Caucasus

Despite the efforts to save energy a strong scenario for near future is that the quantity of gas needed in EU region will remain same as today if not bigger.  sources of gas are widely known the essential question is how the gas is arriving to European markets.  Environmental and technical aspects can be handled as well economical ones; the real battlefield is (geo) political and it’s much more effective than energy issue itself.

In today’s Europe the core of energy war is the struggle between South Stream and Nabucco pipe lines, which also is one of the most divisive issue inside EU.  The Brussels bureaucracy favour the Nabucco project, a transit route bypassing both Russia and Ukraine, while a part of EU member states, EU energy giants and gas producers are favouring Russia’s South Stream.

Latest developments

EU, Russia as well companies interested about gas business have all activated when decisions are needed to define the final route of gas to European markets.

a) EU     

The common factor with both pipelines is that they are eliminating Ukraine’s transit monopoly.  Publicly EU has probably due political motives planned update Ukraine’s gas pipeline network like during The International Investment Conference on March 23rd 2009 in Brussels. Russia has not been invited to discuss the terms of gas supplies to Europe via Ukraine's gas pipeline network for three years but Ukraine is hoping part of requested $5.5 bn modernization costs from EU in name of EU energy security. Gas buyers and transit operators may have their views, but the question still remains what they can buy and on which terms.  EU bureaucrats are making a fatal miscalculation if they are building energy infrastructure without source of energy itself.

The EU Commission has included the Nabucco pipeline in its list of priority projects,  despite pressure from Germany and Italy. But the EU cut its budget funding of the project by 20% getting some 200 million euros for first stage of the project.Nabucco is likely to rely heavily on subsidies from the EU. Several member countries questioned the economics of the project. 

The European Union and Turkey gave fresh political impetus on 8thMay 2009 in Prague to the Nabucco pipeline project, although key Central Asian gas suppliers held off on pledging their support. But it also needs gas, which may be a problem as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan refused to sign the final declaration in Prague, unlike two other suppliers -- Azerbaijan and Egypt -- and two key transit nations -- Turkey and Georgia. But Mr Gul also made clear he expected some progress on Turkey's stalled EU membership talks.  Earlier Turkey’s premier, in a rare visit to Brussels on January 19, tested Europe’s reaction, saying that he will review his support for Nabucco if the Energy Chapter of its EU accession talks is blocked. “If we are faced with a situation where the energy chapter is blocked, we would of course review our position,” he said. (Neweurope 26 January 2009)The Declaration of Southern Corridor Summit here .

b) Russia

Russia has floated plans for a new global treaty on trade in fossil and nuclear fuel in an attempt to consign to history an earlier pact, the 1991 Energy Charter Treaty. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev unveiled the project during his state visit in Finland on 20th April 209. "Our task today is to maintain, or rather ensure for the future, the balance of producers of energy resources, transit states and consumers of energy resources," he said. The new pact is to cover oil, gas, nuclear fuel, coal and electricity and to include the US, China and India as well as European countries.

On 15th May 2009 four agreements shall be signed in Sochi: the national companies of Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria and Italy shall sign agreement with the Russian ‘Gazprom.  One of them is agreement between Serbia’s Srbijagas and Russia’s Gazprom on route of Southern Stream pipeline through Serbia with length about 450 kilometers.  There shall be also a fifth agreement – bilateral agreement between Russia and Italy, which shall be signed by the Prime Ministers of the two countries, Vladimir Putin and Silvio Berlusconi.  (Blic 13.5.2009)

c) Companies

The consortium behind the Nabucco now comprises six national energy companies: Botas (Turkey), Bulgargaz (Bulgaria), Transgaz (Romania), MOL (Hungary), OMV (Austria), and RWE (Germany). However on Jan. 25, 2008 OMV sealed a deal for a joint venture with Gazprom for extending Baumgarten’s storage and distribution capacity. Accordingly, Gazprom holds a 50 percent stake there.  Moreover, OMV has been buying into Hungary’s MOL. Considering Russia’s significant share in OMV, any amount of OMV ownership of MOL again translates into stakes for Russia’s energy giant. Even further challenging the Nabucco project is the fact that OMV and MOL, together with yet a third consortium member, Bulgargaz, have already signed up to Gazprom’s South Stream project.

