has long been pro-Israel, but under President
Clinton and the first President Bush there was an effort to be seen
as a plausible mediator. Not under George W. Far from keeping lines
of communication open with Hizbullah’s two key patrons – Syria and
Iran – they have been cast into outer darkness, branded as spokes,
or satellites, of the axis of evil. As a result there has been no
mechanism to restrain Hizbullah. Now, when the US needs Syria’s help,
it may be too late. Damascus will extract a high price, no doubt
demanding the right to re-enter, in some form, Lebanon. The White
House can’t grant that – not when it considers Syria’s ejection from
Lebanon in 2005 one of its few foreign-policy successes.

But the record of failure goes deeper than that. It began in the
president’s first week, when Bush decided he would not repeat what he
perceived as his predecessor’s mistake by allowing his presidency to
be mired in the fruitless search for Israeli-Palestinian peace. Even
though Clinton had got tantalisingly close, Bush decided to drop it.
While Henry Kissinger once racked up 24,230 miles in just 34 days of
shuttle diplomacy, Bush’s envoys have been sparing in their visits
to the region.

The result is that the core conflict has been allowed to fester. Had
it been solved, or even if there had been a serious effort to solve
it, the current crisis would have been unimaginable. Instead, Bush’s
animating idea has been that the peoples of the Middle East can be
bombed into democracy and terrorised into moderation. It has proved
one of the great lethal mistakes of his abominable presidency –
and the peoples of Israel and Lebanon are paying the price.

[email protected]

US against Turkish Invasion of Iraq

US against Turkish Invasion of Iraq

PanARMENIAN.Net
25.07.2006 14:41 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The United States appealed to Turkey to delay
its invasion of Iraq in an effort to destroy Kurdish insurgency
strongholds. Over the weekend, President George Bush telephoned Turkish
Prime Minister Recep Erdogan and urged a postponement of an invasion
of Iraq. Officials said Bush, in his second phone call in three days,
pledged to intensify US efforts to eliminate strongholds of the Kurdish
Workers Party, or PKK, in Iraq’s Kandil mountains. US Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice also contacted her Turkish counterpart Abdullah
Gul. They said whatever is necessary will be done. Matthew Bryza,
US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs,
held a press conference in Washington and promised concrete steps
would be taken against the PKK soon.

The most important item in Rice-Gul’s phone conversation was the
PKK issue. Gul told Rice that Turkey wanted an immediate, visible,
sensible, and concrete solution to the PKK issue. Turkey would be
seriously hampered in its aid efforts to Iraq as long as the PKK
existed, AFP reports.

One More Rejection of Peaceful Plan by Azerbaijan Can Seriously Comp

ONE MORE REJECTION OF PEACEFUL PLAN BY AZERBAIJAN CAN SERIOUSLY COMPLICATE
SITUATION, VARTAN OSKANIAN THINKS

YEREVAN, JULY 24, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. "We do not expect
new proposals from OSCE Minsk Group American Co-chair Matthew Bryza,
our expectations from Bryza’s visit are connected with the circumstance
that he will return Azerbaijan to the negotiations table, at which the
frame agreement is discussed, and if Azerbaijan’s consent is received,
possibly, a new stage will start in the negotiations," RA Foreign
Minister Vartan Oskanian declared at the July 24 joint press conference
with EU Special Representative to the South Caucasus Peter Semneby.

In the Minister’s words, a new proposal "cannot be born from air,"
as it should be a synthesis of the negotiations, and if there have not
been new negotiations, there can be no new radical proposals. Vartan
Oskanian did not exclude the possibility of Bryza’s presenting "small
changes connected with the prepared document."

The Minister stated that the documents like the frame agreement
on the settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict proposed by the
Co-chairs are not created within a week but are born as a result of
long negotiations. "I think it will be a pity to once more miss such
an opportunity as this document. As this document will be the third
plan of the settlement after the "common state" and "Key West." And
if Azerbaijan once more rejects the plan, I think the situation will
be seriously complicated," Vartan Oskanian declared.

