BAKU TO PRESENT UNCHANGED POSITION TO OSCE MG CO-CHAIRS – AZERI FM
Author: E.Huseynov

TREND, Azerbaijan
May 23 2006

Baku for the next time will present to the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs
its unchanged position on the resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani
conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Azerbaijani Foreign
Minister Elmar Mammadyarov stated on 22 May. He was commenting on
the forthcoming visit of the OSCE Minks Group co-chairs to Baku on
24-25 May 2006, Trend reports.

According to Mammadyarov, Azerbaijan is keen on achievement of the
peace in the region and regards by-stage resolution of the conflict
the most optimal way. “If by-stage process becomes effective, in
the first stage the occupied Azerbaijani district attached to the
Nagorno-Karabakh will liberated, the internally displaced people
will be returned to their lands. The next stage, of course, will be
the repatriation of Azerbaijanis replaced from Nagorno-Karabakh and
Shusha. Following the establishment of the normal living condition,
the economy should function,” the minister underlined.

Mammadyarov noted that after it is possible to discuss the status
of Nagorno-Karabakh.

NATIONAL TECHNICAL STANDARDS FOR TRANSPORT SAFETY PREPARED IN AZERBAIJAN

Today, Azerbaijan
May 23 2006

Azerbaijan’s Transport Ministry drafts national technical standards
in transport safety.

Kazim Sharifov, Chief of Safety and Emergency Department in the
Ministry, has reported APA that luggage of passengers traveling
abroad by rail is strictly checked. Hand luggage is checked both by
law enforcement bodies’ servants and transport workers. Saying that
check-up system is strengthened on internal lines, Mr. Sharifov has
connected it with country’s situation.

Ministry officer has stated that transportation infrastructure has
been destroyed by Armenians in occupied areas of Azerbaijan. They
have caused some amount of billion dollars to road and transport
infrastructure in Nagorno Karabakh and surroundings. So rails and
sleepers are dismantled, roads are destroyed.

“We have raised this question before OSCE and other worldwide
organizations. Regretfully, those institutions listen only to our
objections, instead of real job”.

URL:

AS OIL ENRICHES RUSSIA, TENSIONS SURFACE IN EUROPE
by Sacha Kumaria

Human Events
May 23 2006

On July 15, the leaders of the world’s eight great industrial nations
will convene in St. Petersburg, Russia, to discuss the future of
the global economy. Chaired by Russian President Vladimir Putin,
it will mark the culmination of Moscow’s 20-year transformation from
the spiritual home of communism into a major capitalist power.

But the meeting will be held against a backdrop of increasing
international tension about Russia’s resurgence. Relations between
Washington and Moscow are at their lowest ebb in 10 years, and in his
recent Address to the Federal Assembly — equivalent to the State
of the Union address — Putin remarked that “far from everyone in
the world has abandoned the old bloc mentality and the prejudices
inherited from the era of global confrontation.”

The speech as a whole was an intricate balance between the need
to arrest Russia’s internal societal decline — one-third of the
population, which is shrinking rapidly, lives in poverty — and
a desire to play an ever-greater role in world affairs. Moscow’s
involvement in the Iranian nuclear affair is a case in point. Its
refusal to sanction serious Security Council measures against Tehran
is a growing source of concern to the United States and Britain.

This newfound confidence has its basis in Russia’s economic resurgence
since the collapse of the rouble in 1998, the single largest cause of
which is the high (and rising) price of oil. Russia is the world’s
second-largest producer of oil, and the wealth pouring into Moscow
has allowed it to retire most of its foreign debt and build up a $62
billion “stabilisation fund” to buttress its economy against a fall
in oil prices. But if oil is underpinning Russia’s economic growth,
natural gas is the basis for its geopolitical resurgence. It possesses
the world’s largest reserves, and through its ownership of Gazprom
— now the world’s third-largest company — the Kremlin exercises a
total monopoly on exports.

