Global Politician, NY
Feb 14 2005
Turkish-Russian Relations and Eurasia’s Geopolitics
2/14/2005
By Dr. Bulent Aras
As a result of its geography, Turkey maintains a multi-dimensional
and dynamic foreign policy. Turkish foreign policymakers are
carefully analyzing their foreign policy options in light of the 9/11
attacks and the war in Iraq. Within this set of complex links,
Turkish-Russian relations appear rather perplexing. Historically,
there have been many wars between these two states up until the end
of WWI. Both countries have imperial legacies and have experienced a
post-imperial traumatic loneliness. Great imperial legacies and the
feelings of isolation after the collapse of the previous empires are
important factors that shape the national memory of these countries.
After Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Turkey in December
of last year, Turkey’s prime minister paid a one day official visit
to Russia on January 10, 2005. It is relevant to analyze current
factors that determine the relations between these two states.
Domestic politics in Russia is often the result of competing views of
Westerners, anti-Westerners, Eurasianists, ultra-nationalists and
nostalgic communists. Russian foreign policy is generally determined
along the line of domestic political preferences. There is a symbolic
pendulum in Russian foreign policy that vacillates between Europe and
Asia depending on the political balances currently at play. Russian
foreign policy is today more critical of the West and follows a more
Eurasian-oriented path.
For Moscow, the existence of such national memory and geopolitical
orientation makes it difficult to determine a fixed and
well-functioning foreign policy towards Turkey. Like Russia, Turkey
has Caucasian, Balkan, Middle Eastern and European identities and
different interests at stake in all of these regions. Another
significant factor is that both countries are going through dynamic
domestic and economic transformations. The change in the early four
years of the current decade is surely dramatic at both societal and
state levels.
Issues at Stake
More specifically, the future of Turkish-Russian relations will be a
product of bilateral, regional and international developments.
High-level mutual visits in the recent period underline a number of
important issues between the two states. Although observers seem to
have an optimistic perception of the relations both in Moscow and
Ankara, there are issues of contention between the two states.
The issues of bilateral relations will be trade, investments by
Turkish and Russian businessmen, tourism, natural gas purchases,
Russian oil tankers transiting the straits, future pipeline projects
that may pass through the Trace or Anatolia, the Chechen question,
Russian arms sales, and the actions of Kurdish separatists on Russian
soil. A major recent development is the Russian leader’s statement
that the Turkish society in Northern Cyprus deserves better treatment
from the international community, since the Turkish Cypriots voted in
favor of the U.N. plan designed to put an end to the division of the
island.
Although there is much talk about the convergence of interests
between Turkey and Russia, one should also point out the conflicting
ones. Both countries favor improving their current relations and
adopting a more pragmatic stance on the international arena.
Officials on both sides signed a number of agreements, which will
surely facilitate the establishment of constructive relations.
The volume of bilateral trade reached $10 billion in 2004, and both
sides aim to increase this volume to $25 billion by 2007. Turkey’s
construction sector is active in Moscow and is increasing its market
share in Russia. Russian businessmen closely follow Turkey’s
privatization process and want to take part in energy projects in
Turkey. Another major cooperation area is Russian arms sales to
Turkey. Considering the Iraq crisis and potential instability in Iran
and Syria, Ankara pays serious attention to military modernization
projects and has an interest in Russian arms supplies. Finally,
Russian tourists increasingly prefer Turkey’s Mediterranean coast for
their vacations.
At another level, the mutual agenda is set around Russia’s energy
geopolitics, its near abroad policies, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
(B.T.C.) oil pipeline, ethnic secessionist movements in the Caucasus,
the reduction of Russian military forces in the region in accordance
with international agreements, and the problems emerging after the
Iraq war. Russia dislikes the B.T.C. pipeline, which is expected to
transit Azeri and Kazak oil to the West. Moscow regards this pipeline
as a challenge to its status in the Caspian basin and an obstacle to
its oil trade. Although the major conflict surrounding the B.T.C.
pipeline was between Russia and a number of former Soviet states, it
indirectly influenced Turkish-Russian relations. However, the Blue
Stream project — a natural gas pipeline that runs from Russia to
Turkey via the Black Sea — and several other Turkish-Russian oil
pipeline projects have led to the emergence of a “low profile” policy
concerning oil politics on the part of Russia. Although it is
speculative at the moment, the head of British Petroleum Company in
Azerbaijan recently floated the possibility of carrying Russian oil
through the B.T.C.