He did not exclude, either, possible developments in the negotiations
process in 2007: "Though the whole attention will be concentrated on
the elections, if a possibility is created next year, it should be
used by all means."

Peter Semneby declared that EU pays a hightened attention to the
South Caucasus, as its borders become more and more close to this
region. Besides, EU shows a great interest in the South Caucasus
also in the respect of the peaceful settlement of the conflicts
existing there.

"We follow the process of settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict
and are ready to take any measures aimed at increasing confidence
between the conflict parties," Peter Semneby declared.

Armenian Theaters Also to Take Part in International Festival

ARMENIAN THEATERS ALSO TO TAKE PART IN INTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL OF
EXPERIMENTAL THEATERS TO BE HELD IN EGYPT

YEREVAN, JULY 24, NOYAN TAPAN. Two Armenian theaters are going to
take part in the International Festival of Experimental Theaters to
be held on September 10-21 in Egypt.

As Noyan Tapan correspondent was informed from the Art Department
of RA Ministry of Culture and Youth Affairs, performances by S.Key
"Psychosis 4.48" staged by Suren Shahverdian at G.Sundukian National
Academic Theater and S.Mrozhek’s "So-vats-ner" staged by principal
producer of H.Tumanian State Puppet Theater Ruben Babayan will be
presented at the festival.

Kocharian Will Not Go to Moscow

Kocharian Will Not Go to Moscow

PanARMENIAN.Net
21.07.2006 13:56 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Armenian President Robert Kocharian’s visit to Moscow
is cancelled, reports the Press Service of the Armenian leader. Bad
state of health is the cause for canceling the visit to the Russian
capital: the President has an acute virus disease of the respiratory
tract. In Moscow the Armenian President was to take part in informal
summit of CIS state heads. A bilateral meeting with Russian President
Putin was also planned.

New This Week: Short Films Among New Movies in Theaters

NEW THIS WEEK: Short Films Among New Movies in Theaters

indieWIRE.com
July 21, 2006

A number of short films are among the new movies opening in theaters. A
collection of international short films are part of New Yorker Films’
"The World According to Shorts," including Hugo Maza’s "La Perra" from
Chile, Daniel Askill’s "We Have Decided Not To Die" from Australia,
Andreas Hykade’s "Ring of Fire" from Germany, Hans Petter Moland’s
"United We Stand" from Norway," Adam Guzinski’s "Antichrist" from
Poland and Jane Malaquias’ "The Old Woman’s Step" from Brazil. While
Picture This Entertainment’s "Boys Briefs 4" includes movies about
hustlers, among them Welby Ing’s "Boy", Greg Atkin’s "Build",
Armen Kazazian’s "Gold", Tony Krawitz’s "Into the Night", Bastian
Schweitzer’s "Gigolo", and Mary Feuer’s "Rock Bottom." Both collections
of short will be available in other cities in the coming weeks.

Official Website:
briefs4/index.html

http://www.picturethisent.com/titles/boys

RFE/RL Russian Political Weekly – 07/21/2006

RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC
_________________________________________ ____________________
RFE/RL Russian Political Weekly
Vol. 6, No. 13, 21 July 2006

A Weekly Review of News and Analysis of Russian Domestic Politics

**************************************** ********************
HEADLINES

* PUTIN ‘SATISFIED’ AS G8 SUMMIT COMES TO A CLOSE
* BRITISH PRIME MINISTER’S WIFE TREADS ON KREMLIN TOES
* ROSNEFT DEBUTS ON LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE
* RUSSIAN ARMS INDUSTRY GATHERS STEAM, BUT FOR HOW LONG?
******************************************** ****************

