Author: Vardanian Garo

BLACK SEA SUMMIT OPENS IN ROMANIAN CAPITAL

AP Worldstream
Jun 05, 2006

The presidents of Ukraine, Georgia and Armenia were among leaders
attending a Black Sea summit on Monday aimed at tackling drug- and
people-smuggling in the region and finding ways to clean up pollution
in the sea, as well as discussing alternative energy routes.

“Putting the Black Sea on the map is a challenge in itself,” said
Romanian Foreign Minister Mihai Razvan Ungureanu opening the summit.

“Good governance, sustainable development to define issues of common
interests and to evaluate national and regional capacities and to
prepare the future in a pro-active manner. … We want a new vision
to reflect new realities,” he said.

The main topics on the summit’s agenda would be environment protection,
regional cooperation, joint energy projects, combatting cross-border
crime and improving infrastructure.

Among those attending were Presidents Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine,
Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia, Robert Kocharian of Armenia, Vladimir
Voronin of Moldova and Ilham Aliev of Azerbaijan, as well as officials
from Turkey, Bulgaria, Greece and Lithuania.

Top officials from NATO, the Organization for Security and Cooperation
in Europe, the United Nations and the Council of Europe are also
attending the summit.

Kocharian and Aliev are expected to hold talks on the status of
Nagorno-Karabakh on the sidelines of the summit. Talks between the two
leaders in France in February ended in failure, despite international
mediators’ efforts to push the leaders to resolve Nagorno-Karabakh’s
status.

Nagorno-Karabakh is inside Azerbaijan but populated mostly by ethnic
Armenians, who have run it since an uneasy 1994 cease-fire ended six
years of full-scale war. Sporadic border clashes have grown more
frequent since the breakdown of talks. The lack of resolution has
hindered development throughout the strategic region.

Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, Ukraine, Russia and Georgia directly border
the Black Sea, which is one of the world’s most polluted seas.

Its only outlet to outside seas is via the Bosphorus Straits.

Russia declined to send a high-level official to the summit but
requested observer status. It is being represented by its ambassador
to Bucharest, said Romanian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Corina Vintan.

Panorama.am

15:54 03/06/06

MUTUAL CONCESSIONS ARE NOT ONLY CONCESSIONS….

Answering to the question of Panorama.am `when Nagorno Karabakh will
get out of the deadlock of negotiation process, especially under the
conditions when there are no big hopes connected with Aliev-Kocharyan
meeting to be held in Bucharest, NA Vice Speaker Vahan Hovhannisyan
said `the deadlock will end when Azerbaijan understands that when we
say mutual concessions we understand `mutual’ too and not only
`concessions’. That is, it will end when Azerbaijan will be ready for
concessions too against those offered by Armenia.’ /Panorama.am/

The Anatolian Times, Turkey
June 2 2006

Turkish F.M. Asks For Russia’s Support Against Terrorism

ANKARA – Turkish FM Abdullah Gul asked his Russian counterpart Sergey
Lavrov that Russia supports Turkey in its fight against terrorism.
Gul and Lavrov had a dinner in the Turkish Foreign Minister’s
Residence yesterday.

According to diplomats, two foreign ministers exchanged views about
bilateral relations and regional topics, as well as Turkey’s EU
membership bid.

Lavrov welcomed measures Turkey has taken regarding the Caucasus,
while Gul asked Lavrov to extend support to Turkey’s fight against
the terrorist organization PKK. He demanded that Russia take measures
against illegal activities of the terrorist organization on its
territory.

The two ministers also discussed the so-called Armenian genocide
allegations, as well as Armenian-Azerbaijani controversy.

-GENOCIDE ALLEGATIONS-

Diplomats quoted Lavrov as saying that ”the Armenian allegations are
not a dominant factor in Turkish-Russian relations; although it is
important for the Armenians”. In the meeting, Lavrov said ”they
(Russians) are against using such historical incidents as a political
tool.”

