Religious Wars in the Balkans

All of this really began in 1991 when Yugoslavia began to break up and the Croatian republic declared independence. The response to all of this by the West was defined in large part by Germany, and Germany's response was defined in large part by the Catholic connection to Croatia. The German government fell under heavy pressure by Catholic media, Catholic political groups, and especially leaders in largely Catholic Bavaria. Media coverage was very one-sided, and this helped shaped public opinion in favor of the Croatians against the Serbians, even though both sides engaged in the same sorts of atrocities. The Vatican also played a key role as the Pope declared Croatia to be the "rampart of [Western] Christianity" and moved to recognized it even before the European Union, which was itself under pressure from Germany.

On the other side, there was virtually unanimous rallying of the Eastern Orthodox world behind Serbia and against Muslim Bosnia and Catholic Croatia. This situation continues even today and is vital in understanding how political alliances are playing out in the current crisis. Russian nationalists, military officers, parliamentarians and Orthodox church leaders have been very outspoken in their unwavering support for Serbia and Serbian interests, attacking Bosnian Muslim fundamentalists and the Western imperialism behind Croatia. Russian leaders have been as quick to ignore Serbian atrocities and lies as Western European leaders were to ignore Croatian atrocities and lies. Being on the side of "right" wasn't nearly as important as aiding religious kin and members of the same "civilization."

Orthodox Reactions

Ignoring this would prevent any sort of appreciation of what is happening in Greece and Russia. Protestors throughout Greece have been aiming their anger at NATO, and especially at the American embassy in Athens. Greek newspapers have run editorial cartoons depicting President Clinton as Nazi leader Adolf Hitler and many headlines have labeled NATO pilots as murderers. All of this would be shocking and unexpected in any other NATO ally. Fortunately, Greek leaders are not yet ready to follow the rest of their citizens in denouncing NATO actions and possibly withdrawing from the alliance. More cautious and more cognizant of their treaty obligations, they have urged an end to the airstrikes and urged a resumption to negotiations. Unsurprisingly, NATO has not made use of any military bases in Greece despite their close proximity to targets in Serbia and Kosovo.

None of this is a recent political development. Throughout the Bosnian war, Greece was an active, if covert, supporter of Serbian interests. Shipments of food, chemicals, computers, and other important goods blocked by the embargo found their way from Greece into Serbia through Macedonia, with comparable amounts of embargoed Serbian oil flowing right back out. In 1994, Greek prime minister Andreas Papandreou voiced his support for the Orthodox connection to Serbia and publicly attacked the Vatican, Germany and the European Union for their hasty diplomatic recognition of Slovenia and Croatia in 1991. Greece's religious ties to the Orthodox world are coming into serious conflict with their economic and military ties to Western Christian Europe. Which will win in the end?

Russian Roulette

By far the worst reaction to NATO airstrikes outside of Serbia itself has been in Russia. Since the war in Bosnia, Serbian and Russian nationalists have worked closely together in an effort to oppose any Western "new world order." Cooperation here is not based upon former communist associations, but instead upon ancient religious and cultural commonalities. This also isn't an effort by a few powerful political figures looking for good press - in fact, this sort of religio-ethnic bonding is supported by large numbers of citizens. Nationalist leaders in Russia succeeded in recruiting many young men "in the cause of Slavic brotherhood" just as Croatian Defense Forces were augmented by the appearance of perhaps thousands of volunteers from Western Europe and other countries. Interestingly, many of the volunteers from Western Europe were fascists and neo-nazis, looking to gain combat experience.

Russian aid to the Serbian cause is having a significant impact upon both Kosovo separatists and now upon NATO forces. In 1993 Russian military and intelligence organizations sold at least $300 million worth of T-55 tanks, antimissile missiles and anti-aircraft missiles to the Serbs. It is not at all unlikely that one of those missiles, sold to Serbia in the name of Slavic brotherhood, was responsible for shooting down the American F-117A stealth fighter. Russian military technicians have reportedly been in Serbia operating the equipment and training Serbians.

In the current crisis, Russia has recalled its ambassador to NATO, expelled two NATO representatives and has promised to send undefined "humanitarian aid" to Serbia. Other issues have been seriously hurt, with the START II strategic arms reduction treaty considered now dead in parliament again. The Russian Navy in the Barents Sea has suddenly gone on "exercises," and military experts in Russia have started feasibility studies on the redeployment of tactical and strategic bombers into Belarus. Perhaps no actual military action against NATO is planned, but Russia isn't flexing its military muscle for no reason. They are expressing their solidarity with Serbia - a solidarity which has the potential of turning deadly. There may already be a beginning to this with one person in Russia firing shots at the American embassy and attempting to fire grenades as well.

America's Role

The role of America in all of this is complicated and interesting. Historically, the United States is allied with Western Europe. Culturally, America is tied with what Huntington calls "Western Christian" civilization. But rhetorically, if not practically, America supported the Bosnian Muslims in their conflict with the Christian Croats and Orthodox Serbs. America made no serious efforts to get European powers to also support the Bosnian Muslims in any serious way, but they did allow Saudi Arabia and even Iran to ship in arms, and in 1994 America stopped supporting the arms embargo altogether. This could have long-term political consequences for Europe if Bosnia turns fundamentalist like Iran.

Why did America break with traditional civilization allies? There are a wide variety of possible explanations. Perhaps it was an attempt to reduce the influence of Iran in an unstable region of Europe. Perhaps it was due to pressure from Muslim allies like Turkey and Saudi Arabia. On the other hand, Americans like to identify with underdogs and the "forces of good" against the "forces of evil," whoever they may be. Serbian atrocities first against Bosnian Muslims and later against Kosovo Albanians have allowed Americans to label them as the "bad guys" with very little difficulty. Muslim and Albanian crimes are just as quickly ignored.

In the current crisis, we find that America is actually joined by European allies in fighting against Eastern Orthodox people and on behalf of the Kosavar Muslims. A major reason why America is not alone in this as it was with Bosnia is probably that there are no Western Christian nations which are "on the wrong side." But taking sides against a more similar civilization (Serbia) with a less similar civilization (Kosovo) in this way is a dangerous game. Even Russian moderates have declared that their relationship with America "will never return" to what it was. How this will affect America and NATO in the long term is difficult to predict. Russia and other Orthodox countries will not forget. But many Muslim countries like Iran would never consider appreciating the NATO efforts.

Religion is playing a much larger role here than most people seem to realize. Those who ignore this basic fact will never be able to get a firm grasp on what is happening, much less figure a way out of it all. Only by acknowledging the religious morass which all sides are caught in and attempting to find a solution which works within the boundaries set by religion and culture will we achieve any sort of lasting, if shaky, peace.

