Snoop & “Soul” to Be Locked Up

DeadBrain.com (Political Satire)
February 22 2005

By Mo Blacka

In a shrewd marketing move reminiscent of Disney’s animated classics,
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer has announced that Soul Plane is going to be
retired and put into the Lions Vault for the next 15 years.

Historically, The Walt Disney Company limited the distribution of
several of its time honored classics. Michael Eisner himself is on
record as saying, “Two reasons. It increases collectability and
improves profit margin by re-releasing old films into theaters every
20 years or so. It’s a win-win for the shareholder and movie viewing
consumer.”

Move over Disney, here comes MGM.

The impetus for this executive decision comes on the heels of the
Academy Awards recognition of both the film and Snoop Dogg’s riveting
performance on the big screen. An unnamed Academy source hinted that
screenwriters Bo Zenga and Chuck Wilson will receive a Lifetime
Achievement Award for their collaborative effort on the modern day air
travel epic.

Jessy Terrero, director of the film had mixed emotions. “I knew we had
something special on the set. I’m thrilled that I was able to work
with such consummate professionals as Snoop Dogg, Method, and Tom
Arnold. I just wish a Best Director nomination had come with it.”

MGM CEO Alex Yemenidjian could only be described as “giddy” at the
press conference confirming the news. “This is just what we need to
rebound from a few quarters that were below expectations financially.
We’ve decided to shorten the re-release span to 15 years to coincide
with the typical generational gap of our target audience.”

The Oscar presenter for the award is to be action star and thespian
Mr. Richard Roundtree. “I can dig it,” said Roundtree. Triple threat
actor/recording artist/playa Snoop Doggy Dogg (a.k.a. Calvin Broadus)
could not be reached for comment. His publicist said he was in talks
with rival Columbia Pictures regarding his own screenplay, based on
the 1980’s hit TV dance show Solid Gold. Possible titles? Vashizzle
Gold or Solid Golden Vashizzle.

Can you say blockbuster?

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Contact: V. Rev. Fr. Krikor Chiftjian, Communications Officer
Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E- mail: [email protected]
Web:

PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon

Armenian version:

THE CATHOLICOSATE OF CILICIA PARTICIPATES
IN THE WCC ECUMENICAL OFFICERS’ MEETING

The meeting of the Ecumenical Officers of the World Council of Churches was
held in council’s headquarters in Geneva on 23-25 February. Bishop Nareg
Alemezian, Ecumenical Officer of the Catholicosate of Cilicia participated
in the meeting and was elected as a member of the meeting’s executive
committee.

Rev. Hovagim Manougian represented the Catholicosate of Etchmiadzine during
the meeting.

Around 50 religious and secular representatives from various churches the
Middle East, Europe, Latin America, North America, Africa and Asia
participated in the meeting. The participants discussed issues concerning
Ecumenical movement on local, regional and international levels.

Bishop Nareg Alemezian spoke during the meeting about the urgent situation
prevailing currently in the Middle East and specially Lebanon, and the
exemplary role of the Armenian Church.

##

The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates of
the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the Ecumenical
activities of the Cilician Catholicosate, you may refer to the web page of
the Catholicosate, The Cilician Catholicosate, the
administrative center of the church is located in Antelias, Lebanon.

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Contact: V. Rev. Fr. Krikor Chiftjian, Communications Officer
Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E- mail: [email protected]
Web:

PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon

Armenian version:

CATHOLICOSATE OF CILICIA PARTICIPATES IN THE MEETING
OF THE MECC UNIT ON “LIFE AND SERVICE”

The Middle East Council of Churches (MECC) organized a meeting of its “Life
and Service” unit on the 15th of February in the headquarters of the
council, Beirut. Aline Baghdasarian participated in the meeting as a
representative from the unit on behalf of the Armenian Catholicosate of
Cilicia.

The activities carried out by the unit’s central committee in the fields of
health and preparation of manpower were discussed during the meeting. The
participants decided to carry on these activities by consulting with MECC
member churches.

##

The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates of
the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the Ecumenical
activities of the Cilician Catholicosate, you may refer to the web page of
the Catholicosate, The Cilician Catholicosate, the
administrative center of the church is located in Antelias, Lebanon.

PRESS RELEASE
Catholicosate of Cilicia
Communication and Information Department
Contact: V. Rev. Fr. Krikor Chiftjian, Communications Officer
Tel: (04) 410001, 410003
Fax: (04) 419724
E- mail: [email protected]
Web:

PO Box 70 317
Antelias-Lebanon

Armenian version:

HIS HOLINESS ARAM I VISTS THE ST. NESHAN CHURCH
ON THE OCCASION OF MID-LENT

It has become a tradition for His Holiness Aram I to preside over the
Sunrise Service and deliver a speech in the St. Neshan Church on the
occasion of mid-Lent. Accordingly, His Holiness visited the church on
Wednesday, the 2nd of March and was greeted by Bishop Kegham Khatcherian,
Primate of the Diocese of Lebanon and believers.

During the service Bishop Kegham Khatcherian welcomed the Catholicos. His
Holiness Aram I talked during his speech about the truthful path of
Christianity, focusing mainly on the leading role of the church.

