The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Russia, India to discuss fifth-generation fighter on Nov. 15

A Russian delegation including Sukhoi plane maker CEO Mikhail Pogosyan will hold talks on Thursday with Deputy Indian Defense Minister Kanwar Singh on jointly developing a fifth-generation fighter. The sides agreed in October to jointly develop and produce a multifunctional fighter, in one of the largest military cooperation programs between Russia and India. Sukhoi said that at Thursday's talks, the sides will consider project issues discussed on November 12-14 by expert working groups, relating to time frames and financing. The project will be implemented by Sukhoi, which is part of Russia's United Aircraft Corporation (UAC), and India's Hindustan Aeronautics Limited. The UAC was established earlier this year to consolidate Russia's aircraft industry, and incorporates many of the country's best-known aircraft manufacturers, including Mikoyan, Ilyushin, Irkut, Tupolev, and Yakovlev. In October, Moscow and New Delhi signed a $1.6 billion contract for the supply of 40 Su-30 fighter assembly sets to India by 2010 as an addition to a contract on licensed production of 140 Su-30MKIs in India, which was signed in December 2000.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/world/20071114/88102351.html

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Will Russia create the world's second largest surface navy?

The year 2007 can safely be described as Russia's year of combat aviation. Both in July at Le Bourget in France and in August at Zhukovsky outside Moscow, thousands of spectators held their breath as they watched stunts performed by MiG and Su planes equipped with vectored-thrust engines. It was a sight to be proud of. The planes featured were all land-based, although it is aircraft carrier aviation that makes up the effective core of the present-day air forces around the world. Russia has planes that can be used on carriers. For example, the MiG, or rather the MiG-29 KUB (the acronym stands for aircraft carrier combat training). But they are exported to India under a contract to equip their future aircraft carriers.

Russia cannot be said to be blind to the role of aircraft carriers or the navy in modern warfare. In today's unpredictable world, even the mere appearance of a formidable ship featuring three service components sailing off a trouble spot is capable of producing a sobering effect on a potential aggressor. It was therefore not surprising that in the middle of the year Admiral Vladimir Masorin, commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy, announced plans to reform the country's naval forces and build a blue-water navy with the world's second largest fleet of aircraft carriers. Or rather, in the next 20 years, Russia aims to create six aircraft carrier strike groups, giving it the world's second largest surface navy after the United States.

An aircraft carrier looks impressive, but needs a strong escort. Current world practice, where the U.S. is the trend-setter, dictates their operation within strike groups. Such a group, aside from the multi-role giant, also contains up to six combat escort vessels, including one or two GM cruisers, one GM destroyer, and two or three anti-submarine destroyers or frigates. The American standards are, of course, not necessarily a guide for Russia, but so far there has been no evidence that the make-up of their strike groups needs to be changed. Thus, six aircraft carrier strike groups are to be built in 20 years' time, including all the components and sparing no expense.

One thing, however, immediately comes to the mind, which concerns the organizational philosophy. Not long ago, in early 2004, Russia's Defense Ministry prepared a blueprint for building up the Navy until 2040-2050. The main planks of the blueprint were giving up the "ocean" aspect of protecting the country's interests and instead focusing on small-class vessels operating within a 500-km zone of territorial waters. "We are now abandoning the large-class ships we have or inherited from the Soviet era, and are moving to multi-purpose vessels," said Admiral of the Fleet Vladimir Kuroyedov, the then commander-in-chief of the Navy. According to him, "Russia will have its own frigates and corvettes unmatched by anything else in the world."

He said, "aircraft carriers belong to the next decade, and to speak of them now is a bit too soon." But, he said, Russia's only aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov" would remain. No one, he said, was going to write it off or sell it. "We have not even given that any thought," Kuroyedov said. The story of the ill-fated "Kuznetsov" will be taken up later, but now it is worth examining the two programs defining the future of the Russian navy that only took two years to draw up. Conceptually, they are worlds apart. What makes them related is pointless bravado statements like "unmatched by anything else" or the "second largest." Does Russia have grounds for planning the construction of so many carriers in the next twenty years? Let's calculate the prospects. Russian shipyards will have to launch one aircraft carrier every three years and four months if the plan is to be fully completed.

Compare this with what the Americans did in 22 years from 1981 to 2003: they built six aircraft carriers during that time. The last one, "The Ronald Reagan", although completed with a fantastic speed in about 30 months and hitting the water in mid-2003, did not join the active fleet until January of last year. Its running and other trials took almost three years. In other words, it took the Pentagon a quarter of a century to achieve what we are trying to do in only 20 years. But the Americans, even with taking into account their unprecedentedly high naval ship-building potential, had many other resources: money, armaments, sailing personnel, and flying crews. Logistics also met expectations. What does Russia need? The first thing is money. Experience shows that it costs about $4 billion to build a modern aircraft carrier with a nuclear-powered propulsion plant (any other is unsuitable for this global system of weapons). Monthly maintenance costs (excluding personnel pay) are over $10 million.

When untangling the mind-boggling information about Russia's present defense budget, we find that with a current bill of $35 billion a year and a defense order of just over $12 billion, the country will have to spend more than a billion dollars a year on the construction alone. The military, left "high and dry," will tangibly feel the pinch of the missing billion. But this would be possible only under the unrealistically ideal conditions where the pace of work is timed down to a minute and there is no inflation. Yet the military budget is not stretchable and cannot rev up like a speedboat. Then will come the second ship, the third and the next, and this at a time when the completed ones will have to be run and maintained. Or will the project call for building more than one at a time? If so, the costs will become much more impressive.

After the ship is built it needs to be fitted with aircraft. Russia is going to compete with ships that carry a complement of 90 units each. Our carrier-based Su-33 fighter has evolved from the modified Su-27 Flanker jet initially developed for air defenses in the late 1960s. By the beginning of 2002, the country had produced just 24 of them. Nothing is known about plans to increase their production or develop new models. The first maiden flight from the deck of the "Admiral Kuznetsov" took place in 1995. Now a word about the "Admiral Kuznetsov" carrier. Launched in 1989, it has spent most of its life under repair. When an attempt was made to use it in sea trials in 2003, it started to sink. Once in 2004 and twice in 2005 landing accidents incapacitated it for long spells. And all that was accompanied by fires and multiple failures of the propulsion machinery.