Ratko Mladic Our Hero

When I was a child, I climbed up on a billboard to see our Heroes, Ratko Mladic, Karadzic, Arkan, and our solders heading for the firs line of fire. We waved flags and cheered. It was thrilling. I was proud that I could say, “I was there; I saw them.” I wonder what the people of Bethphage and Bethany thought as Jesus processed toward Jerusalem. It seems that their enthusiasm would quickly turn to disdain when he was captured, tried and put to death. Hero worship does not seem to enjoy a long shelf life.
Today when the excitement of the parade is over and the waving of the palms ceases, we should spend some time reflecting on the character of our heroes and specially those fallen in the war.
We should compare our suffering and hardship with the same of early Christians and Jesus. We don’t usually think of Jesus as a hero, but hero he is. We should try to understand why a week of betrayal and denial, of mockery and bloodshed is called holy.
Some of them are a heroes, but not in the traditional pattern of heroism. They actually looks more like a victim. They are not triumphant as we understand triumph. Instead they appears to be a failure. Judging by one set of standards—standards not unlike those of many people of his day— they have not met our expectations. But according to another standard—the standard of unconditional love—they have far surpassed our expectations.
But more than anybody else we should always remember those fallen in the first line of fire, those who had sacrificed their lives for us.

Croatia Catholic State

by Muhamed Filipovic
Croatian media in these days made sensational news that senior representatives of the Bishops' Conference of the Catholic Church at a special press conference sharply criticized the Croatian government and the entire state peak, including the Prime Minister Sanader and President Mesic of the Republic.
Critique is reportedly followed by inadequate policies, due to insufficient government fights for the rights of ordinary people and because of insufficient activity in the fight against recession. As the main cause of all these mistakes, the Catholic representatives stated the surviving spirit of communism in Croatia, which is still in the heads of many of the highest government officials.

My opinion is that Catholic clergy has two basic objectives . Firs is that they wants to be declared as a moral power which stands on the bumper of interests of poor, morality and justice, of course, hiding their relation and collaboration to all crimes and injustices that the President Tuđman government committed when a persecuted people, not only because of differences in political views, but primarily because of religious and national differences. All of this is the church worked to its traditional anticommunism, but in order to fast and complete restitution of huge assets the Catholic Church and its ranks.

At that time they didn't care about robbery, corruption, religious discrimination /not even now, against not Roman Catholics Now, when their property returned, became enormously rich, and when they secure their economic independence, while at the same time have a huge fiscal support of regime, they have remembered conscience, the poor and the "structures of sin", as if they are not part of the structure and it sometimes in the most difficult time of sin and a very active part. Did not care for the poor that is the subject of the concerns of the Bishops' Conference.
Another motive is fight against Islam, Russia and all those people who do not support idea of Holly Father, Sarkozy and Markel.
In this context, can understand and interpret all the huge effort of the Catholics in Croatia and Croatian nationalists and socolled Democrats to conduct an audit of 2nd World War II and from the forces he is cast antifascism Russia and all those who fought against fascism led by the communists. In this context, the statement of representatives of Bishops Conference renewed context and themes of influence of communism. No worries for the poor and the right, nor for ethics, but for the implementation of a strategic plan of creating a world led by a new Holy Alliance, which wants to re-divide the world, but can know that the world can not be shared without the war as a eficient mean of divisions among people.

Nick Hawton BBC Idiot.

.
How to call somebody who openly admits that don't know much about Balkans and in the same time write books and articles about the same subject?
"Idiot" was originally created to refer to "layman, person lacking professional skill", "person so mentally deficient as to be incapable of ordinary reasoning".^[6][7] Declining to take part in public life, such as democratic government of the polis (city state), such as the Athenian democracy, was considered dishonorable. "Idiots" were seen as having bad judgment in public and political matters. Over time, the term "idiot" shifted away from its original connotation of selfishness and came to refer to individuals with overall bad judgment–individuals who are "stupid". In modern English usage, the terms "idiot" and "idiocy" describe an extreme folly or stupidity, and its symptoms (foolish or stupid utterance or deed). In psychology, it is a historical term for the state or condition now called profound mental retardation.
So this is word we can really apply for this BBC journalist, by his own words.

Valentin Inzko - What to Expect

.
Valentin Inzko caps his career with a difficult posting as the UN and EU's representative in Bosnia.
At the Austrian ambassador's residence in Ljubljana there was jubilation. The ambassador to Slovenia had just been appointed the new high representative of the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Washington, which would have preferred a “tough Brit”, had capitulated: Valentin Inzko was the man, the seventh and probably last high representative (HR). The champagne flowed, as did the congratulations reaching the ambassador's mobile phone. “Habemus papam” read a text message from the Czech ambassador in Sarajevo; a “mucha suerte” came from Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief.
By happy coincidence, news of the decision arrived during a reception in Ljubljana for Michael Spindelegger, the visiting foreign minister of Austria, who made a speech about recognition for Austrian diplomacy, of the country's key role in the Balkans and so on.

But everyone in the room, Inzko most of all, was painfully aware that Bosnia's three ethnic groups – Serb, Croat, and Bosniak (Muslim) – are hopelessly log-jammed, rumoured (probably falsely) to be re-arming and that there is bad blood between the US and the EU over Bosnia. In short, that running the office of the HR, guardian of the cobbled-together 1995 Dayton Agreement, which ended a war in which 100,000 died, is difficult going on impossible.

It is, says veteran Balkan-watcher Paul Lendvai, the closest that diplomacy gets to kamikaze aviation.

Inzko said that he accepted the job, which involves doubling up as the EU's special representative, “with great joy, but with the sense of a heavy burden”. One wonders about the joy. Until his appoint-ment, Inzko, who turns 60 this month, was leading a comfortable life in what might easily have been a cushy last post-ing. “He has original ideas for what can be achieved in Bosnia, but he is not pers-onally ambitious,” observes a close friend.

Leaving the Slovene capital will certainly be a wrench. It is pretty, peaceful and for the Slovene-Austrian Inzko, utterly familiar, as it is for his wife, the world-famous opera diva Bernarda Fink, and for their two teenage children.

Any bilateral awkwardness at the embassy between Austria and Slovenia has been slight and predictable, usually to do with Carinthia, the Austrian region bordering Slovenia where Inzko was born into a cultured, conservative Slovene-Austrian family.

This was the fiefdom of the notorious populist Jörg Haider – until his demise in a drunken car-smash last October – who owed much of his success to anti-Slovene campaigns. One was against street-signs in Slovenian as well as German. The rabid ‘Carinthia goes monolingual!' campaign provoked Inzko to withdraw his permission to Haider to address him by the informal ‘du'.

He identifies strongly with Carinthia's Slovenian-speaking, mostly Catholic, minority. They owe much of their cultural autonomy to the liberation of 1945 and the executive decrees of the Allies. Inzko is aware of the parallels with Bosnia and his background has proved useful preparation for a diplomatic career in the region.

He now knows two generations of the political players in the Balkans, and all their languages (he speaks seven in all). When he says his return to Sarajevo is a homecoming, it is more than a diplomatic politesse. In 1996 he was the first Austrian ambassador in the city after the Serb liberation war. The window frames in the apartment block where he first lived had no glass.

Inzko did a lot for the city, which made him an honorary citizen. Some weekends he got away, as he still does now, to hear Bernarda perform in New York or Milan or the Grand Théâtre de Genève, where she first made her name as a mezzo-soprano and which is the city where they met in the 1980s.

Inzko's immediate predecessor as HR, the Slovak Miroslav Lajc?ák, made the mistake of staying on after being fatally undermined (notably by Solana). Lajc?ák openly attacked the international community's capitulation to local leaders, notably Milorad Dodik, the prime minister of Republika Srpska, comprising about half the country. Dodik had threatened to “wrestle with NATO tanks” if the HR used its executive powers against him.