There is a growing concern in Washington and some European capitals
that the actions of Gazprom and RAO UES, the state-owned electricity
monopoly, are not solely driven by the profit motive. Both companies
are pursuing an aggressive policy of acquiring “downstream” (i.e.
distribution) assets in Europe and the Caspian basin to complement
their “upstream” (i.e. production) facilities in Russia. For example,
RAO UES recently purchased a majority stake in both Georgia’s and
Armenia’s electricity networks in return for the offer of subsidized
electricity. And Gazprom is currently purchasing transmission networks
and distribution companies, often through middlemen organizations
(one of which is being investigated by the Justice Department),
in Eastern Europe and Germany. As a consequence, these state-owned
monopolists are increasing Europe’s structural dependence on Russian
energy. And unlike oil, which can be transported anywhere in the world,
gas and electricity require considerable investment in infrastructure,
and hence long-term supply contracts, to be delivered to the market.

While such dependence has been growing for some years now, it was not
until the Ukrainian crisis in December — when Gazprom cut supplies
to Kiev on the basis of an irresolvable “commercial dispute” — that
Europe and the United States began to question Russia’s reliability
as an energy partner. Since then, the EU has been scrambling to
develop a new energy policy towards Russia, but a consensus remains
elusive. Some countries are already too reliant on Russian energy,
by dint of pipelines that date from the Soviet era, to ruffle any
diplomatic feathers.

The Baltic States, Hungary and the Czech and Slovak Republics all
receive more than 80% of their gas from Russia. By contrast, Berlin
recently signed an agreement with Moscow to build a pipeline from the
vast Shtokman field in the Barents Sea to the north German coast via
the Baltic Sea. The plan has provoked a furious response from many
Eastern European nations.

The Polish Defence Minister, Radek Sikorski, likened it to the
pre-World War II Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact, wherein Nazi Germany and the
Soviet Union secretly agreed to divide up Poland. But while such fears
are overstated, the fact remains that, if the pipeline is completed,
Poland and other Eastern European nations will be more vulnerable to
Russia’s political machinations because any ‘disruptions’ to supply
won’t now have a knock-on effect on the politically powerful Western
European markets.

Such concerns were the basis of Vice President Cheney’s recent comments
in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius when he accused Moscow of using
its energy resources as “tools of intimidation and blackmail” and
its “back-sliding on democracy.” Europeans share many of the same
concerns, and following the rift over the Iraq war, the issue of
Russia’s growing assertiveness may offer the opportunity for greater
transatlantic cooperation. Notwithstanding its traditional antipathy
towards Russian authoritarianism, Washington has another considerable
reason for weighing in on behalf on Europe: China.

Moscow has rapidly scaled up its diplomatic efforts with Beijing over
the last few years — both are fervent supporters of a multi-polar
world order — and trade tripled to $16 billion between 1999-2004.

China’s growing demand for energy, combined with Russia’s vast untapped
resources in Eastern Siberia, represents an opportunity for a further
deepening of relations. However, Russia will struggle to meet both
projected Chinese demand and its current European commitments without
massive investment in new infrastructure. Such investment is unlikely
to come from foreign investors as the climate for business in Russia
becomes ever less encouraging, and it will therefore have to come
from the Russian government.

If Europe feels that it cannot rely on Moscow as a stable source
of energy, it will seek to diversify away from Russian gas and oil
toward more expensive forms of power generation including nuclear and
renewables, further undermining the continent’s weak economic growth.

Similarly, investing in exports to China is a very expensive, long-term
proposition for Moscow, but one they are willing to undertake if they
feel their European market share is sufficiently threatened.

By contrast, a free-market approach would greatly facilitate the
trade in energy between Russia and Europe, because it makes eminent
economic sense — the infrastructures already exists, and demand is
slowly rising. The EU, therefore, needs the United States’ support to
pressure Russia toward further integration into global trading system
of liberalized markets and the privatization of its vast state-owned
energy firms which too often conflate Russia’s economic and political
interests — often to the detriment of both.

Mr. Kumaria is director of programmes for the Stockholm Network.

.php?id=15023

NON-CITIZENS

Ãoíaîãað, Turkmenistan
Gundogar
May 23 2006

Report by Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights on the situation of
granting Turkmenistan citizenship to national minorities and refugees.

On 5 August 2005 Turkmen mass media reported that according to a
decree and resolution signed by the President, Turkmenistan granted
citizenship to 13245 persons and residence permits to 3053 individuals.

Among these are ethnic Turkmens who used to live in Tajikistan and
then escaped from the civil war in this state to their historical
Motherland as well as residents of several villages located on the
Turkmen-Uzbek border which as a result of the demarcation of boundary
remained on Turkmen territory.