The ship is a classic mess with every part of it rotten or diseased. Just to complete the picture, here is a telling report from the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies: As of 2004, Russia had only 12 pilots capable of flying deck-based aircraft. Consult this memo: an aircraft group of Russia's "rival" has 3,000 elite-trained pilots, all put through grueling tests. Yet even if one air-capable group is built, armed and manned, there will be nowhere to base it, to say nothing about supply or repair. Out of Russia's four fleets, only the Northern and the Pacific ones can handle aircraft carriers. Meanwhile, the Northern Fleet has built no new storage facility, floating base or fixed mooring pier since 1993, because of the lack of financing.

Compared with giant shipbuilding yards, ship repair facilities are fairly modest. However, the Northern Fleet considers ship repairs a high priority to keep it in good fighting condition and order. Their priority is not unique, but rather typical of the Navy as a whole. Ship repairs are currently financed at 6% of their requirements. In the Northern Fleet more than 200 combat ships, submarines and auxiliary vessels are in need of repair and only 10% of them have been repaired in recent years. Now take a look at India. Without any pomp it is going to launch its first 40,000-ton aircraft carrier in 2012. Aircraft have also been taken care of - they will come from Russia.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20071113/87843710.html

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

ISKANDER-E: Missile System Of The 21st Century

The Kolomna Engineering Design Bureau is the leading developer of precision-guided tactical and theater missiles for the Ground Forces. In creative cooperation with leading research and design organizations and plants of the defense industry as well as the Defense Ministry Research Institute, the KBM Engineering Design Bureau has created a number of missile systems (division-level Tochka (SS-21) with a range of up to 70 km, army-level Oka (SS-23) with a range of up to 400 km, corps-level Tochka-U with a range of up to 120 km) that superseded the first generation missile systems of the Ground Forces (9K72 with 8K14-1 liquid-propellant missile, 9K52 with the 9M21unguided solid-propellant missile,ensuring effective engagement only if nuclear-tipped). The particular features of the aforementioned systems are: high accuracy of fire, a short time of readiness for launch, independence of combat assets, a high degree of prelaunch preparation automation and sufficiently high effectiveness of conventional warheads. That was evidently the reason to include the Oka missile system in the Soviet-American treaty on the elimination of their intermediate range and shorter range missiles, although its maximum guaranteed range was only 400 km. The conclusion of the 1987 INF Treaty and the decision not to use theater nuclear weapons set a number of principally new requirements for modern missile systems:

- use of non-nuclear destruction weapons only;

- precise accuracy of fire;

- control throughout the entire flight path;

- broad range of effective warheads;

- availability of battle management automation and information support systems, including preparation of standard information for correction and terminal guidance systems;

- possibility of integration into global satellite navigation systems (GSNSs), such as GLONASS and NAVSTAR;

- ability to engage hardened targets;

- increase in the number of engaged targets per unit of time;

- ability to penetrate air and missile defenses;

- capability to engage moving targets.

To meet the above requirements, the KBM Engineering Design Bureau has created the Iskander-E missile system. The Iskander-E missile system has embodied the best scientific, technical and design achievements in the field of theater missile systems; in terms of its design and high combat effectiveness it is an absolutely new-generation weapon which outperforms existing Scud-B, Tochka-U, Lance, ATACMS, Pluto and other missile systems.

The Iskander-E missile system is designed to engage:

- hostile fire weapons (SAM and missile batteries);

- fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft at parking areas;

- air and missile defense facilities;

- command posts and communications nodes;

- vital pinpoint and area targets;

- critical civilian facilities.

Owing to the implementation of terminal control and guidance methods, control throughout the entire flight path, a broad range of powerful warheads and integration of the onboard control system with various correction and homing systems as well as a high probability of combat mission accomplishment in heavy hostile jamming environments, type targets are engaged by one or two Iskander-E missiles, which in terms of effectiveness is equivalent to the use of a nuclear munition. For the first time in the world a missile system with a firing range not exceeding 300 km is capable of accomplishing all combat missions using conventional warheads and having two missiles on a launcher, which substantially increases the fire power potential of missile units.

Iskander-E missile system's features ensure:

- highly precise and effective engagement of various types of targets;

- possibility of concealed preparation, combat duty and delivery of effective missile strikes;

- automatic computation and input of a missile flying mission by the launcher devices;

- high probability of combat mission accomplishment in heavy hostile jamming environments;

- high probability of trouble-free missile operation during launch preparation and in flight;

- high tactical maneuverability due to cross-country combat vehicles mounted on all-wheel drive, chassis, and strategic mobility owing to transportability of the missile system by all types of transport facilities, including transport aircraft;

- automation of missile unit battle management, immediate processing of intelligence data and their dissemination to appropriate command levels;

- long service life and ease of operation.

In terms of performance characteristics, the Iskander-E missile fully complies with the provisions of the missile technology non-proliferation agreement. This is a deterrent weapon for local conflicts and a strategic weapon for countries with limited living space. A long firing range, permitting the use of the system from the depth of own troops location, and a short time of stay on a launch site make the system virtually invulnerable to conventional destruction weapons. The research conducted by specialists of leading Russian military research centers has demonstrated that in terms of the effectiveness-cost ratio the Iskander-E missile system outperforms the best foreign counterparts by five to eight times.

The system structure, its control systems, automated battle management and information support make it possible to promptly meet to new requirements without substantial modification of combat assets and, as a result, to guarantee a long lifespan. Provision is made for the modernization of the Iskander-E system to improve the accuracy of missile strike, reduce missile expenditure to one piece per target and adapt the system to the transportation and electronic facilities of a potential customer. Continuous (or periodic) maintenance of system components by highly qualified Russian specialists is also possible.

The composition of the missile system makes it possible to ensure the full cycle of its combat employment, including battle management, information support, maintenance, and crew training, without additional expenditures. The composition can be specified in a contract in compliance with customer's requirements. In addition, at foreign customer' request, missiles can be outfitted with various warheads. In terms of the attained combat potential level, the Iskander-E missile system, which is at the final stage of flight tests, is unrivaled in the world and is a 21st century weapon.