Nabucco

The pipeline that the EU hopes will bring gas from the Caspian Sea to Austria takes its name from Giuseppe Verdi's 1842 opera, Nabucco. The work tells the story of the oppression and exile of Hebrew slaves by Nabucco, a Babylonian king, better known to the English world as Nebuchadnezzar. The opera deals with the eternal quest for freedom, but the choice of name may yet prove fateful for a project that is facing so many obstacles to its completion.   

The pipeline is supposed to transport around 30 billion cubic meters of gas annually. In terms of gas suppliers the project's backers have named Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.  

However Turkmenistan's gas output is contracted to Russia up until 2028. Azerbaitzan also does not have the amounts required so as for the project to be profitable in the long run. The possibility of Iranian gas is far from realistic due to its nuclear program and the adamant denial by Israel and the opponent Sunni Arab states.  Nabucco is still counting on gas supplies from Azerbaijan despite a memorandum of understanding signed between Russia’s Gazprom and the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan SOCAR signed on March 30th 2009 clearly shows the growing interest of Azerbaijan in cooperation with Russia.

32 European countries are clients of Russia’s Gazprom.  Despite EU declarations and investment plans the US-backed Nabucco natural gas pipeline is dying a slow death. Even its strongest supporters have a hard time demonstrating its commercial viability. The risk for Nabucco is that if the supply and funding issues are not sorted out, the EU's dream of energy freedom will remain an aspiration rather than a reality.

South Stream    

Its planned route would run from the Russian Black Sea coast across the seabed to Bulgaria, then bifurcate into a southern branch to Greece and southern Italy and a northern branch into Serbia, Hungary, and Austria, with a potential detour to Slovenia and northern Italy.

Bulgaria and Hungary have both signed government agreements on joining South Stream. Austria is also in talks and has already agreed to sell Gazprom 50 percent of the shares in Baumgarten, the gas hub where Nabucco is supposed to end, while Turkey already operates a direct sub-marine pipeline linking it to Russia - Blue Stream.  Also Romania is open to investing in the Gazprom pipeline South Stream, not just the EU Nabucco project.

In September 2008, Uzbekistan and Russia agreed to build a new pipeline with a capacity of 26 to 30 billion cubic meters (bcm) annually to pump Uzbek and Turkmen gas to Europe. Such a pipeline will again undermine the US efforts to pump trans-Caspian energy routes bypassing Russia.

The technical and economic assessment of the land where the pipeline will lie is planned to be completed by the end of 2009, while the assessment of facility's underground stretches should be finished in early 2010.  Russia's Gazprom plans to start gas deliveries to Europe through the future South Stream pipeline no later than 2015.

Iran

However, the whole situation is good for Iran. Some experts believe that without Iran the “Nabucco” project will remain unimplemented, while its participation could give an impulse to the process.  Iran has the  largest gas reserves in the world after Russia  and Turkmenistan (27,5 trillion cubic meters, or 18% of the world's gas reserves and 33% of that of the OPEC).

But is there gas coming from Iran?  Iran uses the lion's share of produced gas (360 million cubic meters daily) for civil purposes. By the year 2014 Tehran plans to provide gas to 93% of the population of 630 cities and to 18% of the rural population in more than 4,000 villages. Iran's factories and electric power plants also need much gas. Another share of the produced gas Iran has to inject into its reserves to keep oil production at a high level (experts say this help Iran increase output by more than 30%). Iran has long been enjoying infrastructure for oil exports but yet has not such for exporting gas.

On February 21st 2009 the Iranian and Turkmeni governments signed an agreement that will give Iran the rights to develop the Yolotan gas field in Turkmenistan. The deal will help Iran resolve gas supply problems in its north-eastern provinces. Turkmenistan will sell Iran an additional 350 billion cubic feet of gas annually, more than doubling current supplies of almost 300 bcf a year, according to the agreement first disclosed by Iran’s official media and later confirmed by Turkmenistan.