This mass and, unfortunately, one-off act was timed to coincide with
the 67th Session of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination held in Geneva. At this session, a report on the
situation of national minorities prepared by Turkmenistan’s government
was presented for the first time ever. It was apparently decided to
make up for the obvious weakness of this report by issuing the decree
and by the presence of Foreign Minister R.Meredov at the UN Session.

In practice, Turkmen authorities were concerned not by the fate of
these more than 16 thousand persons who were for years second-rate
citizens in the country and not by the future of the other thousands
who up until now have failed to obtain either citizenship or a
residence permit in Turkmenistan. While Turkmen mass media presented
this move as an act of great humanity, the government was only
concerned by its image which needed to be improved before the UN
Committee’s session.

***

The number of those who fail to obtain Turkmen citizenship is rather
high. In newsletter ¹13 of 7.04.2004 the TI reported about Armenian
refugees who since the 1988-1989 Karabakh conflict have been residing
in the country and have tried to acquire Turkmen citizenship. Yet,
neither before 5 August 2005 not later has any managed to obtain
citizenship. Many Armenians were forced to leave the inhospitable
country for the United States, Russia and other countries.

There are also cases of those who were born and grew up in Turkmenistan
and left the country for family or other reasons. After the break-up
of the Soviet Union they returned to Turkmenistan but despite official
inquiries to the authorities, they failed to receive citizenship of
the country which they considered their homeland.

There is another group of residents whose situation is also miserable:
these are the women from the neighboring Uzbek regions married
to ethnic Uzbeks residing in the Dashoguz and Lebap velayats of
Turkmenistan.

In the time of the formation of the USSR the borders between the
republics were determined artificially without considering the history
of the region. As a result, many Uzbek settlements were included in
the Turkmen Soviet Republic, whereas Turkmen villages found themselves
on the territory of the Uzbek Soviet Republic.

However, in practice both belonged to one country and the boundaries
between them were insignificant. There were no obstacles to creating
families, i.e. Uzbek girls married men from Turkmenistan and vice
versa.

The situation altered after 1993 when such marriages were denied
registration. Yet, Turkmen-Uzbek families continued to be created:
people got married and children were born as there was hope that
at some point the state would take care of their legal status and
legitimize their marital relations.

There are some families which have registered their marriages by 1994
and have marriage certificates. Yet, up until now the wives cannot
obtain Turkmen citizenship. All their attempts to receive Turkmen
passports even with the help of bribes were unsuccessful.

One of these women from the Bereket peasant association named Sanovar
spent a total of 3 million manats in order to legalize her staying
in Turkmenistan. However, she did not succeed and received no passport.

“We have repeatedly addressed all authorities, and have even gone to
Ashgabat regarding this issue but we have not succeeded”, – says a
resident of the village located at the border. – “Starting from 2000
our daughter-in-law has never visited her parents in Uzbekistan. She
has an old Soviet passport and since she could not receive a new one
she can only meet up with her relatives if they travel from Uzbekistan
to her. Yet, it is difficult to maintain the ties, so I wish she would
be permitted to travel with her old passport but she is not allowed”.

The Law “On citizenship” in Turkmenistan allows for the acquisition of
citizenship, in particular Article 16 (Conditions for acceptance into
the citizenship of Turkmenistan) states: An individual may be given
citizenship of Turkmenistan upon request if he: 1. makes a commitment
to obey and respect the Constitution and laws of Turkmenistan; 2. knows
the state language of Turkmenistan sufficiently well to communicate;
3. has had permanent residence on the territory of Turkmenistan for
the past seven years.

In other words, there are no legal grounds for denying citizenship to
this group of people. Uzbek and Turkmen languages are very similar,
so these women are fluent in Turkmen. Most of them have lived in
Turkmenistan for over 10 years while the Law requires only seven. It
should be added that the aforementioned Armenian refugees have been
living in Turkmenistan for 17-18 years.

However, instead of legalizing the stay of these individuals in the
country, the law enforcement agencies are more concerned about how
to get rid of them. Cases of deportation of women with children have
become common practice in the villages on the border. This means
that families are divided, wives and small children without Turkmen
documents have to leave for Uzbekistan while the husbands (sometimes
with older kids) have to remain in Turkmenistan.

