ABKHAZIA’S DREAM OF FREEDOM
by Thomas de Waal
Open Democracy, UK
May 10 2006
Abkhazia’s case for independence from Georgia is no less compelling
than Kosovo’s from Serbia, reports Thomas de Waal from the Black
Sea territory.
A mile from the Black Sea in central Abkhazia you can see the
crimson-and-mustard striped domes of New Athos, a grand 19th-century
monastery built at the height of the czarist empire. Nearby is a
green-roofed wooden building camouflaged by the bedraggled palm trees
into the hillside, a house that you would only spot if you knew it
was there. It is Joseph Stalin’s dacha – or rather one of them,
because this small strip of enchanted coastline was his favoured
holiday destination.
When I visited in February 2006, the dacha was shut up, but you could
peer through the crystal-paned windows to see a long oblong table and
sixteen chairs in a meeting room, a cinema booth with the reels of
film still stacked there and a billiard table with dusty white balls.
The rest of the grounds had gone to ruin as surely as Stalin’s Soviet
Union and we clambered through broken walls and decades of matted
leaves to an eyrie, where the generalissimo would have taken his
evening stroll and looked out across the Black Sea.
As I wandered round this forlorn estate, I wondered what the ghost of
Stalin would make of it. Not only has his superpower fallen apart,
but even tiny Abkhazia, his favourite holiday spot, is a destitute
territory detached from Georgia and outside international jurisdiction.
Yet his affection was one of the reasons for the disaster that has
befallen Abkhazia. It was fated to be perhaps both the most privileged
and most cursed part of the Soviet Union. Privileged, because everyone
from Leon Trotsky to Mikhail Gorbachev, but especially Stalin, came
and rested here; cursed, because although the Soviet elite loved
Abkhazia it did not necessarily care about its inhabitants.
A twilight country
Abkhazia was one of those once-cosmopolitan Soviet territories all
too vulnerable to the jealousies and rivalries produced by what Terry
Martin has called “the affirmative-action empire”. In the 1920s it was
a thoroughly multi-ethnic land with trading links across the Black Sea,
a thriving tobacco industry and Turkish the lingua franca.
The Abkhaz, who are ethnic kin of the Circassians of the north
Caucasus, were the largest ethnic group but not the majority.
By 1991 the Abkhaz comprised less than one fifth of the population,
thanks in large part to mass settlement by ethnic Georgians in
the mid-Soviet period, encouraged by Stalin and his chief Georgian
henchman, Lavrenti Beria. The Abkhaz resented the Georgianification
brought by the incomers, while the Georgians resented the way the small
“titular” minority dominated all major positions in the republic.
That is all a distant memory. The Georgians are gone, driven out at
the end of the bitter war of 1992-93. Abkhazia’s population, once half
a million, is now less than half that. Sukhumi, once a city of Greek
tobacco-merchants, then of Georgian workers, is still half-ruined,
grass growing in the streets.
Abkhazia has become one of those twilight territories that exist on
the map and have a functioning government, parliament and press, but
are international pariahs, unrecognised, told by visiting dignitaries
that they are actually part of Georgia.
Yet virtually nothing is left to remind you of Georgia and the younger
generation does not even understand the Georgian language.
Instead the Russians have adopted Abkhazia and are gently annexing
it. The currency is the rouble, Moscow pays Russian pensions and gives
out Russian passports, the Russian tourists have started coming back
and Russian companies and ministries are renting out guest houses and
sanatoria. Above the resort town of Gagra stands the elegant Armenia
Sanatorium, an illustration of Abkhazia’s bizarre history. Chechen
warlord Shamil Basayev got married here in 1992 – he was part of the
broad anti-Georgian alliance of Cossacks, north Caucasians and Russian
special forces that helped the Abkhaz – and now the sanatorium is
leased out to the Russian defence ministry.
Yet it would be a mistake, one most distant observers make, to regard
Abkhazia merely as some kind of rogue Russian puppet-state. In terms
of democracy and civil society, it is no more criminal or corrupt than
any other part of the Caucasus. Its black economy is more developed
because all transactions are done in cash, but it is also a lot poorer
so there is less to steal than in Georgia, Armenia or Azerbaijan.
