Russia to push new European security deal at UN

New York, Sep 23 (RIA Novosti) Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov will promote the idea of a new European security treaty this week when he attends the UN General Assembly.

The General Assembly's annual ministerial session opens Tuesday amid uncertainty over the global economic outlook, continuing violence in the Middle East, concerns over Iran's nuclear programme and the deterioration of relations between Russia and the West over South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Apart from a general meeting with foreign ministers from the 27-member European Union (EU) to discuss Russia-EU relations, Lavrov will hold about a dozen bilateral meetings with the presidents of Cyprus and Philippines, and his counterparts from Albania, Norway, Bolivia, Spain, Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Syria.

Prior to his arrival in New York, the Russian foreign minister made a stopover Monday in Ireland where he met with Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen and Foreign Minister Michael Martin to discuss Russia-EU relations and European security.

Following talks with his Irish counterpart, Lavrov said Moscow hoped that the United States and Canada would take part in the preparation of a new European security treaty.

'Russia's stance is that the United States and Canada should become part of this process,' he said.

The idea of holding an all-European summit and drawing up a new legally binding European security treaty was put forward by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in June.

Medvedev said at the time that all European states should be party to such a treaty 'not as states associated into blocs and alliances, but as sovereign entities.'

He said any new security arrangements should be based on 'pure' national interests, not skewed by ideological motives, while 'organizations operating in the Euro-Atlantic region' should also have the opportunity to join.

Moscow has strongly opposed the possible deployment by the United States of 10 interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar station in the Czech Republic as a threat to its security and nuclear deterrence.

The interceptors and the radar are parts of a US missile defence system against possible strikes from what Washington calls 'rogue states'.

Time to go, buddy....

The Power change in Tbilisi explained with savoir-faire. Battered Georgia - Time running out for Saakashvili

The main collateral damage from Georgia’s failed military operation, apart from the loss of Abkhazia and South Ossetia for the foreseeable future, is to the prospects for the President’s

