HOW TO VISIT A U.S. EMBASSY WITHOUT THE SECURITY CLEARANCE
Embassy Magazine, Canada
Sept 6 2006
Book Review
By Christina Leadlay
It’s more than just white guys at cocktail parties: This little
reference book sheds light on the often-misunderstood job of foreign
service officers who work in the world’s largest embassies.
It’s a surprisingly pretty and colourful cover on the paperback 2005
edition of Inside a U.S. Embassy, portraying an idyllic scene of
the world’s peoples coming together in front of an American foreign
mission. The chancery is a stately building in the neoclassical
style-reminiscent of the old U.S. embassy building on Wellington St.
across from Parliament Hill-with its tall, black iron gate open
welcomingly on top of a stylized map of the world. Fluffy, rosy
clouds rise above the building, which, coupled with the gates,
give a sort of heavenly image. The concrete bollards and security
cameras-ever-present features of the new U.S. embassy compound on
Sussex Drive-are omitted thanks to artistic license. It’s a much more
playful-looking book than I was expecting.
Open the pages and the content is presented informally, the typesetting
and tone harkening back to a student’s handbook. And there are some
handy references to be found, including a map and accompanying chart
of all the U.S. State Department missions around the globe and a
flow chart neatly showing who reports to whom and what they’re
responsible for at an embassy. The back pages include lists of
technical abbreviations and acronyms (my personal favourite is
“LABATT”, the Labor Attache).
In between all of that are profiles of foreign service officers from
every position and rank (from ambassador in Colombia to Marine security
guard in Armenia), some diary-style entries chronicling a day in the
life of various people who work at U.S. embassies all over the map,
and personal tales from the field, reporting some of the more exciting
and dangerous situations diplomats have found themselves in over the
years. Bruce Byers recalls being the press attache at the U.S. Embassy
in Afghanistan when his ambassador was kidnapped and assassinated
in 1979, while Suzann Reynolds writes about her month-long stint in
Kabul in 2002, reopening the U.S. Embassy after a decade of neglect.
“I think a lot of people don’t know what the role of an embassy is,
don’t have a very good sense of what the job of a diplomat is,”
says Shawn Dorman, the book’s editor, by phone from Washington,
D.C. “They have a very outdated picture of white men at cocktail
parties and don’t think of it as the sort of front line, dangerous
kind of work that it often is, especially today. So it’s nice to give
some real stories of real people who are actually out there doing it
that makes it come to life,”
A former foreign service officer herself, Ms. Dorman is also
the associate editor of the Foreign Service Journal, the monthly
periodical published by the American Foreign Service Association
(AFSA), a professional association and collective bargaining group.
Ms. Dorman says she took over the editing of Inside a U.S. Embassy:
How the Foreign Service Works for America in 2003. The book was first
published in 1995 and is in its third printing. Ms. Dorman says it
was updated in 2005 to include the U.S. diplomatic presence in Iraq.
Economic Officer Stephen Newhouse’s honest diary from Baghdad is
just over a page long, but in a few strokes gives a sense of the
challenges of working in a war zone, such as donning body armour for
routine meetings.
“One piece of AFSA’s mission is pubic education about embassies and
letting people know what the role of diplomats is, so [this book] fits
in exactly with what the AFSA mission is,” explains the soft-spoken
Ms. Dorman. “It’s been a very useful tool for letting people know
about the role of diplomats. It’s probably the same in Canada, but
people don’t seem to have any idea what a diplomat is and that there
are all these different jobs, so that’s the point of the book.”
Ms. Dorman says Americans who are interested in a career in the
foreign service, such as students of international relations, are
the book’s main readers. People preparing for the annual foreign
service exam also rely on this book, she says. “There isn’t very
much information out there about what this business is, so it’s been
a source for that kind of person.” She concedes that diplomats from
other countries might be interested in Inside a U.S. Embassy, to have
a peak into the scale and scope of goings on at what are often the
largest foreign missions in the world.
No one from the U.S. embassy in Ottawa made the cut this time around,
but Ms. Dorman says it’s time to start thinking about another edition.
[email protected]
Inside a U.S. Embassy Edited by Shawn Dorman American Foreign Service
Association 136 pp. $12.95 (US)

SEVEN RUSSIAN CHALLENGES TO THE WEST’S ENERGY SECURITY
By Vladimir Socor
Eurasia Daily Monitor, DC
Sept 6 2006
Gazprom’s Moscow Headquarters Russia’s challenge to Western energy
security has grown almost explosively in recent months along seven
dimensions:
1. Seemingly unchecked growth of the European market share captured by
Russia’s state-connected energy companies. Largely driven or assisted
by the Kremlin, this process is fraught with manifold economic and
political risks to Europe and the Euro-Atlantic community.
2. Moscow’s ability to manipulate the flow of supplies en route to
recipient countries. This ability was demonstrated during Ukraine’s
gas crisis of January-February 2006, with ripple effects on European
countries farther downstream. In July of this year, Moscow cut off the
oil supplies to Lithuania and also blocked oil supplies from Kazakhstan
to that country, so as to thwart the sale of Lithuania’s refinery
and oil-transport system to Poland’s PKN Orlen. (It also continues to
block Kazakhstan’s access to Latvia’s Ventspils oil terminal.) Under
the guise of commercial and debt arrangements, in Ukraine’s case, and
technical problems, in Lithuania’s case, Moscow plans to set the stage
for takeovers of Ukraine’s gas pipelines and Lithuania’s oil sector.
3. Disruption of energy export flows even before they leave Russian
territory. Thus, in January and February this year, below-average
winter temperatures in Russia (certainly not an unpredictable
occurrence) reduced the gas volume available for Europe. A
well-organized although never-explained sabotage of three energy
supply lines on a single day (January 22) in Russia’s North Caucasus
had a devastating impact on Western-oriented Georgia, with collateral
effects on Moscow’s ally Armenia. And a relatively minor oil spill from
a pipeline in western Russia in July provided the excuse for cutting
off supplies to Lithuania (though not to Belarus from the same spur).
4. Moscow’s monopoly on the transit of eastern Caspian oil and gas
to consumer markets in the industrialized democracies. The transit
monopoly constitutes a novel type of economic and political leverage,
usable against producer countries as well as against consumer
countries. It is also an instrument of choice in the economic and
political penetration of the countries of Europe’s East. The South
Caucasus-Black Sea transit corridor is the only option that can
protect the interests of consumer and producer countries alike.