As for the Russians, the Abkhaz are Caucasians after all and know their
history, in which Russia has been the imperial overlord as much as
Georgia has. Most people are grateful that someone is restoring their
economy. But Abkhaz intellectuals are nagged by anxiety, worrying that
they have broken away from what the Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov
called the “little empire” of Georgia only to be swallowed up by a
resurgent nationalist Russia that seeks to use Abkhazia for its own
ends in its efforts to humiliate pro-western Georgia.
In a small but brave act of protest in October-December 2004, the
Abkhaz made it clear they were not Russian poodles. Moscow decided that
it wanted former prime minister Raul Khajimba to be the next president
and sent PR-experts, pop stars and Kremlin advisers to Abkhazia to
make sure he was safely elected. But the opposition candidate, former
energy boss Sergei Bagapsh, was declared the winner of the election
and fought a desperate battle to have the result recognised. In the
end, after weeks of failed intimidation and bullying of the Abkhaz
opposition, Moscow climbed down and Bagapsh became president with
Khajimba his vice-president.
Bagapsh was in genial form when I visited him. I believed him when he
said he bore no grudge against the Russian officials who had tried
to destroy him but now greeted him amiably as though nothing had
happened. Bigger things are on his mind. He wanted to talk about Kosovo
and its status talks, which are expected to lead to full independence.
President Vladimir Putin had deftly stirred things up on 31 January
2006 when he said at a Kremlin press conference: “If someone believes
that Kosovo should be granted full independence as a state, then why
should we deny it to the Abkhaz and the South Ossetians?”
Bagapsh argued fiercely that where Kosovo should lead, Abkhazia
should follow. Bagapsh said: “If the issue of Kosovo is settled (in
favour of independence) let’s say, and not the issue of Abkhazia,
that is a policy purely of double standards.”
It is an argument to which I am quite sympathetic. The Abkhaz are
entitled to look around and see double standards: that the west
wants to “reward” Kosovo for its loyalty after the Nato intervention
against Slobodan Milosevic, while retaining a soft spot for Georgia
by insisting that its territorial integrity is inviolable. Yet if you
were on the receiving end of Georgian armed thugs threatening your
existence rather than Serbian armed thugs, that distinction seems
rather arbitrary. The two cases are certainly not so far apart to be
judged by entirely different standards.
That applies too to the counter-argument that Serbs or Georgians
might wish to make. There is also the matter of those refugees. The
Serbs comprised a far smaller proportion of the population of pre-war
Kosovo. Thousands of them have left. They are the ones who have the
right to set the Kosovo government an exam on whether it is fit to
become a proper sovereign state that looks after its minorities.
Sukhumi waits
In Abkhazia that exam would be even harder. True, some 40,000 Georgians
have returned to the southern district of Gali inside Abkhazia. But
they live a precarious existence there, preyed on by militias and
gangsters – Georgian as well as Abkhaz – and vulnerable to immediate
expulsion should the Georgian-Abkhaz peace process break down.
What about the remaining Georgians, I asked Bagapsh, estimated to be
up to a quarter of a million and comprising half Abkhazia’s pre-war
population? If you followed the Kosovo model to its logical conclusion,
then they should be allowed full right of return.
Naturally, the president replied that Abkhazia should get its
independence first, then invite the Georgians back. But he did at least
concede that “there are more obligations sometimes than privileges”
in being a sovereign state and that it was a tricky process.
One thing is certain: there is something deeply unsatisfactory
about the intellectual framework around the “frozen conflicts” of
the Caucasus – Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh. The
unrecognised separatist territories are told that the Soviet
borders are inviolable and that in effect any moves they may make to
democratise themselves are irrelevant. The Kosovo process is useful
because it challenges those assumptions. Surely, now that the precedent
has been set, the debate has to be about democracy and minority rights
more than about territorial integrity.
I remembered what a Nagorno-Karabakh Armenian had said to me,
a question I found unanswerable at the time. “So we were inside
Azerbaijan for seventy years. How many years do we have to spend
outside Azerbaijan for the world to recognise that we have left them
behind for good – twenty, thirty, seventy?”
If the Abkhaz can put together a democratic case for greater
recognition by the outside world, I for one will be glad. And if Stalin
spins a little more in his grave on Red Square, so much the better.