Supporting Turkey’s suggestion to set up a joint commission composed
of Turkish-Armenian historians to investigate the Armenian claims,
Lavrov said that they are ready to extend necessary support to Turkey
regarding this issue.

Meanwhile, Gul said that unless the controversy between Armenia and
Azerbaijan is not settled before Azerbaijani elections, a solution
may not be reached within next five or ten years. ”Therefore, we
hope Russia will contribute to the settlement of the problem in the
possible shortest time,” he noted.

-CONSULATES IN TURKEY AND RUSSIA-

On the other hand, diplomats said that Russia plans to upgrade its
consulate in southern Turkish city of Antalya to a consulate general,
while Turkey thinks of opening a consulate general in St. Petersburg.

In their meeting, Gul told Lavrov that he is thinking of
participating in ”Paris Charter” meeting to be held in Russia on
July 27th.

Agency WPS
DEFENSE and SECURITY (Russia)
June 2, 2006 Friday

PARDON THE EXPRESSION

by Arkady Dubnov

A MEETING OF THE CIS COUNCIL OF DEFENSE MINISTERS IN BAKU ENDORSED
PRIORITIES AND PRINCIPAL EVENTS IN REALIZING THE CONCEPT OF MILITARY
COOPERATION BETWEEN CIS COUNTRIES; At the meeting of the CIS Council
of Defense Ministers in Baku, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said:
“Peace, security, and law in the Caspian Sea should be maintained by
the coastal states.” This was how Moscow responded to rumors that
Washington wants an American radar installation in the region.

Defense ministers voted to extend the powers of Major-General Sergei
Cheban, current commander of the Collective Peacekeeping Force in the
Georgian-Abkhazian conflict area, for another six months. When it was
over, Russian Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Sergei
Ivanov called the meeting “another step to advancement of military
cooperation and facilitation of trust and mutual understanding
between CIS countries.”

Ivanov’s phrase of “trust and mutual understanding” was certainly
made to sound quixotic by the absence of the Armenian military from
the Baku conference. The Azeris did not invite them to the meeting,
because they view the Armenian military as personae non grata and
their country as an “occupier.”

Ivanov made an even more interesting statement in Baku. “As for
Nagorno-Karabakh,” he said, “I don’t rule out the possibility that
peacekeepers may appear there soon – in order to guarantee
realization of the political agreements that I’m sure will be signed
sooner or later.”

“This so-so situation – if you’ll pardon the expression – cannot
last,” Ivanov said.

This mention of Nagorno-Karabakh will probably require a
clarification because the matter concerns the Azeri-Armenian conflict
area, actually Armenian-occupied territories of Azerbaijan around the
enclave.

But this wasn’t what attracted observers’ attention. Ivanov made his
statement in Baku, the same day that Ukrainian and Azeri defense
ministers Anatoliy Hrytsenko and Safar Abiyev discussed establishing
a GUAM peacekeeping contingent (both countries are GUAM members).
Moscow is not going to like it if and when initiators of the idea
offer their services in Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolution.

Ivanov said, “Peace, security, and law in the Caspian Sea should be
maintained by the coastal states.” This was how Moscow responded to
rumors that Washington wants an American radar installation in the
region. Ivanov was diplomatic enough to add that he “doesn’t know
anything of any such plans.”

Armenian President Robert Kocharjan and Azeri President Ilham Aliyev
are expected to meet under the aegis of the OSCE Minsk Group in
Bucharest on June 5. Moscow is already troubled. Even if Yerevan and
Baku find a compromise, not everyone will agree with participation of
the Russian military in the international peacekeeping contingent
(probably under the UN aegis) in the conflict area.

Azeri Foreign Ministry called Ivanov’s statement on peacekeepers
“considerate” and took it as an indication of Moscow’s eagerness to
see the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict resolved. Ex-president of
Azerbaijan Ajaz Mutalibov called the statement “positive” as well.
Radio Echo of Moscow quoted Mutalibov as accepting “the possibility
that Russia is just the peacekeepers neither Azerbaijan nor Armenia
will have any objections to.”