Such is everyday politics in Bosnia, where the powerful external actors are the US, Russia and the EU – mostly in that order. The EU's only real leverage over the country is the prospect of EU membership – however unlikely it is any time soon. But even if the aspiration is now a routine item on the country's agenda, membership worries political actors. It would make it harder for the Serbs to break away one day, à la Montenegro, for instance. And Bosniak leaders fear EU membership would simply cement Serbian autonomy in place indefinitely.

The US matters a lot more than Europe. Washington is increasingly impatient with a European approach to Bosnia that it regards as unserious.

One of the causes of delay in deciding on Inzko's appointment was delay in establishing the team of US President Barack Obama. But Washington's reticence hardly strengthens Inzko's hand. Nor does talk of appointing a special US Balkans envoy.

As for the EU, it is busy proving the accuracy of US allegations of its incompetence. There is no consensus among member states about whether Inzko should be allowed to stay on after his contract as EU special representative formally ends next February. Others are already jostling for the EU position, which, it was announced last autumn, would be “reinforced” after the office of the high representative is closed down. So far Solana has failed to explain how it might be strengthened.

Not, evidently, by troops. In 1995 there were 60,000 peacekeepers in Bosnia. There are now 2,000 bored and disaffected Eufor men and women: troop levels are scheduled to shrink further in the next months, down to as few as 200.

Inzko is expected to be, if not a kamikaze, then a test-pilot in a hazardous experiment in soft power. The best he can hope for is a soft landing.
From our side we need to carefully balance between all this players and look for strong open support from Russia and not so open support from US and EU.

Russian-Israeli relations are at their best ever,

.
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has said after a meeting with his Russian counterpart. But the main focus of the meeting was the Middle East peace process.

This is Lieberman’s first visit to Russia after taking office at the end of March.

Apart from bilateral ties, the ministers have also discussed such issues as the Middle East peace process and Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Read more

Both Russia and Israel have spoken out on their diplomatic concerns in the Middle East.

Lieberman said he was very disappointed over Sergey Lavrov’s recent meeting with Hamas leader Khaled Mashal in Syria, but Russia insists that ignoring Hamas is not going to help move the talks forward.

Lavrov said it was essential that Middle East Quartet negotiations should continue.

Lieberman acknowledged that it would take the efforts of all interested parties to resume talks, though added that his hopes are to build ties with the Arab world.

Russia was also asked about its arms trade in the region and whether it is something that Israel should be concerned about.

“Russia doesn’t sell any weapons through intermediaries. Our military cooperation with the west is strictly in accordance with domestic laws and international regulations. As for arms supplies to the Middle East, our main role is to prevent destabilization and preserve the existing balance of forces,” Sergey Lavrov responded.

As for Iran, Israel would want Russia to press the country into stopping its nuclear work. Israel is worried that Iran is developing an atomic weapon under the guise of a peaceful nuclear program.

Russia, on the other hand, is helping Iran to build its first atomic power plant.

That is the issue on which Russia and Israel do not quite see eye to eye, though Sergey Lavrov did stress that it is absolutely necessary to make sure that Iran’s nuclear program is indeed peaceful.

Israel’s relationship with the new US administration was also discussed.

“The US, just like any other state in the world, protects its interests, including in the Middle East. In our case both the US and Israel share a common approach and democratic interests based on human and cultural principles. This collaboration is simply natural,” Lieberman said.

The two also discussed such issues as cultural exchanges and holding a ‘Year of Russia in Israel’.

The sides have agreed to pool efforts against the falsification of history and also to celebrate the 65th anniversary of victory in World War II.

"We discussed such a complex and important theme as joint counteraction to attempts to falsify history, bearing in mind the attempts to deny the tragedy of the Holocaust, to obliterate the memory of those who freed Europe from fascism, and to glorify accomplices to Nazi rule," Sergei Lavrov told a news conference after the talks. "We are determined to counteract neo-Nazism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia, and agreed to prepare joint events in the run-up to the 65th anniversary of the victory to be marked in 2010."

The ministers decided to prepare a meeting of the intergovernmental commission on trade and economic cooperation, which would boost cooperation in state-of-the-art technologies and innovation projects.

On Tuesday, Avigdor Lieberman confirmed Israel’s readiness to participate in the preparation and staging of a Middle East Conference in Moscow, planned for late summer or autumn.

Boris Tadić

Boris Tadić (Serbian: Борис Тадић; born January 15, 1958 in Sarajevo) is a Serbian politician and the current President of Serbia. A psychologist by profession, he is a leader ofthe Democratic Party. Tadić was elected to a five-year term on June 27, 2004, and was sworn into office on July 11, 2004. He was reelected for a de facto^[1] second five-year term on February 3, 2008 and was sworn in on February 15. Prior to Presidency, Tadić served as the Minister of Telecommunications of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and as the Minister of Defence of Serbia and Montenegro.

Boris Tadić advocates full integration of Serbia into the European Union but he also believes Serbia can only join the EU if territorial integrity of Serbia with sovereignty over Kosovo and Metohija is respected.^[2] He is seen as a pro-Western leader but who favors well-balanced relations with Russia, the United States, and the EU.^[3][4][5

Two Views on the Cause of the Global Crisis

By Branko Milanovic
The current financial crisis is generally blamed on feckless bankers, financial deregulation, crony capitalism and the like. While all of these elements may be true, this purely financial explanation of the crisis overlooks its fundamental reasons. They lie in the real sector, and more exactly in the distribution of income across individuals and social classes. Deregulation, by helping irresponsible behavior, just exacerbated the crisis; it did not create it.

To go to the origins of the crisis, one needs to go to rising income inequality within practically all countries in the world, and the United States in particular, over the last thirty years. In the United States, the top 1 percent of the population doubled its share in national income from around 8 percent in the mid-1970s to almost 16 percent in the early 2000s. That eerily replicated the situation that existed just prior to the crash of 1929, when the top 1 percent share reached its previous high watermark American income inequality over the last hundred years thus basically charted a gigantic U, going down from its 1929 peak all the way to the late 1970s, and then rising again for thirty years.

What did the increase mean? Such enormous wealth could not be used for consumption only. There is a limit to the number of Dom Pérignons and Armani suits one can drink or wear. And, of course, it was not reasonable either to “invest” solely in conspicuous consumption when wealth could be further increased by judicious investment. So, a huge pool of available financial capital—the product of increased income inequality—went in search of profitable opportunities into which to invest.

But the richest people and the hundreds of thousands somewhat less rich, could not invest the money themselves. They needed intermediaries, the financial sector. Overwhelmed with such an amount of funds, and short of good opportunities to invest the capital as well as enticed by large fees attending each transaction, the financial sector became more and more reckless, basically throwing money at anyone who would take it. While one cannot prove that investible resources eventually exceeded the number of safe and profitable investment opportunities (since nobody knows a priori how many and where there are good investment opportunities), this is strongly suggested by the increasing riskiness of investments that the financiers had to undertake.

