CAUCASUS MILITANTS FREEZE ALL GEORGIA
Kommersant, Russia
Aug. 7, 2006
Yesterday’s explosions knocked out two branches of Mozdok-Tbilisi
gas pipeline in North Ossetia and power transmission towers in
Karachayevo-Cherkesia. As a result, Georgia and Armenia have been
left with no gas of Russia and Georgia faces material decline in
supplied power. In the wake of explosions, Georgia’s President Mikhail
Saakashvili lashed out at Russia, blaming it for having engineered the
energy crisis in his country. Armenia has not attacked yet on hopes,
perhaps, that President Robert Kocharyan will be able to find a way
out in Moscow, where he rushed Sunday.
The main gas pipeline that exports Russia’s gas to Georgia and onward
to Armenia was knocked out by two explosions near the mountain village
of Nizhny Lars, some 30 kilometers to the south of Vladikavkaz. The
first explosion happened at 2:52 a.m.; the second one followed in
20 minutes.
After a while, gas operators registered the sudden drop in pressure
and closed gas control valves. Emergency officers arrived in no time.
The check showed the pipes were blown up by two homemade bombs with
explosion yield of between 700 grams and 800 grams in TNT equivalent.
According to the experts, it will take at least two days to repair
North Caucasus-Transcaucasia gas pipeline provided the work is carried
out in emergency mode.
Power transmission towers in Karachayevo-Cherkesia exploded yesterday
midday, close to town of Karachayev, having hit the high-voltage line
that transmits up to 500 MW to Georgia. Investigators spotted bombs
with explosion force of 6 kilograms of TNT.
Currently Russia delivers to Georgia 100 MW via Salkhino high-voltage
line, Abkhazia.
Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili didn’t waste time, actually
blaming Russia for cutting gas supplies to his country and triggering
an energy crisis there.
Meanwhile, all heating power plants stopped in Georgia and the country
is short of around 500 MW, i.e. a third of required volume.

DRINKING WATER USED IN AGARAKADZOR FOR IRRIGATION
YEGHEGNADZOR, YEREVAN, AUGUST 4, NOYAN TAPAN. A problem of supplying
irrigation water exists in the rural community of Agarakadzor of the
marz of Vayots Dzor which has enough reserves of water. Plots of land
of different districts of the community are irrigated by the water
course and from the Vayk-Yeghegnadzor irrigation water-pipes. The
latter is supplied by the “Yeghegnadzor” Water Users’ Union
(WUU). According to Artur Martirosian, the community head of
Agarakadzor, no irrigation water reaches those districts of the
communities which are supplied by the Vayk-Yeghegnadzor irrigation
water-pipe. There was a proposal to give water to one who pays, even
the staff of the community head’s office was ready to help in the
affair of gathering payments, but the proposals were not accepted by
the WUU. The demand of the irrigation water is partly satisfied at the
expense of drinking water. “Today drinking water is used for irrigating
purposes. That’s why inhabitants get drinking water with breakings:
8 hours a day. But, if there is no irrigation problem, drinking water
will be given 24 hours,” A.Martirosian says. According to him, it is
a result of not right organization of the WUU works. The Agarakadzor
community head also mentioned that payments for the irrigation water
made 86% in 2005. And WUU Executive Director Hazarapet Nazarian
explains that the structure may not work in a normal way if payments
are made partly.

LOCAL PRODUCER MAY BE FORCED OUT OF DOMESTIC MARKET AS A RESULT OF DECLINE
IN EXPORTS AND GROWTH IN IMPORTS, EDUARD AGHAJANOV WARNS
YEREVAN, AUGUST 4, NOYAN TAPAN. The foreign trade deficit has increased
to about 35% of GDP in Armenia. No such index has ever been registered
in any other country. Economist Eduard Aghajanov stated this at the
August 4 press conference. In his words, this phenomenon is due to
the sharp depreciation of the US dollar in Armenia. “There is no
serious analytical center in Armenia to address problems caused by
the dollar’s depreciation and the Armenian dram’s appreciation,”
he noted. According to statistical data presented by E.
Aghajanov, in 2005, GDP grew by 13.9% and the foreign trade deficit
– by 28% in Armenia. In January-May 2006, GDP grew by 10.5% and the
foreign trade deficit – by 43.6%. That is, the deficit’s growth rate
exceeds fourfold that of GDP.
Aghajanov said that a record index of foreign trade deficit, amounting
to over 0.5 bln USD, was registered in the Armenian economy. In the
first five months of 2006, Armenia’s exports declined by 0.6%, while
imports grew by 19.9%. In the opinion of E. Aghajanov, this phenomenon
may have such a consequence for the Armenian economy as forcing the
national producer out of the domestic market. “To prevent the danger,
the authorities and the Central Bank of Armenia should conduct a
monetary and credit policy that will promote the business of the
national producer and exporter,” he said. He noted that as a result
of all this, a considerable capital outflow occurs and many Armenian
businessmen establish production outside Armenia. In his words,
“the population is being persuaded that this is a natural phenomenon
for Armenia, as a lot of remittances come to Armenia.” However, over
the past few months, 437 mln USD has flown into Armenia, while the
outflow made 950 mln USD. It means that an absolute dollar outflow
of 513 mln has occured. In foreign trade, a dollar outflow rather
than inflow has been registered, which should have been resulted in
the dram’s depreciation and the dollar’s appreciation. E. Aghajanov
said that a deficit of about 100 mln USD has been registered in
Armenia’s payment balance over the last few months. In 2005, the
Armenian dram appreciated by 16% but the payment deficit made 193
mln USD. In all cases, according to the independent economist, there
was a dollar outflow in Armenia, which should have brought about the
dollar’s appreciation and the Armenian dram’s depreciation. Thus,
in his opinion, the situation in Armenia is “higly illogical”.