Source: http://www.enemyforces.com/missiles/iskander.htm

Russia warns of Belarus missiles

Russia could place missiles in neighbouring Belarus to counter a planned US missile defence system, a senior Russian general has said. Col-Gen Vladimir Zaritsky spoke after Belarus, a close ally of Russia, said it would re-equip its forces with new Russian Iskander short-range missiles. Russia says the US plan to site parts of a missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic is a threat. The US says it is needed to counter missiles fired by states such as Iran. "Any action must have a counter-action, including with the US anti-missile elements in the Czech Republic and Poland," Gen Zaritsky was quoted as saying by Russia's Itar-Tass news agency. Gen Zaritsky is the commander of Russia's artillery and rocket forces.

'Battle of words'

The US missile shield system would see a radar site set up in the Czech Republic and a base in Poland for 10 missile interceptors. The chief of staff of Russia's armed forces, Gen Yury Baluyevsky, said on Tuesday that Iran posed no missile threat to Europe or the US and that the missile defence plan would be aimed at Russia. The US has said that the limited system it proposes could not threaten Russia's own missile arsenal. Belarus says it will buy Russia's Iskander-E conventional missile system by 2020. Gen Zaritsky's comments are a new stratagem in bitter battle of words between the US and Russia, says the BBC's James Rodgers in Moscow. In October, US President George W Bush said: "The need for missile defence in Europe is real and I believe it's urgent." He warned that Iran could have a ballistic missile capable of reaching Europe or the US by 2015. A few days later, Russian President Vladimir Putin compared the US plans to the missile crisis of 1962, which saw the US and the Soviet Union go to the brink of nuclear war over Russian missiles in Cuba.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7094347.stm

Russia to compensate for INF losses with Iskander missile system

The deployment of the new Iskander tactical missile systems will close the missile coverage gap caused by Russia's participation in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a senior commander said. Russia's short-range Oka tactical missile system was scrapped under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. "We used to have the Oka, which has been scrapped, and for a long time we had a gap in missile coverage in the range of 300-500 kilometers [190-310 miles]," Colonel General Vladimir Zaritsky, commander of the Russian Missile and Artillery Troops, said on Wednesday. The Iskander-M (NATO reporting name SS-26 Stone) missile system, largely considered a successor to the Oka, has a range of 400 km (250 miles) and can reportedly carry conventional and nuclear warheads. Russia is planning to equip at least five missile brigades with Iskander-M complexes by 2016. So far, a missile battalion on combat duty in the North Caucasus military district has been fully equipped with Iskander-M, and another battalion will receive the system in 2008.

INF LEGACY

The former Soviet Union and the U.S. signed the INF Treaty on December 8, 1987. The agreement came into force in June 1988 and does not have a specific duration. The pact banned nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers (300 to 3,400 miles). By the treaty's deadline of June 1, 1991, a total of 2,692 weapons had been destroyed, 846 by the U.S. and 1,846 by the Soviet Union.

The document strongly favored the U.S., as many treaty provisions, such as considering Soviet RSD-10 Pioneer (NATO reporting name SS-23 Spider) multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) missiles to be equivalent to single-warhead Pershing II systems, allowed NATO to regain strategic nuclear superiority over Russia in Europe. The Oka short-range tactical missile system (NATO reporting SS-23 Spider), which was also destroyed under the INF treaty, technically did not fall into the category of missile systems slated for scrapping, since the maximum range of its missile did not exceed 450 km (280 miles).

Nonetheless, the Americans insisted that the Oka be included on the list of systems subject to elimination. On February 10, 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that the INF Treaty no longer served Russia's interests. On February 14, Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, the chief of the Russian General Staff, said Russia could pull out of the INF unilaterally, sounding a strong warning to the U.S. regarding its plans to deploy elements of its anti-missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Putin expanded on his arguments favoring Russia's potential withdrawal from the INF treaty in October by saying Russia could pull out of the U.S.-Russian arms reductions agreement, unless it was extended to impose restrictions on other countries as well.

INF TREATY AND MODERNIZATION OF ISKANDER

Zaritsky also said on Wednesday that the Iskander missile system could be modernized and its range extended, if Russia finally withdrew from the INF treaty. "The current version of Iskander is in full compliance with the INF treaty, but should the Russian leadership decide to pull out of the agreement, we will immediately enhance the capabilities of the system, including its range," the general said. The flight range of a new cruise missile adapted for Iskander and successfully tested in May 2007 could exceed 500 km (310 miles). "The tests will continue until 2009," the official said. "So far they have been very successful."

POSSIBLE BELARUS DEAL

Zaritsky said Russia may also deliver an export version of the Iskander system (Iskander-E) to Belarus as a response to U.S. missile shield plans in Central Europe. "Any action triggers a counteraction, the same is true for the deployment of the U.S. missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland," the general said. Washington wants to place a radar in the Czech Republic and 10 missile interceptors in Poland, purportedly to counter a missile threat from Iran and other "rogue" states. Moscow has responded angrily to the plans, saying the European shield would destroy the strategic balance of forces and threaten Russia's national interests.

Russia and Belarus, which maintained close political and economic ties since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1991, have been in talks for several years on the delivery of Iskander-E complexes to equip at least one Belarus missile brigade by 2015. With its maximum range of 280 km (about 180 miles), Iskander-E's range is likely to cover U.S. missile defense facilities in Poland, which borders on Belarus. Zaritsky reiterated that the Iskander deal could be possible under certain conditions and with the corresponding agreement of Belarus.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071114/88066432.html

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Caught Between Russia And Georgia, South Ossetia Rift Widens

In November 2006, the breakaway South Caucasus region of South Ossetia held two sets of simultaneous presidential elections. Neither was recognized internationally, but both have left the region with the very real impact of two parallel, and mutually exclusive, leadership structures that may make the resolution of its breakaway status even less likely. One, backed by Moscow, reinstated the region's de facto incumbent, separatist leader Eduard Kokoity. The second, organized with Tbilisi's unofficial support, brought in an "alternative" candidate, former separatist Prime Minister Dmitry Sanakoyev, to head a new, pro-Georgian provisional administration. That ballot, held in regions of South Ossetia populated predominantly by ethnic Georgians, was accompanied by a referendum in which a vast majority of residents voted in favor of a confederation arrangement with Tbilisi.

Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht, who at the time of the vote was serving as the chairman-in-office for the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, was among the Western officials to express his displeasure with the duelling votes. "The so-called elections," he said, "increase tensions and divisions at a time when the sides to the Georgian-Ossetian conflict should be devoting all efforts to stabilizing the situation and moving forward the negotiating process." Georgian authorities, however, have continued to maintain at home and abroad that Sanakoyev was the solution to the continued impasse over the breakaway region. Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Noghaideli, addressing the OSCE Permanent Council late last month, claimed the provisional administration now controls "about half" the territory of South Ossetia.

Presidents of Abkhazia and South Ossetia keeping the centuries long brotherhood

The OSCE is there to promote negotiations between the conflicting parties, with a view to reaching a peaceful settlement of the conflict. It also has monitors on the ground who gather information on the military situation in the conflict zone and maintain close contacts with the the Russian-Georgian-Ossetian Joint Peacekeeping Force. Noghaideli also went on to describe the separatist government as "falling apart," and praising Sanakoyev's team as choosing "the path of peace and leading South Ossetia forward." He added that "tens of thousands" of local residents are expressing "the very same desires."

Scattered Villages

It's a bold claim in a region whose estimated population -- a mix of Georgians and Ossetians -- stands at just 70,000. Western diplomats, moreover, say it is impossible to corroborate. Former Georgian Interior Minister Irakli Okruashvili, who aggressively sought to bring Tskhinvali back into the Georgian fold during his time at the post, recently described Sanakoyev as a "caricature" who has been unable to woo significant numbers of Ossetians from the separatist leadership.

Sanakoyev's provisional administration is headquartered in a predominantly Georgian village located in a part of South Ossetia that is under Tbilisi's jurisdiction. He has said the settlements under his control are home to mainly Georgians but boast a substantial Ossetian minority of 8,000. Noghaideli upped the ante in his remarks to the OSCE, saying that figure is nearly twice as high. Russia and South Ossetia's separatist authorities have both dismissed Sanakoyev's team as a puppet administration that has no mandate to speak on behalf of all Ossetians. Moscow also says that what is calls the "Sanakoyev factor" is seriously complicating status negotiations involving the Joint Control Commission (JCC), the four-party body that continues to supervise the implementation of the 1992 cease-fire agreement that ended the Georgian-Ossetian conflict.

Celebrating 15 years of South Ossetian independance

The JCC, which comprises delegates from Russia, Georgia, and North and South Ossetia, has had little luck finding points of compromise or agreement on questions like the establishment of confidence-building measures and the demilitarization of the conflict zone. To Russia's mind, this is largely the fault of Georgian initiatives like the provisional government. Tbilisi in turns blames the commission's purported inefficiency on Russia's continued support to the separatist government. Following an inconclusive commission meeting last month, Russia's chief negotiator, Yury Popov, said the emergence of Sanakoyev had had an "irritating effect" on the security situation in South Ossetia and was hampering the negotiation process. He also criticized Tbilisi for obstructing talks with demands like its insistence that the separatist government establish contact with Sanakoyev.

Growing Rift

To be sure, the creation of the provisional administration has made separatist authorities increasingly nervous and has negatively affected relations within the region. Earlier this year, Georgian and Ossetian villagers squared off against each other on several incidents in a fight over access to the region's water supplies. OSCE officials note that the rift between the conflict zone's divided communities "is getting wider and wider every day," and that the vast majority of Ossetians do not trust Georgian authorities. They also say the existence of two antagonistic administrations, located just a few kilometers from each other in a region that has yet to be demilitarized, has only intensified the risk of direct confrontation.

Another fallout of the "Sanakoyev factor" is that it has seriously complicated the OSCE's relations with the Kokoity administration, thus putting the only international presence on the ground at risk. The separatist authorities last month blocked Lithuanian water engineers from entering Tskhinvali as a protest against official contacts between Vilnius and Sanakoyev. Lithuania, which has pledged 100,000 euros to rehabilitate Tskhinvali's water supply network as part of the OSCE-led Economic Rehabilitation Program for South Ossetia, is now threatening to fund projects only in Sanakoyev-controlled areas.

Ossetia is indivisible

The creation of the provisional administration has for the most part been met with embarrassment by the international community. Although the pro-Georgian leader traveled to Brussels this summer for informal talks with members of the European Parliament, only a few individual countries have taken the step of to making official contact with Sanakoyev. In April, the European Union's special representative for the South Caucasus, Peter Semneby, exchanged a few words with Sanakoyev on the sidelines of a NATO Parliamentary Assembly seminar in Tbilisi. But Semneby has so far refrained from official contacts with Sanakoyev and has made it clear that the EU will maintain ties with the separatist authorities.

British diplomat Roy Reeve, who until recently headed the OSCE mission to Georgia, was at odds with Tbilisi over Sanakoyev, arguing that engaging in a dialogue with the head of the provisional administration risked putting the organization's regional operations at risk. Whether Reeve's successor, Finnish diplomat Terhi Hakala, will follow the same nonengagement policy is unclear. The OSCE expects Finland's upcoming chairmanship of the OSCE to refocus attention on South Ossetia and other post-Soviet frozen conflicts. But Helsinki's stance on Sanakoyev remains muted. Sanakoyev traveled to Finland with Saakashvili last month, but it is not clear if he was invited to meet with Finnish officials -- or if so, at what level.

Source: http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle...91841136e.html

Pictures Taken From Welcome to Ossetia: http://ossetians.com/eng/index.php?s...28dd833fb8d249

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

A Nuclear Chavez?

Geopolitics: Venezuela's Hugo Chavez on Thursday said he intends to start a "peaceful" nuclear program. Who believes that? Like Iran, the oil-rich dictator aims to project a threat to the U.S., only closer to our shores.

Tailoring his message for a new audience, Chavez insisted in an interview with France24 television that he was concerned only about global warning and Venezuela's dependence on oil as an energy source. Other than that, he said, his plan was no more threatening to global security than what Brazil and Argentina are doing in their nuclear programs. But that's not what Chavez said the previous three times he brought it up. In November 2005, he sought Brazil's help on nuclear energy and flattered Brazilians' independent-minded preference for not being told what to do on energy.