“Christ Himself is the path, the truth and life,” said His Holiness, adding
that Church is the path to salvation. The Pontiff condemned those who preach
salvation outside the church and mislead believers.

The students and deacons of the Seminary of the Catholicosate of Cilicia
also participated in the service, performing the hymns.

##

The Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia is one of the two Catholicosates of
the Armenian Orthodox Church. For detailed information about the history and
the mission of the Cilician Catholicosate, you may refer to the web page of
the Catholicosate, The Cilician Catholicosate, the
administrative center of the church is located in Antelias, Lebanon.

Wheatfield soul train

MEDIUM COOL

Toronto Eye Weekly
03.03.05

BY JASON ANDERSON

In the months since it opened, Atom Egoyan and Hussain Amarshi’s
Camera media bar near Queen and Ossington has attracted no shortage of
photo spreads for its chic design. Now they face a trickier task than
impressing the style mavens: establishing a consistent sensibility for
the programming.

While some Camera selections have been appropriate to the vanguard
nature of the space — and its one major limitation, the lack of a
35mm projector — others could have just as easily appeared at the
Carlton or a rep theatre. Of course, those places tend to discourage
viewers from slugging back vino, so Camera wins points there. But due
to its unusual combination of functions (cinema, bar, gallery) and
Egoyan’s rep as both auteur and cinephile, Camera can also afford to
be more adventurous than other venues and show work that defies the
conventions not just of multiplex fare but the middlebrow titles that
dominate the art-house circuit.

Opening this weekend for a seven-night run, Clive Holden’s Trains of
Winnipeg () is exactly the sort of movie that belongs at Camera —
idiosyncratic, independent and supremely inventive. Holden’s first
feature-length work, it’s part of a multidisciplinary project that has
already yielded a book of poems, a spoken-word disc and a website, all
with the same prosaic yet oddly endearing title. (Could anything be
more Canadian?) Consisting of 14 “film poems,” Trains of Winnipeg
juxtaposes the poet and filmmaker’s ruminations on landscape and
memory with a wide array of visual strategies, including home movies,
travel films and found footage, which are then goosed up with
hand-processing effects and digital treatments. The richly detailed
sound design incorporates eerie, loop-based music by Christine Fellows
and the Weakerthans’ Jason Tait and John K. Samson (Winnipeggers all).

As much as I love Holden’s movie — it’s one of the finest
non-narrative movies ever made in this country — I can understand if
you cringe at the phrase “film poems.” I did too. I imagined a
slow-motion shot of geese in flight and a wispy-voiced narrator
murmuring about the ineffable sadness of a beach at twilight — in
other words, something too pretentious to work in either medium, let
alone both at once. There’s also the larger question of whether film
and poetry really belong together. If the best poetry consists of
words arranged to create the purest, most indelible form of linguistic
expression, then film strives to speak entirely through images. The
ultimate ambition of each form is to negate any need for the other.

Yet the film poem has existed for nearly as long as cinema. Sometimes
cited as the first American avant-garde film, Charles Sheeler and Paul
Strand’s Manhatta (1921) used intertitles by Walt Whitman. Man Ray’s
L’Etoile de Mer (1928) is taken from a poem by Robert Desnos. The
surrealists’ flagrantly poetic school of filmmaking eventually yielded
such works as Jean Cocteau’s Blood of a Poet (1930) and Jean Vigo’s
marginally more narrative-based L’Atalante (1934). The exquisite
collaborations between director Marcel Carné and poet Jacques Prévert
in the ’30s and ’40s (most famously Children of Paradise) also bear
traces of the French film-poem ideal. With Meshes of the Afternoon
(1943), Maya Deren fused her interests in poetry, dance and cinema to
establish a new mode of expression. The aphorism-filled essay films of
Agnès Varda and Chris Marker established another, as did the wild and
wordy fantasias of Derek Jarman. In Canada, the precise, haiku-like
short films of Philip Hoffman have greatly influenced the experimental
film scene.

Holden deploys many of these approaches in Trains of Winnipeg as he
explores and subverts relationships between word and image. In the
opening piece, “Love in the White City,” Holden’s wry examination of
urban dread is accompanied by the sight of his legs walking in the
four corners of the screen — the repetitiveness of the image and the
looping, crackly music enhance the effects of the poem’s subtler
rhythmic structure and sense of futile motion. In “Burning Down the
Suburbs,” a family of miniature figures watch a model car in flames,
dramatizing a scene that is not described in the poem but still
complements the ones that are. The grainy, distorted home-movie
fragments in “Nanaimo Station” seem as degraded as the narrator’s
falsely idyllic memories of his family in a time when “the food was
like magazines and the cars were all big.” In “Hitler! (revisited),” a
tribute to Holden’s schizophrenic brother Niall, onscreen text
replaces the voiceover, a stylistic tack that emphasizes the
interiority of Niall’s existence. In the title piece, the words
disappear altogether, replaced by the amped-up visual poetry of the
trains.

By the time the wheels stop moving, Holden has provided ample proof of
the film poem’s ability to engage and enlighten. Wry, wise and damn
near sublime, Trains of Winnipeg makes you wish there were more movies
just like it. Alas, the challenges of cine-poetry remain daunting, as
they probably should — when this stuff goes wrong, it can go
eye-bleedingly, teeth-grindingly wrong. Even so, I hope Camera’s run
of Holden’s mesmerizing work will inspire others to forego familiar
tactics and try dreaming in verse.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

Backstory: Viva Las Merger

Las Vegas Mercury
Thursday, March 03, 2005

By Michael Green

Last week, MGM Mirage, Mandalay Resort Group and Nevada gaming
regulators made history…repeat itself.

Not to minimize the $8.7 billion merger that will, at least for now,
give Kirk Kerkorian control of the MGM Grand, New York-New York,
Bellagio, Mirage, Treasure Island, Monte Carlo, Mandalay Bay, Luxor,
Excalibur, Circus Circus, two turtle doves and a partridge in a pear
tree. It’s a highly significant moment in Nevada’s history–and, in
some ways, American history. But it’s certainly not the first great
concentration of economic power in Nevada.

So, how has history repeated itself?

– On the Comstock Lode, William Sharon ran the Bank of California’s
Virginia City branch. He and the bank controlled most of the
Comstock’s major mines and mills, a water company, transportation
companies and a railroad.

With the Tonopah-Goldfield boom of the early 20th century, George
Wingfield followed in Sharon’s footsteps. He owned most of Nevada’s
leading mines, Reno’s top hotels and several Nevada banks until the
Great Depression gutted his empire.

The next leaders were casino operators. You could make a case for
Meyer Lansky, to whom some Las Vegas operators apparently funneled a
lot of money. Or, in the 1930s and ’40s, Kell Houssels, who owned
parts of several downtown clubs, a popular restaurant and bus and cab
companies. Or Cliff Jones, an attorney involved in gaming and
well-wired everywhere. Or Moe Dalitz, whose finger could be found in
nearly every local pie. Or Howard Hughes, whose story is well-known.

Steve Wynn not only owned several resorts but was politically and
socially influential in a public way that Kerkorian prefers to
avoid. But when some called Wynn Nevada’s most powerful man, they
apparently hadn’t heard of Sharon or Wingfield. Kerkorian certainly is
powerful–and part of a tradition–but hardly grasping in the way
Sharon and Wingfield were.

– Birds of a feather flock together. Sharon faced competition from the
Silver Kings, led by John Mackay, who hit the Big Bonanza, then bought
or built their own mills, banks and transportation firms. Sharon
wasn’t popular with Mackay and his colleagues. But when Sharon bought
the Territorial Enterprise, Virginia City’s great newspaper, he ended
up with about 80 percent of it. Most of the rest belonged to Mackay.

When Wingfield’s empire collapsed, the men around him–attorneys like
George Thatcher and William Woodburn, businessmen like Norman Biltz
and John Mueller–didn’t burn him in effigy. They latched onto Pat
McCarran, the U.S. senator who had fought them and Wingfield for
decades and succeeded Wingfield as Nevada’s political boss.

In early Las Vegas, the railroad ruled the roost. Even if William
A. Clark

wasn’t too hands-on, his company, in partnership with the Union
Pacific, was the seen and unseen hand. Ed Clark, Pop Squires, John
S. Park, Walter Bracken and Peter Buol seemed to invest in everything.

Before corporate gaming, the state frowned on multiple ownership, but
casino operators found ways. Del Webb owned several casinos. Several
investors had points–shares–in several places, from Eddie Levinson
in the Sands, Fremont and Horseshoe to Jackie Gaughan in, it seemed,
every casino off the Strip. They ran their own places but often were
involved in others.

Wynn and Mandalay built the Monte Carlo, then Kerkorian got half of it
and now all of it. And he has a partner in the Atlantic City Borgata,
Bill Boyd, who has a few casinos of his own. Birds of a feather? Yes.
Big birds.

– Kerkorian. In a history filled with business people great and evil,
visionary and predatory, Kerkorian is a story unto himself. He’s
certainly a Horatio Alger story–rags to riches, and no one doubts
hard work has been at the center of it. He’s built and bought
companies and tends not to be sentimental about them. But it’s worth
bearing in mind that he has built the largest hotel in Las
Vegas–indeed, the world–on three different occasions: The
International, now Hilton, in 1969; the MGM Grand, now Bally’s, in
1973; and the new MGM Grand, in 1993. Each time, he set a new
standard.

He also has played a significant role in the entertainment, airline
and auto industries, among others. He obviously is a key figure in Las
Vegas history, but also in American business history generally, and
that combination is rare.

– Las Vegas is not unique. If you read this online via AOL–that is,
Time Warner Turner HBO aol.com–or you watch the Knappster on that
affiliate of CBS, which Viacom owns along with Comedy Central, the MTV
networks, Nickelodeon and TV Land, among other outlets, you should
know monopolies or near-monopolies, for good or ill, are part of the
past and present, whatever the industry or party in power. And the
next merger, between Harrah’s and Caesars, will be even larger than
this one.

Kerkorian, MGM Mirage and Mandalay are part of the story of modern Las
Vegas and modern America. That’s the fun part of this history: It’s
being written as you read it.

PHOTO CAPTION: “Kerkorian: Not the first Nevadan to amass such
economic power”.

The Las Vegas Mercury is Nevada’s Largest Alternative Newsweekly.

Workers’ Comp. Judge Fines Station Club Owners Over
$1M

Derderian Brothers Failed To Carry Workers’
Compensation Insurance When Club Burned Down

News Channel 10 (Providence, Rhode Island)
March 3, 2005

PROVIDENCE — The families of four nightclub employees killed in the
2003 West Warwick fire went to court Thursday morning to ask a judge
to order the club’s owners to pay death benefits and lost wages.

State Workers’ Compensation Court Judge Bruce Morin fined brothers
Michael and Jeffrey Derderian over $1 million for failing to carry
workers’ compensation insurance coverage when the club burned to the
ground in a deadly fire two years ago.

Investigators To Release Nightclub Fire Report Special Section: The
Station Nightclub Fire

“Bottom line is, they’ve always wanted to compensate the families of
their employees who are very valued people,” said Attorney Jeff Pine,
who represents Jeffrey Derderian in the case.

According to state law, if the Derderians had carried workers’
compensation insurance, the families of the employees killed by the
Feb. 20, 2003, blaze would have been eligible for $15,000 for burial
and other expenses, plus a portion of the deceased’s lost wages.

The families of Tracy King and Dina DeMaio are seeking benefits on
behalf of dependents, according to The Providence Journal. Petitions
filed in the cases of employees Andrea and Steven Mancini are seeking
death benefits. They’ll receive compensation ranging from death
benefits to burial costs.

The Station fire, sparked by a rock band’s pyrotechnics, killed 100
people and injured more than 200 others.

In August, a Workers’ Compensation Court judge found the Derderians
personally liable for a $1.07 million fine against their company,
Derco LLC, for failing to carry the required insurance.

The brothers have appealed, calling the fine excessive and arguing
they don’t have the money to pay it out.

The Derderians also face civil claims by fire victims’ families and
survivors of the blaze, and the state has charged them each with 200
counts of involuntary manslaughter.

There is no word on how much money the families will receive.

The Derderians have seven days to appeal the decision.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Masco Corporation Announces Live Webcast of
Presentation at Investor Meeting

PRNewswire-FirstCall
Wednesday March 2, 2005

TAYLOR, Mich., March 2 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — Masco Corporation’s
(NYSE: MAS) Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Richard Manoogian
will present at the Raymond James Institutional Investors Conference
in Orlando, Florida on March 8, 2005 at 7:30 a.m. ET.

Masco’s presentation will be webcast live on the Internet at
or via the Company’s website at
. A replay of the webcast will be available via
the above link or via Masco’s website through April 1, 2005.

Headquartered in Taylor, Michigan, Masco Corporation is one of the
world’s leading manufacturers of home improvement and building
products as well as a leading provider of services that include the
installation of insulation and other building products.

Statements contained herein may include certain forward-looking
statements regarding Masco’s future sales, earnings growth potential
and other developments. Actual results may vary materially because of
external factors such as interest rate fluctuations, changes in
consumer spending and other factors over which management has no
control. The Company believes that certain non-GAAP performance
measures and ratios, used in managing the business, may provide users
of this financial information with additional meaningful comparisons
between current results and results in prior periods. Non-GAAP
performance measures and ratios should be viewed in addition to, and
not as an alternative for, the Company’s reported results under
accounting principles generally accepted in the United
States. Additional information about the Company’s products, markets
and conditions, which could affect the Company’s future performance,
is contained in the Company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and is available on Masco’s website at
. Masco undertakes no obligation to update any forward- looking
statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or
otherwise.

Source: Masco Corporation

Yemenidjian: MGM Says CEO’s Bonus Less Glamorous

Doers and doings in business, entertainment and technology

Faces In The News

Forbes.com
02.28.05

By Greg Levine

Cut. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (nyse: MGM) on Monday said it
paid Chairman and Chief Executive Alex Yemenidjian a
$1.13 million bonus last year. That’s down from $1.45
million the CEO got for 2003, according to the
company’s filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission. The legendary film and TV studio said the
head honcho’s 2004 package also included a base salary
of $2.5 million, which stayed the same over the last
two years. Although the studio posted a 2004 loss of
$29.2 million, or 12 cents per share, compare that to
MGM’s loss of $161.8 million, or 66 cents per share,
in 2003. Yemenidjian has served as chairman and CEO of
the entertainment production company since April 1999,
and a director since November 1997. The terms of his
employment agreement call for him to keep the C-level
posts through April 30, 2007. MGM is in the process of
being acquired by an investors’ consortium with Sony
(nyse: SNE) in its vanguard. Industry rumor had
suggested Yemenidjian as Michael Eisner’s successor at
The Walt Disney Co. (nyse: DIS) when the latter leaves
the CEO post in 2006, but MGM’s head waved off the
idea, saying he preferred to own a significant piece
of the next firm he captains.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

The Jamestown Foundation
Tuesday, March 1, 2005 — Volume 2, Issue 41
EURASIA DAILY MONITOR

IN THIS ISSUE:
*Yushchenko proposes reviving GUAM
*Russia stands by as EU considers lifting Tiananmen embargo
*Will Tbilisi sell its pipelines to Gazprom?
*Kazakhstan proposes Union of Central Asian states
————————————————————————

KYIV-TBILISI-CHISINAU TRIANGLE: COMMON APPROACH TO COMMON PROBLEMS

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko is holding meetings in Kyiv
today (March 1) with Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin and Georgian
Prime Minister Zurab Noghaideli. Their agenda includes energy supply,
border security, anti-smuggling efforts, and revitalizing the GUAM
(Georgia-Ukraine-Azerbaijan-Moldova) group of countries. Tomorrow
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili will arrive in Chisinau for a
working visit that includes meetings with President Voronin and
opposition Christian-Democrat People’s Party leader Iurie Rosca.

Saakashvili and Voronin are scheduled to sign a “Chisinau Declaration
on the Supremacy of Democratic Values” and a “Declaration on the
‘Black Holes’ in Europe.” The first document, a follow-up to the
Yushchenko-Saakashvili “Carpathian Declaration” signed in January in
Ukraine, commits Moldova alongside Georgia to “recognizing
representative democracy to be the most effective model of sound, good
governance.” It goes on to express the common belief that “only
Democracy can guarantee true state-building through strengthening
civil society and its institutions . . . in the countries that have
emerged from totalitarian dictatorship and foreign rule.”

Clearly alluding to the Russian government’s ongoing campaign to lift
its Moldovan “centrist” allies to power in the upcoming general
elections, the declaration asserts, “No external forces can prevent
the freedom-loving peoples from voting . . . in accordance with their
beliefs. No outside force should be allowed to impose its will on the
people, no one should be allowed to influence the outcome of the
elections and try to change the political course of the country
through economic blackmail and all kinds of illegal operations.”

Thus far, no Western institution, government, embassy in Chisinau, or
Western election observers have commented on Moscow’s and Tiraspol’s
massive political and media offensive to manipulate Moldova’s
elections. There are growing indications that Russian and
Transnistrian intelligence services plan to infiltrate and hijack any
post-election street demonstrations. This is why the joint
Georgian-Moldovan declaration is “asking the democratic world to
shield us from illegal interference from the enemies of freedom and
forces trying to impose any kind of imperialistic policies. Taking
into consideration that Moldova has insisted that the largest possible
number of election observers from Western democracies should come to
the country, we trust these observers to impartially monitor the
elections.”

Advancing from rule by Moscow-supported corrupt clans to real
statehood is a further challenge to both countries. Thus, “We trust
that the new government of Moldova will come to power as a result of
free and fair elections, not through external threats of economic
sanctions and the attempts of corrupt clans to return to power with
support from yesterday’s masters.”

The “Declaration on the ‘Black Holes’ in Europe” reflects Georgia’s
and Moldova’s analogous problems in Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South
Ossetia. The document anticipates joint political efforts in facing
“threats to international peace and security stemming from armed
separatism” and “resolving the externally inspired protracted
conflicts in both our countries.” It reminds the international
community that the secessionist enclaves, “openly supported from the
outside, have become crime zones,” posing region-wide threats to
stability. They also threaten national identities: “in Transnistria,
the use of the Moldovan language is sharply restricted, schools are
persecuted, the Latin alphabet banished; and in the Gali region of
Abkhazia, teachers are prohibited from teaching their students in
their native Georgian language.”

The document observes that the “presence and direct involvement of
Russian military forces in Georgia and in Moldova has become the main
catalyst of these conflicts. Therefore, the speedy removal of the
Russian forces represents the common interest of our countries and
that of the entire region . . . This is not only our local problem,
but a problem for the entire Europe.” Successful political resolution
of these conflicts would “enable our countries to become integrated
into Wider Europe, to deepen our cooperation with the Euro-Atlantic
community.”

Consequently, Georgia and Moldova will “undertake joint diplomatic
steps in international forums” on these issues. Far from viewing the
populations in these territories as enemies, Tbilisi and Chisinau
appeal to them “to rejoin us in the framework of democratic states and
of peaceful Europe. Joining Europe is Georgia’s and Moldova’s
uppermost goal. Let all of us join Europe together.”

–Vladimir Socor

MOSCOW OFFERS MUTED RESPONSE TO POSSIBLE END OF EU ARMS EMBARGO
AGAINST CHINA

Despite U.S. opposition, the European Union is proceeding with plans
to lift the arms embargo against China by June 2005. The ban had been
imposed following the June 1989 crackdown on democracy protestors in
Tiananmen Square. Beijing is looking for alternative sources for the
arms it currently buys from Russia, as there has been friction between
the two sides over Moscow’s reluctance to sell its most advanced
technology to China.

Dropping the embargo could accelerate China’s military buildup,
undermine stability in the Pacific, and endanger Russian
interests. Although Russia could rightfully be concerned about the
proposed EU policy change, Moscow’s response remains muted.