But this is only one part of the equation: how and why large amounts of investable money went in a search of a return on that money. The second part of the equation explains who borrowed that money. There again we go back to the rising inequality. The increased wealth at the top was combined with an absence of real economic growth in the middle. Real median wage in the United States has been stagnant for twenty five years, despite an almost doubling of GDP per capita. About one-half of all real income gains between 1976 and 2006 accrued to the richest 5 percent of households. The new “gilded age” was understandably not very popular among the middle classes that saw their purchasing power not budge for years. Middle class income stagnation became a recurrent theme in the American political life, and an insoluble political problem for both Democrats and Republicans. Politicians obviously had an interest to make their constituents happy for otherwise they may not vote for them. Yet they could not just raise their wages. A way to make it seem that the middle class was earning more than it did was to increase its purchasing power through broader and more accessible credit. People began to live by accumulating ever rising debts on their credit cards, taking on more car debts or higher mortgages. President George W. Bush famously promised that every American family, implicitly regardless of its income, will be able to own a home. Thus was born the great American consumption binge which saw the household debt increase from 48 percent of GDP in the early 1980s to 100 percent of GDP before the crisis.

The interests of several large groups of people became closely aligned. High net-worth individuals and the financial sector were, as we have seen, keen to find new lending opportunities. Politicians were eager to “solve” the irritable problem of middle class income stagnation. The middle class and those poorer than them were happy to see their tight budget constraint removed as if by magic wand, consume all the fine things purchased by the rich, and partake in the longest US post World War II economic expansion. Suddenly, the middle class too felt like the winners.

This is what more than two centuries ago, the great French philosopher Montesquieu mocked when he described the mechanism used by the creators of paper money in France (an experiment that eventually crumbled with a thud): ‘People of Baetica”, wrote Montesquieu, “do you want to be rich? Imagine that I am very much so, and that you are very rich also; every morning tell yourself that your fortune has doubled during the night; and if you have creditors, go pay them with what you have imagined, and tell them to imagine it in their turn”.

The credit-fueled system was further helped by the ability of the US to run large current account deficits; that is, to have several percentage points of its consumption financed by foreigners. The consumption binge also took the edge off class conflict and maintained the American dream of a rising tide that lifts all the boats. But it was not sustainable. Once the middle class began defaulting on its debts, it collapsed.

We should not focus on the superficial aspects of the crisis, on the arcane of how “derivatives” work. If “derivatives” they were, they were the “derivatives” of the model of growth pursued over the last quarter a century. The root cause of the crisis is not to be found in hedge funds and bankers who simply behaved with the greed to which they are accustomed (and for which economists used to praise them). The real cause of the crisis lies in huge inequalities in income distribution which generated much larger investable funds than could be profitably employed. The political problem of insufficient economic growth of the middle class was then “solved” by opening the floodgates of the cheap credit. And the opening of the credit floodgates, to placate the middle class, was needed because in a democratic system, an excessively unequal model of development cannot coexist with political stability.

Could it have worked out differently? Yes, without thirty years of rising inequality, and with the same overall national income, income of the middle class would have been greater. People with middling incomes have many more priority needs to satisfy before they become preoccupied with the best investment opportunities for their excess money. Thus, the structure of consumption would have been different: probably more money would have been spent on home-cooked meals than on restaurants, on near-home vacations than on exotic destinations, on kids’ clothes than on designer apparel. More equitable development would have removed the need for the politicians to look around in order to find palliatives with which to assuage the anger of the middle-class constituents. In other words, there would have been more equitable and stable development which would have spared the United States, and increasingly the world, an unnecessary crisis.

Western Balkans

POLITIKA

- If authorities within a month resolve the problem of issuing new biometric passports to Kosovo Albanians and possible abuse in granting dual citizenship to citizens of the Bosnian Serb republic, Serbs could get visa-free travel to the European Union, catching up to Macedonia, the only Balkan state to have fully met all criteria for the so-called "White Schengen" list.

BLIC

- The family of late autocrat Slobodan Milosevic will have to prove the origin of their property or it will be seized if an investigation proves that it was gained from profits earned from tobacco smuggling.

VECERNJE NOVOSTI

- Some 72 percent of 300 German companies doing business in Serbia see the current economic situation in Serbia as negative, but 50 percent of them still expect to post profit this year. Only 25 percent of the companies plan to cut the number of workers, while five percent will create new jobs.

------------------ B O S N I A --------------------

DNEVNI AVAZ

- Bosnia's tax authority said Q1 value-added tax revenues fell by six percent year-on-year because of lower imports.

----------S E R B R E P U B L I C ----------------

NEZAVISNE NOVINE

- Norwegian Technor Energy ASA will soon start the construction of six hydro-power plants worth 550 million Bosnian marka ($390.9 milllion) in Bosnia's Serb Republic to enable the output of 85 megawatts of power, the company's management said.

----------------- A L B A N I A -------------------

SHEKULLI

- Foreign Minister Lulzim Basha said doctors had assured him one of the officials who travelled with him to the Islamic Organisation Conference meeting in Syria was not affected by the swine flu virus. The official, taken to hospital upon return to Tirana, had high temperature, but no other

PANORAMA

- The Central Bank decided not to cut its key repo rate despite requests from some commercial banks. The rate for lending in the Albanian lek currency remains at 5.75 percent.

---------------- M A C E D O N I A ----------------

DNEVNIK

- Macedonia's ethnically divided society is not ready yet for real partnership and cooperation between Macedonian and ethnic Albanian political parties.

----------------- K O S O V O S E R B I A ---------------------

KOHA DITORE

- Kosovo President Fatmir Sejdiu cancelled a visit to Macedonia planned for Thursday after realising that his reception in Skopje would not have an official ceremony. ------------- M O N T E N E G R O -----------------

VIJESTI

- Italian A2A has bought a 15.17 percent stake in Montenegro's power monopoly Elektroprivreda Crne Gore (EPCG) from four privatisation funds for a total of 122.7 million euros or 7.1 euros per share. A2A (A2.MI) was expected to purchase a 17 percent stake in EPCG, but the MIG privatisation fund, which held a two-percent equity stake, decided not to sell.

symptoms.

Biden's Unfinished Balkan Business

Vice President Joseph Biden last week paid a visit to the Balkans' troublesome triangle: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and Kosovo. The visit displayed the Obama administration's reengagement with the region after it dropped from America's list of priorities after 9/11. Could the Western Balkans be catching Washington's attention once again even as Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan dominate much of the foreign policy agenda?

There is plenty of unfinished business from the early 1990s, issues significant to the U.S. and to the EU's role in the region. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe's integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions was considered essential to democratic governance, free markets and human rights. NATO and EU enlargement were seen as tandem processes in the grand design of "Europe whole and free." The Western Balkans have been struggling to keep up with this process, with only Bulgaria and Romania as members today of both organizations. Serbia, Bosnia and Kosovo face a series of inter-linked obstacles to accession, which is why Biden's first visit to the region was confined to those three countries.

It is unlikely that the Western Balkans will follow NATO and EU membership as simultaneous processes. The one country unlikely to follow this pattern is Serbia, which has expressed an interest in joining the EU, but is most likely to opt out of NATO membership. Bosnia and Kosovo are entrenched in problems of statehood and state-building. Kosovo's ability to consolidate its statehood domestically and internationally largely rests on a change of policy in Serbia towards its former province. While Kosovo might soon join the IMF and the World Bank, membership in other international organizations seems far off; some member states have refused to recognize Kosovo. A successful strategy must put Kosovo on the road to Euro-Atlantic integration even if membership is not on the horizon any time soon.