According to the official Turkish policy line, the Chechen question
is a Russian internal problem. Turkish officials frequently declare
that Russian security measures should not violate human rights in
Chechnya. However, a large Chechen diaspora in Turkey follows a
different line and tries its best to assist Chechen guerrillas,
creating significant tensions between the Turkish and Russian
governments. In return, Turkish officials have expressed discontent
about the Kurdistan Workers Party’s — a separatist Kurdish armed
movement — activities in Russian territories. For the time being,
both sides extend considerable vigor in order not to sever their
relations on account of trans-boundary ethnic problems.
Toward a New Geopolitics
Russia has a regional profile and is sensitive about losing its
influence in ex-Soviet territories. Since 1991, Turkey has emerged as
a significant regional player, pursuing a special relationship with
the E.U. and paying serious attention to building good relations in
the Caucasus and Central Asia. How closer Turkish-Russian relations
will be interpreted in Brussels and Washington is another important
question.
The U.S. military deployment in different parts of Eurasia, the
pro-Western change in domestic landscapes of Georgia and Ukraine, the
U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are, among others, the developments
that have paved the way for the emergence of a new geopolitics in
Eurasia. The European and U.S. expansion into former Soviet
territories influences Russian policymakers to seek new alliances in
Asia. Russian rapprochement with Iran, China and India are examples
of this new policy. In this sense, the new developments in the
aftermath of the 9/11 attacks are bringing together the policies of
not only Russia and other major Asian powers, but also of some
critical European states such as France and Germany.
After receiving a negotiation date for E.U. membership, Turkey is
emerging as a European actor in the region. However, Turkey’s new
orientation was tested during the subsequent domestic transformations
of Georgia and Ukraine. Turkey adopted a low-profile attitude toward
the Russian policies vis-à-vis Ukraine and Georgia, and sensitively
displayed a constructive outlook by pointing to the relevant
international norms and agreements as the way to resolve the crises.
Ankara tries to avoid taking sides in any “Russia versus the West”
struggles, while developing its own relations with Moscow.
One other important area of contention is Turkish-Armenian relations,
which are held hostage to historical enmities and Turkey’s
pro-Azerbaijan policies in the Caucasus. Currently, Russia is the
main ally of Armenia, and possible Russian mediation between Turkey
and Armenia on a number of issues can be expected. Following recent
positive developments on this front, there may be Russian-Turkish
joint attempts to solve the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.
Conclusion
By looking at the current developments, it can be concluded that
Turkish-Russian relations will improve in the political, economic and
security realms. However, the relations are not free from a number of
serious problems that could threaten to derail these growing ties;
both countries have converging and conflicting interests in
neighboring regions, and this status makes Turkish-Russian relations
promising yet difficult. Turkey and Russia are two influential actors
in the Eurasian geopolitics and their relations have implications for
the whole Eurasian region. Because of this, internal and external
players in Eurasian geopolitical gambling will keep an eye on this
growing relationship.
Dr. Bulent Aras is an independent political consultant on Eurasian
and Middle Eastern affairs and an Associate Professor of
International Relations at Fatih University in Istanbul. Email:
[email protected]
–Boundary_(ID_9kALYPyVnq74Yy7HSveNtA)–

Assa-Irada, Azerbaijan
Feb 14 2005
US aid to Azerbaijan $20m less than to Armenia
Baku, February 11, AssA-Irada — The United States government plans
to allocate $35 million to Azerbaijan, $55 million to Armenia and
$67 million to Georgia in financial assistance in 2006, the Bush
administration says. Besides, the Bush administration plans to allot
$5 million to Azerbaijan and Armenia each for military purposes and
$750,000 for military education.