OSCE MINSK GROUP CO-CHAIRMEN DISCUSS CURRENT STAGE OF NKR
SETTLEMENT PROCESS PARIS, AUGUST 4, NOYAN TAPAN. On August 2, 2006,
the Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, Ambassador Yuriy Merzlyakov
(Russia), Ambassador Bernard Fassier (France) and Deputy Assistant
Secretary of State Matthew Bryza (United States of America) met at
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Paris to assess the current stage
in the settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. According to the
information submitted to Noyan Tapan by the Embassy of France, the
Co-Chairs discussed as well the results of Matthew Bryza’s introductory
visit to the region, in his capacity as a Co-Chair. Proceeding from
the St Petersburg G8 Chairman’s statement on Nagorno Karabakh, the
Co-Chairs considered different options to achieve its objectives, which
will be proposed to the parties, and await them for their thoughts.

OATH OF NATIONAL UNITY DEMANDS IMPLEMENTATION OF POINTS OF SEVRES TREATY
YEREVAN, AUGUST 4, NOYAN TAPAN. To demand implementation of the points
of the Sevres Treaty concerning return of territories of Western
Armenia, the Oath of National Unity will invite a meeting on August
10 to which RA Government members, representatives of the Embassy of
the Russian Federation to the RA, of public and other organizations
will be invited. “We must do everything for the points concerning
the most significant achievement fixed by the Armenian diplomacy,
ones of the Sevres Treaty concerning the territories of Armenia, are
implemented,” Rafael Hambardzumian, the Chairman of the Nakhijevan
Armenian National Council of the Oath of National Unity, a historian
stated at the August 4 press conference. According to him, choice of
the date of the meeting is provided by the fact that 86th anniversary
of signing the treaty is marked this August 10. As R.Hambardzumian
reminded, by the decision of the states signed the Sevres treaty in
1920 (Armenia, the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan, Greece,
Belgium, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Czechoslovakia and Turkey),
on November 22, 1920 U.S. President Woodrow Wilson presented the
mentioned states the border of territories (90 thousand square km) to
be joined the Republic of Armenia from Turkey by what the territory of
Armenia was to make about 162 thousand square km. “We must not forget
about our greatest diplomatic achievement, the Sevres Treaty. If
today Azerbaijan demands territories from us, why we can not demand
implementation of the points of the Sevres Treaty,” R.Hambardzumian
stated. Hovik Hovhannisan, a member of the Oath of National Unity
mentioned that they have many times addressed to the RA Government
with a call to touch upon the Sevres Treaty but they got no response.

RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY, PRAGUE, CZECH REPUBLIC
_________________________________________ ____________________
RFE/RL Russian Political Weekly
Vol. 6, No. 14, 7 August 2006
A Weekly Review of News and Analysis of Russian Domestic Politics
**************************************** ********************
HEADLINES
* IDEOLOGICAL DOCTRINE PAVES KREMLIN’S COURSE
* KHODORKOVSKY’S WIFE: ‘THEY ARE TRYING TO BREAK HIM’
* RUSSIAN SUPREME COURT APPROVES LIST OF 17 ‘TERRORIST’ GROUPS
* A NEW RUSSIAN GAS STRATEGY EMERGES
****************************************** ******************
POLITICS
IDEOLOGICAL DOCTRINE PAVES KREMLIN’S COURSE. Two developments have
become obvious in the wake of the recent G8 Summit in St. Petersburg:
Russia’s rising political and economic clout, and growing concern
in the West that the Kremlin might abuse it. But talk of a reversal
in Russia’s intention of following its own democratic path may be
misguided.
PRAGUE, August 4, 2006 (RFE/RL) — Moscow’s new
diplomatic assertiveness was on display for the world to see during
last month’s G8 summit in St. Petersburg.
And one controversial topic that dominated the run-up to the
summit has remained in the spotlight — Russia’s repeatedly
stated intention of following its own democratic path, dubbed
“sovereign democracy.”
The concept was formulated by Vyacheslav Surkov, the deputy
chief and prime ideologue of President Vladimir Putin’s
administration. Surkov began floating the new ideology during
speeches to activists of the pro-presidential Unified Russia party in
February and May.
As outlined by Surkov on the website edinros.ru, sovereign
democracy centers on Moscow’s right to restrict the impact of
international law, global economic bodies, and world public opinion
on Russia’s domestic policies.
Surkov has said he borrowed the name for the concept from Che
Guevara, who in 1960 wrote that some states have all formal
attributes of democracy, but remain dependent on transnational
corporations and foreign political forces.
Surkov suggests that that Russia can materialize its
sovereign democracy in the economic sphere by putting under the
state’s control or dominance “such vital sectors of the national
economy as strategic communications, pipelines, the national
electricity grid, railroads and federal highways, the financial
system, and broadcast television.”