PUTIN ‘SATISFIED’ AS G8 SUMMIT COMES TO A CLOSE. ST.
PETERSBURG, July 17, 2006 (RFE/RL) — In the end, it may be the
weather that proves one of Vladimir Putin’s greatest
disappointments during his country’s hosting of the G8 summit.
Cloud-chasing airplanes were deployed to guarantee a sunny
St. Petersburg summit. But intermittent rain showers occasionally
dampened the showcase event, even forcing the cancellation of a
late-afternoon tea planned yesterday for the G8 leaders.
But even the rain did not detract from what some observers
say was a triumphant first summit for the G8’s youngest — and
arguably most ambitious — member.
Putin, speaking at the first of the press briefings marking
the conclusion of this year’s summit, noted with evident
satisfaction that the St. Petersburg gathering had shown Russia to be
a strong and vital member of the G8.
"We are satisfied that our partners received with
understanding Russia’s ideas and proposals for the summit," Putin
said. "It is also obvious that Russia’s growing economic
potential allows it to play a more significant role in global
development, and we are ready to participate actively in implementing
all of the proposed initiatives."
The summit was unexpectedly overshadowed by escalating
violence in the Middle East, where Israel has mounted a powerful
military offensive against Lebanon following the capture of two
Israeli soldiers by Lebanese Hizballah militants.
Some observers feared that the Lebanese crisis and concern
over North Korea’s recent missile tests would hijack the summit.
Both proved to be headline issues. But the leaders gathered
in St. Petersburg also released joint statements on all of the items
on Putin’s G8 agenda, including health, education, and energy
security.
John Kirton is the director of the G8 Research Group, an
independent Toronto University body tasked with monitoring the Group
of Eight. Speaking to RFE/RL in St. Petersburg, he praised the summit
as a success.
"It [Russia] has pulled it off in fine fashion, by some
measures we know already — by delivering at the summit more
commitments, more codified collective decisions than any other summit
before, since the start over 32 years [ago]," Kirton said. "So if
people judge this summit by its ability to make clear, collective,
codified commitments, St. Petersburg is the best summit ever."
For oil- and gas-rich Russia, energy security was by far the
most important item on the Kremlin’s formal G8 agenda.
There, Russia won a decisive victory in rejecting European
calls for it to ratify the Energy Charter Treaty.
That agreement would require Russia to provide open access to
its energy resources and transport infrastructure.
Russia agreed to a vaguely worded G8 statement supporting the
"principles" of the Energy Charter. But without ratification, control
of Russia’s gas-export pipelines remains fully in the hands of
the country’s Gazprom monopoly.
European leaders fear this will leave them and their energy
needs vulnerable to the whims of the Russian government.
But Putin today defended the situation, saying Russia was
behaving no differently than those European countries that the
Kremlin has accused of blocking Russian investment.
"The Energy Charter implies mutual access to production
infrastructure of energy resources and to transportation
infrastructure," Putin said. "Naturally, we can allow our partners
access to both. But our question is, what will they give us access
to? Where is their production or transportation infrastructure?"
Russia was dealt one major setback, in failing to clear the
main hurdle to its long-sought entry into the World Trade
Organization.
The United States has not signed a bilateral treaty with
Russia that would allow the country’s bid to be passed on to the
bloc’s 149 members for approval. A deal expected on July 15 fell
through.
Putin, who has showed confident assurance as this year’s
G8 host, appeared undaunted by the delay.
Instead, he has aimed sharply worded commentary at some of
his fellow G8 leaders, including U.S. President George W. Bush and
British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Bush and Blair, by contrast, have appeared deferential,
backing away from past criticism of what they termed Russia’s
antidemocratic trends.
Troublesome issues such as Russian intervention in so-called
"frozen conflicts" in Georgia and Transdniester have been largely
absent from the G8 discussions.
Putin has even used the Lebanon conflict to advance his own
political argument.
Some G8 leaders have called for Syria and Iran to be
recognized as complicit in the Hizballah actions against Israel.
In response, Putin asked why Russia can’t mention "other
countries that harbor people who are quite obviously terrorists" —
an apparent reference to Britain, which has refused to extradite
Akhmed Zakayev, the London-based foreign minister of Chechnya’s
separatist government. (Claire Bigg)