Thomas de Waal is Caucasus editor of the Institute for War & Peace
Reporting in London. He is co-author (with Carlotta Gall) of Chechnya:
Calamity in the Caucasus (New York University Press, 1998) and author
of Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war (New
York University Press, 2003)
asus/abkhazia_3525.jsp

DEMOCRATIC PARTY HEAD DOES NOT EXCLUDE “RAT ESCAPE” FROM ORINATS YERKIR PARTY
Regnum, Russia
May 10 2006
“Not political methods, but exclusively those based on own interests
and ambitions of certain politicians are used on Armenian political
field,” Chairman of Armenian Democratic Party, MP Aram Sargsyan stated
at a news conference.
According to him, leaving of coalition Orinats Yerkir (OYe) Party
by four MPs-businessmen is a vivid evidence of this. “Those forces,
which will powerfully struggle during parliamentary elections tomorrow,
and later during presidential ones too, are interested in weakening
of OE positions. For example, they are Republican Party (leader –
Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan, REGNUM), ‘Flourishing Armenia’
(founder – well-known businessman, MP Gagik Tsarukyan, REGNUM),”
the MP stated.
At the same time, Aram Sargsyan did not exclude that “rat escape”
will continue: “At their time, the people joined the party not because
of ideas, but hoping to receive benefit. Such MP is worth nothing,
he will be worth nothing in other possible camp too.”
It is worth stressing that four MP’s, who are at the same time big
businessmen, left coalition Orinats Yerkir Party during last several
days. It is expected that other businessmen, who are still the party
members, will leave it because of sharply changed political views
of OYe leader Artur Bagdasaryan, as well as inner disagreements in
foreign and domestic policy.

FRENCH FOREIGN MINISTRY SAYS IT IS “VERY ATTENTIVE” TO TURKISH ANGER OVER ARMENIAN GENOCIDE BILL
Pravda, Russia
May 10 2006
The comment from France’s Foreign Ministry came as Turkish legislators
lobbied their French counterparts to vote down the Armenian genocide
bill. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Wednesday likened
the issue to a “virus,” hinting of possible repercussions for ties.
“The relationship between France and Turkey is not an ordinary
relationship,” he said. “The French parliament will not inject a
virus like the so-called Armenian genocide into such an important
relationship.”
Earlier Wednesday, French Foreign Ministry spokesman Denis Simonneau
said: “We are very attentive to the Turkish authorities’ reactions
on this subject.”
He did not comment further, referring reporters to an earlier
declaration and to lawmakers who drafted the bill.
The proposed law would make it a crime to deny that the mass killings
of Armenians by Ottoman Turks at the beginning of the 20th century
constituted a genocide.
Turkey says the death toll given by Armenians is inflated and that
Armenians in Turkey were killed in civil unrest – not genocide –
as the Ottoman Empire collapsed.
The French bill was proposed by the opposition Socialists. It is
similar to a law making it a crime in France to deny the Holocaust
ofWorld War II.
The visiting Turkish legislators from Erdogan’s ruling party and the
opposition met with senior French legislators from the ruling right
and opposition left.
Lawmaker Onur Oymen said they “relayed the Turkish people’s strong
reaction to our French colleagues” and warned that there were calls
for a boycott of French goods in Turkey and that Turkish-French
relations would be severely harmed if the bill is passed, Turkey’s
Anatolia news agency reported.
Bulgarian lawmakers on Wednesday refused to recognize the mass
killings as a genocide, saying this could endanger relations with
neighboring Turkey.
Legislators voted 81-56 with 33 abstentions against a draft resolution
proposed by the ultranationalist party Ataka, calling for “the
recognition of the Armenian genocide by the Turks.”
The motion was rejected with the votes of the parties from the
Socialist-led ruling coalition that also includes a mainly ethnic
Turkish party, the Movement for Rights and Freedoms, the AP reports.
“This is a resolution … that aims to complicate our relations with
neighboring Turkey,” Socialist lawmaker Mihail Mikov told parliament.
According to official statistics, Bulgaria – a tiny Balkan country
of 7.8 million – has an 800,000-strong ethnic Turkish minority.
About 11,000 ethnic Armenians also live in Bulgaria, and most of
them are heirs of Armenian refugees who fled Ottoman Turkey during
the early 20th century massacre.

ERDOGAN CALLS FOR BUSINESSPEOPLE TO HELP BLOCK ARMENIAN BILL
New Anatolian, Turkey
May 10 2006
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called for representatives
of French companies operating in Turkey to actively lobby against the
Armenian bill that will come up for debate in the French Parliament
next week.
Erdogan hosted company representatives yesterday in a move to
contribute to Turkish efforts to block a possible French approval of
the bill during next week’s Parliamentary session. The bill foresees
prison terms of up to one year and fines of up to 45,000 euros to
deniers of the Armenian genocide claims.
The Turkish prime minister also called for all French businesspeople
and parliamentarians to leave the controversial issue for evaluation
by historians.
French company representatives, for their part, presented Erdogan
with a copy of a letter they sent to French parliamentarians urging
them not to damage economic relations between the two countries by
approving the Armenian bill.

TURKISH INTELLECTUALS’ LETTER TO LIBERATION: ‘ARMENIAN BILL WOULD CAUSE GRIEVOUS ERROR’
Nursun Erel
New Anatolian, Turkey
May 10 2006
An open letter from Turkish intellectuals sent this week to French
daily Liberation urges the rejection of a bill that would criminalize
the denial of the so-called Armenian genocide in France.
The letter was signed by Ahmet Insel, Baskin Oran, Elif Safak, Etyen
Mahcupyan, Halil Berktay, Hrant Dink, Murat Belge, Muge Gocek and
Ragip Zarakolu. It emphasizes that the 1915 incidents were a “disaster
for humanity” and warns, “But whatever its aim, such a parliamentary
act would destroy joint efforts to investigate the historical facts,
so we especially ask our Armenian friends not to cause such an error.”
The letter also recalls the efforts of Turkish intellectuals who
organized the Istanbul conference on the Armenian issue held last year,
even at the risk of being called traitors.
Here are excerpts from the letter:
“We, the Turkish citizens, feel all the burden of the inhuman disaster
faced by the Ottoman Armenians during the last days of Ottoman
Empire. The agony of Armenians is our agony. The 1915 disaster cannot
be denied by anyone who claims to be human. Looking for the reasons
and aims behind such a tragedy is nonsense.
“But the democratic process is on in Turkey, as was seen during the
Istanbul conference held last Sept. 23-24. This process will chip away
at the darkness confronting the public on that issue. Even though the
people who struggle for this are branded traitors, we know that these
are the stages of a democratic process, so we will keep on struggling
through the issue.
“But we have serious concerns about the French Parliament’s possible
approval of the Armenian bill. Whatever its aim, such an initiative
would destroy joint efforts to investigate the facts. Such an
initiative would curb free discussion in France and would also create
a negative impact in Turkey.
“Such polarization would encourage monologues, as France should
very well know. In fact, we need dialogue more than such a vicious
argument. Freedom of expression is a universal principle, just like
the struggle for the crimes against humanity. Defending one does not
mean neglecting the other.
“But today it’s a shame that both sides are unable to communicate
their understanding to one another. Such a deadlock carries the risk
of further, more serious conflicts.
“The pioneers of such initiatives in France or in other places should
take into consideration those circles who are trying to avoid free
argument about the 1915 incidents.
“Sharing all our concerns, we especially warn our Armenian brothers
not to cause a fatal error which could not be easily corrected.”

ARMENIAN HARDLINERS ARE GETTING WHAT THEY WANT
Ilnur Cevik
New Anatolian, Turkey
May 10 2006
Turkey has recalled its ambassadors to Canada and France because of
the negative attitude in those countries towards Turkey’s denials
that Armenians living in Turkey early last century were subjected to
genocide …
The French not only acknowledge that there was a genocide but they’ve
also moved to legislate a ban on disputing such an event. That means
if a Turk makes statements in France denying that such a genocide
took place they could be sent to prison.
The Canadian prime minister, on the other hand, has acknowledged that
the Ottoman Turks were involved in genocide against Armenians living
in the eastern regions of their territory.
Turks have spent decades categorically denying such a genocide took
place. They stress that the Armenians collaborated with the invading
Russians in the First World War and the Ottoman administration
was forced to evacuate them by force to other parts of the empire,
especially to Ottoman territory in the Middle East. However Turks do
acknowledge that in the process Armenians perished due to illness and
attacks from bandits. But Turks also say that many Turks who lived
in the eastern provinces were also murdered by Armenian gunmen.
Turkey has offered several times to set up a joint commission of
impartial historians to study the Ottoman files and get to the bottom
of the issue. However the Armenians have rejected this. Armenian
hardliners, especially those in the diaspora, have been insistent on
trying to hurt Turkey as much as possible.
First they organized and financed a terrorist group the Armenian
Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA) that killed Turkish
diplomats and their families. The Western powers didn’t touch them
until ASALA made the mistake of unleashing its terrorist activities
at Orly Airport’s Turkish Airlines counter killing French citizens as
well as other tourists. Western intelligence officials then clamped
down on ASALA …
But Armenian hardliners continued their quest against Turkey and the
Turks. They helped Kurdish separatists to harm Turkey, forgetting that
most of the hordes who murdered Armenian families as they were being
evacuated from the east were, in fact, comprised of Kurdish bandits.
The Armenians also used politicians in many Western countries against
Turkey, sponsoring anti-Turkish resolutions in their parliaments.
There are strong and influential Armenian groups all over Europe and
north America. Politicians seeking their votes try to appease them.
The Swiss have already decided that denying the so-called Armenian
genocide is a crime. The parliaments of other countries have already
acknowledged the genocide claims.
So each time a foreign country does something to please the Armenians
Turkey hits back with the weapon of threatening to severe ties with
them. But this is exactly what the Armenian hardliners want. Every
time we create a chill in our ties with France, Canada or the U.S.
the Armenians rejoice. We should protest and try to educate the
public in these countries through lobbies and good public relations
but we should not take these meaningless actions, that only hurt our
international relations and push us into isolation.

SYDOW: ROJ-TV WON’T BROADCAST IN SWEDEN
New Anatolian, Turkey
May 10 2006
Swedish Parliament Speaker Bjorn Von Sydow assured his Turkish
counterpart Bulent Arinc yesterday that his country won’t allow
broadcasts by pro-terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) Roj-TV.
Sydow’s remarks came in response to reports that a private cable TV
company had decided to broadcast Danish-based Roj-TV.
“I learned about the matter during a meeting with Arinc,” explained
Sydow. “We’re investigating the case. But Roj-TV will definitely
not broadcast within Swedish borders,” CNN-Turk TV reported Sydow
as saying.
Press reports have indicated that Sweden has allowed the channel to
broadcast although it recently closed down a website belonging to
Chechen separatists following a complaint from Russia.
Turkey and Denmark are at odds over the Danish governments’ inability
to close Roj-TV, which broadcasts programs encouraging, supporting
and directing the terrorist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Although
Turkey has stepped-up pressure on Denmark to close down the channel,
Denmark insists on rejecting the Turkish requests and says that it
needs more evidence to shut it down.
Touching on the Armenian genocide claims, Sydow reportedly stated that
they have left the issue for evaluation by scholars. He said that his
Parliament is among those which haven’t recognized the controversial
incidents as “genocide.”
During his speech to the Swedish Parliament, Arinc also stressed
that Turkey will never recognize the Armenian genocide claims since,
according to history, such an event never happened. He reiterated
previous Turkish calls to open both Turkish and Armenian archives to
study the events.
Arinc: Turks’ religion never been obstacle to Western integration
Arinc stated that the religious beliefs of Turkish citizens has never
been an obstacle to secular Turkey being an indispensable part of
Europe or to its membership in Western-oriented organizations.
“Nobody questioned Turkish people’s religious beliefs when it joined
NATO in 1952 or when it was supported independence in Europe after
the Cold War,” Arinc added.
Lashing out at the EU’s double standards on Turkey’s accession
process, Arinc said, “Despite negative developments, we believe that
EU membership will be beneficial for Turkey. We don’t want privileges,
but we don’t want double standards either.”

PRIEST ACCUSED OF SEXUALLY ASSAULTING GIRL
NBC30.com, CT
May 10 2006
NEW BRITAIN, Conn. — A New Britain priest was arrested after he
allegedly sexually assaulted a 12-year-old girl inside of a church.