Then in September 2006, at the United Nations during his famous "devil speech" directed at President Bush, Chavez said Venezuela would pursue nuclear energy because all nations had that right. His aim was twofold: to defend Iran's nuclear program and to win votes for his campaign for a U.N. Security Council seat, which failed. Fast-forward to June 2007, when Chavez showed up in Moscow to tell President Vladimir Putin about plans to develop nuclear energy and to buy conventional weapons. He succeeded in the latter. Now in France, Chavez is meeting with President Nicolas Sarkozy to discuss his supposed mediation for the release of a Franco-Colombian hostage being held in Colombia's jungles by the FARC Marxist narcoterrorists. Chavez knows Sarkozy badly wants that hostage, Ingrid Betancourt, released, and will seek a price from France for that. With his new round of nuclear energy talk, he seems to be naming that price.

We don't think France will pay it any more than Russia or Brazil did, but it is significant that Chavez presents this demand continuously, signaling a growing risk that some rogue player eventually will give it to him. He improbably says he wants a nuclear program for Venezuela's energy needs while sitting on one of the world's biggest deposits of oil reserves. That's not the only reason to doubt it's energy he wants. While calling for nuclear energy, Chavez has done little to make it himself. He has politicized science programs in local universities, while the country has only two or three aging nuclear researchers. Also, he's scrapped academic programs to send young Venezuelans abroad to learn nuclear science. Venezuela actually had a nuclear research reactor, but it's been inactive for two decades.

Meanwhile, Chavez has done nothing to diversify Venezuela's economy from oil. He's driven so many firms out of business that state oil now accounts for about 80% of Venezuela's exports, up sharply from eight years ago. Even so, Venezuela's oil output is falling. When Chavez brings up nuclear energy, what he's really interested in is nuclear weapons — probably by collaborating with Iran. Such a move complements his global arms buying spree. Chavez's arms purchases jumped 20% in real terms in 2006, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. It also matches his stated desire to become a global counterweight to the U.S., which he denounces as "the empire." He's forged alliances with such rogue states as Cuba, Belarus, Russia, Syria and Iran. And he has followers among leftist leaders in countries like Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua, all of which are becoming dictatorships.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Chavez, who will consolidate his absolute power in a constitutional referendum on Dec. 2, seems to be the big aim. He considers himself a revolutionary. He's growing more volatile than Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, threatening to confiscate Spanish banks over his spat with the king of Spain. This kind of megalomaniacal behavior isn't going to stop. The West can soothe itself that he'll be overthrown somehow, but he's following the durable model of Cuba's dictator, with $30 billion in reserves to finance it. If Chavez says he's looking for nukes, it's important to take him at his word. He isn't about to stop asking.

Source: http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...80022910616640

In related news:

Chavez says oil prices would soar if U.S. attacks Iran

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Saturday that oil prices could more than double to $200 (97 pounds) per barrel if the United States attacked Iran over a standoff about Tehran's nuclear programme. "If the United States is crazy enough to attack Iran or commit aggression against Venezuela ... oil would not be $100 but $200," Chavez told an OPEC summit in the Saudi capital Riyadh. His remarks were translated into Arabic. Chavez also said $100 per barrel was a "fair" price for oil. Oil has lapped against the $100-mark this month, prompting consumer nations to call on the exporter group to help ease price pressure by providing the market with more crude. On Friday, Saudi Arabia objected to an attempt by Iran and Venezuela to highlight concern over the dollar's weakness in the summit communique and the group voted the proposal out. Venezuela is a price hawk and holds some of the largest reserves outside the Middle East and is the No. 4 U.S. supplier.

Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt...30020320071117

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

U.S. Pushing Russia, Iran Towards Gas Cartel

The short-sighted policy that the United States pursues in respect of Iran helps Russia set up a global gas monopoly of no precedent. The giant will be stronger than OPEC, warned Retired Colonel Laurence Wilkerson, who had been once the chief of staff of U.S. former Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the report that Wilkerson presented to Congress Wednesday, the potential bond of Moscow and Tehran could create a natural gas monopoly that will obscure even OPEC. What’s more, the oil assets of that bond could be consolidated, Wilkerson forecasted. Today’s short-sighted policy that the United States pursues in respect of Iran makes the implementation of this task easier for Russia, the official said. In addition to Russia-Iran bond, Wilkerson went on, the Bush administration has overlooked a few other hazards to the country’s strategic interests in the Persian Gulf, where the standoff between Washington and Tehran has already amassed too many troopers of the United States.

Source: http://www.kommersant.com/p-11646/Gas_cartel/

In related news:

Russia readies nuclear fuel bound for Iran

Moscow pushes ahead with plans to supply Tehran with uranium after release of IAEA report, Iran welcomes move, says Russian commitment to its nuclear program 'a matter of principle'

Russia on Friday gave the clearest indication yet that it was ready to send uranium to fuel Iran's first atomic power station, upping the stakes in a diplomatic crisis surrounding Tehran's nuclear program. Russia's state-run nuclear fuel producer said inspectors from the United Nations' nuclear watchdog would later this month start sealing nuclear fuel bound for the Bushehr plant, a major step to shipping the fuel to the Bushehr plant in Iran. In a report on Iran issued on Thursday, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said it had "made arrangements to verify and seal the fresh fuel foreseen (for Bushehr) on Nov. 26, before shipment of the fuel from Russia to Iran". Russia has so far given no concrete date for when it will send the nuclear fuel to Bushehr, but says it would be sent six months before the plant's repeatedly delayed start-up. According to Russian forecasts, the reactor at the plant could be started up in 2008 and nuclear fuel would have to arrive at the plant six months before that.

Iran: Russian approach encouraging

Iran's ambassador to Russia on Friday said nuclear fuel deliveries to the Islamic Republic were a "matter of principle", and hoped Moscow would send them soon. "We hope that promises we have been receiving from official Russian representatives on such an important issue ... will soon be carried out and realized," Ambassador Gholamreza Ansari said. The diplomat was speaking at a news conference held simultaneously with Russia's announcement on fuel inspections. In Iran, nuclear officials welcomed the fuel delivery developments. "Russia has formally informed (the IAEA) that it is ready for the Bushehr nuclear fuel in Russia to be checked and sealed on Nov. 26," IRNA quoted Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, as saying. "This means, from a technical and legal point of view, the fuel for the Bushehr nuclear power plant is ready for transfer to Iran," he said. The United States, Israel and key European Union nations suspect Iran is trying to build nuclear bombs. But Russia, a veto-wielding member of the UN Security Council, says there is no evidence Tehran is seeking atomic weapons. "Those offers we hear about the Bushehr AES from our Russian friends are encouraging for us," Ambassador Ansari said in Moscow. "The issue of construction at Bushehr between Russian and Iranian societies is a matter of principle," Ansari said. Tehran says a report by the IAEA this week has vindicated its repeated statements that its nuclear program was purely civilian and showed that there would be no basis for further discussion of it in the United Nations Security Council. The IAEA report, released on Thursday, said Iran had made important strides toward transparency about its nuclear activity but had yet to resolve outstanding questions. It also said Iran had expanded uranium enrichment.