5. Rapid inroads by Russian state-connected energy companies,
particularly Gazprom, into downstream infrastructure and distribution
systems in Europe. Such arrangements include long-term exclusive
contracts to lock Russian companies in and lock competitors out,
leading eventually to price dictation and political leverage on
consumer countries. In the case of gas, the success of Moscow’s
strategy significantly depends on control over Central Asia’s gas
reserves. Moscow uses a mix of political pressure and corruption to
foil the construction of trans-Caspian oil and gas pipelines via the
Black Sea region to Europe.
6. Inroads into some of Europe’s traditional supply sources of oil
and gas, such as Algeria and Libya. In Algeria’s case, Russia has
successfully offered multibillion-dollar arms deliveries as well as
debt write-offs in return for starting “joint” extraction projects
in Algeria and “joint” marketing of the fuel in Europe. With Europe
no longer in full control of its few remaining oil and gas provinces,
it must refocus its attention toward Caspian-Black Sea energy transit
7. An incipient, yet already massive, transfer of financial resources
from Western capital markets to fund extractive projects in Russia
that operate under discretionary control of Russian state-connected
companies and the Kremlin. Thus, the initial public offerings just held
“successfully” in London for Rosneft and Gazprom have opened a drain
on Western financial markets toward Russia, discounting considerations
of energy security, let alone common policies on energy or foreign
policy altogether.
To this succinct enumeration of recent challenges one must add
the collateral political damage in some European countries from
non-transparent, monopolistic agreements with Kremlin-linked
companies. Gazprom’s massive entry into Turkey, Austria, Italy, and
Germany, for example, has involved certain top-level politicians,
business figures, and banks and brought them into highly questionable
arrangements. These include protecting Gazprom against competition
from other supply sources, such as those from the Caspian-Black Sea
region, on European markets.
The convergence of these trends has highlighted the long-neglected, but
now rapidly mounting, risks to the energy security of the enlarged West
and its partners in Europe’s East. At last, Brussels and Washington are
beginning to acknowledge some aspects of this manifold challenge. But
they have yet to focus on the dangerous nexus now forming between
disruptions by Russia or in Russia and growing dependence upon Russia.

AZERI, ARMENIAN FMS MAY MEET OVER NAGORNO-KARABAKH SEPT. 13
RIA Novosti, Russia
Sept 6 2006
BAKU, September 6 (RIA Novosti) – The foreign ministers of Azerbaijan
and Armenia may meet in London September 13 to outline principles
for resolving a long-running territorial dispute, the Azeri minister
said Wednesday.
The conflict between the two former Soviet republics over
Nagorno-Karabakh, a region in Azerbaijan with a largely Armenian
population, first erupted in 1988 when it claimed independence from
Azerbaijan to join Armenia.
Over 30,000 people were killed on both sides between 1988 and 1994,
and over 100 died following a 1994 ceasefire. Nagorno-Karabakh
remained in Armenian hands, but tensions between Azerbaijan and
Armenia have persisted.
“There are plans to meet with [Armenian minister Vardan] Oskanyan
and co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group in London on September 13,”
Elmar Mamedyarov said.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk
Group was created in 1992 to encourage a peaceful resolution to the
conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh. The
group is co-chaired by U.S., Russian and French representatives.
Mamedyarov said Thursday he spoke by telephone with Bernard Fasier,
the French co-chairman of the Minsk Group, who suggested the next round
of conflict-resolution talks could be held in Paris September 12-13,
or in London September 14-15.
Mamedyarov said he agreed to meet with his Armenian counterpart and
was discussing the format to be adopted for the talks.
Azerbaijan and Armenia held the latest round of Nagorno-Karabakh
talks June 13 in Paris.

EURASIA: THE NEW GEOPOLITICS OF PIPELINES
Imran Khan
Eurasian Home Analytical Resource, Russia
Sept 6 2006
Political Research Officer at the Australian High Commission,
Islamabad, Pakistan
The end of the Cold War was epochal: A half-century of polarization
passed, leading to a new geopolitical maneuvering in Eurasia.
Imminently, the ‘end of a history’ was the beginning of another.
Energy pipelines now have a new influence on history, one of the
core variables of post-Cold War geopolitics. As ‘economic lifelines,’
pipelines determine the contours of international politics anew.
Consequently, this has culminated into a new paradigm in the
geopolitical history of Eurasia-the new geopolitics of pipelines.
Notwithstanding the shift in variables, the geopolitical landscape is
constant, and Central Asia is at its core. The region has promising
potential for energy supplies, and due to its geographic isolation,
it straddles the crossroads of Europe and Asia.
Boarding the lifeblood of the mechanized, modern scale economy,
energy pipelines are roadmaps to development-energy being the recipe
for growth, wealth and survival. Political scientists, economists,
strategists and lobbyists proclaim pipelines the missing link to
building peace or denounce them as the fault lines of waging wars.
This newsletter highlights two different scenarios-war or peace,
cooperation or contention, coordination or confrontation. What factors
render pipelines geopolitical forces? How do pipelines affect the
geopolitical parameters of Eurasia? How does the new geopolitics
affect the intricate balance of war and peace? And how do pipelines
lure states into cooperation or catalyze them into confrontation?
The New Geopolitics of Pipelines
In 1878, Bari’s Construction Company constructed the
Balakhany-Cherny-Gorod pipeline network between the twin
towns of the then-rudimentary Russian oil industry-Baku and
Grozny-for the Nobel Brothers Company. It was the first pipeline
network ever built in Eurasia. It was a saga of intrigues,
corruption and kickbacks involving government, labor forces,
lobbying groups and investing companies with interests at stake
[ lt.asp?LANG=EN]. The
pipeline gambit coincided with the imperial war of wits and wills
between Tsarist Russia and Great Britain – the Great Game – over trade
routes and turf. Arthur Connolly, an officer in the Bengal cavalry
and an avid chess player, coined the terminology in his Narrative of
an Overland Journey to the North of India in 1835.
Rudyard Kipling, a veteran great gamer, adopted the phrase in his
novel Kim in 1904.
The geopolitics of pipelines entered its second phase, when Churchill’s
‘Iron Curtain’ that had polarized the communist East and capitalist
West was raised in December 1991, following the changing of the guard
at the Kremlin. The geopolitics of pipelines began anew with the end of
the Soviet Union, referred to as the New Great Game thereafter. Ahmad
Rashid, in an interview with Steve Curwood, explicated:
‘In the last ten years, since the collapse of the Soviet Union,
there has been what I call a new great game between Russia, the
United States, China, Iran, the European companies, for control
of the new oil and gas resources that have been discovered in
the Caspian Sea and in the Caucuses and Central Asia. Now, this,
you know, it’s a two-pronged game, basically, between trying to
buy up oil fields and gas fields and also, of course, deciding
on what routes this energy can be exported. Because Central Asia
is totally landlocked, distances are huge, and the U.S. strategy
has been essentially to keep, new oil pipelines should not be
built through Russia and they should not be built through Iran.’