Bosnia's state-building is still unfinished. At the end of the war in 1995, the Bosnian state was created in a top-down approach led by the U.S., with the implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement, which effectively created two entities: A fragile Bosniak-Croat Federation and the Serb Republic. This structure has been a constant challenge to strengthening of state-level institutions, and intransigent politicians have diametrically opposed visions for the country's future. Following the failure of the constitutional amendments in 2006, the electoral victories of Milorad Dodik in the Serb Republic and Haris Silajdzic representing the Bosniak vote in the Federation tipped the country into a political crisis. While Dodik's electoral success rested on undoing much of the state building over the last decade, Silajdzic promised the undoing of the Dayton Agreement and the Serb Republic.

However, getting Euro-Atlantic integration back on track requires more than just focusing on personalities. Bosnia is today stuck between the remnants of an ineffective protectorate and Euro-Atlantic integration. While the heavy handed intervention of the Office of the High Representative was always thought of as transitory, more than thirteen years after Dayton, the OHR is still there and so is its magic wand: the Bonn Powers, which empower the OHR to dismiss elected officials and impose laws. The new High Representative, the Austrian diplomat Valentin Inzko, lacks necessary political clout to use these powers. Thus, it is crucial to transition from the fading authority of the OHR to a more advisory capacity for the EU Special Representative (EUSR). Bosnia must move from a dysfunctional protectorate to a 'normalized' Eastern European country preparing for EU accession. Fulfilling the narrow criteria for the closure of the OHR is not enough. In addition, constitutional reform in Bosnia has to center on building a domestic consensus on the state, and rendering existing institutions more effective, rather than an unrealistic whole-scale reform of the system.

Bosnia's challenges appear to be a U.S. priority once again, but the problems of all three countries are so interlinked that they require a comprehensive approach. In Serbia, the U.S. not only needs a fresh approach in substance, but also in style. While Washington and Belgrade may agree to disagree on the recognition of Kosovo for the time being, the U.S. offer of a 'strong new relationship' is not going to go far enough to mend damaged relations from the 1999 bombing of Serbia over the Kosovo conflict. While the Serbian government would like to the have the "best possible relations" with the United States, nationalist reactions to Biden's visit indicate that opinions are tough to change - and that they will impede a fresh start. The U.S. would like Serbia to cooperate with the EU at least in finding a pragmatic solution to improve the lives of Kosovar Albanians and Serbs.

If the deadlock on the future of these three countries in Europe is to be broken, the U.S. must convey new momentum for completing Euro-Atlantic integration in the Western Balkans. But it must also appear convincing in its support for the EU's lead in that process. This is why careful thought has to be given to the appointment of a U.S. special envoy to the Balkans, a possibility that is being looked at favorably by the new administration and supported by a recent resolution passed by Congress. This has the potential to complement or derail the EU's lead in the region.

Western Balkans

On the economic front, there may now be grounds for modest hope. The global economic crisis has hit the Balkans hard. But Jurij Bajec, an economic adviser to the Serbian prime minister, says that several indicators in the past few weeks are making him a little less worried than he was two months ago. A healthy Serbian economy is vital for the whole region, but especially for Bosnia and Macedonia./Vardarska/

Belgrade has just held a festival of Sarajevo theatre, music and films. The Bosnians were greeted by emotional and rapturous audiences. Belgrade is plastered with billboards inviting Serbs to holiday in Croatia and Montenegro. One European diplomat says he hopes that the Biden visit means that Clinton-era officials will update their ideas of the region, which often remain stuck in the war years and tend as a result to be anti-Serb. The Biden visit is an opportunity for America and the EU to push the western Balkans forward together. If they are up to it. /Read Balkan Federation/

Giving a shunt towards Europe

IN 1991 Radovan Karadzic, the then leader of the Bosnian Serbs, stood in the Bosnian parliament in Sarajevo and warned Bosnian Muslims (Bosniaks) that they were taking the country down the highway to hell. It was one of the most dramatic moments in the history of the destruction of Yugoslavia. On May 19th Joe Biden, the American vice-president, stood in the same place and denounced nationalist politics. In an emotion-laden speech, he exclaimed: “God, when will you tire of that rhetoric?…This must stop.”

What is political management?

Political management is a broad category encompassing a number of activities in professional politics. The field includes campaign management, advertisement creation/purchasing, grassroots politics, strategic research, issue advocacy, lobbying, fundraising, and polling. Some consider political management to be an applied form of political science.

Several universities offer graduate degrees in political management and applied politics. One of the most well known of these is The Graduate School of Political Management at The George Washington University.
More about political management applied in our situation read in special projects section.

Biden to Bosnia: Join Europe or die!

"Today, to be very blunt with you, I personally, and the leadership of my country is worried ... about the direction of your country and your future." ...

"The only real future is to join Europe," Biden said. "Right now you are off that path. You can follow this path to Europe or you can take an alternative path. You have done it before," Biden said, referring to the 1992-95 war.

"Failure to do so will ensure you remain among the poorest countries in Europe. At worst, you'll descend into ethnic chaos that defined your country for the better part of a decade."
The parliamentarians apparently cheered at the end of the speech, but given that Biden is already not exactly loved by ethnic Serbs who resent the strong anti-Serbian stance he took during the 1990s, I'm not sure that this kind of lecture is exactly productive.

What the vice president said is probably correct (and as Edward Joseph points out, he's probably the only one in a position to say it) but this is precisely the sort of thing you normally say in a closed-door meeting with a country's leaders, not in a public address before its parliament.

Biden's boss said last month that the United States has, in the past, "shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe and vowed to change the tone. But Biden essentially telling Bosnia to follow his recommendations or continue to be known as a violent, poverty-stricken hellhole is American arrogance of near-Rumsfeldian levels and seems very much at odds with the administration's stated approach to foreign policy.

Немојте бити збуњени на неке покрете на видеу. Ово је друга земља и друге навике

Bosniaks Manipulations

According to the current session of Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Federation of BiH has 28 members. Of the those numbers seven are Croats and one Serb, Mirjana Malic from SDP BiH. Although the RS has twice less representative in the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina - 14, has twice more members of Bosniaks than the Bosnian Federation has Serbs. Of the 14 deputies from the RS, two Bosnians and 12 Serbs .
- The famous multiethnic FBiH end with number of Serbs, four times less in their delegation, than is the number of Bosnians in the small Serb republic delegation, - say delegates from the RS in the House of Peoples of the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina Mladen Ivanic.

- Abolition of the entity voting automatically would reuslt in disproportion of RS and FBiH. This is an attempt to obtain the elimination of greater economic power of the common institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina in relation to the entities - said Prodanovic.
- No way to eliminate entity voting. Entity vote is an instrument that is given us in Dayton. - Kalabić said.

In Serbia, Biden agrees to disagree on Kosovo

Vice President Biden spoke frankly in Belgrade, Serbia, today about the need to incorporate southeast Europe into a Europe that is "whole, free and at peace." He said his presence there in the early days of President Obama's administration illustrates "our commitment to the region and our desire for a strong, new relationship between the United States and Serbia."