Official Yerevan’s reaction to the news from Baku is not known at
this point. Alexander Iskanderjan, a prominent political scientist,
in the meantime is quite skeptical of Ivanov’s words concerning
deployment of peacekeepers and his confidence that “the situation…
cannot last.” “On the contrary, the status quo may last long yet,”
Iskanderjan said. “In any case, no serious politician in Yerevan is
going to propose a compromise with Baku before the parliamentary
election scheduled for 2007 and presidential scheduled for 2008.”
“Moreover, Moscow itself needs resolution of the conflict postponed
for as long as possible because the advantages this resolution will
give either side will inevitably weaken Russia’s influence with the
southern part of the Caucasus,” Iskanderjan said.

Source: Vremya Novostei, June 1, 2006, p. 3

Translated by A. Ignatkin

Turkish Press
June 2 2006

Press Review

STAR

ERDOGAN MEETS WITH VISITING RUSSIAN FM

Visiting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov yesterday was
received by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Parliament
Speaker Bulent Arinc. During their meeting, Erdogan sought Russia’s
support for ending the isolation imposed on the Turkish Republic of
Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Lavrov praised the positive Turkish and
Turkish Cypriot position in the Cyprus dispute, especially after the
2004 referendum held for the Annan plan, and expressed the
willingness of Russian businesspeople to invest in the TRNC. The
Iranian nuclear dispute and so-called Armenian genocide claims were
also discussed at the meeting. During the meeting with Erdogan,
Lavrov presented the Turkish premier with a Russian state medal sent
by Russian President Vladimir Putin. /Star/

AXIS INFORMATION AND ANALYSIS: “ISRAELI MP ASSISTED IRAN ON THE CAUCASUS”
By Sami Rozen

Today, Azerbaijan
May 31 2006

Deputy Head of the Israeli Government, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Tsipi Livni was going to visit Azerbaijan in the near future, but all
of a sudden this week the preparations for her visit were terminated.

This was announced by a well-informed diplomatic sources in Tel Aviv.

Same sources said that a few weeks earlier Mark Sofer, Deputy Director
General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at first orally, and
then in a written form, charged the Israeli ambassador to Baku Arthur
Lenk with the preparation of Livni’s visit. Lenk heads the embassy in
Azerbaijan for less than a year, and a successful putting into effect
of such an important event could noticeably raise his authority in the
opinion of local officials and his Israeli colleagues. Especially with
regard of the fact that since 1998, when the head of the government
of that time, Benjamin Netanyahu, paid a visit to Baku, none of the
Israeli prime-ministers or ministers did come any more to the capital
of Azerbaijan. However, by the end of the month an instruction to stop
preparations for Livni’s arrival unexpectedly came to the embassy
from the central apparatus of the foreign policy department. It was
marked in the received notice that the visit is put off indefinitely,
not specifying the reasons for such decision. Same diplomatic sources
claim that the change of plans of the Foreign Ministry Head was
dictated by ballyhoo caused by the trip to Azerbaijan of the member of
the Israeli Knesset, Yosef Shagal, representing the Yisrael Beytenu
(Israel Our Home) political party. Before his repatriation to Israel
in 1990, Shagal (Shchegolev by his real name), lived in Azerbaijan,
and that’s why, following his election this March as a member of
the Knesset he made his first visit abroad to this very country. He
paid a visit to Baku on May 15-16, together with another Israeli
member of parliament, and the representatives of Euro-Asian Jewish
Congress. Statements made by Shagal at his meetings with journalists,
have echoed not only in Azerbaijan, but have also drawn the attention
of Armenian and Iranian establishment. According to some Israeli
diplomats, this visit caused damage to the development of normal
relationship of the Jewish state with all countries of the South
Caucasus. Moreover, Shagal’s public statements are being used now by
the Iranian officials to strengthen the regional positions of Tehran
that contradict to the American interests.