The US government also plans to provide humanitarian assistance to
Upper Garabagh, the amount of which is not disclosed.*
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

TURKISH BUSINESSMAN DENIES AZERI EFFORTS TO HINGE OPEN BORDER ON KARABAGH CONFLICT
ArmenPress
Feb 14 2005
YEREVAN, FEBRUARY 14, ARMENPRESS: Kaan Soyak, the Turkish cochairman
of the Turkish-Armenian Business Development Commission (TABDC) told
a press conference in Yerevan today that the trade between the two
nations last year amounted to $120 million. Soyak said he has come to
Armenia to look together with Eurasia Foundation into prospects for
developing ties Armenia after Turkey opens its closed border. Soyak
argued that open borders may triple the current trade volume.
Soyak said he has been working to prove that open borders would
benefit both Turkey and Armenia and even invited officials of the
Armenian Revolutionary Federation/Dashnaktsutyun to Turkey to start
dialogue on urgent issues. The Dashnaktsutyun party is against the
open border saying that Turkey must first acknowledge the killing of
around 1.5 million Armenians in the Ottoman empire. “Dashnaktsutyun
is a serious party with wide experience and I am ready to exert every
effort to have this dialogue happen,” he told reporters.
Soyak also spoke about the most sensitive issue in Turkish-Armenian
relations, the 1915 genocide, saying it has become a topic of debates
in Turkey just a couple of years ago. “Our organization is doing
what it can so that more broader segments of Turks get involved
in discussions on this problem and to learn the historical truth,”
he said. Incidentally, Soyak used the word “genocide” when talking
about the events of 1915.
Soyak said the TABDC works also for establishment of cultural and
business contacts and is organizing trips of Turkish Armenians
to Yerevan and vice versa. He added that TABDC is criticized in
Azerbaijan and Turkey. “Azerbaijan is campaigning aggressively in
Turkey to link the opening of the border with the resolution of the
Nagorno Karabagh conflict. We are against it and we believe that
borders must be open irrespective of whether the conflict is solved
or not yet,” he said, adding that in today’s world there is no gain
in keeping a couple of borders closed as countries will always find a
way to survive.” I believe we need to have a constructive approach,
to open the borders and solve the problems with a vision enabling
us to carry the conflicts to international platforms and solve the
problems with an active diplomacy, and to work towards it together.”
TABDC, established in 1997 is the only Turkish-Armenian joint
organization, a well-known businessman Arsen Ghazarian is the
co-chairman of the Armenian side.

Building a theater of their own: Armenians join forces for project
By Naush Boghossian, Staff Writer
Los Angeles Daily News
Feb 14 2005
GLENDALE — Several Armenian-American doctors, lawyers, businessmen
and artists have gotten together to realize a dream: building the
first Armenian arts venue in Los Angeles.
The force behind the project is Aram Kouyoumdjian, who got a group of
friends together in November to attend a critically acclaimed play in
Los Angeles. The group has now grown to 56, and they have five plays
under their belt, including “The Goat, or, Who Is Sylvia?” at the Mark
Taper Forum, Harold Pinter’s “The Homecoming” at A Noise Within and
“Doubt” at the Pasadena Playhouse.
The success of the outings confirmed what Kouyoumdjian — a civil
litigation attorney by day and a theater buff by night — had known
all along: The theater-loving Armenian community needed a place to
call home.
“I think we have the sense that not only it’s time for something like
this, but that it’s overdue,” said Kouyoumdjian, 36, who co-founded
a theater company in Sacramento in 1999 and worked as its artistic
director.
“People sense the importance of filling the void and doing so in a
way that will have permanence. Our predecessors have been successful
in building schools and churches, and many of us who are now in our
mid-30s feel that it’s our turn to step up and make a contribution.
It’s sort of picking up the responsibility.”
Feeling the need and the importance of the endeavor, this group,
which includes an architect, a poet, a scientist, the CEO of a
software company, attorneys and businessmen, is not approaching the
task willy-nilly.