Krikoris Keshishian, 53, allegedly assaulted the girl while he was
acting in his official capacity as the priest of St. Steven’s Armenian
Church on Tremont Street.
Keshishian was charged with 4th degree sexual assault and risk of
injury to, or impairing the morals of, children by sexual contact. He
was released on $5,000 bond.
video can be viewed at

THE LITTLE GUYS OF THE OIL BUSINESS
By Ian Bremmer
Slate
May 10 2006
With the stream of alarming news coming from Iran, Iraq, and Nigeria,
media reports of turmoil in places like Chad and Ecuador often go
unnoticed. But in an exceptionally tight energy market, political
uncertainty in some of the world’s largest energy-exporting states
gives new importance to the so-called marginal producers: countries
that produce between 100,000 and 1 million barrels of crude oil per
day. That’s why markets took note when Chad’s president, Idriss Deby,
threatened in April to shut down his country’s 180,000 bpd of oil
production, and when Ecuador’s parliament passed a law in March that
substantially increases the government’s share of oil profits at the
expense of the foreign firms operating there.
The world’s oil suppliers are still able to provide the 85 million
bpd that the world now consumes-but just barely. Spare capacity is
limited to about 1.5 million bpd from Saudi Arabia. So, an output
disruption in even a marginal producer affects global markets, and
some of these states are prepared to leverage their new market power
to political advantage.
Consider Chad, one of the world’s poorest countries. The World
Bank had conditioned financial support for Chad’s oil industry on a
government pledge to allow the bank to direct 85 percent of energy
income into badly needed poverty-reduction, health, and education
programs in the country. In January, when Chad’s parliament voted to
funnel more of the proceeds directly into the country’s treasury,
the bank froze the funds. Armed with new market influence provided
by global price increases, in April Deby threatened to shut down
all Chad’s production unless a consortium of foreign firms led by
ExxonMobil paid his government about $100 million in taxes.
Deby needs the money. On April 13, Chad’s military repelled a surprise
rebel attack on N’Djamena, the capital, that was intended to oust him
from power. Hundreds of rebel fighters were killed. But unless Chad’s
military receives an infusion of cash, its government cannot quell
the unrest produced by those who don’t share in the country’s natural
wealth or support Deby’s approach to the violence in neighboring Sudan.
The president’s threat produced results. Chad and the World Bank
reached an interim agreement on April 26 that increases the percentage
of oil income that will flow directly into Chad’s treasury from 15
percent to 30 percent. Whatever his promises to international lenders,
Deby will probably spend the extra cash on guns. Chad’s oil is more
valuable than ever, but the country’s underlying instability remains.
Ecuador’s government has also recognized its new leverage. The
hydrocarbon law its parliament approved in March sharply increases
the percentage of oil profits the government will claim and violates
the country’s production contracts with more than a dozen foreign
firms. Ecuador produces about 530,000 bpd, but the true measure of its
market power comes from the 190,000 bpd it exports directly to the
U.S. West Coast, making it the third-largest foreign crude supplier
to the Western United States after Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
Even small cuts in these supplies would be hard for the Western states
to replace.
Ecuador is unlikely to follow Chad’s lead and threaten a production
shutdown, but the country’s frequent strikes and production
stoppages-including one in 2005 that interrupted crude supplies for
two weeks and helped drive up the price of New York-traded oil futures
by about $2 per barrel-pose substantial risks for U.S. markets.
Many more of these marginal producers pose risks for consumers.
Africa provides nearly 20 percent of U.S. oil imports, mostly from
the Gulf of Guinea region. Widespread piracy off Africa’s west coast
could affect U.S.-bound oil supplies from countries like Angola and
Equatorial Guinea, the second- and third-largest African exporters
of oil to the United States after Nigeria.
In the Arabian Peninsula and Persian Gulf region, two marginal
producers in particular face domestic challenges that could undermine
their ability to maintain production levels. Yemen now produces
more than 400,000 bpd, but the country’s weak central government
will struggle to ease domestic social tensions and manage threats
from Islamic militants in the lead-up to September’s presidential
elections. Bahrain, which produces nearly 200,000 barrels of crude
per day, is a majority Shiite state ruled by a Sunni royal family.
Sunni-Shiite violence in Iraq could fuel sectarian tensions there.