As for foreign policy, Surkov believes Russia must restore
its global influence, for geopolitical reasons and because of its
imperial tradition. In this context, Surkov notes that for 500 years
Russians have been a “state-forming nation” and that “Russians always
have matters beyond of their borders.”
Surkov has also suggested that sovereign democracy could form
the base of Unified Russia’s political platform. The role of the
president was not mentioned in Surkov’s outline of his ideology,
but, in fact, President Putin has already begun to implement it in
Russia’s assertive foreign-policy course.
Russia’s stated intention of following a course centered
on sovereign democracy was the source of harsh criticism in the
run-up to the July 15-17 G8 summit.
During a visit to Vilnius in May, U.S. Vice President Dick
Cheney accused Russia of backtracking from democracy. And as the
summit neared, criticism from the West increased as defensive
responses from Russia became sharper.
Just days before the event, Putin personally articulated the
basic provisions of the new doctrine. In an interview with major U.S.
and European television networks on 12 July, Putin countered that in
1990s, when Russia was economically and politically weak, the West
had many levers of influence on Russia’s domestic and foreign
policies.
Today, he argued, the situation has changed. The levers of
influence have disappeared, “but the [West’s] desire for
influence remains. We are categorically against using political tools
for intervention into our internal affairs,” Putin concluded.
Many Russian politicians also publicly touted the policy,
including Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, a
close confidant of Putin and a potential candidate to succeed him as
president.
Writing in “Izvestia” on 13 July, Ivanov said that
Russia’s current policies are based on three concepts:
Russia’s efforts to become an energy superpower, to develop a
strong army, and to follow sovereign democracy, a concept it would
defend by any means, including by force.
Such statements were not taken lightly by Russia’s fellow
G8 members assembling in St. Petersburg.
On the sidelines of the summit, U.S. President Bush expressed
disagreement with Russia’s claim to a special type of democracy.
According to Irina Yasina, a former leader of the
organization Open Russia who took part in a meeting between Bush and
several Russian human right activists 16 July, Bush told participants
that “there is no sovereign or a special [kind] of democracy,”
“Novoye Ruskoye slovo” reported on July 16. “There are fundamental
democratic values based on which democracy either does exist or not,”
she quoted the president as saying.
Unexpectedly, another hopeful to succeed Putin as president,
First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, in an interview with
“Ekspert,” No. 28, expressed his distaste for the term “sovereign
democracy,” describing it as “unsuccessful.”
Medvedev explained that “sovereignty” and “democracy” belong
to different philosophical categories and that they should not be
combined.
Some observers took Medvedev’s comments as an indication
of a split between Surkov and the Kremlin. But in his interview with
“Ekspert,” Medvedev said any difference with Surkov’s ideology
was more in style than in substance. This led others to suggest that
Medvedev was merely positioning himself as a “liberal” in Putin’s
camp to appease Western politicians and to counter domestic opponents
who had earlier rejected the concept of sovereign democracy.
Despite Medvedev’s comments, the evidence accumulated
both before and after the G8 summit indicates that sovereign
democracy is here to stay.
Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov, one of the co-chairmen of Unified
Russia, lent his support to the doctrine when he suggested on July 13
that the West should look anew at Russia and change its attitude
toward its rising power.
Luzhkov’s comments were significant, considering that the
political heavyweight has already announced his intention to leave
his mayoral post in 2007. Some observers thus consider him to be
another prime candidate to succeed Putin, for the simple reason that
he does not have to prove to anyone abroad or at home that he is
capable of running the country.
Unified Russia General Council Secretary Vyacheslav Volodin
stated on July 25 that sovereign democracy is key aspect of his
party’s ideology, and that it would be a “basic element” of the
party’s program.
Medvedev’s and Unified Russia’s “strategic vision for
the country’s future coincides,” he added. The incorporation of
sovereign democracy into the party’s program is of key importance
because Surkov has suggested that after leaving office in 2008, Putin
might became the leader of Unified Russia, and thus remain in
politics as the head of the “ruling party.”
Oleg Morozov, the head of Unified Russia’s Ideological
Commission, on July 27 added a new twist to the party’s adoption
of sovereign democracy. He described the party as a “party of
historical revanche,” noting that “revanchism is a very good starting
point, a very powerful driving force.”
The concept of sovereign democracy has received considerable
support from another rising ideological force within Putin’s camp
— Archbishop Kirill. Speaking at the 10th World Congress of Russian
People in April, Kirill universality rejected Western democratic
values and defended Russia’s “specific” vision of democracy and
human rights.
Furthermore, in an article titled “It Is Time For The End Of
Dithering Diplomacy” published in July by kreml.org, the archbishop
bluntly criticized the democratic political system. “I place in
question that the division of power and a multiparty system relates
to common human values,” he said. “We should end dithering diplomacy,
which requires that we always have to justify ourselves. Our official
and public diplomacy always considers it a victory when we manage to
prove to the West that we are like them — but this is simply
disinformation and the wrong [thing to do].”
It is also noteworthy that the Kremlin and its political
allies adopted the doctrine of sovereign democracy at a time when a
new generation of Russians is emerging — one that is not familiar
with communism or a totalitarian regime influencing their social and
political lives.