“The combined efforts of everybody makes this ambitious project
far more realistic,” Kouyoumdjian said. “We’re making sure that the
project is rooted in the best foundation possible.”
The architect in the group has already started the initial
drawings for the group’s vision of the facility: a building with
two performance spaces — a 400-seat performance hall and a 99-seat
theater — an exhibition gallery and space for workshops, labs and
rehearsals. Initial estimates put the cost at between $4 to $5 million.
At a time when theaters are struggling to stay afloat, Kouyoumdjian
said, all the group’s members are all aware of the financial challenges
of opening and operating a theater.
They have created an aggressive fund-raising plan to get started on
a building, and they plan to create a center with multiple uses that
they would be able to rent out to the artistic community.
Members of the organizing group, many of whom regularly write,
produce and perform plays, have no doubt there is a demand for an
Armenian arts center in Los Angeles. There are an estimated 400,000
Armenians living in Los Angeles County.
Betty Berberian, a film set decorator, recalled that, when she, her
husband and friends formed the Armenian Experimental Theater in the
1980s, they always played to full houses, but they had to spend up
to $10,000 each month to rent spaces to perform.
But when they tried to raise money to build a theater, the support
simply was not there.
“I think the community would be much more open to it now,” Berberian
said. “I think we’ve shown the audiences and Armenian people that
this is a necessity.
“Theater is the lifeblood of the community. For a small community,
especially an ethnic community, theater is the pulse, and it keeps
the youth together.”
But so-called ethnic theater in a diverse Los Angeles is now
experiencing an interest and reception it never had before.
Jose Luis Valenzuela, theater professor at the University of
California, Los Angeles, said the group of young Armenians is
responding to its community’s needs, which is always how ethnic
theater is created.
“Ethnic theater is in response to the needs and aspirations of their
communities, a need to express something of your own history, of who
you are,” said Valenzuela, the artistic director of the 19-year-old
Latino Theatre Company. His group, which currently rents a space in
downtown, is currently in discussions with the city of Los Angeles
to renovate the Los Angeles Theater Center.
“When you have a lack of opportunity for ethnic theater in Los
Angeles, you have groups responding to the needs of the community
because nobody else is giving them access.”
But financially, it’s not going to be easy, said Tim Dang, producing
artistic director of the East West Players, an Asian-American theater
that has been in Los Angeles since 1965.
The Players’ main source of financial support is the Asian-Pacific
community, Dang said. But what happens over time is that, as the
audience grows, drawing non-Armenians to the facility, the donor base
slowly diversifies.
It took 20 years for the theater to get financially comfortable. They
started out in a 99-seat theater in Silver Lake until they moved into
their current 240-seat theater in downtown.
But what ultimately drives an ethnic group’s desire to have its own
theater and take on the struggles is that need to share its culture.
“It’s a double perspective in that, yes, we want to do this for
our community to see ourselves on the stage because we rarely see
ourselves on the stage or in the media, but we also want to enlighten
the greater community about us,” he said.
For more information on the Armenian Center for the Arts or to get
involved, e-mail [email protected] .

The Messenger, Georgia
Feb 14 2005
Russian-Georgian talks collapse
Each side accuses the other of causing latest failure to secure
agreement over the withdrawal of Russian military bases in Georgia
By Anna Arzanova
Giga Bokeria
Russian Minister sergei Lavrov
The visit of Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov to
Georgia, scheduled for February 18, comes on the back of yet another
failure to reach agreement on the withdrawal of Russian military
bases stationed in Akhalkalaki, near the Armenian border, and Batumi
in Adjara.
Negotiations on the issue held on Friday, February 11 were intended
as preparation for further talks during Lavrov’s visit, when the
creation of a joint antiterrorist center in Georgia will also be
discussed, but the negotiations fell through, and the two sides are
still unable to agree the main aspects of a framework agreement.
The Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs accuses the Russian
delegation of causing the negotiations to fail, while the Russian
side for its part accuse Georgia of side-stepping the issue of
setting up anti-terrorism centers.