Source: http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/Art...472284,00.html

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Russian president supports military draft

President Vladimir Putin said Saturday he supported the parliament's decision to maintain conscript service in the Russian Armed Forces, while reducing its term to one year. "The State Duma has made a weighted and absolutely right decision to cut the service term to 12 months, while maintaining the military draft," Putin said at a meeting with members of the United Russia faction at the lower house of the Russian parliament. He said that the law on reduction of the term of conscript service well-fitted the current trend on strengthening Russia's defense capability, including the modernization of the Russian army and the preparation of professional cadre for the Armed Forces. State Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov said at the meeting that Russia's new three-year federal budget stipulated an equal distribution of expenditures between the maintenance of the army and its modernization. Russia's military spending has increased dramatically under President Putin. According to the budget, defense spending in 2008 will grow another 16.3% from 2007 to 956 billion rubles ($36.8 billion), and is set to total 1.184 trillion rubles ($45.5 billion) by 2010. Russia has recently cut its Armed Forces to about 1.1 million personnel, but unveiled plans to make it a strong professional force, capable of ensuring national security and protecting the country's interests anywhere in the world.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071117/88492410.html

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Russian autocrats count on anti-Americanism for a boost

As usual, flu season came earlier to Russia than to the West, both physically and politically. Congested thinking and the old Cold War headaches infect the Kremlin in arms-control negotiations with the United States. Chicken noodle soup and bed rest don't make either of these symptoms disappear. Russia has been threatening to nix a couple of arms treaties considered vital at the end of the Cold War, one concerning a ban on deployment of medium-range missiles and the other on limitations of conventional weapons in Europe. The Kremlin claims its increasing insecurity is being caused by NATO's expansion and the planned deployment in Eastern Europe of parts of a U.S. nuclear missile shield, supposedly deployed to guard Europe against missile threats from Iran.

Several new NATO member states are former Soviet satellites. Former Soviet "republics" such as Ukraine and Georgia are vying for NATO membership to be safe from Russia's regional dominance. Spread by the Kremlin-controlled media, rumors about "breakthroughs" in arms negotiations between the United States and Russia - complete with speculation about the possibility of major U.S. concessions - help cast Russia as a resurgent superpower. In the meantime, Russian media are talking up Moscow's efforts to develop new nuclear weapons and restore the fleet and the strategic air forces. Nothing illustrates this better than news earlier this year that Russia once again flies nuclear-armed bombers on ready missions near U.S. borders.

What the Kremlin is really trying to accomplish with this new "para-Cold War" is to build up a vital part of any autocratic system - state ideology - now that communism as a viable ideology is a thing of the past. Having effectively assumed control of Russia, its many regions, its national parliament, judicial system, major companies, and media, the ex-KGB elite are now moving to perpetuate their grip of the country. It is not that the Kremlin lacks what people in Russia call "administrative resources" to assure the desired outcome of upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections. By drastically cutting the number of foreign election observers, it already cleared the way for outright cheating. And it is not that the Kremlin is worried about the loyalty of Russia's two major industries, natural gas and oil, not to mention metal and timber exporters, all long under its control.

The Kremlin is now building a uniform ideology to assure that what people refer to as the "Putin youth" have a shared belief system to follow, other than that of cronyism. These are thousands of young sycophants of Russian President Vladimir Putin lured to him with promises of career opportunities. And that's where the good old anti-Americanism comes in. The Kremlin needs it to complete the notion of the "national idea" of Russian chauvinism with implied support of the Russian Orthodox Church. Other elements includes boosting Russian oil and gas, and remilitarization. Any dose of American diplomacy on these issues only feeds into Kremlin propaganda, casting Russia as an equal of the United States and helping perpetuate autocracy in Russia. It is better left untreated. Unless the oil prices that boost the Kremlin ego take a sudden downturn - which is unlikely - the virus will spread.

Source: http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll...ST25/711180330

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Rupert Murdoch, Embroiled in the Caucasus

American Media Mogul William-Rupert Murdoch

TO the world out there, the recent events here on the rim of the old Soviet empire may have fallen under the heading of One More Upheaval in a Place I’ve Never Heard Of. The opposition in Georgia held major protests. The president was displeased. Riot police were dispatched. Hostilities broke out. A television station was violently shut down. And so on. But then the owner of the television station howled, and that voice was hard to ignore. How did Rupert Murdoch end up in the middle of all this? It turns out that Mr. Murdoch’s expanding television empire began managing the most popular station in Georgia last year just as tensions were building over the station’s supposed support for the opposition to President Mikheil Saakashvili, whose critics say he is not the democrat he has claimed to be. When the president accused the station of fomenting a coup and padlocked its doors, Mr. Murdoch was caught up in the convoluted alliances that have long played out in this region.

As a result, Mr. Murdoch’s News Corporation has found itself going up against Georgia’s president, a friend of Mr. Murdoch’s own friends in the White House. And that could conceivably wind up having an impact on a much larger game, the competition between the United States and Russia in the Caucasus. Mr. Murdoch has publicly upbraided Mr. Saakashvili, who the administration had thought represented a new generation of democratically oriented leaders in the former Soviet republics. But Mr. Saakashvili had been coming under fire at home, where rivals accused him of trying to concentrate power in his own hands. And his standing abroad plummeted when he imposed a state of emergency on Nov. 7, the night he shut down the News Corporation station.