By Nina Bachkatov In the six weeks since the repulse of Georgia’s incursion into South Ossetia, President Saakashvili has been able to keep a high profile, thanks to the numerous visits to Tbilisi by Western leaders and the attention of the ‘international community’. Innumerable photo opportunities and joint press conferences have given him the feeling of strong foreign support. There have also been street demonstrations in support of national unity and of solidarity with the president. But both things are fragile, and Saakashvili is living on borrowed time. At first there were moments of real unity in face of adversity, thanks to the country’s strong national identity and a deep resolve that, as the President loves to repeat, ‘not a square centimetre of our territory can be given away’. But in the Caucasus, it is vae victis- a warrior is respected as long as he wins. And Saakashvili has lost. He has now two kinds of critics of the military operation: those who believe it was stupid to attack and those who believe he was foolish to wait so long before using force to recover the secessionist statelets. In addition he is criticised for having misunderstood what kind of support he might receive from the West and for having misled the population. (Russians who have seen records of the interrogation of Georgian prisoners say prisoners believed that NATO would assist them; some thought that Georgia was already a NATO member; and other believed there was to have been an operation by Turkish special forces to secure the Roki tunnel to block Russian reinforcements.) In addition there are those who say that by his gamble he has sacrificed Georgians’ relations with Russians, which were always good at personal level, for the uncertainty of Western integration. Displaced persons Then, again, there are those who mourn dead relatives or have been obliged to shelter displaced persons. And, finally, there are the displaced people themselves, some of whom will never go back; people who from Day One have accused the president of destroying any hope of continued secular coexistence with Ossetian – not only by launching the military operation but also, earlier, by using their villages to shell Ossetian settlements, and, earlier still, by creating an artificial ‘Ossetian administration’. Displaced persons have been a political force to contend with since the massive expulsion of Georgians from Abkhazia in 1993. And the emotion over the new wave of refugees will not offset the scandal over the way the earlier ones have been treated in Georgia, including the expulsion of dozens of families who were living in a run-down Tbilisi hotel to make way for it luxurious refurbishment. The question is: who will organise the political opposition? For the first weeks, the motto was ‘national unity’. Any sign of attack against the person of the president was tantamount to treason. Saakashvili skilfully used ‘Unity against Russia’, depicted as the assailant, as a rallying cry. There could be no question of the President ‘resigning in face of Russian ultimatums’. But the war was his personal decision, taken without consultation (Saakashvili himself has said that he gave orders for the attack on his mobile telephone). So the defeat, too, is a personal one. ‘Heroes’ let down The first criticisms were quick to come, not only over the decision to attack but also over the way it was done. Within days Georgian experts were portraying simple soldiers as heroes obliged to relinquish their positions due to lack of preparation and support, left to themselves by their officers. This was followed by political criticism of Saakashvili’s management of the country and his regression from the promises of the Rose Revolution in 2003. The criticism inevitably includes references to the use of force against opposition demonstrators last November. Other targets are the return of corruption, the President’s personal style of leadership, the high turnover of ministers and high officials, the lack of internal debate, fraudulent elections, and the lack of media freedom (only one television chain, a state channel, is allowed to broadcast ‘news’; the others are confined to providing entertainment). There are also questions about the personality of the president, including his judgement and even his mental stability. The opposition movement is still timid, but here thing have clearly moved on from 8 August when the opposition parties declared a moratorium with the authorities in order to protect their ‘invaded’ country. That day, former defence Minister Irakli Okruashvili, now a fugitive in France, also declared his complete support to Saakashvili and expressed his readiness to come back to Georgia as a simple soldier to fight for his country. Switch of opinion Since then, there has been a switch in opinion, which occurred about 20 August with calls for dissolving the government, which Saakashvili could well do, and for the departure of the president, which is quite another question. In fact he has received the unintended backing of Russians who have described him as a political corpse and no longer a possible interlocutor. Of course, this prompted the response that Moscow had to deal with the elected, and silenced opponents, including those inside his close circle, who had the same thought but dared not look like being ‘sold to Moscow’. However, the danger to Saakashvili is not from Moscow, politically at least. It comes from his ‘Western friends’. The questions we mentioned earlier have been raised in different circles, including during a US Congress hearing where the main reproach to Bush was that he backed with public money a president whom Washington was unable to control – in short, another bad investment. There were also embarrassing questions about the way US aid funds pouring on Georgia (the second recipient after Israel) have been spent, and about Saakashvili’s attitude towards the opposition and the minorities who represent 40% of Georgia’s population. Similar questions have been raised in Europe, at both EU and national levels. Nearly all come back to human rights and legal issues, especially in the Council of Europe, and there has been an offensive by Georgian NGOs there, who can play the role that the Georgian opposition cannot play for the moment. The involvement of the EU, whose representatives shuttle between Tbilisi and Moscow, shows that any solution of the present crisis will escape the Georgian president’s overall control. EU and NATO divided He will also suffer from appearing as the man who produced tension between EU and NATO, tensions evidenced in statements by NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer on the occasion of the visit of 26 NATO ministers to Tbilisi. During the visit (seen in the EU as an untimely diplomatic move, to say the least), the Secretary General echoed Washington’s dismay at the EU-brokered peace deal, saying that it only made things better for Moscow. For Georgia to be a factor of division even before entering pre-membership discussions is scarcely a promising start. In any case, Saakashvili will now be under more scrutiny and can no longer count on charm and flowery rhetoric. The time of facts is approaching; and it plays against him. Most damaging are calls for an inquiry into the way the war started, and it will not be enough to present some vague version of an intercepted Russian telephone call – at least outside the narrow but strong circle of people ready to accept anything against Russia. As Yulia Tymoshenko, another product of a coloured revolution seems to have realised in Kiev, there is a limit to Russia-bashing as political tool, and it is time to move on. But Saakashvili cannot move on. He has damaged himself beyond recovery. If the inquiry reveals that he did indeed start the operation and that he misled his Western friends intentionally, there will be no possible rescue operation. In this case, his only hope will lie in the lack of alternative leader. One should here remember what happened to former president Shevardnadze, who was also in his time the friend of the West and the darling of Washington. When he became too embarrassing, as we ourselves observed in advance at the time, Washington began looking for someone to replace him. Its almost religious belief in ‘new men’ led it to put its money on a young contender, with little experience but a tempestuous ministerial record, who had been studying in the US. Thus the fate of Shevardnadze was sealed. Choosing a successor Today a similar operation is almost inevitable but the problem is who to choose as his successor. Political logic would favour the former speaker of parliament, Nino Burjanadze, a heroine of the revolution with Saakashvili and Zhvania. She is formidably efficient, with great charm and very strong will. Having clashed with the president before the May parliamentary elections, she now heads the Foundation for Democracy and Development, an organisation that allows her to criticise the authorities while keeping her international and national network, without declaring herself in opposition. But she is born of a Soviet nomenklatura family, and by marriage and professional background she is part of the new nomenklatura. In short, she is not open to manipulation and not exactly what the Americans have in mind, despite her warm and regular reception in Washington. Another candidate could be from the entourage of Saakashvili, but his bunch of very young men with not much more than experience in Soros Institutes does not look like yielding what is needed. There is a also former presidential candidate, David Gamrelidze; and there might be an outsider whom nobody has spotted. But, in any case, the Americans will not drop Saakashvili too quickly, because it would look like a victory for Moscow. First test The first post-war political test will come on 3 November, with the elections in Ajaria. Nine parties will take part in elections to the regional Supreme Council, including the ruling United National Movement. The return of Ajaria under Tbilisi control has been one of the great successes of Saakashvili; it came after a brief armed clash, the departure of the local strong man, Abashidze, and a democratic victory by Saakashvili allies. The fact that the president thought he could repeat the operation with Abkhazia and South Ossetia should have alarmed his Western friends, because it showed a complete misunderstanding of the situation on the ground. In the case of Ajaria, Saakashvili was able to count on the help of Moscow, which sent a special envoy to persuade Abashidze to renounce power without a fight, in return for keeping a part of his money and being allowed to live peacefully in Russia. Of course, anyone who has followed the past twenty years’ events in Georgia, including the nationalist fever of the late 1980s and the civil war in the early 1990s, will be cautious about predicting developments . But in any country, a moment comes when reality overtakes great speeches. And time is short for Saakashvili, especially since he sees himself as a winner and shows no intention of changing his line. All this in a region where his actions jeopardise the fragile stability and threaten hugely important energy projects. 20 September 2008