Iran also recently offered to invest $1.7 billion for a 10 percent stake in the second phase of Azerbaijan’s huge Shah-Deniz gas field which will come on line by 2014. Iran already has a 10 percent share in the first phase and it wants to import large volumes of gas from the Azeri field. For Iran, the deals couldn’t be better suited to its objectives. It’s economically unviable currently to supply gas to its isolated, north-eastern third of the country. Getting gas from Turkmenistan would therefore make more Iranian gas available for export to Turkey. Also, connecting both Caspian countries to Iran via pipeline would allow Tehran to accomplish its long-held objective of transiting any gas production increases from its neighbours to customers in Europe, the Persian Gulf, or Asia.

Turkmenistan

Preliminary indications are the gas reserves in Turkmenistan is around 38.4 TCM – far more than Iran and just 20% lower than Russia. The biggest gas field discovery was in October 2008 – called the Yoloten Osman deposits. It is located near the Afghan – Turkmenistan border. Turkmenistan has contracts to supply Russia with 50 bcm annually, China with 40 bcm and Iran with 8 bcm annually. The Russian energy giant Gazprom requires this Turkmen gas to meet its export obligations in the European market, which accounts for 70% of the its total revenue. Gazprom sells 2/3 of Russia’s 550 bcm annual gas production in the rapidly growing domestic market. This compels it to secure Turkmen supplies to meet contracted European demands.

Nabucco vs. South Stream

Gazprom has received an invitation to join the Nabucco pipeline project to pump gas from Central Asia to Europe, but will not take up the offer, a deputy head of Russia’s energy giant said. In an interview with Vesti TV on Monday, Alexander Medvedev said Gazprom would stick with its South Stream project and stay out of Nabucco. “Unlike in the case of Nabucco, we have everything we need for this project [South Stream] to materialize,” he said. “We have gas, the market, experience in implementing complex projects, and corporate management.”

The Nabucco route does circumvent Ukraine, but it is from Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, goes under Caspian Sea, passes across Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Georgia. So many countries in pipeline are creating multiple political risk compared to South Stream which goes from Russia under Black Sea directly to EU zone.  Besides, Nabucco is going to lack the resource base adequate to its transit capacities unless the project is joined, for example, by Iran, but this is politically problematic.

The shareholders of the Nabucco consortium are: Botas (Turkey), Bulgargaz (Bulgaria), MOL (Hungary), OMV(Austria), RWE(Germany) and Transgaz (Romania).  OMV, MOL and Bulgargaz have also signed up to South Stream pipeline, which bypasses Turkey. It is unrealistic to think that both South Stream and Nabucco will happen, but companies  want to make sure at least one of them happens and be part of that.

The current timeframe, assuming that the outstanding issues are resolved, is that Nabucco would come on-stream in 2013, two years after Nord Stream, the planned Baltic pipeline, which has already secured both supplies and finance for the construction work.

Some geopolitical aspects

The EU's new "southern corridor" has been dubbed a version of U.S. "Silk Road Strategy" aimed to block Russia from gas fields around Caspian Sea and its connection to Iran (More in my article "Is GUUAM dead?).   The South Pars natural gas field brings a new element to change original U.S. plan as it is a sign of a long-term energy alliance between Moscow and Tehran and with active participation of the EU. Turkey and Armenia may be join the project as transit countries. Naturally, this leaves Washington very few chances to lobby its energy projects in the region aimed at using Azerbaijan and Georgia as the so-called 'Caucasus communication corridor'.

In addition Russia, Iran and Qatar have taken the decision to form a "big gas troika".  The idea is that three countries - with 60 % of global gas reserves - will work on joint projects accross the entire gas chain from geological exploration and production to distributionand marketing gas. Alexey Miller – Head of Gazprom - stated at the end of the meeting that “we are united by the world’s largest gas reserves, common strategic interests and, which is very important, high potential for cooperation within tripartite projects.

There is also a question about Turkey.  The South Stream pipeline will run from Russia directly to Bulgaria across the Black Sea. Russia is diversifying its gas supply routes so as not to depend on one transport hub. It might perhaps be cheaper to build the new pipeline along existing route of the Blue Stream, which crosses the Black Sea from Russia to Turkey, than to lay a new route on the seabed. This, however, would increase the aggregate capacity of the two streams to about 48 billion cubic meters, giving the Turks a great deal of influence on Russian supplies.Russia and the EU countries do not want this to happen.  On the other side Greece, which is taking part in the construction of an oil pipeline from Burgas in Bulgaria to Alexandroupolis, has announced its readiness to join the South Stream project. This makes sense, as apart from bringing economic dividends it will make Greece an international energy hub on a par with Turkey.