But, um, he and Serbian President Boris Tadic simply agreed to disagree on the independence of Kosovo, which Serbia has refused to recognize. The vice president will be there Thursday, including a visit to U.S. and NATO troops.

Biden called on Serbia, which helped to foment ethnic wars in the 1990s, to work toward becoming a "sovereign, democratic, multi-ethnic state with vibrant entities" and one that enjoys "peaceful, positive relations with all its neighbors." That would include Bosnia and Herzogovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Macedonia.

In return, Biden offered U.S. support for Serbian membership in the European Union, along with expanded security cooperation between Serbia, the U.S. and its allies. "We will use our influence, our energy, and our resources to promote Serbia's Euro-Atlantic aspirations," he said.

The Bosnian war claimed at least 100,000 lives, forced more than two million people to flee their homes as refugees and was marred by the Srebrenica massacre, Europe's worst atrocity since World War II.

Telekom Srpske Pay 'Dividend

BANJA LUKA, May 13
Telekom Srpske, based in the Serb Republic, said it would pay 30 million marka in a 2008 dividend as well as 18.8 million marka for the first quarter of 2009. It made a 119.2 million net profit in 2008.
The largest portion goes to Serbian national telecom Telekom Srbije which holds a 65 percent stake in the firm. The regional privatisation fund and pension fund each hold 10 percent stakes while the remainder belongs to a local fund and various small shareholders.
BH Telecom, the largest of Bosnia's three ethnically-based telecoms, said it would pay 90 percent of the 110 million marka dividend to the Muslim-Croat federation government, its majority stakeholder, and the remainder to small shareholders.
The third and smallest company, HT Mostar, which operates mostly in Croat-dominated areas of the Muslim-Croat federation, has not publicly disclosed its 2008 figures but its officials have said they expect revenues to grow by 10 percent from 2007.
State-controlled BH Telecom and HT Mostar are awaiting privatisation, pending parliament's approval of the sell-off strategy.
Both the Muslim-Croat federation and the Serb Republic are autonomous regions within Bosnia, created after the 1992-95 war. ($1=1.425 Bosnian marka)

Global Warming

Global worming is real and it is not imagination. to find more about that please join Union of Concerned Scientist. Here are how: Membership in UCS begins at $25. Join UCS as a new member for $35 or more, and you'll receive a FREE UCS mouse pad.
Make a Donation
The Union of Concerned Scientists brings sound science to some of the most critical environmental and global security challenges of our day. Your donation allows us to be an independent voice for policy change and to continue developing science-based solutions to important environmental issues. For your annual membership of $25 or more, we will send you our quarterly newsletter, Earthwise, and our magazine, Catalyst. You can make donation between 1.000 and 25 $ and if you really want even more. We take it all. We love you and we want to protect you.

Climate Change Demistified

Do you think Global Warming will destroy the planet? Lets take a closer look at the facts.
The Sun, Water vapor, Earth's orbit, Volcanoes, Interstellar clouds, Cosmic rays, Tectonic plates, Land use, CO2, Sunspots, Gravitational pulls, Ocean currents and Solar flares. Imagine each one of these as a 100,000 piece puzzle and mix them all together. Now randomly take out 1/4 of all the pieces and try to put it together. This represents our world and its environment.

Global Warming Lies was created because when you do an internet search on global warming 99% of what you find is how the Earth is doomed and we are all going to drown from global warming. This isn't the case, in fact most climatologists will tell you differently. Global Warming Lies is an attempt to break down the science into every day language, provide facts, use logic and common sense instead of the "You're going to die" method.
Every Climatologist will tell you the Earth's temperature has been much hotter and colder than it is now.
There was an Ice Age and it warmed up, there was a Mini Ice Age just 500 years ago and it has been warming up ever since. The Industrial Revolution was not around during those periods.
NASA reports because of Solar Flares the Sun is the hottest it has been in over 100 years. There are no cars on the sun.
Global warming is causing ice to melt on Mars. There are no cars on Mars.
Thousands and thousands of studies and experiments prove that more carbon dioxide produces better fruits, vegetables, trees and almost any sort of plant life.
Most of the temperature increase happened before 1940 (Before most carbon dioxide was released by cars and factories)
The hot year of 1998 was caused by El Nino.
Joining the Kyoto Protocol would cost the U.S. approximately $400 Billion every year and would have virtually no effect on earths temperature.
Global Warming Lies and many millions of other people who don't believe global warming is man made have never received money from any oil company.
If you don't believe global warming will destroy the earth you will be accused of working for an oil company.

U.S Embassy Criticizes Dodik

The U.S. has condemned Dodik’s call for Serb soldiers not to participate in NATO military exercises in Georgia.

“Dodik’s statement constitute a direct and unacceptable questioning of an institution that is of key importance for Bosnia-Herzegovina’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations and the Dayton Peace Accords. Dodik’s claim that Bosnia’s decision to participate in the exercises is political is absolutely wrong,” the American embassy in Sarajevo stated.

It added that, a little over a year ago, the Bosnia-Herzegovina presidency, which is the supreme commander of the Bosnian armed forces, approved participation in these exercise, which are a key part of the Defense Ministry’s training plan for 2009.

The embassy stated that Dodik “regularly stresses his orientation and support for the Dayton Peace Accords.”

“Yesterday’s statements seriously call into question the possibility of the international community concluding with certainty that the government of the Republic of Srpska prime minister is ready to fully respect the Dayton Peace Accords, and that it is ready to refrain from rhetoric and activities that could be a threat to and violation of the Dayton Peace Accords,” the statement concludes.

NGOs: the self-appointed altruists.

Their arrival portends rising local prices and a culture shock. Many of them live in plush apartments, or five-star hotels, drive SUV's, sport $3000 laptops and PDAs. They earn a two-figure multiple of the local average wage. They are busybodies, preachers, critics, do-gooders, and professional altruists.

Always self-appointed, they answer to no constituency. Though unelected and ignorant of local realities, they confront the democratically chosen and those who voted them into office. A few of them are enmeshed in crime and corruption. They are the Non-Governmental Organizations, or NGOs.

Some NGOs – like Oxfam, Human Rights Watch, Medecins Sans Frontieres, or Amnesty – genuinely contribute to enhancing welfare, to the mitigation of hunger, the furtherance of human and civil rights, or the curbing of disease. Others – usually in the guise of think tanks and lobby groups – are sometimes ideologically biased, or religiously-committed and, often, at the service of special interests.

NGOs – such as the International Crisis Group – have openly interfered on behalf of the opposition in the recent elections in Macedonia. Other NGOs have done so in Belarus and Ukraine, Zimbabwe and Israel, Nigeria and Thailand, Slovakia and Hungary – and even in Western, rich, countries including the USA, Canada, Germany, and Belgium.

The encroachment on state sovereignty of international law – enshrined in numerous treaties and conventions – allows NGOs to get involved in hitherto strictly domestic affairs like corruption, civil rights, the composition of the media, the penal and civil codes, environmental policies, or the allocation of economic resources and of natural endowments, such as land and water. No field of government activity is now exempt from the glare of NGOs. They serve as self-appointed witnesses, judges, jury and executioner, all rolled into one.