The ethnic Uzbeks residing in the Niyazov’s etrap of the Dashoguz
velayat have been most affected by this problem. Representatives
of the local khyakimlik accompanied by policemen came to the houses
where the women without Turkmen citizenship lived and ordered them
the leave Turkmenistan.

“My relative – a woman with three kids – has to leave her home and
her husband as she has neither a passport nor registration documents.

Another woman from Kunjaurgench with four kids also expects that she
will be deported. She is from Manguit (a village in Uzbekistan)”, –
says a woman from the Niyazov village.

Nelufar N., a resident of Dashoguz says: “My cousin married a girl
from Urguench in 1994. She was deported with her baby boy as the
latter had no birth certificate. Four older kids managed to stay with
their father at home. The sister-in-law together with other women and
children who were in the same situation were brought to the border,
taken to the neutral zone and left there: nobody cared where they
went to from there. It was a real blow for our entire family!”.

Here is a story of an Uzbek woman named Baldjan: “In 2000 our relatives
decided to take a bride in neighboring Uzbekistan. I warned my aunt
about the problems they might face since marriages with foreigners
are not allowed to be registered and that the bride would not obtain
citizenship, so they would have to live together illegally. However, my
aunt did no listen to me; she said that her contacts in the khyakimlik
would help to arrange citizenship for the daughter-in-law and for
her to receive a Turkmen passport. Yet, nothing worked and Zuleikha
(daughter-in-law) has recently been deported to Uzbekistan together
with her small kids who also had no documents. The family is in shock,
the aunt was taken ill and had an apoplectic attack, her son took to
the bottle…”.

Below is another sad story of a man who went to see the khyakim of
the Dashoguz velayat on 24 February 2006: “There were many people in
the reception room waiting for appointments and among them was a young
Uzbek woman. I got talking to her and she complained that for 11 days
already she had roughed it without proper food and accommodation. She
came here 15 years ago from Uzbekistan and got married in the Takhta
village. However, her husband and she led a very unhappy life and
she chose to leave for Ashgabat to earn money.

She found a job in a summer house in the Chongaly village in the
outskirts of Ashgabat. Some days ago the police organized a round-up
to find illegal residents in the cottage village. 21 persons were
deported to Dashoguz by train as they were residing and working in
Ashgabat illegally. The woman was not even allowed to take her kids –
the two girls aged 5 and 2 years old – who were also living with her
in the summer house. During these 11 days she went to all authorities
in Dashoguz in order to receive a permit which would allow her to
travel to Ashgabat to pick up her children (in Turkmenistan it is
not possible to travel from one velayat to another without documents).

Finally, she came to see the khyakim with the request to issue her a
temporary document. Her last name is Rakhimbayeva. According to her,
this was the first time in 15 years that she had been caught. If she
receives travel documents, she will immediately go to her children
and then they will probably leave Turkmenistan. But where should they
go and to whom?”.

The state service of Turkmenistan on registration of foreign citizens
is also actively involved in identifying such “illegal aliens” and
does this with particular cynicism and sophistication.

In the peasant association “Gulistan” (former Kirov’s kolkhoz) of the
Dashoguz velayat the officers of the service on registration of foreign
citizens announced that those who up until now held no Turkmen national
passport should come and get registered, then the passport would be
issued. Families who had previously hidden the fact that their wives
and daughters-in-law held no Turkmen citizenship were overjoyed and
sent them to register their status. As a result, 28 women without
Turkmen citizenship were deported “home” from Turkmenistan. The
children who had no birth certificates left their true homeland
together with their mothers. This incident happened in April 2006.

***

When last summer the authorities announced the granting of citizenship
and passports to several thousands of people it gave hope to
the women residing in the Dashoguz velayat who had no identity
documents. However, the happiness did not last for long: the number of
deported women and children who hold no Turkmen citizenship continues
to rise.

Despite all the assurances made by Foreign Minister R.Meredov
to the members of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination about the absence of problems faced by national
minorities in Turkmenistan, the practice shows the opposite.

The Turkmen authorities force the law obedient people – women who
give birth to and raise their children, grow and harvest cotton,
do the housework there- to become illegal aliens who have to conceal
their citizenship and bribe policemen not to break up their families
by deporting the women to nowhere.