So far, Moscow has made no official comment on the EU plans to end the
arms embargo against China. Traditionally, Russian officials are
reluctant to comment on issues of arms trade.

However, the official Russian media views the Tiananmen embargo issue
in terms of geopolitical relations between the United States and the
EU, while lifting the embargo is considered to be detrimental to
U.S. policies concerning Taiwan (Rossiiskaya gazeta, February
26). There is concern that China’s ongoing military buildup could
entail military action against Taiwan to force unification, a
development with unpredictable repercussions for the entire
Asia-Pacific region.

Most of China’s arms imports now come from Russia. Beijing and Moscow
are already acting as strategic partners that seek to counter
U.S. influence, especially in resource-rich Central
Asia. Subsequently, Russian official mouthpieces tend to dismiss
concerns that revoking the EU arms embargo could exacerbate the
ongoing shift in the balance of power across the region.

Last week, the official Voice of Russia radio highlighted a statement
by a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman that said lifting the EU arms
embargo against China would not affect anyone’s interests and would
not undermine stability in the Asia-Pacific region. Dropping the
European embargo is unlikely to produce a sudden growth in China’s
military might, according to the radio’s commentary (Voice of Russia,
February 22).

Russian official media outlets have highlighted the geopolitical angle
of the Tiananmen embargo issue. During U.S. President George W. Bush’s
recent European tour, the U.S. leader and his European counterparts
agreed on all issues, except plans to lift the arms embargo against
China (Izvestiya, February 24). But so far, differences on the China
issue have not affected a move towards reconciliation between the
United States and Europe (Kommersant-Vlast, February 28).

In contrast, non-official Russian publications have assessed the
situation in blunt terms, expressing concerns that the sale of EU arms
to China would mean that European weapons could be used against
Russia. “China no longer wants Russian weapons,” the GlobalRus.ru
website noted in a comment entitled “Farewell to Russian Arms.”

Some Russian analysts believe that China also has an eye towards
dominating Northeast Asia, a plan that would be facilitated with
European weapons. Specifically, Russian arms exports allowed China to
build up its air and naval forces, while Beijing presumably eyes the
EU aid to beef up its land forces. China does not want to depend on
Russia to equip its land forces, which could be used against Russia
potentially (GlobalRus.ru, February 18).

Meanwhile, the Europeans, notably the French, are pushing to lift the
embargo not out of pure financial considerations, but in an attempt to
balance America’s global power (GlobalRus.ru, February 18).

Another potential cause for concern in Moscow is that EU arms will
compete with Russian arms producers in terms of quality. The Chinese
have procured Russian fighters, diesel submarines, destroyers, and
surface-to-air missiles, but they need state-of-the-art
communications, computers, plus surveillance and reconnaissance
systems to make that military hardware more effective (Lenta.ru,
February 22). Therefore, it is understood that Russian arms exports to
China are set to face formidable European competition.

Apart from bilateral arrangements, Moscow also has a multi-lateral
vehicle for security interaction with Beijing: the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO), a six-member group that includes
Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. The
SCO represents the first time China has committed itself to a regional
collective security agreement.

Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan, as well as Armenia and
Belarus, are also members of an alliance of former Soviet republics
known as the Collective Security Treaty Organization, or the
CSTO. Within the framework of the CSTO, Moscow has pledged to supply
weapons to other member states at Russia’s domestic prices, which are
significantly lower than international rates. It is understood that a
similar initiative for the SCO could eventually give Russia a
competitive edge over future EU arms exports to China.

Surprisingly, Russia advocates closer ties between the SCO and the
West. Last week, for example, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
called for cooperation between the SCO and NATO. “The CSTO has already
initiated [efforts] to establish interaction with NATO,” Lavrov told a
press conference following the February 25 SCO ministerial meeting in
Astana, Kazakhstan (Interfax, February 25). The meeting also
reportedly highlighted plans to sign a nuclear-free zone treaty for
Central Asia later this year, but made no mention of other security
arrangements, including arms trade.

Although affecting Russia’s interests, the embargo issue largely
remains a problem for U.S.-EU-China relations. During his European
tour in February 2005, President George W. Bush said there was “deep
concern” in the United States that lifting the European Union’s arms
embargo against China would change the balance of relations between
China and Taiwan. Also in February, the U.S. House of Representatives
passed a resolution (411-3) that condemned the European Union’s plans.

Nonetheless, French President Chirac announced after talks with
President Bush that Europe was about to remove “the last obstacles” to
its relations with China. On February 22, the Chinese Foreign Ministry
indicated that lifting the “erroneous and outdated measure” would help
develop China-EU relations.

–Sergei Blagov

SPECULATION ON PIPELINE SALE TO GAZPROM DETRIMENTAL TO GEORGIA’S
INTERESTS

A flurry of statements by Georgian officials in recent days suggests
that Tbilisi is once again considering the high-risk proposition of
selling the country’s gas transportation system to Russia’s monopoly
Gazprom. The idea is deeply controversial in Georgia’s decision-making
circles. The individuals pushing for such a sale appear oblivious to
three considerations that should remain uppermost to Georgian
decision-makers. The first, overarching priority must be national
security. Second, the country’s energy supply sources must be
diversified– in this case by guaranteeing a large market share for
the BP-led gas export project from Shah-Deniz in Azerbaijan, via
Georgia to Turkey. Finally, the third priority is Georgia’s
credibility in the United States, which regards the proposed sale to
Gazprom as detrimental to the U.S. goal of strengthening Georgia’s
political independence.

At a February 22 news conference, State Minister for Economic Reforms
Kakha Bendukidze professed to “not understand why we should be
threatened if those gas pipelines, through which Georgia receives gas
from Russia, are sold to Russia, which then takes care of the pipeline
system.” Implicitly acknowledging, however, that the U.S.-backed BP
pipeline project would be affected adversely, Bendukidze countered by
challenging the BP-led consortium to bid against Gazprom for acquiring
Georgia’s Soviet-era pipeline system (Imedi Television, Civil Georgia,
February 22). Bendukidze could not have been unaware of the fact that
BP had long made clear that it has no commercial interest in acquiring
Georgia’s old pipelines, but only in building its own pipeline. The BP
office in Tbilisi lost no time reaffirming that the company “has no
interest in taking part in this privatization process and does not
intend to purchase anything” in the old pipeline system (Civil
Georgia, February 24).

On February 24, Bendukidze declared that any sale of pipelines to
Gazprom would include a clause to guarantee supplies to Georgia. He
also held out the prospect of Gazprom expanding the capacity of the
trunk line to Turkey in order to export more Russian gas to that
country. The two Soviet-era lines run via Georgia to Turkey and to
Armenia, respectively. Their combined throughput capacity is said to
have fallen from 16 billion cubic meters annually pre-1991 to 8
billion cubic meters annually at present, requiring an estimated $200
million to repair (Reuters, February 24).

A guarantee clause in a sale contract could, however, only guarantee
overwhelming market share for Gazprom in Georgia, to the detriment of
alternative supply sources such as Azerbaijan. Gazprom’s guarantees
would offer no protection from threats to interrupt supplies on
technical or force majeure pretexts, as an instrument of Russian
political leverage on Georgia. Meanwhile, pumping Gazprom gas to
Turkey via Georgia would increase Turkey’s already risky dependence on
Russian gas. It would, moreover, preempt in Gazprom’s favor the
Turkish market niches that are now reserved for Shah-Deniz gas to be
piped via Georgia.

Reacting to the political fallout in Georgia from Bendukidze’s
remarks, Prime Minister Zurab Noghaideli reassured the public that no
decision has been made or even officially examined by the cabinet of
ministers. Noghaideli also pledged that the Parliament would be part
of any decision on this issue (Imedi Television, Civil Georgia,
February 23). Selling the trunk pipelines to Gazprom would require
changes to existing Georgian legislation that prohibits the sale of
strategic assets such as transportation pipelines. Parliament Chair
Nino Burjanadze is on record as strongly opposing, on
national-security grounds, any sale of the trunk lines to Gazprom
(Rezonansi, January 31).

Steven Mann, the top U.S. official responsible for Caspian energy
issues, cautioned Georgia publicly on February 24 against selling the
trunk pipelines to Gazprom. Noting that the U.S. has been working for
years to strengthen Georgia’s independence and to help diversify the
country’s energy supply sources, Mann pointed out that the proposed
sale to Gazprom would run counter to this U.S. policy, and also reduce
the commercial potential in Georgia of BP’s Shah-Deniz project, which
would however go ahead regardless (Civil Georgia, February 24). Mann
has issued several cautionary statements of this kind ever since
former president Eduard Shevardnadze and former energy minister Davit
Mirtshkulava (now in jail on corruption charges) entered into talks on
this issue in 2003 with Gazprom.

In an interview with the Italian newspaper La Stampa, cited by
Georgian media on February 22, President Mikheil Saakashvili confirmed
that talks on selling trunk pipelines to Gazprom are in
progress. Declining to go into details, the president only remarked,
“The gas is Russian after all” (Imedi Radio, Civil Georgia, February
22). This remark as cited seems implicitly to acknowledge that selling
trunk pipelines to Gazprom may well result in preserving an
overwhelming market share for Gazprom in Georgia. However, Saakashvili
returned to the matter during the cabinet of ministers’ special
session on energy issues on February 25, in the conclusion of which he
reassured the public, “The Georgian government would not do anything
that would make the country dependent on some monopolistic
scheme. Currently there is no decision being prepared on this issue
. . . No one should be able to blackmail us by saying, ‘If you do
something, you will find your power cut’ ” (Georgian Television
Channel One, February 25).

The president possesses the political and moral authority to put an
end to speculation on a sale to Gazprom that would be detrimental to
Georgia’s national interests on so many counts.

–Vladimir Socor

KARIMOV TOYS WITH NAZARBAYEV’S CALL FOR INTEGRATION In his annual
message to the nation, delivered on February 18, Kazakhstan President
Nursultan Nazarbayev made yet another well-calculated move to polish
his personal image as an ardent supporter of Central Asian
integration. “I propose creating a Union of Central Asian states,” he
announced. Indulging in an extensive retelling of history, Nazarbayev
said that the ancient Silk Route symbolized not only the link between
West and East, but also the unity of the Central Asian peoples.

Nazarbayev said that the states of the region face a choice: either
remain a supplier of raw materials for the rest of the world “in
anticipation of the advent of the next empire” or move towards an
integrated Central Asian region. The Kazakh leader called upon Central
Asian nations “to be worthy of our common great ancestors who would
always see us together. It is time for us to open a new, indispensable
way for the next generation of nations enjoying equal rights”
(Ekspress-K, February 19).

While Nazarbayev’s integration zeal was predictably applauded at home,
foreign audiences, including the Central Asian neighbors targeted by
the message, largely remained lukewarm to the idea. Officials in the
Foreign Ministry of Uzbekistan, who were quoted by the Ferghana.ru
website as having downplayed the integration initiative as “another
call for show, unfounded and far from reality.” According to the same
source, Uzbekistan’s Foreign Ministry dismissed Nazarbayev’s
integration call as an attempt to “deflect the attention of the people
from regional problems or boost his image as an active supporter of
Central Asian cooperation” (Ferghana.ru, February 22).

This unfriendly comment triggered a wave of diplomatic indignation in
Kazakhstan. In an interview with the government newspaper
Kazakhstanskaya pravda, Foreign Minister Kasymzhomart Tokayev hastened
to announce that the Central Asian union proposed by Nazarbayev should
not be construed as an insidious scheme to create a single state
dominated by one nation. As he explained further, Nazarbayev had in
mind the “development of integration and coordination of policies on
economic reforms through creating a free-trade zone, a customs union,
a common market of resources, goods, capital, and labor, and a
currency union.”

Tokayev went on to enumerate a laundry list of further arguments in
favor of the Central Asian union, such as human trafficking, illegal
migration, proliferation of conventional weapons, and shortage of
water resources in the region. Tokayev, clearly trying to dispel any
mistrust toward Kazakhstan’s integration proposal, added that the
proposed Central Asian union would be modeled on the European Union in
order to guarantee the equal rights of its members (Kazakhstanskaya
pravda, February 23).

In commenting on the Central Asian union concept, Tokayev was more
explicit than Nazarbayev, who had broadly outlined his integration
design and vaguely linked the need to create a union of Central Asian
states to the threat of globalization and growing military and
economic rivalry between superpowers for the resources of the
region. Nazarbayev did not directly say that the would-be union should
integrate Turkic-speaking states, but he referred to the Agreement on
Eternal Friendship between Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan and
also noted “common cultural and historical roots, language, and
religion” as a solid foundation for the integration.

Obviously, Nazarbayev did not expect his message to produce a hostile
response in Uzbekistan. Shortly after the reports on Ferghana.ru, he
had a telephone conversation with his Uzbek counterpart, Islam
Karimov, who reassured him that Uzbekistan’s Foreign Ministry did not
have anything to do with the information spread “by some news
agencies.” Proclaiming Uzbekistan’s willingness to cooperate with its
neighbor, Karimov expressed his country’s readiness to help Kazakhstan
to avert flooding in the Syrdarya river basin by diverting discharge
water from the overfilled Shardara reservoir in south Kazakhstan to
the Arnasay lowlands in Uzbekistan (Interfax Kazakhstan, February 23).

Uzbekistan’s newly appointed Foreign Minister, Elyor Ganiev, had to
quell the diplomatic row when he arrived in Astana to attend a session
of the Council of Foreign Ministers of members of the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization on February 25. Ganiev reiterated Karimov’s
view that the information disseminated in the media does not reflect
the position of official Tashkent, which sees President Nazarbayev’s
initiative on creating a union of Central Asian states as a genuine
intention to deepen the integration in the region (Vesti.uz, February
28).

Some experts in Kazakhstan note that the idea of Central Asian
regional integration, as proposed by Nazarbayev, essentially boils
down to a revival of the pan-Turkism put forward nearly a century ago
by Mustafa Shokay, a controversial Kazakh intellectual, who lived in
exile in France and died in Germany during World War II. But whatever
the conceptual roots of the integration idea, everyone in Central Asia
could derive benefits from such a union.

Yet such hopes are tinged with strong doubts. Kazakhstan has seen many
integration agreements, pledges of friendship, and alliances in the
past, but none of them ever fully materialized (Zhas Qazaq, February
25).

–Marat Yermukanov

————————————————————————
The Eurasia Daily Monitor is a publication of the Jamestown
Foundation. The opinions expressed in it are those of the individual
authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Jamestown
Foundation. If you have any questions regarding the content of EDM, or
if you think that you have received this email in error, please
respond to [email protected].

Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution of EDM is strictly
prohibited by law.

The Jamestown Foundation
4516 43rd Street, NW
Washington, DC 20016
202-483-8888 (phone)
202-483-8337 (fax)

Copyright (c) 1983-2005 The Jamestown Foundation.