He lifted the state of emergency only on Friday, under White House pressure, and with the station’s license still suspended. Still, what remained was Mr. Saakashvili’s firm attachment to the idea that Russia should have less, not more, influence in the Caucasus, and that close ties to the United States were in his deepest interest. By challenging Mr. Saakashvili, the News Corporation had to some extent put events in motion that President Vladimir V. Putin in Russia might be able to benefit from, as he skirmishes to regain control over the Caucasus. American influence has grown in this area, which Moscow once ruled. The United States, among other geopolitical calculations, has backed a pipeline to Turkey through which oil has begun to flow from the Caspian Sea area through Georgia, bypassing Russia’s own pipelines on its way to Turkey and Europe beyond.

Russia regards Mr. Saakashvili, and his decided preference for doing business with the United States, as such an irritant that it has stirred up two separatist rebellions on the Georgian-Russian border and restricted trade between the countries. Mr. Saakashvili in turn has blamed Russian spies for many of his misfortunes, and suggested that the News Corporation television station, Imedi, is a Kremlin tool. Imedi, which means “hope” in Georgian and which transmitted both news and entertainment, does not consider itself an opposition station, and says it has no ties to the Russians. Its executives say they invited members of the government to appear on news shows, only to be rebuffed. Aides to the country’s leader note that the News Corporation’s former partner in the station, Badri Patarkatsishvili, who is Georgia’s richest man (and no friend of Vladimir Putin, by the way), has grown increasingly hostile toward Mr. Saakashvili and is now planning to run against him.

For the United States, the recent rivalries in Georgia and its leader’s recent undemocratic actions have become a challenge. American diplomats have alternately tried to charm and chasten Mr. Saakashvili, opposition politicians, and News Corporation and Imedi executives into making peace and toning down their disagreements. Matthew J. Bryza, a senior State Department official who came here last week to ask Mr. Saakashvili to lift the state of emergency, said he was hopeful that Imedi could reopen soon, given the News Corporation’s ability to repair the extensive damage that government riot troops did to the station. “Their American partner is one of the world’s all-time-greatest media people,” Mr. Bryza said, speaking of Mr. Murdoch. “He knows how to make things happen.” This being the Caucasus, the hubbub over Imedi does not end with Mr. Murdoch.

Remember “convoluted”? Try this: Imedi’s founder, Mr. Patarkatsishvili, let the News Corporation manage the station for a year, then sold it outright to Mr. Murdoch’s company last month. But don’t assume that Mr. Patarkatsishvili is a friend of the Kremlin just because he is an adversary of Mr. Saakashvili. Mr. Patarkatsishvili is a confidant of Boris Berezovsky, the Russian oligarch-in-exile who is a bitter enemy of Mr. Putin. Both Mr. Patarkatsishvili and Mr. Berezovsky are wanted men in Russia. For now, Mr. Patarkatsishvili is out of the picture and the station is fighting a legal battle to recover its license. Bidzina Baratashvili, the station’s general director, said he expected that when it began broadcasting again, it would attract public sympathy. Asked whether the News Corporation was angered by the closure, he said: “I don’t think so. They are clever enough to understand that just for the business, it’s a very good step. Because when we get back on air, this channel will be twice as popular as it was.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/we...l?ref=business

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

In related news:

The following is a major news development from today. Yet, as usual, very little pertaining to it can be found in the main-stream news in America.

Must keep the public deaf, dumb and blind...

Armenian

************************************************** ***************************

Critics Assail Weak Dollar at OPEC Event

A rare meeting of the heads of state of the OPEC countries ended here today on a political note, with two leaders — President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran — blaming the weakness of the United States dollar for high oil prices. Despite the best efforts of the host country, Saudi Arabia, to steer the meeting away from politics and promote OPEC’s environmental concerns, the leaders of Venezuela and Iran let loose some show-stealing statements. “The dollar is in free fall, everyone should be worried about it,” Mr. Chávez told reporters here. “The fall of the dollar is not the fall of the dollar — it’s the fall of the American empire.” During a news conference after the meeting, Mr. Ahmadinejad added: “The U.S. dollar has no economic value.” Mr. Ahmadinejad said that oil, which was hovering last week at close to $100 a barrel, was being sold currently for a “paltry sum.” And Mr. Chávez predicted that prices would rise to $200 a barrel if the United States were “crazy enough” to strike at Iran, or even at his own country.

Normally, meetings of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries are tepid affairs where ministers leave politics at the door and talk about oil inventory and supply and demand. This unusual meeting, held amid the pomp and glitter of the Saudi royal court, had been planned since last December but happened to fall at a time of renewed concern over record oil prices and the shrinking value of the dollar. At the summit’s opening ceremony on Saturday, Mr. Chávez sought to bring OPEC back to its militant and revolutionary roots. “OPEC should set itself up as an active political agent,” Mr. Chávez said, addressing about 1,000 guests in a conference center by the royal quarters. While Mr. Chávez’s 23-minute statement was brief by his own standards, it drew a gentle rebuke from King Abdullah, the Saudi monarch, who chided him for talking longer than the time allotted by royal protocol. He also turned down Mr. Chávez’s plea, saying: “Those who want OPEC to take advantage of its position are forgetting that OPEC has always acted moderately and wisely.”

It is only the third time in OPEC’s 47-year history that such a high-level meeting has taken place. The first was in Algiers, in 1975, at the height of OPEC’s nationalist period; the second was in 2000, when the oil cartel met in Venezuela to devise a strategy to increase prices after they had collapsed to about $10 a barrel in the late 1990s. This meeting, which lasted less than 24 hours, was supposed to focus on long-term issues like the security of supplies and environmental policy. The Saudis in particular sought to reassure the world that OPEC was a reliable oil supplier. “OPEC has made a point, from its establishment, to work for the stability of the oil markets,” said the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Faisal, at a news conference after the close of the summit on Sunday. “Oil should be a tool of construction and development, not one of dispute.”

Saudi Arabia also wanted to highlight a new emphasis on protecting the environment by announcing the establishment of a $750 million fund to reduce carbon emissions. The kingdom will contribute $300 million for research into technology that captures carbon spewed by power plants or refineries and stores it underground. In addition, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar will provide $150 million each. Oil producers see climate policies that focus on oil consumption as an unfair way to curb the use of fossil fuels worldwide. By financing research into carbon emissions, Saudi Arabia says it is seeking ways to extend the use of petroleum resources at a time when global warming could lead to changes in consumer behavior in Western countries.