BRITISH PRIME MINISTER’S WIFE TREADS ON KREMLIN TOES. Cherie
Blair, the wife of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, risked raising
the ire of the Kremlin on July 17 by offering to help Russian human
rights activists challenge new legislation in the European Court of
Human Rights. They say the law on nongovernmental organizations will
severely restrict their activities. Cherie Blair, a leading human
rights lawyer who had accompanied her husband to the G8 summit in St.
Petersburg, told a meeting of some of the Russian government’s
harshest critics that she had come to hear their experiences.
PRAGUE, July 18, 2006 (RFE/RL) — It was billed as a private
gathering, but in truth Cherie Blair’s meeting with human rights
activists in St. Petersburg was a calculated snub to the Kremlin.
Aleksandr Petrov, the director of Human Rights Watch in
Moscow, and one of the organizers of the meeting, said it had been
planned well in advance.
"The meeting was arranged at our initiative and was begun
through talks involving our representatives in Washington and London
and Mrs. Blair some time ago — about 1 1/2 to two months ago,"
Petrov said. "She expressed a desire to take part in an informal
meeting with representatives of Russian NGOs while she was in St.
Petersburg for the summit."
What better reminder to President Vladimir Putin of Western
concern over the erosion of human rights than for the wife of the
British prime minister, a famous human rights lawyer in her own
right, to address such a gathering?
There has been no official comment from Britain on the
content of Cherie Blair’s meeting. But the prime minister’s
office made clear on July 17 that her attendance at the NGO meeting
had official blessing.
The Kremlin has yet to respond to the development. But it was
the second time in a week that Britain had risked incurring
Russia’s wrath on the issue of human rights.
On July 11, the British ambassador to Russia, Anthony
Brenton, defied the Kremlin to address a conference of human rights
activists in Moscow.
There is growing concern in the West about what is perceived
by many as the rollback of democracy in Russia. U.S. President George
Bush also met representatives of Russian civil society during his
visit, although detractors suggested he had deliberately avoided
meeting the harshest of the Kremlin’s critics.
That is not an accusation that could be leveled at Cherie
Blair.
According to Petrov, she told activists from some 12
prominent nongovernmental organizations that she had come to learn
more about their plight and to celebrate the work they carried out.
"In the introductory part of her speech, she expressed
support for civil society in Russia and mentioned also the current
situation in connection with the introduction of the new law —
although, as she said, she was not familiar with the text of the law,
but was familiar with the many expressions of concern about how the
law will operate and the problems it will create for nongovernmental
organizations," Petrov said.
Foreign and Russian nongovernmental organizations say they
have come under much closer official scrutiny since the introduction
of the new law, which, they say, is designed to paralyze them in a
mesh of bureaucratic red tape. President Putin has accused some NGOs
as acting as cover for foreign intelligence agencies.
According to Petrov, Cherie Blair said she wanted to
familiarize herself with the text of the legislation and that, if
necessary, she was prepared to help activists pursue cases in the
European Court of Human Rights. (Robert Parsons)