“We tried to find all compromise formulations, but finally there was
a situation where variants were offered which put under doubt the
possibility of the creation of the anti-terrorist centers,” Russian
Foreign Ministry official Igor Savolski stated.
According to him, the stumbling block was how to treat and how to
fulfill earlier reached agreements regarding the creation of the
antiterrorist center. “That is why we need to think about this well
and to gather with the Georgian side once again and discuss this
issue again,” Savolski said, explaining that nothing had been agreed
at this particular round of negotiations.
In an interview with Russian news agencies Savolski added that “the
issue of the two Russian military bases located in Georgia is to be
discussed together with the creation of an anti-terrorist center or
centers based on their infrastructure” when Lavrov arrives.
Whether any progress will be made when Lavrov arrives, however,
remains to be seen. The Georgian side complains that Russia is trying
to use the creation of anti-terrorism centers as a means to keep its
military bases in the country.
“As it seems, Russia wants only to change the name of its military
bases in Georgia and label them, according to their version, as
anti-terrorist centers. But they will remain in Georgia all the
same,” said MP Giga Bokeria, who also participated in the
negotiations, adding that such a state of affairs is absolutely
inadmissible for Tbilisi.
“Any agreement on renaming the military bases has no sense and no
prospects,” he said.
Deputy Foreign Minister of Georgia Merab Antadze issued a similar
message, telling journalists after the negotiations that
unfortunately, despite the serious efforts and compromises of the
Georgia side, the Russian side was not prepared to reach an
agreement, because of which the negotiations failed.
“Moreover, on the background of such approaches, I can draw the
conclusion that there is no sense in any future negotiations on this
issue in such a format and approaches,” Antadze said, while Georgian
Ambassador to Russia and Finance Minister nominee Valeri
Chechelashvili, who participated in talks, told Civil Georgia on
February 11 that, “The vision of the Russian side regarding the joint
anti-terrorist center triggers doubts over reaching an agreement.”
“An absolutely clear plan was given to them on the grounds of which
we should have established the process of the Russian military bases
withdrawal,” he said, explaining that agreement must be reached first
on the terms and timeframe of the withdrawal of Russian military
bases, before negotiations regarding an anti-terrorism center begin.
“We proposed to set up working groups of experts, who will work on
the anti-terrorism center only after we sign an agreement regarding
the pullout of military bases,” Antadze told Civil Ge.
MP Giga Bokeria, meanwhile, says that the time may have come for
Georgia to stop negotiating regarding the withdrawal of Russian
military bases.
“It is time for Georgia to think about the absolute demand of the
withdrawal of Russian military bases, to cease negotiations on this
issue, and to announce that these base are illegal,” Bokeria told
journalists, adding that the legislative body may adopt such a
standpoint very soon and that such a position would be acceptable to
international law.
A member of the Right Wing Opposition Pikria Chikhradze promised to
support such an approach to this matter, but “it is not enough in
this case for only Parliament [to take such a line]. This issue
should be put at the highest level by the president.”
Conservative leader Zviad Dzidziguri told Imedi TV on February 12,
meanwhile, that his party supports the government line on this issue.
“It does not matter what name this military base has if it retains
control and influence over Georgia and the political situation here,”
he said.

AzerTag, Azerbaijan
Feb 14 2005
DEFENSE MINISTER VISITS UAE
[February 14, 2005, 12:15:28]
A delegation of Azerbaijan led by Defense Minister of the country
Colonel General Safar Abiyev visiting United Arab Emirates to
participate the 7th International Defense Exhibition-conference, has
met in Abu Dhabi with UAE Defense Minister Sheikh Mohammad Bin Rashid
Al Maktum.
Colonel General Safar Abiyev expressed hope for continuation of the
military cooperation between Azerbaijan and the United Arab Emirates,
and exchanged views with his counterpart on a number of important
issues.
For his part, Defense Minister of UAE Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktum
emphasized that his country has always supported and will do in the
future the fair position of Azerbaijan with respect to the
Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh.
The Azerbaijani delegation’s visit to the United Arab Emirates is
ending February 17.