Bottom line

In conclusion EC is pushing imaginary project of Nabucco pipes with support of drowning USA who’s last straw of Silk Road blocking strategy Nabucco is.  EU countries as well non-member states are pushing national interests;  Iran, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan are looking the best deal, Russia tries keep domination of gas markets and secure the resources, EU companies are playing with two cards to secure being with winners side and EP of course is bystander.

This post was first published in TH!NK ABOUT IT site 25th February 2009.

During last twenty years war for humanitarian reasons has came quite popular in political vocabulary e.g. in Balkans and now with Georgia case. The ideal to use power in the service of ethics is good. The problem is the low level of ethics when US is using her power in world. EU has been mostly economical union without any significant military muscle – U.S. lead Nato has had that role.

As economical - if not military – power EU’s influence to conflicts is sc. soft power. Should EU take more distance to U.S. foreign policy? I think yes, an independent 3^rd way should be taken into consideration.

Balkans and Caucasus are suffering about US Cowboy policy

United States Foreign policy during last decades could be described as series of strategical errors. When Soviet Union splintered, the US saw possibility to widen its influence through breakaway republics and former satellites, do whatever want in the rest of world and feed her powerful military-industrial complex. Supporting on one hand nationalist/populist leaders (Georgia, Ukraine, Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo) and with one hand elsewhere dictatorships (Asia, South & Middle America); making alliances with terrorist groups (Al Quida, KLA) shows that the aim was only reach short term tactical gain. Attacks to Serbia and Iraq were made on base of fabricated information/propaganda and probably also the intelligence from Afghanistan was not better.

Georgia was one again failed example about US Foreign policy which aims to create classical “banana republic” to Eastern Europe where US controls crucial foreign and/or domestic policies of another nation through ties with its military and intelligence institutions. EU's military, political, and corporate elites have already increasingly become dependents or confederates of the US military-industrial complex. While Russia wishes to safe its "inner courtyard" - sc "Russian World" US is doing the same with its MacWorld. However today it seems that those two worlds have more and more common zone: Many ex Soviet republics have joined or are dreaming of joining NATO, missiles and radars are coming closer and closer Moscow - it feels that new cold war, old polarization/confrontation, is coming.

All above mentioned has now leaded to polarization of world and confrontation between Russia and the US. When the US has acted (lunatic style) as one's own discretion one effect is that UNSC has been guided to sidetrack. United States policy in the Balkans has been dysfunctional, characterized by cynicism, duplicity and short term tactical gain and at world level as series of strategic errors. Let's hope that those errors are not duplicated any more in Caucasus or elsewhere.

The bluff of US Foreign Policy has normally been "western democracy" etc. However the record in Georgia was questionable. In one report, Human Rights Watch asserted that “the fragility of Georgia’s commitment to human rights and the rule of law were revealed on Nov. 7, 2007, when government forces used violent and excessive force to disperse a series of largely peaceful demonstrations in the capital, Tbilisi.” In the other report even (the Western nearly governmental elite lobby group) International Crisis Group warned of a creeping authoritarianism in Georgia and urged Western governments to pressure the regime in Tbilisi to respect democratic principles.

To show his admiration for the U.S. president, Saakashvili even renamed the main road to Tbilisi’s airport George W. Bush Street. The same was made earlier in Kosovo. It is good to think globally but better act locally. Like in Balkans before Caucasia is today suffering US cowboy policy which is creating unnecessary confrontation with Russia. There is maybe way out from banana republic status when local governments start to develop their policies more from domestic needs without too much adoring transatlantic short term games.

3^rd Way out

As a Finn I would like to ask if third way could be possible also elsewhere. Finland has over 1000 km common border with Russia, number of wars has been between us and Russia/USSR but also lot of good times like Autonomy time 1806-1917 as well last decades with increasing economic cooperation. With this background today more Finns are against than pro to join NATO and our dear neighbours in Sweden have similar results in opinion pools.

This neutral - unallied - position makes it possible to approach world politics, human rights, economical issues etc with critical way be that critics to east or west. I do not mean that critics should be end in itself or the top priority for e.g. Caucasian countries. However I am from old school and believe that real progress can be made only after fresh debate, dialogue or at least tolerance between local stakeholders not copying values or practices e.g. from Washington nor Brussels bureaucrats.

The unallied position is same time open to all kind of cooperation to all directions. The statements about world events are our own; they are not coming from Washington or Moscow. Personally I like this third way, is it possible also for Caucasus – I hope local stakeholders can decide.

I see that the only way out from today's confrontation is that the Great Powers start dialogue from empty table with equal basis, one output could be the restoration of UNSC as a forum for global conflicts. The global challenges e.g. environment, poverty, 3rd world conflicts etc are so big that no individual power can solve them. These challenges should be top priority, not short term wins of private armies, military industry and short-sighted politicians.

Could EU lead the 3^rd Way?

In Europe the Kosovo question highlights the core problem of EU - uncritical following of US foreign (cowboy) policy . Some times I ask if it is EU, only UK or ex-Sovjet lapdogs the 51st state of USA. To me it is alarming, that this US policy has been made both during democratic and republican US presidents. Future shows if the change will come with new president – I admit to have some doubts because he didn’t changed the old advisers. And will US succeed to gain support for these actions either through the use of NATO or by persuading the European Community or the newly emerging states of Central and Eastern Europe to get on side.  I hope that change will come and different actors both sides of Atlantic could have debate from more equal base than before.

For economical development EU has e.g. its Neighbourhood programmes for non-member states. EU can also make any kind of individual agreements such as customs, visa regime etc with non-members so they can enjoy many EU benefits without membership.

Questions to answer for adopting 3^rd way in EU

• Does EU or the majority of its member states want more independence from U.S.foreign policy?
• Can EU’s Nato members and partners change Nato or challenge U.S. superiority in Nato?
• Can EU find a common vision, strategy and position with its external relations?

Realism?

I do not know if my proposal is realistic. I know that my mother was fleeing from home when USSR occupied that part of Finland during WWII. I also know that I have found some of my best friends from Russia. Lesson learned - one can forget past wrongdoings and look forward. Dialogue and tolerance at local level is in my opinion the best guarantee for sustainable solutions. Collecting guns on the borders is from my point of view the worst scenario excluding use of them.

Note: While speaking above about 3^rd way I have used term only as such. There is no direct connection to sc. Third Way philosophy designed by U.S. Democratic Leadership Council some 10 years ago. That philosophy rests on three cornerstones: the idea that government should promote equal opportunity for all while granting special privilege for none; an ethic of mutual responsibility that equally rejects the politics of entitlement and the politics of social abandonment; and, a new approach to governing that empowers citizens to act for themselves. Also term 3^rd way is now used in EU describing the efforts to find a privileged partnership for Turkey instead of normal membership.

More my views in my Archives:Blog!

balkan
caucasus
ari rusila

I am a bit worried about a trend at the beginning of year 2009 - a trend I hope will not dominate the rest of the year. The phenomena in my mind is the new tradition of non-negotiation. Crisis management and solving conflicts will be much more harder if local stakeholders are unable even to talk each other.

Few examples from last weeks:

• Israel does not negotiate with Hamas so war and human catastrophe will continue before some outsiders are broking s.c. temporary ceasefire or truce while sustainable solution would need long and deep negotiations between local partners.
• U.S. and Iran are discussing in UN and direct talks we must wait until new President takes his office in White House. Let's hope that situation does not escalate before that. If real talks had been implemented earlier some today's problems in Middle East could be now smaller or non-existing.
• Separatist government in Kosovo province does not want talk with Belgrade authorities about technical details of UN six-point plan from November 2008 before Belgrade recognizes Kosovo; Belgrade will talk with Pristina's separatist government only when they act under UNMIK (administration of Kosovo international protectorate) umbrella. So many practical problems will not be solved.
• Russia and Ukraine and EU knew problems with gas deliveries years ago, last October was clear that after New Year deliveries maybe stop - no constructive talks even Xmas-week. When homes in Europe started frozen there seemed to be no hurry to negotiate. When finally EU broke the deal to accept EU monitors to check if Ukraina is stealing gas from pipes or not the last delay was waiting if Ukraina will sign the agreement. Big mess again when leaders are not willing to discuss in due course.