ROSNEFT DEBUTS ON LONDON STOCK EXCHANGE. PRAGUE, July 19, 2006
(RFE/RL) — The controversial initial public offering (IPO) of
Russia’s Rosneft oil company on London’s Stock Exchange was
launched today after a last-ditch attempt to derail the flotation
failed.
The beleaguered Russian oil company Yukos contested the IPO,
saying it amounted to the sale of stolen property because Rosneft
acquired Yukos’s main oil-production arm in a disputed auction.
But that argument was shot down by a British court.
Early trading today gave credence to the argument by many
observers that the Yukos controversy would not prevent Rosneft from
finding investors willing to take advantage of the rare opportunity
to buy into Russia’s booming oil trade.
Opening at $7.55 today, shares of Rosneft on the London
exchanges quickly rose nearly 3 percent in early trading (to $7.58 by
midday in Central Europe). By midday in London, the price had dropped
to the original issue value, but remained stable.
Simon Wardell, a senior oil analyst at Global Insight’s
London office, said many investors are eager to participate in a
relatively rare opportunity to invest in Russia’s energy sector.
"You’re going to see a lot of interest from international
companies in terms of gaining access to these sorts of opportunities
when they arise," Wardell said. "And they are so infrequent and
limited now that, I think, the success of the Rosneft IPO is one that
is probably not in isolation."
The IPO — the largest in Russian history, and among the top
five ever in the world — has attracted the attention of several
high-profile investors. Rosneft hopes to raise $10.4 billion through
the flotation, the first phase of which was launched on the Moscow
exchange on July 17. Rosneft’s total value is estimated at $79.8
billion.
China announced today that it purchased a $500 million stake
in Rosneft on the Moscow exchange — and wanted even more. The China
National Petroleum Corporation said in a statement that it had sought
to purchase a $3 billion stake, but was allocated only one-sixth of
that amount.
And analyst Wardell says that the allocation of shares to
such companies as European oil major British Petroleum and
Malaysia’s state oil company Petronas is a show of confidence in
Russia’s oil sector.
"The listing that is going ahead — especially the fact that
it’s been subscribed by a lot of major oil companies such as BP
and so on — shows that there’s still obviously huge interest in
the Russian oil sector," Wardell said. "An interest in accessing or
gaining rights to any company which has strong oil and gas reserves
at its disposal."
Singapore’s Temasek Holdings has reportedly decided
against acquiring a stake, saying it believes the shares are
overvalued.
Critics of the IPO include U.S. lawmakers and financier
George Soros, who recently told "Financial Times" that the flotation
raises "serious ethical and energy security issues."
The IPO has faced challenges by the beleaguered Russian oil
company Yukos, whose main production arm, Yuganskneftegaz, was
auctioned off by the Russian state two years ago to settle a tax
bill. Rosneft took control of Yuganskneftegaz as a result, instantly
making it one of Russia’s largest energy producers.
Yukos had hoped to block today’s IPO by arguing in court
that the Yuganskneftegaz acquisition was illegal and constituted the
sale of stolen property. But Britain’s High Court struck down the
argument on July 18.
Yukos has vowed to continue to challenge the sale.