At a press conference on May 15, the representative of the Israel Our
Home party declared: “Israel supports a fair position of Azerbaijan
in the Upper Karabakh conflict”. Next day, in the interview to the
online Day.Az edition he promised support of the Israeli parliament
to achieve cancellation of the 907-th amendment of the US Congress,
forbidding the American government to render aid to Azerbaijan,
adopted in 1992 in connection with the conflict in Karabakh.

Shagal spoke as though on behalf of all Israel and the Knesset
in particular, and his words were interpreted by many Azerbaijan
and Armenian journalists as the official position of the Jewish
state. It was promoted by the circumstance that the majority of the
South-Caucasian journalists do not particularly understand the twists
and turns of the Israeli domestic policy. They did not go deep in
such nuances as Shagal’s absence of any political experience (that
he himself recognizes) or his party’s opposition status. For them
it was only the essence of his statements that mattered. Actually,
official Israel traditionally takes an emphatically neutral position
in the issue of the Karabakh conflict. In parallel, the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of this country pays a great value to the development
of normal relationships both with Azerbaijan, and with Armenia.

Therefore, according to the above mentioned sources, Shagal’s
statements have caused a perceptible damage to the development of
dialogue between Tel Aviv and Yerevan.

Moreover, their wide publicity promoted strengthening of the
pro-Iranian attitudes in Armenia, the growth of which has been recently
marked on the background of a price increase for the Russian gas (April
2006) and the rapproachement between Moscow and Ankara (2004-2005). Now
the Iranian officials got an opportunity to claim at meetings with the
Armenian representatives that the recent visits of the President of
Azerbaijan to the United States and of the head of the Israeli Foreign
Ministry to Turkey, as well as the performances of the Israeli member
of parliament in Baku and disturbances in Southern Azerbaijan are all
links of the same chain. According to Teheran’s allegation, all these
events have been testifying Washington’s attempts to realize its old
plans regarding the creation of a strategic alliance including the
United States, Israel, Turkey and Azerbaijan, and directed against
Iran and Armenia. Last months the leadership of the Islamic Republic
has been aiming at strengthening its relations with Armenia to exclude
the possibility of its cooperation with the United States in case of
an American-Iranian military conflict.

Not incidentally, the first foreign trip of the new Foreign Minister of
Iran Manucher Mottaki was to Yerevan (February 2006). And it was there,
when he had declared a real opportunity of participation of Armenia in
the project of transportation of the Iranian gas to Europe. In turn,
Washington has been making efforts to neutralize Tehran’s activity on
the Armenian direction. Against this background it becomes obvious,
that the declarations of the Israeli member of parliament in Baku
have served just to the interests of Iran.

While in Baku, in dialogue with the journalists Yosef Shagal
repeatedly raised a question of opening of the Azerbaijani embassy
in Tel Aviv. Israeli diplomats are engaged in the solution of this
problem from the very moment of establishment of mutual relations
in 1992. Till now their efforts have brought no result because of
Baku’s fears to aggravate its complicated relations with Tehran, and
also to lose political and economic support of the Arab countries,
in particular, of the Persian Gulf monarchies.

At last, during the April visit of the president Ilham Aliev to
Washington, with active assistance of the American administration,
it was possible to achieve progress in the given issue. The president
of Azerbaijan gave his basic consent to opening of the diplomatic
mission already in the near future. Now the Israeli diplomats are
afraid that Shagal’s attempt to show his own role in the solution of
this issue has drawn an excessive attention to this theme not only
in Azerbaijan, but also in the Muslim world as a whole.

In fact, it is one thing when those are the representatives of
the local Jewish community who express their opinion on the matter
(that was noted recently), and absolutely different thing when similar
statements are made by a member if the Israeli parliament, especially,
speaking on the behalf of the official leadership of the country. In
consequence, the opening of the Azerbaijani embassy in Tel Aviv might
be now postponed indefinitely. Moreover, at the meetings with the
officials in Baku Yosef Shagal put forward various offers concerning
bilateral cooperation in the oil business.

According to the diplomatic sources, the statements of the member
of parliament on the issue have been based mostly on publications
in the Internet. He, naturally, had no authority to discuss such
matters with the officials of Azerbaijan. Particularly because the
party represented by Shagal, is in opposition and has no relation to
formation of the country’s official policy, energy policy included.

Diplomats say that Shagal has simply mislead his interlocutors, and
this could only harm the further development of mutual cooperation…

Our sources mark that, at the best, Yosef Shagal actually represents
his own party. Though its leader Avigdor Liberman, the former head of
the prime minister’s office and former Minister of Infrastructures and
Transports, has been known as a person tempted in the big politics. He
played one of the key roles in development of relations of Israel
practically with all the CIS countries, and never allowed himself to
make such unequivocal statements in favor of one of the concflicting
sides in the post-Soviet space. In this connection the representatives
of the Israeli Foreign Ministry believe that Liberman had only
general information on Shagal’s trip. The same sources consider that
in a much greater extent, declarations of the Israeli MP in Baku
were coordinated with the leadership of Euro-Asian Jewish Congress,
rather than with Israel Our Home party. The mentioned organization
pursues its own interests, quite often depending on realtionships of
its leaders-sponsors with the regional political elites, in Central
Asia and the South Caucasus in particular. And those interests not
always coincide with the interests of Israel.

That fact eloquently testifies to it, that for all years of rule
of Ariel Sharon (2001-2005), Alexander Mashkevich, the head of the
Congress, with great efforts managed to meet him only a few times,
and that, as a rule, for a few minutes, just for a joint photo
session. Wherewith he had to achieve in every possible way the
favor of the nominal chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Israel Yona Metzger,
to demonstrante at least somehow his “close relationship” with the
Israeli establishment. Against this background, it is not surprising
that after the trip of Yosef Shagal, the Israeli Minister of Foreign
Affairs had to cancel her visit to Baku. Arrival of Tsipi Livni to
Azerbaijan would have legitimized the MP’s declarations. In this
case Yerevan would have received weighty acknowledgement of the fears
concerning the Israeli support of Baku in the Karabakh conflict. And
it would become even more complex for Americans to keep Armenians
from further rapproachement with Iran.

President of Azerbajan Ilham Aliev himself is hardly interested to
advertise so obviously the activization of contacts with the Israelis,
which would inevitably be reflected in the relations with the largest
Muslim states. In such simple a way the “Russian” member of the
parliament managed to sensibly affect the course of the big-time
politics. The only thing is that his “success” has hardly gone on
advantage both of Israel and of the countries of the South Caucasus.

URL:

RUSSIAN DEFENCE MINISTER SAYS TALKS ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE KARABAKH

Azad Azarbaycan TV, Baku
31 May 06

[Presenter] Baku is hosting the 50th meeting of the Council of CIS
Defence Ministers today. The Russian, Azerbaijani, Belarussian,
Kyrgyz, Tajik and Ukrainian defence ministers, as well as top
military delegations from Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Moldova, are
taking part. The Azerbaijani side drew the attention of participants
in the meeting to the settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

[Correspondent over video of the meeting] A peaceful solution to the
Nagornyy Karabakh conflict is the only way out of the situation,
Russian Defence Minister Sergey Ivanov said at the meeting of the
Council of CIS Defence Ministers in Baku. He said that it might be
not only inefficient, but also dangerous to look for other ways of
resolving the conflict.

[Sergey Ivanov shown speaking in Russian with Azeri voice-over]
Russia has touched on the Nagornyy Karabakh conflict many times. As
a member of the OSCE Minsk Group, we support a peaceful solution to
the conflict. You probably know that representatives of Azerbaijan
and Armenia hold regular talks within the framework of the Minsk Group.

For the time being, I cannot say how much progress has been made in
these talks. But I can say that this is the only way to resolve the
conflict. I believe that any other scheme is not only inefficient,
but also dangerous for the settlement of the conflict.

[Correspondent] Ivanov added that the final version of the settlement
of the conflict should be drafted on the basis of a mutual agreement
between the parties. He said that the countries that give guarantees
are ready to help implement any agreement reached by the two sides.