Gaylord Herald Times, MI
Feb 14 2005
Hindsight – Migration: a ritual of survival
Nicole Laskowski
Birds seem to live in a different world: somewhere between land and
sky, a wing’s reach away from touching stars. Their shadows command a
presence on glassy waters.
They travel through a landscape I only dream about.
They possess an innocence, or maybe a purity, because they are
capable of making the impossible, possible.
Together they can mass into one giant storm cloud, become the crests
of ocean waves or the islands of marsh lands, or create the illusion
that the sky is falling.
By flapping wings hard enough, stretching neck and body skyward,
paddling webbed feet, they can walk on water.
They soar innocently through soot, above the sounds of machinery,
about the complexity of modernity. Their legs tucked tightly against
their tails, their wings curve in perfect angles to create flight.
They fly above the foolishness of man-made maps where invisible lines
marking a country’s borders mean nothing to them.
They enact the ritual of migration out of survival, but they burst
through early morning vapor, waving to the land below with a promise
to return to this place.
My grandmother made no such promise when she left Armenia with her
family.
I imagine her at the age of 4, standing in front of her home, waving
goodbye. The images come like slow motion stills from an old black
and white movie.
In my daydreams, her hair is tousled into kiddy curlycues. She is
standing in her prettiest dress. She is holding her father’s hand.
Everything has that yellow tint to it.
Shortly after her migration to America, the Armenian genocide began.
Her village was targeted, pillaged and destroyed by the Turks.
She escaped this crude persecution, where so many Armenians were
shot, left to starve, and even pushed by the thousands into a cave
whose entrance was guarded and then erased by scrub set on fire.
They were left to suffocate.
My grandmother and her family were left with the fragments of their
country’s history.
They faced the awkwardness of being foreign, the humility of having
nothing, the loneliness of starting over for survival. A newborn
chick puffed with down feathers stands at the edge of a cliff; below
it, an enormous pool of water. It doesn’t stand peering over the
edge, doesn’t look at the hundreds of feet between sky and sea. It
doesn’t hesitate to jump.
The newborn chick begins flapping its wings in the hopes of flying,
somehow instinctively knowing that flight is equated with survival.
It works tirelessly to try and catch a wave of wind. But it smacks
into the surface of the water.
It will no doubt try again.
Who else is that fearless?

COURT: Three accused of brutal murder of Armenian man
Peterborough Evening Telegraph, UK
Feb 14 2005
THREE people have appeared in court in connection with the murder of
a man who was stabbed, shot and set on fire.
Misha Chatsjatrjan (43), a refugee from Eastern Europe, and Nishan
Bakunts (27), from Great Yarmouth, appeared at Norwich Crown Court,
charged with the murder of Hovhannes Amirian (43), on Friday.
The Armenian victim was found in a field between Upton and Wansford,
near Peterborough, by a passing cyclist, in the early hours of December
21, 2002.
Arpine Karapetian (23), from Great Yarmouth, was also in court accused
of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
The trio will return to Norwich Crown Court for pleas and directions
on March 11.

Caucaz.com, Georgia
Feb 14 2005
Toward a normalization of Azerbaijan-Iran relations
Gilles Riaux’s Column
By Gilles RIAUX, PhD student at the French Geopolitics Institute –
Paris 8 University in Paris
On 14/02/2005
The recent visit to Iran of Azerbaijani president Ilham Aliyev, from
Janurary 24th to 26th 2005, confirms the rapprochement between Tehran
and Baku. Not only did he meet with the Iranian president Mohammad
Khatami whom the presidential term of office will be ending soon, but
Ilham Aliyev also met with le Guide Ali Khameney and Ali Akhbar
Hashemi Rafsandjani – two of the most influent men of the Islamic
Republic of Iran.
Among the topics discussed the major ones were the condemnation of
the Armenian occupation in Nagorno-Karabagh, the strengthening of
economic bonds and the cooperation for fight against terrorism, drug
trafficking and organized crime.