The Turkmeni incident

A day after the promulgation of the new constitution (Sept. 12), a sharp resistance materialized in Turkmenistan Saturday 13^th September, in form of an “opposition rally” or “radical-muslim stampede“in the streets of Ashgabat,. Yet turkmeni magazines and News agencies report the version of a “Drug dealer shootout”. Little can be confirmed, given the accurate no-comment policy about the incident. Ostensibly, a group of 20-30 armed men stormed a Water Facility and took hostages. The reaction involved tanks and APCs. “Eurasia daily Monitor” makes good points in considering such a disproportional response.

A minor detail leaked though: Turkmenistan asked for help to the FSB in Moscow, showing how strong the CSTO-SCO geometry is. The way the problem was solved in a matter of hours and how the area was secured should recall us that Turkmenistan already knew the lesson by watching the periodical SCO military drills (see Picture) and obtaining the necessary intelligence from Russia and China.

Mysteries and incongruences may still linger, but as a matter of fact it won´t make any difference. The episode was a dangerous menace to the status quo or, to use a more Asian concept, to “Harmony”. Because Harmony and Stability are the purported mark of Central Asia and what precisely Shanghai Cooperation Organization is powered to stand for.

Terrorism Strikes Turkmenistan - source nCa

New Central Asia Commentary by Tariq Saeedi

Ashgabat, 16 September 2008 (nCa) --- The 9-13 of Turkmenistan has occurred. Terrorism – the evil of our times – has struck Turkmenistan.