Ivanov spoke out against the idea that the [OSCE Minsk Group] co-chairs
should prepare a model of the settlement of the conflict.

[Passage omitted: The Azerbaijani defence minister commented on idea
of deploying peacekeepers in member states of GUAM, an alliance of
Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova]

MORE THAN 500 BUSINESSMEN EXPECTED TO PARTICUIPATE IN 2nd ECONOMIC FORUM ARMENIA-DIASPORA

Noyan Tapan
Jun 1 2006

YEREVAN, JUNE 1, NOYAN TAPAN. More than 500 businessmen will
participate in the 2nd economic forum Armenia-Diaspora in Yerevan on
September 20, 2006.

Within the framework of the forum, a large exhibition Pan-Armenian
EXPO 2006 “Armenia’s Economy During 15 Years of Independence” will
be held on September 22. RA Deputy Minister of Trade and Economic
Development Tigran Davtian stated this at a press conference on June
1. According to him, the plenary sittings of the economic forum
will be held in the Sport and Culture Center after K. Demirchian. It
is envisaged to have sittings on information and high technologies,
industry, small and medium business and tourism. 50-60 businessmen are
expected to take part in the sitting on issues of information and high
technologies. T. Davtian said that in order to ensure the participation
of the maximum possible Diasporan Armenian and foreign businessmen
in the forum, an open letter-invitation of the RA Minister of Trade
and Economic Development will be disseminated in Geneva, Brussels
and Moscow through commercial representatives of Armenia. The open
letter-invitation is placed on the website ,
through which the registration of the event participants and collection
of participation payments will be done. It was announced that in case
of submitting a bid until September 1, the participation payment will
make a sum in drams equivalent to 50 euros (in 2003, the payment for
participation in the 1st economic forum Armenia-Diaspora made 100
euros). Starting September 1, the payment will make 100 euros. The
speaker noted that in 2001-2005, the Diaporan Armenian businessmen
carried out more active invetsment activities in Armenia than
previously, which was due to holding a investment forum on Armenia
in New York in 2001 and Armenia-Diaspora forums in Yerevan in 2002.

According to expert opinions presented by T. Davtian, in 1998-2004,
55-65% of foreign investors operating in Armenia had links with the
Diaspora, and their investments in the indicated period made up 55-65%
of the total amount of investments. He reminded that in 1991-2005,
private foreign investments of 2 bln USD were made in Armenia, 1 bln
USD of which – in 2001-2005, while in 2005 alone, investments amounted
to 0.5 bln USD.

MONTENEGRO IS BACK ON THE MAP, AND IT NEED NOT BECOME RURITANIA: EUROPE IS THE WORLD’S LEADING THEATRE OF STATE PROLIFERATION, BUT MORE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN WORSE

The Guardian – United Kingdom
Jun 01, 2006

How many countries are there in Europe? Your answer depends on what
you mean by Europe – and what you mean by a country. The European
Union currently has 25 member states. The Organisation for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has 55 “participating states”, but
they include Andorra, the Holy See, Liechtenstein, Monaco and San
Marino, which are all within the bounds of the EU without being member
states, and Russia, Turkey, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Canada and the United States – some or all
of which would not be considered by some or most Europeans to be in
Europe. When the central Asian “stans” joined the OSCE in 1992, someone
quipped that its Europe now resembled Nicholas of Cusa’s definition
of God – His centre being everywhere and His circumference nowhere.

The Council of Europe, which claims on its website to represent
800 million Europeans, has 46 member states, including Andorra,
Liechtenstein, Monaco and Turkey. The Eurovision Song Contest has
a variable line-up, but this year’s 24 entries included hopeful
crooners from Turkey, Armenia, Moldova and Israel. The Miss Europe
beauty pageant has had contestants from Turkey, Israel and Lebanon.

The Union of European Football Associations (Uefa), which describes
itself as “the governing body of football on the European continent”
and, interestingly, “an association of associations based on
representative democracy”, has 52 members, including Andorra,
Azerbaijan, Turkey and Israel, but also England, Scotland and Wales
as separate national teams. (We are so used to this, we forget how
odd it is.)