Furthermore, this visit was a follow up to the one of Khatami in Baku
in August 2004. This visit ended up on the opening of a consulate of
the Republic of Azerbaijan in Tabriz and the signing of agreements
for the improvement of communication infrastructures and energetic
cooperation between the two countries. Those two official meetings
show, if not proove, the undeniable rapprochement between Baku and
Tehran – rapprochement initiated by Heydar Aliyev’s visit to Iran,
early 2002.
And yet over the 90’s, there was an obvious distrust between the two
capitals. This distrust was at its strongest point in July 2001 when
an Iranian military ship demanded an oil prospecting ship coming form
Azerbaijan to get away from the Iran territorial waters.
At the beginning, Iran saw USSR’s fall as a way to expand its
influence in Central Asia and Caucasus, by taking advantage of their
religious and cultural common history. Until it was conquered by the
Russian Empire at the beginning of the 19th century, the current
territory of the Azerbaijani republic was an integral part of Iran.
There the major ethnic group of the population is Shiite (the
Azeris), which is also the main minority in Iran.
However, the new and weak republics of Central Asia and Caucasus
choose to strongly assert their national indentity so as to prevent
any foreign interference. The new president of the Republic of
Azerbaijan, Abulfaz Elçibey, takes a nationalist stance, especially
agressive toward Iran. He asks for an Iranian Azerbaijan to secede
from Iran, and for the creation of a great Azerbaijan of which the
capital would be Tabriz.
It is then that Tehran decides to actively support Armenia for the
Nagorno-Karabagh conflict, in order to defuse a possible secession of
Iran’s Azeris and to weaken the republic of Azerbaijan. Officially,
Iran takes a neutral stance but as its Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Mahmud Vae’zi, admitted it, Iran’s support to Armenia is dictated by
domestic issues (source ). The Islamic
Republic turns for good its revolutionary project into a strict
realism regarding its Foreign policy.
The coming of power of apparatchik Heydar Aliyev marks a turning
point for Azerbaijan. He trades the hazardous nationalist policy of
his predecessor for a realism inherited from a long experience of the
Soviet system. From this point, he has to bring back on its feet a
country which is then on its knees and weakened by a territorial
conflict lost for good.
So as to succeed in his project to turn Azerbaijan into « a new
Kuwait », Heydar Aliyev has first to work on the issue of oil
exportations, in order to provide a stable environment by improving
its relations with the region’s power. Once the difficult BTC oil
pipeline project passed, Tehran gets that it would never become a
mandatory partner for Azerbaijan. Indeed despite Iran’s outstanding
location, the USA would never have accepted that Caspian Sea oil
transit through the territory of the Islamic republic.
It may be difficult sometimes to understand the Iranian Foreign
Policy, this one resulting from arrangements between the different
factions in power. However, Iran being surrounded by the USA and
ethnic minorities – primarily Azeris – developing cultural claims,
Tehran is now inclined to improve its relations with Baku.
This improvement is both following the domestic, and the foreign
line. And for Iran taking part in stabilizing Caucasus, by the
resolution of Nagorno-Karabakh conflict or the fight against the
different smuggling that destabilize the region, has become necessary
since this country wants to be a regional power. It is also a way to
loosen the American grip.
Ilham Aliyev’s visit to Tabriz, the new Consulate of the Republic of
Azerbaijan, as well as the mausoleum of Sharyar – key figure of the
Azeri litterature in Iran, is also helping the domestic line. It gave
the opportunity to bring to Iran’s Azeris goodwill tokens for their
cultural claims, and to limit the radicalization of Azeri
nationlists.
But this apparent normalization conceals still pretty poorly the
difficulties met by two States which choose a realistic Foreign
Policy. The position towards the United States and the legal status
of the Caspian Sea are still the major disagreements which prevent a
strong alliance between Azerbaijan and Iran.
–Boundary_(ID_6dSEMU8kYe8EXY+zDO6D7A)–

Eurasianet Organization
Feb 14 2005
DIAMOND INDUSTRY SLUMP SLOWS ARMENIAN GROWTH
Emil Danielyan 2/14/05
After a decade of rapid expansion, Armenia’s diamond cutting industry,
which manufactures the country’s number one export item, suffered
a major slump in 2004. The almost 20 percent decline in production,
measured in the Armenian currency, the dram, calls into question the
success of an ambitious government plan to promote the sector’s growth.