The future of democracy in Russia may depend on whether the
Kremlin will truncate this new generation by succeeding in imposing
sovereign democracy upon it, or whether this new generation will
succeed in rejecting it. (Victor Yasmann)
KHODORKOVSKY’S WIFE: ‘THEY ARE TRYING TO BREAK HIM.’ Inna
Khodorkovskaya tells RFE/RL about the impact of prison on her
husband, the former tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and the pressures
she faces from the authorities.
PRAGUE, July 31, 2006 (RFE/RL) — Since Mikhail Khodorkovsky
was imprisoned three years ago, his wife and their three children
have lived in a house in the leafy Moscow suburb of Zhukovka.
The building and the land around it is — or rather was —
owned by an affiliate of Yukos, the oil company that once made
Khodorkovsky one of the richest and most influential men in Russia,
Khodorkovskaya explained in a July 25 interview with RFE/RL’s
Russian Service.
But on May 2 this year, Khodorkovskaya says, a Moscow court
impounded the family home, saying it was part of the ongoing
investigation into tax evasion at Yukos.
Khodorkovskaya suspects it will not be long before she and
the wives of other Yukos executives living in Zhukovka are forced
out.
It is part, she says, of the relentless pressure that the
authorities are piling on her husband and other Yukos officials.
Khodorkovsky is now incarcerated in a prison camp deep in
Siberia. Inna is permitted to visit once every three months. But
getting there is a major effort in itself: a nine-hour flight,
followed by a 15-hour train journey, followed by a 40-minute car
ride.
She is allowed to stay with her husband for three days in a
prison hostel that some Russian papers suggest borders on the
luxurious. In fact, she insists, they share a simple room furnished
with a bed, a chair and a cupboard.
Khodorkovskaya finds her husband much changed — a
consequence, she says, of the psychological, and sometimes physical
pressure he is subjected to.
“They’re trying to break him, nothing more, nothing
less,” she says of the prison authorities. “These are methods that
have probably long been worked on and refined. I would say that it
works on the principle of amplitude. They raise the pressure, then
they reduce it and then they raise it again. So there’s no
straight upward line, they’re just trying to drain him.”
His biggest difficulty, she says, is the isolation and the
mental vacuum caused by his inactivity. But he is finding other ways
to fill the gap.
“He reads a lot of religious literature. He’s not a
religious fanatic, he’s not completely mad about religion,” she
says. “His interest is analytical. He doesn’t push faith away,
but he has begun to experience it in a new way. If before he
approached the subject from a sort of historical point of view, now
he feels closer to it.”
Khodorkovskaya says she has no doubt that her husband is a
political prisoner, sentenced to satisfy the ambitions of the men who
now rule the Kremlin.
Khodorkovsky himself — and many independent critics —
describe his trial as a staged farce and a warning to Russia’s
immensely wealthy oligarchs to stay out of politics.
The Kremlin disagrees. Khodorkovsky, it says, is a criminal
who defrauded the state of a massive sum in taxes.
Inna Khodorkovskaya says she and her husband had feared the
state would come after him. Nonetheless, the couple had chosen to
stay in Russia.
“It was our joint decision. We talked about whether to stay
or go, but the decision was simple. What is there, out there? Of
course, no one suggested that things would get quite so bad, but
right to the end he intended to stay here. And I did too.”
In that respect, she says, nothing has changed. If the
authorities force her out of her home, she will stay in Russia. The
critical issue now is how to bring up her family in the absence of a
father.
But Khodorkovskaya betrays little bitterness.
Both she and her husband have been changed by the experience
of the last few years, she says. But they will emerge stronger, she
believes.
“There are moments when something serious happens in your
life and your values change. And, naturally, recent events… my
values have grown stronger, I would say. That’s to say, my values
have really crystallized,” she says. “I can’t say that they have
changed fundamentally. But his probably have because he used to be in
politics. Now he sees what’s happening there from a slightly
different perspective. Naturally, he has changed greatly.”
RUSSIAN SUPREME COURT APPROVES LIST OF 17 ‘TERRORIST’ GROUPS.
PRAGUE, July 28, 2006 (RFE/RL) — Russia today published a list of 17
organizations that it said had been identified as “terrorist” by the
national Supreme Court.
Yury Sapunov, the head of antiterrorism at the Federal
Security Service (FSB), said all 17 groups were seen as a threat to
the Russian state.
The publication today in the governmental “Rossiiskaya
gazeta” of what Sapunov calls the only official Russian list of
terrorist organizations contains few surprises.
But it will raise a few eyebrows — at least in the West —
for some names that are missing.
No mention here, for instance, of either Hamas or Hizballah,
both of which are at the center of world attention at the moment and
both of which rank high on most Western lists of terrorist
organizations.
Sapunov said Russia took into account the views of the
international community but said the 17 were primarily a national
list of organizations that the Supreme Court considered the greatest
threat to the security of the state.
Russia risked the ire of Washington by inviting Hamas leaders
to Moscow for talks after they won the Palestinian parliamentary
elections in January this year.
Sapunov said that neither Hamas nor Hizballah were
universally regarded as terrorist.
But the main reason they do not figure on the list, he said,
was because they were not trying to change Russia’s
constitutional order through violence and were not linked to illegal
armed groups and other extremist organizations operating in the North
Caucasus.
These, he said, were the main criteria used in deciding which
organizations to include.
Almost all the groups listed, he said, were linked in one way
or another to the Muslim Brotherhood, including Hizb ut-Tahrir, which
seeks to establish an Islamic caliphate stretching from Central Asia
to the Caucasus.
Rights campaigner Lev Ponomaryov says the inclusion of Hizb
ut-Tahrir is just an extension of the deep suspicion its members
arouse, despite the group’s official rejection of the use of
violence to achieve its ends.
Ponomaryov says he knows dozens of Hizb ut-Tahrir members who
have been jailed on what he says are trumped-up criminal charges.
“As a rule, drugs and gun cartridges and the like are planted
on them,” Ponomaryov said. “And now, in addition to all that,
they’re being accused of being members of a terrorist group. I
can assure you that there has not been a not a single accusation
directed at Islamic Liberation (Hizb ut-Tahrir) that they’ve
committed a terrorist act in Russia, or have even attempted to
organize one.”
Other organizations on the Russian list include the Congress
of Peoples of Ichkheria and Daghestan, the Supreme Military Majlis
Shura of the United Forces of the Mujahedin of the Caucasus, Jamiya
al-Islamiya, the Islamic Party of Turkestan, and the Pakistan-based
Lashkar-e-Toiba.
Sapunov said part of the problem with any list was that the
groups keep changing their names.
Not, he added, that that was fooling the security services.
Increased international cooperation, the support of President
Vladimir Putin and the government, and the creation of the National
Antiterrorist Center had made it possible at last to establish an
overall strategy for combating terrorism. (Robert Parsons)
(RFE/RL’s Tajik Service contributed to this report.)
A NEW RUSSIAN GAS STRATEGY EMERGES. PRAGUE, July 28, 2006 (RFE/RL) —
A Gazprom subsidiary recently issued a report recommending a dramatic
change of strategy for the Russian gas industry. It determined that
Russia should decrease exports of natural gas to European markets and
concentrate instead on developing new gas fields to keep up with
domestic demand.
The Research Institute for the Economics of the Gas Industry,
NIIGazekonomika, determined in its late 2005 report that domestic
consumption of natural gas is increasing at a faster pace than
projected in Russia’s two-year-old Energy Strategy.
The company, a fully owned subsidiary of Gazprom responsible
for researching economic and management issues, stated that Russia
should focus on developing new gas fields in the Yamal Peninsula and
other locations in order to meet future domestic demand.
Failure to do so could have a seriously detrimental impact on
Russia’s future economic growth, the report warns.
But ensuring domestic supplies would also require that Russia
decrease exports of natural gas to European markets, according to the
report, which notes the potential consequences for the CIS,
Asian-Pacific, and European gas markets.
It appears that Gazprom commissioned NIIGazekonomika to
conduct its study as part of the ongoing debate in the West and in
Russia about the real state of the Russian natural-gas industry.
Gazprom’s reported lack of investment into new gas fields
and pipeline construction have been widely seen as a potential danger
to European energy security. Such concerns have prompted Western
European governments to demand that Gazprom’s export pipelines be
opened to independent gas producers to prevent future shortfalls.
Russia, however, has rejected European pressure and the State
Duma recently passed legislation that further strengthens Gazprom’s
monopoly on gas exports.
Gazekonomika concluded that:
— Russian domestic gas consumption is rising faster than
projected in Russia’s Energy Strategy, which was announced in May
2003 and is the foundation of the country’s energy designs
through 2020. The new Gazekonomika study estimates that by 2030
domestic demand will be approximately 654 billion cubic meters (bcm)
per year, compared to the Energy Strategy’s estimate of 436 bcm.
— Gas-conservation technologies are not being implemented
and the Russian economy remains highly energy intensive
— A dangerously narrow gap exists between the cost of
production of gas and its domestic price.
The new study also states that the projections of the Energy
Strategy are based on data from the 1980s that, the study’s
authors claim, are not reliable.
Other projections of the Russian gas industry, such as one
conducted by Gazprom in 2004, also do not reach the consumption
levels estimated by NIIGazekonomika.
The 2004 Gazprom study projected that domestic consumption of
gas in Russia in 2020 will reach 525 bcm, while the new study places
this figure at 560 bcm.
Russia has already shown marked increases in domestic gas
consumption — rising by 17 bcm from January 2004 to the end of 2005.
“Taking into account the objective results, in the future one
cannot discount the growing internal demand for gas,” the
NIIGazekonomika study states. “The fulfillment of any of the
scenarios presented can potentially lead to an inability by Russian
Federation producers to meet demand for gas in both domestic and
foreign markets. This situation in turn can prevent double-digit
Russian GDP growth and can disrupt gas export obligations.”
Furthermore, the new study projects that by 2013 Russian gas
exports will begin to be pushed out of the European market by Central
Asian producers. The study projects that by 2013 the amount of
Russian gas replaced by Central Asian gas could total 10 bcm; in
2014, 24 bcm; in 2015, 30 bcm; and by 2030, 56 bcm.
If this were to take place, domestic demand would be met, but
the Russian budget could stand to lose tax revenues and hard-currency
reserves. The study forecasts cumulative losses of up to $110
billion.