On 13 September 2008, the law enforcement agencies fought a bloody battle with a large gang of well trained and heavily armed drug dealers. The gang was finally suppressed but the toll was heavy: According to independent estimates, some 18 officers and troops may have lost their lives.

The office of the prosecutor general of Turkmenistan is investigating the case. In ordinary circumstances, nCa doesn’t comment on cases that are under investigation. However, these are not ordinary circumstances.

Terrorism has cast its ominous shadow on a peace-loving nation, a nation that always goes out of its way to promote stability and harmony in the entire Central Asian region.

There is just one point we would like to emphasize: Unless the evidence suggests otherwise, it would be important to consider whether some foreign country or countries were involved in the incident in any way whatsoever.

One can rightly ask as to why some foreign country or countries should be suspected of involvement in this mess.

Here are some pointers:

• Looking at the number of casualties on the government side, it is easy to deduce that the gang of drug dealers was exceptionally large. Drug dealers in such large numbers will not band together unless induced by some power that has the motive and the means to do so.
  

• Why would drug dealers take up arms against the government, knowing that ultimately they are no match for the state firepower, without assurance of support from some external power?
  

• Training and arming a large group of people requires massive logistics and resources that are not available ordinarily in Turkmenistan.
  

• The central agency of a big power is well known for its cozy connection with the drug world. The same agency is known for using the drug money for financing some of its operations.

Some questions to ask are:

• Is there any country that feels particularly frustrated by the gas deals that Turkmenistan signed recently with Russia and China?
  

• Is there any country or countries that would benefit from terror and disorder in Turkmenistan?
  

• Is there any country that routinely spreads disorder and chaos around the world, the most current examples being Bolivia and Venezuela?
  

• In addition to a big power, is there any country zealously supported by that big power, which is angry on cancellation of some contracts? The country that could be angry on cancellation of contracts may also be the country in want of cheap gas.

These are just some of the reasons for suspecting foreign involvement in the 9-13 of Turkmenistan.

Additionally, one should also keep in mind the following:

• The cultural centre of a certain foreign embassy in Turkmenistan has lately been asking strange questions from the young people frequenting their premises. Some of the questions are: >> What kind of change would you like in your country? >> What aspects of the government policy you don’t like? >> What kind of changes does your society need?

• Lately a phenomenon of spreading rumours methodically is discernible. It is the system that was devised in Belgrade and repeated elsewhere.
  

• During the last year or so Turkmenistan has emerged as regional leader in anti-narcotic drive, as is evident from the reports of UNODC and other agencies. However, some country or countries would like to create an impression to the contrary because that would give them an opening for advancing their own agenda.

The investigators may like to keep returning to the key question: Which country or countries stand to benefit from chaos in Turkmenistan?

EU sees security in Sahara gas pipeline - Piebalgs

BRUSSELS, Sept 9 (Reuters) - A giant gas pipeline carrying Nigerian gas north across the Sahara desert could help the European Union diversify its energy sources, the EU's energy commissioner said on Tuesday.

The EU relies on Russia for about 40 percent of its gas and a third of its oil, but it has been seeking to reduce that heavy dependency since disputes between Russia and transit states like Ukraine highlighted the frailty of EU energy supply.

Friction over Russia's invasion of Georgia last month has pushed energy security further towards the top of the bloc's agenda.

EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs told Reuters he was deeply interested in plans to develop the 4,300 kilometre Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline from Nigeria through Niger and Algeria en route to the Mediterranean.

'Nigeria is already very important for our security of supply -- 20 percent of their oil and 80 percent of their gas goes to Europe,' Piebalgs said by phone from Nigeria, ahead of discussions about coordinating on energy projects and finding peace in the restive Niger Delta.

Nigerian gas is currently shipped to Europe as liquefied LNG, but a pipeline is seen improving security and also the prospects of transit regions in Africa, thereby reducing the flood of migrants to Europe.

'The development of a trans-Saharan project with 20 billion cubic metres a year that might arrive to Europe by 2015 and increase the security of supply of Nigeria itself and the countries it crosses makes it a very interesting project for Nigeria and Europe,' said Piebalgs.

Nigeria has the world's seventh-largest proven gas reserves, but has been unable to develop its gas industry to anywhere near its full potential because of a lack of funds and regulation.

The EU is not alone in courting Nigeria for its oil and gas reserves. Last week, Russian gas giant Gazprom signed an oil and gas exploration agreement there, planning to develop LNG exports to north America.

Nigeria hopes to double crude production to 4 million barrels per day by 2010, although militant attacks on pipelines and funding problems have thrown those plans into doubt.

But Piebalgs said the goal, if achieved, could help further soothe oil prices, now at around $104 a barrel after hitting an all-time high of $147.3 in July.

'Plans to increase production to 4 million barrels per day in the coming years could have a very positive impact to keep global oil markets better supplied,' he said.

EU to help Africa expand energy sector

Report from the EU Observer September 9, 2008:

The EU is to help African countries expand their electricity networks and promote energy interconnections between Africa and the EU, such as a Trans-Saharan gas pipeline.

The EU aid will amount to €1 billion for a period of two years, the European Commission and the African Union announced in a joint statement on Monday (8 September).

The joint statement was signed on Monday in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, by EU Energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs, EU development commissioner Louis Michel and African Union (AU) commissioner for infrastructure and energy, Elham Mahmoud Ahmed Ibrahim of Egypt.

It is the first concrete step to implementing the Africa-EU partnership, which was agreed in December 2007, according to a commission statement, which stressed "the urgent need to promote Africa electrification."

The EU is to offer technical assistance worth €10 million to African utility regulators, the statement adds.

A further priority of the Africa-EU energy partnership is to be the development of oil and gas pipelines between African countries, but also between Africa and the EU, such as the €9 billion Trans-Sahara Gas Pipeline, planned to transport up to 30 billion cubic metres of gas per year to Europe via Nigeria, Niger and Algeria by 2015.

The EU and AU commissioners also agreed to increase transparency, elaborate a road map for the launch and implementation of a renewable energy co-operation programme and support for Africa's participation in the Global Gas Flaring Reduction partnership of oil and gas producing countries.

The joint statement calls upon the European countries and the private sector "to further mobilise resources for investment in energy sector" on both the supply and demand side.

The EU will also provide additional contributions to the EU-Africa Infrastructure Partnership and its Trust Fund, while the AU commission confirmed its "willingness" to further progress in the implementation of the €55 million European Commission support programme for the period 2007-2011 for the energy sector.

Despite the announcement, however, the International Energy Agency has earlier warned that Africa needs to spend an estimated €400 billion by 2030 to generate an additional 260,000 MW of power.

A next meeting on the Africa-EU energy partnership will take place on 1 October in Brussels.

Britain & France will support freezing indictment of Sudan president

Sunday 14 September 2008. Sudan Tribune – The British and French government will back efforts in the UN to stall the issuance of an arrest warrant for Sudan president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir, the Guardian reported today.

[...] The human right advocates said that Britain and France will join the Arab League, African Union, China, and Russia in backing a resolution by the UN General Assembly this month requesting a deferral of the charges against Al-Bashir.

Both UK & France are members of the Hague based court and have been the main advocates of referring the Darfur case to the ICC.

The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) Luis Moreno-Ocampo announced in mid-July that he requested an arrest warrant for Al-Bashir.

Ocampo filed 10 charges: three counts of genocide, five of crimes against humanity and two of murder and accused Al-Bashir of masterminding a campaign to get rid of the African tribes in Darfur; Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa.

Following that the AU, Arab League, Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) called for invoking Article 16 which allows the UN Security Council (UNSC) to suspend the ICC prosecutions in any case for a period of 12 months that can be renewed indefinitely.

Libya and South Africa sought to force a suspension in the UNAMID extension resolution last July but failed to get the required number of votes and instead accepted a watered down paragraph taking note of the AU concern on the ICC move to seek an arrest warrant for Al-Bashir.