RUSSIAN ARMS INDUSTRY GATHERS STEAM, BUT FOR HOW LONG? Arms
manufacturers from Russia and elsewhere in the CIS assembled in
Nizhny Tagil this week to tout their products at one of Russia’s
largest arms expositions. Russia’s share of the global arms
industry remains a sliver of what it was during the Soviet era, but
it has posted gains in recent years. Russian arms manufacturers are
hoping to build on that success by expanding sales in Latin America
and the Middle East, and Russia’s efforts to re-equip its own
military could further boost the industry. What does the future hold
for Russia’s arms industry, and are its expansion efforts based
on politics — or just business?
PRAGUE, July 14, 2006 (RFE/RL) — Hundreds of Russian
armaments manufacturers convened at this week’s exhibition, which
ends on July 15, to hawk the latest Russian military technology.
Officials took advantage of the event to predict a bright future for
the domestic industry.
And by many measures, they have reason for optimism.
In a stagnant market, the world’s second leading arms
exporter posted a significant gain in 2004, with $6.1 billion in
agreements — accounting for 16.5 percent of the market — compared
to $4.3 billion in sales in 2003. Russia maintained that level in
2005 — again exceeding expectations and exporting about $6 billion
worth of military equipment to more than 60 countries.
Russia’s state-owned arms export agency Rosoboroneksport,
announced in Nizhny Tagil on July 11 that it has orders in hand worth
about $17 billion. Deals for naval equipment headed the list, but
orders through 2010 for Russian air-defense systems accounted for a
major share ($3.5 billion). Rosoboroneksport Deputy Director Ivan
Goncharenko also predicted a major turnaround for the much-maligned
military-aviation sector, saying aviation equipment will be
Russia’s top seller in 2007.
Movement is afoot on the domestic front as well. Defense
Minister Sergei Ivanov recently said Russia will spend 237 billion
rubles ($8.8 billion) this year to upgrade its military equipment —
and that figure is to rise to 300 billion rubles in 2007. In
addition, the country is mulling a proposed program that would
increase defense procurement by 20-25 percent a year.
But some say serious flaws remain in Russia’s arms
industry, claiming it depends too much on Soviet-era designs and that
the failure of the industry to adapt to economic realities threatens
to torpedo the entire endeavor.
Detractors include Defense Minister Ivanov, who last year
expressed fears that by 2011 the Russian arms industry would be
incapable of re-equipping its own military.
In an attempt to address such fears, Russia has embarked on a
large-scale effort to consolidate its defense enterprises — an
exercise in "state capitalism" that at the same time harkens back to
the Soviet Union’s oversight of a massive defense industry.
Aleksandr Goltz, a defense expert for the Moscow-based "Daily
Journal" ("Yezhednevnia zhurnal"), says this effort is steering the
industry in the wrong direction.
"All these plants, all these enterprises, will again, as in
Soviet times, be put under strong bureaucratic control," Goltz says.
"And as [a] result, the level of bribes, the level of corruption,
will rise and it’s obvious that it will make this process much
more complicated, not easier."
The direction of Russia’s arms-sales policies has
attracted controversy in the United States.
A fly-by at the Russian Arms Exhibition in Nizhny TagilIn
April, Russia inked a deal for the sale of 100,000 Kalashnikov
assault rifles and 15 military helicopters to Venezuela, which says
it needs the weapons to defend itself in case of a U.S. invasion.
The Latin American country is also seeking to purchase 24
Sukhoi fighter jets — a deal that Washington has asked Russia to
reconsider out of fears that it could upset the balance of power in
the region.
Missile sales to Iran have also raised the ire of Western
countries, particularly the United States, and sales to Sudan and
Syria have been criticized.
Russia maintains that such sales break no international
regulations, and that if it doesn’t sell to these countries,
somebody else will.
So, are Russia’s efforts to expand its arms sales based
on politics, or business?
Both, says analyst Goltz.
"Such countries as Iran, or Venezuela, or Syria have no other
sources of military equipment," Goltz says. "It’s profitable, but
at the same time it is politics because Russia positions itself as
the supplier of these — as the people in Washington say now
"problematic regimes."
But given the position Russia is in, it may have no choice.
Goltz says he is skeptical of the Russian arms industry’s chances
of survival. And other analysts have noted that — given the intense
competition in the industry and the United States’ dominance as
the world’s largest arms exporter — Russia is in no position to
turn away business. (Michael Scollon)

**************************************** *****************
Copyright (c) 2006. RFE/RL, Inc. All rights reserved.

The "RFE/RL Russian Political Weekly" is prepared
on the basis of a variety of sources. It is distributed every
Wednesday.

Direct comments to [email protected].
For information on reprints, see:
p
Back issues are online at

http://www.rferl.org/about/content/request.as
http://www.rferl.org/reports/rpw/

New Market Building to Be Built in Ninotsminda

NEW MARKET BUILDING TO BE BUILT IN NINOTSMINDA

AKHALKALAK, JULY 18, NOYAN TAPAN – ARMENIANS TODAY. The Urban Institute
of Georgia plans to initiate the construction of a new bulding for
the agricultural goods’ market in Ninotsminda. The old building
of the market is in run-down condition and not suited for use. The
Urban Institute promises to find sponsors for construction of the
new building. Specialists were invited to Ninotsminda, who presented
their point of views. The construction of the new market building is
also conditioned with the Tbilisi-Tsalka-Turkey border freeway which
will be built under the Millennium Challenge program. The freeway
will pass through Ninotsminda.

According to the "A-Info" agency, on the initiative of the Urban
Institute the city park of Ninotsminda was improved as well as the
sewerage system was reconstructed.