According to government officials, the drop in production is
largely due to the plunge of the US dollar in international currency
markets. Publicly, authorities say they are not concerned about the
diamond-cutting sector’s health, and predict that production should
rebound this year.
“Rumors about the industry’s death are exaggerated,” Gagik Mkrtchian,
head of the department on precious stones and jewelry at the Armenian
Ministry of Trade and Economic Development, said earlier this month.
Gem diamonds have long accounted for the biggest share of Armenian
exports, making the tiny ex-Soviet republic one of the world’s major
suppliers of the highly expensive stones. Though there are now more
than 50 diamond cutting firms in Armenia, the sector is dominated by
a handful of foreign investors. One of the largest gem-cutting firms
is owned Israeli tycoon Lev Leviev, an internationally prominent
diamond dealer.
The share of gem diamonds in Armenian exports has decreased in recent
years, but it still stood at a commanding 39 percent in 2004. The
production decline in cut diamonds was enough to bring export growth,
along with Armenia’s overall industrial output, to a virtual halt.
Even though the economy as a whole expanded at a robust rate of
10 percent last year, economists believe that Armenia’s long-term
development should depend heavily on exports, given the small size
of the domestic market.
In late 2003, the government approved a three-year plan that aimed
to nearly double annual cut-diamond production to $500 million and
create roughly 10,000 new jobs. However, the sector’s trouble in 2004
would appear to put those targets out of reach.
According to government estimates, diamond production only slightly
shrunk from the 2003 level in dollar terms, totaling about $280
million last year. But officials admit that dollar-based statistics
are misleading, given the US currency’s more than 20 percent drop in
value against the Armenian dram since beginning of 2004. In general,
the greenback has lost considerable ground against major world
currencies, especially the euro.
The weaker dollar made the diamonds more expensive in the United
States, which accounts for more than 50 percent of global sales.
Mkrtchian explained; “2004 was a year of retreat for the global
diamond industry. … The main reason for that was a decline in the
dollar’s value.”
A shortfall in anticipated deliveries of rough diamonds from
Russia has added to Armenia’s problems, officials indicate. A 2001
Russian-Armenian agreement enabled Armenian firms to process up to
400,000 carats of Russian rough diamonds annually from 2002 through
2004. The quota was subsequently raised to 450,000 carats for 2005
and 2006.
Only a fraction of that has actually been delivered to date. Armenia,
for example, imported about 970,000 carats of uncut diamonds in 2004.
Yet, only 16 percent of them were of Russian origin. The bulk of the
rough supplies came mainly from Israel and Belgium, explaining why
the two countries are among Armenia’s leading trading partners.
Mkrtchian blamed the shortfall on “unjustified” Russian price hikes,
but expressed confidence that Yerevan will negotiate better terms
with Russia’s Alrosa diamond monopoly this year. That, he said,
should help to ensure the sector’s growth by at least 30 percent.
But some analysts believe that even if the industry soon turns the
corner, the benefits for Armenian government coffers will remain
marginal. Eduard Aghajanov, a former head of the National Statistical
Service, has long argued that gems exported from Armenia are not
quite Armenian because their owners are mainly foreigners.
“Given that those products are exempt from the excise and value-added
taxes, Armenia’s state budget is not getting anything from that
industry except employee income taxes,” Aghajanov. “Big profits made
as a result are taxed abroad because those products do not belong
to Armenia.”
Payroll and social security taxes collected from Armenia’s 12 biggest
diamond plants totaled a meager $2 million in 2004, while the average
monthly salary of their approximately 4,000 workers was only $150,
according to official figures. In addition, the government calculated
that diamond-related business activity injected only $37.7 million
in the Armenian economy in 2003.
“Making the sector a strategic priority is therefore wrong,” argues
Aghajanov. “Nobody is against its existence as it provides quite
a few jobs. But Armenia’s future lies in high-tech industries and
especially information technology.”
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress