You think naybe that's one of the reasons why Bush and the Pentagon don't want to tell congress about what they spend money on until after they spend it?
Iran who is apparently picking up the same bad vibrations that I am getting is keen to expand their influence in Georgia where their ally Russia exerts considerable authority. However, I doubt if both Russia and Iran can override the control the United States has over Georgia.
-Am
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said on May 16 that Tehran “is ready to take more serious steps in frames of bilateral ties with Tbilisi in order to bolster peace and security in the region.”
Irna news agency reported that Iranian official hailed peaceful resolution of Adjara crisis and expressed support for Georgia’s territorial integrity.http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=6946
Will Russian Investment Win Georgia's Heart? Tuesday, May 11, 2004. Page 8.
By Irakly Areshidze
Aslan Abashidze's long reign in the Georgian province of Adzharia was made possible by the continuous support of Moscow, which skillfully wielded the dictator to influence the political process in Georgia. President Vladimir Putin, who declined to back Abashidze against a rising tide of opposition, was therefore primarily responsible for bringing 13 years of tyranny in the Black Sea province to a peaceful end last week. Yet, by convincing Abashidze to resign, Putin has forfeited one of his most effective levers for altering the course of Georgia's domestic affairs.
The United States also helped Georgia to resolve the conflict by backing President Mikheil Saakashvili's demand for the restoration of Georgian sovereignty in Adzharia. By repeatedly calling for a peaceful solution to the conflict, Washington also helped to prevent the use of military force. During the actual crisis last week, however, senior U.S. officials were distracted by the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq and paid scant attention to events in Georgia. The U.S. role in securing Abashidze's resignation should therefore not be overestimated.
Russia's leading role in resolving the crisis in Adzharia was similar to its role during the Rose Revolution last year. The administration of U.S. President George W. Bush actively promoted democratic elections in Georgia. This gave Saakashvili a strong impetus to launch popular demonstrations against fraud committed by the government during parliamentary elections last November.
When the opposition stormed parliament three weeks later, however, the situation was managed not by Washington, but by Moscow. Igor Ivanov, then foreign minister, arrived in Tbilisi to mediate between President Eduard Shevardnadze and Saakashvili, while the United States remained on the sidelines. Thus Ivanov served as midwife during the difficult birth of a new Georgian regime, even though the opposition was widely seen as pro-American.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Georgia has been a focal point of the Russian-U.S. rivalry in the Caspian region. Moscow has consistently worked to weaken the Georgian state by stalling on troop withdrawal, aiding separatist regimes in Abkhazia and the Tskhinvali region (so-called Southern Ossetia), fomenting a potential conflict in Dzhavakheti (a region largely populated by ethnic Armenians), and by supporting Abashidze. Moscow's goal has been to make Georgia dependent on Russia for its survival, as it has done with Belarus and Moldova.
For years the United States countered Russia's efforts, initially by pushing for the rapid construction of pipelines through Georgia to carry Caspian Sea oil and gas. Under George W. Bush, the United States took a more active role, launching a program to help Georgia upgrade its armed forces. Following the Prague summit in 2002, when NATO invited seven new members to join the alliance, Republicans in Washington began to insist that Georgia -- and the Caucasus as a whole -- be considered as a priority for future expansion. Their efforts will likely begin to bear fruit next month at the NATO summit in Istanbul.
Georgia now stands at a historic crossroads. It has the potential, along with Turkey and a democratic Iraq, to serve as a conduit for the advancement of U.S. interests in Central Asia and the Middle East, the region that will likely dominate U.S. foreign engagement for the first half of this century. For this to happen, Saakashvili's government must pursue real political and economic reforms, the United States must continue to support Georgia during its period of transition, and the Bush administration must at least partially implement its vision for the greater Middle East. Georgia would need to become an economically strong and politically stable member of NATO, much like the Baltic states, before it could realize its full potential in this scenario.
Such developments would be incompatible with Moscow's own policy in the Caucasus, of course. Analysts in Tbilisi are therefore debating whether Putin actually acknowledges Russia's defeat in the battle for the Caucasus and wants to build a new relationship with Georgia, or if he has merely changed his tactics in an effort to retain Georgia within Russia's sphere of influence.
At first glance, the events of last November and last week suggest that the United States and Russia have reached a compromise on Georgia, under which Washington would take the leading role in matters of strategic importance while Moscow would play a constructive but more limited role. The agreement on ending the U.S.-Russian rivalry in the Caucasus, reached by Bush and Putin during the Moscow summit in May 2002 appears to be working.
This optimistic appraisal may be premature, however. Saakashvili was hugely indebted to Putin for his rise to power, and Putin's removal of Abashidze has doubled that debt. Putin will undoubtedly use this newly gained influence to pursue Russia's traditional goals, though he may be changing his tactics.
A number of recent developments suggest that Moscow is now focused on keeping Tbilisi under its thumb by means of private sector investment into key sectors of the Georgian economy. Last year, Unified Energy Systems took control of electricity distribution in Tbilisi. Gazprom now seeks a similar monopoly in gas delivery. Neither move is motivated exclusively by profit. When Saakashvili visited Moscow in February, top Russian businessmen expressed a strong interest in pursuing ventures in various sectors of the Georgian economy. Given Putin's influence on the oligarchs, the Tbilisi media interpreted this interest as a sign that the Russian government is encouraging business to get involved in Georgia.
Investment in Georgia remains a risk, and more so recently as many foreign businesses have come under pressure from the authorities. Washington is therefore incapable of matching "private," politically driven Russian investment in the country.
In the meantime, Russian businesses could quickly dominate the weak Georgian economy with a relatively small injection of capital. It seems logical to assume that by taking control of the Georgian economy, Moscow hopes to influence the country's domestic and foreign policy. It is rumored that Russian money is behind the launch of a new television station in Tbilisi. If true, this would be the first clear sign of a Russian business in Georgia designed to serve a political purpose.
It is far from certain that this strategy will enable Moscow to stop Georgia from pursuing NATO membership and a closer relationship with the United States. So long as Washington keeps up the pressure on Moscow to remove its military bases from Georgia in a timely manner, continues to help strengthen the Georgian army and ensures that Georgia does not enter into a framework agreement with its northern neighbor, Russian investment in Georgia could indirectly advance U.S. interests in the country. Such investment will bolster the Georgian economy and improve living conditions. And a strong Georgia will be a more attractive ally for the United States and NATO.
Then again, a strong Georgia would also benefit Russia, plagued as it is by security concerns on its southern flank.
Irakly Areshidze, a political analyst and elections strategist based in Washington and Tbilisi, contributed this comment to The Moscow Times.
The relation to Iran: Armenia is on Iran’s northern border
The bribe: If Armenia is to receive additional multimillion-dollar assistance from the United States under its new global poverty reduction program they should address the U.S. concern at the Armenian government’s heavy-handed response to the two-month opposition campaign for President Robert Kocharian’s resignation or get rid of Kocharian.
The treaty: In 1997, Armenia and Russia signed a friendship treaty, under which they provided for mutual assistance in the event of a military threat to either party. The pact also allows Russian border guards to patrol Armenia’s frontiers with Turkey and Iran. The United States is probably going to want to get Russia out of Armenia before they attack Iran, just a guess. This requires the resignation of Kocharian.
The murder: US citizen, Joshua Haglund, professor at the Bryusov Institute of foreign languages in Yerevan but also reported to be an embassy employee.
US citizen murdered in Armenia 18/05/2004 18:14 - (SA)
Yerevan - A 33-year-old American has been killed in Armenia in what police suspect was a contract killing, officials said on Tuesday.
The body of Joshua Haglund, which had what appeared to be knife wounds on the left side of his chest, was found late on Monday in the centre of the Armenian capital Yerevan, police said.
Haglund was a professor at the Bryusov institute of foreign languages in Yerevan, the US embassy said.
The embassy refused to comment on reports in the local press that Haglund was also an embassy employee.
RUSSIA AND ARMENIA: UNITED BY GEOPOLITICS, DIVIDED BY ENERGY RESOURCES Sergei Blagov: 5/17/04
Russia has long viewed Armenia as its most dependable ally in the volatile Caucasus region. However, a recent pipeline deal between Armenia and Iran has emerged as a source of discord in Moscow’s relationship with Yerevan.
The Armenian-Iranian pipeline pact was signed May 13 in Yerevan. Under terms of the deal, the roughly 140-kilometer pipeline would cost an estimated $220 million to build (including a $100 million outlay on the Armenian side), and become operational by January 1, 2007. In addition, Iran and Armenia agreed on a gas-purchase deal in which Yerevan would buy upwards of 36 billion cubic meters of gas over a 20-year span, the Mediamax news agency reported.
The pipeline potentially could be extended, via Georgia and Ukraine, to the European Union. Linking to the EU would require construction of a 550-kilometer-long underwater section from the Georgian port of Supsa to the Crimean town of Feodosia at an estimated cost of $5 billion. The planned gas supply would amount to 60 billion cubic meters per annum, including 10 billion cubic meters for Ukraine.
For Armenia, the deal has the potential to greatly reduce the country’s energy dependence on Russia. Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian told Armenian television May 14 that Yerevan placed "great importance" on Iran’s "balancing role" in geopolitical and economic developments in the Caucasus. At the same time, other Armenian officials sought to downplay the impact of the deal on Yerevan’s energy dealings with Russia.
Until recently, Russia was critical of the pipeline project. After Armenian Energy Minister Armen Movsisian said in February that an Armenia-Iran gas pipeline deal was pending, the Russian daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta published an article entitled: "Yerevan carries out an anti-Russian gas project."
In recent weeks, Moscow appears to have softened its stance. On May 13, Kocharian met Gazprom head Alexey Miller to discuss Russian gas supplies to Armenia as well as Armenia internal and transit gas pipelines. They also talked about the ArmRosGazprom joint venture, which is 45-percent owned by the Russian gas giant. No details were revealed, but no sharp disagreements surfaced.
What appears to still make Moscow nervous is the prospect of an extension of the Armenian-Iranian pipeline. Officials in Moscow are reportedly concerned that an EU extension could create damaging competition for Russian energy exports. An Iran-EU connection could also enable Turkmenistan to circumvent Russia’s gas pipeline network. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Moscow may already be working to discourage an extension. On May 15, Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich made an unexpected visit to meet with Putin at his Novo-Ogaryovo residence outside Moscow. Two days later, Putin met with visiting Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi and described Iran as Russia’s "long-standing and stable partner."
The Armenian-Iranian pipeline pact was announced the day before Armenian President Robert Kocharian flew to Moscow for talks with Russian leader Vladimir Putin – the fifth such meeting between the two in less than a year.
Both behaved as though Armenian-Russian ties were as strong as ever. Putin welcomed developing economic cooperation between Russia and Armenia, adding that in 2003 bilateral trade was 34 percent up year on year. Putin also hailed "coordinated efforts by Russia and Armenia on the international arena," notably among former Soviet states. Kocharian, likewise, welcomed the strengthening of economic ties.
Armenia has traditionally been Russia’s closest partner in the Caucasus. Sandwiched between hostile Azerbaijan and Turkey, and volatile Georgia, Armenia has little option but to remain a supporter of Russia’s geopolitical moves in the Caucasus.
In 1997, the two countries signed a friendship treaty, under which they provided for mutual assistance in the event of a military threat to either party. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
The pact also allows Russian border guards to patrol Armenia’s frontiers with Turkey and Iran. In economic terms, Armenia is heavily dependent on Russia for its natural gas and nuclear fuel supplies. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].
Editor’s Note: Sergei Blagov is a Moscow-based specialist in CIS political affairs
U.S. Wants Political Reform For Extra Aid To Armenia
By Emil Danielyan 19/05/2004 01:55
The Armenian authorities should improve their human rights record and continue political reforms if they are to receive additional multimillion-dollar assistance from the United States under its new global poverty reduction program, a senior U.S. diplomat said on Tuesday.
Ambassador Carlos Pascual, a senior State Department official coordinating U.S. aid to Europe and the former Soviet Union, emphasized that respect of “political freedom” is among the criteria for the selection of 16 countries eligible for Washington’s Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) program. He indicated in this regard U.S. concern at the Armenian government’s heavy-handed response to the two-month opposition campaign for President Robert Kocharian’s resignation. “As you know, there have been issues here in Armenia that have raised questions about political and civil liberties in the past few months,” Pascual told a news conference in Yerevan. “The expectation, in order to be able to move forward with the program, is that there would be progress on these issues and not movement backwards.”
“So we will continue to review carefully the development of political events in the coming months and these will also be taken into account along with the specific elements of any individual [aid] proposal that is developed by the Armenian side,” he added.
Armenia is among 16 low-income countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the former Soviet Union selected for the MCA earlier this month on the basis of 16 indicators of political and economic reforms. Six of those indicators, including protection of civil rights and freedom of expression, deal with what is defined as one of the three main objectives of the scheme: promotion of a “just government rule.”
“Experience has shown us that the way a government treats its people and the environment that is created for political participation is intricately connected with economic success,” Pascual argued. He noted that while Armenia ranks high in the MCA indicators of economic reform and market liberalization, its government’s record on “political rights and civil liberties” leaves much to be desired.
This conclusion is in line with the findings of the latest State Department report on U.S. efforts to promote human rights and democracy around the world over the past year. “The [Armenian] Government's human rights record remained poor; although there were some improvements in a few areas, serious problems remained,” reads the report released on Monday. It points among other things to “numerous serious irregularities” in last year’s Armenian presidential election as well as continuing reports of arbitrary arrests.
The report covers events before the recent government crackdown on the Armenian opposition that was criticized by the U.S., the Council of Europe and other Western human rights watchdogs. Despite the criticism, Washington stressed its neutrality in the continuing confrontation between Kocharian and his political opponents.
Pascual, who co-chaired a two-day session of the U.S.-Armenian intergovernmental “task force” with Finance Minister Vartan Khachatrian, also said that Yerevan would further increase its chances of securing MCA funding by combating endemic corruption in earnest. “We had some very frank discussions about struggle to fight corruption in Armenia and the importance of translating the [government’s] anti-corruption strategy into specific steps,” he said, calling for “concrete examples that can show the population the seriousness of the will to fight corruption.”
Khachatrian agreed, saying: “We must do a lot of work to get that assistance.” He confirmed that the Armenian government has “in effect” already drawn up a number of specific aid programs that will be submitted to the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a U.S. government agency in charge of the MCA’s implementation. He said those programs will be discussed in detail with a team of other U.S. officials who are due to visit Yerevan later this month. The government will also initiate public debate on its proposals, Khachatrian added.
One of Khachatrian’s deputies, David Avetisian, told RFE/RL on Monday that Yerevan will ask for at least $60 million worth of additional U.S. assistance this year.
The task force also discussed the ongoing regular U.S. aid to Armenia which has exceeded $1.5 billion since 1992 and, according to Pascual, will total $94 million this year. More than half of the 2004 funds are to be spent on job creation, poverty reduction and social services, while $15 million is earmarked for “security and law enforcement,” officials said.
Copyright (c) 2004. RFE/RL, Inc. Reprinted with the permission of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1201 Connecticut Ave., N.W. Washington DC 20036. www.rferl.org
This could be an insight into an element of his strategy. Adana is next to Syria and could be used to invade that country. The bases in the Black Sea are a threat to Russia, but probably they will be used to attack Iran through Georgia and Armenia. Bush is very assured of his reelection as he is pushing ahead with his plans for a world war. This is part of the reason he wants to keep troops in Iraq. In my opinion, -Am #msg-3097785
Hürriyet: UNITED STATES WANTS INCIRLIK BASE Turkish Deputy Chief of General Staff Ilker Basbug announced that the United States demanded that Turkey should make some facilitation for bases in Incirlik town of southern Adana province and central Konya province. Basbug hinted that Washington was taking pulse related with establishment of three new sea bases in the Black Sea. Replying to questions of reporters, Basbug said, "we have received some request from the United States. We are working on them." Basbug noted that there was no need for a parliamentary decision to meet some of these demands within the scope of Defense and Economic Cooperation Agreement (DECA). Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that he had not received any demand for Incirlik base.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