Another reason that political strife in Yemen or Bahrain could add
to global price fluctuations: Both states border major oil production
and transit points.
In the Caspian region, political conflict in Azerbaijan could disrupt
supplies. Despite his re-election last November, President Ilham
Aliyev’s ability to implement policy is limited by an emerging group
of oligarchs. In addition, tensions have re-emerged with Armenia over
the disputed enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, the site of a war between
the two countries in the early 1990s.
Some 400,000 bpd will flow through Azerbaijan toward the Mediterranean
by the end of this year via the newly opened Baku-Ceyhan pipeline;
as many as 1 million bpd are expected by 2009.
While another war over the enclave is unlikely, even low-level fighting
there could threaten the pipeline, which passes within 10 miles of
Nagorno-Karabakh’s northern border.
What’s more, the market power these states now enjoy may well breed
new political turmoil, as increased investment and inflows of cash
give competing domestic factions more lucrative spoils to fight over.
In the Republic of Congo, a country that produces a little over 240,000
bpd and is already plagued by ethnic unrest and threats of civil war,
high energy revenues have fueled rampant corruption. In recent years,
an estimated $500 million have changed hands there in black-market
oil trading. The state-owned oil company SNPC has sold hundreds of
millions of dollars’ worth of cut-price oil to private businesses with
ties to the government. The country faces threats from southern-based
rebel groups who hope to oust President Denis Sassou-Nguesso and win
a greater share of the new wealth. Rich offshore reserves have fueled
maritime disputes with some of the country’s neighbors.
Conflicts in some of these states also increase tensions between the
most powerful consumer nations. The United States is currently leading
efforts to impose international sanctions on Sudan in response to
government-supported violence in the country’s Darfur region. Sudan is
expected to produce about 500,000 barrels of crude per day by the end
of this year. More than half its oil exports flow directly to China,
which has blocked sanctions on Khartoum in the past and threatens to
do so again.
The tight oil market has given energy companies, particularly
smaller independents, new incentives to scramble for contracts in
less familiar states. To protect their market shares and to profit
from rising prices, these firms have little choice but to accept
the risks that marginal producers pose for their investments-and
for the industrialized economies that are increasingly dependent on
their product.
Oil production data from International Energy Agency annual figures
for 2005.
Ian Bremmer is president of Eurasia Group, the global political risk
consultancy. His book The J Curve: A New Way To Understand Why Nations
Rise and Fall will be published in August 2006.
map at

PM’S GENOCIDE COMMENT STIRS UP A STORM
By Brian Adeba
Embassy Magazine, Canada
Canada’s Foreign Policy Newsweekly
May 10th, 2006
Even before Stephen Harper was elected prime minister, members of
the Armenian community met him in Toronto last October to press their
main issues of concern, top among which is the Armenian genocide. A
message posted on the website of the Armenian Prelacy of Canada says
Mr. Harper initiated the meeting.
The discussion didn’t turn heads until April 21, the annivesary of
the death of 1.5 million Armenians. That’s when Mr. Harper’s described
the situation as “genocide” ­ the first for a sitting Canadian prime
minister. The statement has sparked a diplomatic furore with Turkey,
which temporally recalled its ambassador to Canada in protest. Prior
to Mr. Harper’s public endorsement, a dedicated Armenian lobbying
effort, working quietly behind the scenes to get a high-ranking
member of Canada’s government to formally recognize the genocide,
had already been set in motion.
“We discussed the genocide, the importance of bringing the executive
branch to fully recognize the genocide and being consistent with
the legislative branch,” says Aris Babikian, Executive Director of
the Armenian National Committee of Canada (ANCC), which last month
formally opened an office in Ottawa. The ANCC now has chapters in 10
Canadian cities to serve the estimated 80,000 strong Armenian Diaspora
in Canada.
At the Toronto meeting with Mr. Harper, Mr. Babikian says the future
prime minister promised to “support any statement to recognise the
genocide.”
“He said for him, this is not a political issue, but an issue of
principle,” Mr. Babikian says.
On April 2004, Mr. Harper, then leader of the now defunct Canadian
Alliance party, was among the 153 MPs who voted in favour of a Bloc
Quebecois motion to recognize that Turkey committed genocide against
Armenians in 1915. The motion passed with 153 votes against 68.