[ anpipe.htm]
The typology has become a cliche, depicting historical determinism
and eluding the real nature and scope of neo-geopolitics. It is
actually a watchword of the ongoing new geopolitics in and around
Central Asia. The great game analogy, whatever, is derogatory,
rendering the new geopolitics, that is, part of the overall power
politics in Eurasia. Notwithstanding, several variances and versions
of the great game have been reproduced and constructed: As ‘minor
game’, ‘little game’, ‘end game’ and even refuted as ‘not underway’
[Kathleen A. Collins and William C. Wohlforth, ‘Central Asia: Defying
‘Great Game’ Expectations,’ Strategic Asia 2003-04: Fragility and
Crisis, Eds. Richard J. Ellings, Aaron L. Friedberg and Michael
Wills, September 2003. Daniel L. Smith, Central Asia: A New Great
Game? Strategic Studies Institute (SSI), Washington, June 1996]. This
is however a replay of the epic quest of pipelines for energy security
and service once took place in the Caucasian-Caspian hinterland,
that is, the new geopolitics of pipelines.
To begin with, geopolitics is a ‘spatial phenomenon,’ fusing geography
with power politics. To Rudolf Kjellen, a Swedish geo-strategic genius,
it is ‘a political process of states’ territorial expansion.’ Peter
Taylor defines it as ‘a competitive pursuit of territory, resources
and geographical advantage’ [Mehdi P.
Amineh,’Towards Rethinking Geopolitics,’ Central
Eurasian Studies Review (CESR), theCentral Eurasian
Studies Society, vol. 3, no. 1, winter 2004
_1.html#Amineh].
Geopolitics thereby is a quest for power beyond a state’s borders,
i.e. the building of an empire. The new geopolitics is dynamic,
relating geography, geology, geo-economics and above all, politics
and geo-strategy, manifested in building-and-banning pipelines.
Focusing on energy or other aspects of power politics, the new
geopolitics is a prolongation of the geopolitics of energy, being
dubbed ‘energy imperialism.’ Thus, it can also be defined as new
energy imperialism that is an epic pursuit of petroleum-gas, profit,
power and prestige-the grand prize.
Given the power package at hand, routing pipelines turned into a
geopolitical fixation, inducing gruesome power suction in Eurasia. By
nature, the new geopolitics is seamless and fluid. It is non-zero
sum, too: In which a single power or player cannot take home all the
‘marbles.’ No single power can get a best end of the deal partially.
Every one maneuvers to secure a disproportionate share of the prize,
notwithstanding what means and measures they improvise-legislative
methods of monopoly, prohibitory regulations, regime changes, joint
ventures, economics sanctions, commercial aloofness, or pipeline
wars. A pipeline is not the sole end in neo-geopolitics but rather the
means to several ends. Thus, it is a great gambit for energy security,
economic development and power outreach.
Foremost, pipelines provide ‘sufficient, reliable and affordable’
energy. [Mark Malloch Brown, ‘Energizing Development,’ Global Energy
Report: Energy and Sustainable Development, First Magazine, 2002].
Transportation via pipelines is swift, persistent and frequent,
except in case of disruptions in times of war and acts of terrorism,
contrary to railway-and-road trunks or naval ships. Also, pipelines
establish an end-to-end supply line, imminently resulting in economic
integration: The consumer is depends upon the producer for energy
and the producer depends upon consumer for encashment of hydrocarbons.
The ‘mutual gain, mutual loss’ principle promises energy security
in the long run. Frequency of movement is another aspect of
pipeline-based energy transmission, and there is always the chance of
disruption, particularly in Eurasia. In addition, pipelining energy
is economically feasible, technologically possible, technically
preferable, logistically efficient and commercially cost-effective.
Dmitry Mendelejev, a Russian engineer and profounder of the pipeline
as an energy transportation agent, pontificated pipelines to be the
most feasible and reliable medium for supplying crude oil over long
swathes and stretches of territory. Pipeline infrastructure develops
and delivers energy from regions to countries that would otherwise
remain rather inaccessible both commercially and technically. However
the first ever pipeline snaked in America, appreciating the idea:
‘It was necessary, and even urgent, to put pipes and transport
through those pipes crude to vessels or refineries situated on
the sea.’ ‘It looks as if the Americans had overheard the idea:
they ran the pipes and built refineries not near the wells,
but where there were marketplaces, sales, and trade routes,’
Mendelejev responded. Russia too followed the American footsteps,
stretching out a network of pipelines across Eurasia by the late
1970s [ ?LANG=EN]. By
delivering energy resources, pipelines drive economic growth. Energy
is the incubator of economic development, source of peace and
prosperity. ‘There is no development without energy and without energy
there is poverty, resentment and frustration-a fertile breeding
ground for violence and extremism,’ asserts Mohamed ElBaradei,
Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
[ 8_2006.html].
Efficient, sufficient and inexpensive energy supply is an essential
part of civilized living.
Furthermore, pipeline routing expands a state’s reach, access and
influence; it can curtail or contain without marching armies or
mobilizing force-although basing armies and waging proxy wars
along pipeline routes is a recurrent phenomenon. A pipeline
is actually a steel-cobbled cobweb, giving leverage on the
one end over the economy on the other, a stake in politics
and monopoly control over energy resources and flow-lines
[ x.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99].
Dmitry Mendelejev, well ahead of Alfred Thayer Mahan and Halford
John MacKinder, propounded in 1863 that pipeline means to neutralize
geographic inaccessibility and narrow down physical isolation.
Pipelines cohere with the MacKinderite and Mahanite modules of
offsetting geographic immobility, spearheading a new transportation
system. Halford John MacKinder’s Heartland theory and Alfred Thayer
Mahan’s Rimland theory expounded two different approaches for
greater mobility-basically two different approaches to the conquest
of the world and the supremacy of world powers. The former emphasized
railways, the overland transportation, as the key to commanding Eurasia
and the world’s oceans. The latter proposed the navy as the means to
control over the world’s landmass. So are pipelines. Being the mode of
energy transportation, steel-gilded pipelines are stretchable across
landmass, across waterways, even both-overland, inland or underwater.