Grain equal to gas?

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti economic correspondent Vlad Grinkevich) - The food crisis is compelling many governments to look for ways of curbing soaring food prices. At the same time, they are sensitive to any moves which might increase them. The intention of the Russian Ministry of Agriculture to transform its Agency for the Regulation of Food Markets (AFM) into a major Russian grain trader has caused an inordinately stormy reaction in the West. Analysts have accused Moscow of attempting to manipulate the food market. This change was announced last July. Along with tariff regulation, Russian officials believe that the state's involvement in grain exports will help protect the domestic market against skyrocketing grain prices which are a major cause of "agflation." Rosstat (the Federal State Statistics Service) reports that by the end of the third quarter of this year, food prices will grow faster in Russia than in the European Union (EU) as a whole. Last June, they went up by 1.1% in Russia (by 12.9% since the start of the year), whereas in the EU they increased by a mere 0.3%. Prices on bread and bakery products grew by 2.4% in Russia in June. The ministry wants the government to transfer its controlling interest in 28 of Russia's major grain elevators and export terminals to the AFM. The aggregate sum of the transferred shares may reach $300 million to $400 million. The West has perceived the potential appearance of a new player in Russia as a threat. The Financial Times has accused Russia of an attempt to gain an instrument to pressure the world market. Analysts believe that in four to five years, the new company will establish control over up to half of Russia's grain exports, and will become similar to Gazprom in its influence of the market. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has also voiced its concern over the appearance of a major Russian grain trader but it is not clear whether U.S. officials are worried about the world grain market, or about Russian private companies. The USDA complains that the AFM will prejudice the operation of these companies, and described the plan as a giant step back into the Soviet era. Russian experts believe that the West's concern is exaggerated. It is not clear what the new agency will be like, and who will take part in it. Dmitry Rylko, director of the Institute for Agricultural Market Studies (IAMS), told RIA Novosti: "The importance of this agency is overrated. Even if it accumulates all the state-owned shares in the grain companies, it will not be the biggest player in the market. It will dominate the market only if it is joined by some private players. Nobody knows whether this is going to happen." In the IAMS's estimate, more than 60% of the market belongs to six private players: the International Grain Company Agrika, Rosinteragroservis, Yugtranzitservis, Yug Rusi, and Aston. The apprehensions that Moscow may turn food into a diplomatic weapon and use it as Gazprom is using gas may sound flattering, since the Russian government does not conceal its desire to turn Russia into the leading player in the food market, but they are certainly premature. It would be inappropriate to compare the AFM with Gazprom which is the world's largest gas exporter, and the owner of the world's richest gas deposits. In the grain market, Russia ranks fifth after the United States, Canada, the EU and Australia. This does not mean that its role is small. Russia has the lead in a number of regional exports, for instance, in Egypt and in India. Russian officials would like to enhance Moscow's influence on the world food market, primarily the grain market. However, their previous initiatives did not cause such a dramatic response in the West. For example, the Russian agricultural minister has more than once voiced his idea of setting up a grain "OPEC" to coordinate world trade in grain. But Russian experts are not very enthusiastic about this prospect largely because the various grain-producing countries aren't likely to coordinate their actions as OPEC does with oil. The OPEC members have state monopoly on oil production and exports, whereas grain trade remains in private hands in the majority of grain-exporting countries.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An article from early August that I fail to appreciate in its importance. It confirms the state run drift in Russian economics, saluted by international market protest.
But, according to World Grain :

According to these rumors, the push for a greater government role in both domestic merchandising and exports has not only been supported by major agricultural holding companies, it in fact was actively promoted by them. Certain holding companies, despite enjoying record high prices for grain, reportedly face serious financial difficulties and are looking to the government for what amounts to a partial buyout of their grain handling assets.

Seems that Russia is starting to bank over the newfound liquidities. India and China, aside from being resources-hungry, may one day get simply ... hungry.