“We want to continue using fossil fuels while protecting the environment,” said Mohammad al-Sabban, a senior Saudi government adviser on climate change. “What we are worried about is for industrialized countries to use climate policy as a pretext to discriminate against oil.” Other ministers also expressed the more moderate views that typically emerge from an OPEC meeting. Despite Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statement about oil prices being paltry, officials from several other countries — including the United Arab Emirates, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia — said that prices were too high. “We are going down uncharted territory, and everyone should be cautious,” said Odein Ajumogobia, Nigeria’s oil minister, referring to the current prices.

The weakness of the dollar proved to be even more controversial here and created frictions among members of the group. Iran — with the backing of Venezuela and OPEC’s newest member, Ecuador — worked hard to persuade the group that it should mention the falling dollar in the summit’s final declaration. But Saudi Arabia rejected Iran’s proposal, saying that such a move might provoke a “collapse” of the dollar. During a closed session on Friday that was mistakenly broadcast on an internal television circuit, Prince Saud al-Faisal said the issue was too delicate to be included in a statement. In the end, the Saudis were forced to yield a little. The final statement, while making no mention of the dollar, said OPEC would “study ways and means of enhancing financial cooperation among OPEC member countries.”

According to Iran, OPEC will also look for ways to establish a currency basket to offset the declining value of the dollar. But Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries are opposed to this old idea, and few analysts believe it has any chance of succeeding. It is too early to say whether the views expressed by Mr. Chávez and Mr. Ahmadinejad signaled a rift in the exceptional consensus that has sustained OPEC’s success in recent years, or whether they were merely an example of conference theatrics by countries at odds with the American government. In the end, it fell to Ali al-Naimi, the Saudi oil minister, and the main architect of OPEC’s focus on business fundamentals in recent years, to underline the conference’s main message.

“Everyone knows that OPEC has renounced the principle of controlling oil prices since the 1980s,” Mr. Naimi said at a news conference on Sunday. “Since then, the price has been determined by the market. The fluctuations you are witnessing today have nothing to do with OPEC actions.”

The meeting was held in a conference center that was a gaudy mix of the palace at Versailles and Greek Revival style, with some rococo touches. It also displayed the whole range of Saudi extravagance: blue marble floors, gold-plated fixtures, and dozens of crystal chandeliers, some bigger than trucks. Vera de Ladoucette, an energy analyst with the Cambridge Energy Research Associates who was here to observe the summit, said: “This shows a new dimension to OPEC, which is the environment. This could be a defensive stance to improve their image. But also, a way of acting against anything that might reduce demand for oil.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/bu...19opec.html?hp

OPEC Interested in Non-Dollar Currency

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday that OPEC's members have expressed interest in converting their cash reserves into a currency other than the depreciating U.S. dollar, which he called a "worthless piece of paper." His comments at the end of a rare summit of OPEC heads of state exposed fissures within the 12-member cartel — especially after U.S. ally Saudi Arabia was reluctant to mention concerns about the falling dollar in the summit's final declaration.

The hardline Iranian leader's comments also highlighted the growing challenge that Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, faces from Iran and its ally Venezuela within the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. "They get our oil and give us a worthless piece of paper," Ahmadinejad told reporters after the close of the summit in the Saudi capital of Riyadh. He blamed U.S. President George W. Bush's policies for the decline of the dollar and its negative effect on other countries. "All participating leaders showed an interest in changing their hard currency reserves to a credible hard currency," Ahmadinejad said. "Some said producing countries should designate a single hard currency aside from the U.S. dollar ... to form the basis of our oil trade."

Oil is priced in U.S. dollars on the world market, and the currency's depreciation has concerned oil producers because it has contributed to rising crude prices and has eroded the value of their dollar reserves. Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah had tried to direct the focus of the summit toward the question of the effect of the oil industry on the environment, but he continuously faced challenges from Ahmadinejad and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Iran and Venezuela have proposed trading oil in a basket of currencies to replace the historic link to the dollar, but they had not been able to generate support from enough fellow OPEC members — many of whom, including Saudi Arabia, are staunch U.S. allies.

Both Iran and Venezuela have antagonistic relationships with the U.S., suggesting their proposals may have a political motivation as well. While Tehran has been in a standoff with Washington over its nuclear program, left-wing Chavez is a bitter antagonist of Bush. During Chavez's opening address to the summit on Saturday, the Venezuelan leader said OPEC should "assert itself as an active political agent." But Abdullah appeared to distance himself from Chavez's comments, saying OPEC always acted moderately and wisely. A day earlier, Saudi Arabia opposed a move by Iran on Friday to have OPEC include concerns over the falling dollar included in the summit's closing statement after the weekend meeting. Saudi Arabia's foreign minister even warned that even talking publicly about the currency's decline could further hurt its value.

But by Sunday, it appeared that Saudi Arabia had compromised. Though the final declaration delivered Sunday did not specifically mention concern over the weak dollar, the organization directed its finance ministers to study the issue. OPEC will "study ways and means of enhancing financial cooperation among OPEC ... including proposals by some of the heads of state and governments in their statements to the summit," OPEC Secretary General Abdalla Salem el-Badri said, reading the statement. Iran's oil minister went a step further and said OPEC will form a committee to study the dollar's affect on oil prices and investigate the possibility of a currency basket.

"We have agreed to set up a committee consisting of oil and finance ministers from OPEC countries to study the impact of the dollar on oil prices," Gholam Hussein Nozari told Dow Jones Newswires. Iraqi Oil Minister Hussein al-Shahristani said the committee would "submit to OPEC its recommendation on a basket of currencies that OPEC members will deal with." He did not give a timeline for the recommendation. The meeting in Riyadh, with heads of states and delegates from 12 of the world's biggest oil-producing nations, was the third full OPEC summit since the organization was created in 1960. The run-up to the meeting was dominated by speculation over whether OPEC would raise production following recent oil price increases that have approached $100. But cartel officials have resisted pressure to increase oil production and said they will hold off any decision until the group meets next month in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.

They have also cast doubt on the effect any output hike would have on oil prices, saying the recent rise has been driven by the falling dollar and financial speculation by investment funds rather than any supply shortage. During his final remarks, el-Badri stressed he was committed to supply — but did not mention changing oil outputs. "We affirm our commitment ... to continue providing adequate, timely, efficient, economic and reliable petroleum supplies to the world market," he said.

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...-1F8wD8T0AC6G0