At the Session of the UN Committee of the Rights of the Child another
official report of Turkmenistan will shortly be presented. Apparently
this report will also state that there are no problems regarding the
rights of children. However, as practice shows, the reports of the
authorities and the real situation are two different things.

Hopefully, the members of the UN Committee will treat the issue of
the rights of children being deported from their home country together
with their mothers with respect.

It should be also recalled to Minister R.Meredov that the questions
posed by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
last August remain unanswered by the Turkmen authorities.

00000000000011000000

–Boundary_(ID_FX8+Eog0jFXei aqN+BgjUg)–

“INTELLIGENCE BRIEF: MONTENEGRO VOTES FOR INDEPENDENCE”

PINR – Power & Interest News Report
May 23 2006

On May 21, 55.4 percent of Montenegro’s voters chose independence
from Serbia in a referendum held in this former Yugoslavian republic.

The European Union had decided that the poll would be valid if the
result surpassed 55 percent. As a result, Podgorica will soon be
independent from Serbia.

Montenegro’s political decision has important geopolitical
implications. First of all, Serbia will lose its last access point
to the Mediterranean Sea and will be from now on a country without
coastal outlets. Belgrade will be separated from Montenegro for
the first time since 1918 and will likely soon face a reinvigorated
pro-independence push in Kosovo. Fifteen years after conflict erupted
in the former Yugoslavia, Serbia has lost its maritime dimension
completely and is now dramatically reduced in size. Its future is
in the European Union — unless the E.U.’s enlargement process is
stopped indefinitely, which is unlikely for the moment — but it will
access the European club as a minor power, with much less strategic
and economic capabilities than only one decade ago.

Second, the E.U. will now have to integrate yet another state. As the
period preceding the referendum showed, Montenegro’s complex political
and religious geography is a source of conflict and will keep the new
state’s political risk high in the coming years. This means that the
E.U. will need to cope with a predictable lack of investment in an
already poorly industrialized country. Extreme political fragmentation
in the Balkans will remain a key issue in European security policy
and will demand more attention from Brussels.

Serbia will be more dependent than ever on the E.U. for its future
economic prospects, and Brussels will need to design a viable road map
to integrate its Western Balkanic countries. Whereas Croatia can count
on Austro-German support, the future is more complicated for the Former
Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, Albania, Serbia, and Montenegro —
whereby political instability in Kosovo and Montenegro will play a
crucial role in these area’s chances to integrate successfully into
European structures.

Brussels is, however, in a difficult position. The European
Commission postponed until October 2006 its final say on Bulgaria’s
and Romania’s accession, and does not appear to have “digested” the
2004 big enlargement. The E.U., however, would risk even more if it
did not successfully integrate the former Yugoslavian region because
of identity-based conflicts that may explode once again without a
credible external power functioning as a stabilizing force.

Montenegro’s independence also bears consequences for Russia and for
Moscow’s relationship with the Western geostrategic realm. Moscow’s
historic ally, Serbia, will be a less palatable partner than before
because of Belgrade’s reduced geopolitical weight. Moreover, should
regionalist pushes continue to advance in the broader region from
the Adriatic to the Caucasus, Russia’s historic sphere of influence
will be marked by other secessions, such as Transdniester (from
Moldova), Abkhazia (from Georgia), and possibly Nagorno Karabakh
(from Azerbaijan).

Look for secessionism, political instability and political risk to
continue to undermine the post-Cold War geopolitical environment in
Eastern Europe and the Caucasus. Expect the European Union to reassess
its enlargement strategy, whereby the question of the E.U.’s internal
political configuration will need to be re-addressed and effectively
resolved. The E.U. government will be under pressure since the question
of an E.U. constitutional draft is already starting to take center
stage in public policy debates. The political management issue and
the very viability of the European single currency will also soon
surface as unexpectedly complicated issues that will dominate the
agenda during the next two years.

The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent
organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict
analysis services in the context of international relations.

PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests
involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. This report
may not be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast without the written
permission of [email protected]. All comments should be directed
to [email protected].

ac=view_report&report_id=494&language_id=1

US TO AID $5 MILLION TO “NAGORNO KARABAKH REPUBLIC” IN 2007

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
May 23 2006

US Congress House of Representatives committee for military aids
adopted a decision to preserve parity in rendering military assistance
to Azerbaijan and Armenia (APA).