It is amazing how on the modern time of information society the authorities are not discussing common problems. Everywhere else the information flow is huge, on-time debate over today's conflicts is going on around the globe. Some forums are of course for those who in principle are thinking same way over issues but also real unlimited and open forums are available. Internet is full of ideas, arguments, real-time situation information, proposals and solutions. It is sad that when we have all real-time information and modern communication means those who can decide do not bother to have simple old fashion or modern discussions with their colleagues.

More my views one may find from my BalkanBlog

Earlier I wrote about political rights, citizen liberties and press freedom in Balkans ("Freedom in Balkans"). To travel from one country to other is a fundamental freedom restricted however more or less depending about which passport the traveler holds. In practice traveling especially nowadays is restricted because lack of money but I limit this article only formal visa restrictions.

Visa restrictions play an important role in controlling the movement of foreign nationals across borders. They are also an expression of the relationships between individual nations, and generally reflect the relations and status of a country within the international community of nations. Visa restrictions also are reflecting the political situation of the time e.g. some 20 years ago citizens of Yugoslavia could travel relatively free, but the breakup wars changed situation completely.

The Henley Visa Restrictions Index

Henley & Partners is a firm specialized in international immigration, consular and citizenship law. Henley & Partners has analyzed the visa regulations of all the countries and territories in the world. It has created an index which ranks countries according to the visa-free access its citizens enjoy to other countries. This Index is globally known as “The Henley Visa Restrictions Index”. (Source and more about H&P please visit in their homepage)

Rank. Passports of Country/Countries, Number of Countries Accessible Without Visa / Visa on Arrival (Balkans and Caucasus bold)

01. Denmark, Finland, United States, 130.

02. Germany, Ireland, Sweden, 129.

03. France, Great Britain (UK citizen passport), Italy, Japan, 128.

04. Belgium, Norway, Spain, Switzerland, 127.

05. Netherlands, 126.

06. Austria, Canada, Luxembourg, New Zealand, 125.

07. Portugal, 123.

08. Singapore, 122.

09. Australia, Greece, Iceland, Malaysia, 120.

10. Liechtenstein, 116.

11. Malta, South Korea, 115.

12. Cyprus, 113.

13. Hong Kong, 110.

14. Chile, San Marino, 109.

15. Monaco, 108.

16. Poland, 106.

17. Slovenia, 105.

18. Israel, 104.

19. Argentina, Brunei, Hungary, 101.

20. Andorra, Brazil, Uruguay, 99.

21. Czech Republic, Mexico, 98.

22. Slovakia, 97.

23. Costa Rica, 95.

24. Lithuania, 94.

25. Venezuela, 92.

26. Estonia, Latvia, 91.

27. Vatican City, 87.

28. Croatia, 84.

29. Bolivia, Bulgaria, 83.

30. Guatemala, Panama, Paraguay, 82.

31. El Salvador, 81.

32. Honduras, 80.

33. Nicaragua, 75.

34. Romania, 73

35. Bahamas, Barbados, Macau, 71.

36. Trinidad and Tobago, 66.

37. South Africa, 65.

38. St.Vincent and Grenadines, 64.

39. Antigua and Barbuda, St. Lucia, 63.

40. St. Kitts-Nevis, 62.

41. Grenada, 60.

42. Belize, 58.

43. Jamaica, 57.

44. Solomon Islands, 54.

45. Gambia, Guyana, 53.

46. Dominica, Mauritius, Seychelles, Turkey, 52.

47. Lesotho, 51.

48. Tuvalu, 50.

49. Kiribati, Western Samoa, 49.

50. Botswana, Malawi, 48.

51. Fiji, Sierra Leone, Vanuatu, 47.

52. Kenya, Maldives, Swaziland, Tonga, 46.

53. Ghana, Zambia, 45.

54. Nauru, 44.

55. Ecuador, Namibia, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Tanzania, Zimbabwe, 41.

56. Suriname, 40.

57. Kuwait, Mauritania, Uganda, 39.

58. Bahrain, Mali, Tunisia, 38.

59. Guinea, Ivory Coast, Niger, Qatar, Senegal, 37.

60. Benin, Cape Verde, Marshall Islands, Oman, 36.

61. Burkina Faso, 35.

62. Nigeria, Russia, Togo, United Arab Emirates, 35.

63. Guinea-Bissau, Micronesia, Philippines, 33.

64. Belarus, Colombia, Palau Islands, Serbia-Montenegro, Ukraine, 32.

65. Liberia, Macedonia, Saudi Arabia, 31.

66. Morocco, 30.

67. Indonesia, Moldova, Thailand, 29.

68. Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Central African Republic, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, 28.