Regardless of their persuasion or modus operandi, all NGOs are top-heavy with entrenched, well-remunerated, extravagantly perked bureaucracies. Opacity is typical of NGOs. Amnesty's rules prevent its officials from publicly discussing the inner workings of the organization – proposals, debates, opinions – until they have become officially voted into its Mandate. Thus, dissenting views rarely get an open hearing.

Contrary to their teachings, the financing of NGOs is invariably obscure and their sponsors unknown. The bulk of the income of most non-governmental organizations, even the largest ones, comes from - usually foreign – powers. Many NGOs serve as official contractors for governments.

NGOs serve as long arms of their sponsoring states – gathering intelligence, burnishing their image, and promoting their interests. There is a revolving door between the staff of NGOs and government bureaucracies the world over. The British Foreign Office finances a host of NGOs –[ including the fiercely "independent" Global Witness – in troubled spots, such as Angola. Many host governments accuse NGOs of – unwittingly or knowingly – serving as hotbeds of espionage.

Very few NGOs derive some of their income from public contributions and donations. The more substantial NGOs spend one tenth of their budget on PR and solicitation of charity. In a desperate bid to attract international attention, so many of them lied about their projects in the Rwanda crisis in 1994, according to The Economist, that the Red Cross felt compelled to draw up a ten point mandatory NGO code of ethics. A code of conduct was adopted in 1995. But the phenomenon recurred in Kosovo.

All NGOs claim to be not for profit, yet many of them possess sizable equity portfolios and abuse their position to increase the market share of firms they own. Conflicts of interest and unethical behaviour abound.

Cafedirect is a British firm committed to "fair trade" coffee. Oxfam, an NGO, embarked on a campaign targeted at Cafedirect's competitors, accusing them of exploiting growers by paying them a tiny fraction of the retail price of the coffee they sell. Yet, Oxfam Great Britain owns 25 per cent of Cafedirect.

Non-Governmental Organizations

Non-Governmental organizations (NGOs), are groups which work independently of government or business, and are commonly referred to as NGOs or Third Sector Organizations. They are often also non-profit groups. NGOs can include community organisations, advocacy groups, environmental organisations, watchdog organizations or think tanks. The United States alone has over 2 million NGOS.
In recent decades, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have become powerful voices for democracy, human rights and environmental protection around the world. The "War on NGOs" describes a process by which governments, business groups and conservative think tanks have fought back against this process by trying to delegitamise and disempower NGOs, through both propaganda and legislative means.
According to a June 8, 2003, Opinion piece published in The New York Times, "The Life and Death of Foundations", nonprofit organizations dependent upon foundations for their continued existence may reap a "bonanza" courtesy of the U.S. Congress:

Невладине Институције и како се одбранити

Свакодненво можемо прочитати натписе и чланке о различитим невладиним институцијама и организацијама које креирају политику у различтитм дијеловима свијета па тако и на Балкану.
Вечином се мисли на САД организације и њихову повезаност са владом.
У САД постоји на стотине невладиних организација имплементинг на хиљаде најразличитијих пројеката. Вечина њих има звучна имена и готово све које врше стварање јавног мијењ изван САД ће вам на различите начине покушавати представити да у ствари износе мишљење владе САД.
Пођимо са анализом. Ако је све то тачно онда зашто нам уопште долазе и убијеђују нас у ишта. Зашто то једностано не спроведу без нас.
Једноставно зато што то није тачно. Задатак Невладиних институција је стварање јавног мијења одностно утицај на вас саме да прихватите њихове идеје и извршите сами оно што они предлажу. ОНИ АПСОЛУТНО МЕМАЈУ МОГУЋНОСТ ДА ТО ОСТВАРЕ БЕЗ ВАС. Није искључено да постоје и наши политичари који су са истим идејама, али ни они немогу то спровести уколико намају јавну подршку.
Ту се опет враћамо на Невладине Институције. У једном тренутку вам може изгледати да је ћитав свијет иза њихове идеје и да сте једини проблем Ви. Прво свијет је обично на вашој страни а Ви за њих и јесте проблем јер се супротстављате.
Онда шта урадити.
Бити информисан, знати ко су они и не обрачати уопште пажњу на њих. Једини који можете нешто промијенити сте Ви.
Да закључимо. Нетреба пристати нинаккаву промјену која није у нашем интересу а не нарочито признати независност Косова или укинути Републику Српску. Наравно то незнач да нетребамо разговарати и тражити боља рјешења али само ако одговарају нама.

Jesuit Fr Cyril Vasiľ new Secretary of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

VATICAN CITY, MAY 7, 2009

Pope Benedict XVI has appointed Jesuit Fr Cyril Vasil as the new Secretary of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches. Until now he has been Rector of the Pontifical Oriental Institute. The Holy Father has also appointed him titular Archbishop of Ptolemais in Libya.

Fr Cyril Vasil, S.J., was born on 10 April 1965 in Košice, Slovakia. He attended the University of Bratislava's School of Theology from 1982 to 1987.
He was ordained priest in 1987. He entered the Society of Jesus on 15 October 1990 and was solemnly professed in 2001.
He earned a license in canon law (JCL) in 1989 and a doctorate (JCD) in 1994, both from the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome.
In 2002 he was elected Dean of the Faculty of Oriental Canon Law and Pro-Rector of the Pontifical Oriental Institute. In May 2007 he was appointed Rector of the Pontifical Oriental Institute.
He is a consultor to the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People. He attended the Synod of Bishops in 2005 as an expert. He is a visiting professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome and the Universities of Bratislava and Trnava. In 2003 he was named spiritual counsellor to the International Union of the Guides and Scouts of Europe.
In addition to Slovak, he knows Latin, Italian, English, Russian, Ukrainian, French, German, Spanish, Greek and Old Church Slavonic. He is the author of a number of books and articles and collaborator of the Vatican Radio.

Notre Dame Protests Invitation for Pro-Abortion Obama -- 4.5.09

Notre Dame Honor for Obama Seen as Mistake

NEW YORK, MAY 7, 2009 (Zenit.org).- More than half of all Americans oppose the University of Notre Dame's decision to honor President Barack Obama with an honorary degree, according to a Rasmussen poll.

The telephone survey, released Tuesday, asked 1,000 adults if the university should be giving the president an honorary degree, given the 2004 guidelines established by U.S. bishops stating that Catholic institutions should not honor people whose actions conflict with the Church's moral principles. Fifty-two percent of those polled said no, and among Catholics, 60% said no.

The statement of the U.S. bishops says: "The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions."

Only 25% of those polled agreed with the university's decision, and 19% said they were unsure.

When asked if it's important that commencement speakers for universities with a religious affiliation share the religious views of that university, nearly two-thirds (63%) said yes. Of Catholics, 56% said yes, while 87% of evangelicals answered in the affirmative, along with 63% of other Protestants.

While the majority disagrees with the university's decision to honor the president, only 30% of American adults believe the president should cancel his appearance at Notre Dame. Among Catholics, just 34% think Obama should cancel.

Of those polled, 15% say they are following the story "very closely," and another 23% are following it "somewhat closely."

Among Catholics, 25% are following the story "very closely," and another 27% are following it "somewhat closely."

Russia and the U.S. at their closest in years

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has just finished meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama in WashingtonEarlier during a meeting with his U.S. counterpart, Hillary Clinton, the two agreed that the main task for both countries is raising their relationship to the next level.

