RUSSIAN, GEORGIAN FOREIGN MINISTERS DISCUSS CONFLICTS
Civil Georgia, Georgia
May 23 2006
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described as “constructive” the
recent the talks with his Georgian counterpart Gela Bezhuashvili, which
took place on a sideline of a session of the Committee of Ministers
from the Council of Europe member states in Strasbourg on May 18-19.
Sergey Lavrov and Gela Bezhuashvili discussed bilateral relations and
conflict resolution issues, according to the Russian Foreign Ministry.
“I asked him [Bezhuashvili] not to create artificial problems around
the peacekeepers… We want that the peacekeepers to have normal
working conditions there,” Lavrov said.
Sergey Lavrov welcomed the creation of a joint Georgian-South Ossetian
working group, which will develop a joint peace program on conflict
resolution.
He also hailed setting up a consortium by the Georgian, Abkhaz,
Russian, and Armenian sides, which will rehabilitate the Abkhaz
section of the railway linking Russia with Georgia and Armenia.
However, the Russian Foreign Minister expressed concern over
“Tbilisi’s refusal” to approve the documents on security guarantees
and non-resumption of hostilities both regarding the Abkhaz and South
Ossetian conflicts.
Lavrov said that Bezhuashvili promised to accelerate the process
aiming at new registration of the internally displaced persons in
the Gali district of breakaway Abkhazia.
“I regret that the Georgian side drags out the process of registration
of those persons, who have already returned to the Gali district,”
Lavrov said.

SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK: “US SHOULD SEEK NEGOTIATED NK SETTLEMENT”
Today, Azerbaijan
May 23 2006
The Bush administration’s new strategy on the Caspian region is known,
said US Senator Sam Brownback, who authored the draft law on supporting
the South Caucasus and Central Asian states in the US Senate.
Brownback said pipelines of critical importance for the transit of oil
and gas pass through these countries. “The United States should also
beat Iran to its nuclear ambitions as well as station new military
bases in the region.”
The bill also cited the US aspiration to forge closer relations with
Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, AssA-Irada informs.
As for the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno Karabakh, the
Senator said the USA should work to achieve a solution through peace
talks. It should also counter what he called Russia’s geo-political
ambitions in the region.
URL:
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

A 320 FLIGHT DATA RECORDER FOUND AT THE CRASH SIGHT SERIOUSLY DAMAGED
Regnum, Russia
May 23 2006
By calculations of experts from the Russian Transport Ministry,
flight data recorder of the A 320 belonging to Armavia Armenian
Airlines can be lying within a radius of five meters from the place
where the flight communication recorder was found. Search operation
to find the second flight recorder has continued at present moment.
Earlier, on May 22, flight communication recorder was found.
Theoretically, first results of decoding the tape can appear as early
as within 10-14 days. The flight recorder was seriously damaged.
The A 320 passenger aircraft crashed while approaching the airport of
Adler in the night of May 3. 113 people aboard died. The investigation
names several reasons for the tragedy; however, as experts point
out, a grounded conclusion can be made only after data of the flight
recorders are decoded.

SPEAKER OF MILLI MAJLIS MEETS STATE SECRETARY OF VATICAN
AzerTag, Azerbaijan
May 23 2006
Speaker of Milli Majlis of the Azerbaijan Republic (Azerbaijan
Parliament) met with the State Secretary of Vatican for Relations
with States archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, 22 May.
Speaker of Azerbaijan said Vatican is one of the first states, which
have recognized independence of Azerbaijan. ‘We are interested in
development of communications with this European country. Azerbaijan
by the geopolitical position historically was a place of coexistence
of religions, cultures. Here always dominated tolerance, respect to
representatives of various religions. The first Catholic communities
in Azerbaijan have appeared in the middle of XIX century. And in
beginning of 20th century in Baku has been constructed the first
Catholic Church. The Catholics have all rights and freedoms, given to
citizens of Azerbaijan by the Constitution. The negotiations lead by
the national leader of our people Heydar Aliyev and President Ilham
Aliyev during meetings with heads of the State of Vatican, have created
favorable circumstances for development of our communications. We very
highly estimate mutual visits from the point of view of expansion of
our relations’, the Speaker stressed.
Chairman of Milli Majlis has informed, that during visit of the Pope
of Rome John Paul II to Azerbaijan in May 2002 has been consecrated
a stone to be in the base of the Baku Catholic temple, also held a
number of meetings with figures of religion, science and culture. And
official visit of the President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev to Vatican
in February 2005 has given a new impulse to development of cooperation
between two countries.
Then, Ogtay Asadov has in detail told about the Armenia-Azerbaijan,
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, has stopped on the decisions accepted by the
authoritative international organizations and the resolutions connected
with the given problem, disclosed fair position of Azerbaijan which
is based on international law. The State of Vatican always condemned
all forms of terror, he noted.
Chairman of Milli Majlis has expressed confidence that the State of
Vatican will condemn the Armenian terror and take a fair position in
settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Giovanni Lajolo has expressed gratitude for warm reception and
detailed information. ‘We are satisfied with the level of friendly
communications between Azerbaijan and Vatican’, he underlined.
‘Azerbaijan really is a place of merge of religions and cultures. We
highly estimate tolerance existing here. And we are very glad
with intensive development of Azerbaijan. Vatican is interested in
expansion of relations with Azerbaijan, and the purpose of my visit to
Baku consists in carrying out of exchange by opinions on the further
development of our ties.
At the meeting, also took place wide exchange of opinions on other
questions representing mutual interest.

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.