Liberal backbenchers broke ranks with Prime Minister Paul Martin to
vote for the motion. Despite the considerable number of Liberal MPs
who supported the motion, Mr. Martin refrained from publicly endorsing
the genocide. In fact, on the day of the vote, Hansard records show
he was absent.
On March 23, 2006, an Armenian delegation including a high-ranking
religious leader from Lebanon met Mr. Harper at his office in Ottawa.
Mr. Babikian says the discussions touched on bilateral issues,
including the possibility of opening a Canadian embassy in Armenia,
and also the genocide.
“Once [Mr. Harper] became prime minister, we asked him to uphold
his position [on the genocide],” says Mr. Babikian. In April at the
opening of the offices of the ANCC, Conservative MP Jason Kenny, who
is Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, attended the event.
“He congratulated the community for finally taking this step [opening
the office],” says Mr. Babikian, who adds that the ANCC has known Mr.
Kenny since 2004, after the MP visited Rome during an occasion when an
Armenian priest killed during the genocide was named a saint by the
Pope. On May 1, during a debate on Darfur in the House of Commons,
Mr. Kenny commended Mr. Harper for having the “courage” to recognize
the “historical reality of the first genocide of the last century,
the Armenian genocide.”
But as the Armenian Diaspora’s lobbying effort seems to be growing
in influence with the new Tory government, the Turkish community in
Canada is up in arms, sounding alarm bells about being sidelined by
the Harper government.
“Our viewpoint is never considered,” says Kevser Taymaz, an executive
of the Federation of Canadian Turkish Associations. After Mr. Harper
met an Armenian delegation in March, Ms. Taymaz says the Turkish
community wrote a letter to the prime minister requesting a similar
meeting, but were referred to the Department of Foreign Affairs.
“I don’t know if [Mr. Harper] will meet us,” she says. “We are being
deliberately sidelined.”
“If [the Harper government is] talking about votes, there are 100,000
Canadians of Turkish origin in Canada,” Ms. Taymaz says. She also
condemns Canadian politicians for “listening to the views of the
Armenian lobby.”
“History cannot be decided upon by political lobbying,” she says.
“Here in Ottawa, we have people who lost their relatives to the
Armenian bandits [in 1915].”
Ms. Taymaz also says people of Turkish origin are not used to the idea
of lobbying governments because “we have come to terms with the past
[regarding the genocide].”
She added that Armenian children in Canada are being raised on a diet
of hatred towards Turks and Turkey, and that this does not bode well
for Canada as a whole.
“Now we know Canadian companies will be left out of bids,” she says of
a story circulating in Turkish media following the recall of Aydemir
Erman, Turkey’s Ambassador to Canada, last week.
Yonet Tezel, Counsellor at the Embassy of Turkey, says Mr. Erman was
called to Turkey for consultations, but could not say when the envoy
will be back in Ottawa.
“We are very concerned and worried that these claims of genocide are
finding reflection at that level in Canada,” says Mr. Tezel.
“It is very serious, it is an attack on us,” he says. Asked what kind
of reciprocal measures Turkey would take, Mr. Tezel says he is not
in position to divulge any information.
Kim Girtel, a spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Canada, says the
department was notified last Thursday that the Turkish ambassador is
being recalled for “consultations for a short time” in Ankara. “These
consultations are internal to the government of Turkey and we will
not speculate at this time,” she says.
Dmitri Kitsikis, an expert on Turkey and professor of international
relations at the University of Ottawa, says the diplomatic spat is
not likely to last long because it is a symbolic move designed to
appease the Turkish military, the real power brokers in the country.
Mr. Kitsikis says the Turkish military, who are the custodians of
the country’s secular politics has had an uneasy relationship with
the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan who heads a
moderate Islamist party.
“The victim is Mr. Erdogan himself, the military could step in and
take power,” says Mr. Kitsikis, who adds that Mr. Harper’s comments
on the Armenian genocide do not help democracy in Turkey.
“Why did he say that except if he wants a coup in Turkey,” Mr. Kitsikis
says.
[email protected]
bassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_ path=/2006/may/10/genocide/
–Boundary_(ID_foVyk8 v8pUoNYI48/X7PXA)–