The discussion with Clinton, which covered a number of long-lasting, thorny issues like missile defense in Europe and nuclear non-proliferation, still proved to be “productive”, according to the Russian Foreign Minister.

Hillary Clinton also praised the results of the meeting, saying Russia and the U.S. need to concentrate on cooperation rather than disputes. One of the particularly hopeful areas, according to Clinton, is nuclear non-proliferation.

“We are committed and looking forward. It is, I think, old thinking to say we have a disagreement in one area and therefore we shouldn’t work on something else. If you look at what we’re doing in non-proliferation, that has to do with the future safety of the world, and the United States and Russia bear special responsibility. So we are working very hard together.”Moscow and Washington have agreed on new moves to lower the chances of nuclear proliferation.

“Russia and the U.S., as the largest nuclear states, must head the non-proliferation work, setting an example for others,” Lavrov said.

The sides have also exchanged opinions on the situation in Afghanistan, the Middle East and Iran.

“We have unilateral sanctions against Iran adopted by the U.S. and the European Union, in addition to UN sanctions. We don’t think these are helping to achieve our common goal in Iran and we’re telling our partners that these unilateral sanctions are hindering our common efforts there,” Lavrov said.

During the talks, a date for a meeting between President Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama has been set. It will be announced within a few days.

The Russian Foreign Minister expressed hope that barriers to resuming work at the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) will be eliminated in the near future and that “this important structure will resume its work on the basis of the principles that were agreed on when it was created”.

Apart from this, Washington and Moscow plan cooperating on problems related to the Arctic territory, fighting piracy, and recovering from the ongoing global financial crisis.

Read more

President of Nazi Croatia, Stipe Mesić,

Mesic: "We don't have to apologies to anyone for what happened during WWII. Not for concentration camp Jasenovac or anything else. Everyone won only once and we won twice. Firs time when Nazi regime of Germany had recognized Nazi Croatia and then after the war we were again on the winers side thanks to Tito"

Supporting Dialogue Between Orthodox Churches

On September 11th, 2008, the commemoration day of the martyrs St.Felix, Regula and Exuperantius ten Orthodox Churches held a celebration in prayer for the sixth time.

The participating churches were the Russian, Greek, Serbian, Romanian, Armenian, Indian, Syrian, Coptic, Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Churches. The latter three also celebrated their new year on this occasion.
What is Orthodox Unity?
Orthodox Unity is an organisation of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians which seeks to make available positive information about the dialogue between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.
What is the Joint Commission?
For over 40 years a dialogue has been taking place between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches. This now has an official status and a Joint Commission of bishops and theologians has been studying the issues which have caused the separation of our Churches.
The Joint Commission urges a process of education and information to take place. We hope to be a small part of that process by sharing information, news and documentation about the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

Division of Churches

There is only one thing which divides Christians: deviation from Holy Tradition, or that which has been believed at all times and in all places by the Faithful. Today, almost all of the Orthodox Churches have fallen to the pan-heresy of ecumenism, which denies the primacy of Orthodoxy. This deviation from the fundamental principle of our Faith, that it alone preserves the fullness of the Apostolic Church, accounts for the divisions among us. And just as it has divided us by compromising the Church’s traditions—beginning with the calendar innovation—, so a rejection of the pan-heresy of ecumenism and a return to the Church’s traditions will once again unite us.

If we have any instruction to offer, it must always rest on an understanding that no lesson, no bit of knowledge about the Church, can be significant unless it first counsels the believer consciously to embrace the Orthodox Church as the True Church and her Holy Tradition as inspired and divinely established, whether that Holy Tradition be expressed in the basic dogma of Orthodox ecclesiastical primacy or something so seemingly insignificant as how we Cross ourselves. If by stating the truth we seem to divide, this is only because those who have deviated from or revile the truth are already separated from the spirit of Orthodoxy.

Christian Orthodox Unity

It is well known that the unity of the Orthodox Church is, above all, unity in the Orthodox faith, or, in other words, unity in the fullness of revealed Truth, unity in the Word Incarnate (cf. St. John 14:6), that is, unity in our Savior, Jesus Christ. It is He Who is the founder and the supreme Head of the Church, which is His Body (cf. Ephesians 1:22-23, 4:15; Colossians 1:18). The members of this Body are all of those faithful having the same Orthodox faith in the Holy Trinity and in our Savior, the God-Man Jesus Christ, and who are baptized with an Orthodox Baptism in the name of the Trinitarian God.

The classical expression of this concept of the unity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church was formulated by St. Maximos the Confessor († 662). The enemies of this intrepid combatant against the Monothelite heresy posed the following question to him: "To what Church do you belong? To the Church of Constantinople, of Rome, of Antioch, of Alexandria, or of Jerusalem? Now, take note that all of these Churches, together with their dioceses, are in union. Thus, if you belong to the catholic (that is, universal) Church, as you say, you should join yourself to these unified Churches, for fear that if you follow a new or strange path, you will bring upon yourself some unforeseen danger." The Saint responded: "God, the Master of all creation, has declared that the universal church lies in the correct and saving confession of faith in Him, calling Peter blessed for having confessed His Divinity (St. Matthew 16:18). Besides, I would like to know the criterion on which the union of all of these Churches is based, and if it is suitable, I will not remain separated from them." [2]

The Orthodox Church, as the Body of Christ, is indivisible, invincible, and unerring in its "correct and saving confession of the faith." It is, however, possible for individual Orthodox and even entire local Churches to betray the truth of Orthodoxy, such that they lapse, being cut off from the universal Church, just as the Western Church long ago fell to the heresies of Papism and Protestantism. It is also possible for Orthodox to separate and for there to exist "contentions" in the bosom of the Church, as St. Paul wrote to the Christians of Corinth (I Corinthians 1:10-14). The criteria of truth in such instances are the dogmas and canons of the universal Orthodox Church or, to cite the words of St. Vincent of Lérins († ca. 450), "that which is believed always, that which is believed by everyone, and that which is believed throughout the whole world." [3]

Thus, the proof of Orthodox unity is, above all, "the correct and saving confession of the faith." Now, it is precisely this confession which is missing from the text of the communiqué in question. This document reckons the panheresy of ecumenism, in principle, a positive phenomenon, despite the fact that ecumenism denies the doctrines of Orthodoxy regarding the Church and, in practice, seeks to destroy the Orthodox Church of Christ, which was established as "the pillar and ground of the truth" (I Timothy 3:15). It is precisely ecumenism which, in our days, has abolished the unity in faith of Orthodox Christians. The participation of the Primates and Synods of nearly all of the local Orthodox Churches in the ecumenical movement has divided the members of these Churches into those who follow the heresy of ecumenism and the calendar reform which it produced, and those who have defended the pure and whole Orthodox faith and the unity of the Orthodox Church in that faith. This division has become ever deeper with the progress of the ecumenical movement, which at two of its recent assemblies, in Vancouver (1983) and Canberra (1991), openly revealed its intentions: the accomplishment not only of an amorphous "pan-Christian" union, but the formation of a syncretistic community which will represent all religions. The way that ecumenists think, their theological language and the terms that they employ, and their declarations and actual activities adequately demonstrate these intentions.