However you draw up the tally, there’s no question that Europe has
more countries per head of population than any other continent. China
is one country for 1.3 billion people, Europe is between 45 and 55
countries for, at most, 800 million people. On a generous estimate,
we have an eighth of the world’s people but a quarter of the world’s
states. This week, we’ll get one more. Step forward, Miss Montenegro!

On May 21, 86% of the 484,720 people on the newly cleansed Montenegrin
electoral register (described by the OSCE as the best in Montenegrin
history) turned out to vote in a referendum – and 55.53% of them
chose independence. According to rules embraced by Montenegro, under
pressure from the EU, a majority of 55% on a turnout exceeding 50%
was needed for the vote to be valid. So they just scraped through. You
may well ask by what right the EU, whose Maastricht treaty was passed
by a majority of just 51% in a referendum in France, imposed this 55%
hurdle on Montenegro. In the event, the effect was positive, for it
meant that the mainly Serbian opponents of independence participated
fully in the voting, believing that they could win. It will now be
harder for Serbs to question the result’s legitimacy.

The Montenegrin parliament has to formalise the claim to independence,
and the knotty details of a velvet divorce from Serbia must be
negotiated, but there’s no doubt that a country called Montenegro
will soon appear on the political map of Europe. Or rather reappear
– for Montenegro has been there before, between 1878 and 1918. As
Elizabeth Roberts reminds us in her richly detailed and timely new
history of Montenegro, Realm of the Black Mountain, in the 1870s
the Montenegrins were supported, idolised and idealised by liberal
Britons on account of their armed struggle against the Ottoman
Turks. Gladstone described them as “a band of heroes such as the
world has rarely seen”. Tennyson gushed:

They rose to where their sovran

eagle sails,

They kept their faith, their freedom,

on the height,

Chaste, frugal, savage, arm’d by day

and night

. . . and so on, and on. The resulting kingdom of Montenegro was the
model for the comic Ruritanian-style kingdom of Pontevedro in Franz
Lehar’s operetta The Merry Widow – provoking an angry demonstration by
Montenegrin students at its premiere in Vienna. It was extinguished
with the help of the western allies after the first world war,
and replaced by Yugoslavia; but 80 years on the “sovran eagle” –
double-headed, crowned, yellow gold on red – will again fly over the
black mountain.

This is, in the first place, a shattering defeat for the nationalist
project of a Greater Serbia, opportunistically embraced by the
post-communist Slobodan Milosevic. Many Montenegrins, like the
communist-turned-dissident Milovan Djilas, considered themselves to be
“quintessential Serbs”, even “the salt of the Serbs”, and Montenegro to
be a historic heartland of Serbianness. When Kosovo follows Montenegro
to independence, as it surely will, then Serbia will be a landlocked
rump state – a bruised, brooding loser of European history.

Yet the Montenegrin pole-vault over the high bar set by the EU is
also a defeat for a certain west European approach, which kept urging
the former Yugoslavs to stay together when they obviously wanted
to part. In the region, people referred to the Union of Serbia and
Montenegro, the ramshackle state structure that Montenegro has now
voted to leave, as “Solania” – an ironic reference to Javier Solana,
the EU’s foreign policy chief, who was its main architect.

Solana’s fear was that a Montenegrin dash to independence might
encourage Kosovo Albanians and Bosnian Serbs to demand the same,
undermining the fragile peace that the EU was working to preserve
in the Balkans. Though the fear was understandable, I believe this
approach was misguided. If peoples really want to divorce, and that is
possible within the frontiers of viable states, they should be allowed
to. What matters is that they do it by peaceful, constitutional and
democratic means.

To be sure, the resulting patchwork of little states has elements of
absurdity. Once there was a language called Serbo-Croat. Officially,
there are now four different national languages: Serbian, Croatian,
Bosnian and Montenegrin. If and when the four countries eventually
join the EU, will there be simultaneous interpretation between the
four official languages? Even if common sense prevails (something you
can never count on in European institutions), the result of having so
many small states must be a further increase in the EU’s transaction
costs of diversity.

But the costs within a dysfunctional multi-ethnic state are even
higher. The unresolved issues of sovereignty and constitutional status
have crippled attempts at economic and social reform in Serbia and
Montenegro and Kosovo for the past five years. Sometimes it’s better
to cut the Gordian knot; sometimes good fences do eventually make good
neighbours. Now the citizens of Montenegro and Serbia know that they
have to make their own way to prosperity, democracy and the rule of
law. Only then can they advance, via the OSCE, the Council of Europe,
Uefa, Miss Europe, the Eurovision Song Contest and Nato, to today’s
ultimate seal of European belonging: EU membership.

If the EU keeps its doors open but its entry standards high, the end
of Solania need not mean a return to Ruritania. State proliferation
in Europe makes things more complicated in the relations between
countries, but simpler inside them. More need not mean worse.

A SHORTAGE OF MINISTERS
by Irada Alekperova, Baku; Petr Iskenderov

Source: Vremya Novostei, May 31, 2006, p. 2
Agency WPS
What the Papers Say Part B (Russia)
May 31, 2006 Wednesday

Not all CIS defense ministers are attending the Baku meeting;
The defense ministers of Azerbaijan, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and representatives
of the CIS executive committee, will attend a meeting in Azerbaijan
today. Representatives of Georgia and Armenia will not attend.

A scheduled meeting of the CIS Council of Defense Ministers will
be held in Baku today. The defense ministers of Azerbaijan, Russia,
Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan,
and representatives of the CIS executive committee, will attend the
summit. Representatives of Georgia and Armenia will not attend. The
Ukrainian delegation will be present as an observer.

The agenda includes around 20 issues, including the program of
development of military cooperation within the framework of the CIS
until 2010. The ministers also hope to pass the agenda of the Council
of defense ministers for 2007, discuss the development of the joint
air defense system, the creation of the joint communications system
and the performance of the collective peacekeeping contingent in the
zone of the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict. Russian Defense Minister
Sergei Ivanov will chair the meeting. He arrived in Baku yesterday
and held negotiations with Azeri Defense Minister Safar Abiyev.

The newspaper reports that the ministers plan to discuss the Karabakh
problem. They will have to do this without Armenia. The press service
of the Azeri Defense Ministry stated that Baku considers Armenian
servicemen as persona non grata, which is why the republic did not
sent the invitation to Yerevan.

Armenia explained the situation as follows. Press secretary Seiran
Shakhsuvaryan of the Defense Ministry said that Azerbaijan did not
provide security guarantees. Yerevan awaits the Council’s official
reaction to Azerbaijan’s failure to ensure the security of participants
in the international conference on its territory.

Azeri press secretary Ilgar Verdiyev said that such accusations are
unfounded. He stated: “We oppose Armenia’s participation in the summit
because it seized 20% of Azerbaijan’s territory.”

Political analyst Elkhan Kuliyev said that the absence of the Armenian
representative was predicted beforehand. Firstly, society’s reaction
to such contacts is very painful. The Organization for Liberation of
Karabakh has repeatedly organized actions of protest against Armenian
representatives’ visits to Baku. Elkhan Kuliyev stated that Baku
prefers to seek the solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh problem through
the Minsk OSCE group, since negotiations between the presidents of
Azerbaijan and Armenia held in Paris failed.

The absence of the Armenian defense minister is not the only problem.

Georgian Defense Minister Irakly Okruashvili will not attend the
meeting either. Ukrainian Defense Minister Anatoliy Hrytsenko
arrived Baku with “special opinion.” He said: “Ukraine’s status is
an observer. We will not sign documents passed at the meeting.”

Hrytsenko arrives in Baku in the wake of a scandal over an unauthorized
visit to the Crimea by NATO representatives. He had to apologize on
television for concealing information that the US cargo ship which
visited Feodosia on May 27 carried weapons.