This factor is prominent in Eurasia, providing a foundation for
global leadership and command economy. ‘Eurasia is the center of
the world and he who controls Eurasia controls the world,’ contends
Zbigniew Brzezinski. [Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard:
American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives, Basic Books,
New York, 1997]. At the crossroads of Eurasia, Central Asia is the
hinterland – essentially the chessboard – upon which the struggle
for Eurasian primacy continues to be played. And pipelines are the
gateways to landlocked Central Asia. Therefore, besides other things,
pipelines draw contours of geopolitics anew, constituting fault lines
of war and peace, cooperation and confrontation.
Central Asia is central to the new geopolitics, constituting ‘the
pivot’ or ‘the heartland’ of the Eurasian mainland: Partly for its
geology, partly for its geography. The wealth of energy accounts for
about 116 billion barrels (Bbbl) oil reserves: Kazakhstan, 50-Bbbl;
Turkmenistan, 34-Bbbl; Uzbekistan, 32-Bbbl. Natural gas reserves
are 484 trillion cubic feet (tcf) with 202-tcf proven and 232-tcf
possible reserves. (Kyrgyz and Tajik energy reserves are nominal
and commercially not viable). With this stock of energy reserves,
a geopolitical, geo-economic rush occurred to explore, expropriate
and export oil and gas throughout the world. The energy reserves of
Central Asia must be transported through pipelines, since they would
otherwise remain geographically stranded in a part of the world that
has no seashores and waterways. This is why neo-geopolitics quickly
started at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Moreover, the cast of actors is multiple. There are the geographic
bridgeheads or transit states like Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia and
Afghanistan that intermediate the energy poor and rich regions;
the geopolitical pivots such as Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, China,
Russia, Japan, the US, the EU and Britain that have the prowess and
will of pipeline and energy supremacy; then there are the pawns and
peripheries that complicate the geopolitics through shifting sides
and balances. These are non-state actors, ranging from national and
multinational companies to ethnic-nationalist separatist groups,
autonomous regions, warlords, drug barons and terrorist outfits.
For the stranded energy reserves of Central Asia, the perceivable
ramifications of the new geopolitics are twofold-atavistic and
optimistic. Evading tangible outcome, geopolitics may result in a
‘no war, no peace’ situation. ‘The result is stalemate,’ laments
Thomas R. Stauffer in his article Caspian Fantasy: the Economics
of Political Pipelines in The Brown Journal of World Affairs in
Summer-Fall 2000. ‘Much or most of the oil and gas from the Caspian
basin [Central Asia] may well remain orphaned for the foreseeable
future.’ Provided the nature of the geopolitics, deadlock is the most
likely scenario, continuing the status quo, allowing these natural
reserves to remain stagnant and delaying energy transportation from
Central Asia. Multiplication of pipelines is the second likely prospect
of geopolitics, increasing energy transportation manifold.
The competition that would result might open up the stranded wealth
of natural reserves to international markets and investors.
The New Geopolitics: Cooperation or Confrontation, War or Peace?
As the geopolitics of energy has been a great determinant of world
history and even civilizations, the new geopolitics of pipelines has
had a great influence on the geopolitical dispensation of Eurasia,
Central Asia in particular. These cross-border, crosscutting
transportation networks have spurred two divergent geopolitical
paradigms: There is either cooperation leading to lasting peace, or
confrontation culminating in war. The two paradigms are based upon
on a clash of interests. The succeeding paragraphs of the newsletter
describe the new geopolitics as a source of war and peace.
Endorsing Aristotle’s conception of politics as a social act
with an equal distribution of resources and social processes in
an amicable settlement of dispute, the constructivist, liberal
political economists argue that the new geopolitics is a source of
cooperative-plus-competitive distribution of energy. As pipelines are
built in cooperation, states and multinational companies collaborate
on pipeline projects to transit energy resources to their economies.
As energy security is an act in coherence, states coordinate policies
and plans to execute pipelines and related energy development
projects. Pipelines thus stand for the collective security of energy,
because these are multilateral delivery systems and transportation
agents built in coherence of varying interests of various stackers. A
pipeline network links together producer and consumer (and often
transit states that intermediate the two ends) with multinational
corporations in an energy development consortium, consequently evolving
a pipeline-based energy economy-the energy-revenue fix.
Founded on legal contracts and political conventions and financed
jointly, pluralist liberalists assert that pipeline projects are the
bedrocks of cooperation.
Emphasizing the pervasiveness of economics in political calculations,
the constructivist theorists second high politics (a fusion of military
and security issues) to low politics (a confluence of politics and
economics with other social considerations). Based on collective
security and mutual gain, pipeline economy orients state relations from
conflict to cordiality: ‘Every sale made and every deal reached across
international borders entails a resolution of conflict of interests,’
contends Joshua S. Goldstein in International Relations. The element
of mutual gain overrides individual gain in pipelining energy, thereby
putting economic nationalism on the backburner. The ‘modicum of trust
and confidence’ required in building pipelines harmonizes and pacifies
the dynamics of interstate relations as permanent confidence building
measures. These energy development infrastructures are geopolitical
‘overlays,’ encouraging resolution of border disputes, strengthening
security regime along and across the route.
The Principles of Political Economy by John Stuart Mill is a valuable
reference for explaining pipeline routing and the pipelining of energy
as factors that can pacify politics: ‘Commerce is rapidly rendering
war obsolete, by strengthening and multiplying the personal interests
which act in natural opposition to it . . .. The great extent and rapid
increase of international trade . . . [is] the principal guarantee
of the peace of the world’ [Cited in Robert A.
Manning’s Asian Energy Factor]. The European Coal and Steel
Community (ECSC) of 1951 is a notable precedent of commerce and
trade as politically integrative forces, which set the stage for the
once-warring states to confederate in the European Union. Pipelines
can also boost regionalism, relegating outmoded, primal conflicts.
This could also be so for the pan-Eurasian energy corridors and
blocs. The new geopolitics is thus an aberration rather than a
continuation of history.