Though Bush administration proposed increasing the amount of military
aid to Azerbaijan by 40% in comparison with Armenia, this proposal
was not supported by lower house of the Congress. The United States
will render $62 million to Armenia and $5 million to the alleged
“Nagorno Karabakh Republic” in 2007. This amount is $12 million
more than that proposed by Bush Administration. However, official
Washington decreased the amount of aids rendered to Armenia for $8
million in comparison with last year.

CO-CHAIRS AND THEIR FM OFFICIALS TO HAVE TALKS IN BAKU ON 24 MAY

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
May 23 2006

OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs Yuri Merzlyakov (Russia), Steven Mann (US)
and Bernard Fassier (France), deputy Russian Foreign Minister Grigori
Karasin, US Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs
Daniel Fried as well as French Foreign Ministry director for political
affairs Stanislas D’Labule will have talks on the settlement of the
Nagorno Garabagh conflict in the Azerbaijani capital, Baku, on 24 May.

A diplomatic source told APA that the diplomats will arrive in Baku
in the afternoon tomorrow. The objective of the talks is to agree on
the next round of the negotiating process for the settlement of the
Nagorno Garabagh conflict with Azerbaijani and Armenian Presidents
Ilham Aliyev and Robert Kocharian.

The co-chairs propose organizing the meeting of the heads of state
within the summit- “Black Sea for dialogue and partnership” scheduled
for June 4-6 this year in Romanian capital, Bucharest.

Azerbaijani and Armenian Foreign Ministers Elmar Mammadyarov and
Vardan Oskanyan had talks within the 116th session of the Council of
Europe Committee of Foreign Ministers in Strasbourg on 19 May. The
Ministers expressed opinions on the co-chairs’ new proposals on the
details of the settlement of the conflict.

The co-chairs and FM officials of their countries will leave Baku
for Yerevan after that.

ROBERT KOCHARIAN NOT TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT POST IN 2007

Azeri Press Agency, Azerbaijan
May 23 2006

Armenia’s President Robert Kocharian will not nominate his candidacy
for presidential elections in 2007, President’s councilor for national
security affairs Garnik Isagulyan stated (APA). He said that Robert
Kocharian’s being a presidential nominee again is an exception.

“A person, who has been dealing with serious state problems for
20 years, including settlement of the Nagorno Garabagh conflict,
cannot possibly take such a step which can cause reproach,” the
councilor stressed.

Isagulyan ruled out that President Kocharian might be Prime Minister.

“I think Robert Kocharian will have stronger influence on state
processes even if he is not a President. I do not mean he will hold
any other state post,” he said.

The President’s councilor also said that he sees Defense Minister
Serj Sarkisyan as possible successor of Kocharian, “Serj Sarkisyan
can continue the current state course worthily. However, he has not
yet announced that he will be a presidential nominee.”

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

KREMLIN LOSES ITS GRIP ON A DYING EMPIRE
By Richard Beeston

The Times , UK
May 24 2006

Four former Soviet republics are set to abandon eastern commonwealth
and look West.

ONE of the last vestiges of the Soviet Union appeared to be crumbling
yesterday, when four former republics signalled that they were pulling
out of the organisation established to keep the Kremlin connected
with its lost empire.

At a meeting in Kiev the leaders of the pro-Western states of
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine pledged to form their own
association to promote democratic values. They also hinted that
they would leave the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which
was created 15 years ago as a group representing most of the former
Soviet republics.

While the CIS never fulfilled any great economic or political
function, its very existence was supposed to reflect Moscow’s
continued influence from Eastern Europe to the Caucasus and on to
Central Asia. But ties between the Kremlin and some of its former
client states have deteriorated in a wave of democratic movements
that swept pro-Western leaders into power in Georgia and Ukraine and
encouraged anti-Russian sentiment in Azerbaijan and Moldova.

The new group will be called the Organisation for Democracy and
Economic Development and will be based in Kiev. It will rival the CIS,
which is based in Minsk, the capital of Belarus, where it is headed
by Vladimir Rushailo, a tough former Russian Interior Minister.