69. Armenia, Chad, Congo Brazzaville, Cuba, Tajikistan, 27.

70. Cameroon, 26.

71. Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dominican Republic, India, Madagascar, 25.

72. Egypt, Gabon, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, 24.

73. Algeria, Rwanda, 23.

74. Haiti, Mozambique, São Tomé and Principe, Sri Lanka, 22.

75. East Timor, Jordan, 21.

76. Comores Islands, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Laos, Nepal, 20.

77. Angola, Bhutan, Djibouti, Libya, Turkmenistan, 19.

78. Burundi, China, Ethiopia, North Korea, Vietnam, Yemen, 18.

79. Albania, Cambodia, Lebanon, Pakistan, Sudan, 17.

80. Congo, Syria, 16.

81. Iraq, Myanmar, Somalia, 15.

82. Iran, 14.

83. Afghanistan, 12.

Schengen and West Balkans

Visa-free travel to EU has been in the top of wish-lists for citizens of the Western Balkans. Schengen area covers the most of EU. The visa facilitation agreements between EU and countries in West Balkans ease visa application procedures, but they do not abolish the requirement of a visa. The core law of visa restrictions in EU is Council Regulation 539/2001. This law lists all the countries whose nationals require a visa to enter the Schengen area ("black list") as well as the countries whose nationals are exempt from this provision ("white list"). The Council will vote by majority, which means that opposing member states could be outvoted.

The European Commission has made visa roadmaps listing around 50 individual activities in each country in terms of existing legislation and practice. The conditions range from purely technical matters, such as the issuance of machine-readable passports with a gradual introduction of bio-metric data, to the adoption and implementation of a raft of laws and international conventions, to very broad matters such as progress in the fight against organized crime, corruption and illegal migration. Once a country meets the conditions, the Commission will make an official proposal to the Council to lift the visa restrictions for this country by amending Council Regulation 539/2001.

An assessment about progress with visa roadmaps has recently been made and a second round of assessment is tentatively scheduled for spring 2009 so there is hope that after one year citizens in Western Balkans have a bit more freedom to travel abroad.

More my views over Balkans and Caucasus one may find from my Archives:Blog

When I sometimes in my blogs wrote about Transdnistria (officially Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic – PMR) the most common feedback has been following:

Transnistria is a refuge for the criminal organizations being engaged in the illegal sale of weapons, in the contraband and in the money laundering, its also a rogue state.

One could conclude that for western public has quite a bad if any image of Transdnistria. Having criticised earlier western mainstream media picture about Balkan events I wanted to check if the tradition is repeating itself same way in case Transdnistria.

Transdnistria

(Map Source - http://pridnestrovie.net)

Nato

Nato Parliamentary Assembly’s sub-committee on east-west economic co-operation and convergence published 7th October 2007 its report over Moldova and stated:

Transnistria remains a haven for organised criminal groups, which are engaged in illegal arms sales, smuggling, and money laundering. It hosts the largest post-Soviet army depot in Kolbasna, the Russian (formerly Soviet) 14th Army and several Soviet era armament factories.

Reading this kind of statements makes me really wonder the level of intelligence and analysis of Nato. The least I could hope would be, that the decisions are based to more comprehensive material.

The views of UNDP, EUBAM and OSCE are different

A) UNDP

The 2006 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) report (SALW Survey of Moldova, SEESAC/UNDP 2006-07-01, note: SALW = Small Arms and Light Weapons) states that there is currently a degree of transparency and good levels of co-operation with Pridnestrovie in the field of weapons control. It also says that the

Evidence for the illicit production and trafficking of weapons into and from Transdniestria has in the past been exaggerated. While trafficking of SALW from the territory controlled by the Transdniestrian authorities is likely to have occurred prior to 2001, there is no reliable evidence that this still occurs. The same holds true for the production of SALW, which is likely to have been carried out in the 1990s primarily to equip the Transdniestrian security forces.

B) OSCE

The OSCE and European Union officials state that there is no evidence that Transnistria has ever, at any time in the past, trafficked arms or nuclear material. The OSCE mission spokesman Claus Neukirch spoke about this situation: "There is often talk about sale of armaments from Transnistria, but there is no convincing evidence."

C) EUBAM

Since EUBAM began its work in 2005, it has been unable to document any of Moldova's charges against Pridnestrovie over alleged arms trafficking. Before the arrival of European Union monitors on Pridnestrovie's border, Moldovan government officials routinely claimed that Pridnestrovie (or Transnistria, as the state is referred to in Moldova) was "a black hole" in which numerous criminal acts took place. The work of the EUBAM mission since 2005 has been able to disprove these claims as mere anti-Pridnestrovie propaganda.

From EUBAM PressPack following quote:

The Mission is aware that there have been rumours related to arms-trafficking from the Transdniestrian region of Moldova. Obviously we are not in a position to speak about the period of time before the opening of the Mission but we have made clear on several occasions that the EUBAM is not aware of any significant arms find since the operation of the Mission.

The bottom line

It seems that earlier maybe fabricated image still holds when opposite evidence meets the silence in western media. If one likes conspiracy theories s one could be, that the motive of disinformation is to cover other operations. Few years ago USA made pressure to Moldovan authorities to accept use of Moldova’s air space for arms trafficking from Bosnia to Iraq with V.Butt’s company (an arm dealer in trial now in Thailand). Moldova has also served as logistical base for many arm trafficking operations to Africa to different sides which maybe have not been noted while the view has been focused to Transdnistria.

More my views over Caucasus one may find form my Archives:Blog

I was watching Friday (7th November 2008) news from Georgia's capital Tbilisi where some 10.000 demonstrators were marching against current political leadership and demanding early presidential and parliamentary elections. They were gathering also on the national parliament and the presidential residence to commemorate the events of last year, when a similar rally was violently dispersed by police. Same time also anglo-american mainstreammedia has widely published new reports about how events started on August 7th 2008. Both of these events are not very favorable to Georgia's President Saakashvili.

Demonstrators and supporters of Georgian opposition parties wanted an investigation into the August war in South Ossetia, freedom of speech and press, and the release of political prisoners. They also want the former independent television station – Imedi TV – to be returned to its rightful owners, the family of Badri Patarkatsishvili who died in London in February this year.

Like 2007

It has went a year now on last big similar protest in Tbilisi. Then the opposition was demanding Mikhail Saakashvili’s resignation, and an immediate parliamentary election. On the fifth day of demonstrations, when about 60,000 people were rallying in the capital, the police started dispersing the crowd using sound guns, tear gas and water cannons against protesters. Hundreds of protesters were injured in the clashes.

Who started war?

New information about events on 7th August 2008 came public e.g. through The New York Times and BBC. According OSCE monitors on the ground it is now in doubt that some groups from South-Ossetia had provocated Georgia's attack by firing some Georgian villages. The OSCE monitors did not find any proof about this provocation.

In Tshinvali - South-Ossetian capital - was also three OSCE monitors and they have keeped record about first hours of Georgia's attack against town. Their records show, that about half of bombings and heavy artillery fire came middle of civil neighborhood without any military targets.

Countdown for Saakashvili?

Western media has described President Saakashvili as an reliable ally, modern democrat and popular leader. The events on 7th Aug. 2008 showed an authoritarian gambler side of him. There was some doubts about fairness with last elections so maybe demonstrators have a case. Let's monitor how now started rallies are continuing - are they coming bigger, what is the response of police. Maybe the West should start to look an new ally now, before it is too late.

Media responce

An other aspect with these news about August 7th events bothers me. After three months anglo-american sc. free "investigative" mainstream press is starting to tell what really happened. These facts were in public knowledge immediately through Russian media and latest one month in European continental media (E.g. I wrote an article "OSCE report fault Georgia ..." on 3rd September based Der Spiegel article 1st September, Archive:Blog).

More my views one may find from my BalkanBlog