The energy axis created forms a ‘security complex’ based on collective
energy security. Impending energy insecurity and the potential for
economic depression as energy resources reach their peak, states
jointly pursue energy security projects-and accomplish the security
margins of energy. Identifying national interests and concerns
reduces the likelihood of confrontation, thereby consolidating the
security regime: A regime in which the security of pipelines, taking
off energy from wellhead to threshold, is a primary objective. A
coordinated security mechanism and strategy consequently becomes the
cornerstone of a pipeline-based security nexus, interfacing Central,
Southern and Western Asia with the Far East, Eastern and Central
Europe, Caucasus and Siberia. Besides exercising the niceties
and nuances of diplomacy, the collective energy security concept
harmonizes instruments of military security to neutralize plots of
terrorism. Military coordination is a result of the insecurity of
the pipeline network and energy chokepoints. This vulnerability and
exposure to disruptions helps refine multilateral security mechanisms,
culminating in greater peace and security.
Contradicting the pluralist-liberalist assumption that pipelines and
energy development projects include cooperation for confrontation and
discredit Realpolitik, realist-rationalists consider energy resources
as strategic raw materials inseparable from the overall national
security scheme that simmer conflicts and catalyze wars. Therefore,
pipelines are geopolitical curses rather than cures.
New geopolitics primarily manifests the clash of interests rather
than the compatibility of interests. The rationale: The state
is a self-seeking, rational entity that desires maximum national
security and strength. Energy security is no exception. Pipelines
are conduits of energy security, nonetheless energy imperialism. As
asserted by Jean Radvanyi: ‘The struggle over transport routes
is linked to the struggle over the exploitation of resources’
[ ]. Therefore, energy security
cannot be collective or mutual and is the salient identification
of economic nationalism, pitting state against state. In other
words, every unit of energy security exacerbates one unit of energy
insecurity. Energy is the single greatest multiplier of state power.
States marshal conflicting attempts to appropriate the larger share,
if not the whole, of energy resources; rather than complying with
compatriots’ energy interests, the power package that pipelines endow
can lead to energy and pipeline wars. In this sense, energy security
comes through marginalizing the competitor. So cooperation over energy
security is transitory, placing states in a geopolitical gridlock in
the long run.
Retrospectively, pipelines are corridors of powers-a geopolitical
ambition of every state-enlarging the outward boundaries of state.
Pipelines are alternatives to the MacKinderite module of prevailing in
Eurasia and overpowering the sea powers. The rising, restless powers
clash and collide over pipelines for geopolitical ascendancy.
This factor is quite prevalent in Eurasia with a number of states
that seek to become regional powerhouses in a consolidating
command-and-control over the new ‘economic lifelines’ and lifeblood.
Furthermore, wars arising of causes other than energy or pipelines
are modified in their conduct and continuity by the control of energy
flow lines, the pipelines. Eurasia is replete with such causes. The
mega continent is a crucible, with a plethora of ethnic enclaves,
drug barons, political localism, disruptive nationalism, state and
trans-state terrorism, border disputes and resource wars. Hence,
pipelines only intensify these struggles, because players in the
new geopolitics manipulate these channels to their pipeline gambits
either as peacemakers, peacekeepers, war makers or war brokers, or
by stationing their armies along the pipeline pathways. Examples of
this are found in Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and the Caspian Sea
demarcation deadlock, Xingjian, Chechnya, Afghanistan and Balochistan.
In a state that has a wealth of natural resources, democratic
institutions can falter and dictatorship can flourish, allowing
dictators to consolidate power, destroy opposition, contravene laws
and disparage liberties. Corruption and erosion of institutions is
another result of the energy windfall coming forth with pipelines.
The whirlwind of wealth in the republics that inherited the pipeline
after the fall of the Soviet Union, where the Stalin-style personality
cult reigns, means compromising and complicating efforts to produce
more stable, peaceful, open and democratic governments and a new
world order. The new geopolitics culminates in a geopolitical paradox
with two poles. At one end, the energy producing states (CARs,
Russia and Azerbaijan) contend to keep the old ways going through
bribing, funding and fudging opposition into compromise. The energy
consuming states (EU countries, China and Japan) tolerated this in
order to keep the energy flowing into their burgeoning economies,
bartering democracy with dictatorship. At the other end, states
(US and Britain) plan regime changes and court color revolutions to
pave the pipeline pathways in the governance of poor, dissension-rich
Eurasian republics-Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan.
Pipelining energy means tendering peace and trapping security.
The idealist’s pretension of pipelines as security ‘overlays’ is,
therefore, superfluous. These can rather prove to be the geopolitical
fault lines, escalating crises of a local nature into regional wars.
On the other hand, it could encourage polarization, increasing
volatility in South and Central Asia with a fluid political character.
The Bottom Line: Recommendations
Deadlock is out of question over the wealth of natural resources.
Energy security is symbiotic, constituting co-dependency between the
energy gusher and guzzler, creating an energy-revenue fix.
Consequently, pipelines are imminent for securing and servicing
energy supplies. Otherwise, these natural resources will remain
stranded, or only partially developed. First-generation pipelines,
including the CPC oil pipeline, East-West Kazakhstan-China pipeline,
Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline and the Turkmenistan-Iran pipeline are
in place or will be accomplished by 2007. The second generation of
pipelines, essentially natural gas pipelines, will become feasible
as soon as gas markets mature, energy demand pressure piles up and
the prices trajectory tips up.
However, the bottom line is that new geopolitics is a continuation
of power politics, precisely energy imperialism, by means other than
sheer war and sheer peace, intertwining proxy wars and peacekeeping.
It is a geopolitical pretension, a process orchestrated to secure
maximum energy security. The more contentious and conflagrant
the process becomes, the greater the chance of pipeline wars and
fissures. On the other hand, the more coherent and peaceful the
process remains, peace and stability increases with every pipeline,
rendering pipeline projects in peacemaking and confidence building.
New geopolitics has the potential of flattening the world by resolving
inter-and intrastate disputes, as well as inflating disputes into wars.
The constructivist liberalists view pipelines as conduits of peace and
cooperation. The realist rationalists, antithetically, see pipelines
as geopolitical corridors of powers. Prospecting peace in pipelines is
like playing the giddy goat. Peace in pipelines is a chimera. Peace
is not a byproduct of new geopolitics-the push and pull for pipeline
and power-but the result of a committed, well-intended peace process.
The new geopolitics is about collective security of energy rather
than containment of some states and appeasement of others. Such
a geopolitical paradox would generate wars and sustain disputes,
banning peace and confidence to consolidate.
Diplomacy and detente should become part and parcel of the new
geopolitical grand strategy co-opting intrigues and interventions,
conflating competition and cooperation, implying geopolitical consensus
rather contention. The new geopolitics can thence produce confidence
and reduce contentions.
Crisis management strategies should be evolved, managing disputes
from escalating into wars, culminating into a settlement of disputes.