Viktor Yushchenko, the Ukrainian President, said: “Our citizens
are giving us a mandate to develop strong democratic and successful
states.” The move is seen as a huge snub to Moscow, which has not been
invited to join. It faces the prospect of being left in a CIS of eight
states, including Belarus, regarded as the last dictatorship in Europe,
Armenia, and the Central Asian republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The splits within the CIS ranks have
been growing in recent months. Moscow, which backed Mr Yushchenko’s
opponent in the Ukrainian elections, clashed with Ukraine this year
when it suspended gas sales, causing an energy crisis across Europe
in the middle of winter.

The Kremlin has also rowed openly with Tbilisi over Russian support
for two breakaway regions in Georgia and its reluctant withdrawal of
troops from the country. Moscow’s recent decision to ban the import
of Georgian and Moldovan wine has strained ties further.

Azerbaijan has provoked the ire of Moscow by developing close ties
with the US, and building an oil pipeline to pump crude from the
Caspian Sea to Turkey, bypassing traditional Russian control over
energy supply routes.

Moldova signalled yesterday that it may be the first country to quit
the CIS. President Voronin said that the issue would soon be debated
in parliament, where the move was likely to be approved.

Zurab Nogaideli, the Georgian Prime Minister, said that his country
was also debating the value of remaining in the CIS, and that the
question of withdrawal would come up before parliament this summer.

“Many in Georgia have been very critical of the CIS, of its
performance, of its efficiency, and we, as a government, are
accountable to the people’s concerns,” he told The Times during a
visit to London.

He said that Georgia had attempted to make the CIS more efficient
and capable of dealing with important bilateral disputes, such as
the Russian wine ban, but that the CIS was incapable of addressing
real issues.

“What is the sense in having an organisation that fails to discuss
basic issues that affect the countries concerned?”, Mr Nogaideli said.

“It seems to me that Russia itself is not interested in the CIS,
in reality. They want to keep it as an organisation, but they don’t
want it to be an effective and functional organisation. Russia only
keeps it for prestige.”

IS IT ALL WORTH IT? ‘PROMOTION TOURS HARDLY CONTRIBUTE’

esctoday.com, Netherlands
May 23 2006

2006 has been the year of the promotion tours. After Ruslana and
Helena Paparizou toured Europe and ended their Eurovision Song Contest
adventure with a victory, several of this year’s participants travelled
around Europe, trying to enlarge their potentials.

15 countries, 1 point

Fabrizio Faniello, Malta’s representative at this year’s Eurovision
Song Contest, is probably the most unfortunate example. Visiting
Ukraine, Germany, Romania, Belgium, the Netherlands, Croatia, Slovenia,
Andorra, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, Cyprus, Latvia, Bulgaria and Greece
was not enough to bring him more than the 1 point he received… from
Albania, the country he didn’t visit to promote I do.

All countries, 20th place in the semifinal Treble from the Netherlands
visited all 37 participating countries, after they promised the Dutch
audience to do so when they would win the national final. They came
20th in the semifinal of this year’s contest and thus didn’t qualify
for the final.

Good result Mihai Traistariu, who represented Romania with Tornero,
visited Greece, Slovenia, Malta, Belgium, Cyprus, France, Monaco,
Spain, Germany, Croatia, Bulgaria and Moldova to promote his entry. He
came 4th in the final, a respectable place. He received 12 points
from Spain and Moldova, 10 from Cyprus and Malta, which he all visited.

But Mihai also got 10 points from Israel and Portugal, countries he
didn’t visit to promote his song.

Armenian singer Andre hardly did any promotion at all in the countries
where he received his 10 and 12 points from. The band with singers
from six different countries, that represented Switzerland, could
only count on 12 points from Malta.

Kate Ryan Belgian representative Kate Ryan visited more than 10
countries to promote her Je t’adore. Not even half of her points
comes from the countries she visited.

No big tours The winners of this year’s Eurovision Song Contest, Lordi,
didn’t do any big promotion tours through Europe. Although visiting
some countries on his way to Athens, Dima Bilan didn’t cross Europe
either, nor did Bosnia & Herzegovina Hari Mata Hari.

Extensive promotion Although some participants with an extensive
promotion schedule did very well, others didn’t reach a high position
in the final or even failed to qualify for the final. Those who
did an extensive amount of promotion and reached a high position,
generally received points from all over Europe and not just from the
countries they visited.