This, however, is not seen as a tragedy. In fact, the
Gazekonomika report recommends that the Russia government intensify
development of its own gas resources by lowering exports to European
markets and “allowing” Central Asian gas producers to fill the gap.
The long-term benefits of developing new gas fields in the
Yamal Peninsula and the fields in Obskoy and Tazov are thus deemed by
the report to be Russia’s highest priority in the energy sector.
Such development would significantly decrease the need for huge
investments into the gas industry while allowing domestic production
to continue without major disruptions. Plans of how to proceed with
this strategy are presently being developed by Gazekonomika. (Roman
Kupchinsky)
****************************** ***************************
Copyright (c) 2006. RFE/RL, Inc. All rights reserved.
The “RFE/RL Russian Political Weekly” is prepared
on the basis of a variety of sources. It is distributed every
Wednesday.
Direct comments to [email protected].
For information on reprints, see:
p
Back issues are online at

ISRAELI PILOTS ‘DELIBERATELY MISS’ TARGETS
Inigo Gilmore at Hatzor Air Base, Israel
Sunday August 6, 2006
The Observer
Fliers admit aborting raids on civilian targets as concern grows over
the reliability of intelligence
At least two Israeli fighter pilots have deliberately missed civilian
targets in Lebanon as disquiet grows in the military about flawed
intelligence, The Observer has learnt. Sources say the pilots
were worried that targets had been wrongly identified as Hizbollah
facilities.
Voices expressing concern over the armed forces’ failures are getting
louder. One Israeli cabinet minister said last week: ‘We gave the
army so much money. Why are we getting these results?’ Last week
saw Hizbollah’s guerrilla force, dismissed by senior Israeli military
officials as ‘ragtag’, inflict further casualties on one of the world’s
most powerful armies in southern Lebanon. At least 12 elite troops,
the equivalent of Britain’s SAS, have already been killed, and by
yesterday afternoon Israel’s military death toll had climbed to 45.
As the bodies pile up, so the Israeli media has begun to turn,
accusing the military of lacking the proper equipment, training and
intelligence to fight a guerrilla war in Lebanon. Israel’s Defence
Minister, Amir Peretz, on a tour of the front lines, was confronted
by troubled reserve soldiers who told him they lacked proper equipment
and training.
Israel’s chief of staff, Major-General Dan Halutz, had vowed to wipe
out Hizbollah’s missile threat within 10 days. These claims are now
being mocked as rockets rain down on Israel’s north with ever greater
intensity, despite an intense and highly destructive air bombardment.
As one well-connected Israeli expert put it: ‘If we have such good
information in Lebanon, how come we still don’t know the hideout of
missiles and launchers?… If we don’t know the location of their
weapons, why should we know which house is a Hizbollah house?’
As international outrage over civilian deaths grows, the spotlight
is increasingly turning on Israeli air operations. The Observer has
learnt that one senior commander who has been involved in the air
attacks in Lebanon has already raised concerns that some of the air
force’s actions might be considered ‘war crimes’.
Yonatan Shapiro, a former Blackhawk helicopter pilot dismissed from
reserve duty after signing a ‘refusenik’ letter in 2004, said he had
spoken with Israeli F-16 pilots in recent days and learnt that some
had aborted missions because of concerns about the reliability of
intelligence information. According to Shapiro, some pilots justified
aborting missions out of ‘common sense’ and in the context of the
Israeli Defence Force’s moral code of conduct, which says every effort
should be made to avoiding harming civilians.
Shapiro said: ‘Some pilots told me they have shot at the side of
targets because they’re afraid people will be there, and they don’t
trust any more those who give them the coordinates and targets.’
He added: ‘One pilot told me he was asked to hit a house on a hill,
which was supposed to be a place from where Hizbollah was launching
Katyusha missiles. But he was afraid civilians were in the house,
so he shot next to the house …
‘Pilots are always being told they will be judged on results, but if
the results are hundreds of dead civilians while Hizbollah is still
able to fire all these rockets, then something is very wrong.’
So far none of the pilots has publicly refused to fly missions but
some are wobbling, according to Shapiro. He said: ‘Their target could
be a house firing a cannon at Israel and it could be a house full of
children, so it’s a real dilemma; it’s not black and white. But …
I’m calling on them to refuse, in order save our country from
self-destruction.’
Meron Rappoport, a former editor at the Israeli daily Haaretz and
military analyst, criticised the air force’s methods for selecting
targets: ‘The impression is that information is sometimes lacking.
One squadron leader admitted the evidence used to determine attacks
on cars is sometimes circumstantial – meaning that if people are in
an area after Israeli forces warned them to leave, the assumption
is that those left behind must be linked to Hizbollah … This is
problematic, as aid agencies have said many people did not leave …
because they could not, or it was unsafe to travel on the roads thanks
to Israel’s aerial bombardment.’
These revelations raise further serious questions about the airstrike
in Qana last Sunday that left dozens dead, which continues to arouse
international outrage. From the outset, the Israeli military’s version
of events has been shrouded in ambiguity, with the army releasing a
video it claims shows Katyusha rockets being fired from Qana, even
though the video was dated two days earlier, and claiming that more
than 150 rockets had been fired from the location.
Some IDF officials have continued to refer vaguely to Katyushas being
launched ‘near houses’ in the village and to non-specific ‘terrorist
activity’ inside the targeted building. In a statement on Thursday,
the IDF said it the air force did not know there were civilians in
what they believed was an empty building, yet paradoxically blamed
Hizbollah for using those killed as ‘human shields’.
Human rights groups have attacked the findings as illogical. Amnesty
International described the investigation as a ‘whitewash’, saying
Israeli intelligence must have been aware of the civilians’.
One Israeli commander from a different squadron called the Qana bombing
a ‘mistake’ and was unable to explain the apparent contradiction in
the IDF’s position, although he insisted there would have been no
deliberate targeting of civilians. He said he had seen the video of
the attack, and admitted: ‘Generally they [Hizbollah] are using human
shields … That specific building – I don’t know the reason it was
chosen as a target.’

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Contact: V.Rev.Fr.Krikor Chiftjian, Communications Officer
Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E-mail: [email protected]
Web:
PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon
Armenian version:
“RELIGION HAS A PIVOTAL ROLE IN BRINGING ABOUT
PEACE WITH JUSTICE IN THE MIDDLE EAST”
States His Holiness Aram I
His Holiness Aram I stated today in the context of an interview that: “The
military escalation in the Middle East has not only deepened the conflict,
but has also given a new dimension to it. In Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon one
can discern the emerging signs of inter-confessional and sectarian tensions”
.
His Holiness strongly criticized Israel’s continuing war against Lebanon.
He said: “Children, women and elderly becoming wounded, orphaned, homeless
and displaced, innocent people are killed and international community is
still discussing whether a ‘cease-fire’ or ‘cessation of hostilities’ must
be declared. Aram I pointed out that “peaceful negotiations and not
indiscriminate use of force is the way for resolving conflict”.
His Holiness questioned “face-value judgments, one-sided approaches and
biased attitudes” that have been put forth as political solutions to the
problems in the Middle East. He asked: “Will the creation of a security zone
in the South of Lebanon solve the conflict in Lebanon? Will Iraq find peace
and unity through its democratically elected government? If the Hamas
government were to recognize the existence of Isreal, would the peace
process regain its momentum?” He suggested that these political solutions
alone would not bring sustainable peace to the region.
Criticizing any short-sighted policy towards the Middle East, Catholicos
Aram I went on to say that he believes that religion could help establish a
permanent and comprehensive peace in the region. He said: “If we read the
signs of the time, we see that the conflicts in the different parts of the
Middle East are deeply rooted in religious, ethnic and idiological
perceptions and convictions”. According to His Holiness, religions must
speak out and together act firmly. He spelled out how the three monotheistic
religions, namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam, can and should play a
major role by “1) stopping violence in all its forms and expressions, 2)
promoting mutual understanding and mutual trust among peoples and
communities; 3) working for peace with justice for all; 4) and challenging
and leading communities and peoples of the region towards reconciliation,
through mutual forgiveness and acceptance”.
##
The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates of
the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the Ecumenical
activities of the Cilician Catholicosate, you may refer to the web page of
the Catholicosate, The Cilician Catholicosate, the
administrative center of the church is located in Antelias, Lebanon.

“OEP WILL CARRY OUT ACTIVE POLICY”
Aravot.am
04 Aug 06
Margaret Yesayan
OEP deputy leader Mher Shahgeldian says.
Mr. Shageldian in what is ‘Orinats Erkir” /Rule of Law Party/ engaged
in this hot summer?
Summer, as a rule, is a period of vacations. But our party has never
gone on holiday completely. The party is a big supplementing political
power, there is always work to do. The party has been engaged in
organizing, analyzing works this period. Thousands of people have
applied for becoming party members.
We also work on drafts, in particular Electoral Code”. So, there
are a lot of problems and the OEP tries to solve them.
Which will be the further steps of the party after becoming the
opposition?
It isn’t secret that the OEP has always been active and it will
carry out active policy in the future, too. We’ll be focused on the
problems of democratization of the country, fight against corruption,
protection of human rights.
In particular issues on protection of people’s flat rights, which
relates to residents of Buzand, Kozern and other districts. We have
always been, are and will be a principle political power.
One of the electronic newspapers informs that the NA staff is made
deductions; in your opinion may it have any connection with some
political issues?
At NA Chairman Tigran Torosian’s direction several departments and
sections are liquidated in the NA, people stay outside, and we see
political pretext here. Applying double standards in the system of
state governing is inadmissible for us. Different administrative
circles become Republican. Liquidating NA departments and delaying
international events is impossible to provide for continuity and
development of the NA activities. Thus, development of the NA staff
and foreign relations is distorted, which has recorded a great growth
since 2003.
Will the OEP participate in the parliamentary elections with blocs
or separately?
I think nowadays we are in such conditions that both authority and
opposition powers need in unification and consolidation. Civilized
world wants to see a fight designed on concepts and projects. As an
oppositionist power we are for consolidation round principles and
concepts of certain value system.
Unfortunately some people suffer from narcissism and can’t be
consolidated. As regards the blocs, the time will come and we’ll
announce our position. I want to stress that our party can collaborate
with all those political powers, which are ready to fight against
corruption and robbery, misuse of powers, ruling atmosphere of
fear, rigged elections. It’s negative when the oligarchic groups
and shadow economy are concentrated. If the elections in Armenia
are rigged this time our country will be thrown away from regional
political basic developments, democratic world may lose its interest
toward our country. Today we need in democracy for our security and
for strengthening our positions round NK negotiating table. We must
realize that democratization is necessary for the internal development
of the country. At the same time democracy has become a geo-strategic
factor. It’s also an important factor for Armenian-Turkish border’s
anti-blockade, strengthening our positions in the Western world. We
need in foreign political doctrine, which must take into consideration
both securities, economic and geo-strategic problems.