To this end, the existing multilateral institutions such as the OECD,
ECO, SCO, EU, ASEAN and others should be vitalized for orienting
new geopolitics to containing wars from continuing the fractious and
fluid geopolitical paradigm.
Nevertheless, investment in pipeline projects should be conditioned
to economic liberalization, political reformation, institutional
democratization and constitutional liberalization in the chaotic and
corrupt developing economies. This would create real conditions for
peace. Otherwise, war will remain suspended on the horizon.
Finally, to optimize energy security, it should be made collective
and co-dependent. Containment policies will stir counter strategies,
damning geopolitical accommodation. Therefore, states should appease
to contemporaries’ energy security to increase their own energy
security. Changing or isolating regimes will only elongate the axis
of wars and wrangles.
Imran Khan is a Political Research Officer at the Australian High
Commission, Islamabad, Pakistan, and is a M. Phil Research Officer at
the Area Study Center (Russia, China & Central Asia), Peshawar. The
author has been Lecturer in International Relations and Politics at
Qurtuba University of Science and Information Technology, Peshawar,
and Associate Editor of The Dialogue-a quarterly journal. He has also
been associated with Future Events News Service (FENS).

CIS: WORLD BANK ASSESSES REGION’S BUSINESS CLIMATE
By Julie A. Corwin
Radio Free Europe, Czech Rep.
Sept 6 2006
Armenia is one of the simplest countries in the world in which to
register property (TASS)
WASHINGTON, September 6, 2006 (RFE/RL) — The World Bank today released
its annual survey on ease of doing business.
The report evaluates 175 countries in 10 specific areas of business
regulation, including the ease of registering a business, paying taxes,
and trading across borders.
According to “Doing Business 2007,” Armenia and Georgia — ranked
34th and 37th, respectively — scored better than EU countries such
as Spain and Portugal.
Showing Greater Initiative
This doesn’t mean that international investors are going to start
pulling their money out of large markets like the EU and shift to
Yerevan and Tbilisi. But World Bank senior economist Caralee McLiesh,
the lead author of the report, says it does show that emerging market
economies can sometimes show greater initiative than established ones
in simplifying the commercial regulations and procedures.
And, McLiesh says, the results of such reforms can be a dramatic
improvement in their own international and domestic business
opportunities. She cites Georgia as an example.
“Business registrations jumped up by 55 percent on previous years,
and also unemployment is on the decline,” McLiesh says. “It’s fallen
by about 2 percentage points in the last year to 18 months. And so
these are signs that the economy is moving in the right direction.”
Georgia made it a lot easier for entrepreneurs to start businesses
and reduced the minimum capital required to start a new enterprises.
In addition, the number of days exporters would need to get their
goods out of customs has dropped from 54 to 13.
McLiesh says Armenia was not such a vigorous reformer this year as
Georgia, but it too has consistently been improving over the years:
“[Armenia] is one of the simplest countries in which to register
property in the world,” she says.
Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Noghaideli’s (left) government is doing
something right (InterPressNews, file photo)It takes only four days
on average to register a property in Armenia, compared to 231 days
in Belarus.
Taxes High And Hard To Pay
She notes Belarus is the worst country in the world in terms of
paying taxes. Businesses in Belarus must pay 186.1 percent of their
profits and make 125 tax payments a year in order to comply with
tax regulations.
Neighboring Ukraine ranks just behind Belarus in terms of the
difficulty of paying taxes. McLeish says it’s not just the high
rate of taxation there, but the “complexity of the tax system” that
creates problems for businesses. For example, Ukraine’s annual tax
return for businesses is 92 pages long.
“In Ukraine it takes [medium-sized businesses] 2,185 hours per year
if they were to comply fully with all tax payments,” McLeish says.
Trade Barriers
Ukraine and Belarus also score poorly in terms of ease of trading
across borders, but not as poorly as all five Central Asian
countries. Even Kazakhstan, which has the highest overall ranking
— 63 — of any of the Central Asia countries retains considerable
barriers to trade. For example, it takes 93 days on average to export
a product and 87 days on average to import one.
McLiesh says high trade costs raises domestic prices, limit the
growth of domestic businesses by restricting their exports abroad,
and increase opportunities for corruption.
“In many of the countries in the [Central Asia] region, customs
is one of the most corrupt areas of business regulation,” McLiesh
explains. “And one of the reasons is the fact that there are a number
of different documents and a number of different procedures behind
trading. There are enormous delays if you choose to go through all of
the official procedures. And so entrepreneurs are basically almost
forced to pay bribes in order to be able to do business, to be able
to import and export.”
Will Power
Why are some countries, such as Georgia, able to successfully reform
business regulations, while such reforms have stalled in other
countries, such as Russia? McLiesh suggests that both political will
and timing can be critical factors.
“When we look at the countries that have reformed the most — the top
reformers in the past three years since the ‘Doing Business’ project
has been running — 85 percent of the reforms in those countries were
implemented in the first 15 months of a government,” she explains.
“So the lesson is that when you have a lot of political capital right
at the start of a government’s term, that’s the time to spend it.”
And what about governments that have long ago missed that critical
15-month window of opportunity? McLiesh says they should not stop
trying. She notes there are still significant reforms that can be
made through “simple administrative changes” that are not necessarily
“politically contentious,” such as reducing the number of days it
takes for a business to be registered.

OPINION: LEBANON IS NOT ALLOWED TO BECOME THE “SWITZERLAND” OF THE MIDDLE EAST
Regnum, Russia
Sept 6 2006
Note: Mikhail Apressyan is commander of the Artsakh regiment,
coordinator of the Initiative Group of Artsakh (Karabakh – REGNUM)
War Veterans
REGNUM: They in Armenia are actively discussing the possibility of
sending an Armenian peacekeeping contingent to Lebanon. What do you
think about this intention?
Armenia already has peacekeeping experience in Kosovo and Iraq.
First, we help those countries to establish peace and to resolve
their problems. Second, Armenia is gaining authority both in the
host countries and on the international arena. Peacekeeping gives a
military-operational experience, access to modern methods of commanding
armed forces and coordinating efforts with the armed forces of other
states. Armenian society has certain attitudes towards the events and
political situations in the Balkans and the Middle East, which may
be different from the attitudes of other countries. However, Armenia
is not original – almost all the countries involved in peacekeeping
operations differ in their attitudes towards the international politics
and certain problems of regional security.
Lebanon is dear to Armenia. That country is home to hundreds of
thousands of Armenians, who enjoy the opportunity to live there as
full citizens. To help Lebanon is, certainly, the duty of Armenia
and the whole Armenian nation. At the same time, unlike Iraq, where
the Armenian peacekeeping force is limited in number and function,
in Lebanon Armenia could have a bigger contingent.
REGNUM: To what an extent can Armenia follow the mandate, comply
with the rights and duties of the peacekeeping contingent? May it so
happen that the Armenian peacekeepers will be implicated into the
internal political confrontation or will be forced to take part in
the disarmament of Hezbollah detachments?
Of course, it is important what mandate and what functions the
peacekeeping forces will have. For example, French President Jacques
Chirac has made it quite clear. However, we would like to believe that
the powers of the peacekeeping forces and the Lebanese army will be
differentiated. Lebanon’s internal problems should be solved by the
Lebanese government and army. Considering the current developments
in Lebanon, one can be sure that the peacekeeping forces will have
a minimum role in Lebanon’s internal affairs. Otherwise, the country
will face a political and state disaster.
After the Taif Accords concluded by the Lebanese communities in
1989, the people of that country began gradually building internal
political and public relations, restoring the destroyed economy
and cities, preserving relative stability in hope for economic and
social improvement. The events of the summer 2006 have revealed the
reluctance of external forces to allow Lebanon to once again become the
“Switzerland” of the Middle East, one of the financial-banking centers
of the world, to use the capacity of its 14 million strong Diaspora,
to preserve and develop the tradition of political freedoms, to spread
the Lebanese “political oasis” over the other countries of the region.
The external forces are obviously trying to impose alien problems on
Lebanon with no regard for a new but extremely important circumstance:
the inter-communal confrontation in Lebanon has already gone into
the past as in the last decade the country has got new political
and economic prospects. The last events in Lebanon have made the
positions and strategies of various states even more “polar.” Unless
the international community undertakes active steps to stabilize
the situation in Lebanon, it may become a hotbed of destructive and
radical moods that may spread the whole region.
REGNUM: Can we take Armenia’s wish to take part in the peacekeeping
operation in Lebanon as a response to similar intention by Turkey?
The Armenian organizations in Lebanon have already given a fair
assessment of Turkey’s intention. Turkey, who has long and tightly
been cooperating with Israel, particularly, in the military-political
sphere, can hardly be an impartial actor in the peacekeeping
operation. In the Middle East and other regions Turkey has goals that
are very much like the expansionist tasks of the Ottoman Empire. Some
Arab countries are in confrontation with other Arab countries and are
trying to use Turkey’s military and political presence in the region
as a way to create counterbalances. Turkey’s last years’ policy in the
Middle East has really misled some Arab politicians. Availing itself
of the hard international positions of Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, Turkey
is trying to get big concessions from them. And this will certainly
affect the position of the Armenian communities in those countries.
REGNUM: Consequently, Armenia has its own interests in the Middle
East and will try to assert them?
The situation in the Middle East continues to be difficult, and Armenia
cannot afford taking hasty steps. Since the outbreak of the Karabakh
conflict and the proclamation of Armenia’s independence, the Middle
East political resource has played a big role in the protection
of Armenian interests. It only seems that the Arab countries are
indifferently watching the developments in the neighboring regions,
particularly, in the Caucasus. The leading Arab countries carry
out certain policy with respect to those regions through various
international structures, communal and personal ties, not mentioning
religious organizations.
Until now those countries have not allowed to put Armenia into a
political blockade, to create a kind of front against the country. Of
course, the role of the Armenian communities is also big in this
matter, but the Arab countries certainly understand that the blockade
of Armenia and the weakening of its positions is contrary to their
national interests. We should consistently build our positions and
interests in the Middle East and this requires Armenia’s presence in
that region. At the same time, in the case of Lebanon our priority
is to promote stability and security in the country that is a
cultural-education center for our Diaspora.
REGNUM: What decision the Armenian Government can make on the dispatch
of Armenian peacekeepers in Lebanon?
It is quite noteworthy that it was not the government but the society
who came out with the initiative to send Armenian peacekeepers to
Lebanon. Our “Initiative Group of Artsakh War Veterans” is getting
many phone calls and letters from people wondering if Armenia will
take part in the peacekeeping contingent in Lebanon. Of course, this is
not within our competence, but such public activity proves once again
that Lebanon is very close to Armenia and we can’t take the situation
indifferently. This decision can be made only after relevant political
and diplomatic work. One should well imagine the whole construction
of the peacekeeping measure in Lebanon, take into consideration the
position of the international community and the leading powers as
well as the views of the Lebanese government. In any case, we are
already sure that this initiative will get support from our people.

ARMENIAN EDITOR ‘ATTACKED BY THUGS’
By Karine Kalantarian
Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
Sept 6 2006
The editor-in-chief of one of Armenia’s best-selling newspapers claimed
to have been attacked and beaten up on Wednesday by well-built men
resembling the notorious bodyguards of government-connected wealthy
businessmen.
“After I left home in the morning two young men with shaven heads
attacked me from behind, toppled me to the ground and began kicking me,
mainly trying to target my head,” Hovannes Galajian of the “Iravunk”
bi-weekly told RFE/RL by phone. “When other people came out of the
building they immediately fled.”
“They didn’t say anything. They were silent. They didn’t even swear
at me,” he said, adding that he immediately reported the incident to
the police and will undergo a medical examination by forensic experts
on Thursday.
Galajian said he believes that the alleged attack was in retaliation
for critical articles published by his paper, but would not specify
“Iravunk” reports that might have angered influential individuals.
“We have trodden on many toes and the pool of suspects,” he said.
“Iravunk,” which is linked to a small opposition party, is known
for its hard-hitting coverage of the Armenian government and its
loyalists. Galajian’s description of his alleged attackers matches the
appearance of about two dozen thugs that tried to disrupt an April 2004
opposition rally in Yerevan and attacked photojournalists and cameramen
who filmed their actions. Media reports at the time said the well-built
men work as bodyguards of “oligarchs” supporting the ruling regime.
Galajian was among the editors of Armenia’s leading newspapers who
issued a joint statement last July expressing serious concern about
what they described as a growing harassment of journalists critical
of the government. The statement cited in particular a June attack
on a freelance journalist whose news reporting allegedly infuriated
a local government chief in Yerevan.

Habitat For Humanity Armenia
Yerevan Aygestan 8th street, No. 5
Tel: (+374 10) 556 114
Cell (+374 93) 376 980
Email: [email protected]

The Catholicos and Supreme Patriarch of All Armenians His Holiness Karekin
II On the building site in Gavar, Gegharkunik Region
Today the Supreme Patriarch of All Armenians His Holiness Karekin II visited
Habitat for Humanity Armenia construction site in Gavar, Gegharkunik region,
where “Catholicos Karekin II Work Project- Armenian Build on Faith” was
kicked off.
The opening ceremony of the event took place on September 4, at the Armenia
Marriott Hotel where His Holiness gave His Blessings to the project.
“A year ago we were invited to take part in the annual Jimmy Carter Work
Project in Detroit. We saw the love which led the participants of the
program; we saw the joy of future homeowners and then we decided to support
Habitat program in Armenia” said His Holiness, during the opening ceremony.
The Catholicos and Supreme Patriarch appreciated all the volunteers and
donors who support us on the project. He also noted that this is the
expression of God’s love for His children. “We are very thankful to such an
international organization as HFH Armenia, who works to assist poor Armenian
Families to build their future” mentioned in his speech the Catholicos
Karekin II.
His Holiness helped Habitat volunteers to paint a wall in one of the homes,
thus serving an example of reaching the poor by putting Faith into action.
His Holiness also planted one of 37 trees, symbolizing Armenian Apostolic
Church with its Dioceses and the Holy Chair.
Participating in the Armenian Building on Faith 2006 are National Council of
Churches of Christ of America led by the General Secretary Dr. Bob Edgar, a
team of volunteers from the Netherlands, Europe and Untied States of America
as well as today joining them a team from UK Embassy led by Deputy Chief of
mission Richard Hyde. Representing Local volunteers are Youth movement from
Dioceses in Armenia and Church dignitary and Armenia Tree project.
“Your Holiness we are blessed by the opportunity to help needy families and
looking forward to see children of the world living in their safe homes.”
said Doctor Bob Edgar.
The abandoned Soviet- Era residential building will be finished by Habitat
volunteers from September 5 to 9 and will get its inhabitants finally.
On April 20th an agreement between Habitat for Humanity and Armenian
Apostolic Church was assigned. In the frame of this agreement “Catholicos
Karekin II Work Project – Armenian Build on Faith” was launched. HFH Armenia
will build 37 homes in the frame of this project, symbolizing The Holy See
of Mother Etchmiadzin and 36 dioceses of Armenian Apostolic Church.
In the number of the 37 24 will be located in Gavar. The abandoned Soviet-
Era residential building will be finished by the volunteers from September 5
to 9 and will get its inhabitants finally.
Habitat for Humanity Armenia supports community development in the Republic
of Armenia by assisting in the construction of simple, decent and affordable
homes. The purpose of the organization is to help families in need improve
their living conditions, to raise funds to support the vital work, and to
give hope to thousands of people across the country. The organization was
formed in March of 2000 and to date has dedicated 209 homes giving shelter
to more than 1000 people.
For more information on HFH Armenia programs contact to Communications
Manager Haykuhi Khachatryan:

KOCHARIAN HONORS U.S. ENVOY
By Emil Danielyan
Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
Sept 6 2006
President Robert Kocharian handed on Wednesday a prestigious state
award to John Evans during a farewell meeting with the outgoing U.S.
ambassador to Armenia.
Kocharian said, according to his office, that he decided to award
the Mkhitar Gosh Medal to Evans in recognition of the latter’s
“remarkable contribution to the development and strengthening of
Armenian-American friendly relations.” The bilateral ties have made
“serious progress” and yielded “tangible results” during the retiring
diplomat’s two-year service in Armenia, the presidential press service
quoted him as saying.
Evans was cited as agreeing with Kocharian and singling out the U.S.
government’s decision earlier this year to provide $235.6 million
worth of economic assistance to Armenia under the Millennium Challenge
Account (MCA) program. He is apparently the first U.S. government
official awarded by the Armenian government.
The award appears to be a thinly veiled gesture of gratitude
for Evans’s public description of the 1915-1918 mass killings
and deportations of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey as genocide. “The
Armenian Genocide was the first genocide of the 20th century,” the
envoy had declared during a series of meetings in early 2005 with
Armenian-American activists in California.
The bombshell remarks contradicted a long-running U.S. government
policy of avoiding the use of the word genocide with regard to the
Armenian massacres. They are believed to have been instrumental in
the Bush administration’s decision, officially announced in May,
to replace Evans with another career diplomat. The normal diplomatic
term for U.S. ambassadors abroad is three years.
In an interview with RFE/RL last week, Evans refused to comment
on the controversy triggered by his recall, saying that it is an
internal U.S. affair. He indicated that he might speak up about it
in a future book.

VAN BUYTEN EARNS BELGIUM WIN
UEFA, Switzerland
Sept 6 2006
Qualifying round – 06 September 2006 21:00 (local time) – Republican
– Yerevan
Armenia 0 – 1 Belgium
41′ Van Buyten
A Daniel Van Buyten goal ensured Belgium returned to winning ways
with a hard-fought 1-0 victory over Armenia. Rene Vandereycken’s team
could only draw 0-0 with Kazakhstan in their opening UEFA EURO 2008~Y
qualifier on 16 August, yet they managed three points in Yerevan
despite not having things all their own way.
Slow start The Armenians, playing their first game in the section, held
their own in an opening half-hour of limited opportunities. Midfielder
Hamlet Mkhitaryan hit a left-footed shot over the bar for the hosts,
while at the other end Luigi Pieroni and Karel Geraerts fired wide
of Gevorg Kasparov’s goal.
Pieroni denied Samvel Melkonyan then sent a right-footed effort wide
of Belgium keeper Stijn Stijnen before visiting forward Pieroni forced
the first save of note in the 30th minute, Kasparov smothering his
left-footed strike from outside the box. The Armenia custodian was
called into action by the same player five minutes later, this time
denying Pieroni with his feet.
Pressure pays off R. Standard de Liège midfielder Geraerts then
volleyed wide as the visitors continued to pepper the hosts’ goal. The
Belgians reaped the reward for their pressure four minutes before
half-time when Van Buyten’s header from Jelle Van Damme’s cross found
the top corner.
Belgium comfortable In the second period, Feyenoord defender Pieter
Collen was forced off through injury just before the hour, with
Anderlecht’s Anthony Vanden Borre coming on. Despite the enforced
switch, the Belgians coped comfortably with Armenia’s attemps to
restore parity to secure the first win of their Group A campaign.
–Boundary_(ID_JXWwzCdmmOuy5wYtmSzYSg)- –