–Boundary_(ID_BCErHiVJspjm3eAR3fTkUQ)- –

ISRAEL AND AZERBAIJAN’S FURTIVE EMBRACE
PipeLineNews.org, CA
Aug 6, 2006
by Ilya Bourtman
August 7, 2006 – Washington, DC – PipeLineNews.org via Middle East
Forum – The disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 changed
the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. Within weeks,
six predominantly Muslim countries along the southern rim of the
Soviet Union gained independence. Israel, along with Turkey, Iran,
and various Arab states, rushed to establish embassies in capitals
ranging from Ashgabat to Tashkent. While Jerusalem maintains good
working relations with these newly independent states, few could have
foreseen how Israel’s relationship with Azerbaijan would blossom. The
two countries formally established relations in April 1992, one year
after Azerbaijan declared its independence. The idea that a country
93 percent Muslim would cooperate closely with Israeli intelligence,
and even provide Israeli officials a defensive platform in such a
volatile region, was hardly considered. Yet, Jerusalem and Baku have
quietly become strategic partners-sharing intelligence, developing
trade relations, and together building regional alliances. Although the
Israel-Azerbaijan partnership has had important regional implications,
uncertainty remains how far Azerbaijani elites are willing to pursue
ties.
A Convergence of Interests
While the mutual relationship has not been a priority for either
Israel or Azerbaijan, both Jerusalem and Baku have expanded their
ties in response to the realization that policy coordination best
protects Caspian security and counters Iranian expansionism. Both
Israel and Azerbaijan face challenges to their legitimacy if not
their very existence. Both share a sense of trial by fire after
winning independence only after a territorial war with neighbors.
While Israel had to face down five invading Arab armies upon its
independence and remains in a technical state of war with Syria,
Lebanon, and Iraq, Azerbaijan remains embroiled in a decade-long
military conflict with Armenia over the mountainous enclave of
Nagorno-Karabakh, Azerbaijani territory occupied by an Armenian army.
Indeed, unproven rumors persist in the Arabic-language press and
pro-Saudi journals suggesting Israeli arms exports to Azerbaijan may
have even preceded formal Azerbaijani independence.
Insecurity complexes born of war and siege cause both Jerusalem and
Baku to see the region through similar prisms. Both countries grapple
with identity problems: how can Azerbaijan be “the Azeri state”
when close to 20 million Azeris-almost twice its population-live
in neighboring Iran? Indeed, Iranian Supreme Leader ‘Ali Khamene’i
is an ethnic Azeri. Israel, meanwhile, grapples both to define its
relationship to the Jewish diaspora and to its own sizable Arab
minority.
The Israeli government reached out to Azerbaijan for a number
of reasons. Israeli policymakers, like their Arab and Iranian
counterparts, viewed Azerbaijan and the Caspian littoral as part
of the “Greater Middle East.” Expanding its influence into an area
of the world heavily Muslim but not Arab has long been a strategic
Israeli objective. After all, prior to the revolution in 1979,
Israel had sold weapons to the Iranian army and considered the shah
a friend. Similarly, since the early 1990s, Israel has reached out
to Turkey. New allies could also lead to new economic opportunities,
greater energy security, and, it was hoped, extra U.N. votes. Israel
aimed to exploit the region’s energy resources by lobbying for the
development of gas and oil pipelines that would help its allies and
circumvent its foes. Finally, Israeli officials hoped that direct
ties would facilitate the immigration of Azerbaijan’s 20,000-strong
Jewish community to Israel.
The Azerbaijani government, meanwhile, found itself cooperating with
Israel both out of respect for the Jewish state and because of lack
of an alternative. In 1991, Azerbaijan was economically fragile,
politically unstable, and militarily weak. Desperate for outside
assistance, Baku turned to Israel to provide leverage against a much
stronger Iran and a militarily superior Armenia. Israel promised
to improve Azerbaijan’s weak economy by developing trade ties. It
purchased Azerbaijani oil and gas and sent medical, technological,
and agricultural experts. Most importantly for Azerbaijan, Israel’s
foreign ministry vowed to lend its lobby’s weight in Washington
to improve Azeri-American relations, providing a counterweight to
the influential Armenian lobby. According to Azerbaijan’s first
president, Abulfas Elcibey, “Israel could help Azerbaijan in [the]
Karabakh problem by convincing the Americans to stop the Armenians.”
Azerbaijani diplomats recognized the need to diversify their contacts
in Washington, especially after the U.S. Congress imposed sanctions on
Azerbaijan at the behest of the Armenian lobby following the war in
Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijani military officials also believed that
Israeli firms could better equip the ragtag Azerbaijani army, which
needed new weapons following its defeat in Nagorno-Karabakh. On several
occasions, Heydar Aliyev, Azerbaijan’s president between 1993 and 2003,
personally requested military assistance from Israeli prime ministers.
page=bourtman8706.htm